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

[Cultural Jihad]

however these are volatile fast moving times
if the Libertarians can ever get their act together
and stop their defeatist attitude
I think they have a shot at winning
cause most people love freedom

And every bi-polar ideologue communist is just as convinced that the revolution is either just around the corner, when the bourgeois doctors and shopkeepers will be summarily lined up and shot by the freedom-loving proletariat, or else the fascist capitalist state is on the very verge of total and eternal repression. Sheesh.

[RipSawyer]

My own father used to have a favorite joke about a young fellow who went away to school far away and when he came back a few years later someone asked if he had learned a lot. His reply was, "I didn't learn much at all but when I got home and had a chance to sit down and talk with Dad it was amazing how much he learned while I was away."

[Samwise]

GW, will be remembered in 60 years, as the President that started the still ongoing war against terrorism.

You seem to forget those pilots who flew airplanes into a few American landmarks. As long as we have criminals, we'll have crime. As long as they continue to breed, we'll have terrorists. I'm not yet willing to advocate genocide. Are you?

[justshutupandtakeit]

12.

Bush is the most conservative electable president. This is NOT a conservative country and those who believe it is are just fooling themselves. Since the electorate is not conservative it will not elect anyone who is too upfront or too extreme rhetorically conservative.

Bush is an honest and moral man and if we allow one to supplant him who is not the nation's slide into depravity and corruption will accellerate to the hurt of us all.

If we want to elect more conservative people we need first of all to destroy the impact of the media on the sheeple. With it poisoning their minds there is little hope of the truth springing up and being encouraged. The power to trumpet Lies unchallenged gives the Evil Ones enormous destructive ability.

[Brian Allen]

Yep.

Gentlemen: - Our Beloved FRaternal Republic has a President!

[vannrox]

To accomplish what is required to reverse decades (at least 1/2 century worth) of failed policies and Liberal misdirection, The President needs to have support in the Senate and in COngress. This election is critical. If he can get the support, (win all the houses) then he has a small window of opportunity to push agressive conservative agenda.

If this occurs and if he immediately moves towards this goal, then not only will he be reelected, but he will be remembered in the history books as one of the greatest presidents that ever lived.

[TADSLOS]

#12

GW has real talent at team building on both sides of the aisle. We need that kind of leadership, especially now. He portrays a calm determination during these very tenous times, has focus and knows how to "play poker" at the political card table. He's not the ultra-conservative that liberals whine of, nor is he the one world, left leaning east coast bred elitist that some make him out to be. In short, he's the Red Zone President. He's unpretentious and genuine. He actually lives by the family values he espouses, and, would be just as happy living on the ranch as he would running the country (probably even more so).

I believe GW will win re-election and that the election results will be substantially in his favor. Given the extreme situation that has landed in his lap, I believe he is tracking fairly well on the issues he ran on to get elected. Yes there have been hiccups and disappointments. The democratic "leadership" is fighting him at every turn and that is to be expected. We need to win back the Senate and bolster the House in order to give GW the political power to make the judicial appointments and tax relief changes become reality. That's the 25 meter target.

Aside from that, I'm just proud to have a real man sitting at the desk in the oval office who is emotionally and intellectually mature and truly believes that God is his master. That alone is enough for me.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Number 8...will vote for him again. BTW...worth repeating...

From what I've seen and heard, there's a LOT of armchair politicians on FR. They expound their theories and pound the pulpit of self-righteousness; reality and the process of law do not concern them.

[lonestar]

Part 2, why does it have to be a Democrat? Jesse Ventura got elected on an Independent ticket.

You don't learn from mistakes?????

[Samwise]

The DNC is within one presidential election of tipping this country into the socialist column. Bush is once again walking a tight rope over a sea of sharks. This is no longer a political issue this is the future of this country.

You are so right.

[lonestar]

He's not instituting any laws or reforms that will make it harder to cook the books.

So, you're one of those who think that when laws are broken, more laws (to break eventually) will make things better?

I think the laws we have should be enforced to the full extent.

[Don Myers]

Are you a supporter of no borders for the US? Do you think that we should let the entire world move in next door?

[cardinal4]

Jim,after 8 years of the Xlinton occupation, W can do no wrong in my book. I will reserve criticism until his second term.(Awaiting the flames). I just wish he would fight back against the foolis,untrue and childish attacks coming from Hillary,Daschle and the rest of the socialists.

[bvw]

I agree with (4) "Is a federal power-grabber" who has appointed liberal judges. Sixty thousand sky marshalls, federal money here federal money there, tarrifs, the election campaign free speech limits, more (not less) regulation of what should be a free stock market -- that's all More Federal Power unrelated to the war. Now also, however, the President has reduced some things directly and indirectly -- allowing for privatizing the air lanes, moving the TSA out of the FAA, many of the lateral moves of the proposed new Homeland Security could be set-ups for reductions of long-established federal castles.

As to (5) "Will the President appoint liberal judges" -- I don't think he will be doing that, exceptions maybe, but I think he will be staffing the bench towards the constructionist side. But he did appoint those Clinton leftovers early on.

Regarding Israel he has done a good job, but I detest those calls to reduce the "settlements" and stop further ones.

Of course I would vote for Bush, he has been a very good president so far. I am more concerned with the Senators and the lack of turnover, the lack of freshness, the staleness and entrenchment in the Beltway and the Senatorial Courteseans, the mind-numbing and soul-deadening Federal bureaucracy.

[HardStarboard]

>>>1) I see him as shallow and unintelligent.<<<

Read "Mark Steyn: Bush pulls it off again" posted here on FR or at The Spectator in the UK! You might learn something if your educable.

[Amelia]

Then I take it you havn't read this? I said when he ok'ed funding that he left a crack in the door, and that he knew full well he did. Now they have graduated to cells from the fetus and he is funding it. Check out this thread.

U.S. quietly OKs fetal stem cell work - Bush allows funding despite federal limits on embryo use"

Obviously YOU didn't read it either -- or else you'd know that

(1) the headline is totally misleading

(2) Bush had nothing to do with it and was only given a "heads-up" after the grant was already approved

(3) The grant was approved by the Clinton-appointed acting director of NIH on her very last day

(4) According to a 1993 law, Bush couldn't have blocked the funding anyway

Nice try, though. (I took the liberty of making your link clickable)

[Samwise]

So, you're one of those who think that when laws are broken, more laws (to break eventually) will make things better?

Interesting logic, isn't it? The solution to broken laws is more legislation. Sure worked with crime; sure worked with drugs; sure worked with campaign finance; sure it'll work with crooked CEOs. LOL

[palo verde]

Hi CJ
you have a point
my friend is running on Libertarian Party for state senator in Tucson
she swims at pool with me and looks so cute in her red white and blue binkini with stars on it
I suggested she use pic of herself in bikini for bumper sticker
she told her campaign manger who said ''we are Libertarians, we never win an election''
unless the Libertarian Party changes this attitude, they will never win a thing
they are bold thinkers, but you need bold action to succed in anything
winning elections is not for the timid
Love, Palo

[rdb3]

Your critiques sound like they come straight from the DNC.

[Samwise]

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.

Elaborate please.