Posted on 06/05/2002 1:20:54 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Let me just say up front that I am not addressing you if you voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and regret it. The same goes for those of you who voted for Bush and insist on holding his feet to the fire on the important issues. If, however, you cast your vote for Bush, still believe he is the only hope for America and intend to support every move he makes without so much as a raised eyebrow, this is for you.
It has been nearly a year-and-a-half since George W. Bush, the savior of conservatism, descended from on high to begin his earthly reign in Washington, D.C. Republicans assured us that he would restore integrity to the White House and would be a marked improvement over the promiscuous Bill Clinton. Well, in all honesty, that could have been accomplished by electing a neutered chimp to the office of president.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush the man proved to be a nice break from Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Unlike Gore, Bush had a more likable...well, he actually had a personality. He also possessed the unique ability to address the American people without the smug and condescending vibe Clinton exuded. However, when it came to policy, George W. Bush the candidate failed to demonstrate that he would govern any differently than his Democrat counterparts.
Still, throughout the campaign, there was a loyal group of Bush supporters who would take offense at even the slightest implication that their candidate was anything but a staunch conservative. Even now, they continue to stand by their man, and I find this to be rather perplexing.
Perhaps those who have pledged their undying allegiance to President Bush could answer a few questions for me, in no particular order of course:
• How would you have reacted if Bill Clinton had signed the Patriot Act into law and given the government sweeping new surveillance powers?
• Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?
• Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?
• What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?
• Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?
• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "No one should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government"?
• What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?
• What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?
• How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?
• Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?
• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?
• Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?
• What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?
• What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?
• It's been a year-and-a-half since Bush took office. When do we start to see a decrease in the size and scope of government? For that matter, when do we start to see even a remote indication that this administration will think about doing anything to try to limit the federal government?
This list is by no means exhaustive, but I would really be interested in some answers. Perhaps it would help shed some light on the mindset of modern compassionate conservatives.
The fact that a Republican president is governing like a Democrat isn't surprising. What's amazing to me is that there are a few select Bush supporters out there who cannot—or will not—utter one word of criticism against their president for any reason. In their minds this man is the epitome of conservatism, and to question his actions would be to question their own beliefs and cause them to wonder why they supported him in the first place.
The way I see it there can only be two explanations for this: 1) these people really and truly believe in what Bush is doing, or 2) they do not wish to face up to the real reason they voted for him — he was simply a slightly more palatable choice than Al Gore.
George W. Bush: On the Record
"The voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy. And that's going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that -- I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government, that they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal, activist judges. I believe in -- I believe in strict constructionists. And those are the kind of judges I will appoint." [1st Presidential Debate, October 3, 2000; transcript CNN]
Justice Antonin Scalia (for Chief Justice)
Judge J. Michael Luttig (4th Circuit)
Judge Emilio M. Garza (5th Circuit)
Judge James Harvie Wilkinson III (4th Circuit)
Judge Edith Jones (5th Circuit)
Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (3rd Circuit)
Judge Alex Kozinski (9th Circuit)
Judge Diarmiud O'Scannlain (9th Circuit)
Judge A. Raymond Randolph (D.C. Circuit)
Justice Janice Brown (Calif. Supreme Ct.)
Professor Lillian Riemer BeVier (Univ. of Va.)
Judge Jerry E. Smith (5th Circuit)
John G. Roberts, Jr. (Hogan & Hartson, LLP)
Former Senator John Ashcroft (R-Missouri)
Judge Karen Williams (4th Circuit)
Justice Alberto Gonzalez (Texas Supreme Court)
[appointed White Housel Counsel, December
Judge Paul Niemeyer (4th Circuit)
Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)
Former Senator John C. Danforth (R-Missouri)
Judge Pasco Bowman (8th Cir.)
Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)
You might also consider what will happen if we don't gain a majority in the Senate.
More of the same?
I personally believe that with, or without, a GOP Senate, W will remain as he is, because this is the political W.
One is not needed, Congress has already authorized Bush to take whatever action is necessary to defend the US from further terrorist acts.
It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces.
The War Powers Resolution states that the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces.
It requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization.
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and one
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
No, a Republican congress would not change things. A truly conservative constitutionally-minded congress, however would. Unfortunately, you cannot define most of the Republicans in office as either conservative or constitutionally-minded.
That's presicely why so many people around here have been a little "edgy" as of late.....nobody can think of one.
He's FreeRepublic's ultimate hit and run artist!
May be he'll surprise us, but I doubt it.
---max
Do you have an effective suggestion then? Should we vote for libertarians (which most of us object to ideologically) and give the Senate and House to the Dems or vote for other unelectable candidates with the same result? I think Rome would be burning much more quickly. It's better to take things one step at a time... when one tries to get everything one wants *now*, one usually ends up with nothing at all or a much larger headache.
The term "constitutional" has been used so much in attempts to frame a "well duh" argument that it has been trivialized beyond all significance. Which version of constitution are you talking about and which founders interpretation of it? The post 10th amendment version, the post 14th amendment version, the post 16th and 17th amendment version? Each of those versions have placed more and more day to day power into the 'constitutional" powers of the Federal government. I am really sick of the term "constitutional" being bandied about as if it settled all arguments and no debate is possible.
I am with you 100%, PKM.
Speaking for myself, of course I don't want to see you go...but then I do not consider myself a "Bush-basher." How could I be? I supported and voted for the man, for goodness' sake. But I have to respond to your post by saying the door does swing both ways. You should have read the response I got from a well-respected FReeper the other day - one who has never been anything but civil with me - simply for asking a couple of policy-related questions. (Mind you, nothing snotty.) First she hits me with an off-the-wall response, now she doesn't respond to my posts at all. Apparently I an now officially on her **** list.
I'm not whining, mind you...I'm a big girl and pretty much flame-proof by now. But to reiterate...I have ABSOLUTELY witnessed the flaming from BOTH, I repeat, BOTH sides. I am putting my credibility on the line with this statement. And I can assure you, plenty of us would speak up more - not with flames, but with honest questions - but are not especially fond of the "Bush-basher," "traitor," and "RAT plant" labels that are thrown around so cavalierly.
JMO, for what it's worth. BTW, I have never personally used the term "Bushbot," but more and more I am observing that anyone expressing sincere criticism of WH policy, or the President, is viewed as a turncoat. I'm sorry, but I find that mindset SCARY.
Oh yeah, sure. Bush is pro-Commie China...
PNTR was a culmination of more than 20 years of 'relations' with China. More than anything it was almost a d#mn tradition...
The China trade thing spanned across the Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and now Bush II administrations.
Essentially PNTR did a few things: It allowed China to be considered for WTO, which many see as 'the next step' for China.
As far as the 'giving' of something, all PNTR did was continue, or in a way 'ratified' the trade agreements given WAY back 20 years or so. It did not hit any new turf for the most part.
PNTR ended the annualized debate in Congress. That was about it.
As far as actually dealing with China, Bush II admin is by far doing more good than any admin in recent history. You want to know why? Mainly because for the first time ever they actually have China policy experts calling the shots on China.
That's their goal, don't let them fool you.
So than, why can't he get even a hearing for his Federal bench nominations?
And if I have to choose between an 'unelectable' conservative who geniunely subscribes to the US Constitution as opposed to Republican who merely gives it lip-service, then I will vote for the right man every time - even if that man never wins an election. For me, God will be the one who calls each of us to account for where we cast our loyalty.
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.