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

[carenot]

If enough people in your area are complaining about the guy and thing he may be losing is ability to win elections or is somehow damaging the party, they may be inclined to put pressure on him to straighten up.

But if he keeps getting the votes, why should he straghten up?

He can get the Republicans and the Democrats to vote for him.

He is a Republican, so let's all vote for him. Never mind that he votes with the Dems. He has R after his name.

[PsyOp]

"He is a Republican, so let's all vote for him. Never mind that he votes with the Dems. He has R after his name."

I did say that is the one instance I could justify not voting for a particular candidate. But I would first take a look and see what his voting record was under, say, a republican majority. Some pols simply vote with the majority. But If you are in a state (assuming that we are talking state level here), where one vote in the legislature, more or less, will not make a difference, toss him out.

In Jeffords case, he rarely voted Republican even when we had the majority, so there was little loss, except for the fact that it turned the senate over to Daschle. All of these things have to be weighed of course.

The main point I have been trying to make is that we must not continue to be single issue voters, such as when a perfectly healthy conservative who may be less 100% anti-abortion, or who may take a libertarian view on drugs, runs (or vice-versa).

There are instances where voting a straight party ticket may not be best. Just let the decision be well considered, and take all the pros and cons into accout, rather than a simple knee-jerk.

We constantly accuse Dems of being the party of political correctness - for good reason. We won't beat them by exercising our own form of political correctness. If we cannot vote for people in this party because we disagree with them on one or two issues, then we might as well hang it up. We need be smarter than the Dems.

[EternalVigilance]

Glad someone was listening.

B.A. Liberal surely wasn't...judging from the FReepmail he sent me.

Thanks...pro-life BUMP backatcha.

[Fish out of Water]

The Republican who lost the Congressional race in large part do to running such an inept campaign is now the State Party Chairman recruiting and aiding other Republicans in running their campaigns. Apart from aiding a few local candidates who may have a chance the State party is worthless and has essentially surrendered to the Democrats.

[Springman]

PsyOp, thanks for the ping. I had to think for a couple of days. I just wish Pres. Bush would let loose on the Rats, I know he can't becaue of the war and the stockmarket being in the outhouse. As for national elections,"I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A RAT!!" But where I live, no Repub. will be elected,
Sen. Levin and Rep. Levin.

[Robert_Paulson2]

on the otherhand.... split governments gets little accomplished, a really big plus in MY view. The less they get done, the better I like it.

the less they take from my bank, my property and my family time.

Except for providing for the common defense (their LAST priority until 911) I would be happy to see the entire thing turned WAY back to about 1850's style involvement in our lives and communities.

Between all the various WARS we have going on against undeclared impersonal "boogey man" entities such as , poverty, drugs, guns, illiteracy, sexism and such, there remains NO area of life THEY have not pontificated to us in the form of "thus saith the law." Laws they pass for us, while they are largely exempt through their office or specialized knowledge.

And MOST of what they are now regulating through massive perversion of the "commerce clause" exceeds the most debauched imaginings we could ever have regarding the failed Clinton administration and its perversion of all we hold dear.

The only difference between dems and pubs is the rate at which they are hoping to expand the role of government in our lives. Dems are liberal in their wholesale adoption of federal and state socialist programs. Republicans are conservative about the RATE of adopting the very same issues of controlling citizens.

Socialist statism is evil, no matter who espouses it.
Splitting tickets insures us against speedy adoption of the statist path we are already on.

YOU can do what you want... I vote for crippled government.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Ooooh man! You've released a Pandora's Box in here! I like Bush for the most part, even though I voted for Keyes in the Delaware primary. I also take issue with several of his stands, most notably the stem-cell reseach decision, CFR, and support for a Palestinian state. But I can't complain too much, since he is WAY better than Gore would have been. People need to think back about how Gore would have reacted to the terrorists attacks on September 11th. Things would have been A LOT worse if he had to make the big shots.

I agree with every word in this post (except that I live in Florida), so there is no point in me adding anything except:

Hear, Hear!!

[B. A. Conservative]

"In the end, this is the only thing that matters: VICTORY."

Do the words "Empty" or "Hollow" have any place in your victory/head?

[B. A. Conservative]

"..politics is a numbers game."

It is also a leadership game. Reagan was one man against a Democratic Congress that was filibuster proof in the Senate for awhile. Newt was one man, but his leadership gave us the Contract with America and what was essentially the first Republican congress in a generation and one of two in seventy years. Electing spineless Republicans or RINOS who vote with Democrats is so little different from a Democratically controlled Congress that Republicans and the electorate mount more opposition to socialism when they are out of power than they are doing while in power. I suspect the Democrats are better off in the present situation than any other possible circumstance. They are getting more of their agenda passed than they could pass themselves and they can still block all of Bush's judicial appointments and many of his administrative appointments if he ever decides to replace Clinton's appointees with whom he seems perfectly satisfied.

Since there is an increasing probability that Bush will be a one termer, he may not get a single Supreme Court Justice appointment confirmed and on the court.

[rdb3]

Do the words "reality" and "pragmatic" have any place in yours?

Let's keep playing the dozens. I like this game!

[colorado tanker]

"Tariffs played a key role in causing the last depression. We are now well on the way to the next depression. Bush and Republicans are inflicting death by a thousand cuts on the United States. By my reckoning we are at about cut 950. We will see a thousand before 2016, when the dollar is worthless and the US goes over the cliff of the financial abyss."

Sorry to burst your bubble but the steel tariffs are already being rolled back in exchange for european concessions on some of their protectionist measures. The US tariffs were a bargaining chip. It's hard to get other countries to deal on trade if you unilaterally disarm.

[RLK]

...providing Hillary with free well-connected top government lawyers to defend her against well-deserved criminal charges. ???? Elaborate.

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

It was posted in the news here about 1 1/2 to two months ago. It made a number of people here furious. You'll have to do a search and find it.

[farmfriend]

I support Bush over all but do have problems with the creation of a new cabinet post and the regulating of CEOs. I do wish that those of us who have minor problems with some of his policies would not get bashed as if we were Bush haters or traitors.

[RLK]

"Bush lacks a thorough grasp of economics and particularly the movement of principle industries to China." ???? The man has an MBA..from Harvard!....

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

Both the Clintons have doctorates from Yale. Alan Dershwitz teaches at Harvard. As far as I'm concerned an advanced degree from many left wing universities is a stigmata which a person needs to prove he has overcome in order to be found acceptable. Additionally, as far as I'm concerned, and MBA degree is a useless degree given out to half the clucks in the country and is suitable for wiping one's behind.

[B. A. Conservative]

"Sorry to burst your bubble but the steel tariffs are already being rolled back in exchange for european concessions on some of their protectionist measures. The US tariffs were a bargaining chip. It's hard to get other countries to deal on trade if you unilaterally disarm."

I hope you are correct. I have not seen a reference to the roll back. I have seen several articles where Euroland and Japan were making preparations for retaliation. I also remain perplexed about the tariffs on Canadian lumber. What bargaining chip are we playing with Canada which is part of NAFTA?

[colorado tanker]

Well, you got me on Canadian lumber. So far as I can tell we are just being protectionist, which is driving up the price to consumers.

[brat]

"Jim has called them on the carpet with this thread, and they can't give reason for why they are trashing Bush as they are"

You must be blind. This thread is FULL of reasons why we're questioning Bush. Its you Bots that can't give a reason why you overlook all Bush's zits!

[brat]

"Are you having a little trouble staying away from personal attacks, Deb?"

No. She's just being a typical Bot. They are vicious, nasty people by and large and I for one am sick of them.

[brat]

"I don't think I've ever met this mythical 'single-issue' person anywhere."

Nor have I. I think they use the line to keep from facing the fact that there are MANY issues that Bush is failing on. If they keep saying it, just maybe they'll believe it.

[exodus]

To: exodus
“… She's just being a typical Bot.
They are vicious, nasty people by and large and I for one am sick of them.
# 1418 by brat

*************************

Me too, brat.