Just How Conservative Is G.W. Bush?

[David Gold]

This is a pretty fair assessment. When the Left complains Bush is an "extreme Right winger" what they are talking about is his outspoken Faith. That is what chaps them.I have pointed this out many times. This is where the hatred comes from. Chicago Tribune

Bush

[jenkins2004]

He is most definitely not a fiscal conservative. I suppose "compassionate conservative" just means a religious liberal now?

We need new leadership in this country. Badly.

(and the above does not imply John Kerry or any Democrat, btw, just to be clear...)

[redhead]

I have to just laugh (or I'd cry) whenever I hear the left referring to GWB as a "right winger" with his "extreme" agenda. WHAT?!!! What are these people smoking?

:roll:

[avarice]

There is nothing conservative about a President who worships big government. Nor does lying, stealing, coveting, killing, plundering, or mistreating actions of President Bush show that he embraces Judeo-Christian values. The fictional conservative-religious monicker is just a fig leaf. WAKE UP

[NetGear]

Extreme agendas are dead. We will endure another civil war before an extreme agenda.

[jenkins2004]

Originally Posted by NetGear

Extreme agendas are dead. We will endure another civil war before an extreme agenda.

What does this mean if I may ask? For example, do you consider my platform of cutting the federal government down "extreme"? I actually support the action in Iraq, and am one that feels we actually haven't put enough troops on the ground in Afghanistan. I support a strong military and strong federal government, as the founders intended. I do not support the thousands of government programs and huge government agencies that the federal government has no business engaging in, and I believe there are ways to reduce the massive spending in areas they should be responsible for, such as the military (especially in today's conflict scenarios)..

Is that "extreme"? I don't think it is.

[kestrel]

Depends... is it an election year?



Our elected government needs to be more responsible with taxpayer money.

[NetGear]

For example, do you consider my platform of cutting the federal government down "extreme"?

To some, your platform will be considered extreme. To me, it's not an extreme agenda.

The problem you may deal with, is the same one the Freshman Congressmen dealt with when they were elected in 1994. Congress has taken on a life of its own, some time back. Making changes there is similar to steering a huge ship, and the public is not patient enough to deal with the delay.

By the way, what is your position regarding gun control?

Are you in favor of the so-called assault weapon(s) ban?

Do you believe that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms; separate from a militia?

Do you believe there is a gun show loophole, which needs (needed) filling?

Are you for the registration of handguns?

Do you believe the family physician / pediatrician should be in a position of questioning children about weapons in their home?

Thanks in advance, Paul.

[jenkins2004]

Originally Posted by NetGear

To some, your platform will be considered extreme. To me, it's not an extreme agenda.

That is good, I look forward to your potential support in November

Originally Posted by NetGear

The problem you may deal with, is the same one the Freshman Congressmen dealt with when they were elected in 1994. Congress has taken on a life of its own, some time back. Making changes there is similar to steering a huge ship, and the public is not patient enough to deal with the delay.

Yes, I understand this, and one book I read that put it in perspective well is Tom Coburn's "Breach of Trust". I recommend it highly if you have not already read it.

Originally Posted by NetGear

By the way, what is your position regarding gun control?

I'm against most federal restrictions on gun ownership. I answered the platform questions from gunowners.org, but they haven't posted my results yet as I'm not on the ballot and I think they want to wait until I'm "legitimate" as a candidate.

Originally Posted by NetGear

Are you in favor of the so-called assault weapon(s) ban?

no

Originally Posted by NetGear

Do you believe that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms; separate from a militia?

yes

Originally Posted by NetGear

Do you believe there is a gun show loophole, which needs (needed) filling?

It is my understanding that there is a loophole, but the registration aspect is not something I support at the federal level (see below)

Originally Posted by NetGear

Are you for the registration of handguns?

no

Originally Posted by NetGear

Do you believe the family physician / pediatrician should be in a position of questioning children about weapons in their home?

no

Originally Posted by NetGear

Thanks in advance, Paul.

no problem. If I can answer any more, feel free to ask. If the gunowners.org people ever get my Q&A posted, I'll let you know.

If you want to get some more insights into my positions, my campaign site at http://www.jenkins2004.com has more information, and Vote-Smart.org published my PNAT responses on their website. My main bio page is here http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MTX65741 and my PNAT Q&A is here: http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=MTX65741

[NetGear]

For me, the 2nd Amendment is a litmus test. I feel as strongly about it as I do abortion.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions in such a straight forward manner. That type of directness is very difficult to find in Washington. We need more like you.

You would have my vote, were I in the 3rd District. :) Wishing you a successful campaign.

[jenkins2004]

Originally Posted by NetGear

I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions in such a straight forward manner. That type of directness is very difficult to find in Washington. We need more like you.

You would have my vote, were I in the 3rd District. :) Wishing you a successful campaign.

Thank you, I appreciate it. I know we will not agree on every issue, but I feel it is a responsibility to be as straightforward as possible on issues, and to respond to the people I will represent.

Though you are not in the 3rd District, all donations to see me succeed are most welcome </shameless donation plug> I found it amazing that Bush raised $3 million yesterday alone, when it has taken my 2 weeks to raise $1500

[NetGear]

With dinners like the one President Bush threw, I'll bet it is difficult dealing with the vacuum created by his Cash Oreck. :shock:

[avarice]

Originally Posted by jenkins2004

For example, do you consider my platform of cutting the federal government down "extreme"? I actually support the action in Iraq, and am one that feels we actually haven't put enough troops on the ground in Afghanistan. I support a strong military and strong federal government, as the founders intended.......

Is that "extreme"? I don't think it is.

It is self-contradictory. You do not support limited government if at the same time you advocate overstreached military empire and nation building all over the globe. Your assertion that the Founders advocate a strong military is also false. For most of U.S. history, there was no standing army in the U.S.

[jenkins2004]

Originally Posted by avarice

It is self-contradictory.

i disagree

Originally Posted by avarice

You do not support limited government if at the same time you advocate overstreached military empire and nation building all over the globe.

And where did I say that I support a "military empire" and "nation building all over the globe"? Do not mistake support for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts as support for "military empire" and "nation building all over the globe.

Originally Posted by avarice

Your assertion that the Founders advocate a strong military is also false. For most of U.S. history, there was no standing army in the U.S.

The founding fathers most certainly advocated a strong military, when the need presented itself. They felt that the need would not present itself often, but unfortunately, it has.

[avarice]

Originally Posted by jenkins2004

And where did I say that I support a "military empire" and "nation building all over the globe"? Do not mistake support for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts as support for "military empire" and "nation building all over the globe.

President Bush already claimed victory in these two countries. But we are still there to promote democracy, to eradicate drugs, and to impose values on other countries that have little to do with real war but a lot to do with rewarding the President's political cronies all over the globe.

Originally Posted by jenkins2004

The founding fathers most certainly advocated a strong military, when the need presented itself. They felt that the need would not present itself often, but unfortunately, it has.

False. No standing army is not equivalent to "strong military" or anything close to the United States military playing global cop all over the planet. The chief boogeyman back in the Founder's day was the pirate and the Founders used legal Letters of Marque and Reprisal for private folks to combat piracy instead of using the quickie third way illegal "Congressional authorization of force resolutions."

Founders debated war in Congress. There was no debate in Congress over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even John Kerry admitted that he was not fully informed before he voted.

"Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall by unfurled, there will be America's heart.... But she does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

------- John Quincy Adams July 4, 1821

[jenkins2004]

Originally Posted by avarice

President Bush already claimed victory in these two countries. But we are still there to promote democracy, to eradicate drugs, and to impose values on other countries that have little to do with real war but a lot to do with rewarding the President's political cronies all over the globe.

I view it differently. I view it as the US helping Iraq achieve independence and set up their democracy, much like the French helped us. I don't see it as a "reward for political cronies", but rather as a way to help protect the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. You are free to disagree with that view, and I'm sure you do, but my view is not one of endless nation building or global military empire, which is what you claimed I represent and want. In 2 specific instances, I believe we have done well with our military interventions and helping those countries get on their feet after our victories. I believe our victories were required as they posed a threat to the US, and that the post-war rebuilding is part of the duty we have to continue that protection long-term.

You may (or may not, not sure) find it a bit easier to believe when I say that I support our removal of troops, bases and aid to countries that no longer need our presence (or as large of a presence as we have today.)

Originally Posted by avarice

Founders debated war in Congress. There was no debate in Congress over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even John Kerry admitted that he was not fully informed before he voted.

Kerry is playing politics, he was fully informed, and had access to any information Bush and company had. That he failed to vote the way that is politically expediant now is no excuse, IMO.

I actually agree that war should be debated in Congress, and declared as such in Congress before the President commits our troops. In all but the most urgent situations, there is time for debate, and time for unity behind a Congressional declaration of war. Had President Bush asked for a declaration of war, much of what is occuring today with the "he said, she said, he lied, etc." would be avoided, and people like Senator Kerry could not claim that they didn't actually authorize force, when they indeed did.

It would also help the US population as a whole to be united behind a true Congressional statement of war, and that it is needed. War should be a very high standard and Congress should not cower in its responsibility to debate and declare it.

Originally Posted by avarice

"Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall by unfurled, there will be America's heart.... But she does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

------- John Quincy Adams July 4, 1821

Great quote by Adams, and reflective of what the founders wanted in our approach to war. Afghanistan and Iraq fit that description, IMO, as they fit into the global war against those aiming to destroy us.

I think the globalization of weapons, delivery systems and intent to harm have modified how we should act abroad, as America is no longer protected by the great distances and oceans we once were.

As for being the champion and vindicator of only her own concept, I believe that also demands modification in the world today, where we must address the fact that brutal dictators, radical regimes, and non-democratic nations acquiring the technologies mentioned above put the US at risk, and that risk must be addressed. There are levels of involvement that I support for the US in pushing democracy to others. In the cases where nations are not producing or acquiring technologies that can harm the US and are not actively preaching harm to the US, I still adopt the founders philosophies. When factors above align differently, however, I support active involvement of fixing them before they get to the point of costing the US dearly for ignoring them. Note that this does not imply a military-only or military-first approach, but that we must deal with them in a variety of ways, from economic, to political, to, if we must, militarily.

[avarice]

Originally Posted by jenkins2004

I view it differently. I view it as the US helping Iraq achieve independence and set up their democracy, much like the French helped us. I don't see it as a "reward for political cronies", but rather as a way to help protect the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. You are free to disagree with that view, and I'm sure you do, but my view is not one of endless nation building or global military empire, which is what you claimed I represent and want. In 2 specific instances, I believe we have done well with our military interventions and helping those countries get on their feet after our victories. I believe our victories were required as they posed a threat to the US, and that the post-war rebuilding is part of the duty we have to continue that protection long-term.

Good Lord. We do not need more of the same big government military war mongering in Congress. We need more Ron Paul types. You cannot claim that you are for limited government while at the same time you advocate military quagmires around the globe that are nothing short of total disasters. That is bait-and-switch false advertising. I demand a refund.

The present government system in Iraq is nothing less than a continuation of Saddam's socialist Ba' ath Party platform.

There Is No Freedom in Iraq, Part 3

Government schooling. Government health care. Government social security. Government income taxation. Government money and monetary policy. Government welfare. Government ownership of the means of production. Public housing.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0309a.asp

Originally Posted by jenkins2004

You may (or may not, not sure) find it a bit easier to believe when I say that I support our removal of troops, bases and aid to countries that no longer need our presence (or as large of a presence as we have today.)

Certainly not! War based on false pretense begets more war based on false pretense. Power is corrupting.

Originally Posted by jenkins2004

Kerry is playing politics, he was fully informed, and had access to any information Bush and company had. That he failed to vote the way that is politically expediant now is no excuse, IMO.med before he voted.

You do not have any evidence to suggest that John Kerry is lying. At least he was willing to admit that he made a mistake (unlike President Bush.)

Originally Posted by jenkins2004

In all but the most urgent situations......

There is another clever caveat. Enumerated Powers list clearly what government may or may not do. These powers are unconditional.

Originally Posted by jenkins2004

I think the globalization of weapons, delivery systems and intent to harm have modified how we should act abroad, as America is no longer protected by the great distances and oceans we once were.........

But you claimed that you wanted to strengthen the military the way that the Founders wanted. Now you admit that the Founders actually wanted something different. Which is it?

[jenkins2004]

Originally Posted by avarice

Good Lord. We do not need more of the same big government military war mongering in Congress. We need more Ron Paul types. You cannot claim that you are for limited government while at the same time you advocate military quagmires around the globe that are nothing short of total disasters. That is bait-and-switch false advertising. I demand a refund.

It is not bait-and-switch, it is my position. You can not support large federal government programs and spending and support a strong military.

Your refund check is in the mail, to the tune of the amount donated

Originally Posted by avarice

The present government system in Iraq is nothing less than a continuation of Saddam's socialist Ba' ath Party platform.

You are wrong, IMO. The interim Constitution is a great step forward for Iraq, and does not resemble the Baath party rule at all. Equating the two is incorrect.

Government schooling. Government health care. Government social security. Government income taxation. Government money and monetary policy. Government welfare. Government ownership of the means of production. Public housing.

Most of this describes the US today, no?

Certainly not! War based on false pretense begets more war based on false pretense. Power is corrupting.

I don't believe it was based on false pretenses. I believe, and have believed since 1991, that Saddam should be removed. I consider his blatant disregard of the cease fired he signed cause enough to finish the 1991 conflict.

You do not have any evidence to suggest that John Kerry is lying. At least he was willing to admit that he made a mistake (unlike President Bush.)

When did Kerry admit to a mistake? And he had the evidence, why do you think he did not?

But you claimed that you wanted to strengthen the military the way that the Founders wanted. Now you admit that the Founders actually wanted something different. Which is it?

I said that the founders wanted a strong military when times demanded it. Re-reading parts of the Federalist papers this weekend confirm that (at least from Madison's perspective, when he writes "The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger")

I understand the Libertarian theory on how the US should act in the world, and I disagree with it.

[avarice]

Originally Posted by jenkins2004

You are wrong, IMO. The interim Constitution is a great step forward for Iraq, and does not resemble the Baath party rule at all. Equating the two is incorrect.....Most of this describes the US today, no?

Socialism is what it is...morally bankrupt. A continuation of government ownership is exactly what Saddam would have done.

Originally Posted by jenkins2004

I don't believe it was based on false pretenses. I believe, and have believed since 1991, that Saddam should be removed. I consider his blatant disregard of the cease fired he signed cause enough to finish the 1991 conflict.

That is just the flimsy excuse for war that makes it dangerous for pseudo-conservative politicians to get their hands on too much power. Our country is an independent sovereign republic - not an internationalist global cop that submits to the whim of the United Nations.

Originally Posted by jenkins2004

When did Kerry admit to a mistake? And he had the evidence, why do you think he did not?

John Kerry admitted that he did not have enough information before he voted for war. That should have been obvious to any objective observer a long time ago because there was no debate in Congress.

Originally Posted by jenkins2004

I said that the founders wanted a strong military when times demanded it. Re-reading parts of the Federalist papers this weekend confirm that (at least from Madison's perspective, when he writes "The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger")

Here is what James Madison (the Godfather of the U.S. Constitution) had to say about war:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

"War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honours, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . .

"[There is also] an inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and. . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . .