A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[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.

[Mo1]

BRAVA

I second that

[Willie Green]

I miss the good old days when we were all bent out of shape over the real CFR - Council of Foreign Relations.

It also wouldn't be a bad time to review GOP progress with the Contract with America

[Joe Hadenuf]

Some may call is mysticism if they will, but I cannot help but feel that there was some divine plan that placed this continent here between the two great oceans to be found by people from any corner of the earth -- people who had an extra ounce of desire for freedom and some extra courage to rise up and lead their families, their relatives, their friends, their nations and come here to eventually make this country.

Poor Reagan, if he could only see the reality of his dreams and mysticism today in many of our once great cities. I am sure there would be some changes in his dreamy divine plan.

I liked Reagan, but on a few issues, he was dead wrong, as many of our large population centers stand as living evidence of this.

[Starwind]

Tell me, a court that has ruled that virtual child pornography, Christ in a bottle of urine and burning the flag is protected speech is going to let the issue ad ban stand?

Good points.

30 years ago I'd have laughed at the prospect. Today...

A relatively liberal court (liberal enough to disregard societies interest in protecting children and Christianity) and assuming there will be Constitutional lawyers making arguments in favor of the bills provisions (strenuously I suspect to increase incumbent advantage) and the liberal members of the court thinking they know what is best for society, and that we under educated people need to be saved from deceptive political ads trying to stay our weak wills at the last minute...yeah, sadly, I can see 5-6 justices voting to affirm.

[Mo1]

Ahhhhhhhhhh .. correcto my friend

[Sabertooth]

• What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?

This is garbage. Section 245(i) only gives waivers for people who are already legally here that they don't have to go home and leave their legal jobs and families if their current status expires and the INS is late in processing their renewal or change of status paperwork.

patriciaruth, as I explained yesterday in a post to you, this is flat out untrue. Did you not get my flag?

Once again...

INS Memo: Sec. 245(i) filings

Section 245 of the Act allows an alien to apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) while in the United States if certain conditions are met. The alien must have been inspected and admitted or paroled, be eligible for an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence, and, with some exceptions, have maintained lawful nonimmigrant status. The alien must also not have engaged in unauthorized employment.
Section 245(i) of the Act allows an alien to apply to adjust status under section 245 notwithstanding the fact that he or she entered without inspection, overstayed, or worked without authorization.
LINK.

President Bush's 245(i) extension was specifically about illegals. .

How Do I Benefit From Section 245(i)?
(from INS website)

Our immigration laws allow qualified individuals to enter the United States as lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) after they obtain immigrant visas from a consulate or embassy outside the United States or, for many immigrants already lawfully in the United States, through a process called "adjustment of status." If you entered the United States unlawfully, if you entered with permission but did not stay in lawful status, or if you worked without permission, you normally would have to leave the United States in order to apply for an immigrant visa. Special rules under section 245(i) may allow you to apply to adjust status without leaving the United States.

You might need section 245(i) if you:

• Entered the U.S. without being inspected by an INS official.
  
• Stayed in the U.S. longer than allowed by INS.
  
• Entered the U.S. as a worker on an aircraft or ship (crewman).
  
• Entered the U.S. as a "Transit Without Visa."
  
• Failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since your entry into the US.
  
• Worked in the U.S. without INS permission.
  
• Entered as an "S" nonimmigrant (relates to witnesses about criminal or terrorism matters).
  
• Are seeking a work-related visa and are out of status at the time of filing the application to adjust status (Form I-485).
  
• Worked in the U.S. while being an "unauthorized alien."

LINK

This has been posted numerous times to Amnesty Deniers, but they still persist.
Letting Illegals stay = Amnesty for those Illegals.

There is no getting around this. Section 245(i) is not as you've been representing it. Please stop.

The are other subsections of Section 245 of the Immigration and Naturalization Code that apply to the people you describe in you quote above. 245(i) is for Illegals.

[My2Cents]

Nowhere does it say that a President must sign what bills he disagrees with. But his signing of the CFR was a stroke of genius because he knows the likelihood is that it will be overturned, and it shuts up McCain for the time being.

You know, you're so exercised about CFR that I'd be interested to know how much soft money you contribute to parties at the end of campaigns. It must be huge for the level of emotion you've displayed.

[nopardons]

Just keep posting the facts, my fri4end ! Those others, who claim to speak for / know the mind of others , just write what they themsleves " feel ". Their crystal balls are cracked !

[WRhine]

My posts have always been directed at pointing out the lies that you all have been spouting aboyut 245(i), such as the "hundreds of thousands" one posted on this thread, or the one about it being a blanket amnesty, when in reality it is a chance to obtain a hearing with the INS, with no guarantees of being accepted.

Sabertooth has relentlessly put the lies and distortions of the pro-amnesty crowd here on 245i to bed umpteen times on FR in the last 3 months by showing the EXACT wording of the bill. Why you and others try to defend it is beyond me. And Luis do you really want me to look up your posts regarding your positions on amnesty?

[Deb]

Everyone has an axe to grind and pet peeve to flog.

The truth is there is no one person alive on the planet who is conservative enough for everyone. And why would any conservative run for office anyway when you nit-pickers sit down by the computer and wait for every item that comes of the news service so you can piss and moan and bitch about what a sell-out he is? Instead of waiting to the end of the term to judge an over-all presidency and decide whether or not you will vote for him again, you choose to join the NYT, the Washington Post and every dishonest Bush-basher on the net in a daily trashing EVEN BEFORE THE ACTUAL FACTS OF ANY CLAIM ARE MADE CLEAR.

You and the jerk who posted this thread can take a flying leap...and when you do, be sure to put his phony list in your pants, where it belongs.

[My2Cents]

If you are as aligned those issues that you cited, we probably disgree on the depth of dissappointment with Bush's decisions.

No, I don't disagree with people's disappointment over some of Bush's disappointment. What I disagree with is the depth of bald hatred for Bush, the viciousness of the negativity (particularly exhibited in the article that started this flame war to begin with). I always used to say that one reason conservatives had it over liberals is that conservatives have a sense of humor. I see very little humor in a particular strain of self-proclaimed protectors of the Republic.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"To compare the relatively minor immigration problem we had in the early 1980s with the "out of control" immigration CRISIS we have today is ludicrous."

No, what's really ludicrous is to try to negate what Ronnie said then, based on the world as it is today.

Ronnie said what he said in response to anti-immigration sentiments in his day. He didn't qualify his statements in any way, and the immigration problem that existed then was a major problem to them. They couldn't say "this is not so bad, wait 'til you see what happens twenty years from now!".

Those words are Ronald Reagan's beliefs on the subject of immigrants, and immigration...deal with it.

[WRhine]

Poor Reagan, if he could only see the reality of his dreams and mysticism today in many of our once great cities. I am sure there would be some changes in his dreamy divine plan.

There would be. Unlike both Bushes, Reagan was nobody's fool. Can you imagine Reagan being led around by the nose by Vicente Fox? LOL.

[ArneFufkin]

Whaddya some kind of troublemaker?

Willie, to be fair they promised that they would put all the items to a vote. Which they did.

George W. Bush would sign every one of these bills if they came to his desk, do you agree?

[MJY1288]

Hey Deb, I challenge you or anyone to find one positive thing "JoeHasntbashedenough" posted since he signed onto this forum. If it isn't Mexicans, It's President Bush and his Cabinet

[ArneFufkin]

Deb, was that you in AnnaZ's thread about "Charlies Angels" going to 50 mm range?

[swheats]

We are stuck with the fact that MORE people voted for Gore than Bush.

With all the problems of the 2000 elections how can you honestly believe this was true? Polls, at the last minute, staying open longer than legally allowed. Election representative having voter equipment in the trunk of his car, ballot boxes missing, the winner being called before the polls closed in different time zones. That's just a few that I remember. Unlike Gore, Bush knew where the battle should be fought. Let the popular vote stand, Bush won what really counted.

[My2Cents]

The President's oath of office obligates him not to sign if the bill is unConstitutional.

I repeat my question (for the last time): How do you know the CFR is unconstitutional? In all likelihood, it probably is. But what gives you, or even the President, the authority to proclaim a bill unconstituional? If he wanted to veto it, he could have, for whatever reason. He could have vetoed it because he doesn't like the way McCain's veins stick out of his neck when he's angry. But he signed it as a political expedient, with the knowledge that some persuasive groups would take on the new law in the courts, and would probably bring it down. But I repeat: no one, other than the judiciary, can say for a fact whether such-and-such a law is unconstitutional. You say it is: That's your opinion. But that's all it is: a personal opinion.

[alnick]

Well then next time you vote, just write in God.

[Joe Hadenuf]

To: Poohbah

This is a long-term project, and it's going to require a lot of patience, hard work, and an understanding of tactics.

Oh, poo, that's horse crap, even Ray Charles can see this, for Christ sakes. For example, this titanic invasion of millions of illegal aliens has been going on for 20 years or so. When the Presidents DAD was in office!!! What has been done Poo? We now have the President giving speeches in Spanish and all you neocons think its cool. He has even tried to push legalizing illegal aliens in light of this massive invasion. In a war time yet?

71 posted on 6/5/02 2:03 PM Pacific by Joe Hadenuf

You and the jerk who posted this thread can take a flying leap...and when you do, be sure to put his phony list in your pants, where it belongs.

This is your response to my #71?

Lay off the coffee Deb, and get some sleep. LOL!