Vanity: Bush Vs. Gore (and anyone else): There IS a difference; let's keep track of the PROOF!

March 14, 2002

[Timesink]

afternoon bump

[studly hungwell]

I am sorry, I should have been clearer. I do not mean Bill and Hillary, I mean all of the Clintonites that they brought into the government. How about any of the 30+ administration officials who perjured themselves before Congress? How about Ms. Browning, who, despite a court order, erased her hard drives her last day in office? The list is endless.

I know the devils spawn is untouchable. But their minions shouldn't be.

[weikel]

Oh you mean like CFR, amnesty, the steel tariff, this Pali state nonsense yes he is acting like a real conservative( sarcasm) I really really liked him after the Afghan campaign but his conduct lately has disgusted me.

[thrcanbonly1]

I can imagine the following: its 2004 and a freeper posts the following----So what if GWB cut tax every year,unemployment is 3%, the size of government has been cut by 25%,regulations have been reduced, the war on terroism was been won,Saddamn is in a box, crime is down, Bork is on the Supreme Court, and the Reps. control both houses of Congress, I`m not voting for Bush cause he`s not a real conserative and he was not for killing illegal aliens

Things a little slow in Oz today?

[Miss Marple]

Bit by bit, the environmental regulations are being brought into the realm of reality. Not fast enough for some, but it has to be done with agency rulings, executive orders, litigation, and plain old cunning, because the dems will never roll back any of Clinton's rules. Gore would have spent his time burdening us with more regulations.

Incrementally, the administration is moving to change the perception of the people regarding abortion. He speaks of a culture of life (us) vs. a Culture of death (al Qaeda). Pretty soon the public is going to make the connection. He has made some rulings to discourage and defund abortion, the government has sided with the pro-life side on the Ohio partial birth abortion case, and he speaks often of the sanctity of life. Gore would not only not have done this, he would have been glorifying abortion.

The President speaks of the value of faith at almost every opportunity. Gore would have mouthed some sort of New Age platitude, if not talked about how religion was a PRIVATE matter.

President Bush got us a tax cut, and he is pushing for more. Gore would have raised taxes.

President Bush got a military pay raise passed. Gore would have ignored them, as he did their votes.

Presidient Bush went to the UN and spoke about what THEY needed to do, and does NOT apologize for the US. He is PROUD of the country and would never bad-mouth it. Gore would have been apologizing for our very existence.

President Bush loves his wife and family. He conducts himself with dignity and honor. Gore tongue-kissed his wife on national tv and showed her nude-self portrait (made while pregnant) at the Democrat National Convention (shown all over the country on C-SPAN.)

Laura Bush is an elegant dignified First Lady. Tipper Gore acts like a teenager, highly inappropriate in one her age....snapping pictures at important events and bopping around on stage.

President Bush's cabinet picks: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Fleischer, Rice, Ashcroft. Gore's picks would have included every liberal hack that could be dredged up. Eric Holder was promised AG. Terry McAuliffe was promised Ambassador to Great Britain. The cabinet differences alone, if nothing else, should make the point of this post.

[Timesink]

I'm baldly reposting this post from this thread, in which Howlin baldly reposts a post from Texasforever:

*Sigh*

MUST I POST THIS AGAIN???????

To: All

In the past year, the following "I won't vote for Bush if..." threads have been posted

"Bush to cave on Kyoto"

"Bush to cave on 2nd amendment rights"

"Bush to cave on tax reduction"

"Bush to cave on stem cell research"

"Bush to cave social security"

"Bush to cave ON and On and ON"

In every one of those examples Bush fought and got 90% of his demands met in Congress or in the case of Kyoto and UN funding for abortion acted on his and told the UN to go to hell. That is never enough, there is always the next "watershed decision" that many here dream up to avoid supporting a Republican and, make NO mistake it is the hated Republican that sticks in the craw of many here, that term is more hated by the libertarians, paleo-conservatives and assorted DU trolls than the term liberal has ever been subjected to.

It seems that every day there is a new "I won't support Bush if..." thread that generates a lot of outrage and yet when the actual "event" happens there is never a thread that retracts the hysteria exhibited earlier. There is NO way a politician will ever appease the single issue voter. Just as his steel tariffs have pissed off the free traders amongst us, it is what the " Buchanan America firsters" have been demanding and yet the AF faction on this site do not even acknowledge that Bush heard them, to the contrary, they whine it is too little too late.

Instead of all this whining and crocodile tears, just admit right out loud that nothing this man does will suffice and that he needs to be replaced with the best "conservative" candidate. However; the name of that candidate appears to be a closely guarded secret since no one has actually named this person because it surely cannot be anyone of the 1% vote getters that we know today.

End of rant

114 posted on 3/7/02 9:51 PM Eastern by Texasforever

And I will say again what I said yesterday, I will be DAMNED if I will cast ONE VOTE for ANY CANDIDATE that gives the Democrats ONE MORE VOTE than they have this very minute.


If you choose to do so, let it be on YOUR head!!!
(And for the LOVE OF GAWD, TAKE YOUR VOTE, LEAVE, AND SHUT UP ABOUT IT)

854 posted on 3/14/02 5:19 PM Eastern by Howlin

[Timesink]

Bush bump

[tallhappy]

"The disruptors, the fair-weather Republicans, the single-issue Buchananite nutbags, the capital-L Libertarians, the tinfoilers, the McCainiacs and the plain old Bush-haters;"................and then again, maybe we're just Conservatives. Ever think of that?

Yes. But alas, the description above is apt.

Dead on apt.

[Timesink]

First, you get a diatribe from the original post which basically says ANYONE...ANYONE that disagrees with Bush is a nutcase. That's the first fallacy.

It was intentional hyperbole; I fully admit that. I was using it to fight hyperbole from the other side. It's not the mere questioning of Bush's decisions that I have a problem with; it's the naysayers and doomdwellers that run around ranting and raving "By God I'll never vote for Bush again!" over a single decision on a single issue that didn't go their way. And the way the usual Bush-hater crowd then piles on such threads either for kicks or out of some psychological need to rationalize their misguided beliefs that "Bush is going DOWNNNNN!" It's just too over-the-top.

[Timesink]

That said, it's a testimony to the power and the fairness of FR. If such a thread had ever come up about Bill Clinton on DU, every single ranter would have been banned within two minutes of their first questioning of Clinton's actions, and the thread would have been deleted. Instead, on FR the thread is now at nearly 900 comments and still going strong, and includes heavy participation by the owner of the site itself.

[deadhead]

Thanks for the ping Timesink. I am not and never have been a one issue voter. I support President Bush, he is doing an admirable job as our President. To all those who will never vote for Bush again (or ever), don't. The ranting is tiresome. It will be interesting in 2004 to see who these folks support. Having Bush as our President is a breath of fresh air compared to 8 years of Clinton.

[jwalsh07]

I'm backing Bush, he kills terrorists, Clinton/Gore pardoned them, Harry Brown would open the borders and invite them in and Ralph Nader will sing Kumbaya with the Al Qaeda homeboys.

[deadhead]

"I'm backing Bush, he kills terrorists, Clinton/Gore pardoned them'

I agree!

[San Jacinto]

A very timely and important post.

I never cease to be amazed at the idiot-fringe who insist "there is just no difference between the two major parties." On another thread today, some nitwit asked, "what is the difference between Bush and Leahy--Leahy is against Pickering, but Bush is against Israel!" Now someone who thinks along those lines is beyond redemption.

On the other hand, there are a number of "Accidental Democrarts" who should know better. These are the people who vote for 3rd Party candidates because Bush is not doctrinaire enough for their tastes. By withholding a vote from Bush, they are actually voting to elect the liberal Dem, and they could bring us the second President Clinton. They would deseve such a fate, BUT I DON'T !!!!

Here's my contribution to just some of the differences between Bush and the Dems--the nomination of solid, sensible conservative judges to the bench instead of socialist whackos who want the Feds to nanny us to death. Here's another--cutting taxes instead of raising them. Or how about fighting a war to win it, instead of coming over as politically correct? Or recognizing America, as a free country, is SUPERIOR to third world dictatorships, instead of bowing down to the altar of cultural diversity and moral relativism? Protecing U.S. soveriegnty vs. the Kyoto Treaty and International Criminal Court? School choice vs domination by teacher's unions. Their relative positions on abortion.

You got it right---it's the loonies and nutcases who don't see the difference--and they may stick you and me with a Hildabeast or other Clinton-equilivant, if the election is close enough.

I get really steamed at these Accidental Democrats.

[Bob J]

Radio Free Republic Presents

The Banana Republican Hour

With your host Luis Gonzalez

This week’s guest:

Brothers to the Rescue founder, José Basulto

---

On February 24, 1996, three light aircraft left Miami on a routine flight. Their missions, to search the waters off the Florida Coast for rafters trying to reach the US shores, and bring them help by guiding the US Coast Guard to their location. That day in February, only one plane would return to its home base in Miami.

Tune in to Radio FreeRepublic this Thursday, March 14, at 9 PM EST, and listen to the actual sounds of a terrorist in action, murdering unarmed American citizens.

Sr. José Basulto, founder of Brothers to the Rescue and pilot of the surviving Cessna, will shed light on the events of that day, and detail how the Clinton administration withheld advanced knowledge of the attack from the humanitarian volunteer group, helping seal the fate of these four courageous flyers.

Radio FreeRepublic, fearless talk radio.

Click on Banner to hear broadcast of Show Thursday, March 14, at 9PM EST/6PM PST


RadioFR Every Thursday at 9PM EST/6PM PST

RadioFR Archives, Hear the shows you missed

[Busho4]

I voted for Bush because I could not handle 4 years of Al Gore on the TV and news. Can you imagine what it would be like with that moran? Keep one thing in mind, he has robbed the Dems of their issues and I love it! They are chasing their tails and I love watching DasHOLE and Little Dick run around with no issue - ITS LONG OVER DUE!

[deadhead]

"I get really steamed at these Accidental Democrats."

Seeing alot of "Accidental Democrats" on Free Republic these days, very scarey

[San Jacinto]

The President speaks of the value of faith at almost every opportunity. Gore would have mouthed some sort of New Age platitude, if not talked about how religion was a PRIVATE matter.

You have said it all, right there.

Traditional American values versus New Age, Relativist, Third-world Hyperbabble.

That pretty well sums it up.

[MissAmericanPie]

Forget that we have the Kennedy Education Bill, forget that he ok'ed stem cell research, forget that he has agreed to sign CFR, forget the amnesty that gives covert terrorists cover in the USofA, forget our open borders, forget the INS embarassment, forget the steel tariff. Let's don't leave out the biggy

In a move that promises to shift the US window of vulnerability to a Russian nuclear strike two years earlier, the Bush administration, led by Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfield, is offering to do what Bill Clinton could never get away with--dismantle our premiere nuclear missile system, the MX "Peacekeeper," next year, instead of by the end of 2003. The MX is a crucial factor in the balance of nuclear deterrence for several reasons and should not be dismantled. First, it is our only missile armed with 10 MIRVed warheads, each capable of hitting and destroying hardened Russian and Chinese targets. Second, it is our most modern and accurate missile. Third, even though only 50 MX missiles exists, with 10 warheads on each missile that’s a loss of 1500 potential targets--a huge loss in deterrence capability. Fourth, with PDD-60 (orders to our missileers NOT to launch on warning and absorb an enemy "first strike") still governing our military’s nuclear response, the loss of all 50 MX missiles frees up at least 250 Russian warheads to target other US facilities. This is because the Russians would have to blanket a hardened MX silo with at least 5 ground burst weapons in order to ensure a kill

[Twodees]

Good luck documenting a difference between the two soft handed daddy's boys. Bush sold his candidacy on the strength of his promise that he could get Gore's agenda passed better than Gore could.

This is odd, you seem to think that FR is a republican forum. Have you ever read the mission statement? Do you see the word "republican" mentioned? I think maybe you pompom shakers are the hijackers here.