Skip to comments.
Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack
The Chicago Sun-Times ^
| June 22, 2002
| Thomas Roeser
Posted on 06/22/2002 9:46:05 AM PDT by quidnunc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 2,241-2,242 next last
To: Charlotte Corday
They were either in on the corruption or in on the cover-up. And, yes, some of the Republicans were in on it too (at least those who objected to the impeachment and removal). Can you name any Democrat presidential contender who was not directly involved in the Clinton corruption or protection of same?
To: Charlotte Corday
Yet the Democrats keep nominating foaming-at-the-mouth liberals. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don't. The point is that the Democrats DON'T LIVE IN FEAR OF HAVING THEIR PRINCIPLES KNOWN. The last "foaming-at-the-mouth liberal that was elected president was.....Who?
To: Jim Robinson
Governor Dean of Vermont? He's running.
603
posted on
06/22/2002 7:05:51 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Amelia
If we don't vote for their candidates, they have to start giving us candidates we'll vote for.*Rolling my eyes*
604
posted on
06/22/2002 7:07:26 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Don Myers
Don Myers wrote:
Maybe, he had bad campaign advice. etc.And maybe it's because he sucked as a candidate.
What kind of conservative would select a lesbian Stalinist as his running mate and then allow her to drag him to kiss Al Sharpton's ring?
I have to say that I don't think that I would want anybody who let his advisers saddle him with this kind of advice to be president of any country that I was living in.
To: Torie
Well, he's got a tough row to hoe.
To: quidnunc
"And maybe it's because he sucked as a candidate. "
Do you dislike him because he "sucked as a candidate," or because of his beliefs?
To: Jim Robinson
Perhaps one or two, but nobody that comes to mind at this moment. As for Senators there are none. As for House members there may be a couple. Your point is a good one. However there are plenty of Republicans I would no longer vote for. Trent Lott is one of them. So is Warren Hatch.
Jim I know a lot of folks think I fold at the drop of a feather, but I don't see it that way. I simply cannot fathom Bush joining with Ted Kennedy on a $300 billion plus healthcare fiasco. I can't sign onto the medication package for Medicare. Both will break the bank. Both will contribute further to ruin what dismal healthcare that is left in this nation.
I can't sign on to a $40 billion increase in the DOE, a Department I don't just dislike, but despise. I can't sign on to legalizing illegal immigrants and leaving the borders open. Our Navy has 310 out of 600 ships left from Reagan in has been budgeted to drop further in upcoming years.
Look I could go on like this for a while. But there are things I like about Bush. He is an honest family man. I appreciate the fact that he is not schtooping the White House interns and anything else flying under the radar. But that isn't the same as being a true conservative.
Bush is still supporting the trade with China that sees our technology gifted to them. Our R&D is slipping away to them as well. These are critical matters that aren't even on his radar.
I know people think it's easy for us to carp. The fact is it's easy to become complacent and accept what we have for now, because it could be a lot worse. Folks, it could be a whole lot better, let me tell you.
To: rintense
"How about this instead of a weed wacker..."
![](http://www.babes4bush.com/misc/bangin.gif)
LOL
To: Don Myers
Don Myers wrote: Do you dislike him because he "sucked as a candidate," or because of his beliefs? I dislike him because of what he almost did to Bushe's chances in the election and because I have decided that he is an out-and-out fraud.
To: Don Myers
Don, what percentage of the voting public are hard core conservatives?
To: oline
...the fact the Roe v. Wade will probably never be overturned and whatever the first Lady and the President think of it really doesn't matter - it really is an issue that can be solved with people face to face - changing their hearts and how they think about it - not changing a law that permits it... I would disagree. It matters a great deal what the President thinks on the issue of life. Bill Clinton believed frevently in the right to butcher a baby, and vetoed PBA twice. Now of course a PBA ban would not really solve the problem of third trimester abortions, but it is a vital political move forward, and a vital social link in proclaiming one form of abortions wrong and illegal.
When I hear politicians say, "There's nothing I can do. We must change hearts before we change laws", I must admit that I think to myself, "There's someone who would rather not be bothered with the issue of life. Here is a politician who will not lift a finger to truly enact real reform."
Perhaps I misjudge some. I do not know. Bush has done a few things.
To: Jim Robinson
As far as I know, every leading Democrat contender stood by Clinton during the impeachment process. They ignored the evidence that was available to them. If that comprises being in on the cover up then you're right, they were all in on the cover up.
But if that's the standard, then John Ashcroft is continuing the cover up even now.
To: quidnunc
Reply #610 should read:
Don Myers wrote: Do you dislike him because he "sucked as a candidate," or because of his beliefs?
I dislike him because of what he almost did to Bush's chances in the election and because I have decided that he is an out-and-out fraud.
To: Texasforever
"Don, what percentage of the voting public are hard core conservatives?"
What is it?
To: quidnunc
Look,he makes his money by selling screeds to people via direct mail. hmmmm, is there a franchise for that?
616
posted on
06/22/2002 7:17:04 PM PDT
by
Amelia
To: quidnunc
"I dislike him because of what he almost did to Bush's chances in the election and because I have decided that he is an out-and-out fraud."
Would you feel the same way about any third-party candidate?
To: EternalVigilance
After all, we wouldn't want to spoil their fun by forcing them to engage in debate. They'd rather not have to defend their positions or face complaints of unconstitutionalism by the government -- yes, including the Executive Branch.
It's hard trying to defend the indefensible, and I guess they're feeling a bit tired these days. If they want to dis-associate, well, I say let 'em.
Tuor
Give me liberty or give me death.
618
posted on
06/22/2002 7:17:32 PM PDT
by
Tuor
To: DoughtyOne
I would take Trent Lott or Orin Hatch in a heartbeat over Boxer or Feinstein.
And I will take Bush over any combination of Gore/Hillary/Lieberman/Daschle or whomever the Democrats can come up with.
To: quidnunc
What kind of conservative would select a lesbian Stalinist as his running mate and then allow her to drag him to kiss Al Sharpton's ring? Is this what you believe? Ezola Foster was Pat's running mate. She's a very conservative ex-Bircher. Stalinist? Come on guy, peddle faster.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 2,241-2,242 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson