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.

[ArneFufkin]

It's what Fox stated. The numbers are estimates, and they seem to be as politically maneuverable as the old homeless counts.

[altair]

You're quoting out of context. The figure was originally given as 3 million illegals from Mexico.

[ArneFufkin]

I want to make one correction - we will take in anyone ... except the Parisian French. They're sent back to that beautiful land on slow, Panamanian shrimp freighters. ;^)

[Texasforever]

Funny, but most of the people I hear from Texas have a markedly different point of view about the immigration there than you do.

LOL. If you mean on this forum you have about 2 to draw on. Real Texans do not cower in the dark afraid of boogie men.

[toenail]

"How is cancelling money for foreign "family planning" activities a move to the Left?"

Southack, I called your bluff already. Post 81.

[Sabertooth]

On a thread last weekend, President Fox stated that there are 18 million legally resident Mexican citizens in the U.S., and around 3 million "undocumented" illegals.

Well here's what the US Census Bureau says in a report released this past January:

Overall, the report estimates that as many as 8.7 million illegal aliens may have been counted in the 2000 Census.
LINK

Also, this...

The bureau found that 5,312,990 undocumented residents hailed from North and Central America, with 3,871,912 coming from Mexico, the source of the greatest number of illegal foreigners.
LINK.

So according to the US Census Bureau, or Vicente Fox is off by about a million, and frankly I take the Census numbers with a grain of salt. There have been more than 800,000 apprehensions of Illegals coming out of Mexico since 9/11 alone. And even they estimate they only nab 20% at best.

The problem, Arne, isn't Mexicans who've immigrated legally. The problem is Illegals, wherever they come from. It just happens that the more come from Mexico than anywhere else, and no foreign nation is so bald-faced about promoting Illegals as is Mexico under Vicente Fox.

[ArneFufkin]

If San Antonio gave welfare benefits to illegals and did not arrest and deliver illegals to the INS when apprehended, and Austin gave illegals the same benefits and security - but San Marcos refused to provide them entitlements and the police were active in apprehending and deporting illegals .... these guys will NOT stop and locate in San Marcos. It's that simple.

It's the local liberals, not George W. Bush, that causes these problems. Local issues are managable. County Board by County Board, school district by school district, sheriff by sheriff.

[nopardons]

It's late, I'm not going to start digging books out of my lubrary, and I can't do HTML to link to anthing on line ; however , before this stupid immigration stuff goes any farther, let me insert a few facts in here.

I in no way support illegal immigration. There are good and bad in ever wave of immigrants. The La Raza and MECha groups are made up of citizens, who were born here; just as the members of the American Bund, in the 1930's .

From the beginnings of mass immigration, some Americans were of the mind that they had theirs, and that any new comers, were going to take over this country and spoil it all for those born here. From the " NO NOTHINGS ", to the KKK, to any other group ( s ) anyone cares to name, it's been the same exact words / sentiment. Yes, I can quote what was said about how ... refused to learn English, adopt to our ways , stole the jobs of REAL Americans, ad nauseum.

Terrorists aren't new either. Sacco & Venzetti ? Anyone remember those names; which I may have massacared . LOL They weren't they ONLY anarchists who came here. There were plenty of Socialists, Marxists, and Commies too. Emma Goldman ring any bells ?

I'm signing off . I suggest you all chew on this , for a bit. : - )

[nopardons]

NO NOTHINGS = KNOW NOTHINGS

[Texasforever]

The fact is that the total welfare case load in Texas is approx. 155,000 families out of a state population of 30 million that includes ALL races. That is what that “Liberal“ Bush left with us after 6 years as a “liberal“ rino governor.. That is why Texas does not have an "illegal alien" problem. The free loaders move to high welfare states like California. Those we have here work their butts off. If those in other states have an illegal alien problem they need look no further than their state governments.

[LurkerNoMore!]

Take care & G'night, knowpardons.

[Texasforever]

As always, right on. Goodnight.

[Texasforever]

Here are the facts:

TEXAS

WELFARE REFORM (TANF) PROGRESS STATUS Texas's welfare caseload (TANF/AFDC families) has dropped 61.6% in the last six years, from 278,146 cases in January 1993 to 106,805 cases in September 1999. This decrease is significantly higher than the 50.2% U.S. average caseload reduction during this period. Texas ranks 15th among all states and the District of Columbia in welfare caseload reduction in the last six years. On a positive note, since October 1996, the start of the PRWORA Welfare Reform, Texas's welfare caseload has decreased by 55.3%, which ranks 11th among all states and the District of Columbia. For the last three months for which comparable data are available (July 1999–September 1999), Texas ranks 37th among all states in TANF reduction, with a three-month caseload percentage decrease of 0.6%.
WELFARE REFORM
Caseload Reduction
State Ranking	Reduction	Current Caseload*
15	61.6%	106,805
Dependency
State Ranking	Dependency Ratio**
18	1 of 70 people

[LurkerNoMore!]

I'm up to the 700's, and PR just hit the ball out of the park with reply #716.

[Sabertooth]

I'm up to the 700's, and PR just hit the ball out of the park with reply #716.

With this exception.

[ArneFufkin]

You have to take back your government. Your counties, your school districts, your cities and states. If you live in Irvine, California make Irvine an inhospitable place for illegals to live and thrive. Hard ass police and prosecutors, school districts that will not accept non-languaged pupils, businesses that are under community scrutiny for their employment practices ... that stuff works.

If the whole kitten-caboodle moves from Irvine up to Anaheim or El Monte ... "have a nice day folks"!. Then you help those residents grab the attention of their city pols and police. Better yet ... work on a county level, and send them out of Orange County. It's the P.C. dandies in L.A. County who shoulder the burden now. California may force Orange County to give benefits, but Orange County Sheriffs can arrest them walking out of the County Administrative Center with their paperwork. They're illegal aliens. The INS can process them on the site and dispose as per policy -hopefully on a bus back across the border. Couldn't they? Regarding legally resident aliens ... the Orange County Attorney needs to litigate that burden. It's unconstitutional, it provides special status for Mexican non-residents vis a vis non-residents from San Diego or Bakersfield or Atlanta, Georgia. Someone has to get pissed and endure the institutional static - and that someone is you guys living down in the SW and your neighbors.

[LurkerNoMore!]

I especially appreciate her fact-based response to the question, "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.

Too many folks here have bought into an orchestrated disinformation campaign, and either have not read 245(i), or skipped over the parts that wouldn't fit their arguments.

[ArneFufkin]

Those Texas numbers are not shocking. The Mexican residents aren't abusing or burdening THAT system. However, I do hear tell that Texas had one helluva governor the last 10 years or so.

[LurkerNoMore!]

Saber, there are restrictions to that.

The link didn't work for me... was it to the INS Act?

[LurkerNoMore!]

8 yrs.... 10 yrs ago we had Ma Richards :-(