Skip to comments.MY TWO CENTS ON WHETHER YOU CAN SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT WHILE NOT SUPPORTING HIS POLICIES
Posted on 01/26/2009 5:46:36 AM PST by andrew roman
If the murderous bloodshed of September 11, 2001 had taken place while Barack Obama were President of the United States, and his reaction and subsequent retaliation had followed precisely the path that George W. Bush had taken, undoubtedly he would not only have been branded the greatest wartime commander in the history of all humankind by the mainstream media, but he would have garnered my support without a scintilla of equivocation.
If, however, under the same scenario, with the rubble in lower Manhattan still smoldering, President Obama would have called for an immediate summit of Muslim leaders (and a task force or two to boot) to figure out not only why such a "tragedy" occurred, but exactly what the United States would need to change in its foreign policy to keep the peace, I would have said adamantly and ferociously that I did not support the President.
Using this example, to claim support for the President without supporting his policies is exactly the same as saying that one supports the troops without supporting the war. It is a nonsensical statement. It is not possible.
It is very common, for instance, to hear someone say they support the war effort in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Although that is not my position, one is certainly entitled to feel that way. If that is, indeed, the case, then it is intellectually dishonest to say that someone who takes that position supports the troops in Iraq.
(More on that in a moment).
(Excerpt) Read more at romanaround.net ...
Your not a regular listener are you
Not a regular listener? I’m sorry?
I will never support obammer either as a person or as the current holder of that office - at least anymore than I supported clintoon!
He means, not a regular Rush listener. It appears as though you took Rush’s words at face value.
I have heard several talk-show hosts - those that I admire - say that that they DO support the President while opposing “some” of his policies.
I found that quite odd, to say the least.
My point - and one held by people like Rush Limbaugh - is that you cannot support the President of the United States, other than in the rudementary ways I enumerated in the piece, if you don’t support his policies.
To say you do is similar - in my opinion - to saying you support the troops but do not support the war.
That position makes no sense to me.
I am not, in the least, opposing Rush Limbaugh. In fact, my piece fully supports his position on the subject.
That is precisely the point of the piece.
No can do. I cannot support a rookie Community Organizer in Chief.
It’s not hard to support troops and not the war. One supports the troops in all their activities, because they are there to take orders. One does not have to support the orders that are given to those troops.
This position makes complete sense to me.
Rush has always "used absurdity to show absurdity". His statement was poking fun at the ridiculous liberal mantra of "supporting the troops but not supporting the war."
Yes, I think you, Rush and I agree that it is an absurd notion that you could do one without doing the other.
Hmmmm. It is still a two-party system in this country, no matter what Obama and the rest of his liberal political hacks want us to believe. It may come as a surprise to some, but there are still conservative voters in this country who believe in conservative values and conservative leaders, and Obama certainly does not meet that criteria. I will support BHO, the same way my President George Bush was supported.
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.