Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elizabeth II leaves a longing in her wake
Washington Times ^ | 5-9-07 | Jennifer Harper

Posted on 05/09/2007 11:27:05 AM PDT by JZelle

Americans got the royal treatment for 144 hours, give or take a few minutes. But it's all over. Queen Elizabeth II is gone, along with her beribboned hats, sensible pumps and kindly civility that commanded the attention of 700 dithering journalists, the White House and the citizenry itself.

Our nation will never have a queen. But we liked this one just fine. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released yesterday found that eight of 10 of us favor the British monarch -- more than British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who garnered 70 percent, and Prince Charles at 62 percent. The survey of 1,028 adults also revealed that 41 percent of us thought we'd be better off with a royal family.

Still, there was an awful lot of telltale hubbub over curtsying and protocol during the six-day visit, which ended as the queen thundered out of Andrews Air Force Base last night aboard a custom jet, accompanied by three tons of luggage and 35 attendants.

"This is no simple flash-in-the-pan celebrity watch. Americans are drawn to the queen's calm demeanor and her basic etiquette -- respect, consideration, honesty," said manners maven Peggy Post, spokeswoman of the Vermont-based Emily Post Institute.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: britain; queenelizabeth; royalty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

" "People have seen too many Disney movies about royalty, I fear," said writer Paul Jacob, a consultant for the Chicago-based Sam Adams Alliance. "Americans should not be celebrating royalty. ... How can we celebrate someone who thinks they're better than anyone else because of their bloodlines?" Elizabeth, he said, is the "antithesis" of what America stands for. Mr. Jacob also questioned Buckingham Palace's decision to send 15 protocol consultants to these shores before a whiff of royalty was even in the air. "For someone to hold this lofty position and enjoy the monetary rewards of it in the 21st century is amazing. It is time we all said 'enough.' This," Mr. Jacob added, "is Britain's biggest insanity." "

My sentiments exactly!

Aren't they why America was started in the first place? The part about 41% wanting royalty here really scares me.

1 posted on 05/09/2007 11:27:05 AM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JZelle

The Royald Family endures in Britain as a tourist attraction. And there is an undeniable tradition involved in a family that can trace their lineage back to King Egbert in the 9th century.


2 posted on 05/09/2007 11:30:15 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Could it be that first and foremost she is a Lady with a capital “L”
3 posted on 05/09/2007 11:33:54 AM PDT by PeteB570 (Guns, what real men want for Christmas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Our nation will never have a queen. But we liked this one just fine. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released yesterday found that eight of 10 of us favor the British monarch -- more than British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who garnered 70 percent, and Prince Charles at 62 percent.

"Favor the British monarch" - if I were asked a question about Queen Elizabeth by some pollster, I'd select the "favorable" answer too, simply because she's never done anything that offended or annoyed me. Inoffensiveness isn't the same thing as popularity, however - I'd be surprised if many Americans cared that much about the Queen of England at all.

I imagine that most of the 41% who said they'd like American royalty had never thought about it before and would have been strongly opposed if the question included the information that their tax dollars would be required to subsidize the lives of these parasites.
4 posted on 05/09/2007 11:35:12 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
This," Mr. Jacob added, "is Britain's biggest insanity."

No, Mr. Jacob, this is Britain's biggest tourist draw.

I certainly would be horrified at the idea of a royal family here--my word, we're close enough with the Clintons, Kennedys, and Bushes! But in the case of the UK, the royal family and aristocracy with their houses, carriages, art, sports, and other perqs draws millions of tourists from all over the world. Let's face it, tourists don't go to the UK for the skiing, beaches, or food; they go for history, castles, great gardens, and the chance to see the people who made all of the preceding. In the long run the royals are a good investment, silly as they may be sometimes, and the British people know that.

5 posted on 05/09/2007 11:36:26 AM PDT by Fairview ( Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

“Aren’t they why America was started in the first place? The part about 41% wanting royalty here really scares me.”

I’ve said it before, there seems to be something built in to some people, (a lot of people), to wish for a monarch. Look at what we watch... used to be “Lifestyles of the rich and famous”, now it’s MTV’s “Cribs”.

Group dynamics. People want to establish a pecking order. With a royal family, the pecking order is established, and clear. Very attractive to those weakminded souls who wish for a royal family.

The worst part is, our presidency is being transformed into a de facto royalty. People want the president to be King or Queen. Think of Kennedy and “Camelot”. I also think it’s a big part of “Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton”.

In America, we have to let stupid people vote.


6 posted on 05/09/2007 11:40:37 AM PDT by brownsfan (It's not a war on terror... it's a war with islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

The monarch in and of itself is not the reason for the Revolutionary War. Remember most colonists wanted to stay with England. After the war, there was much discussion about having a King which was ultimately dismissed.


7 posted on 05/09/2007 11:44:19 AM PDT by Dave W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570

I agree. The problem in America today is that people have forgotten how to be polite.


8 posted on 05/09/2007 11:47:02 AM PDT by An Old NCO (Tired of traitors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

‘My sentiments exactly!’

Yes, it’s terrible when somebodies bloodlines help them gain power or money. What an amazing coincidence that a father and son both became president out of 300m people! What are the odds of that? :D


9 posted on 05/09/2007 11:49:56 AM PDT by britemp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

Well said! Good luck with Brady Quinn!! ;)


10 posted on 05/09/2007 11:50:34 AM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Longing? What idiot would long for a monarchy?

The entire manufactured 'flap' over the interaction between the queen and our president was so contrived I wondered when they would produce some faux-poll to say Americans want royalty.

Sheesh, REAL Americans want FREEDOM. Anyone who doesn't yearn for freedom deserves their chains.

One glace at England should be enough to dissuade the sheeple from admiring a monarchy.

11 posted on 05/09/2007 11:55:15 AM PDT by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fairview; JZelle
"I certainly would be horrified at the idea of a royal family here--my word, we're close enough with the Clintons, Kennedys, and Bushes!"

We are! It scares me when people would like to see Jeb Bush in the White House in 2008 scare me more. So many politicans are now forming family dynasties. Name recognition trumps achievement these days. Like Bush or not, no one can honestly say he would have been considered to run for the Governor of Texas if his father wasn't President.

The biggest problem with this is lack of real life experience that will make people hold onto their convictions. Even the biggest Bush supporters must be disappointed that he has been MUCH less conservative that originally hoped.

As for the Queen, she has class and is very shrewd.... something that was not passed down to her idiot son, who pimps Islam and global warming.

12 posted on 05/09/2007 11:55:28 AM PDT by Barney Gumble (A liberal is someone too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

Charle Krauthammer’s comments about this on Hume’s Special Report were hilarious, and dead on accurate.


13 posted on 05/09/2007 11:56:44 AM PDT by Badeye (If you can't take a response, don't post in an open forum is my advice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: britemp
What an amazing coincidence that a father and son both became president out of 300m people! What are the odds of that? :D

Especially when the son's prior credentials and acheivements could be fit on a 3"x5" index card.

14 posted on 05/09/2007 11:57:52 AM PDT by Barney Gumble (A liberal is someone too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: britemp
They became President because enough of those 300 million people freely voted for them, not because of their family tree.

Any other non-sequitors you'd like to add?

15 posted on 05/09/2007 12:01:31 PM PDT by safeasthebanks ("The most rewarding part, was when he gave me my money!" - Dr. Nick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: britemp
They became President because enough of those 300 million people freely voted for them, not because of their family tree.

Any other non-sequitors you'd like to add?

16 posted on 05/09/2007 12:02:23 PM PDT by safeasthebanks ("The most rewarding part, was when he gave me my money!" - Dr. Nick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Borges

” And there is an undeniable tradition involved in a family that can trace their lineage back to King Egbert in the 9th century”.


Short timers!


17 posted on 05/09/2007 12:04:21 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
Krauthammer's remarks got someone's knickers in a knot....

THE QUEEN'S VISIT

LOL.

18 posted on 05/09/2007 12:04:45 PM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Borges
The Royald Family endures in Britain as a tourist attraction

As Jonnie Rotten so eloquently put it, "Those tourists are money!"

19 posted on 05/09/2007 12:06:28 PM PDT by Lx (Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JOAT
Longing? What idiot would long for a monarchy?

I bet the Clintons long for a monarchy and wish it was them.

20 posted on 05/09/2007 12:06:33 PM PDT by HungarianGypsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: safeasthebanks

‘They became President because enough of those 300 million people freely voted for them, not because of their family tree.’

I guess the hard bit is becoming the candidate with daddys help; once you’ve narrowed the choice down to two, that’s when the voters come into play.

Oh, and it self-evidently wasn’t a non-sequitor as you did respond and calculating the odds of a father and son both becoming president is eminently possible. . . . . ;-)


21 posted on 05/09/2007 12:08:55 PM PDT by britemp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: HungarianGypsy
Longing? What idiot would long for a monarchy?

I bet the Clintons long for a monarchy and wish it was them.

Ah, yes. It's certainly different when you get to BE monarch.

True.

22 posted on 05/09/2007 12:10:50 PM PDT by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Barney Gumble
It scares me when people would like to see Jeb Bush in the White House in 2008 scare me more.

I think we can safely posit with absolute certainty that there's no chance of another Bush ever getting in the White House again.

23 posted on 05/09/2007 12:13:59 PM PDT by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: britemp
Um, if you remember correctly, the first President Bush was a one-term President who was hardly popular with members of EITHER party. Also, George W. Bush had to win a primary battle with John Mc Cain (among others) to even become the candidate. Here's a hint - his father could only vote ONCE, in one state, in those primaries just like any other US citizen

But why am I even wasting my time with one obviously so clueless...

24 posted on 05/09/2007 12:15:27 PM PDT by safeasthebanks ("The most rewarding part, was when he gave me my money!" - Dr. Nick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

The part about 41% wanting royalty here really scares me.

What do you think the Kennedys, Clintoons, Kerrys, and Bushes are? Plumbers and electricians?


25 posted on 05/09/2007 12:21:13 PM PDT by hardworking (The biggest problem we have is the lack of term limits in the U.S. Senate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hardworking

See post #24


26 posted on 05/09/2007 12:31:51 PM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
We'll always have Paris...

27 posted on 05/09/2007 12:32:53 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

“The part about 41% wanting royalty here really scares me.”

They’ll get it if the voters are stupid enough (and last November proves they are) to elect Her Thighness, Hillary Rotten Clinton.


28 posted on 05/09/2007 12:35:55 PM PDT by exile ("Is Barney Frank gay or retarded?" - IMAO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Oh good. Another 'conservative' view attacking the Queen and the monarchy. No those don't get old at all. After all, Chuckie Krauthammer and Ann Coulter have both given their views and we all know those are the standards all good 'conservatives' go by.

Do I wish this nation had a monarch? Unlike that 'fine' gentleman Hamilton, no I don't. But do I admire and have a fondness for the English monarchy? Yes.

Still, there was an awful lot of telltale hubbub over curtsying and protocol during the six-day visit, which ended as the queen thundered out of Andrews Air Force Base last night aboard a custom jet, accompanied by three tons of luggage and 35 attendants

Nope, no bias there. Minus the 'three tons of luggage' (which I imagine wouldn't be far off) how many 'attendants' swarm around Bush when he 'thunders' off on his travels on his 'custom jet'? I'd garner it's far more than 35.

"This is no simple flash-in-the-pan celebrity watch. Americans are drawn to the queen's calm demeanor and her basic etiquette -- respect, consideration, honesty," said manners maven Peggy Post, spokeswoman of the Vermont-based Emily Post Institute.

Oh I don't know. Perhaps it's because we don't have politicians that are respectful or honest from either party? And we see something that we've missed for many years?

29 posted on 05/09/2007 12:46:52 PM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
The part about 41% wanting royalty here really scares me.

I doubt you have anything to worry about.....

30 posted on 05/09/2007 12:46:52 PM PDT by AxelPaulsenJr (Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
unghh...

Paris Hilton...... proof that you don't have to be poor to be white trash....

31 posted on 05/09/2007 12:49:34 PM PDT by erikm88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Nationalism has always been a little cultish. People need some kind of symbol with which they can imbue the maiestas of the state, an exemplar of their idealized national character. For the Commonwealth monarchists, that symbol is the monarchy. For us, that symbol is most probably the flag. The monarchists' cult site is a palace (or, perhaps, wherever the Monarch happens to be); ours is a bunch of pseudo-Greco-Roman temples with images of dead men in them.

Neither Commonwealth monarchists nor American nationalists are completely rational in how they have appointed the object of their adoration. They don't need a queen, and we don't need fancy-pants buildings in Washington, DC or pledges of allegiance to the flag, or de facto hymns to the same before baseball games. But rationalism was never the point.

32 posted on 05/09/2007 12:59:44 PM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

“Elizabeth, he said, is the “antithesis” of what America stands for.”

The money quote of this article.

Even “friendly” Europeans, like SOME of the Brits, have a really hard time understanding this most basic characteristic of REAL Americans; we despise class stratification. Even our cousins in Canada, can’t seem to grasp this about us.

All the more shocking to me then, when an openly traitorous, arrogant effete, elitist snob (”Don’t you know who I am?”), like John Kerry received votes from tens of millions Americans.


33 posted on 05/09/2007 1:06:45 PM PDT by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Our nation will never have a queen. But we liked this one just fine. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released yesterday found that eight of 10 of us favor the British monarch -- more than British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who garnered 70 percent, and Prince Charles at 62 percent. The survey of 1,028 adults also revealed that 41 percent of us thought we'd be better off with a royal family.

If I hang four lanterns in the steeple, I need for you to ...

34 posted on 05/09/2007 1:13:26 PM PDT by NonValueAdded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Barney Gumble

Umm did I miss something? Are you saying that many conservatives must be disappointed with GWB just because you are? Well you don’t speak for me or my family and many others! How presumptuous of you!

A lot of us are also conservatives. We are not babies or idiots, and we have a right to decide how we are supposed to feel, and what we are supposed to think. How about just taking care of yourself and your opinion, and leaving the opinions of the rest of us to US! OK?

Thank you
(Good grief!)


35 posted on 05/09/2007 1:38:14 PM PDT by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: safeasthebanks

‘Here’s a hint - his father could only vote ONCE, in one state, in those primaries just like any other US citizen’

Oh, yes, I understand now - it’s Bush SNR’s vote that mattered! Not his deep pockets! :D

‘But why am I even wasting my time with one obviously so clueless...’

It must be your ego making you do it. ;-)


36 posted on 05/09/2007 1:41:00 PM PDT by britemp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

“I imagine that most of the 41% who said they’d like American royalty had never thought about it before and would have been strongly opposed if the question included the information that their tax dollars would be required to subsidize the lives of these parasites.”

What makes you think American taxpayers mind subsidizing parasites?


37 posted on 05/09/2007 1:43:57 PM PDT by GovernmentIsTheProblem (Capitalism is the economic expression of individual liberty. Pass it on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

I rather like the British monarchy.

Wouldn’t want it here, but it seems to have worked well for the British.

Stable monarchies can add a measure of social stability to nations. As well, we’ve learned in the 20th century that monarchies are not antithetical to representative democracy. In fact, we learned last century from the Spanish example that in extremis, the monarch may serve as the defender of constitutional, representative democracy, as when King Juan Carlos led the putting down of a coup in defense of Spanish democracy.

Finally, looking at the United Kingdom, it seems that the worst aspects of Prime Minister Blair’s governance have been associated with a strain of anti-elitism, even anti-monarchism.


38 posted on 05/09/2007 2:05:53 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dsutah
Are you saying that many conservatives must be disappointed with GWB just because you are? Well you don’t speak for me or my family and many others!

So you are happy with his high discretionary spending, expiring tax cuts, open borders and calling minutemen vigilantes, trying to push through Harriet Meirs and then telling us we are sexist if we don't like it?

I didn't say you hate the guy, but you must be disappointed?

39 posted on 05/09/2007 2:07:24 PM PDT by Barney Gumble (A liberal is someone too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Aren't they why America was started in the first place?

Not really. The laws that drove the Revolution were passed by Parliament, a body in which the colonists were not represented. Painting George III as the lead villain was a calculated political decision, as the Americans didn't want to alienate their remaining Whig allies.

The part about 41% wanting royalty here really scares me.

I'm not frightened. It just means that all the people who drool over the tabloids and watch Extra would like to see someone with a little of QEII's dignity to break up the parade of Brithenys, Parises and Anna Nicoles.

Some democracies, notably Germany and Israel, have a sort of elected monarch -- a president, with mostly symbolic duties, who is expected to remain above the fray and outside politics. The chancellor and prime minister, respectively, are the heads of government.

If the US had adopted something like that at the beginning, I don't think it would have harmed us any; I think it would be a transparently pointless move now. For that matter, if the US had been founded as a constitutional monarchy, I don't think that would have changed the nation's development much -- but founding a royal house in the US was a logistical impossibility, as the only contender, George Washington, had no children.

40 posted on 05/09/2007 2:46:52 PM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fairview
I certainly would be horrified at the idea of a royal family here--my word, we're close enough with the Clintons, Kennedys, and Bushes!

Trivia pop quiz.
Q: When was the last election with neither a Bush nor a Clinton on the national ballot?
A: 1976. I was in the first grade.

Americans say they hate political dynasties, but aside from the Kennedys and Bushes -- and the Clintons, who are johnny-come-latelys by comparison -- how about the Tafts of Ohio? The Aldrich/Rockefeller line has had folks in elected office continuously since the civil war.

Let's face it, tourists don't go to the UK for the skiing, beaches, or food; they go for history, castles, great gardens, and the chance to see the people who made all of the preceding. In the long run the royals are a good investment, silly as they may be sometimes, and the British people know that.

Agree. They also have a great morale value -- they've been a tabloid embarrassment in recent years, but during World War II, the royals' decision to remain in London helped rally the population. Queen Elizabeth is most familiar to us as a dignified, if frumpy, old lady, but during the war Princess Elizabeth was a daring young beauty who went around the country assisting in relief work and -- unprecedented for royal women at the time -- drove her own Jeep. Prince Andrew servd in the Falklands. And now Harry might be on his way to Iraq.

But more than the individual personalities, the persistence of the royal family feeds the sense that there will always be an England where England ought to be. Britain spent a third of its national wealth fighting World War II. It lost the Empire. The Brits take a great deal of pride in their legacy, most of it justifiable, and the royals are a visible, high-profile embodiment of that legacy.

41 posted on 05/09/2007 3:47:30 PM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: An Old NCO

Bingo!


42 posted on 05/09/2007 3:51:20 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Aren't they why America was started in the first place? The part about 41% wanting royalty here really scares me.

Are Minnie and Mickey Mouse going to visit the White House next and get a state dinner with curtsying and all that crap? I mean, they "rule" the Magic Kingdom just as much as the "royals" rule the United Kingdom. As long as we're getting all dressed up and pretending here...

43 posted on 05/09/2007 3:54:37 PM PDT by Spiff (Rudy Giuliani Quote (NY Post, 1996) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

I’ll make sure my Blazer has a full tank of gas and is ready to go help spread the alarm...


44 posted on 05/09/2007 7:41:33 PM PDT by Pharmboy ([She turned me into a] Newt! in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

We call Krauthammer ‘the brainpan’ in my house...(chuckle)


45 posted on 05/10/2007 5:48:30 AM PDT by Badeye (If you can't take a response, don't post in an open forum is my advice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Our nation will never have a queen.

Well, we already have one who thinks she is the queen. Two, actually. Pelosi AND Hillary.

46 posted on 05/10/2007 5:54:30 AM PDT by MagnoliaMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave W
The monarch in and of itself is not the reason for the Revolutionary War.

Correct. It was a war against Parliament more than anything else. The monarchy provided a good excuse. King George was a certifiable kook.

The English could have wiped the colonists out. They were too busy worrying about France and Russia.

47 posted on 05/10/2007 5:56:31 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Barney Gumble

So, all of these things are the measure you use for conservatism? I’m not sure you and I are looking at the same standards of conservatism. All the standards you listed are very important, yes, but are they the only standards? The tax cuts he put in are good aren’t they?

Making sure the military members have what they need (spending for strong defense), conservative judges, getting us out of Kyoto, getting us out of world court system, veto of partial-birth abortion, among other points, he has done. Aren’t these items conservative anymore? You do realize that some of these items are supported by liberals also, do you?

I have already seen evidence he has done a lot of these things, and is working on others. Nothing you could say can convince me that he is not at least mostly conservative. People can decide whether he is doing everything to their satisfaction.

I’m not going to convince you to agree with me on all things conservative. Even a liberal can be for a border wall. There is no such thing as a perfect, pure, conservative leader. Not even Ronald Reagan was flawlessly conservative on everything. He was a mostly good, strong conservative leader, but not perfect. He was a practical conservative, and so is GWB! And that’s the way I look at it.


48 posted on 05/10/2007 1:11:08 PM PDT by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Don't quite get the "longing" thing.

Did Liz visit a men's prison or something?

49 posted on 05/10/2007 1:17:17 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dsutah

The tax cuts were great, but they expire in three years. He needed to agree to the expiration dates in 2001 because the Senate was Dems. But... there was no revision to make the permanent in 2004-2006. Leadership could have gotten us there. Instead if a Democrat gets elected in 2008, taxes will go up and the Dems won’t even have to raise taxes. They’ll just let the cuts expire.

Conservative justices weren’t without a fight. We were already out of Kyoto. It was already killed when the Senate voted 95-0 against it (including Ted ‘hiccup’ Kennedy).

Non-military discretionary spending is at an all-time high. He signed the campaign finance “reform” even though he said he thought it was unconstitutitonal (what was he sworn to uphold?). There’s a flood of illegal and he chastises the Minutemen...calling them vigalantes?

Bush has done some good, but he’s been a big disappointment. I don’t regret my votes as he is better than Gore or Heinz, but he is much closer to the politics of his father than the politics of Reagan (which he was purported to be).


50 posted on 05/10/2007 3:23:25 PM PDT by Barney Gumble (A liberal is someone too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson