September 19, 2005

The Clinton Effect

In the darkest days of the Presidency of Bill Clinton I often bemoaned the fact that he was still supported by so many people. I sent scathing letters to Evan Bayh, my Democrat Senator, asking how he could support a President who lied under oath? As almost anyone with any integrity will admit, the Clinton Impeachment was not about sex. It was not about stained blue dresses , or who smoked which cigar in the Rose garden. It was plain and simple an issue of lying to a Grand Jury under oath. It was about denying an American citizen her fair day in court. The righteousness of her case was completely irrelevant.

I did not and still cannot understand the people who gave Clinton a pass simply because the stock market was strong and dividend checks were large. How can you ignore the Rose Law firm, the cattle futures, Whitewater, and all the other issues that swirled around the Clinton's and pass them off as nothing as long as your party remains in power?

Maybe it is time we conservatives take a hard look at what is supposedly our man in office. Many of us have been blinded by real issues with GW Bush that we have forgiven the excesses. Here is the situation as I see it:

1. Many of us are pleased that the current president is not a Democrat. We have had it with the lies of the Clintons, the Al Gore of Florida, and the sleazy Kerry war records that he still will not produce.

2. In his first term Bush passed tax cuts. His first and biggest conservative promise

3. The War on Terror. For this alone he has received a long term pass from me. While I do not agree 100% with the plan to date, Bush has done the right thing. I think some of the low approval numbers trend from what many of us deem too passive an approach on Terrorism.

There are some issues that as a true Conservative I can no longer overlook in the Bush Presidency:

1. Illegal immigration. Bush's failure to address this issue will have long-term effects on this country reaching for generations. Is the American version of Aleric the Goth already in our midst?

2. Failure to prosecute the war on terrorism to his utmost. What happened to the Bush Doctrine? Why is Bush pushing Israel to give in to Hamas? Why do the Saudis and Syria continue to get a free pass? Why are we giving foreign aid to Egypt and the PA? Why do we tolerate Iran's continuing sponsorship of global terrorism?

3. The refusal to veto pork-laden spending bills. Bush's failure as the nominal and titual head of the Party in power to reduce spending, to reduce government waste, to abide to the principles of the people who sent him to Washington.

4. His increasingly liberal approach to problems in this country. The massive payoffs to the families of 9/11, the payoffs to Louisiana and New Orleans in particular. The President is becoming pretty free when it comes to spending my money. The NCLB Act, the Energy Bill that does not allow drilling for oil in known deposits, the farm bill, the steel tariff are just examples of legislation signed by the President that should have been vetoed instantly.

I still support the President in the WOT. I cannot continue to turn a blind eye to his abandonment of the conservative principles he espoused in order to get my vote. My silence makes me culpable in spirit for the continued liberal agenda from Washington. I am not sure what I will do about it, but to continue to prop up a man who has abandoned the very voters that put him in office makes me only a degree more honest than the Clinton supporters. My only consolation is that at least my guy did not commit a felony, lying under oath: Bush only lied to me. Why am I disappointed he is just another politician?

9 comments:

Galt-In-Da-Box said...

What you are witnessing, is the fact that the "right" wing of the Kakostocracy is no better than the "left". The former bases his socialistic altruism on the lies of the Vatican, the latter, on the lies of the spiritualist/atheist.
1. DemoCRAPs will not oppose wetbackism (oh, excuse me, "illegal immegration") because it's a good source of cheap votes. CRAPublicans will not oppose it, because it's a good source of cheap gardeners, domestic servants and chauffeurs.
2. The so-called "War On Terror" is nothing of the kind, when you compare body-count: It's safe to say many more Americans than Al-Qaida/Hamas/Place-name-of-raghead-fanatic-group-here are dead and probably will contunue to die under our current, laxadaisical policy. Follow the money trail, and you'll find it leads to Papist munitions manufacturers, and other Bush-backers.
3&4. Pork is the life-blood of the Washington pull-peddler. No bribes+no handouts to looters=no votes, goes the 75-year-old formula of the FDR/LBJ born Kakostocracy, Constitution and individual liberty be damned.
You will find this hard to accept, but the world is what it is (immoral and unjust), not what we want it.

GUYK said...

I am not quite that cynical Ted, but just about. The fact is that on on hand we have the socialist left that demands an equal share of the pie they have not earned but on the other hand we have corporations that are getting as much of the taxpayers pie as are the socialist left! Farm programs that help only the huge cprporate farms and thing such as the steel tafiff were obvious political give aways for votes. About the only real difference in the parties is the name and the stance on foreign policy and national defense; both are looting the taxpayers. I have voted republican because at least corporations provide jobs and they produce wealth while the socialist left loots the wealth to share among those who have not produced it.

I will support a viable third party that has a realistic platform. I don't mean the Ross perot or George Wallace or the current libertarian nuts-although I identify more with the libertarians than I do with either the donks or the GOP. But I mean a third party that bases a platform on the constitution and common redneck sense. Hell, I think I will write a post on it.

Breezy said...

Hell, i felt a lot better when I could listen to president without cringing.

Clinton "lied" about a BLOWJOB, dude. A blowjob. Bush lied to you about money, war, protection, and his reasoning behind all of that.

You're telling me clinton's worse? At least he has something intelligent to say without being fed by someone else's agenda.

hoosierboy said...

Breezy, either you are one of the blind followers I discussed above or you are intellectually dishonest. Clinton's impeachment was not about a blow job. It was about lying under oath. Do you believe that some lies are OK? Is perjury alright some of the time? If so you are a moral relativist. Quit recycling the same old liberal Bush is dumb, Rove is an evil genius bullshit. You once took me to task for going over the top with generalities, follow your own advice.

Honestly ask yourself, what would be your reactions if a donor gave Cheney money that somehow turned into $100,000 in cattle futures. What if Bush refused to turn over his supeonaed records? How would you feel if this administration was giving China guided missle technology that made our country less safe in exchange for donations.

What would be your response if the President sexually harrased workers in his administration, then turned the IRS loose on them, then lied to cover himself? Would you then be so tolerant and supportive, or does it matter which party and political ideaology the person in office embraces? Or could it just be you are a hypocrite?

hoosierboy said...

For a more thourough discussion about the Clinton's see this http://delftsman.mu.nu/archives/121533.php

GUYK said...

It still comes down to wrongs don't make a right. Clinton was in my mind a political genious but hell, so was Hitler. Bush is not dumb-just intellectually dishonest. he has played the political game to get and stay in office and let the people who voted for him-especially thoise of us who are small (l) libertarians and fiscal conservatives-down. he has pandered to the religious right who are in control of congress and are spending money right and left on pork projects. he has also pandered to the left wing on social projects and now is in the process of putting the country another 200 billion plus in debt to rebuild a sewer of a city in a damn bowl that will still be in danger of another hurricane-pplus will attract the same welfare supportd bums that made of about half of the population. I don't like Bush! But he still beats hell out of any donk I can think of-maybe Lieberman has some good economic sense but he panders to his party.

Galt-In-Da-Box said...

Don't be too alarmed at breezy, HB. She is a "true believer". There are many of these on both sides of the imaginary "aisle" the Kakostocracy's spin doctors create every four years. Rush Limburger is an excellent example of one on the "right" faction.
A "true believer" buys whatever lie their dear leader is selling, no matter how absurd or ludacrous. Clinton was a better President politically than both the Bushes combined, but since there basically is no more Reagan revolution and the Republican Party died with him, that's not saying much.
Whatever socialist takes Dubya's place will continue the big-government pork parade, and when BanKhazar cuts off the credit, bullets and billy-clubs will replace bribes in Der Unitet Schtaat auf Amerika.

hoosierboy said...

Breezy does not worry me, he offers passionate (but wrong IMHO)viewpoints. He is usually polite and he reasons out his response. I just do not often agree with him.

Galt-In-Da-Box said...

Breezy is a dude!?
I'll give him points on that blowjob bit: Nobody got killed over that.

Consider everything here that is of original content copyrighted as of March 2005