I USED to feel that we were "honor bound" to remain silently in support of a President -- in the case of Party politics, for a President we voted for, one as representative of the Party with which we're registered/affiliated -- BUT, in the case of today's atmosphere, given certain significant concerns, this perspective places people in severely compromised positions as to ethics.

As in, when do you contradict and confront behavior and strategy that confronts and contradicts the things you hold dear as a voter and a citizen?

The issue of illegal immigration and President Bush's defiance of -- if not outright nastiness about -- the worth of U.S. citizenship, the value of the American in the workplace (declaring with real causticity, "[illegal aliens] do the work that Americans aren't willing to do") -- and stating that so many times that it can hardly be said by this point to reflect a minor or secondary viewpoint by Bush, and also said by him right up to the last November elections, which convinced me and many others I've spoken with that Bush really did want a Democrat Congress and worked to undermine key Republicans given the opposition in especially the House to his "guest worker" amnesty plans...

I could go on but I'll let this suffice. Had President Bush been as clearly available, so to speak, as to his plans and intentions and actual emotionalism that suggests a certain negativity, so to speak, about "Americans" in this regard, earlier in our recent history, he would not have received nearly the votes he did if not not been re-elected to a second term, because many of us would not have voted for him, just as we (at least, I) can't support or even tolerate McCain's duplicity in these regards (nor Ted Kennedy's, nor Brownback's, nor even Guiliani's and so many other Liberals who have now become the Republicans of today as to candidates available on our ballots).

I think there's a point when it's irresponsible NOT to disagree with a President, is the thing. I supported Bush as much as anyone did in times past and I remain a registered Republican...BUT, the issue of border insecurity and illegal aliens multiplied by the vast millions as they have during the Bush Presidency (and the various others who assist in his same methods in this regard) makes me truly wonder just how sincere he ever was or is now about national security.

We can't have national security when our own borders are insecure and even being encouraged to be compromised, which I think is closer to the truth. I also wonder why us voting Conservatives were so courted and then so fooled about what lay ahead and is now readily perceivable in this regard.

It just leaves me questioning the source, so to speak, more than I am comfortable doing.

Bush has no plans to secure our border. That's the truth of where his mind is and what his plans are. He just never intended to do so. My faith in him is immensely reduced accordingly.

Lies like yours, S, the self-serving kind which try to justify putting a defeatist doctrine in charge of Congress, are exactly what I mean in this article.

Thanks! You proved my point!

You misunderstand my politics, DJDrummond. I never and will never support by any means possible a Democrat win, anywhere.

But Bush has done a great deal to lend support for Democrats for my comfort level as a Republican and as someone who today feels highly conned into voting for him the second time. These aren't lies, they're my opinions based upon my experience, though I respect your right to malign what I opine here. Sad that you'd do so, however.

Bush has set a lower bar standard for the GOP. And that's why people like Guiliani and McCain actually look supportable to some. Same with Schwarzenegger. I don't know where the Republican went in the GOP because it's not with us today.

But, Bush has not indicated any sincere intent to secure our borders along with encouraging illegal immigration. That has cost him believability in my view and in the views of many a Conservative.

Bush's eagerness to secure a Democrat majority in Congress and his unconcealed glee after that was accomplished (not with my support and in opposition to what I worked very hard to not see happen last November) that there's little could ever be said or done afterward that would convince me his intent was not on securing a Democrat majority in Congress last November.

It represents a betrayal of my vote.

S: "I never and will never support by any means possible a Democrat win, anywhere."

By spiting President Bush, you did exactly that.

"Bush's eagerness to secure a Democrat majority in Congress and his unconcealed glee after that was accomplished"

That's not just a lie, it's a vicious, stupid lie.

I dub thee "troll", not Republican.

I think you've been too long cloistered by JR at FR with that "troll" and "lies" mud slinging, there, DJ Drummond. You're too comfortable insulting Conservatives among us registered Republicans to avoid the actual "troll" tag yourself, though, especially if you keep this up: your antagonisms are exactly what cost the RNC votes and will again this 2008, rather than take seriously the ISSUES OF MY CONCERN.

I'm not "spitting" on President Bush nor never have. I disagree with his denigration of my concerns and the issues as to national security and U.S. citizenship -- along with capitalism and my concept of fair trade and economics, to name but a few -- and if my OPINIONS are deemed "lies" by you, they are no more "lies" than YOURS ARE.

As in, how can opinions be "lies"? Is it a lie when a politician announces with glee in his voice that he's happier to have a Democrat majority in Congress -- now he can get somethin' DONE -- than he is with a Republican majority, when that politician is a Republican President? I can name here a litany of more self-revealing positions by Bush in this his second term in office that, had he been a more transparent, accountable recipient of my vote (twice, I voted for Bush twice, perhaps you'll deem those votes "lies," too, and I'd really be curious how you could make that determination with any seriousness), he'd have made those positions clear before the second term (in which case, I'd have written in JR's wheelchair as my Presidential pick).

That last part was an exaggeration...but, the point here is that Bush canoodled, manipulated us Conservatives in his terms as to national security concerns. He's manipulated emotional concerns and civic responsibility issues (mine) to appear intent on "strong security" while IN PRACTICE AND ACTUAL POSITION not been strong at all, if anything, been indulgent to the weaknesses.

He's intent on security for Iraq, yes, but apparently not for the United States -- where I live, by the way, my home, my country.

Bush is no Conservative. If you're still beating his campaign drums in belief that he is, you're in an unsupportable state. I'm sorry for you, I'm sorry for our country, but the facts speak for themselves and that is that Bush can fulfill his goals far easier with Democrats commisserating with those goals than he can with Republicans. That tells me a great deal as to what -- all hyperbole aside -- Bush's politics actually are and they are not Conservative as a Republican, but Liberal.

Meaning, Bush is one of those RINOs. And why the likes of the unrealible (I'm being kind) McCain so well suits his purposes and why Bush so well suits the purposes of McCain.

As a Republican -- go read my voting history, go look at my years of writings in advocation of the GOP among hundreds of opinion pieces I've written and comments I've made and work I've done on behalf of Conservative issues and Republican candidates (including Bush), and you'll see that your words are ridiculous and cruel here.

"Troll" is the language of the dingbats from the treacherous territory of the sandbox that is FR. Which, by the way, is owned and operated (so it's written, so it's said) by a guy who is a Democrat and Liberal and whose history of "Bush-hate" far outweighs all the efforts afterward to say he'd changed his mind.

I THINK what occured in the Bush years is that Democrats and Liberals of the NeoCon/Marxist kind got their guy and their crew back in office and they just placed another nametag on the candidate and posed him up against the Communist and there was little to no opportunity to make any reasonable choice between the two (Bush/Kerry and/or Bush/Gore) and thus, the result was the same in degrees.

9/11 changed all that as to emergent issues and concerns -- I've always supported our military and continue to do so and never spoken out in opposition to ANY military action by the U.S. and don't imagine I ever will -- but, the fact remains that Bush never had intent to secure our nation and he certainly isn't doing so now.

If that's "trollage" to you, well, you can't see the trees for the forest.

And, I still ascribe to the civic and ethical belief that elected officials are employed by us voters. Idealistic in these days, yes, but that's my perspective.

It's Liberals in office who assume a lifelong career and monarchistic use of public office, which is the ultimate insult to our democracy. The Clintons and the Bush Family, by this point, are ultimate examples in my view of just that sort of presumption upon our republic, as is Nancy Pelosi's budding Queen behavior and the Kennedy family's sense of entitlement and privilege to rule, as with so many others, almost all Liberals who use public office as if it's their ownership of position, not employment to an employer in which service is required.

I would eagerly support a Conservative in office and so far, the only one I see who is available to consider among the Republicans is Romney, but even he has yet to become clear on many positions and that, again, concerns me especially after lesson-learned with the Bush Administration (assumed to be Conservative, discovered after election not to be).

Guiliani's a Liberal, McCain is unreliable (I am again being considerate about a person I find unreliable and objectionable in office), Brownback and the dreaded Jeb Bush are all similar to Bush if not replicants of his policies as to open-borders, taxpayer services for illegal aliens, a refusal to secure our borders ("borders impossible to secure!" Bush declares time and time again when several Presidents in times past with far less resources have managed to secure the borders and even to deport all illegal aliens from out nation without so much as a complaint about it).

The border's "too difficult to secure" because Bush (is actually saying that he) doesn't want to secure it. "Can't be done" as to deportation of illegal aliens because Bush doesn't want to deport them.

His very words reveal his duplicity. If he doesn't want to, say it but saying otherwise is misleading. It's the misleadment that has lost my faith in the man, not in the Presidency, but in the man.

Not a bit of spittle in all of that, however. I hope the same for your monitor.

Romney does not share my theological beliefs, however, and in the case of those in office who say they do, they haven't and aren't behaving like they do. At this point, as a Christian, what I do is evaluate the ethical reasoning and ethical opinions of candidates and work from my most significant issue down as to who to vote for, who to campaign for and who to support.

So far, the RNC hasn't offered me anyone but Liberals, with a few among them who say they are Christians and yet, support politics that defy my beliefs as a Christian, so, in that case, I resort to ethics again and start all over.

I will never vote for a Democrat due to the DNC party platform. I don't care how moderate or whatever else a Democrat has to say about themselves, the party platform of the Democratic Party is a Liberal one that promotes and defends behaviors and issues that I cannot support.

I had higher hopes from the Republican Party. I know I am not alone in this dilemma today. In which case, if you're barbs be accurate (they aren't, but for a sake of argument here), then millions of Conservatives in the U.S. who also vote are not too excited as to Republican candidates.

Which does not mean we'll (at least, I won't) vote for any more Liberals. Bush has revealed himself to be a Liberal, not a Conservative.

All those words, yet -S- remains a lying troll.

DJ's montra

Bush Bush Bush Bush. No matter what he says or does is the greatest Republican ever. Anyone who disagrees with him is evil!

Ahhh, Spring and the trolls are bredding!

DJDrummond, I'm mystified at your negativity directed toward me. Utterly mystified.

Ask Jay Tea, or ask Kevin who I am in the political range if that will make you land back here on Earth with both your feet and perhaps a modification of your persnickity pejoratives. I realize you are experiencing health concerns so I am sincerely concerned here that there may be other issues affecting you...but I post under my actual name, I link to one of my own websites that's published in my own name, I know Jay Tea and Kevin from several years ago, I've volunteered and supported the GOP throughout the years...

I'm sorry if you think that a disagreement as to or divergence from the Bush doctrine or Bush positions is the equivalent of "spitting on Bush" (pretty sad that you do, however).

Mystified. Go ahead and taunt on a public board with "troll" if it helps you get through your afternoon. I don't think, however, it's good for your health.

Be well, take care, calm down because otherwise, this sort of malignment about Conservatives does as much to drive voters away from the GOP as does Free Republic. I wonder if that's the plan...which places the "troll" term secondary to political espionage, in my view.

Have a nice day.

It takes all kinds. Next we'll see photos of cats.

S: Read the whole exchange. You are reasonable. DJ's brain is rotten. Surely it's not his soul, I hope.

S, BryanD is a well-known troll.

He likes your post.

That says a lot.

Excellent point in your 8:52am comment DJ!

-S-,

Saying obviously false things like Bush wanted the dems to take over congress sure makes you sound troll-like.

And how could Bush's position on the border be a betrayal of your vote when his position was the same before you voted for him? Do you consider it a betrayal when a politican actualy holds true to their values that were clearly expressed before the election?

If that's the case you must have loved Clinton...

seriously, i love you guys. are you sure this isn't a comedy blog or satire? The DEMOCRATS forced Republicans to take sides against Bush? Bush wanted the democrats to win the Congress? Mr. Drummond wants us all to sieg heil to der fuhrer Bush? Bush is a LIBERAL??? AWESOME! keep on fighting it out guys, and look forward to president Hillary. calling all sane republicans: idiots like drummond will ruin your party by refusing to recognize the disastrous reality that is W. take heed.