Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another One Term Bush in the Making
Sierra Times ^ | Colonel Dan

Posted on 05/13/2002 9:03:27 AM PDT by Sir Gawain

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-166 next last
To: GraniteStateConservative
. I wouldn't blame Bush at all for wanting to develop a more loyal base.

I gotcha. Bush is a leftie,and it's the fault of conservatives. Makes perfect sense.

You DO have valid points about the loss of conservative political power since 94,though. Place the blame for this squarely where it belongs though,on the bible-thumping fundies who forced Newt out of office,and gave Carville and the DNC cover to claim "it's all about sex with these Republicans",and get away with it.

41 posted on 05/13/2002 9:50:33 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
I agree with you, but Bush isn't the real problem here. The biggest threat to your freedom comes not from the President, but from the person who lives next door to you -- that slack-jawed soccer-mom with an IQ of 86 who hasn't had an original thought since she learned to walk.
42 posted on 05/13/2002 9:50:52 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Bush has entered the graveyard of the one-worlders like his father. On foreign policy Bush smiles while being barebacked by Kristol, Sharon and a lineup of neocons. Consequently he is getting the same treatment from McCain and Daschle on domestic issues.

Without strong conservative and America first positions, why should he be elected again? (OK the other guy could be worse, anything else?)

43 posted on 05/13/2002 9:51:30 AM PDT by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
I can't see it any other way than how this post puts it... i.e. I agree.

I used to think that Bush would turn more conservative after winning, instead he has unquestionably turned the other way. His appeasements and how he has "nuanced" around the terroist issue is making me sick!!

44 posted on 05/13/2002 9:52:31 AM PDT by Godfollow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
If I understand your response correctly, the "greater good" consists of being marginally better than the Democrats. I find that to be inadequate.

And I think we've made quite a bit of conservative progress since Bush took office

Such as? And I mean actual accomplishments, not just lip service (as for example has occurred with gun control--there has been much talk but things are really just the same as when the rapist-in-chief was in office).

45 posted on 05/13/2002 9:54:33 AM PDT by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
No, it was a 50-50 power-sharing agreement because Lott caved like a wuss, remember?

And the 50/50 came about because Ashcroft allowed a dead man to win election to the Senate, as unconstitutional a move as ever there was one. Lott failed to follow the Constitution's written authority, each House seats its members. He acquiesced to Bush's offering Ashcroft the AG if they would just go along, let the Dems have the seat. THAT cost them the majority, not Jeffords, for had they followed the USCon, the GOP would still have the majority in the Senate.

46 posted on 05/13/2002 9:55:02 AM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Thanks for correcting me on that.

However, it should be noted that even among the "supporters" of the Revolution there was an awful lot of cynical pragmatism that had nothing to do with ideals.

A few years ago I read the "real" story of Vermont's two Revolutionary War heroes -- Nathanial Greene and Ethan Allen. It turns out these guys had no interest in creating a free nation separate from Britain. Their plan was to overthrow the British government in northern New England, establish their own little fiefdoms in the wooded hills, then turn around and sell it off to the highest bidder. France was a likely "customer," but it was just as likely that Britain would have bought the land back from them and joined it with one of their two remaining colonies in North America (Upper and Lower Canada).

47 posted on 05/13/2002 9:56:19 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Everyone (including me) complained when Bush 41 raised taxes. Bush 43 delivered tax cuts and now all the conservatives say so what, what I really care about is CFR. (Sorry, no matter how many Rush rants I hear about CFR, I just can't get excited about it.)

You're right about conservatives not delivering on election day 2000. Rove says the numbers show that millions of conservatives, particularly evengelicals, stayed home.

I wonder, how much of the discontent about Dubya is really about his father? Are we putting Dubya under a microscope like we never put Reagan because we're afraid he might be a closet moderate like his father?

My two cents is I think Dubya is a real conservative. Unlike his dad, he was raised in Texas and is an authentic evangelical. I believe his pro-life and anti-tax views are genuine.

All this talk about "appeasement" and "compromise" comes from a refusal to look at reality. For six years Reagan had a Senate majority and with the Boll Weavils a working majority in the House. Because conservatives stayed home on election night 2000, the Democrats have a working majority in the Senate and are very close in the House. Bush has gotten a lot of his agenda through considering the weakness of his position. Talking tough and preaching confrontation is fine, but it won't produce votes that aren't there. And if conservatives stay home in 2002, the Senate will stay with the dems.

48 posted on 05/13/2002 9:57:57 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MississippiDeltaDawg
And the 50/50 came about because Ashcroft allowed a dead man to win election to the Senate, as unconstitutional a move as ever there was one.

Nothing is unconstitutional until it is challenged in court and ruled to be so. Ashcroft refused to challenge it, so it's (sadly) completely legal.

49 posted on 05/13/2002 9:58:04 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
So, Reagan must have been a complete Communist with his increases in domestic spending and huge deficits?

Reagan was focused on two things: Tax cuts and beating the Soviets

Bush is focused on 3 things: Tax cuts, The WOT, and ABM defense.

A president can only get so much done.

50 posted on 05/13/2002 9:58:23 AM PDT by gore_sux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dawgsquat
Check out post #40 from our dear friend, Palo. :)
51 posted on 05/13/2002 9:59:12 AM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Again, conservatives could have torpedoed Dubya by voting in significant numbers for a third party. They saved his ass by failing to do this.
52 posted on 05/13/2002 10:00:39 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I would agree that WJC was a moderate, occupying the same portion of the political spectrum as the Bush before him and the Bush after him, where most US Presidents seem to have been.

HRC, however is a flaming Marxist.

53 posted on 05/13/2002 10:02:09 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
What we have learned over the last 12 years, though, is that so many American voters are so lacking in principle that fence-straddling is rewarded at the voting booth.

Not so sure I totally agree with this. Americans have proven that they will almost always elect a Democrat over a "moderate Republican" (see Bush Sr., Bob Dole, etc.) Contrast this with 1984: Ronald Reagan 525 - Walter Mondale 13.

I can already hear some people saying "this isn't the same country that it was in 1984". That may be true in part, yet I simply refuse to believe that America won't elect a truly principled conservative.

54 posted on 05/13/2002 10:02:49 AM PDT by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MississippiDeltaDawg
The GOP wasn't in control those years. Clintoon was in charge of the WH. The House did pass significant conservative legislation during the late nineties. It went nowhere, though because the minority has more power in the Senate and it would be guaranteed to die at the WH.
55 posted on 05/13/2002 10:05:29 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Well, something is rotten in Denmark, that's fer sure.
56 posted on 05/13/2002 10:05:47 AM PDT by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alpowolf
If I understand your response correctly, the "greater good" consists of being marginally better than the Democrats. I find that to be inadequate.

It is A greater good. Being merely marginally better isn't THAT great, but it is at least preferable. However, I do believe Bush has pushed through more of the conservative agenda than most people are giving him credit for.

"And I think we've made quite a bit of conservative progress since Bush took office." Such as? And I mean actual accomplishments, not just lip service (as for example has occurred with gun control--there has been much talk but things are really just the same as when the rapist-in-chief was in office).

Well, here are three threads:

The Official Bush Accomplishment List: 427 posts as I write this

George W. Bush's First Year in Office (77 Accomplishments): Actually a sarcastic loony left list of things he's done that were supposedly bad. Of course, we love them.

Need help countering LW Anti-Bush propaganda list(Vanity): Another thread celebrating the sarcastic RAT 77 list.

57 posted on 05/13/2002 10:06:46 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
There was already precedent set -- an election several years ago (in TX, I believe), where a man who passed away close to election day, his name wasn't able to be removed in time. He received the highest number of votes, the challenge awarded the seat to the next-highest vote-getter.

The USCon specifically states that one must be a resident of the state from which he is elected. The dead do not reside in any of the 50 states, they are Constitutionally-unqualifed for office, therefore, it is unconstitutional for a dead man to be elected to office, his widow (or whomever) then being given the seat.

58 posted on 05/13/2002 10:06:55 AM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Yep, in 2000 it was the rats who shot themselves in the foot with a third party candidate - Nader. Before 2000, I never thought I'd be grateful for anything Ralph did politically.
59 posted on 05/13/2002 10:07:43 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: gore_sux
Tax cuts=very small tax rate cuts. Please note that a recent study by William Beach of the Heritage Foundation has found that federal spending on social welfare has increased faster under Dubya than in all the Clinton years and that the "dependency index" (number of Americans dependent on transfer programs) has also increased while it declined under Clinton.
60 posted on 05/13/2002 10:08:16 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-166 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson