A Bush Hater's Poll

Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

This is an unofficial quick and dirty presidential poll. Apparently, there is a good sized contingent on Free Republic that believes that President Bush is:

1. Not conservative enough
2. Not pro-life
3. Is a gun-grabber
4. Is a federal power-grabber
5. Will appoint liberal judges
6. Is a globalist
7. Is in it just for oil
8. Is too soft on immigration
9. Is too soft (or too hard) on Israel
10. Is a crook
11. All of the above
12. None of the above
13. Other (you name it)

Please list the numbers that best match the reasons you don't like Bush (or state other reasons if not on the list) and state whether you believe that President Bush should be defeated even if it means installing a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

Conversely, if you believe President Bush should be re-elected, please state why.

Please state who you would like to see win the Presidency in 2004 and whether or not you believe he/she has a chance of winning.

Thanks,
Jim

[Pyro7480]

While I agree with some of your points (and I love your FR screen name/handle), Gary Bauer supported McCain in 2000. I think you should suggest someone else because of that.

[Don Myers]

Texas, it is you again. Perhaps, you might tell us now, why Bush believes that the US should not have any borders? I have asked you this question several times on other threads, but you just remain silent. I suspect that you cannot answer the question. What about now?

[Don Myers]

Well, I am in South Dakota. Where is the other guy?

[Texasforever]

If someone doesn't get control of these borders it is a given the US will be a one party system and that system will be demoncrat.

I can tell you this with certainty. If Bush did what it took to get control of the Border and the existing illegal alien population, you would rue the day that you championed it.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, get more of the Demos out of the Congress and maybe we'll stand some chance. Will be mighty bleak for conservatives as long as they are controlling the agenda (IMHO).

[Helix]

I like the President and I believe he will be re-elected. IMO he is an honorable man who I sometimes disagree with. Whenever I dislike some of his policies and I do my best to fight those by faxing/calling my reps and other grassroots activism.

I also like to give credit when it is deserved. He has done an extraordinary job of uniting the American public. I remember his State of The Union Address after 9/11 and I can honestly say that I have NEVER been as proud of any President as I was that night. Ten months to the day after we were attacked, the INS has rounded up, jailed, and started deportation proceedings against more potential terrorists than they did during eight years under Clinton.

I shudder to think what our position would be if 9/11 had happened with Gore in the Presidency. If he were in office with the Democrat Senate, I honestly believe we would be before the ICC right now handing over American soldiers for some imagined "atrocity that made Osama lash out at us in desparation". Oh, and of course the American taxpayer would be sending more funds to the UN to help the poor, oppressed, Al-Qaeda "freedom fighters".

[Sabertooth]

It was necessary in order to win.

It was vote-buying.

In any case, I don't think the election would have been as close as it was but for the "compassionate conservative" posturing. I think it cost more votes than it won.

If a prescription drug program gets passed, the Democrats will outbid us on it at every turn.... not to mention that we'll have added yet another entitlement to the Great Society nightmare, and once the Baby Boomers get a whiff of it, kiss fiscal responsibility goodbye.

There are far more sound ways to deal with prescription drugs that would reduce costs without involving federal handouts.

[Texasforever]

Texas, it is you again. Perhaps, you might tell us now, why Bush believes that the US should not have any borders?

Why? Because he has never stated that.

[RLK]

So do you believe that it will be better to install Gore or Daschle, et al?

-----------------------

I reject the proposing of a simple dichotomy on this. To say I don't like Bush is not to assume I am in favor of Owlgore etc. Nothing is farther from the truth. I suspect Owlgore would not have been much different from Bush. A gore win would have derailed Hillary's run for the presidency in 2004. Right now her campaign is a repetition of her senate move and is right on track.

At the present the American people are disenfranchised and disgusted with both the Democrats and Republicans to the point of not showing up at the polls to vote. Recent turnouts have been the lowest since those of the early 1920s. What desperately needs to be done is cull the entire country over for leadership and form a third party. It would cost about $75,000,000 to do it and it is getting too late to do it before 2004. I have discussed this elsewhere in a series of articles.

[monkeyshine]

12. I think he is the kind of guy who leaves well enough alone and does first things first. Maybe that means he won't be a great advocate of conservative causes, but that also means he isn't going to work against them. But as we know not all things are well enough... and on the most important issue of terrorism and war I think he's doing great so far. He's wrong on a few side issues (ie guns in the cockpits) but overall he's got the right policy so far IMHO.

President Bush should be re-elected by a landslide for the reasons above. Well enough alone, first things first suits me just fine.

[Don Myers]

"you would rue the day that you championed it."

We are all rueing the day when he isn't championing it.

[Jim Robinson]

Yes, that does seem like a biggie to a lot of people. I was pretty surprised myself. Wonder how the Texas rank and file feel about it?

[Brownie74]

Thanks for the ping. I would love to comment on this but I am afraid. Where do I go to surrender to the Republican party?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Bush has one job, try to right the ship that Clinton and friends tried to sink!

It is a huge job, includes fighting the terrorists and getting the country back to work !

The Stock Market will follow if he can show progress.

[Don Myers]

"Why? Because he has never stated that."

Words are just words. His actions are what counts. Can you answer the question? I am really interested in this matter. You seem to have this inside track on President Bush.

[MissAmericanPie]

Ha, he is the only Republican taking any kind of a conservative stance in the whole lot. He should milk the issue it's full of milk and moooing pitifully to be relieved.

He's every bit as capable as GB to be President and not nearly as appeasing. If he goes to the compromise table with demoncrats he will come away with a piece for conservatives. It's one thing to compromise another to cave. I don't think Bush is unintelligent, I think he's evil and I think he has an evil agenda, especially in regards to the Republican Party and it's conservative base.

[Pyro7480]

That, combined with congressional Republicans having little to no backbone, have given the Democrats way too much power over the government, particularly in the judicial nominee department. If the Republicans lose few of their seats in the House, or gain seats in both houses of Congress, that will vindicate Bush's performance as president, and demonstrate the voting public trusts the Republicans with their big issues (mainly terrorism and homeland security).

[carpio]

Who in the Republican party do you think has what it takes to take the nomination away from the President?

Sadly enough, nobody. But we can always pray that these times of crisis will bring a giant to the stage from off in the wings.

What do you honestly think of Bush? Do you truly think I am full of beans on 1 through 6 and #8 ??

And btw # 8 is the worst and most dangerous from my perspective.

[rwfromkansas]

How did we cave on the UN court?

Answer after considering the following:

1. We are not a party to the court THANKS TO BUSH and thus, immune from prosecution.

2. We now have a year to try to settle the dispute over peacekeeping (if our proposal is accepted) without having to worry about the unlikely event that some prosecutor will dare try a U.S. military officer. The chance of some overzealous prosecutor actually having the gall to try to prosecute a soldier of a country that is not a party to the court.....especially the U.S.....is extremely unlikely.

3. We have the option to extend the period of immunity if the dispute is not resolved in our favor.

Now, certainly we are being less heavy-handed. But, that does not mean we have caved. It means our strategy has changed. But, I dare you to show me where we are now saying we don't care about our sovereignty and don't want immunity. WE WANT IMMUNITY, but are going to propose it for a shorter period of time so we can hopefully get it to where they will grant permanent immunity before the year is up.