Who says George W. Bush has done "nothing" for conservatives?

WhiteHouse.gov; various news sources ^ | 1/27/04

[Sabertooth]

Because it is much easier to resort to stereotypes and name calling than to engage in passionate, rational, and logical debate. We are all guilty of this.

Bump that.

On "Bushbots" and "Bushbashers"

CC to Mo1, who felt left out she wasn't pinged on the other thread.

[ohioWfan]

That I am! :o)

[Doohickey]

Apparently, yes.

[LucyJo]

Love that man!!

[afraidfortherepublic]

Our President did NOT propose an amnesty and is NOT condoning illegal entry. Read the proposal before commenting. The aliens he proposes admitting must have an employer waiting for them in advance. They will be registered with the government, and we will know where they are. Immigration will have the power to exclude, or deport, any one found here without the proper paperwork.

I think this will be a boon to Homeland Security. I heard Bob Kerry say on C-Span yesterday that Immigration officers identified the hijackers were within 45 minutes of the attack on the Twin Towers and on the Pentagon.

19 INS, or border patrol, agents failed us under the old immigration policy. Only one border agent stopped a highjacker from entering the US, and even that small effort probably saved the White House or the Capitol from a similar attack.

The Wall Street Journal today is calling for a new policy that will register aliens and track them.

[prairiebreeze]

Thanks again for the compilation of Presidential accomplishments during one of the most trying and difficult times in American history....certainly THE most trying in recent years.

I'm off and running. Bookmarking for pick up

Prairie

[afropick]

I think all of this hyperventilating needs to be taken down a notch. AWB is nowhere close to coming to the house this year, the guest worker or amnesty program is still just a proposal, and the spending is just as much the congress fault as it is the President. I see people saying they wont vote for Bush for things that have not even been voted on or even reached the desk of the President. Many say he is spending like crazy, but it is also the obligation of the congress to send any bill back to the white house if it is way to expensive. Many say he has the veto, but remember if there are enough votes could there be a possiblity to override the veto. I'm not sure but if someone else knows better, clarify that. We as free independent thinkers should be able to disagree about many policies without resorting to the namecalling and outright disrespect being shown here. I would expect that from liberals who use those tactics when they have no clear or proper response.

[PhiKapMom]

Someone just alerted me to your sign-up date! For you to come on here with such a confrontational attitude for a new poster is unbelieveable. Only DemocRATs are like that -- guess you are one that the Mods missed! Republicans would never be that confrontational when they are new to a forum!

This is my last post to you -- if I had bothered to check your sign-on date the last post would have happened immediately!

[nutmeg]

ping

[onyx]

#277 -- I love it.

[ohioWfan]

What does ONE editorial in the WSJ have to do with your sweeping attack on what 'bots' want?

IF you would understand that you could make your point with out the ad hominem attack on 'bots'......which is EVERYONE who supports the President to you.......you might be taken more seriously.

Your blanket condemnation on all of us who support the President, on the basis of ONE column negates any point you might have been trying to make.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Why are you so nasty?

Perhaps because he REALLY should be called "Unprincipled".

[MeekOneGOP]

Thank you, sir ! Will do.

What a guy !!

[Merdoug]

Shouldn't you print that out in Spanish? Many of Bush's next voters can't read it.

[Ophiucus]

Yup the bots just want their borders opened and the illegals granted amnesty look at WSJ's journal today.

There are FReeper bots on the WSJ editorial staff? How did that happen?

Or could it be that the 'screaming amnesty' crowd might have it wrong?

Best lines from the WSJ article are:

• Conservatives pride themselves on realism, so if a policy keeps failing for nearly two decades maybe some new thinking is in order.
  
• Their entry to America is not without its problems and costs. But a sensible policy would tackle those, as Mr. Bush proposes to do, rather than pursue the fantasy that we can or should close our borders like some isolated ancient kingdom.
  

Let's see - immigration has been a big problem for decades, lots of solutions tried and none worked, so let's try to rethink and come up with something better....yep, a total 'bot article.

And of course they forget CFR, increasing education spending under Kennedy's bill, etc.

No forgetting here - lot's have said that mistakes have been made. The point is that a lot of good things have been done in a difficult time and the good outweighs the bad, for those of us that don't insist on ideological purity and perfection, that is.

BTW have you heard when he is going to tighten up the ASW ban or better known as the 1994 fire arm act.

The extension of the assault weapons ban is the only gun control measure Bush has supported and that support has been only verbal, he hasn't done one thing to push it through - which is good, he should let it drop. He did work to help kill the stronger, permanent Democrat ban bill and so far supports the gun manufacturers protection bill that passed the House. He's not exactly anti-gun.

Bet that will get done in the next 6 months?

Not a chance in hell. Hastert hasn't even allowed it to be on the schedule yet.

[Tamzee]

Wolfstar, this is WONDERFUL!!!

Thank you so much for taking the time to set this up so beautifully... a great read and a great resource for the election :-)

[onyx]

WTG! Why mince words! A liar is a liar is a liar. :)

[kayak]

Thank you!

[afraidfortherepublic]

...the spending is just as much the congress fault as it is the President

Correction: it's ALL the fault of the Congress. The President can request, but only Congress can write appropriation Bills -- and the President does not have a line item veto, so extra spending gets tacked onto important Bills where he can't risk vetoing the whole Bill. I'm sure you know that, but this is just a clarification for others on this Board who do not seem to know it.

[Wolfstar]

Re your #155, well stated and very fair-minded. I don't agree with the President 100% of the time. As a Southern Californian, I am against his immigration proposal. Just not too exercised over it because I know it's DOA in Congress. But George W.'s overall record in just three short, tumultuous years, is nothing short of superb.