Posted on 03/13/2002 11:19:34 PM PST by Timesink
It's generally a bad idea to huff airplane glue before posting. Doing that sort of tends to make one look like a nutjob, y'know?
Do you see "perpetually pi$$ed off" mentioned?
I enjoyed reading what you have pointed out, and am thankful that you took the time to write it for all to see.
I think the time for casting aspersions to those of us who legitimately and from the bottoms of our conservative hearts are concerned about recent events that could only be interpreted as, well, hardly conservative.
Campaign finance reform? Amnesty for illegal aliens? Throwing more bucks into the education money maw? Pickering left to die a slow death while Dems nip his ankles to shreds? An extra 13 weeks of unemployment when there's NOT even a recession?
If your argument is that passionate conservatives don't have some issues here well I'd argue that you are very wrong.
But what I WILL do, since you brought up the subject, is ponder that perhaps there are legitimate reasons for approaching these issues in the manner that they have been and we, the minions, are not privy to this reasoning.
First, the hijacking of the senate by the Dems put a monkey wrench in things. Whatever had been planned no doubt had to be reconfigured because of this fine mess. It could be that Bush, Cheney, et al, have decided to give in where they have to awaiting a breathless takeover of the House and Senate by the pubbies. A very real possibility I'd think, what with the popular President and a lackluster Dem party struggling for an issue.
Or it could be that Bush is the sort of guy who will give and give and give. Then, like a sapling tree bent backwards until the truck is ready to snap, springs forth with a vengeance, exerting the unleashed force to the astonishment of those who thought the tree would bend forever.
Okay, so this sounds like psycho-babble. But this is sometimes my methodology whenever I've been thrown into a supervisory situation and had to find my footing. Supervising a small accounting department and running an entire country are two distinctly different things, however, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Finally, maybe the pubbies are trying a two-prong attack. Prong 1, improve their slick-haired, wingtip image by giving extra unemployment benefits and allowing 200K aliens to slip under the radar THIS time. Prong 2, while improving said image, boom, take away every Democrat issue coming down the pike.
Let me delineate a bit more:
---Pickering was allowed to die because his appointment was not all that important. It is the Supreme Court nominees that really matter and by that time, the pubbies will have all the power.
---The cost of extra unemployment benefits and that handy $600 bucks given back to us last year is minimal really, in the grand scheme of federal funds. By pubbie kind agreement to this they can argue in the next election what nice guys they are.
---Making all of those airport jobs federal was a darn nice thing of the pubbies to do. Who says all the federal workers have to vote Dem? It was Bush, after all, who signed the legislation to pay them more for even worse job performance. Gotta love this.
---That Cleveland voucher case was heading up the pipeline when Bush gave his best buddy Chappaquidick Teddy all them edumication bucks, so why not spend the money while the courts make up their minds? The pubbies look good and sooner or later, hey, vouchers will be blessed by the courts.
--Campaign Finance Reform will be overturned by the Supremes anyway. Why not sign the thing and look like good kind pubbies who don't wish to take huge coffers of money from nasty big business.
Anyway, there's no denying there's some problems with the tendency of the pubbies to vote lately as if lifelong and dedicated liberals. Instead of assuming Bush is a Rino, I thought I'd offer a different perspective. Witness the above.
Pat Fish<<<awaiting reasoned responses from the great minds within the forum.
First out of the bag was Clinton’s demand that Gays be allowed to openly serve in the military. It was the Republicans, in the minority, that stopped that fiasco dead in it’s tracks.
Next came Hillary Care. The largest expansion of Government since the New Deal. Once again the Minority Republicans aborted this monstrosity. Do they get credit from the 3rd parties? I think the answer is obvious.
Once the American people saw the consequences of having total control of the Government by the liberals they gave both Houses to the Republicans. To hear 3rd parties tell it the Republicans took this golden opportunity and just sat on their thumbs , or worse yet acted more like Democrats than Democrats. But once again you need to look at the reality
First there was that little thing called the “Contract with America”. Do any 3rd parties ever mention that? It consisted of 10 items 8 of which were pushed through congress over the steady howls of the Media and Democrats. The most important of those 8 items were the “End of Welfare Entitlement”, and the “balanced Budget requirement”.
The ending of welfare was the greatest reduction of domestic spending in history. Does that not count for advocating smaller government and doing something about it? I guess not to a 3rd parties.
The Balanced Budget requirement led directly to the surpluses we have now and hopefully in the future given the economic expansion since the mild recession in 1992 and the now extinct 2001 recession..
Then the democrats made somewhat of a comeback in 1996 and Clinton decided to flex his muscles a little by another little gem the “patients bill of rights”. It was not the democrats that stopped it was once again those “Republicrats” as the 3rd parties like to call them..
But the “Columbine Massacre” gave the democrats and Clinton another opening on gun control. An entire flurry of draconian gun control bills were put forward in the congress and once again it was Republicans that stood up and took the “bullet” from the soccer moms and the media and made sure those bills never passed out of committee. But I guess 3rd parties can’t believe a Republicrat could ever stand with the Constitution.
As to the Republican “cowardice in pursuing Bill Clinton the CROOK. I guess the 3rd parties forget a little thing called IMPEACHMENT! Yes a few Republican Senators did not do their duty, but 90% of them did, I am sure you can find 10% of “3rd parties” that would have voted not to remove also.
3rd parties take an almost perverted pleasure in pointing out to Republicans that they have been duped. I would have to say that 3rd parties are the ones being duped by their perpetual candidate. He knows he will never be elected but if every Brigadier gives him just one dollar a year to write his angry rants and pretend to campaign once every 4 years, that five hundred grand a year makes a pretty comfortable lifestyle. Pat Buchanan caught on to this very quickly.
Now we are 14 months into the first term of a Republican president in an election the likes of which we have never seen before and according to all the “experts“ installed the first 1st term lame duck with NO political power at all. In his first week in office, Bush nullified 6 Clinton Executive orders and put all of them on indefinite hold.
In the first two months he told the EU to go to blazes on the Kyoto accords that would have raised the cost of doing business a minimum of 20% for every company in the United States which in turn would have been passed directly to each and every one of us in the form of price increases on every item we purchase. He then itold the senate that he would NOT sign the ridiculous “ergonomics“ regulations that would have added another 10% cost of doing business and resultant pass through to us
He then pulled funding from the UN in programs that pushed abortion. He told the UN to go to blazes on their little “conference on racism” that was nothing more than a bash Israel orgy.
He then started pushing for his tax cut, and once again, the “experts” including many on this sites, started snickering. He would never get it done, but step by step he, GASP, won over enough democrats to get the EXACT tax cut he promised
Once John Ashcroft survived his Senate confirmation hearings his first action was to completely reverse the Reno DOJ stance on the 2nd ammendment from encompassing only the militia (National Guard) to the individual right to bear arms of all law abiding citizens.
He then started pushing for military budget increases. He was not asking for massive new weapons systems, just the funding to at least change the spark-plugs in the Humvees and to try to give our military men and women a raise that would allow them to someday fight a war without being on food stamps. Once again, the “experts” scoffed. We are at PEACE they sneered let’s enjoy the “PEACE DIVIDEND”.
Then came Sept. 11 2001, 9 months into this man’s first year of his first term. The United States of America was delivered the most stunning wake-up call in our history and all eyes turned to this “lame duck” president. The yokel from Texas. For just a brief moment the “experts” were left speechless but not Bush. What would he do? He told us quickly that he would not send a 3 million dollar missile to hit a camel in the butt. That one little Texas bit of humor cloaked a final message to the world. There is going to be hell to pay, and we are seeing the results in real time.
Now the “experts” , feeling secure again, have found their voices and it is business as usual. The left, scared to death, that 80% of this country is approving of this “boob” even when they have so very patiently tried to tell them they should not are in full throat.. Those on the right that hold themselves out to be the arbiter of all things “conservative” are once again ready to bring down this “CINO” and are completely willing to pull just enough support away to get a democrat elected in 2004. While you 3rd parties are beating up on the GOP for being Repulicrats, stop and think just exactly what would have happened in just the last 10 years had they not been there to stop the real enemy. Then stop and ask yourselves where have you been? What have you done in the last 14 months? Where are the tax cuts that you are responsible for? Where are Federal Government regulations that you have repealed? Where are the actions you have taken since 911 to make a constructive contribution to the war effort? Where have you been?
Depends how you define "conservative Republican.
True, Bush is better than Gore would have been. But one need not go the other extreme and offer blind support of Bush. That's Clintonista behavior.
In 1993, the Clintonists screamed: "We must support our president no matter what! He's our president! True patriots always support the president!"
I didn't think that then. I don't think that now. My libertarian principles don't shift with whoever's in office.
True conservative support a limited Constitutional republic. They do not offer blind, unqualified, unquestioning, uncritical support to any man, even if he is "our president."
I voted for Bush while holding my nose. I'm glad Gore failed to steal the election. I can't ever imagine myself voting Democrat. I don't know if I'll vote Republican in 2004. I'll decide that then.
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.
I'm not sure that answering in kind, then, really helps! I find myself one of those that did vote for Bush but have serious doubts about his strategy. It's interesting to me that many people here love Sean Hannity and Rush, and those two are saying almost the same thing as I am, but I don't see people dropping their shows in droves.
I still don't get a strategy that says, "I'll defeat my worst enemy by looking and acting as much like him as I can!". Doesn't that mean you've become your own worst enemy? And, as a military officer I'm glad to have Bush as the Commander-in-Chief, but, as the wisdom that prevails on here goes, let's not be "one issue" people; being a great "war president" does not a full administration make if you come home to a Democrat-run domestic front.
Everytime questions like these are raised, people on here treat you like a nutcase and disparage your person instead of cogently and sincerely addressing the concerns.
For me, it's NOT one issue that Bush troubles me on; it's several. I'm not saying he's a hateful Commie wretch, I'm saying that he's heeding advice from someone that just ain't sound, from this poor man's perspective. Supporting CFR (we'll see!), the Education Bill, the pre-9/11 amnesty lovefest, the effete support of his candidates and the almost negligible use of the bully pulpit while holding the highest approval ratings ever just astound me. I just don't get it. I heard Rush say a White House staffer wrote him and said they wanted to veto the bill that extended Unemployment bennies 13 weeks, but they couldn't pull the trigger out of timidity. What??? This is the kind of thing that needs to be discussed.
Asking questions like these and needing real answers besides, "Shut up, fool! Do you want Gore? Huh? Huh? I THOUGHT so!" (accompanied with a virtual shove back "in my place") somehow makes me a whacko, hateful over-the-top fiend. I don't get it. As a black man, the only time I've suffered this treatment was when I was a young, blind Democrat who was just opening his eyes and asking questions of the Civil Rights Cabal.
Remind me? No need to remind me brat, I know that this is a CONSERVATIVE FORUM.
"Number two, some of us were Republicans long before you were"
That statement is ludicrous. You don't know anything about me. You are a piece of work brat
Bush is a friggin genius.
He had his Mexico meeting and all the good will that went with it. Now it is left to the Dems to remove the one part of the bill that Mexico wanted.
Bush doesnt get blamed for the immigration clause, while the Democrats get blamed for its EXCLUSION!! Every one here is happy, but the immigrant population blames the Dems instead of Bush!
Masterful, Mr Rove!
8 posted on 3/19/02 1:53 AM Eastern by innocentbystander
Now, personally, I'd take the older Minuteman III missiles out as ICBMs, and convert them into the boost vehicles for interceptors, and go with the Peacekeepers as the ICBMs, and put most of our eggs into the Trident-class missile subs and our manned bombers.
But that's just me.
The thing was going nowhere, so we decided to make some political hay. This November, as well as in 2004, Bush is going to quote Austin 3:16 to Tom Daschle.
"I just whupped your a$$."
Based on satellite launch success figures (85% booster success for the Russians, 90% for the US), and then taking into account that space launchers get much more servicing and repair before launch than an ICBM ever will, any talk of a first strike is pure, unadulterated BS.
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.