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.

[oldvike]

Privately owned...yes. Financially supported by people like me....yes. It's a two way street.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

The "Bush bashers", as you call them, are generally very pleased with Bush.

Uh.....yeah. I can tell.

[GingisK]

...These are probably the same people who maintain their registration in the Reform Party. They gravitate to FR because anywhere else in the wide world of American politics, they're irrelevant...

I register Republican, but it is pretty clear that you, who refuse to come to grips with valid complaints, do not represent me. Do you care to disclose your name and State of residence so that those who would vote for you would know your true colors?

[Joe Hadenuf]

The threat is NOT Mexicans, the threat is the Middle East. Focus on that not your personal dislike of Mexicans.

Again, where do you get this stuff tex???

Here, let me get a little closer, open your eyes, try and stay awake, and listen. There are many forms of terrorism tex. And one is when we have millions upon millions of criminal illegal aliens from all over the world, with the majority coming from Mexico, that are invading our nation, defecating on our sovereignty, while choking off our social services, causing standing room only in many big city emergency rooms, crowding our already over crowded classrooms, voting in our elections, filling our jails, driving down the wages, while pushing taxes up, our land fills are full, our energy resources are limited and they continue to enter illegally, by the millions.

So you see tex, there are many forms of terrorism and this is another glaring example. Only a fool would attempt to debate this.

[GingisK]

Uh.....yeah. I can tell

So, you are looking for 100% agreement with youself, or we can't play in your sand box? Zieg Hiel, comrade.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

The moment you run for the Hitler/Nazi nonsense you render yourself unworthy of attention.

[GingisK]

The moment you demand 100% comformance to "The Party", the momemnt you deserve that label. The 100% conformers do not represent me in the Congress. Republicans seem to be Democrats in deeds, but not words. Listen to the complaints, for they are very valid. You attack and reject me and my fellows because we cannot give you 100% conformity. You evidently have no idea how much that pisses me off.

[Sabertooth]

Some more misrepresentation of facts from you.

245(i) only changes the mechanism by which they get to apply for change of status, and while it is true that while their applications are being reviewed they are not deportable, it neither guarantees a hearing, nor does it guarantee a change in status.

The misrepresentations are yours.

As it stands, Section 245(i) is sunsetted, expired, defunct, dead, inoperable, no more, kaput, taking a dirt nap, a regulatory null set... no new Illegals currently are eligible for "change of status" under 245(i) because it is no longer the the law of the land.

Reactivating 245(i) would provide a mechanism for new Illegals to change status where none currently exists.

Hence, once the determination has been made that they do not qualify either for a hearing, or for permanent change in status, they are very, very deportable.

So, you're suggesting that extending 245(i) is a part of a clever bait and switch operation to look like Amnesty but actually set the stage for deportations?

Please, go on... show me how many Illegals changed status under Clinton's first round of 245(i) Amnesties and how many were deported in the resultant dragnet.

BTW, you're aware that INS Director James Ziglar has said that there will be no mass deportations of Illegals, are you not? Is that all part of the Section 245(i) subterfuge to lull ineligible Illegals into telling us where to find them?

Laughable.

[monday]

"You attack and reject me and my fellows because we cannot give you 100% conformity. You evidently have no idea how much that pisses me off."

hehe...actually probably not half as much as your non conformity pi$$es off the Bush supporters.

Perhaps we should all just take a deep breath and agree to disagree. Once that happens it makes it much easier to discuss the differences without getting pi$$ed.

[Joe Hadenuf]

So, you're suggesting that extending 245(i) is a part of a clever bait and switch operation to look like Amnesty but actually set the stage for deportations?

LOL....

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

You evidently have no idea how much that pisses me off.

ROFL !!!! You are a real case, aren't you?

YOU EVIDENTLY HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU OR YOUR EMOTIONAL FRAGILITY.

Bwahahahahahaha

[Sabertooth]

I believe this is a Hall-of-Famer in the making.

In fact, I'm ready to skip the five year wait and enshrine it now.

[MHT]

Disappointed? Yes....but things could be worse....AlGor could be President and I would have had to pay alot more money to the government in 2001 without the Bush tax bill and never have had the chance to hear three of the finest and most defining speeches of the 21st century.

Things aren't perfect but they could be worse. I still think the jury is out, but, in the long run, we might be looking at Churchillian/Lincolnian greatness (neither of whom made many people happy with them in their time, either).

[texasbluebell]

Things aren't perfect but they could be worse. I still think the jury is out, but, in the long run, we might be looking at Churchillian/Lincolnian greatness (neither of whom made many people happy with them in their time, either).

And I'm not one to quote Dick Morris very often, but twice that I've heard and one other time that someone else heard he has said that George Bush has a date with Mount Rushmore!

[lavaroise]

A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

THe title itself is erroneous. What is a die hard supporter? Looking in crystal balls is ill advised, for who knows how to interprete the pictures seen.

[PsyOp]

If this felon has been deemed "rehabilitated" and released from prison, then yes! If you don't think the rehabilitation "took", then keep him in prison.

Agreed. (see post #208 where I defined exactly under what circumstances i do agree).

I don't have faith in "rehabilitation". I would allow people convicted of any but a pre-meditated violent crime, or an offence committed with a gun, to get their Second Amendment right back after a suitable probation period. A second arrest and conviction, felony or not, should terminate that right forever.

This biggest problem is that our correctional institutions are little better than institutes for higher criminal learning. To make what you or I suggest would require a reform of the Prison system. I would keep first-timers sepparate from repeat offenders or lifers. No TV - read a book, attend a class, learn a skill, work. Want to get in shape? Do some damn push-ups and sit-ups. Etc.

[4Freedom]

Bump.

These guys must be having some kind of a contest to see who can the play the 'race card' the most often, on a single thread.

LOL.

[rdb3]

I heard that. My drives are consistent, but my irons are woeful.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"245(i) only changes the mechanism by which they get to apply for change of status..."---I said that.

"The misrepresentations are yours...Reactivating 245(i) would provide a mechanism for new Illegals to change status where none currently exist."---You said that.

What I don't see is the difference between what you said and what I said.

"New" illegals? It reads that they must already be here. Then, another one of your "misrepresentations": the mechanism is already there, the difference is that without 245(i) they would have to return home to apply, with 245(i) they don't have to.

"So, you're suggesting that extending 245(i) is a part of a clever bait and switch operation to look like Amnesty but actually set the stage for deportations?"

No, I simply stated that a number of illegals would be documented, and then could be found.

Being turned down for either a hearing or change of statute means that you no longer can stay on the country, and will be deported. And yes, I am aware of Zieglar's statement, and he's probably right. I don't see us rounding up hundreds of thousands illegals and shipping them out of here in one fell swoop, the courts couldn't handle that.

It will happen in a more measured manner.

I know that this will ruin your visions of jack-booted thugs kicking in shanty-town doors in the middle of the night, and dragging illegals out, but not every daydream becomes reality.

[Willie Green]

Anytime you have a so-called conservative in whom an openly Marxist, communist supporter's endorsement is not rejected, you have a problem.

No. As the election proved, our nation is strongly polarized into Red vs. Blue zones, and the Republicrat Party is quite content to hone their positions to reinforce and maintain this status-quo disparity. Even the process of Congressional redistricting (gerrymandering) is nothing but a sophisticated process of veiled segregation.

The issues that confront our inner city citizenry ARE different than those that affect the suburban/rural population. And the GOP has done very little to crossover into the blue zone to address those issues directly. It remains the party of high-profile tokenism. In fact, it appears to be using Mexico City as the model of economic growth for our urban areas.

During their brief association, neither PJB nor Ms. Fulani compromised the principles where they significantly disagreed. However, both are to be commended for their attempt to bridge the Great Red/Blue Divide while pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republicrat Party that enslaves America.