Posted on 01/21/2004 9:58:05 AM PST by MannyP
OMG! I'm gagging at the thought. Ted "The Swimmer" on Mt. Rushmore. Why does the Democrat Party attract the worst reprobates in the country?
Unless it gives you a Perot who can throw the election to the likes of Bill Clinton for 8 years. 3rd Parties can be dangerous to the health of the nation.
At the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, then-President George H.W. Bush had approval ratings of 91 percent. Tell me, onyx, how did his second term turn out?
FACT: The Democrats ARE the greatest threat to conservative principles in America today.
FACT: George W. Bush's re-election is the ONLY defense against a new onslaught of leftist ideology in the halls of government, in our courts, and in American society.
FACT: I think it's pretty well established that most of the naysayers on FR these days are 1) disruptors from the DNC who pretend to be Republicans who bash Bush; 2) disruptors from DU who pretend to be conservatives who bash Bush; 3) disgruntled Buchanan supporters who still hope that Pat hijacks the conservative movement and carries it back to the 1930s and '40s, and to about 15% of the US electorate; 4) the terminally crumudgeonly; 5) those who are still ticked off that most Freepers didn't support Tom McClintock in the California recall.
FACT: The naysayers spend more time trashing George W. Bush than they do trashing John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards, and all the other Democrats combined (which should tell you something).
FACT: I predicted back in September that the very same people who attempted to destroy the Republicans' chances of replacing Gray Davis would be sharpening their knives to destroy George W. Bush in the new year, and my prediction has proven correct -- you are precisely the same people, making the same tired arguments, but now targeting them at Bush.
FACT: It's fine to disagree with Bush on any one or number of policies, but we've rounded the corner in this election cycle and now is the time for all conservatives to emphasize what they support about Bush's Presidency, rather than tear at each other over one or two single issues.
FACT: The Bush-bashers haven't said anything new in weeks; it's the same old mantra.
FACT: It’s a minority of people on FreeRepublic who incessantly complain about George W. Bush…
FACT: …and the rest of us really don’t give a rat’s patootie what they think.
FACT: Jim Robinson has repeatedly made clear that, yes, this is a conservative discussion site, AND that it supports the re-election of Pres. Bush, supports the war on terror, supports the effort in Iraq, supports the President's judicial nominees, supports (in general) increasing the Republican majorities in Congress, all as the most practical means of correcting largely 60 years of leftist tilt in this nation. And...
FACT: These incessant criticisms of Bush go way beyond honest disagreements on policy, taking on an emotional edge which suggests that those who continue to gnaw on this particular bone suffer from the inability to step back, take a deep breath, and actually contribute something positive to the discussions on FR in particular, and to conservative interests in general.
Frankly, I’m wondering when the Overlords here on FreeRepublic will decide to start deleting these over-the-top posts bashing President Bush. Nothing new has been said by the naysayers in weeks, probably months. “We don’t like Bush’s immigration proposal!” Fine. “Bush spends too much money!” OK, duly noted. “Bush shouldn’t have signed CFR!” Given the Supreme Court’s distressing decision on CFR, Bush himself probably now regrets signing it. All of these points have been made over and over and over again, day after day after day, umpteen times a day. What more needs to be said? We’ve heard it all, and nobody is swayed by the arguments. So what’s the point of constantly repeating these attacks on Bush?
The point clearly seems to be to disrupt discussion on FR. We all know the Bush-bashers’ concerns. We all know that a majority on FR also share these concerns, but have determined to vote for Bush regardless because of the big picture and other issues on which he is conservative.
The Bush-bashing posts long ago lost any topical or meaningful discussion value. Nothing new is ever said on them. They’ve taken on the quality of graffiti on buildings in the inner city – they are an eyesore and they degrade the overall “quality of life” of the “community.” They need to be spray-painted over. Intelligent discussion no longer takes place on the bashing threads. I found a typical comment on a recent Bush-bashing fest, as one intelligent poster made us all aware that “Bush makes me puke!” This observation was then concurred in by yet another poster.
Very seriously, when are the Overlords on FR going to take back control of this forum and rein-in the disrupting posts? If a negative post on Bush is placed on FR which actually broaches new territory, then fine. But the never-ending regurgitation of the same old slop every day, dozens of times of day, has decreased the quality of FreeRepublic. The litter needs to be picked up and disposed of.
And how did Pres. Perot's Administration fare?
Probaby because they all share the same "values system."
Oh Man! And I though James Carville was the master of changing the subject!
This is the subject. This thread, and virtually every other thread that blasts Bush, are put up here by the whiners and restricted-vision types who will always vote for a Perot or a Buchanan out of "principle," thereby opening the door for pure evil (the Democrats) to take power. This is precisely the point. If you don't see it, well, that's part of the problem, isn't it.
"My way or the highway" sounds great in cowboy movies, but in the world of practical politics respecting your base and communicating with it is necessary to a winning formula. I submit that ridiculing their principles, calling them whiners and other names is simply a way of driving them out of the party. Thanks for writing back to answer my original question. While I respectfully disagree with your premise, I certainly admire your passion.
So are you Libertarian, Republican, or Reform? If Libertarian as you state in the above what not support your LP rather than the RP.....
PS...... Does any of the following names mean anything to you?
Straw man arguement, Einstein. At this point in his term, GWB enjoys the highest approval rating since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.
He is also backed and supported by 91% of registered, voting Republicans.
OK, I'll give you a grade of 91% for sarcasm -- but Bush dosn't have the luxury of ducking questions by declaring them straw men. Candidates who do ultimately lose.
By the way, I happen to be a big fan of Einstein. He came to this country legally. If you *really* want to cut me to the quick next time, call me Karl Rove! [ ;) ]
Failed to do what? Failed to not support the LP on their open borders policy?
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.