Posted on 05/16/2002 9:10:34 PM PDT by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The president sacrifices whatever he must to win the war--just as FDR did.
Let me tell you what I think of the criticism that President Bush (a) reversed a half century of Republican philosophy on free trade and caved in on tariffs, and (b) accepted and endorsed a big-government farm bill that was so greasy, pork-filled and fat-laden that if you took the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 in your hand and held a match to it would hiss, pop and sizzle like bacon in a big black skillet.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
HA!
...with these nitwits, it'll more likely be the government they deserve.
Yes, and I hope it's deep sea fishing and something really nasty eats the whiners and their boats whole.
Barring that, perhaps Hillary will take care of the job when she is elected?
I, for one, am not suicidal enough to abandon Bush come election time, for several reasons. His performance on domestic issues is a mixed bag, but the alternative would be much worse; I believe we are in the midst of a long, protracted war, and I like the kind of people he has put in charge of the war effort.(I could do without Powell and his State Dept.)
As for your reference to Keyes, he might be electable if he could keep his ego in check. His smug display of his intellectual prowess turns voters off.
The observations and analysis you refer to are simply the opinions of people who don't like Bush.
Many of these posts are from people who didn't vote for Bush and never would. They may consider their biases justified and many will claim to have been Bush supporters once (sure) but no more. I've seen posts calling Bush 'Worse than Clinton'. No bias there? Please.
You may call it what you will, justify it any way you please and even attempt to claim objective analyzer status for these posters but it's still bias and quite obvious, at that.
I reserve the right to both disagree with and characterize the anti-Bush people as I see them. That right cuts both ways so I see no reason to apologize or change tactics.
I can understand how upsetting that is for some posters that are fanatical about the Republican Party, who will march in lock step through the portal to hell, like Muslim Fundies marching off to their 70 virgins, just because it has Republican printed above the door. Tongues lolling to lap up every miserly morsel the master throws their way, while ripping apart the masters enemies.
I can understand how upsetting my action is to those who suspect the Republican party is just as dangerous as the other and are scared to death and just trying to hang onto something, anything, praying somehow, someway, someday, the tide will turn. But that is just not my way.
I have opined on a "Conservative Forum" not a "Republicans Only Forum" what I have determined is the best way to "roll back decades of corruption". I see a great deal of corruption in BOTH parties, I can only take definitive action against one party however. I can see that I am a great deal more conservative than the general public. I'm used to that. I am not suggesting or urging anyone follow my lead and charge the ramparts, and you are certainly within your right to down my hard headed determination. So do as thou will, and I will do the same.
Well said.
W/r/t Bush, I need ask only one question: If "the enemy of my enemies" is my friend, then what does this make "the friend of my enemies?"
Indeed they are! You'd never find me saying different, either. But you're right. Abandoning Bush right now is just not a smart move.
Did he ask for 9/11?
No.
Did he ask for Jumpin' Jim Jeffords to switch parties and thus committ a bloodless coup d'etat?
No.
This is the larger picture. It never ceases to amaze me at how little frustration and anger is aimed towards the coup inititated by Jeffords. They say Bush is an illegitimate President. Truth is, Daschle is an illegitimate Senate Plurality leader. Where would Judge Pickering be if the GOP maintained control of the Senate? He would have definitely made it out of committee (where there were 10 RATS to 9 Pubs).
Though I absolutely hate it, it is understandable why he's done the things he has during a time of war. Daschle has shown himself to be the ugly partisan that he is. If G.W. wanted to win this war, yet vetoed CFR, the Farm Bill, and other sundry distasteful items, who is to say that the appropriations needed for our military would have been approved? A veto of CFR would have only meant that the item would raise its head again during this election cycle with McInsane, Tiny Tom, El Poco, and the media leading the charge.
Same goes for that bloated farm legislation.
Our military had been decimated by X42. Keeping a smooth ride to build it back up is understandable. Why can't those of us who say that they're on our side understand that?
If these things would have happened sans 9/11, I'd be the most vocal critic. But that's not how it panned out. It would be nice if the crybabies we have would take a step back and factor in ALL events. But they don't, do they?
Therefore, if they want to take unwarranted potshots at the Prez, they are open for taking warranted potshots themselves. And I have absolutely no problem coming out swingin'.
That's totally acceptable, Teach. Indeed. There's nothing wrong with a good battle in the primaries. I'd even go so far as to say whoever wins the primary should receive our support. If it's Bush, vote for him! If it's another solid candidate, support him or her as well. But don't ever cede anything to the Left by staying at home. They manufacture votes, so staying home on election day is suicidal for us.
Jeff Chandler: "Our gripes are legitimate."Make up your mind... "legitimate" or "unwarranted."rdb3: "Indeed they are!"
then...
rdb3: "Therefore, if they want to take unwarranted potshots at the Prez..."
Take a deep breath, please. Here, have a drink of water. Try to calm down a bit. There. That's better.
Your hyberbole-laced righteous indignation against political parties in general and Republicans in particular is noted. I'm sure you're a rugged individualist of the first order but near-hysterical rants such as the one quoted above don't really cut it. Being angry at and distrustful of politicians is fine but constant ranting with no solutions and no apparent understanding how politics 'works' is useless. Hint: You don't get to act like a dictator just because you're elected President.
It's your right to rant, sure, but yes, you'll get opposition here and you'll be called on to do a little more than simply be angry at the President and every other politician that offends you today.
That Bush is doing a fine job in a very, very tough position seems to elude most who just see what he didn't do to please them and fill out their personal agenda this week. Politics is more than that. It's complicated and Bush is showing himself a master of the art but still, every time he doesn't jump to some 'conservative' tune others play for him, he's a bum. Wrong, short-sighted and meaningless, except as a vent for your personal political frustrations.
Calm down with the wild attacks and sneering asides to anyone who doesn't believe you have all the answers or that our President is a monster. The wilder you get the less credibility you retain so post away but don't expect a free ride for your constant attacks on GW Bush and the Republican party.
Think of it this way; you could be wrong.
That's disingenuous characterization of the criticism, which -more accurately stated - would be that GWB has indeed been jumping to an extremely 'liberal democrat' tune.
One can hardly fault conservatives - Rush Limbaugh included - for pointing this out.
I'll grant you the farm, education and campaign reform bills were correctly identified as 'liberal'. The President signed them for political reasons but the criticism from conservatives is justified on that count.
What I refer to are the claims that Bush is "Just like Gore" or, my 'favorite': "Worse than Clinton" and to some here, the embodiment of the RINO. The broad-brush ploy. "He's a traitor to the conservative base". I disagree.
The record doesn't justify that characterization and the insistance that President Bush morph into Pat Buchanan or Alan Keyes or whomever the poster favors, is tiresome. We can debate all day (I won't) the merits of the Bush domestic policy and his compromises with the opposition but to some Bush-bashers on FR, everything the man does is wrong and somehow, a betrayal and a sell-out.
That's unmitigated nonsense and - the DNC trolls wearing the 'conservative' disguise aside - this constant harping and complaining needs some balance with the reality of the Bush presidency and his handling of a myriad of difficult situations, a hostile media (the N.Y. Post BUSH KNEW! headline is a fine example of this) and an obstructionist Democrat opposition in Congress.
What's disingenuous is the mention of Rush Limbaugh. Now a darling of the anti-Bush people but this will be short-lived as they'll turn right back to calling Rush a Bush boot-licker and Republican lackey the second he stops criticizing the President but for now, they gladly throw his name around to make points for attacking Bush.
President Bush is fair game for criticism from conservatives on some issues but he is not a political traitor or the 'socialist' (and other nonsensical labels) the diehards try to pin on him. That kind of smear is what I oppose and I'll continue to do so. It's disingenuous, at best. A deliberate lie, at worst.
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.