Of course, GHWB has no accountability for that outcome...
Um, are you forgetting Ross Perot? You know, a candidate who promised to cut spending and get government to live within its means.
Naw, you wouldn't do that just to make a bogus point, would you?
The point is this: telling conservatives what to do or think is like herding cats: It can't be done. A candidate either keeps his commitments to do what he says he'll do or suffer the consequences. No amount of grandstanding, browbeating, or threats will change that (which is all you seem to offer).
Now, conservatives, unfortunately, HAVE shown themselves susceptible to wishful thinking on behalf of a cowardly liar (Consider Arnold), but that only works ONCE. Hence, Arnold cannot, under any circumstances, count on conservative support if he raises taxes, even if Prop 57 loses, any more than the President can count on them if he pulls an amnesty for illegals or fails to rein in Congress with a few line-item vetos, of which he has yet to ink a one.
If he doesn't get it together, many conservatives will stay home. Count on it. It's not my doing; it's simply fact.
Haven't you ever heard the expression "You can draw more bees with honey than you can with vinegar? There! There's a platitude for you, dudette!!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, sweety pie!!! My long suffering of your insufferable attitude has just about run it's course.
I'll stick around just in case you sweeten up your caustic disposition just a little in the weeks to come, but I seriously doubt it. Leopards have a hard time changing anything, let alone their spots!!!
I stand second to no one in my hatred of Klinton. But, actually, Bush I losing to Clinton manifestly WAS better for the country, and conservatives, than another RINO term. Compare them. No way would we have had a Republican Congress had Bush I won. We would have had even more crap like the ADA. And probably more tax increases. Judges? Well, Bush I DID appoint Thomas, but sort of left him hanging to win approval by a thread. I think Souter or Kennedy probably are as bad as, say Ginzburg. Their only saving grace is that they aren't as smart as the Klinton appointees. So, yes, an unrepentant liberal who tries to screw the country and is seen for what he is is better than a RINO like Bush I.
Reagan was correct: conservatives don't win elections by blurring distinctions, but by emphasizing them. Bush I got an object lesson, but I doubt he learned from it. Bush II seems to be going the same way.
I haven't yet come to a firm determination of whether that was the intended result.
Both of those men worked hard to push Agenda 21 forward, but this President has without any doubt, done more to get the program up and working full steam than both predecessors.
We have traded technology beyond the belief of all Americans with China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and all the Eastern European countries.
We have accepted more uneducated aliens into America than in any other 12 years with the current program headed towards another 10 million per year.
We have allowed more liberty restraint laws on American citizens to be passed by Congress than any other time, including both World Wars.
You continue to believe that this is all for the security of America. I believe this is a truly false security with the intentions of reducing the liberty of our citizens. Eventually (within a decade) we will all have National ID Cards, our every move will be recorded electronically, our phone calls and electronic communications are all scanned right now.
You consider this to be security, I see it as an invasion of privacy. Because I am in wheel chair, I get searched everytime that I take a commercial flight. You have no idea whatsoever how much that gets under my skin, having a person, who speaks with an accent, helping me remain standing while some other alien searches the fabric of my wheelchair with a wand. I hate having to tolerate just the feel of their hands on my body.
If you want to know more about me just click on my name and you'll go to my 'about' page.
"All truth goes through three stages.
First it is ridiculed.
Then it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
(Schopenhauer)
Four years of Jimmy Carter gave us the Reagan Landslide and eight years of the Gipper, plus four years of Bush I, which he could have ridden into four more years had he not squandered it by selling conservatives and old-line Repubs out. And 8 years of Clinton could give us eight of Bush II, IF Bush doesn't squander it like his father did. Better, Bush could come out of a dreadful situation [09/11/01] with American victories in two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, a successful re-election to a second term for himself, and the foundation for a up-and-coming Republican to follow Bush's successful footsteps and sweep Hillary or any other Democratic contender out of the way just as once-upon-a-time-contender Howard Dean has been swept out of the way.
Or Bush II can repeat the blunders of his father and squander such success as he's been able to muster to date, remain a single-term leader, defeated by a Kennedy Democrat who'd likely suck the wind from 2008 Candidate Hillary's candidacy hopes for at least another four years. In 203 days, we'll know.