Skip to comments.
Bush reaches out to conservatives to quell revolt
Forbes ^
| Feb. 20, 2004
| Adam Entous
Posted on 02/22/2004 8:05:00 PM PST by FairOpinion
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 601-617 next last
To: Tamsey
You are more than welcome.
It is a combination of actually studying the issues, reading the proposals and the bills and speaking as authentically as I know how.
These fringe unappeasable dem enablers will defeat our President over my dead body. And if W loses, there will be a lot of bodies dead from terror attacks.
I urge everyone to counter these enablers of fascism w/every ounce of authenticity they posses.
To: wirestripper
In retrospect, you are right. But I think they totally misjudged the reaction.Which is strange, because he tried some kind of amnesty trial ballon a yeasr or two earlier and had to drop it.
To: Tamsey
I wasn't, until I saw Freepers getting attacked on this thread by some of these "folks". And you consider those attacks so inappropriate that you...respond with similar attacks?
I must confess, it seems to me taking the high road would make a lot more sense. When you resort to the same tactics you purport to condemn, others may wonder just how interested you are in legitimate debate v. flamefests. Just a suggestion: Next time call on the attackers to move to a higher level of debate rather than "getting down in the mud".
Why are YOU so eager to confront people on a thread when you missed parts of a conversation and can't possibly know everything that was said?
Because I invite people to join in civil discourse wherever I see incivility abounding, is why. Moreover, were it a requirement to understand the entire context of every remark prior to responding to it, I suspect this site would be a very quiet place.
To: wirestripper
I know that he came out against it, which is certainly true, but I do not recall a promise to veto. During the campaign, he said he would oppose/veto, the exact same law that arrived on his desk.
To: nickcarraway
He has made his feeling clear, I thought.
Too much pressure on California might be seen as interference with state matters, so he walks a thin line.
325
posted on
02/23/2004 10:44:42 AM PST
by
Cold Heat
(In politics stupidity is not a handicap. --Napoleon Bonapart)
To: Tamsey; NittanyLion; FairOpinion
![](http://members.shaw.ca/victoriausa/SaberCrouch.jpg)
I wasn't, until I saw Freepers getting attacked on this thread by some of these "folks". Why are YOU so eager to confront people on a thread when you missed parts of a conversation and can't possibly know everything that was said?
That's revisionist. Let's take a look at the first post of the thread,,,
"The White House is used to being attacked by Democrats, but it came as something of a shock when fellow Republicans broke ranks over growth in government spending, hurting Bush at a time when his job approval numbers were already falling. " Kerry, Edwards and Terry McAuliffe are very grateful! The Dems couldn't win in November without help from conservatives -- help, which is apparently is on its way. Conservatives seem more intent on defeating Bush, than the leftist Democrats.
The gauntlet was thrown down first by a poster who's bitter that President Bush had to reach "out to conservatives to quell revolt."
|
326
posted on
02/23/2004 10:47:00 AM PST
by
Sabertooth
(Malcontent for Bush - 2004!)
To: wirestripper
You seem intent on having me call you a dolt. Won't happen.
Spending, while a conservative issue, is not a critical issue that effects people the same way jobs, the economy and illegal aliens do (also religious issues). Spending is far down the list.
bush lost the election the day he announced the illegal alien amnesty - just as surely as dean did after 'the scream.'
It was the final nail in his political coffin. A large portion of his base finally woke up after ignoring so many of bush's non-conservative, non-Christian positions, actions, and silences.
Even the brain-dead republican party leadership is starting to take notice and is now doing emergency damage control.
There is no viable alternative candidate, but that doesn't mean anything. bush will still lose. Not for any other reason but his screwing his base on core issues. Enough people will sit out in disgust and the election will go the 'rat candidate.
327
posted on
02/23/2004 10:47:14 AM PST
by
tubavil
To: Sabertooth
I distrust groupthink and appeasement, therefore I believe dissent and debate are legitmate and valuable functions to be served, and that there is far too little of both at Free Republic.
This sounds so dramatic LOL There is no "groupthink" or "appeasement". We are in the midst of an election and only one of two coalitions will win. We are part of the right-wing coalition, or at least most of us are. The candidate leading this coalition has already been selected and it is George W. Bush... you either fight for our candidate, join the opposite side or just get the hell out of the way.
I doubt that all the British military leaders over in Iraq agreed with every aspect of Tommy Franks' plans. It's not "groupthink" to compromise with others for a common purpose and it's not "appeasement" to recognize that only a third of the country shares your values and you may not see them all implemented. BTW, it's nice of you to decide what we all need more of at Free Republic... just keep in mind that this is not your kitchen. Other conservatives or Republicans or mushy middlers can be reading these threads and be convinced by YOUR posts not to vote for Bush. And enemies both political and in the press can read these threads and find material to use to divide the right or hurt our chances at keeping Bush in the White House.
328
posted on
02/23/2004 10:48:14 AM PST
by
Tamzee
(Hey, Bush supporting lurkers! Create an account and speak up! This is a critical year for the USA!)
To: wirestripper
To me, he didn't make his feelings clear. Especially coupled with Laura Bush's comments, which were tantamount to saying only uneducated people from flyover country were against gay marriage, since they don't know any better.
To: tubavil
I think it was a critical mistake, but it's still to early to say the election is lost. But it's not going to be easy.
To: wirestripper
![](http://members.shaw.ca/victoriausa/SaberCrouch.jpg)
In retrospect, you are right. But I think they totally misjudged the reaction.
How is that possible? The Bush Administration has been angling for ways to push a large Amnesty for years, in the face of many polls and letters indicating that most Republicans do not want Amnesty. Some of us have spent a lot of time making sure that Bush knew exactly what our reaction would be, in our efforts to dissuade him from Amnesty. What could we have done to better prepare him and prevent the Amnesty debacle?
|
331
posted on
02/23/2004 10:51:35 AM PST
by
Sabertooth
(Malcontent for Bush - 2004!)
To: nickcarraway
Which is strange, because he tried some kind of amnesty trial ballon a yeasr or two earlier and had to drop it. Yes, that happened after 9/11 and Fox had to cancel his trip to the U.S.
Bush has made this proposal prior to becoming president in 1999. He made virtually the same proposal a few weeks ago.
This was not Carl Roves doings, as some contend. It is all Bush.
No surprises to me. He thinks it will work. He could be wrong, but he has a lot of experiences in this area and certainly seems to have a solid opinion on it.
332
posted on
02/23/2004 10:52:27 AM PST
by
Cold Heat
(In politics stupidity is not a handicap. --Napoleon Bonapart)
To: nickcarraway; wirestripper
Bush promised in no uncertain terms to veto the exact same Campaign Finance law he ended up signing.I don't think so. I'm pretty sure he was in favor of some sort of bill.
333
posted on
02/23/2004 10:52:34 AM PST
by
Howlin
To: Sabertooth
Sabertooth, do you not think that action should be taken to deal with those who divide the party?
Furthermore, who even divides the party? Is the the person who disagrees with a plank of the platform, OR is it the person (or persons) who after a nomination battle doesn't go their way, go third party/independent/stay at home?
Should leaders of a political party expect that after a nomination battle, all those who were involved unite to win the general election? And how should they deal with those who refuse to support a nominee? Isn't distrust in the future a reasonable response to those who announce such a refusal?
You want to have it both ways. You want the Republicans to stick their neck out for you on your pet issue (immigration), but you seem unwilling to be the kind of person who they would trust enough to stick their neck out for. If anything, you instead are saying, "Do things my way, or I'll go third-party/independent/stay-at-home". That does NOT encourage any rational politican to risk his career on your issues.
334
posted on
02/23/2004 10:53:50 AM PST
by
hchutch
("I never get involved with my own life. It's too much trouble." - Michael Garibaldi)
To: Howlin
He said he would not sign a bill unless they changed it drastically, but the bill he signed was the same one he said he wouldn't sign, unless changes were made.
To: Tamsey
![](http://members.shaw.ca/victoriausa/SaberCrouch.jpg)
This sounds so dramatic LOL There is no "groupthink" or "appeasement"
So, what's your complaint? You posted that I'd have more credibility if I posted nicer things about President Bush more often. That's an appeal to groupthink. The candidate leading this coalition has already been selected and it is George W. Bush... you either fight for our candidate, join the opposite side or just get the hell out of the way.
More appeals to groupthink. BTW, it's nice of you to decide what we all need more of at Free Republic... just keep in mind that this is not your kitchen. Other conservatives or Republicans or mushy middlers can be reading these threads and be convinced by YOUR posts not to vote for Bush. And enemies both political and in the press can read these threads and find material to use to divide the right or hurt our chances at keeping Bush in the White House.
And more. Do you even see it?
|
336
posted on
02/23/2004 10:55:45 AM PST
by
Sabertooth
(Malcontent for Bush - 2004!)
To: Sabertooth
I would like to suggest that the election of Al Gore in 2000 would have probably cured the problem of illegal immigration. Following four years of chaos following the deepening Clinton recession for which Gore would have had no solution and the attack on NY for which likewise he would have had no solution, most peoples of the world would not in their wildest dreams be trying to come here and those illegals here would have lined up at the border to return home.
337
posted on
02/23/2004 10:56:20 AM PST
by
brydic1
To: Sabertooth
What could we have done to better prepare him and prevent the Amnesty debacle? Well, the issue in now on the table. It was not getting nearly as much attention before, on a national basis.
I don't think that anything more could have been done based on the realities. Bush truly believes that it is in the best interest of the country to proceed this way.
I do not buy the arguement that he is pandering.
338
posted on
02/23/2004 10:56:59 AM PST
by
Cold Heat
(In politics stupidity is not a handicap. --Napoleon Bonapart)
To: Tamsey
The candidate leading this coalition has already been selected and it is George W. Bush... you either fight for our candidate, join the opposite side or just get the hell out of the way. Yet the very topic of this thread indicates the White House doesn't share your beliefs on the subject. They've begun to actively reach out to conservatives; will you follow the White House's example here on FreeRepublic, or continue to flame and bash conservatives at every turn?
To: nickcarraway
What he said was he would sign what they put on his desk; in fact, he warned THEM not to count on HIM bailing them out.
340
posted on
02/23/2004 10:57:49 AM PST
by
Howlin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 601-617 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson