What does that ability tell you about ardently pro-Bush folks in this forum who race-bait and falsely charge racism as a first, middle, and last resort?
Posted on 07/10/2002 11:27:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
#13 I wish Bush would veto bills he doesn't believe in such as CFR.
I still support Bush and plan to vote for him in 2004.
What does that ability tell you about ardently pro-Bush folks in this forum who race-bait and falsely charge racism as a first, middle, and last resort?
But my problem with GWB is related to the characteristics that he shares with Daddy Bush. He has not blatantly broken the central promises that he was elected on as his Daddy did. But his Daddy thought that he could pick and choose the issues on which he would be judged and re-elected on. GWB came to office with a solid plan.
Quietly restore the dignity to the office which was so soiled by Der Schlickmeister to satisfy Repubicans and independents.
Pass a tax cut to give red meat to his conservative base and rectify his father's wrong.
Pass an education bill in the Democratic tradition to woo the soccer moms.
Appoint a culturally diverse group to his administration with an emphasis on wooing Hispanics.
And lastly engage Saddam Hussein in a confrontation that would end in deposing Saddam and finishing something many felt his Daddy did not properly settle in the first place.
All these plans were based on the following premises.
The economy would be manageable and stable. That we had no serious threats and would not be drawn into war. And lastly the Middle East would not require a lot of attention.
None of those premises have held up. But Bush did handle himself very well in the time of crisis, thanks in part to Secretary Rumsfield who is heads and shoulders above any of Bush's other appointments. Bush to his credit has also come to the conclusion that Arafat is just as much a source of terrorism as Saddam. The problem is that Bush cannot avoid confronting the problems with the economy and corporate crime. He could present the head of Osama, Saddam, and Yassir on the same plate to the American people, and as great a victory as that would be, his party will have to run on the economy in 2002 and he will have to run on the economy in 2004.
His speech on Wall Street was terrible, not because of what he said or did not say, but because you could read that this was not an issue that he wanted any part of. It is an issue that is not of his own making, but a war with Saddam will not displace it.
I am not sure what Bush can do with the economy and the markets, but he had better think of something, because the way things are spiralling downward it will become the main issue and he needs to speak and act in such a way that people have as much confidence in him to deal with the economy as they do to lead and prosecute the war on terrorism. As Daddy Bush found out, Americans are self-centered and materialistic and a military victory will not soothe their fears of losing their substance and their livelihoods.
His Daddy's Presidency did nothing to help advance the Republican Party or conservatism, unless you interpret Bush's failed re-election bid and the resulting two years of Clintonism as the catalyst which scared the voters into overthrowing 40 years of corrupt and treacherous Democrat rule over the People's House.
I hope GWB can do more than merely hold office and actually advance the Republican Party and conservatism, so far I am not convinced that he can.
Here's your dream.
Uncle Bill, is that a self generated comment?
Well Arnefufkin, easy to answer, My "action/Plan" is just this..
Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!
I do this by Not electing RINOS, By campaigning for "GRASS ROOTS". I do this by not bending LEFT and Moving left and calling it moving right. I do this by being involved, By supporting people who actually are "GRASSROOTS". I thought that was all of our intentions....? Is it not yours?
"... we let in a bunch of Illegals, and then there's the inevitable "targeted amensty." Under Clinton's Section 245(i) in the 90s, we "changed status" on over a million Illegals. Every one of them counted against legal immigration quotas, thereby displacing law-abiding immigration candidates who were following the rules and waiting their turns.
Is that what you want when you say "Welcome to America?"
Why can't conservatives not agree with a lot of what bush has done so far without being called haters?
As to deporting illegals; I think a lot could be accomplished with out increasing police powers - if local police would simply enforce existing immigration laws when they come upon illegal aliens.
The federal government should help to facilitate this. Regrettably, if the federal government didn't want ILLEGAL aliens here, they wouldn't be here in the first place.
I know Christians who counseled him, and I am so sure you are wrong, I can't express it. What your angle is, is your business, whether you are a satanist yourself, or anti-christian, or just decieved, or other. But I know that whatever you write, it can be dismissed.
I voted for W.
I stood in a rally in the rain for hours in December 2000 in support of W.
I set off fireworks when Kathy Harris certified the Florida EC votes in January 2001.
I had every hope that he would be a reasonably good conservative. Not perfect, but good.
I had every reason to believe that, based on his behavior as a candidate and a Governor of Texas.
What I have seen him do, vis a vis globalism, illegal immigration, Medicare, the Palestinians, the so-called War on Terror, the Right to Life issue of cloning, and his spineless interactions with the Rats in spite of high polls and political capital, is disappointing, to say the least.
And FR is where these things should be talked about.
Your ad hominem stuff just brings your liberalism into focus.
Not to mention your pathologic conformism.
Bush has problems, no doubt, and so does the post-Reagan GOP.
The party seems to be cultivating RINOs of the Bush type, and it has led to loss of conservative power in the Nation. Remember X41? I do.
It might happen again, and we might relive the curse of a Clinton-type eight-year reign. I certainly don't want that.
I'm sorry for offending you, but the points I raise are valid.
I just don't want to worship my political leaders, as you do. I want to speak my mind about them.
This is exactly what Bush does, knowingly, and it's what makes him a most formidable tyrant.
Charming, but still a tyrant.
1,4,5,6,8,9 (way too hard...he needs to butt out of their affairs and let 'em turn the tanks loose!), 13-CFR(!!!!!!), lack of guts to use his veto power and bully pulpit to advance a conservative agenda, backing down on a plan to fix Social Security (incidentally, the year 2030, when SS is projected to go broke, happens to be the very year I turn 65...boy, it really gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to think that I get to pay into the system my whole life and not draw a dime), more.
Should he be re-elected? I won't vote for him again, so it really makes no difference to me if Bush, Klinton 2, Kerry, Dasch-hole, or whomever wins. Heck, both the Dims and the Pubbies are driving us to Socialism, just the Dims would get us there faster. I'd rather hit the wall ASAP so we can get about fixing the mess while I'm still young enough to react to it and help out.
Who would I like to see win in 2004? No one running or threatening to run gets me excited. Maybe Michael Savage or Sean Hannity...or maybe Tancredo Fan and I should form a ticket. Hmmm...
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.