A Bush Hater's Poll

Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

This is an unofficial quick and dirty presidential poll. Apparently, there is a good sized contingent on Free Republic that believes that President Bush is:

1. Not conservative enough
2. Not pro-life
3. Is a gun-grabber
4. Is a federal power-grabber
5. Will appoint liberal judges
6. Is a globalist
7. Is in it just for oil
8. Is too soft on immigration
9. Is too soft (or too hard) on Israel
10. Is a crook
11. All of the above
12. None of the above
13. Other (you name it)

Please list the numbers that best match the reasons you don't like Bush (or state other reasons if not on the list) and state whether you believe that President Bush should be defeated even if it means installing a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

Conversely, if you believe President Bush should be re-elected, please state why.

Please state who you would like to see win the Presidency in 2004 and whether or not you believe he/she has a chance of winning.

Thanks,
Jim

[RedBloodedAmerican]

LOL! No, I was just wondering if you thought there were Pres. candidates then :)

[B. A. Conservative]

Thanks for posting that link. I had not seen the story, but had heard the rumors of the reversal. I grew up near the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. There was a park on one of the rivers; I don't remember which. The park was called Cave-in-Rock. When Bush was elected governor of Texas, his first official act was to withdraw the Coastal Management Plan submitted as Ma Richards' last official act. You don't need to know the contents of the plan, the name should suffice. Bush named his own man to head the bureacracy and then resubmitted the plan virtually unchanged from the one drawn by Ma Richards. He is caving on global warming. He caved on campaign finance reform and numerous other issues. His name should be Cave-in-Bush just as the Republicans have become Cave-in-Republicans. When are Freepers going to stand up and demand an end to the caving?

[weikel]

RedBloodedAmerican don't marry anyone unless they are much richer then you. Otherwise you are prone to lose half your stuff LOL.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

So.....marry someone that already has ALL the stuff!

[weikel]

Why marry a poor girl when its easier to marry a rich girl( well at least for me all the girls who like me later turn out to be rich)? LOL.

[B. A. Conservative]

"This is NOT a conservative country and those who believe it is are just fooling themselves. Since the electorate is not conservative it will not elect anyone who is too upfront or too extreme rhetorically conservative."

Why did you have to open your mouth and spit out garbage? Why couldn't you just live up to your name, "justshutup".

And especially enraging is the last part of your name. That is what the Jews did in Germany. In contrast to you, the Jews learned something. Now they fight back. Maybe we should, too.

[Ahban]

Bush will lead us slowly over the precipice of doom, while AlGore would have sent us hurdling into it. Conservatives need him in there until we can build up a true conservative party. That would be the Constitution Party ...

http://www.constitutionparty.com

We have until 2008. Six years. Hey, how many Republicans were there more than six years before Abe Lincoln became the first Republican President?

The answer is zero. The party was not started until 1854. Till then it was the Whigs and the Democrats.

Here are the areas of concern on W...

1)Not Conservative enough : True and for the following reasons...

2) ????Not pro-life???We will see about this one. If he appoints judges who would uphold Roe v Wade then he is not a pro-life President, just one who spouts pro-life rhetoric when convienient. He had a chance to get a partial birth abortion ban through before the Jeffords switch and did not do it.

4)Federal Power Grabber, : Read 'Homeland Security' , 'Faith Based Initiatives' and keeping Americore, among others.

Sort of 5)Will appoint liberal federal judges :Read - did not defend Pickering in time to save nomination. He may be OK on this one, but the start is shaky.

Bear in mind that the judge who wrote the pledge decision was appointed by a Republican.

Sort of 6) Globalist : though I am heartened by his World Court stance and his willingness to go it alone when he has to.

8) Too soft on immigration :BIG TIME, WITHOUT DOUBT

and 12) BIG SPENDER: Farm Bill, AMTRAK, "Minorities don't own enough houses", Education Department, ad nauseum.

This man is still the most conservative republican Presidential nominee we are likely to get in the next 20 years. That is why I hope he is re-elected, and that is why I hope my fellow freepers will join the Constitution Party forthwith.

Who would I like to see as President? I would like to see NH senator Bob Smith elected President. Either OKLAHOMA senator (and a couple of their congressmen) would make good Presidents. Howard Phillips would be good, of course. Tom Delay would be a good President.

Do I think any of these men have a chance of being elected President? Yes. But not in 2004 and not as Republicans. http://www.constitutionparty.com

[B. A. Conservative]

"..talent at team building on both sides of the aisle."

The very last thing we or the country needs is team building that includes Democrats. I don't want any compromises with Democrats. We have been compromising for 70 years. Now it is time to crush them in total defeat or completely block all Congressional or governmental activity. Shut the sucker down. I would double all of the salaries of all of Congress and of every bureaucrat in the adminstration or government if they would go home and never come back. It would be the biggest bargain for the taxpayer in US history.

No more compromises.

No more bipartisanship.

I want Republicans at the Democrats throats and I don't want them to let go to get a better grip.

[B. A. Conservative]

"The DNC is within one presidential election of tipping this country into the socialist column."

Gentlemen, you must have missed a couple of elections. The United States became a socialist country in 1965 at the latest. I would argue that it became a socialist camp in 1932.

As for the future, FreeRepublic is either going to lead the fight in scaring the Republicans to death, thereby forcing them back into the conservative camp where they will have to actually stand and fight for something conservative or the US is going to disintegrate in less than twenty years.

As for Bush, he is going to lose in 2004 unless he moves strongly to the right. He won't.

[MJY1288]

"The very last thing we or the country needs is team building that includes Democrats. I don't want any compromises with Democrats. We have been compromising for 70 years. Now it is time to crush them in total defeat or completely block all Congressional or governmental activity. Shut the sucker down. I would double all of the salaries of all of Congress and of every bureaucrat in the adminstration or government if they would go home and never come back. It would be the biggest bargain for the taxpayer in US history.

No more compromises.

No more bipartisanship.

Somehow, I don't think that's what the founders had in mind. Unless we decide to disolve the constitution and foster a dictatorship, Compromise is here to stay. It's the will of the majority that decides in this Republic. In order to advance our conservative beliefs we have to garner the support of the majority first, then we have to maintain that support or we lose that majority, and sensible compromise with the minority in these tightly divided times is the only way it will happen.

[B. A. Conservative]

"..wrote in my own name for every office..gridlock"

Most Freeper would be extremely pleased if Republicans had done well enough over the years to simply achieve gridlock. Instead they have caved, or on occassion led the flight into socialism. There simply has to be a better alternative.

[MJY1288]

I f he doesn't move far to the right, who is he going to lose to? You can bet no Republican will challenge him for the nomination. So that leaves a Democrat or one of the 2%rs, So who is he going to lose the election to?

I'm really looking forward to this answer, so please explain

[Lady In Blue]

I am very pleased with President Bush.I can't for the life of me understand why Republicans like to eat each other?! Take Alan Keyes(PLEASE!),Pat Buchanan(has been rather nice to GWB lately), and other third party candidates - they couldn't do half the job GWB has done considering a split senate.GWB is still THE MAN! There's none better.And when you couple him with our great VP, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice - they're all great.Third party people need to grow up.It's impossible for people to agree with each other 100% of the time.Do you agree with your family all of the time? I think NOT!

[B. A. Conservative]

"I think Germany tried that 3rd party thing a few years back. It didn't pan out so well."

It hasn't turned out very well for us either with the two we have. If we can't reshape the Republicans this November, maybe we will have more luck than Germany.

[MissAmericanPie]

It will if the next election is as close as the last now won't it.

[MJY1288]

My Goodness, I will probably still be waiting for my answer until this time tomorrow night if he's just now responding to post# 462 and it appears he is planning to respond to the remaining 810 post before he gets to mine, So I will find a way to kill some time :-)

On second thought, I already know the answer.....

NOBODY

[Ben Bolt]

Yes indeed we are in the enemy camp . Something will get you optimistic , even if it has to come from inside of yourself .

I'll keep the dream weikel . Good day Sir !

[Sabertooth]

That's not what I said, I appreciate your civility, but you constantly twist the words of others to suit your own agenda

I haven't twisted your words, you chose to believe Administration spin on Section 245(i) rather than the INS' own interpretation.

Your words...

The all or nothing crowd wants him "necklaced" for "supposedly" thinking of amnesty (A NYT's divide and Conquer plot)
#831

George W Bush has spoken on various occasions of "normalizing" and "regularizing" "undocumented" workers. Many trial ballons have come out of his White House regarding this, especially last year.

If it was all the New York Times (talk about tinfoil), why did the trial balloons stop after the defeat of Bush's attempted extension of Section 245(i)? That would have been the perfect time for any "NYT divide and Conquer plot."

As far as the extension of 245i and your assumption that it equals "Amnesty" is just another attempt to blame President Bush for the problems he has inherited. At this time I can not agree with your assumptions :-)
#946

No, calling Bush responsible for the Section 245(i) extension that ended 4/30/2001 would be blaming him for what he had inherited, since he had nothing to do with that extension. And I understand that the mess with Illegals didn't happen overnight, so I don't expect an immediate solution.

In the meantime, I do expect the President not to make the problem worse by pushing for further Amnesties. When he does, and he did, who else is responsible?

If you say Bush is responsible, then I'll retract my statement at #1190, where I said, "Apparently, not even the President's own actions can sway your faith."

[Ben Bolt]

Jim , The truth is that the vast majority of the populace will never be happy , and in these times of instant gratification I do not expect that to change but with time .

I voted straight (R) since I was 17 years young . I'll continue to do so because I know we will never clean up the mess if we quit .

You have put together something wonderful and the vast majority of people here are simply tremendous ! I thank you all .

[MJY1288]

"When he does, and he did, who else is responsible?

Please show me a DIRECT quote where he was pushing for any type of blanket amnesty?

why did the trial balloons stop after the defeat of Bush's attempted extension of Section 245(i)?

245i was an extension of an existing regulation and was not introduced by the President. Now as much as you would like to crucify him for something that never happened, I find it useless to debate about something that never happened. "If the Queen had balls she would be King"

"If you say Bush is responsible, then I'll retract my statement at #1190, where I said, "Apparently, not even the President's own actions can sway your faith."

I find it uneccessary to hold Bush responsible for something he didn't create, and since you have said 245i was defeated, I don't see why this is even an issue. We could debate till the cows come home over things that could of happened. I don't understand why you continue beating a dead horse, but I'm a pretty patient person and usually keep my cool, but debating over water under the bridge is like spinning wheels in reverse while more important issues are at hand