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

[B. A. Conservative]

"who won the last Presidential election?"

Bush did not win the election; Gore lost. Gore got over a million more votes than Bush. We can thank Ralph Nader for defeating Gore, not Bush.

Without very strong conservative support, Bush will have no chance in 2004. If the market continues to crash, Bush's chances of re-election will follow the market.

And with the exception of the War on Terrorism, I would ask what real difference Bush's election has made in the legislative agenda that has been passed. I would proffer that Republican might have actually put up considerably more opposition to CFR if Gore were in the Whitehouse. I will even be so bold to suggest that it could not have been passed if Gore had won. I don't think Gore would have been bold enough to impose tariffs on steel and lumbar. He would not have needed to do this to keep the union vote in two critical states. There may be others, but it is late and I'm exhausted.

[wardaddy]

Amen....

[MJY1288]

Just 300 more post and BAC might get around to answering my question :-)

[WDG55513]

8

[B. A. Conservative]

"It's the will of the majority that decides in this Republic."

No! No! No! A thousand times NO!

You are confusing a democracy with our Constitutional Republic. That is the root of the problem. The Democrats were able to subvert the Constitution through Unconstitutional laws and corrupt justices who sustained them. The beauty of the Constitution is that it took an amendment to take away our individual rights or to grant power to the federal government. It is very difficult to amend the Constitution. So difficult in fact, there is some controversy over the legalities of some the amendments passed afer the Bill of Rights. For example, there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to have enacted Social Security. And Roosevelt and the Democrats knew they could have not gotten the Constitution amended to allow it. So they did an end run around the Constitution. Virtually all of the socialists' agenda has been an end run around the Constitution. Franklin anticipated this problem. When asked what kind of government the framers had given the country, he tersely replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

As for your other question about the who to replace Bush. I answered that in another reply somewhere else on the thread. I think there are several conservatives who have sought the nomination that would be superior to Bush. Forbes and Keyes are easy choices. They were unable to defeat Bush in the primaries in the last go around. Who knows, conditions might be more favorable for them in 2004. Ron Paul is the best of the current crop of Republican office holders. Gramm might have made a wonderful president. But my personal choice is Rush. Rush, if he will try, can beat Bush for the nomination. And Rush would blow the Democrats not out the water, but off the planet. I hope that I am wrong, but it is my opinion that the United States is doomed. And as hopeless as it may sound, I think Rush may be the only man who can save it. Excellence in Golf can provide him the financial means.

[MJY1288]

I understand your position, but I'm not confusing a democracy with our constitutional republic. I am quite aware of the difference. In the real world it takes a majority of the electorial votes to win a normal election for the presidency. I also takes a majority of votes from both houses of Congress to present a piece of legislation for the executive to sign or veto, it takes a supr majority to overide a Presidential veto. So that leads me to the next question I aked you about who will beat Bush in 2004 "if he doesn't move far to the right" ?

[MJY1288]

BTW, Rush Limbaugh has as much chance of being elected to the presidency as "Calypso Louie" Farrakhan. For Pete’s sake the man is an entertainer. I like Limbaugh's philosophy and agree with his opinions on many issues, but to be successful in moving the country in the direction a president wishes, takes a good bit of political skills and incredible management abilities, not some Monday morning quarterback that has spent his whole life critiquing the moves and decisions of others.

I appreciate your examples of what would make our conservative dreams come true, but I think you should consider sharing your thoughts with a professional that can help you return to Earth

[B. A. Conservative]

Are you hiding?

I have only finished about a third of the thread. The people who frequent this forum should be among the strongest supporters of Bush that there are in the country. They are anything but Bush Haters. But you didn't have to read very many replies to recognize the disappointment that we all feel. The very fact that you posted the poll and the questions posed are evidence that you recognize the problem and the symptoms.

And Bush is only symbolic of the problem facing the Republicans. This forum represent the die-hard corps conservatives, the ground-glass Republicans. Remember them? How many ground glass Republicans do you think are left? How many of the current crop of Republicans would be worth it?

Look at the threads that I have posted or that I have posted on over the past several months. How many times have I posted what I believe is the fate of the United States? Have you counted the times anyone has taken serious issue with my prophecy? Could it be that many recognize that it may well turn out to be correct? And perhaps, the biggest tragedy is that I might not. There maybe so few freedom loving independent people that secession will not occur and the serfs will just dwindle into nothingness.

I have offered one proposed solution. There may be others that have been offered. Dale offered to set up a poll. I propose that we gather all the proposed solutions that have been, or that are offered in the future, and post them to a thread of their own as a poll. I would suggest that the poll be set up so that respondants can vote for a) b) c) or etc.

I think we have reached a stage in the evolution of our country where who is elected is not making nearly as much difference as it should. And if I am right, it is much worse than that. If we don't make a significant difference soon, it might not matter at all.

You launched FreeRepublic for all the right reasons. So far, we have had one success; we led the fight to impeach Clinton. But we have not made a measurable dent in what should be our most important priority, restoring our Constitutional Republic.

Now, FreeRepublic has grown large enough and has a loud enough voice to make a difference. America passed the crossroads along time ago and it took the wrong turn. There is a cliff dead ahead and we are picking up speed, not slowing down or turning around. I think it is time for all Freepers to stand up and make a difference. We may never have another chance.

[Texasforever]

I think you may be a bit over emotional. You are not Paul Revere

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

But you didn't have to read very many replies to recognize the disappointment that we all feel.

Speak for yourself.

[Sabertooth]

Please show me a DIRECT quote where he was pushing for any type of blanket amnesty?

This has been tried so many times... not all Amnesties are blanket Amnesties, just as not all pardons are unconditional pardons.

For the record, I have never suggested that President Bush supports a blanket Amnesty. But not supporting blanket Amnesty is meaningless. If there are 10 million Illegals in the country, then an Amnesty for 999,999 is not a blanket Amnesty. Big deal.

"Not a blanket Amnesty, therefore not an Amnesty" is like saying that President Clinton didn't have sex with Monica. It's pure hairsplitting.

245i was an extension of an existing regulation and was not introduced by the President. Now as much as you would like to crucify him for something that never happened, I find it useless to debate about something that never happened.

To say that nothing happened here is inaccurate.

245(i) wasn't an extension of existing legislation, it was an attempt to revive an expired Clinton program. It wasn't existing, it was dead.

The attempt to revive the Section 245(i) Amnesty program was introduced at President Bush's behest, at the last minute, as a rider on the Homeland Defense bill. The White House lobbied hard for it, and won in the House, only to see the provison deleted from the Senate version. When he signed the bill, the President said he wished that the Section 245(i) extension was still in it.

That actually is what happened... a far cry from "nothing happened."

I find it uneccessary to hold Bush responsible for something he didn't create, and since you have said 245i was defeated, I don't see why this is even an issue. We could debate till the cows come home over things that could of happened.

Fallacy of false distinction...

If Joe Blow carves a turkey with a knife, who is responsible for the drumstick on your plate? Joe? But he didn't create the knife, and he didn't create the turkey.

Kinda silly, huh?

No one's holding President Bush responsible for creating Section 245(i), Clinton and the Democrats did that.

However, by his actions, President Bush is responsible for attempting to revive the expired Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Code.

I don't understand your resistance to this.

I don't understand why you continue beating a dead horse, but I'm a pretty patient person and usually keep my cool, but debating over water under the bridge is like spinning wheels in reverse while more important issues are at hand.

The horse isn't dead, Daschle and the Democrats are trying to revive Section 245(i) even now. There's already been one other attempt to revive it since Bush's defeat, but it was defeated in a House Committee in May.

If a stand-alone Section 245(i) extension passed Congress today, do you really think President Bush would veto it? He hasn't vetoed anything else.

I guess I understand why you don't think Illegals are an important problem, living in Maryland. But it's a big problem here in California, as you can see from the links I posted at #1,115.

And it's not just a California problem, because we're just to big to ignore. I see from your posts on this thread that winning elections is important to you. Have you wondered why California was such a GOP stronghold through 1988, and now it's such a Democrat lock that Gore didn't even campaign here in 2000, and still won by a million votes?

One huge answer is the rampant, unabated invasion of Illegals. Orange County used to be so strongly Republican that it had more than enough votes to overwhelm Democrat bastions in Los Angeles and the Bay Area. My brother still lives there. But they've been inundated by Illegals and many of the Republicans have moved out.

Now you can no longer count on the jewel in the Electoral College crown... is that important to you? Do you want to see that repeated elsewhere, over the long haul? How about Texas?

Can the GOP afford to spot the Democrats California and New York, and leave Florida and Texas as toss-up states?

There are other reasons why combatting Illegals is important, like respect for the rule of law, their high crime, drain on our resources, depression of wages, and erosion of our communities, among others... but I wanted to offer you something that would appeal to you.

[MJY1288]

Well, I would like to continue this debate on "IF's" and "Coulda woulda shoulda's" but I see it as a waste of time. I agree with you on the immigration issue, I sent many emails to everyone I could, I made many phone calls to my represenatives in the house and senate, and solicited the members of the Local Business Association I am a board member of to do the same, and thankfully it didn't get out of the House committee or I would of had to petition the white house also.

but debating this 245i corpse with you is a waste of our time. I am your side my friend, I just to choose to vent my concerns in a more constructive way. If and when this issue is ever brought up again, I will repeat my efforts in the past. It's the only way I know to make a difference.

I also like to step back from my own personal expectations and consider the realistic obstacles the president faces when he is trying to change the coarse of this nation and consider myself lucky if any of my hopes for change becomes reality. I also know that if we don't defeat the democrats nobody else will, As much as some of the dreamers here want to believe their "True Conservative" electable candidate will somehow appear out of thin air and answer their dreams, It will never happen. I am certain the only threat conservatives face in the next few years is to self destruct and allow the RATS to regain control of the executive branch.

No Conservative like Alan Keyes or Pat Bucannan have a chance of being elected in these times when the liberals control the noise coming out of the idiot box we call a TV. So we have to vote for electable candidates that might not fullfil all of our wishes, but has the political skills to keep the democrats at bay. I like the direction George W. Bush is taking us and I am extremely happy with his strong stand against the U.N.

The accountability he has insisted on in his legislative proposals helps me deal with some of the excessive government spending. But I refuse to condemn this man and see a RAT elected in 2004, and I pray we can gain control of the Senate and keep the House so we can see what he can do with support from both houses in his second term.

I also believe GWB has our best interest in mind, and much like the liberals in the press has underestimated him, so have many here. I've seen first hand the damage the liberals have done to this country and I've seen how they operate. They are the enemy, not any policy or stinking Bill GWB signs. I don't care what GWB has to do to get re-elected, I have faith he will change the coarse of this country for the better, we just have to give him the chance.

[MJY1288]

I need some help from you all, Sabertooth has worn me out and I need to get some rest :-)

Actually I have enjoyed debating with Sabertooth and appreciate his civil responses, I'm an old man and get cranky when I get tired so I want someone to keep him company while this "right coast" old fart gets some sleep :-)

Good Night Sabertooth, you have radically changed my opinion of you, and if I ever get the chance I will buy you a beer, But that has to come after I buy one for Texasforever, I have owed him one for a while now !!

Goodnight all

[MinorityRepublican]

And it's not just a California problem, because we're just to big to ignore. I see from your posts on this thread that winning elections is important to you. Have you wondered why California was such a GOP stronghold through 1988, and now it's such a Democrat lock that Gore didn't even campaign here in 2000, and still won by a million votes?

Agreed, and the problem will only get worse IMHO.

Can the GOP afford to spot the Democrats California and New York, and leave Florida and Texas as toss-up states?

It's probably too late. In ten years, Texans and Florida will be as strongly democratic as California. Unless we deport illegals overnight, there's not much we can do to change that fate. Sure President Bush might win reelection in 2004, but will Conservatives seriously have a chance in the future? Reality sucks.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Great post PsyOp! I agree.

[B. A. Conservative]

"the man is an entertainer"

So was Reagan.

"....but to be successful in moving the country in the direction a president wishes, takes a good bit of political skills and incredible management abilities.."

If there is a fatal flaw in the Constitution, and our present course and current dilemma tends to confirm that there is, the fatal flaw is that there are no term limits for members of Congress and in paricular for the federal judiciary. This has allowed our government to be usurped by a political and judicial class that over time has corrupted much of the Constitution. That is the reason we are having this very discussion. The political class is only interested in remaining in office so that they can retain the reigns of power. You are dead wrong. To move the country in the right direction takes only unwaivering principled integrity, character, courage and conviction. It is the lack of some of these traits that makes Bush a loser. And you missed the point of my answer. If the market continues it's crash, it is not going to matter who the Democrats nominate in 2004; Bush will lose. And yes I am suggesting that if Rush could not win the Republican nomination in 2004, there is still every reason to believe that Rush could still beat Bush as a third party candidate in the election. And if Rush could be persuaded to run and didn't win the nomination or the election, that would be a clear message that the United States is doomed. And the sooner secession could begin the sooner some of us will begin to enjoy freedom again. The mob would be in control of the US and there will no parachutes as they go over the cliff between 2012 and 2016.

[B. A. Conservative]

Consider this as one way of raising the bar.

[Howlin]

Gee, thanks for setting me straight. All this time I was positive that the Electoral College elected the president, not the POPULAR vote.

[B. A. Conservative]

I think conservatives are taking the wrong approach on the prolife issue. Conservatives want to use the power of government, that is the ability to write and enforce law, to take away something that many people consider a fundamental right. I do not want to disrupt this thread with this debate and would prefer to table it until sometime in the future. If you go back far enough in my prior posts or replies, you will find my thinking behind my statement.

But I do want to make something clear to conservatives, we have been losing many elections on one fundamental underlying premise that conservatives telegraph to voters. Socialists want to use government as a means to power by redistributing the wealth created by producers to the non or less productive. Conservatives want to use the power of government to impose their own moral standards. Legislating moral standards does not impose those standards on the intended parties, it corrupts the government and everyone involved. Legislating morality maybe possible, but it is impossible to make it work. Believeing that you can use government to impose your own values is not very different from why we despise Democrats for being the socialists that they are.

[B. A. Conservative]

You sound like a cheer leader trying to bolster his or her own lack of conviction.