A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[Stand Watch Listen]

Let me just say up front that I am not addressing you if you voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and regret it. The same goes for those of you who voted for Bush and insist on holding his feet to the fire on the important issues. If, however, you cast your vote for Bush, still believe he is the only hope for America and intend to support every move he makes without so much as a raised eyebrow, this is for you.

It has been nearly a year-and-a-half since George W. Bush, the savior of conservatism, descended from on high to begin his earthly reign in Washington, D.C. Republicans assured us that he would restore integrity to the White House and would be a marked improvement over the promiscuous Bill Clinton. Well, in all honesty, that could have been accomplished by electing a neutered chimp to the office of president.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush the man proved to be a nice break from Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Unlike Gore, Bush had a more likable...well, he actually had a personality. He also possessed the unique ability to address the American people without the smug and condescending vibe Clinton exuded. However, when it came to policy, George W. Bush the candidate failed to demonstrate that he would govern any differently than his Democrat counterparts.

Still, throughout the campaign, there was a loyal group of Bush supporters who would take offense at even the slightest implication that their candidate was anything but a staunch conservative. Even now, they continue to stand by their man, and I find this to be rather perplexing.

Perhaps those who have pledged their undying allegiance to President Bush could answer a few questions for me, in no particular order of course:

•  How would you have reacted if Bill Clinton had signed the Patriot Act into law and given the government sweeping new surveillance powers?

•  Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?

•  Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?

•  What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?

•  Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?

•  What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "No one should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government"?

•  What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?

•  What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?

•  How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?

•  Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?

•  What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?

•  Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?

•  What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?

•  What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?

•  It's been a year-and-a-half since Bush took office. When do we start to see a decrease in the size and scope of government? For that matter, when do we start to see even a remote indication that this administration will think about doing anything to try to limit the federal government?

This list is by no means exhaustive, but I would really be interested in some answers. Perhaps it would help shed some light on the mindset of modern compassionate conservatives.

The fact that a Republican president is governing like a Democrat isn't surprising. What's amazing to me is that there are a few select Bush supporters out there who cannot—or will not—utter one word of criticism against their president for any reason. In their minds this man is the epitome of conservatism, and to question his actions would be to question their own beliefs and cause them to wonder why they supported him in the first place.

The way I see it there can only be two explanations for this: 1) these people really and truly believe in what Bush is doing, or 2) they do not wish to face up to the real reason they voted for him — he was simply a slightly more palatable choice than Al Gore.

[Stand Watch Listen]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you will be flamed like the fire of a thousand suns and you won't get any answers for your trouble to boot. I applaud your ef

lol....going out on a limb...lol

There are many posters on this forum that I respect and applaud their activism, their loyalty and defend their positions in a most articulate manner. Yet, the 'my way or the highway', or 'better than Gore' way of thinking leaves me apprehesive.

[Poohbah]

You think he's going to try anything other than cannibalizing from the GOP vote?

[JimVT]

"What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?"

Or on the other hand what hasn't he done that makes him different from the Clintoncrats? Like:

Not bombing pharmacuetical factories.

Not bald-faced lying to the country.

Not disgracing the White House with his sex escapades.

Not allowing China to walk off with the kitchen sink.

Gimmee a break!

[Darth Sidious]

Descriptions like "conservative" and "liberal" lost their appeal for me a few years ago. My criteria for scrutinizing a public servant boils down only to this: does the man (or woman) believe that we are free by the grace of God, or by the grace of other men (i.e. the state).

If the person cannot/does not answer this aloud, there are other indications on their true stance: does this person act in a way that empowers individuals, or the state?

Per that, President Bush does not strike me as anything other than a mediocre man in extaordinary times. He could be extraordinary himself, and I believe God has given him that potential (just as He gives all of us that potential), but as it stands he's trapped in too much of this world: appeasement for "political convenience", trying to stay safe in his comfort zone and out of real harm's way... a Winston Churchill he is not.

But he could be... if he wants it.

[arkfreepdom]

These Bush-is-a-dem articles are so boring and deceptive....not to mention poorly written.

[garv]

Really? Did #4 answer any of SWL's specific questions or only the more general one?

[Stand Watch Listen]

First of all, I did not write this editorial. I posted it for debate/discussion on this forum. I have a 4 1/2 year posting history on FR. Read and heed, learn and discern.

[My back yard]

Right on!

[McGavin999]

Ask yourself why Bush flat out lied by saying immediately after 9/11 " Islam means peace"

Because he didn't want us to have to go to war with the entire Islamic world. He was about to send troops into Muslim nations in order to go after terrorists and didn't want them all shot on sight. What would you have done and how many American lives would YOU have sacrificed in order to please a couple dozen armchair generals?

[billybudd]

I think the standard by which we judge public officials should be whether their actions overall increase or decrease freedom. Saying that Gore would have been worse is meaningless - we have no idea what Gore would have done or been able to do. Remember, we had Clinton, but it wasn't a total disaster. Clinton tried pushing health care and tax increases, and it brings Republicans into congress instead. Clinton was also forced to deal with the Republicans in passing welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts, etc. I'm not saying Clinton was good, but you shouldn't assume that a Democrat will automatically be able to implement a socialist agenda, any more than Bush is able to implement a conservative one. So far, I would say that Bush overall has not advanced freedom in this country, according to my own standards. Actually, instead of arguing about what Bush has and hasn't done, which we've all heard rehashed hundreds of times here on FR, I think we should argue about what standard we should use to judge the President. What do you think?

[afuturegovernor]

Lee R. Shelton IV, I have a question for you: What have you done to convince voters to take up the conservative cause?

He is the type that likes to complain about everything and do nothing. He would rather circle the wagons and fire inward than fire out at the Democrats.

[bybybill]

Sorry, my mistake

[hchutch]

Amen. But try and point that out to some people and...

[afuturegovernor]

we have no idea what Gore would have done

I think that we know exactly what President Gore would have done.

[Poohbah]

Ask yourself why Bush flat out lied by saying immediately after 9/11 " Islam means peace"

Because he didn't want us to have to go to war with the entire Islamic world. He was about to send troops into Muslim nations in order to go after terrorists and didn't want them all shot on sight. What would you have done and how many American lives would YOU have sacrificed in order to please a couple dozen armchair generals?

Perfect name for the guy: "claptrap."

The Bush-bashing, keyboard-commandoing, pud-pounding Freeper Fringe can be relied on to not understand the issues you raised.

[FRlurker]

Love this question, rdb3! You never fail to ask just the right question to get to the heart of the matter.

[Alberta's Child]

Interesting points. I often wonder how much different the U.S. would have been if Bush Sr. had won in 1992 and Dole had won in 1996. I've often thought that on a national scale, things tend to move in a certain direction regardless of who is in the White House.

[Tai_Chung]

GWB kicked butt in Afghanistan
GWB threats against Iraq is real
GWB would not repeat the "3 no's" in China
GWB backs Taiwan
GWB is shifting US military thinking away from Europe and toward Asia (and against China)
GWB has improved US security via relations with Japan, Australia, Singapore, Australia and South Korea.
GWB is trying to rescue US missionaries in the Philippines

Sure, there are things I wish GWB had done differently. There were things his father and even Ronald Reagan could have done better. It is stupid to say that unless you agree 100% with GWB then he has betrayed us. The ONLY way to get 100% agreement with the President's policies is if you were President yourself.

[GingisK]

Why did you ignore the tax cut,9/11, and Bushs poll numbers? You have an obvious agenda and it is distructive.

You can't give blind support to Bush, either. The "Patriot Act" is exceptionally dangerous. Most of the questions posed by SWL beg to be asked and answered. Bush merely happens to better than the alternative.

I voted for "Bush Senior", then voted for Perot when presented with the second opportunity. I will vote against "Bush Junior" if he fails to fortify the Constitution. If Bush fails to clean up the "airport security" mess, then I will consider him a failed President. If he fails to attempt to clean up the liberal indoctrination crap in our public schools, such as the "zero tolerence" stupidity and the anti-Constitutional conditioning, then I will consider him a failed President. If he fails to address the perversion of the First Amendment as now used to foster religous and moral persecution, I will consider him a failed President.

There are extremely important issues before the Bush Presidency ... I see a timid response to most. The flip-flop regarding the ficticious global warming was not impressive.

Wake up and think. Don't endorse "your man" blindly like the Clintonites endorsed "thiers".