Posted on 04/26/2002 1:44:34 PM PDT by Rightfield14
Why do you folks demand everything RIGHT NOW? Can you not see that some things are being delayed until there is a public desire for the actions, and that some things are being done as a way to get acquiescence from the democrats on other, more important things?
I just don't understand people who expected that everything would be changed immediately on January 20, 2001. Bush never promised that, and anyone who thought that was being unrealistic.
You're assuming he wants to do right in the first place and is being restrained. But he's not trying to do right, and it's not as if he's doing nothing; he's actively destroying the Constitution.
We can't take our marbles and go home when something doesn't go the way we personally would like. We all have to work hard to get more conservatives (or at least mostly conservative Republicans) elected. We need that majority in order to control the committees! Then the President will have a much easier time getting done what he wants done!
He's not doing the world's worst job. But the main reason for his popularity is the war itself (which he is prosecuting in about the way I would have guessed that he would).
And he has done some things which he hasn't needed to do-- and avoided doing some things which definitely ought to be done. (I'm not talking about things which he has deferred. I'm talking about things which he has deep-sixed.)
And although I disagree with Rush Limbaugh about a number of things, I think Rush was right about CFR. And that's a pretty serious matter. Our President did not need to take the political path of least resistance. But that's a fairly conspicuous part of his politics, so I'm not surprised that he signed CFR. I was expecting it all along (assuming a bill would make it through both sides of Congress).
What our POTUS has failed to remember is that our Congress is loaded with Dems and RINOs who do not really love our Constitution even if they often talk about it in loving terms. They call it a "living document," which means to them that our Constitution means whatever they can make it mean.
In this case, he needed to be a leader, not a diplomatic follower. He needed to lead from the front, not from the middle (which is his typical approach as an organization man, so to speak).
He needed to address the Constitutional issues head-on, not punt to the SCOTUS. To punt to the SCOTUS is to neglect an important checks-and-balances feature of our Constitution--designed for the protection of our Constitution, of course--and to send a wrong signal to those who do like to slowly but surely erode our liberties!
Our nation's founders would have fought and bled over this kind of thing. (As a matter of fact, they did!) As I said in my earlier posts on this thread, we are far removed from our founders. We need to get back to their ideals. We need to climb out of the swamp, not tread water and then tire and then sink.
Pardon me, but isn't our party supposed to defend us? Heck, they don't even defend themselves, just make weak excuses and go along with the Dems. It's really the RINOs' party, not 'ours', and the RINOs have turned it into one-half of the Party of Government.
I feel sorry for you. If you live in fear of terrorism, then the terrorists have already won.
Yes, people like you would vote for a third party as a protest vote--but in the long run, whom do you hurt? Look what happened to us with CLinton. Bush One did break his promise of no new taxes, but did you see what you got in his place? Clinton and Gore not only raised taxes the highest they have ever been but they also raised the taxes on the social security. Aren't you glad your people did this?
Wake up, criticism of the president is good and should be voiced. But this quackery comments of the constitutionality of the CFR and the education program b/c it has no vouchers, serve no purpose if you threaten to vote for someone who is the antithesis of your views or who has no chance of ever winning. Decide--either you want to incrementally advance your cause (I do believe that Bush would be more effective and have more of his agenda passed with a republican senate)or roll over and let the opponent win. Grow up and be mature about your differences but quit this "I'll take my ball home--wah wah wah".
Somehow it seems eerily apropos. ;^)
Tho he has the bully pulpit, if you work, when do you get a chance to listen to the president? I live in Houston, the radio stations don't carry his address on Saturday, C-span shows Bush's speeches at 3 AM (for those of us who work and can't watch cable all day, we are asleep at that time)and the media editorials don't quite like the president. The media loves McCain, it would have been Saint McCain vs. Lucifer Bush.
So, do you really think that it would have been smart of Bush to veto the CFR when he knew that the Mitch McConnels of the world would bring a suit to the SCOTUS.
Again this is hard ball politics--not fluff--so let the people know that he was in favor of keeping those nasty dollars out of the campaigns. It is all in perception!!!
My point is that I wouldn't have done what he did. (It's a theological thing. I'm a Calvinist, not a Wesleyan.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.