Skip to comments.Why I can't stand Bush [Who but Paul Mulshine]
Posted on 05/09/2006 7:50:33 AM PDT by Incorrigible
I often hear from readers who wonder why I so thoroughly dislike George W. Bush.
It's simple. Living in New Jersey, as I do, I spend a lot of time arguing politics with liberals. In the pre-Bush era, I found it easy to win such arguments. I have fond memories of defending the policies of Ronald Reagan back in the good old days. "He called the Soviet Union an evil empire!" the liberal would say.
"But it is an evil empire," I would point out...
...Before George W. came along, conservatives were on the winning side of every major issue. We were the ones who disdained the Beltway class, who pushed for smaller, more responsible government. Remember term limits? The balanced-budget amendment? In the Clinton era, the GOP promised such reforms...
...But to call Bush a traitor to his political philosophy is to imply that he had one. He didn't. You can read through Bush's various speeches over the years without coming up with the slightest hint of a coherent system of thought. In this, he's the opposite of Reagan...
...That's George W. to a T, an entertainer past his prime. Only his fellow entertainers -- Rush Limbaugh et al. -- still pretend he knows what he's doing...
As I am fond of reminding readers, I was onto this fraud from the first. In November of 1999 I urged that he drop out of the GOP primary. In the spring of 2004, I suggested that renominating him would lead to disaster for the party. The only good I can see coming out of this mess is that it opens a whole new line of argument against the liberals: After Bush, no president will ever be trusted again.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Hey, when Bush is wrong, he's wrong. He's no conservative. Goldwater and Reagan would both disown him.
There's Kool-Aid drinking in BOTH parties right now.
Well said. I'm sick of having to educate morons about how politics works. Well some are conservatives I suspect many are dem disruptors. This is validated by the poll that shows 20% would favor giving Comngress to the dems.
Somehow this 30 year old immigration issue has suddenly become a crisis issue that the GOP must fix immediately or the Buchananites will stay home. While this old issue is valid I am suspicious of the timing and believe this issue has been orchestrated to split the base. Not everyone is falling for it.
Principles above all else except for honor.
Your arguement is the political equivalent of the little boy busted by mom who says "but Billy and Bobby and Johnny did it too".
IMO the main issue is not the work seeking illegals, but the smuggling of terrorists / weapons threat.
The buck stops with Bush with this one, and he's not going to squirm out of it.
A 31% approval rating is not Governmant of, by and for the People.
You idolize this man unconditionally like a 10 year old idolizes a professional athlete or a movie star and you compare his critics to children?
That's true and he admits that in the article. I've been reading Paul Mulshine since Richard Argood (The (red)Star Ledger commie op-ed editor) and he arrived from The Philadelphia Inquirer in the mid 90's. Paul, being the token conservative, was my FreeRepublic before FreeRepublic. I didn't support GW in 1999 either. The only candidate I ever sent money to is Alan Keyes. He wiped the floor with McCain and Bush during the debates but of course he couldn't get the support of the Republican elite and certainly wasn't going to get good press. Keyes and Mulshine, as I recall, had a similar political philosophy at the time.
Him and John Farmer are two of the biggest DNC water bucket carriers that the Drive By Media have.
John Farmer of course is a bucket carrier. Heck, he even built the bucket!
It's true that Bush isn't a true conservative. Sure, he's a social conservative but not a fiscal one. What ever happened to limited government. The funny thing is that we all knew he'd increase government involvement in our lives via increased spending but we didn't care because we didn't want Al Whore as president. Where is Ronald Reagan when you need him?
However, Bush is not running for re-election again. The House GOP is. And Bush's stance on a guest worker program is, IMO, severely jeopardizing their chances.
So IMO it is critical to oppose Bush on his stance on a guest worker program. Not just because history in Europe shows guest workers create a festering problem. Not just because anything remotely resembling amnesty will make the problem worse as long as the borders are not secure.
But also because it is creating an opening for the Dems to win in 2006.
Well, so far as I'm concerned gridlock is now the best possible outcome. It is the least of three evils.
Yep, if they show themselves unable to make things better, don't let them make things worse.
I saw on another thread, "I didn't drift away from Bush, Bush drifted away from me."
"I hate to break it you, but our Southern Border was open before Bush came into office.."
And because the problem has been there for a while, it requires no attention? That's interesting "logic".
The problem is more pronounced because the government is making it more attractive for Mexicans to come here, and employers to hire the illegals. That has come to the fore under Mr. Bush's watch.
If it happens on your watch, you are responsible, no excuses. If Mr. Bush would push for closing the border, I don't think anyone would hold his feet to the fire for the past deficiencies in border security.
Amen brother, this is the statement of the day.
Besides that, I am becoming more interested in punishing those who have squandered our hard-won opportunity than who is in power next. There seems to be little difference between the parties these days.
Secure the border or you're fired !
For the past six years, our Southern Border has been open after Bush came into office..
Heaven knows, I have my problems with Bush, especially on his allowing the alien invasion from Mexico to go on.
But what were the alternatives - Ozone alGore or traitorous John Kerry???? Both would open the borders full bore and give illegals more rights that real Americans. and both would have increased taxes AND spending.
Until there's a better alternative to Bush that is FEASIBLE, conservatives have to settle for the half-a-loaf we get judicial appointments, tax cuts, etc.
Even if the legacy of President Bush is a more Constitution supporting Supreme Court and some modicum of Democracy introduction in the Middle East, I would still consider that a success.
Perhaps my bar is set too low but I would be happy with the above.
Actaully for over 30 years....
Ronald Reagan built up the military.
George Bush is rebuilding the military.
Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union.
George Bush is defeating al Qaeda.
Ronald Reagan cut taxes.
George Bush cut taxes.
Ronald Reagan failed to cut spending.
George Bush failed to cut spending.
Ronald Reagan offered amnesty to illegals.
George Bush is offering guest worker programs for illegals.
Ronald Reagan was charged by Democrats with abuse of power and lying.
George Bush has been charged by Democrats with abuse of power and lying.
Ronald Reagan called on God for help.
George Bush has called on God for help.
Yeah...I see what you mean. Wow! What a difference.
I've heard people like him referred to as Donner Party Conservatives. They always eat their own.
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.