Posted on 08/25/2002 12:50:21 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Recently, I did an interview with Focus on the Family in which I stated that pro-family conservatives are not motivated to vote in the upcoming elections in November 2002. While I stand by that statement - because it is true - I was contacted by a high level White House staffer who pointed out all the reasons he believes that pro-family conservatives should be motivated to get out there and support President Bush. Taken together, it is a pretty impressive list. I will mention some of the items on his list, but by no means all of them, for purposes of discussion.
First there is the passage of the tax cut and the effort to make it permanent. Then, there is the nomination of excellent judges and the defense of those nominees who are encountering opposition for partisan purposes. President Bush rejected the International Criminal Court. He got us out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and thus paved the way for a missile defense system. The Ashcroft Justice Department, directed by the President, opposed partial birth abortion in the Ohio case and opposed euthanasia in the Oregon case.
The President opposed human cloning and has pushed for the right legislation in the Congress to ban it. The President opposed taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research. The Justice Department has supported the correct view of the Second Amendment.
The President has pushed for energy independence. He signed the parsonage tax credit bill and the Born Alive Infant Protection bill, during which, at the signing ceremony, the President made the strongest pro-life statement coming out of the Oval Office in a couple of decades.
The President signed the Child Custody Protection Act. In the Prenatal Health Insurance Bill, he insisted that the definition of eligibility include the fetus. In the House he pushed for a welfare reform bill where marriage, work and the family are central.
The President rejected the United Nations Rights of the Child Treaty. He rejected funding for the United Nations Population Fund. He raised abstinence education funding to a record $300 million.
In addition, the President has praised single sex schools, highlighted the Boy Scouts, and condemned the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
My White House friend says that the whole demeanor and atmosphere in his place of work has changed. He is right about that. No more pot smoking, condom swinging, late night liaisons with teeny-boppers at the White House. It is a dignified place to work once again.
Now, in fairness, all of this has to be weighed against the sight of the president and Teddy Kennedy working together to pass the budget-busting education bill that threw out vouchers on day one. And there are liberal holdovers at the Justice Department and others departments pursuing policies that should be rejected by a conservative administration. Moreover, the administration seems to have a weakness toward homosexuals. Not only have there been a number of high level appointments, but the Justice Department, under the leadership of one of the heroes of the religious right, had a so called Gay Pride event. The President signed into law the so-called campaign reform law which has hurt the ability of every pro-family organization to explain to the voters the records of the Members of Congress or the positions of the challenger candidates. Then there is the huge agriculture subsidy bill that undoes most of the excellent "Freedom to Farm" reform effort of 1996, with most of the money going to big farm conglomerates, doing little for the family farm.
And now the Department of Health and Human Services has ruled that the government can share medical records with employers and insurance companies without your consent. And HHS is pushing a plan to deal with 9/11 type medical emergencies that all but does away with any remaining states' rights.
Again, I could go on. You will have to determine which list means the most to you.
But of the many good things the president has done, almost no one knows about them. I was speaking with some Midwest grass roots activists, who pride themselves on knowing what is going on. I read them the list from the White House staff member. They were shocked. They had heard of only about a quarter of the items mentioned. If folks like this haven't heard the good news, it is a lead pipe cinch that folks in the precincts know less.
If the Bush Administration expects to motivate voters for this fall, it had better learn to tell its story, short and sweet. One way that might be done would be for the president to cut a series of radio spots to be played in states where the stakes are high.
But what the heck, my advice on such things is never followed anyway.
And I have yet to read a thread from you that is not malcontnent tripe.
Yeah yeah, I know your standard Libertarian response, you will say that I am calling Samuel Adams and other founding fathers malcontnents.
JMO, but I don't think that Sam Adams or the other Founding Fathers beleived that dope smoking was the true intent of the Constitution, as you seem to think or that Sam Adams would have approved of his name being used in a "contest" for where people would win prizes for copulating in public spaces, especially chruches(i.e the Sam Adams beer contest run in conjunction with the now off the air "Opie and Andy" show)
So cool it with your bastardization of the Founding Fathers words.
One thing I have learned about him is that these compromises are done for reasons not always apparent. I don't like ethanol either, but I am certain there were reasons Bush felt it necessary to compromise on.
Also, sometimes the WSJ takes the side of one industry over another. This is not necessarily wrong, but it sometimes helps me to understand their motivation for their opinions.
I will wait and see what's up with ethanol. I really would prefer that oil shipments from the Saudis be curtailed, with an announcement to the public for the reasons and an accompanying announcement of rationing, followed by an executive order to drill in all 50 states.
Probably a fantasy on my part, but it would be most satisfying, wouldn't it?
Don't put words in my mouth. I have not commented at all on this subject, but since you asked, the fact of the matter is that the folks who did that should go to jail for a very long time..
JMO, but I don't think that Sam Adams or the other Founding Fathers beleived that dope smoking was the true intent of the Constitution, as you seem to think
Nor did they intend the Constitution to give the government the authority to arrest 700k a year for a plant they themselves grew.
bastardization of the Founding Fathers words.
No bastardization at all. You are exactly the type of person he was speaking of. A yellow-belly coward hiding behind the skirts of government because of your fear of that you cannot control.
I am 100% certain that when we go into Iraq we will be given enough information to satisfy all but the malcontent peaceniks.
From Rumsfeld's briefing the other day I concluded that they have many, many smoking guns.
Uh I didn't, here is your quote from reply #34,
- Samuel Adams 1776. Cheers!
Uh it seems that with you your use of the toast word "Cheers" you were implying Sam Adams beer, which was the sponsor of the vile Opie and Andy contest.
Just like a typical Libertarian to run away from the truth and bastardize the Founding Fathers.
What is wrong with adult stem cells? And if you want to really find someone to blame for stem cells, try the whiny parents who couldn't accept parts that did not work perfectly and INSISTED that they have their own child, instead of adopting.
*SIGH* But there will always be that wonderful fraction of a faction who will never be appeased no matter what Bush does.
This is putting words in my mouth by insinuating that I agree with such dispicable conduct. The fact that you now deny it when it is there for everyone to read makes you the one running away from the truth, not I.
As to Samual Adams beer sponsoring the contest, now how the heck would I know that? I don't live anywhere near where this incident took place. The one article I read on it didn't metion anything about who the sponsor was.
So let's look at your convoluted logic. I type cheers at the end of a post on a topic completely unrelated to Opie and Andy, and this is supposed to mean that I condone their actions? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Not convulted at all, you were the one who decided to put the toast "Cheers" after Samuel Adams's name implying the beer named after him(and the company that sponsored the vile Opie and Andy contest).
You still don't get it, oh well, someday you might.
Yeah, whatever.
Actually the Dems were always complaining about Clinton caving into the Republican Congress on issues like welfare reform etc.
Exactly. There are some "conservatives" who are making President Bush's job as hard as they can. What might Bush be able to accomplish if we conservatives stuck together as well as the 'rats always do?
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.