Can't support Bush anymore

[starchild]

After many, many weeks of debating in my mind, I've come to a conclusion about our President: he stinks. Sorry to everyone that I voted for the guy. Politics aside, you just needed to watch Bush when he first hit the ground in Mississippi all 'ums' and 'uhs' to see the guy just isn't leadership material. But its not just that, that was just the straw that broke the camels back. His slander of the Minutemen, super-failure to do anything about our fuel crisis, endorsing renewal of the Patriot Act.......the list goes on. (Iraq isn't really that big a sore point for me, but thats for another topic.) As a Republican who voted for Bush, I feel obligated to continue to support the person I elected, but as a man, I have to call a spade a spade, swallow the pride and agree with what so many -even, God forgive me, Michael Moore-have said: Bush is the wrong man to be President. Now, I'll take all the 'I told you so's' from the Dems and the Left, I've made my bed and I will lie in it so fire away. Voting for Bush was a foolish move on my part, but I'd be even more of a fool if I kept supporting him. The writings on the wall with Bush, how ironic so many of the predominantly Chrisitian GOP can't read it. Just how far into hell are you people going to follow this guy?

BTW, taking down the Elephant icon. Posted this here instead of the GOP forums so non-Repubs could respond if they wanted too without worrying about being reported. I also encourage other Bush supporters to seriously re-think their position and ask themselves if they are just letting pride keep them hanging on. What's he doing thats so great, show me just one thing that he has done that is worthy of the deep devotion and defense he gets? Not being a liberal or a Democrat doesn't seem to quite cut it anymore.

Soupy, this was a great post. And this may sound very stupid from me, but it is sincere:

Think about that "taking down the" elephant thing.

I respect and admire real republicans - though we disagree on some important issues, the differences are debated with respect and openness, not with finger pointing and accusations about "flaming liberals" and "anti american" and the rest of the malarky. I don't believe I'm aware of what I'd consider one Real Republican in the current administration (I'm sure they are there, but they aren't one of the "front" people.) And I've not counted many around here, but there are certainly more than I've seen in the administration.

If it's right for you to give it up, good choice. If it's just because you no longer support Bush, I encourage you to be one of the people working to take back your party (as we Dems hope to take back ours.)

 

[Jacey]

I've been away from this board for a while and am truly shocked at what I read in this post. In a good way. I don't even know what I could say.........

 

[Glaz]

Soupy, this was a great post. And this may sound very stupid from me, but it is sincere:

Think about that "taking down the" elephant thing.


If it's right for you to give it up, good choice. If it's just because you no longer support Bush, I encourage you to be one of the people working to take back your party (as we Dems hope to take back ours.)

I am still a conservative in real life, a moderate one at that. I've never been a die-hard party man (I voted for Clinton in '96, and more than a few local and state Dems as well) so its not a huge issue to me if I am not officially in the GOP. I want to get back to voting for the man and not the party. IMO we are too hung up on party affiliations in the first place.

 

[Doctrine1st]

IMO we are too hung up on party affiliations in the first place.

Amen....it's purposely getting worse....

 

[hoser]

Yes, we libs just love wasting money, in fact I think we should just burn it, burn it all.







Lets go back even farther, but yes.



At Kerry, probably only slightly, never put Bush in office, and yes.



No, we might have been better prepared for it, and I'm sure he would have handled it much better.



And you're not a true scotsman laddie.

You are so delirious ! You are right on the first comment. yes lib's love to waste money. They should absolutely love Bush for all this absolutely unneccesary domestic spending.

And I'll state it again. President Bush is a GREAT president.

If you think that there would be anything better in regard to energy prices if Kerry was elected or God forbid Gore in 2000 then you do not have what it takes to carry on a conversation with. The energy prices today (both oil and natural gas) are the result of liberalism. It is BECAUSE of liberalism that we have these problems. It is because of enviromental nuts that we cannot produce more natural gas. This country is loaded with natural gas. We should do absolutely every thing that we can to tap that supply. But the lefty kooks won't let us.

Whose job is it to prepare for a hurrican McFly? THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What did that IDIOT mayor do to help the people in NO? He packs them in the Superdome like sardines!!! That's funny! I thought I saw dozens upon dozens of buses sitting there underwater! The president warned the city of NO, but it is THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT's responsibility to act!!! DUH!!!!!!!!

People like you amaze me.

 

[MaryS]

If it's right for you to give it up, good choice. If it's just because you no longer support Bush, I encourage you to be one of the people working to take back your party (as we Dems hope to take back ours.)

Dems are going to take their party back? From who? - I guess maybe take it further to the left than Bill Clinton did? - if so, that's a shame!

 

[MaryS]

If you think that there would be anything better in regard to energy prices if Kerry was elected or God forbid Gore in 2000 then you do not have what it takes to carry on a conversation with. The energy prices today (both oil and natural gas) are the result of liberalism. It is BECAUSE of liberalism that we have these problems. It is because of enviromental nuts that we cannot produce more natural gas. This country is loaded with natural gas. We should do absolutely every thing that we can to tap that supply. But the lefty kooks won't let us.

We really can't blame the lack of tapping into all our energy supplies on Democrats because there are a few environMENTALists on the Republican side too. I like Senator Coburn of Oklahoma because he said that if we just opened up every oil supply that has been closed over the last 10 years...we could exceed what Saudi Arabia is producing.

Whose job is it to prepare for a hurrican McFly? THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What did that IDIOT mayor do to help the people in NO? He packs them in the Superdome like sardines!!! That's funny! I thought I saw dozens upon dozens of buses sitting there underwater! The president warned the city of NO, but it is THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT's responsibility to act!!! DUH!!!!!!!!

Every city and state should be more familiar with their own territory than the federal government, so I believe that no matter what political party they belong to they should be prepared to respond to emergencies.

 

[MaryS]

I am still a conservative in real life, a moderate one at that. I've never been a die-hard party man (I voted for Clinton in '96, and more than a few local and state Dems as well) so its not a huge issue to me if I am not officially in the GOP. I want to get back to voting for the man and not the party. IMO we are too hung up on party affiliations in the first place.

I know quite a few people that consider themselves conservative and voted for Bill Clinton both terms. Clinton was far more conservative than most Democrats though, and some people no longer trusted Bush Sr. after he broke his promise and raised taxes.

One of my biggest issues with Clinton is the fact that he put two of the most liberal judges on the Supreme Court. If he had even come up with some moderate choices for judges like Reagan did with Sandra Day O'Connor, there would be less people concerned now about the government's ability to take your property and give it to a developer because of the Kelo v. New London ruling.

 

[Nightson]

You are so delirious ! You are right on the first comment. yes lib's love to waste money. They should absolutely love Bush for all this absolutely unneccesary domestic spending.

Perhaps we should use it for wallpaper as well as fuel for the fire. Maybe we could eat it....

And I'll state it again. President Bush is a GREAT president.

And again

If you think that there would be anything better in regard to energy prices if Kerry was elected or God forbid Gore in 2000 then you do not have what it takes to carry on a conversation with. The energy prices today (both oil and natural gas) are the result of liberalism. It is BECAUSE of liberalism that we have these problems. It is because of enviromental nuts that we cannot produce more natural gas. This country is loaded with natural gas. We should do absolutely every thing that we can to tap that supply. But the lefty kooks won't let us.

How pretell? After all, republicans pretty much control all three branchs of governemnt, and this administration has extremly close ties to the energy industry, so how did us "lefty kooks" stop everything?

Whose job is it to prepare for a hurrican McFly? THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What did that IDIOT mayor do to help the people in NO? He packs them in the Superdome like sardines!!! That's funny! I thought I saw dozens upon dozens of buses sitting there underwater! The president warned the city of NO, but it is THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT's responsibility to act!!! DUH!!!!!!!!

"I accept responsiblity." ~GWB

People like you amaze me.

 

[k]

Without a doubt, has to be one of the best OPs ever! It is because of the bold honesty more than what was said...okay...it was both, but still!! Wow!!

By your honesty, I am sure it has encouraged others (as well as myself) to not be afraid to be completely honest (of course, within CF rules!)

 

[k9catts]

I know quite a few people that consider themselves conservative and voted for Bill Clinton both terms. Clinton was far more conservative than most Democrats though, and some people no longer trusted Bush Sr. after he broke his promise and raised taxes.

One of my biggest issues with Clinton is the fact that he put two of the most liberal judges on the Supreme Court. If he had even come up with some moderate choices for judges like Reagan did with Sandra Day O'Connor, there would be less people concerned now about the government's ability to take your property and give it to a developer because of the Kelo v. New London ruling.

With Roberts personal property will no longer be a primary issue if you that person is a woman a woman. She will have no reporductive rights and the bedroom will no longer be private.

 

[rosenherman]

With Roberts personal property will no longer be a primary issue if you that person is a woman a woman. She will have no reporductive rights and the bedroom will no longer be private.

With Roberts the decision will be decided by the facts of the case, not his personal view of the question being decided.

 

[Doctrine1st]

One of my biggest issues with Clinton is the fact that he put two of the most liberal judges on the Supreme Court. If he had even come up with some moderate choices for judges like Reagan did with Sandra Day O'Connor, there would be less people concerned now about the government's ability to take your property and give it to a developer because of the Kelo v. New London ruling.

From what I understand both Breyer and Ginsberg were nominee suggestions to Clinton by the head of the GOP controled committee, while they expressly told Clinton his suggestion would be problematic.

 

[SimplyMe]

a good politician he is not. one of the things i do admire about him however is his unflinching determination. most politicians change sides everytime a CNN poll is released, but not Bush. I can admire that even if i do get dissappointed with him sometimes.

I disagree that he doesn't change sides, or even that he doesn't change sides based on polls. Bush has waited several times before announcing his support or non-support on an issue -- the constitutional amendment for marriage being a good example. Bush seemed to wait, until he knew how much Christian support he would lose, before he finally decided he had to endorse it.

While Bush personally may not be a good politician, he has some experts that are guiding him.

 

[MaryS]

From what I understand both Breyer and Ginsberg were nominee suggestions to Clinton by the head of the GOP controled committee, while they expressly told Clinton his suggestion would be problematic.

I don't remember the details from those nominations, but I think Breyer and Ginsburg were simply preferred over some even more known liberal judges Clinton proposed. Ginsburg did well in avoiding giving answers on how she would rule on cases,,,so much so that only 3 Republicans in the Senate voted against her.

 

[MaryS]

With Roberts personal property will no longer be a primary issue if you that person is a woman a woman. She will have no reporductive rights and the bedroom will no longer be private.

I mentioned the Kelo v. New London eminent domain ruling because we all know that the decision was 5 to 4 and that with the exception of Sandra Day O'Connor the other 3 who stood up for individuals on the property case were known opponents of abortion (Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist).

We don't know yet how Roberts would rule on abortion rights cases. Ann Coulter refferred to Roberts as "Souter in Roberts clothing"...so she doesn't seem to think he's very conservative. Souter was appointed by Bush Sr. in 1990 and confirmed by a vote of all but 9 Democrat Senators. Even though the left rallied against Souter with their propaganda that said "Stop Souter...he'll let women die!" we know that he is part of the far left of the court.

 

[Doctrine1st]

I don't remember the details from those nominations, but I think Breyer and Ginsburg were simply preferred over some even more known liberal judges Clinton proposed. Ginsburg did well in avoiding giving answers on how she would rule on cases,,,so much so that only 3 Republicans in the Senate voted against her.

That may very well be true. So could you please tell MethodMan that when judges are choosen and confirmed, alot of it has to do with entertaining their ideology. For some odd reason he thinks it is abhorant, and it's something only the Dems bring it into question.