Hows everyone liking GW?

salzo · March 2002

I am a bit puzzled. George W. Bush ran as a conservative, and won as a conservative. Even though he was not a conservative, people thought he was a conservative, and voted for him because they thought he was a conservative.Now George Bush is voting like a liberal moderate. He voted for increasing the size of government with his education bill-not only spending more money on education, but expanding the roll of the federal government with respect to educating our children. He has gone weak on tax cuts. He promised to veto a campaign finance bill, and now it looks like he is going to sign. And my favorite-he says that he is opposed to arming pilots, even though the house and senate both passed bills that would arm pilots. Now this is funny. we were told to vote for GW because he is gun friendly,and would help restore our rights. We have a bunch of liberals in both branches of congress who somehow voted for a pro-gun bill. Yet George Bush, the guy who was going to help get our gun rights, the conservative, is opposed to arming pilots, and is challenging pro gun legislation that somehow passed overwhelmingly through a liberal congress.Seems to me GW is another Republican, who thinks he can offend the conservative wing of the party, and still count on their votes when election time rolls around. He will suffer the same fate of his Daddy-and I know I sure as hell wont be voting for him.

Happiness is a warm gun

He Dog · March 2002

You for got to mention his recovery program for the super rich! I did not vote for him the first time, but then I am a gun-totin' liberal.

jdb123 · March 2002

gun-toten liberal huh, well your friends are the reason i cant pray in school, i cant say the pledge of allegiance, firefighters have to go to pro-gay parades, why pollitical correctness means more than truth, your friends hate guns and not the people who use them in crimes, why we have a black national anthem, why i pay so much in taxes that you libs waste, and so many more i cant count look dude if your some dumb southern democrat get with the program- liberal democrats care nothing about the working man. by the way turn your gun in now cause youre best friend {ya know one of your lib buddies} might accuse you of being a "domestic terrorist" . why dont you go burn a flag and hug a tree with your other hippie friends. by the way "recovery program for the super rich" as you said is more b.s. rhetoric, did you send your tax credit back? of course you didnt, and what part of he who pays the most in taxes gets the most back dont you understand, try carrying around your gun in france where you belong lefto![This message has been edited by jdb123 (edited 03-18-2002).]

jdb123 · March 2002

fine salzo dont vote for him because he isnt conservative enough, that makes no sence, no candidate is going to match every single one of your issues exactly. lets make a stand like in '92 when we all voted {not me i wasnt 18 yet} and split the conservative vote to perot and bush and guess what happend? voting for obscure candidates may make you feel better but you will suffer when the guy who is closes to your ideas {GW} looses to a guy {or hillary} who is a complete opposite of you, would that make you feel better?

gruntled · March 2002

Whoopie $300.00, don't spend it all in one place. Meanwhile the super rich get the overwhelming bulk of the cut that our great-grandchildren will have to pay for. IF there was a surplus it should go to pay for the enormous debt that we have piled up for unborn generations to pay.

Gordian Blade · March 2002

salzo, you ask a vital question. I knew GWB wasn't a conservative's conservative, but I am disappointed with him on a number of issues. I'm very concerned that we are going to lose our domestic freedoms at an increasing rate (we've been losing them bit by bit for decades) at the very same time we are "winning" the war against terrorism.As far as taxes, I'm for tax reductions because that will force a reduction in the rate of growth (at least) of the federal government. As for the notion that tax reductions affect only the "rich," that's hogwash, unless you count two-income couples as rich. Also, the people earning the most money pay the lion's share of taxes. The people who are already rich aren't paying high income taxes anyway because (a) they already have their money, and (b) it's in tax-free investments and trust funds. (Think Kennedy and Rockefeller.) So tax cuts favor people who are earning new money. As long as they are earning it honestly, that's OK with me.Except for the tax cuts (which were really small in the scheme of things and heavily weighted for the future anyway), I'm against 90% of the things in GWB's domestic agenda. If he signs campaign finance in its present form, that will pretty much be my last straw. Unfortunately, I am against 100% of just about any Democrat's agenda, so I guess that puts me outside the mainstream.Final note: Living in NY State, I have the luxury of voting for anyone I wish for President and have it not matter in the least, since the state (and the county where I live) is full of mind-numbed Democrat robot voters.

He Dog · March 2002

Gosh thanks, jdb you sure straighted me out.

jdb123 · March 2002

then give your $300 back * hole {gruntled} and he-dog i figured thats the best you could do.[This message has been edited by jdb123 (edited 03-18-2002).]

dheffley · March 2002

Salzo,Would you rather we voted for the other man? Some people just can't be pleased!

Save, research, then buy the best.Join the NRA, NOW!Teach them young, teach them safe, teach them forever, but most of all, teach them to VOTE!

ADfree · March 2002

Write Bush a letter right now, saying that if he renews the ban on "assault weapons" or signs another illegal law you won't vote for him. I will do the same, as will my family, as will my friends. Enough pressure from us and he will realize he can't pander to the communists. The anti-freedom types aren't going to vote for him no matter how anti-freedom he becomes.

Iconoclast · March 2002

Let's see, who was the viable alternative to GW in the last election? Al Gore? Nope. Ralph Nader? Nope. The Libertarian Party candidate (who was so memorable I've completely forgotten his name)? Nope. The Perot Party, or whatever they call themselves? Nope. Gee, just who should we have voted for? Maybe we should have just sat home & b**ched for the next four or eight or however many years as so many did for the past two Administrations because Bush Sr. and Bob Dole didn't satisfy some ideological purity test. Except in some hinterlands, an arch conservative candidate is not going to carry a general election. Some of those purity tests don't even appeal to many who consider themselves conservative, much less centerist voters. Without drawing from the center, no national candidate can win. It doesn't matter how "pure" someone is if they lose! The problem w/ the Republican Party is that arch conservative elements have a disproportionate impact on the primaries. When they are appeased w/ ideologically pure candidates, those candidates usually (Reagan being one possible exception) end up, at best, second place winners.Politics is the art of the possible. And it is far more possible to influence matters with GW than it would be under Al Bore or, God forbid, in another session w/ Billary. Of course, we can all fall on our swords for principle, but in the end, all this accomplishes is to make things easier for our enemies. Standing for ideological purity in politics is like urinating in a wet suit, it may make the individual feel warm all over, but no one else will notice nor care if they do. I'll take what I can get and work to get more, but I ain't about to throw it away half a loaf if I can't have the whole one right now, because then I have *NOTHING!* (zipping up flame proof suit )

ladr · March 2002

I am pretty well pleased with him. He has done a few things I do not understand or agree with, but that is life.I think he has handled himself well overall and has conveyed a sense of purpose.I do not see any American troops being drug through any third world streets and I see the US using logical steps in taking the fight to the terrs.How many scandals have we seen?Like the man said, write and state your view on "gun control", it can only help.

NO GUTS, NO GLORY

badboybob · March 2002

This is hard for me to believe. We just got rid of the sorriest excuse for a president this country has ever had and now you're bashing a decent, courageous man who is doing what that * klinton should have done years ago?Let's get serious folks.

PC=BS

Rembrandt · March 2002

....Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mark McGuire,....none of these great ball players hit home runs everytime they got up to bat....it's all about batting averages. If GWB's batting average is better than the other alternative candidates...then our team wins. Is there someone out there that has a better batting average than GWB?...It was talk like this that I heard during Geo. Bush Seniors term....people threw their hands in the air and voted for Perot...and look what they got....split the ticket and got Slick Willie for 8 years. A short sighted perspective can do the same thing again.Mrs Rembrandt and I are getting back over $4000 in taxes...sound like a lot?....guess what, we pay nearly half our income in taxes each year....thanks to Mr Bush we are going to get some of it back.....remember when Clinton promised a tax cut?...then 3 months after he took office, he jabbed everyone with a huge tax increase that we have been paying for nearly 8 years.If we fail to learn from the mistakes in history...we are doomed to repeat them.

daddo · March 2002

I think he's doing the best he can, considering what he has to work with.

RugerNiner · March 2002

At the time, it was the best choice.

Remember...Terrorist are attacking Civilians; Not the Government. Protect Yourself!

beachmaster73 · March 2002

X-Ring...Iconoclast. If he were a conservative's conservative we would have a different President today...the name "gore" rings a bell. I too think in general that he's doing a pretty fair job....have always wondered why the "have nots" always expect people who work for their money to shoulder an unreasonable percentage of the tax burden. Haven't figured it out. Would like to see a flat tax the same percentage for everybody.....If you make $300,000 you pay ten times as much in tax as a guy making $30,000. Seems to me to be fair. It really upsets me that many of the people driving "welfare Cadillacs" pay no tax while the wealthy have to figure out ways to prevent being gang raped by the IRS. Beach

Gordian Blade · March 2002

Don't get me wrong, GWB fans, I realize that we'd be in worse shape if Al Gore were President. I voted for GWB, not that my vote mattered. GWB has handled the terrorism problem well, no question. And he's an honorable man where the previous President was hardly what I would call a man, much less honorable. But on the domestic side, I see the old Republican story of slowing down the march to socialism and loss of freedom, but not stopping it. (Forget about reversing it, that's a pipe dream for now.)[This message has been edited by Gordian Blade (edited 03-18-2002).]

salzo · March 2002

So I guess the position of you Bush lovers is: George Bush is better than Algore, so George Bush is good.George Bush expanding the role of the federal government in educating children, and spending more money on education than has ever been spent in the history of this country is good-because George Bush is doing it and Algore is not.George Bush signing campaign finance reform, even though he said he would not sign it when campaigning is good-because George Bush is doing it and Algore is not.And I guess all of you guys fail to see that George Bush could hardly be called pro-gun, considering that even after liberals in congress voted for arming pilots, George Bush does not think that is a good idea. If Algore did the same thing, you all would be wheezing about losing gun rights-but when Georgy Porgy does it, its good.And you must be delerious if you think that George is not going to resign the assault weapons ban.Compassionate conservatism?- Thats hysterical. Try "compassionate socialism".

Happiness is a warm gun

EDHEAD · March 2002

i usually try to keep my mouth shut and ears open, but ill put in my 2 cents on this one. i voted for bush, and if i had to do it over again, i still would. as far as how he's handled things, im not too happy. hes too worried about what the rest of the world thinks on the war on terror. this should be faced head on with tactics the tangos would understand, terror. thats what they understand. taxes and all the other stuff is second fiddle in my mind, but still very important. ive said enough now.

Rembrandt · March 2002

Salzo, my wish is that our exchange can be intellectually uplifting and not go to a level seen in some threads. The game of politics can best described as a game of chess and strategy. Placing the "perfect ideology" up as a goal sounds reasonable...there are many ways to get to that goal. Some require compromise with key players in order to make a few steps forward...while the ultimate goal may not have been reached, progress was made.Just as Liberals have incrementally chipped away at our core beliefs...we too can swing the pendelum back and use the same tactics to incrementally get our rights back. As in Chess, the game of Politics requires positioning yourself for the next two or three battles. Bush's next battle will be fought in the mid-term elections. Some of what you see now is merely positioning himself to have a winning hand after the 2002 elections. If successful, he will have about 12-18 months to make some real changes before the next cycle of elections comes in 2004. It is vital that he defang the opposition (ie: Dashel, Kennedy, and Schummer) in the upcomming 2002 election. If he can newter his opponents by putting them in the minority he will then have a better hand of cards to play. Dashel now has immense power as Senate Majority Leader...many of the committees are stacked against Bush. Look at the Judiciary Committee and how Bush cannot get his judges approved. This will also play an important role in the next Supreme Court nominee. It's important for Bush to make his moves at the right time...we don't want him to be villianized and go down in flames like they did to Newt. Be patient.....it's not time yet to play all the cards....

dheffley · March 2002

My position is,1) George Bush is better than Al Gore. Period.2) He's less anti-gun than anyone else who was up for election in 2000.Remember salzo, he was the best choice of the pack. Will he be next time? Who knows. But, I'm not voting for a Democrate just because George didn't do everything I wanted.If everyone does what you want, we will have a democratic president next term, and you'll really be crying!

Save, research, then buy the best.Join the NRA, NOW!Teach them young, teach them safe, teach them forever, but most of all, teach them to VOTE!

Varmintmist · March 2002

Liberal Econ 101Joe Avg makes 50K/yearRichie Rich males 250K/yearJoe is taxed @ 20%, his tax bill is 10,000Rich is taed @ 40%, his tax bill is 100,000Everyone gets a tax cutJoe gets a LARGER rate reduction, 5%. (cause hes a workin man)Rich, being a evil rich guy, gets 2%Joe "gets back" 2500.00Rich "gets back" 5000.00See, nudder tax cut for the rich cause dat guy got back morin me.Ok Salzo, whats your plan?Vote for Jessie Ventura? LOLOr how about a new Perot-bot. You remember the Air Force retireee that kept falling asleep at the debates for VP, yeah, thats a winner, GO TEAMMMmmmzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.No GWB isnt the quintessential gun rights conservative pres., but guess what? We will never see one that thinks exactly like us. Or, if he/she does, will have the power to implement everything that they want.IMHO, hes going to sign the campain finance bill, because he knows the first time it is ut into play, the Supreme Court is gonna turn it into swiss cheese. And he doesnt loose any political capitol on fighting it.Hes going to sign a lot of crap in the next 2 years that we dont like. Hopefully we get people in the house and senate to give him good stuff to sign. Oh, I think hes doing ok[This message has been edited by Varmintmist (edited 03-18-2002).]

gruntled · March 2002

jbd123: Your eloquence overwhelms me. I bet you convince a lot of people that way.

jdb123 · March 2002

eloquent isnt in my vocabulary "disgruntled"

Lowrider · March 2002

I voted for him and I'll vote for him again. Better than the alternative. As for him not being as conservative as we'd like, don't forget that half of the population are liberals and George is THEIR president too.We don't get it all OUR way.

Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.

Bushy AR · March 2002

Salzo...I voted for GWB because he was closer to what I would like to see as our nations leader.As many who so elloquently before me on this post have said:"he is damn sure better than than the alternative".My question to you is, who did you vote for? And why did you vote for him? I suspect that you don't bother because you don't think it would make any difference.If a few more people had felt that way,we would all be cussing "the gore" instead of second guessing a man who is trying to get this country headed back to reason.Small steps to the right are better than none.And what is wrong with funding education? Do you have children? I do,and I have seen the need for money all during my children's schooling.I can only hope that the money will be well spent at my local area.This I will be watching carefully and if I don't like what I see,I can hopefully make changes here at my local area.How? Through voting! Just my 2 cents.

salzo · March 2002

BushyAR- To answer your question, your suspicions are incorrect. I did in fact vote, and I begrudgingly voted for GW. I will not vote for him again, I will probably vote constitution party.And as far as this idea that GW is playing political games and strategies, and therefore must be a liberal for awhile is pure hog wash.Someone mentioned that you have to give a little to get a little. That belief is probably the thing that is most responsible for the demise of conservative thought. We give things up all of the time, but the Left NEVER GIVES UP ANY OF ITS POSITIONS.It is one thing to say, that because of political strategy, GW will not push a conservative agenda-But it is quite another thing for GW to push a Democrat agenda(eduucation). Laying low is one thing. Expanding the role of government is quite another, and you cannot possibly consider any expansion of government as a move in the right direction. And anyone who would do so, can not call himself a conservative.

Happiness is a warm gun

salzo · March 2002

Just found another interesting tidbit about our conservative president Jorge Bush. Bush is going to sign a bill giving amnesty to illegal aliens who are living in this country, and is going to allow them to apply for citizenship, even though they are living here illegally. I always thought that Conservatives were "law and order".So why is Bush giving these "Mexican illegal aliens" amnesty? So he can get their votes, that is why. Wasnt everyone up in arms when Slick did something simular? Why did we cry foul when Slick did this, but we will ignore Bushes disregard for law?This gets more interesting.Robert Smith, senator from New Hampshire, is running for re-election. He is facing opposition in the primaries from John Sununu. Smith is one of the most conservative Senators(notwithstanding some of his "liberal" stances, ie environment). Do you think GW is backing this Conservative Senator? Of course not. He is supporting his opposition Gary Sununu.Gary Sununu is a house member, whose claim to fame is he advised George Senior to pick that wonderfully liberal Supreme court justice David Souter. It seems the Bush family has quite a "political" relationship with the Sununu family.Now why would Bush support a moderate like Sununu, but not a conservative like Robert Smyth(who incidentally, is the only Senator that gets an A+ rating by the GOA)? Well, of all of the GOP house members who are running for Senate, only one voted to back GWS "illegal alien amnesty" bill. That individual was Sununu.So basically, we are going to lose a very conservative Senator, who Bush is going to help defeat, because a wishy washy GOP moderate from the house backed GW on his "Illegal Alien Amnesty" bill.I guess this is part of the "give and take" politics that we accept with bells on.

Happiness is a warm gun

bhayes420 · March 2002

jdb123....You say liberals are the reason you can't pray in school, can't say the pledge of allegiance, etc... Why can't you pray in school? My son can, and does, pray in school. Albeit, not a school SPONSORED prayer. Can you imagine the crap that would hit the fan if Congress passed a law saying that school sponsored prayer is now legal? YES IT WOULD BE BAD! The reason is this: with all the different people that make up America (the MELTING POT, remember?) WHO are you going to pray to? I believe in God (I am a Presbyterian Pastor!), but what about the Hindu, or the Buddhist, or the Muslim? It will open up a can of worms like we have never seen! Each group will want their own time and type of pray sanctioned, and then what will we do? The kids will spend all day in school waiting for prayer "periods" to end. Then it opens up the way for Wicca's and Satanists to come in and say, "Hey! We are an organized "religion" too. We want school sponsored prayer for our group." I admire groups like the Amish and Mennonites. They run their own schools, but guess what? They don't teach religion in their schools! That is such an important part of their life, they leave that to the family, where it should be! And about taxes, YES, most of us agree that they are too high. But you know something...MOST of us fall into a bad pattern of wanting the govt to do EVERYTHING for us, then not wanting to pay for it. Yes, politicians are to blame for letting spending get out of hand, but WE are to blame for wanting govt to GIVE us anything we want. YOu don't agree? What about the prescription plan for seniors? We can't afford it, but we want it, so Congress, seeing a good PR move, jumps on the bandwagon. Even on the local level, we want trash pick up (for free!), we want good roads (but don't want to pay!), we want and want and want. It is a vicious cycle, and I for one don't have an answer. Like my Dad says...."If I didn't have it, I wouldn't have to pay taxes on it." I get tired of hearing "Liberals are the reason for this..." or "Conservatives are the reason for this..." WE are the reason for it! Oh well...Time for me to quit ranting and move on.

85Ranger · March 2002

I hate politics. As far as I am concerned, you can't trust any of them, no matter what level of government you are dealing with. I remember a few months ago in my email, I got a forward from a friend. It was a speech by Ted Nugent and it summed up everything perfectly. Does anyone have it or know where to find it? I liked the part that referred to the people that are trying to change our way of life (guns, religion, etc) that if they don't like it, they can get the hell out. I guess that can go for the liberals too, since it seems like they don't like the 2nd Amendment.

Iconoclast · March 2002

salzo, as a native / resident of NH and long time supporter of Bob Smith, I would submit that your take on this particular relationship & election is somewhat different than my own. Actually, the ties between the Sununu and Bush clans go back to at least 1980 & Sr's first run for the nomination, while there has been bad blood between Sen. Smith and the Sununus for almost that long. John Sununu was instrumental in Sr's win in 1988 & became his chief of staff. BTW, Dave Souter came in under *everyone's* radar. There was nothing in his personal behavior, career or prior decisions to suggest he was a closet liberal. Think Earl Warren, who was a far higher profile individual before his nomination to the Court! Finally, Sen. Smith is vulnerable *precisely because* of his arch conservative credentials. He barely held on to the seat against a lying, liberal, Democrap scumbag Klinton clone in 1996; the final margin was razor thin and in fact the talking heads originally called the election for his opponent and later had to recant (sound familiar?). The reason he is vulnerable, even in a state as innately conservative as NH, is that some of his positions, while endearing him to the far right, are not shared by most voters (including myself) and truly alienate many in the key centrist bloc.I've worked for him, contributed to his campaigns and always voted for him. ***Even though I, like many firearms owners in the state, _DON'T_ like and vehemently disagree with some of his positions!*** And I will be voting for him again in September, but if Sununu should win, I won't embrace the opposition or sit on the sidelines because the candidate is "not conservative enough" or not "strong enough" in supporting the Second Amendment.Rather than evidence of Dubya's dubious conservative credentials, this example stands as an illustration of why we should go with the best available alternative, rather than insisting a candidate's actions / views match our positions 100%. Somehow, 200+ million Presidents doesn't seem workable to me.

salzo · March 2002

Iconoclast and others- It seems to me that the general "theme" that I am hearing is that one will never find a candidate who is 100%representative of ones views, and that we have to realize that when voting for a candidate.I realize that. I have voted for people who I disagree with on certain issues. That is the way it is-we will never have a politician who we are in total agreement with. But it seems to me some of you are using that to dismiss criticisms that go beyond a disagreement or two. The issues I spoke of are not little issues at all.One more time.Expanded the role of the Federal government in education, and increased spending on education by 20 percent(Now does expanding the governments role in education, and increasins spending on education resemble conservatism, or modern socialism/liberalism?)2.He is going to sign campaign finance/incumbent protection bill(Is signing something that defies the 1st amendment conservative, or modern liberalism?)3. He will sign a bill that will allow illegal immigrants to apply for citizenship while they are in the US illegally(Rewarding someone for illegal activity does not sound conservative to me-sounds more in step with modern Democrat thought).So for all of you who see these issues as "little things", and excuse these "little things" because "you cant please everybody"- It seems to me you are accepting policy that is more in step with modern liberalism, for the sake of having a Republican in office.But if a Republican is acting like a Democrat,and creating policy that more resembles democratism than conservatism, I do not see the point of having a Republican in office. Might as well have a democrat.

Happiness is a warm gun

salzo · March 2002

And one more "important" issue that I forgot.Is being opposed to arming pilots, after it passed overwhelmingly in both houses of congress- Is that conservative, or more in step with the anti-gunners?That is my favorite issue, cant believe I forgot it.And remember, we were supposed to vote for him because he was pro-gun-but several antigunners voted to arm the pilots, yet pro gun president George Bush thinks that is a bad idea. So with this little issue, why is it better that we have GW in office and not some self proclaimed "anti-gunner".

Happiness is a warm gun

ibtrukn · March 2002

Zell Miller for president! TFF

Iconoclast · March 2002

salzo, on the education bill, I consider it a mixed bag. Throwing money at the schools won't do much, if anything; some of the reform provisions may. God only knows we need to do something - our public schools are so bad that 'disgrace' is a compliment.On the armed pilots and suppression of 1st Amendment rights, we are not at odds. I simply have more hope of lobbying GW to do the right thing than either the scumbag that was in there the last two terms or his dim cousin who tried to take over in 2000. In the long term, what we, as owners of firearms and defenders of individual rights, must do is to convert young people to our cause. The mushbrains won the battle for the impressionable minds in the 60s and 70s for a variety of reasons which could be discussed / debated ad nauseum. To go over to the offensive, rather than play rearguard martyrs, we need to do the same. Taking kids hunting / shooting, working in the classroom as some of our number do, by setting examples of self-sacrifice and honor as the many LEO & military do every day, etc. Simply talking to them instead of only amongst ourselves . . . this choir is converted. In the mean time, I'll keep 'beating' on the elected officials and I hope the rest of us do so, regardless of how much / how little of their overall position each of us finds acceptable in terms of our personal political beliefs.

jdb123 · March 2002

bhayes 420-dont think i dont know about "420" i do and no i dont use it, anyway i was irrational in my first post because of the "GUN-TOTIN LIBERAL HE DOG" what an oxy-moron and besides how can u safely operate a firearm with a limp-wrist.

dheffley · March 2002

Give him Al!

Save, research, then buy the best.Join the NRA, NOW!Teach them young, teach them safe, teach them forever, but most of all, teach them to VOTE!

bhayes420 · March 2002

jdb123...tell me what you think "420" stands for. I lost you on that.

homer4 · March 2002

He'll do till a conservative does come along.

...and two hard boiled eggs.

jdb123 · March 2002

if you dont know i am not going to tell u because its drug-related and i have never done drugs and hate drugs but i know what it means anyway and i dont want to offend you because i belive the "420" means something else in your name.

Hows everyone liking GW?

Comments