Bush reaches out to conservatives to quell revolt

Forbes ^ | Feb. 20, 2004 | Adam Entous

[Sabertooth]

Yes, exactly... and that has implications during an election year. We aren't just sitting around someone's living room chatting about right-wing policy disagreements. This site comes up on google searches and politically uninvolved Americans will be stumbling onto the threads looking for information. When they see an entire thread of right-wingers ripping Bush to shreds, that can damage our common goals.

Dear lurkers,

This is another appeal to groupthink.

I hope you'll vote for President Bush with your eyes open, and without your mind closed.

Regards,

Sabertooth

[Tamzee]

Agreed :-) From my #328...

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 would be very open about criticizing President Bush if this were last year or next year... but not now while we are fighting for an election.

[LandofLincoln]

They are ALL the same. Show me a career politician who is even slightly different from any other career politician.

They have become a House of Lords, with no House of Commons in sight. We are nearing the end of the Republic.

[Tamzee]

I'll just let your last post stand on its own... I'm confident that the lurkers see it exactly for what it is.

[LandofLincoln]

Here we go again. Another person who has not been on board long enough to have an opinion. Why don't we ask JimRob to make it so one has to read the Free Republic for three years before you are allowed to post.

[nickcarraway]

Bailing who out? I remember him saying he wouldn't sign unless changes were made. I don't think Bush is foolish enough to say he would sign anything put on his desk.

[hchutch]

So you go from "gotcha game" to the claim I am posing a "false dilemna" - no, Sabertooth, it is not.

Answer the question:
Who divides the party, is it the candidate whose position is in disagreement with a plank but wins a nomination DESPITE that or is the divisive influence those who lose the nomination battle but refuse to support the nominee?

Why is it that when certain questions are asked you dodge them with bullcrap claims of a "gotcha game" or "false dilemna"? Are you afraid that your efforts to impose an immigration litmus test might be set back? Or are you waiting for Michelle Malkin to come up with the answer for you? You seem to parrot some of her comments quite well.

[Sabertooth]

So you go from "gotcha game" to the claim I am posing a "false dilemna" - no, Sabertooth, it is not.

Since it's already pretty clear that you don't know what a straw man is, it's not surprising your ability recognize a false dilemma extends just as far.

I gave you my definition of what is divisive.

Why is it that when certain questions are asked you dodge them with bullcrap claims of a "gotcha game" or "false dilemna"?

It's not a game; you are not an especially crisp thinker, nor are your arguments clear, consistent, or well constructed.

You post fallacy after fallacy, and no one is under any obligation to take them seriously.

Here, do some homework.

[monkeywrench]

Bttt!!

[Sabertooth]

I'll just let your last post stand on its own... I'm confident that the lurkers see it exactly for what it is.

Why do you assume that lurkers are all members of the choir to which you would have FR exclusively preach?

There are votes to be won that will be missed by your apporaoch. The White House recognizes that, hence the article at the top of this thread.

[Cold Heat]

We are in the midst of an election and only one of two coalitions will win.

Interesting to watch the tactics and strategy play out in congress.

The rats have been planning to bring wedge issues to the front burner for some three years now. the Pubs have countered and flanked them as the battle goes on.

I think we may see the unused veto pen used soon. I can predict at least that much.

I note that the gun issue is now ripening. That may be the first or second, depending on if they finish the highway bill.

This may be the red meat that is needed.

I hope so.

Otherwise, it will be a very long,emotionally draining election.

[AreaMan]

I would be very open about criticizing President Bush if this were last year or next year... but not now while we are fighting for an election.

Nobody (that is sane) wants to see Kerry elected and Republicans criticizing Bush in order to keep him conservative will not elect Kerry.

Allowing Bush to drift to the left, guided by Rove et. al. will cause the base to fragment and allow somebody like Kerry to be elected.

It is OUR responsibility to reform the party from within. If we don't then we lose members and money to fringe parties that will NEVER be of consequence. And the Republican Party will turn back into the Country Club Set that it once was.

Bush, and his handlers, only understand one thing:
Brute political force, mainly in the form of supporters and/or money.

[Sabertooth]

BTW, if YOU notice... it was you and others that waltzed around the thread confronting others directly looking to pick fights. Aren't there enough Bush-bashing threads for your and your fellow travelers to play in?

You obviously saw Fair Opinion's post at #1, to which your #68 was your first post on this thread.

In both posts, the two of you set and maintined a tone of bitterness that President Bush was having to deal with voter alienation on his right flank.

Neither of you entered this thread as clean-handed innocents.

I don't understand why it bugs the both of you that President Bush is shoring up votes for November.

[Cold Heat]

Bush, and his handlers, only understand one thing: Brute political force, mainly in the form of supporters and/or money.

That is just not true.

Bush is not being handled and has a sincere desire to make a better and safer America, all politics aside.

He cannot be viewed as a power broker as you stated.

I see nothing that indicates that he is, except from the "oil heads" who espouse the leftist mantra of Republican conspiracy thinking.

I just don't know how and why you could come to those conclusions.

[Howlin]

He said exactly what I said he'd say. Not to count on him to veto the bill, to fix it up in Congress.

[Cold Heat]

Neither of you entered this thread as clean-handed innocents.

That would assume that a crime was commited..................

Lively conversation is what I see.

And perhaps too much fun?????:-)

[nickcarraway]

When he was campaigning, he did not say that.

By the way, why would any president say that he'll sign any bill put on his desk, no matter how bad it is, if that is what Congress gives him. I don't think President Bush is a dishonorable man, who would agree to sign any law, no matter how bad it was, that Congress put on his desk.

[Cold Heat]

Time for a break.

Later folks, don't solve all the issues while I am logged out.

[Howlin]

do you really wish to argue who's been the better supporter

You've got a lot of nerve questioning the self-annointed arbiter of what is and is not acceptable at FR.

[Howlin]

When he was campaigning, he did not say that.

Since you're so sure he did, in fact, promise to veto CFR, I'm sure you can provide the exact quote, right?

And he did warn the Senate NOT to count on him to do their work; he said that they needed to fix it BEFORE they sent it to him.