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

[ClancyJ]

but his ACTIONS demonstrate he really doesn't give a darn about the lives of millions of innocent babies.

And just where did you get this idea from a man who is against abortion, who has taken steps to end government funding of foreign abortions, who made his decision on stem cell use because he did not want babies used for body parts and from a man who will try and appoint anti-abortion judges if possible?

Either you don't even know anything about this man or you are trying to pull something with lies.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Or she doesnt even know the facts about it, either out of believing anti-Bush info, wrong info on the abortion debate, or...by choice? Who knows. Maybe she is a lib making Pro-lifers look bad on here (thats my guess).

[Japedo]

1)Not conservative enough : I do Wish he'd Take a more Hard-line Constitutional Stand. I prefer to See Government Shrink as compared to Grow. While I will Admit he's done some good in a Few Area's There are many area's I wish he'd pay more attention to. I will also Admit he's much better then Gore or McCain, But in the same note, I'd Wish he'd pander to the left a LOT less.
2)Not pro-life : I believe He himself is Pro-life,and also takes that stand. I know some will argue with the Recent Stem-cell funding. (I personally don't think this should be a government Issue one way or the other.)
3)Is a gun-grabber: NO, I do not Find him to be a gun-grabber, But will have to wait and see. This Issue I'm not certain about yet.
4)Is a federal power-grabber : I will have to Answer YES to this, My reason U.S.A. Patriot Act. This Also being said, The Sun-set Clause doesn't cover some of the most dangerous things about the Patriot act, That also doesn't sit right with me.
5)Will appoint liberal judges Not sure about this One, I so far have Faith he will appoint Constitutionalist. He's given me no reason to think otherwise as of yet.
6)Is a globalist : Wile I praise his stand with the Recent UN demands, I also see him handing our tax money to other nations, Such as Africa... I also don't agree with Nation building, As I was under the Impression he was against that also when he was campaigning.
7)Is in it just for oil : NO, I do not believe this, I hope he pushes Drilling in America!!!
8)Is too soft on immigration : To soft? LOL I don't think an Immigration issue even exists with President Bush. This is a HUGE BEE in my bonnet. This Issue in particular bothers Me greatly. I would Like to know why he keep's talking about our Way of life and wants to preserve it, and at the same time turns a blind eye to the Major thing that is destroying it. It effects our Taxes, Our Crime, And yes.. even our Safety, Perhaps not Safety in the sense as Personal Safety, But safety in the sense to Preserve this Nation as It was intended. Illegals are given Special treatment, and American's suffer for it. This is one of my Hot-button Issues by far.
9)Is too soft (or too hard) on Israel : Well, He Needs to Let Israel do what ever needs to be done. He needs not talk about a Palestine nation. He Must understand that as of now, The Palestinians are "with the terrorist" and treat them as such, no trying to see this situation thru rose colored glasses. He either needs to 100% back Israel, or Not comment at all. (IMHO)
10)Is a crook : I do not believe this of him, I believe as a Person, he is a man of Integrity, And is above Board. There is no evidence to even remotely to think otherwise.
11)All of the above : NO
12) None of the above : NO
13)Other (you name it) : Patriot Act (which also may I add was written up under X42 after the OKC Incident was never enacted though until 9/11), Not firing People who don't do their jobs, Pandering to many Leftist Issues, (HMO's, CFR, Farm subs, ect), Starting HomeLand Security with out holding those accountable for failures in other agencies. Trying to Fix corruption on "good faith". I believe there needs to be Swift action taken against those who (no matter what agencies , Ins, FBI, CIA ect) Aided and abetted any Crime, If that's over looking illegal status, or dropping the ball. Accountability needs to be applied ASAP.
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. : I know that you said the Numbers that Best Match the reasons.. But I also wanted to comment on some things that I wasn't angry about. Therefore I answered all of them. I agree with another poster (forget who) who said that we must put pressure on President Bush for him to start "Upholding our platform". I do not believe we can do that by not speaking out about things we disagree with. I believe that Moderates are just as Dangerous (if not more) as any Democrat, as noted by John McCain and his recent antics. I believe that they infiltrate the party and Are true socialist at heart, and because they are under the "R" name they are overlooked, and infact elected based on the fact that they aren't a Registered "D". Moderates Must not be elected to the Republican Party If we wish to continue its True party lines. I wish for this country to take baby steps Right instead of Giant Steps or baby steps Left. In all honesty Jim Rob, I will have to wait and see who's running and the future events before I Make any "stand" of whom I'm going to vote for. I'd like to see Ron Paul, Or Another Person who holds near and dear the Constitution run AND have a Legitimate chance.
Thanks,
Jim

Thank you for giving us FreeRepublic, And thank you for the great Post!!
God Bless,
Tammy
Live Free or Die Trying

[deport]

Care to voice your opinion or maybe those of your buds at the watch?

[ArneFufkin]

caddie, this a perfect opportunity for you, Aske, Tabitha all the malcontents around here to organize a NEW party! No more crying jags over RINO abuse!!!

Start the movement great one!! This might be historic.

[toenail]

Kimberly Swanson?

[B Knotts]

#8 appears to be a concern of many. I just hope that this is not the tip of the iceberg of racism.

Bah. Of course there are a few who dislike immigration for racist reasons, but citing that seems to be little more than a convenient excuse for failing to address the very legitimate concerns many, many people have about illegal immigration in light of the terrorist attacks on our nation.

Tonight, on the Fox network, Geraldo Rivera, of all people, is doing an exposé on how terrorists are illegally entering our country, right now, via the lax border with Mexico.

There are also legitimate concerns about the balkanization of our culture, and the breakdown of assimilation, which are not racist.

The Republican Party would do well, in the long term, to take a fresh look at this issue. This is front-and-center for many people like me, who didn't really care all that much about it in the past.

[Marine Inspector]

Now that the Bashers have a chance to voice their opinions on well thought out and CLEARLY DEFINED reasons regarding their opinions of the President...other than Sabertooth, they are mysteriously silent.

You obviously were not here last night or where you just mysteriously silent.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Well I finally waded thru your entire post. It sure sounds real pretty.

Do you write for Keyes (no wait, don't answer, we know who writes for him)

No one else can understand him, either.

[Sabertooth]

I guess my only point in my previous posting was that now that people have an invitation by the owner of this site, to give CALM, RATIONAL and ADULT reasons why they do/do not and or would/would not support him now or in the future...it is strangely quiet. The reason for that is it is much easier to post emotion filled, scathing, thoughless barbs, than to sit and compose a constructive response.

Well, the title of the thread does use the term "Bush Haters," which isn't exactly cozy. How many posters want to write in, "Dear Jim, I hate Bush because..."

I actually didn't take offense at your post, and I appreciate you kind words. I was just messing with you a little.

That said, I am curious to how you feel about the pro-Bush race baiting and false charges of racism in this forum.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Care to voice your opinion or maybe those of your buds at the watch?"

Drop it.

[Linda Liberty]

I don't hate Bush, but I don't particularly like him, and I think its quite plausible that we would be in better shape if Gore was elected. I say this even though I think Gore is an idiot and democrats are effectively evil.

The markets are in a tailspin, for which Bush has to be given major credit, because among other things his decision to impose steel tarrifs, and the completely runaway government spending are major contributory factors.

If Gore were president, the republicans in congress would be fighting for lower spending, instead of voting for more and more spending. Also, they'd fight more against huge new medicare entitlements, which if they become law will not only break the bank, but ultimately severly damage progress in pharma research.

Bush is making a total mess of homeland defence. What is going on in the airports is totally idiotic and disfunctional. Absolutely nothing has been done to reform the FBI etc, which still is incapable, for example, of conceiving that anthrax might be connected to Iraq. There is absolutely no reason to believe any of this would have been handled worse by Gore.

I think the campaign in Afganistan went well, and I'm awaiting further developments. Bush waffled long on the middle east, but maybe he has finally found his way. His most recent speech on Palestine was great. The state department is every bit as bad as it was under Clinton.

Bush's position on cloning is a major problem in my eyes, although I appreciate others differ. We stand on the doorstep of conquering not only cancer, but old age. There is a chance we will do so before I die, which frankly is of considerable interest to me. Bush is doing his level best to prevent this, which is tantamount to sentencing everyone reading this to a possibly needless death.

Bush passed a tax decrease, which is more than Gore would have. But the decrease is so phased-in that it is possibly contributing to the demise of the economy by motivating people to defer income.

On balance, Bush has been mediocre, and its by no means clear that we would be worse off with Gore.

I would like to see a Libertarian as President (not Browne, but one who realizes we have to fight Al Quaeda, there are many.) I don't think it will happen, but since it seems pretty clear in retrospect that we would be about as well off with a democrat as a republican in the white house (presuming the repubs hold at least one house in congress) I don't see much cost in voting for one.

I am curious, Jim, which of these points you disagree with. Surely you don't think Bush has handled fiscal policy or homeland security competently? Answer that, please. And the jury is still out on the wider war. These are the major issues right now, IMO. What is bigger?

[caddie]

Good luck getting that to happen, ever. I hate to burst your bubble, but there are simply no honest polticians left. You want an honest politician, see a fairy tale, or, better yet, look up the word "oxymoron" in the dictionary.

This is the most important quote in the whole thread.

Your nihilsm (more than mere cynicism) is the difference between true conservatives and RINOS.

Between God-fearing persons and atheists.

Between Rats and real Republicans.

Between arabs who wrap themselves in explosives, and Israelis who, in their tiny corner of a desert, grow oranges and build medical lasers and CAT scanners for export.

Between the elect and Satanists.

Your nihilism is UN-AMERICAN.

Read the life of George Washington. He himself left such a lengthy paper trail, you cannot mistake, by reading his papers, exactly the kind of person he was.

He was wonderfully honest, as were the Founding Fathers.

He was POTUS ONLY 42 POTUSES ago!!

And you and the RINOS have invaded the GOP, and set the bar SO LOW for a POTUS, that it is on the ocean floor.

Reading the replies of the Bush supporters, can you guess what the commonest reason they state for voting for him is:

Right. "He is better than the Rat alternative."

It is shameful to set the bar for POTUS this low.

It is a dereliction of your duty as voter and citizen to do so.

Shame on all RINOS, and all Bush supporters, for setting the bar this low.

George Washington would be disgusted.

[Neets]

No, I saw last nights show...

That's why I am wondering why today, when the actors from last evenings show, have their golden opportunity to post their cogent and reasoned reasons why Bush is failing as a President, or why he should not be re-elected or why they think the Republican party has become the party of Socialism, the most they can come up with is berating Jim Robinson for the title of the thread.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Well, the title of the thread does use the term "Bush Haters," which isn't exactly cozy. How many posters want to write in, "Dear Jim, I hate Bush because..."

So, why would you reply on a thread that doesn't pertain to you?

[Askel5]

Funny you picked out that one and not the others, "trashing" or "disagreement". Why? Conscience?

No ... the title of the thread. It was you who ameliorated Hate with "trashing or disagreement" as you pinged me to this quick and dirty Bush Haters poll.

Try to stay on Topic.

[Maedhros]

I, IV, VI, & VIII.

[Grampa Dave]

This is key in your reply:

The Republican Party would do well, in the long term, to take a fresh look at this issue.</b? This is front-and-center for many people like me, who didn't really care all that much about it in the past.

Do you mean that you didn't really care about the Republican Party that much in the past?

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I already pinged her. Not posting on this threadis much an admission of guilt as posting on it. Jim is pretty sharp, IMO.

[B Knotts]

No, I mean that I did not care about illegal immigration all that much.