Voters want Senate to help, not hinder, Bush

National Republican Senatorial Committee ^ | 26 June 2002 | Senator Bill Frist (R-TN)

[marylina]

Great post, PKM. Thanks for your continued hard work. We cannot be deterred or distracted by the whimpering and whining in the peanut gallery. There is too much work to be done, and there are critical spots at stake here. Don't listen to them; your time and attention are needed elsewhere. They obviously all need to grow up.

MJY, great rant, as usual. We have to keep cool, and your posts are calm and rational. Notice how they never respond to the facts you present...

BUMP

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for your kind words! Good point -- when the facts go up they go away!

[Teacher317]

put in quotes things like "Basher" which I didn't use in this post

LOL, I didn't mean to imply that YOU called me a "basher". I wear the title proudly, since it's been cast at me so often. I apologise for the misunderstanding. I also use the "bot" term almost affectionately... but I do realize I'm probably in the minority of the "basher" crowd in that respect. =^/

My point is you are going to sit out or vote against GWB because you didn't get everything you wanted,

As I explained, it's not that I didn't get "everything"... it's that the left is getting MORE from him than I am, and I fought for him to OPPOSE those idiots!

you listed things that have not happened and denounced things that have not made his desk,

Which ones? I tried to stick with the past as explicitly as possible. CFR, Patriot, tariff, etc have all passed his desk, and most of the others are from his own speeches. You aren't going to defend him by saying that he's going to start going back on his word (which he probably has yet to do, as is often touted by his supporters)

you are assuming things, and as usual, looking at the glass as half full,

Nah, I'm neither a "half-full" or "half-empty" kinda guy... for me, "the glass is just twice as large as it needs to be"! ;^)

[anniegetyourgun]

See first part of #34. These folks are irrelevant.

[anniegetyourgun]

Keep remembering, these people have left the stadium. May they enjoy their oblivion......

[marylina]

Regarding my comment @41 I have NO idea where that HASH--- name came from! Sorry--didn't proofread carefully, I guess.

[Teacher317]

Not at all, You just started off you first sentence with an insult, that's all

Well, I AM getting tired of the same "not getting 100%" line, when I have yet to see a single FReeper in any of these dozens of huge "basher-vs-bot" threads say that they required 100% of all their issues or else they were going to vote for someone else... and the repetition thing IS a tactic of the Left when the truth is not on their side... but you're right, I bragged that I wouldn't insult, and I started off by associating ya'll with the sleazy liberals. That was hypocritical of me.

As for the 100%, again, I think most of us would be placated by 60%, but would think that a "good" conservative candidate would be pulling in about 75% of the issues down on our side. When I see that 41%, and I wanna cry!

[Reagan Man]

Hey PhiKapMom

Here's a link to that Tom Davis article, "Free the Fifty". Its covers the fifty bills, passed by the House, that are now being held up in the Senate by the obstructionist Tom Daschle and his liberal cohorts.

[Teacher317]

Many of the same charges you made against President Bush could have been made against Ronald Reagan too.

EXCELLENT POINT!!!! I am a Reagan NUT, because I think that he was MUCH better at getting more "wins" for the Right, against those times he had to cave in to the Lefty House that he had to deal with (he had at least 53 GOP in the Senate for 6 of his 8 years). He DIDN'T get us 100%, and he is revered by almost everyone on FR. This should be a clear indicator that while even the best President won't get 100%, he IS getting around 75%. If GWB would get up to the 60-70% range, he would get most of us back, IMHO. NOBODY expects 100%

(Maybe this point might put an end to that silly "not getting 100%" argument... thanks for that!)

[MJY1288]

I know, The whole point about the REAL threat was ignored and the focus was instead placed on me being more like the left every day, and a legislative score card, assumptions, possibilities, and of coarse not conservative enough.

NO blanket amnesty has been proposed, only NYT's articles planting seeds,
CFR which is being challenged with the blessings of GWB, and if trimmed it will become a good bill
Patriot Act which sunsets in 2004
Farm Bill which is less than the ACTUAL amount spent last year
Steel Tarriff's which was a campaign promise
Education Bill has accountability for the first time (Even though I think he should of veto'd it)
The other things are just proposals, until they are law, it's our responsibility to call and complaign to who it counts and that's not here

But, my type of thinking is unacceptable to many here, because I'm willing to accept that I will NEVER get all I want.

Thanks for the kind words

[MJY1288]

Who is this phantom candidate so we can all vote for him?, and be sure you post this phantom candidates qualifications so we can fairly compare him or her to GWB

[MJY1288]

I also should include that ALL of these things were promised during his campaign, other than the Patriot Act, which was born out of the attack we suffered on 9/11, and as far as CFR, he said "there had to be severability in the bill or he wouldn't sign it because there was some constitutionality concerns that would have to be addressed, but the public want CFR in order to stop soft money"

But hey, what do I know, I just followed his campaign from the start to the finish, and I'm a lefty

[Teacher317]

CFR which is being challenged with the blessings of GWB, and if trimmed it will become a good bill
Why sign it if you KNOW it's unConstitutional? The whole POINT of veto power is to send bills back to be "trimmed" and resubmitted.

Patriot Act which sunsets in 2004
Again, if it starts out as a bad law (and a horrible precendent), why support it at all? No good can come of it, and LOTS of bad.

Farm Bill which is less than the ACTUAL amount spent last year
it still requires massive amounts of fixing, not only in the dollar amounts, but also in the way it is apportioned.

Steel Tarriff's which was a campaign promise
I didn't know that one, actually.

Education Bill has accountability for the first time (Even though I think he should of veto'd it)
Actually, the Senate gutted most the accountability and school choice parts out of it before it got back to his desk. He should not have signed it at all.

The other things are just proposals, until they are law, it's our responsibility to call and complain to who it counts and that's not here
I disagree. I think FR is probably the BEST place to complain, because dozens, if not hundreds, of others will follow your lead and complain right along with you. THAT'S lobbying power!

[HiTech RedNeck]

In a burning hot parched desert what would you prefer. A half full glass of water or a nearly empty one?

[MJY1288]

Do you realize that the 84,000 members here doesn't even represent .001% of who voted in 2000? and if you were able to convince every single member here to vote for your phantom candidate, Ralph Nader would win in a landslide with 99% of the vote

[Teacher317]

LOL, so now you want me to list names so you can "trash" them in exactly the same way that you disparage others "trashing" GWB? Let's just assume I trotted out the usual names, and you listed the usual reasons they stink, and we'll save each other some typing, okay? ;^)

Really, I wasn't referring to any specific individual, I was implying that a "good" candidate gets 60-70% of his base's issues passed versus the opponents' issues. Using this yardstick, Reagan was "good" (great!), and GWB needs a solid hitting streak to get up to 60% and rekindle some of his lost base.

(Actually, using this yardstick, Clinton qualifies as "bad" once again, because he kept co-opting "evil" conservative ideas, like welfare reform, and calling them his own... the Lefties just didn't seem to care, as long as it was "their guy" at the top.)

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks much! I had forgotten about that -- your reminder comes in handy!

[MJY1288]

Well when you find this ELECTABLE candidate I WANT IN, but I won't hold my breath, because when this phantom candidate that will campaign as a "True Conservative" he will recieve about as many votes as Pat Buchanan or Harry Browne. unless of coarse he or she has the ability to do what Ross Perot managed to do, and all that will give us is another Bill Clinton....... GUARANTEED

[TatieBug]

Working hard supporting R's in Bush States - throw the RATS out so we can get Judges in place who won't threaten "Under God" ever again! God Bless AMERICA and President Bush.

[rdb3]

Many of the same charges you made against President Bush could have been made against Ronald Reagan too.

Exactly. In fact, those on the far-far Right said that Reagan was a communist (read: John Birch Society). The Birchers around here feel the same way about G.W. Now I don't even waste my time arguing with them. It's not worth it.