Posted on 06/03/2002 6:33:14 PM PDT by Texasforever
There has been a very loud and nasty argument gong on around here for months about how the GOP and George W. Bush have deserted Conservatives to pander to moderates and liberals and that they would stay home to show their discontent.. I say argument and not debate because there has been no debate just charge and counter-charge. I have issued the challenge to several disaffected former GOP and Bush supporters to start a thread that would focus on viable alternatives to both the GOP in 2002 and a replacement for Bush in 2004. None have taken up that challenge so I will start the thread myself.
This thread is not to continue the argument pro and con for either the GOP OR G.W. Bush.. Assume that conservatives have decided that Republicans are a lost cause and that the task is to put into place a viable alternative and candidate that will not result in conceding the elections to the democrats because that is neither smart OR rational. With that in mind I hope some of you that have given up and are very vocal in that stance will make your case for how conservatives should vote in the mid-term elections and who should be the conservative choice for POTUS, regardless of party, in 2004. If there is a candidate out there that you know about that could be groomed for national office in 2 years then please tell us why you think so and as much about the record on conservative issues as possible.
Once again, please refrain from just airing the same reasons for not supporting Bush, the GOP or both. That is already documented. The purpose for this thread are viable alternatives or solutions.
I really don't understand how you can say that when Bush has pushed through liberal consequences that a liberal demoncrat would never have dared attempt. Even scum bag Clinton passed Welfare Reform, now Bush is dismantling it with his compassionate "take the responsibility for feeding and clothing immigrants off the back of their sponsors who agreed to provide it when they signed the immigrant up, and put it on the back of the tax payer".
And that is just one of the things that Bush has gotten away with that a demoncrat wouldn't dare to attempt. Bush is still trying to find a way to sneak 245i past frightened, protesting American citizens. I don't know if we can survive four more years of Bush's brand of conservatism.
I have no clue what the polls actually measure.
I do recognize that Bush's nummbers are up, but how long are his coattails is another matter.
Elect Hillary & prince consort Billy, let them rule, and come the revolution we can start over again with a clean slate.
- Anarchyforever. - #369
There would be NO " revolution " ! This idea is just a " cut off your nose to spite your face", juvenile idea.
I'm dead serious, dearie.
-- The key words out of Prince Billys mouth, those that start the 2nd American Revolution, will be:
"Let them eat cake."
Dig that bunker deep and we will let you know when it is safe to come out.
America will do just fine with Bushes brand of conservatism. In fact, it will flourish. It's the real thing MAPie.
If you listen to all the anti-Bush pundits in the liberal media and the political misfits and malcontents hanging around FreeRepublic, some folks could conclude that Bushes Presidency has been a total failure. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In Bushes short time in office, he has produced a solid record overall. Bushes tax cuts, strong foreign policy, outstanding handling of the war effort and support for the RKBA`s, shows a solid conservative record. While some conservatives have disagreed with Bush on certain issue and decisions, all in all, Bush has given America, the most conservative leadership since President Reagan was in power.
Hey! I resemble that remark!
. Don't you get it Tpaine. I consider you an object of utter contempt. You are an across the borderline nutcase that skulks from thread to thread seeing who you can insult this time. You are neither amusing, intellectual or even interesting. You are background noise. A groupie in a desperate search for a group. You are a sad little man that is angry, bitter and in need of a lot of professional attention. You have NOTHING to offer the human race other than an example of what NOT to become. I have tried every approach with you and none works. Yet you insist on yapping at my heels with your juvenile and pathetic rants about subjects you not only don't know a thing about but don't even suspect. I am engaging in a blatant personal attack and I may be banned but I wanted to make crystal clear my utter contempt. To hate someone is to fear them but to hold them in contempt is just a way of saying that YOU are not worth the effort.
481 posted on 6/2/02 1:24 AM Pacific by Texasforever
Wish I had been there, first hand, you know.
Nice turn my Texas friend! So true and so sad.
If you grumble to your friends and family, and they grummble back, that's an awfully limited bunch. Look at the FR threads, and count, on a variety of threads ( ! ) how many bashers / grummblers are there to those who say : well, I don't agree with him 100 %, but then, I never exected to."
Rush is playing a VERY dangerous game ! I stopped listening to him daily, a long time ago. I now listen , every now and again; however , 5-10 minutes of him, is about my limit. He gets many, many, MANY callers now, who blast away at him for his Bush bashing. He spends a lot of time complaining about those who are disgruntled with with. Those, who are now falling hook, line, and sinker for his trashing, are going to be in for a GIGANTIC shock, when he starts ( and he most assurredly shall ! ) pushing everyone to vote for Bush in 2004. Many won't go along with that ; not after the way he's been carrying on. Others, will swear off Rush forever, for being a " turncoat " / whatever they'll call him then.
President Bush has done more, in his first 18 months , than Reafan did in his. Reafan has now been beatified. He was bashed , when he was president. What you and others accuse Bush of doing, Reafan did too ... and worse.
Reagan gave BLANKET AMNESTY to ALL illegals. Bush doesn't want to do that.
I could write a rather long, detailed post about what Reagan did in office. Others have already written some of it, and you ignored / poo pooed it ; so I shan't.
Oh, and FYI ... yes, Reagan won the " COLD WAR " ; it just did NOT happen / finalize while he was in office. : - )
It can't be " Prince Billy " ; but QUEEN HITLERY ( I take it, in your delusional scenario ) and she won't talk about " cake " .
Ditto, jwalsh. Nicely put.
When people gripe, but haven't a clue about a viable alternative, then tey are only : DOGS IN THE MANGER / CUT OFF ONE'S NOSE TO SPITE ONE'S FACE MASOCHISTS.
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.