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

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I think Germany tried that 3rd party thing a few years back. It didn't pan out so well.

[Amelia]

After the dumb questions you kept asking it was apparent that it was you that didn't read the article.

The only question in my post is where I quoted you.

Bush's policy barred the use of federal grants for research on stem cells taken from embryos...But that restriction does not apply to research on stem cells obtained from fetuses, according to officials at the National Institutes of Health...He could have banned funding, he didn't.

Did you miss this part of the article?

Because of a discrepancy in regulations, stem cells taken from fetuses are subject to different rules than similar cells from embryos. In fact, the cells derived from fetuses may qualify for a broader range of federal funds, government experts said.

The law that prevented President Bush from stopping the funding was posted here. I guess you missed that one.

Several FReepers have suggested we need to work to get the law overturned. IMO, you're complaining about the wrong president -- remember, Congress passes laws, Clinton signed that one into law. It needs to be changed, but President Bush is not to blame for it - and I don't think the situation would be better right now if Gore had been elected, do you?

As far as his being "unaware" here is more.

"In another rare step for a relatively small grant application, NIH officials notified the White House staff when Gearhart's proposal was approved, said administration spokesman Scott McClellan."

I think I said they told the President after it was done. There is absolutely nothing in the article that suggests that President Bush either had any foreknowledge of the grant, or that he personally approved it, as the headline suggests.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

He can't "revise them" as you suggest. Doink. Next, please.

[Howlin]

However, realistically,

Now why'd you want to go and bring THAT into this? :-)

[sandydipper]

#1 and #10

[Amelia]

He does not abide by the party platform (instead of defunding Dept of Education he boosted it etc). As Presidential candidate and Party leader he should change the platform BEFORE an election. How else can we really know his philosophy.

I believe one of his major campaign points involved intensive federal involvement in the Department of Education. Where were you during the election?

[Geezerette]

Please chalk up another vote for Tom Tancredo. He came here to Arizona to check out the incident of Mexican soldiers and/or drug runners shooting at our Border Patrol up to five miles inside of our side of the border.

Thanks.

g

[rb22982]

Not conservative enough
Yep, he's barely to the right of clinton on most issues (far to the right of gore however), although he's at least more honest, not a traitor selling secrets, nor boning the latest intern which is a big plus.
Not pro-life
He's pro life, he just wont take a hard line stance on it.
Is a gun-grabber
No more than the rest of them
Is a federal power-grabber
yes
Will appoint liberal judges
Probably not, in fact if he does well on this for any USSC appointees I may even vote for him if i dont like the LP and CP pres nominees.
Is a globalist
Yup, although much less than clinton--at least in comparison to our founding fathers
Is in it just for oil
hmm dont think so
Is too soft on immigration
ok with this one
Is too soft (or too hard) on Israel
Waiting to see how this one develops.
Is a crook
nah
state whether you believe that President Bush should be defeated even if it means installing a Democrat in the Whitehouse.
Well I have the luxury of being in NC, odds are it won't be very close here anyway.
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.
Keyes, LP or CP nominee, and no chance in h*ll

[concerned about politics]

I believe one of his major campaign points involved intensive federal involvement in the Department of Education. Where were you during the election?

Every time Bush supports a socialist plan, someone comes on and says "He said that during his campaign (if you read between the lines!)."
Next time, beware the meaning of the word "is."
If they don't come right out and say what they really mean, for or against, no "ifs" or "buts", force it or don't vote for them!
I'm really getting anoyed with political "is" type deceit. Honesty is a better policy.

[phil1750]

#1 and #8. BUT, the alternatives were still undesireable, and anything is better than clintoon.

[habs4ever]

Bush is a superb, courageous leader, who has broad support and trust not just at home but with America's allies.They can see an honest, straightforward and practical man, who puts the interests of his nation ahead of satisfying his ego.

Maybe I don't care about the details as much as others on FR, but if the POTUS has a vision, can gather broad support for it, is liked and respected, and can LEAD, well, what more can I expect in a President? He is only a man, with a short time in office.

[Sabertooth]

President Bush should be re-elected because the viable alternative is worse. In the meantime, we have to do what we can to change the hearts and minds of the people.

I would suggest that some effort be expended changing the heart and mind of President Bush.

For example, look at all of the replies here taking issue with the President on #8. I'd rather not see the subject of immigration policy be an Achilles' Heel for him, how about you?

[Rainmist]

I love George Bush.
He's the best thing we've had since Reagan.
He should be re-elected because I don't want to see another DemoRat in the White House. Ever.
Bush should win in 2004.
He has an excellent chance to be re-elected.

Can you tell I love GW ? LOL

[Amelia]

Every time Bush supports a socialist plan, someone comes on and says "He said that during his campaign (if you read between the lines!)."

You didn't even have to read between the lines. The education plan was one of his major campaign points, and either you don't remember that, or you're not being honest.

[Nogbad]

I like George Bush.
Hope I get a Brownie point or two for that.

[Huck]

I would suggest that some effort be expended changing the heart and mind of President Bush.

My sense is that by changing the minds of the people, you create a voting block will then have an effect on whoever is in office. GW will be gone, but the voters will remain. That is why I place a higher priority there. But you are right. We should let our voices be heard. If people believe strongly about immigration policy, they should let the President know it.

[Geezerette]

Two illegals were found dead in the Arizona desert the last few days. A third one survived, but is in critical condition and is now being treated in one of the hospitals on the American side.

These were dropped off in the desert by the "coyotes" you referred to ... Mexicans who charge these unfortunate people high prices to get over here and are then dumped off in the desert or on the highways.

g

[RedBloodedAmerican]

And a devout christian. What I thought in the past is driven home recently; not all conservatives are christians, and many who claim to be to the "right" of GW are not as well. How silly of me to have thought so. Guess it was old habitual thoughts keeping me there. GW placed in our leadership is an answer to 8 years of prayers during the CLintons and longer for godlyleadership in our Country.