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

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 01/24/2004 6:45:19 AM PST by Lead Moderator, reason:

This thread has degenerated into a flamewar. No more replies. Sheesh.



Skip to comments.

Gap widening between Bush and conservatives
Townhall.com ^ | January 23, 2004 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 01/23/2004 5:23:57 AM PST by Apple Pan Dowdy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-406 next last
To: My2Cents
Overall, though, we are fortunate to have this man, with his set of values, in the White House, even if he isn't every Freeper's model of conservatism.

I remember saying, about this time in 2000, that the most important issue facing the nation was the election of a President who had moral and ethical values, regardless of his ideological bent. Hard-nosed conservatism can come later, but for the time, we need a man like Bush and ought to be grateful that we've got him.

381 posted on 01/23/2004 4:07:01 PM PST by Agnes Heep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
"Y'all become invisible to the real deal politicos who make policy and impact our lives ... good or bad."

Since when has a President's enforcing or rather UN-enforcing American sovereignty a "real deal"??

You may actually delude yourself for the moment that the number of conservatives affected by this ONE ISSUE is more or less "invisible," but I assure you the administration doesn't. There will be a thousand polls out in the coming months directing the President on just which direction is "prudent." Shame he can't just do the right thing.

"Threatening to withdraw your support from a team (i.e. Party) in a gambit to injure the team is far less effective than offering to contribute your support, with an alternative approach, to that same team in the effort to better ensure their success."

Just play offense AND play defense 100%, and the "team" ought to win. In this case, our "defense" is allowing too much yardage. In fact our "team" is playing a prevent "D" when we ought to be blitzing...

382 posted on 01/23/2004 4:15:03 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Agnes Heep
Agnes, you hit the nail on the head. Any President, because of his Constitutional limitations on power and the liquid dynamic of World events, cannot PROMISE deliverance of any single policy inititiative.

The ONLY thing one can measure, and judge, is that individual's honesty, competency and judgement in building a supporting team of professionals. Bushbots NEVER believed he was Hammurabi or Alexander the Great ... with all encompassing power. Bushbots gave this President our "proxy" ... he has our trust to manage our vital civic affairs on our behalf. With the best wisdom, intuity and consul possible.

It's actually the Bush detractors around here that are "Bushbots" ... they think he's some kind of all powerful despot. Bush supporters have a far more realistic, nuanced understanding of this man's personal and institutional strengths and weaknesses than any of his 24/7 critics understand. We trust the man, his good faith commitment to America, and we trust the super pros he's surrounded himself with. Period.

I'm not going to nitpick every single Chess move by Kasparov. I don't know what the next six moves hence he's mulling in his mind. I know the outcome he's pursuing ... victory. I trust his "take."

I trust George W. Bush's "take" as well. As a conservative and an American whose country is at War.

383 posted on 01/23/2004 4:24:18 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: onyx
"Heretofore, I have been totally against background checks because I believe the 2nd Ammendment affords us the right to keep and bear arms anonymously --- without the government knowing who bears 'em and who does not. Am I wrong?"

IMO, the right to bear arms (including AW) is necessary -- albeit with some kind of background check.

As to the question of whether AW are "necessary," -- they are still merely one more means of personal protection -- Janet Reno-type AGs notwithstanding ;-)

384 posted on 01/23/2004 4:24:42 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
This is not 1776 and we are not fighting the British --

When a man like General Wesley Clark is considered a serious candidate for president we are in trouble. Don't you understand that Clark if elected could put people just like him in charge of our military? You think that that sort of leader should have control of all weapons that could win a civil war. You are saying that you trust men like Wesley Clark, Kerry and Dean and not ordinary citizens to protect your freedom. That is very scary.

Are you really so sure of your safety... do you have no fear of men like Dean and Clark ever taking control of the this nation?

No founder of this nation was afraid of the British. The british were not the reason for the 2nd amendment. The founding fathers won the revolutionary war a decade before the 2nd amendment was written. They were not afraid of the power of the King of England. They were afraid of unstable men being elected and subjugating the people of this nation. They feared those ambitious men would use the military to take control of this nation and subjugate our citizens. I still am.

Germany in the 1920's had a full democracy. But when Hitler made a deal with the military in 1933, freedom was gone in weeks. Germany was by far the best educated nation in the world. All it took was ONE Hitler, an armed military, and a disarmed citizenry to take all their freedom away. It cost 50 million lives to undo that mistake.

You are afraid that bad men or women will get control of some assault weapons and kill some innocent people.

You are not afraid a Hitler type leader can assume control of this nation once we are a severely under armed and vulnerable population.

You surely must understand that at least half the men who run for president would do anything to exchange the title of President for Supreme Dictator. Write down the names of the 9 candidates and then mark the names of all who would refuse to be a Supreme Dictator if the opportunity arose. Do it. And see how safe you feel. Sooner or later, perhaps in the not too distant future, such a person will get elected. You are betting they won't pull an Adolf Hitler... but history says one of them will. Our only protection is an armed citizenry that the Government can't control.

Do you think the courts can protect you? No less than Thomas Jefferson refused to obey the supreme court. He said, "Justice Marshall has made his decision.. Now lets see him enforce it." If Jefferson could get away with not obeying the court, a lesser president can as well.

If a Bill Clinton can make Wesley Clark a 4 star general how many 4 star Generals could a future President appoint that would be loyal to him and not anyone else.... how many colonels, majors and captains. would it take? How many privates would they have to execute before the privates shot whomever the Generals said to shoot. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin both knew the answer to that question. I hope you never get to learn it.

You, believing you have complete freedom, will speak against such men. I hope that if it happens you will be bright enough not to do so. I hope you will spout the Dictator's party line. If you don't you will quickly learn the reason our founding fathers wanted the civilian population to be armed well enough to take on our own military and win.

The protection of the 2nd amendment was not to defend us from external threats... It was to protect us from internal threats from a government in the hands of evil people.

Your believe in gun control only displays that you see armed people as a greater threat than an armed government.

Every dictator in history has risen to power because fearful citizens shared your belief.


385 posted on 01/23/2004 4:27:45 PM PST by Common Tator (Commontator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
If Bush wants to get elected again he had better get some more authentically conservative faces and policies in view.
386 posted on 01/23/2004 4:28:17 PM PST by Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Then vote against Bush, and shut the hell up."

Nope -- not before I antagonize the hell outta YOU...

"You couldn't get a lap dance if you paid for it."

Marginalized, then emasculated?? OUCH!

387 posted on 01/23/2004 4:29:46 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
I'm comforable with the current program.
388 posted on 01/23/2004 4:29:57 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
?????????????

How old are you by the way (just curious)?

389 posted on 01/23/2004 4:31:30 PM PST by Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
That's none of your business, and irrelevant to the discussion.

How old are you?

390 posted on 01/23/2004 4:33:02 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Gee, I hope you will be as comfortable with John Kerry as president.
I have been a professional conservative for over 20 years.
I know of no professional conservatives (real conservatives) in active life in Washington who are "comfortable" with Bush.
391 posted on 01/23/2004 4:35:34 PM PST by Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
IMHO, this is a load of BS from Jonah. I like him, but he is off the mark this time. I am a conservative, and while I don't agree with every one of Bush's policies, I am solidly on board with him. As are most conservatives I know.
392 posted on 01/23/2004 4:40:16 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat (www.firethebcs.com, www.weneedaplayoff.com, www.firemackbrown.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
I have been a professional conservative for over 20 years.

How elitist of you.

Well anyway it seems that you and Larry Klayman, Paul Weyrich, etc. etc. have something in common, a Napolean syndrome.

You all crown yourselves Emperors of conservatism. And it pisses you off when the little peons contradict you.

393 posted on 01/23/2004 4:41:46 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
I have been a professional conservative for over 20 years.

A "professional" conservative? How's bidness? LOL

Thanks for bringing to the forefront the reality behind all the book writers, pundits and other whores of "the right" who are furtively trying to stake anti-Bush postitions right now. There's no money in supporting President Bush right now.

They've got an angry fringe on the right, and a far larger angry leftwing dynasty who will pay them money to trash talk the President and the GOP right now.

Big deal. Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the "B" team talent ... their cynical marketing campaigns are fully expected. The "Think Tanks" like Cato, Heritage and Landmark ... they're hustling for money like all the other D.C. clowns are. Satisfied Bushbots ain't filling their coffers, they need to rustle up some animus from Fringies and left wing Agent Provacoteurs.

Bush is a political juggernaut. He's unbeatable in November, and he's going to bring 3-4 GOP Senators and 15-20 House GOP candidates with him. Gargle your bile.

394 posted on 01/23/2004 4:44:05 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
A "PROFESSIONAL CONSERVATIVE"???

First I heard of that.

Should be "ARROGANT CONSERVATIVE"

or

"FRAUDULANT CONSERVATIVE".
395 posted on 01/23/2004 4:46:58 PM PST by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
"Whores of the right?"..."Bidness"??? Oh, dear... Sure you are on the right website?

Are you...shrooming again, W? Take some niacin and get a good night sleep.

396 posted on 01/23/2004 4:47:30 PM PST by Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
There must be one helluva lot of Soros money out there for you D.C. assclowns to backstab this President.
397 posted on 01/23/2004 4:49:34 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin; Admin Moderator
Assclowns?
398 posted on 01/23/2004 4:51:54 PM PST by Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
My mistake, you are actually "pantloads".
399 posted on 01/23/2004 4:54:20 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
Assclowns?

Ahhhh, the DC beltway "professional conservative" can't take the heat.

Go have a drink with your demos buddies in Georgetown and you all can talk about how superior you are to the people out in flyover country.

400 posted on 01/23/2004 4:54:40 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-406 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