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

[FreedominJesusChrist]

1,2,6,7.

Couldn't you have found a better name for this thread?

Oh well, I got over it real fast anyway.

[Howlin]

ONe more thing: To those who want Roe v Wade overturned - you will not get that until the President appoints more conservative justices that can be approved by a more conservative Senate. That could happen soon enough but only if Bush gets reelected and if Congress becomes more conservative.

THE question.

And this is the group right here who intend to deny Bush that chance. And they're doing it ON PURPOSE.

[Neets]

Thank you for understanding ST...not only are you a great poet, but a kind gentleman to boot!!!

May I beg your indulgence for a brief while to reply to your question until I get home from work this evening?? I'd like to give you a good reply and not a rushed one.

[ArneFufkin]

George Washington had the ballsack to break away from the status quo and start a new political reality. You just bloviate.

[MotleyGirl70]

8. Is too soft on immigration

What's he done on immigration. Nothing, that's what.

President Bush will win the 2004 election.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Strike out 7 in my last post, I meant 8.

[Howlin]

It's not true.

[Marine Inspector]

Understood.

[B Knotts]

BTW, I was a volunteer for Bush/Cheney in 2000, if that helps to explain anything.

[68 grunt]

Hiya Jim, you read me bashing dubya you just kick my a$$ right on outta here, please.

I will say that there are many issues in which I am disappointed, but I'll let it go at that. Ronnie's golden rule, you know? The alternative is way too repugant to consider.

[Sabertooth]

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

Are you saying it pertains to you?

Why wouldn't you want me to reply?

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Riiigggght. You replied to the terms I used in my post, not to the title of the thread. Busted, as always. And when you get caught you always try to spin out of it and use the old "try to stay on topic" line. Comeon Askole, you need some new stuff.

[ArneFufkin]

Hi FreeBeck, just wanted to send my regards!

[MotleyGirl70]

4,7,9,& 10. He should be defeated.

Democratic Underground a bit boring today?

Go and crawl back under the rock you just came from.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I am sure that a lot of us here were.

[Askel5]

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.

Somehow, I'm not surprised.

RE-ADJUSTMENT

I thought there would be a grave beauty, a sunset splendour
In being the last of one's kind: a topmost moment as one watched
The huge wave curving over Atlantis, the shrouded barge
Turning away with wounded Arthur, or Ilium burning.
Now I see that, all along, I was assuming a posterity
Of gentle hearts: someone, however distant in the depths of time,
Who could pick up our signal, who could understand a story. There won't be.

Between the new Hembidae and us who are dying, already
There rises a barrier across which no voice can ever carry,
For devils are unmaking language. We must let that alone forever.
Uproot your loves, one by one, with care, from the future,
And trusting to no future, receive the massive thrust
And surge of the many-dimensional timeless rays converging
On this small, significant dew drop, the present that mirrors all.

Purty, huh? Don't try to understand it though; it would only make you weep.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

So, where do you folks stand?

[Sabertooth]

No ... the title of the thread.

There you go with those subtleties again.

How many do you think will read that "subtitles."

[FreedominJesusChrist]

He pinged me onto this thread too. Are you a playa hata too?

[EternalVigilance]

This thread is 'boob-bait for bubbas'...if I had only known how much you enjoyed this sport, I could have encouraged so much more of it previously! ;-) I'll try and remember this in the future...hehe..

But seriously, I don't think there is much, if any, difference at all between your principles and mine, and your current positioning politically and mine, although we have different roles.

What I want is for Conservatives to have their eyes wide open, and to be just as informed as they can possibly be...that is where our safety lies.

It is just as detrimental to our cause for our people to close their eyes and their mouths concerning Republican departures from the principles of life and liberty as it would be to shut our eyes and mouths to Democrat incursions. If we were silent, the rush to the left would become headlong.

But I'm a realist, as you are. We have no choice but to play the cards we are dealt...if we are foolish enough to try and play our hand based on the cards we WISHED we had been dealt, we deserve the thumping we will get at the card table.

Most (not all) of the primaries are completed. The party 'moderates' have won most of them (not all).

So, the first question for conservatives to ask themselves is, 'why?'. Here are some of my answers:

Money. Lack of preparation. Lack of sufficient established political capital. Insufficient professionalism in campaigns. Money. Infighting and personality conflicts. Compromised, self-serving 'conservative' leaders. Money. Lack of expertise, experience, knowledge, and the willingness to play hardball politics. Lack of permanent, reliable, trustworthy organizational structures for conservative activism. Oh, and did I mention money?

All of the above can be solved over time if we don't quit, and if we tap a new generation of servant leaders who are possessed of discernment and vision.

But in any case, we are where we are. The next question is where do we go from here:

1. Presidential politics?...fuhgettaboutit!!...President Bush is going to be there through 2008, barring an act of God (God forbid). The best we can hope for is to retain and build our influence, which is considerable.

2. Focus energy on winning the House and Senate, and on winning statehouses and local races. We have had a Republican majority for 8 years now, but we are still not even close to a Conservative majority...until we make that the case, we shouldn't be surprised when our agenda gets short shrift. If you can't stomach a particular RINO candidate, focus your resources on conservative candidates you like...there are some very very good ones out there.

3. Win Party positions and gain campaign, policy and governmental experience. This is the arena from which the next generation of Conservative leaders will arise.

4. Continue to educate the electorate...by honing our message and using every means available to us to transmit that message directly to the American people.

Conservatives, you need to stay in the arena...if you withdraw now, you have conceded defeat.

Pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-Constitution Conservatives are still the most potent political force in the United States, with the most coherent, potent and unifying message ever known to mankind.

We can only lose over the long haul if we quit.

To loosely quote Churchill, "Never, never, never, never, never, never...give up!!"

Regards,
EV