Posted on 12/01/2008 4:20:59 PM PST by Wegotsarah.com
President George Bush said he doesn't view the 2008 election as a repudiation of his presidency, but of his party.
"I think it was a repudiation of Republicans," Bush said during an interview with ABC News that aired Monday. "And I'm sure some people voted for Barack Obama because of me."
But he said he thought most people voted for the president-elect because they "decided they wanted him to be in their living room for the next four years explaining policy."
"In other words, they made a conscious choice to put him in as president," he said.
Bush said his party's nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, had "a tough headwind" for two reasons -- the swooning economy and the difficulty for a party to retain the White House for three straight terms.
"Obviously the economic situation made it awfully difficult for John McCain to get a message out," Bush said. "And I felt that Barack Obama ran a very disciplined campaign" and inspired voters.
McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate helped him, Bush said, because it "energized the party."
Every time this man opens his mouth..i cringe and the market drops 400 points. Goodbye W and don’t let the White House
doors hit you in the as* !
“This man has not a clue. Never had and never will. He and his clique of Texas cronies including Rove have made the republican party irrelevant and should the republican party disappear from the political scene as a result, they and Bush worshipers will never admit the overwhelming guilt of this administration.”
Word for word out of the DNC playbook.
And also 100% correct.
If someone was angry at the growth of Big Government, it hardly makes any sense to vote for candidates (i. e., 'Rats) who obviously want BIGGER Government. So whether there was masking or no masking of garbage, it's hardly logical to vote for even more garbage. In other words, there is something missing in your statement, unless you are saying that conservatives didn't show up at the polls at all or voted for third party candidates.
>> Not one Republican running for Congress or President this year asked GWB to speak on his behalf — not one.
Yet, we ended up with McCain as the candidate for POTUS who is no less Bush than Bush.
I’m no more interested in Bush’s Compassionate Conservatism than anyone else here, but something ain’t right with nasty directed his way. We all know who Bush is, and he hasn’t changed much over the years. It’s the damn party that needs an adjustment. The folks that ran from Bush doesn’t tell me anything other than that they ran.
He could have laid the economic problems clearly at the doorstep of the Democrats in Congress and the Democrats controlling Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but somehow chose to stay silent on that. He could have also chosen a better Treasury Secretary than Democrat Paulson.
I think he did try to explain, but too little too late. He was also hampered by limiting himself to government-matched funds, which left him financially unable to sponsor anything like the half hour "infomercial" on national TV that the Annoited One did.
Not only was he not conservative, he wasn’t really a pro-America president. He was more of an ‘ally’ than a general. His policies help bring on the Cold War, and ensured that most of Central Europe lost THREE generations of freedom, and economic, cultural, and technical development that they’ll never really recover.
Eisenhower’s ONE achievement was the Interstate Highway System. One and final.
The rest of his administration was the sort of appeasment-style management of Congress.
If Eisenhower did anything for the country, it gave us Nixon. Nixon was a pretty good president, save wage and price controls.
one doesn’t need to read one, only listen to them for the past 8 years.
Today I read that the Communist Party USA believes the present policies of the US government is an adaptation of communism. Now I seldom agree with any pronouncements of the CPUSA but even they get things right once in a while.
If it WAS a repudiation of the Republican Party, it was a repudiation of the individual who was the titular head of the Republican Party and the actions of its leadership in failing to confront a defective President. It was not a repudiation of the basic tenets of the Republican Party as understood by its base. The RNC leadership and titular figurehead had drifted far from its base. And without the support of your base a party goes nowhere.
It “energized the party” Jorge, because she walks the talk and her talk is basic patriotic oncservativism, not one-world pandering to globalist corporate elites, Arab oil states, or a third world border nation like Mexico.
I agree with you.
The sad thing is, down deep in our hearts we want to be able to support the Republican at the top. In so many instances, it has been impossible to do so. Bush is so poorly moored to Conservatism, that he does stuff like this all the time. And some on our side think we’re asking too much when we object and criticize him for it.
If Clinton or Obama were doing this stuff, they would have been furious.
We weren’t honest with ourselves when it came to McCain. Everyone wanted us to jump on board. I explained that you can’t sell hot lemonade to a thirsty leftist when there’s a glass with ice cubes sitting right next to it.
What leftist was going to vote for McCain, when they had the full monte in Obama? Going left is suicide for our team. And yet they do it over and over and over again.
Bush not only didn’t rule from the right, he prevented a good solid person from getting in there and actually doing something. McCain would have been another disastrous four or eight years of mushy leftist execution.
If we don’t pull our heads out and get back on track, the party is done. If you can’t beat folks like Gore, Kerry, and Obama by wide margins, you just aren’t providing any real choice.
It is simply unconscionable for our team to put 20,000 uniformed troops inside the U.S. If it were the border, that would be one thing. No, it’s to keep the citizens in line. And if anyone is kidding themselves about that, they need to drink a tall glass of reality.
Yes, that 5% could have been swayed if the Republicans (and more specifically McCain) had balked at the size and scope and implementation of the “bailout”.
But after the House GOP rejected a 50 page bill, the Senate made a 450 page monstrosity that bought their support (showing that our guys are for sale, and they are expensive, and the payment comes out of our taxes).
McCain was just the kind of guy that this “bipartisan” bill would attract, but if he wasn’t, or he made a calculated political move and rejected the bailout, he could have easily swayed that 2.6% he needed, or gotten more actual conservatives to the polls.
Good point, however, liberal Texans are generally more conservative than their west and east coast brethren.
All the Crawford crap of cutting mesquite trees and riding around in a jeep is over. Glad he is not my neighbor.
I think of what might have been had GWB just been a conservative, not a weasel “compassionate conservatively.” Sad and Mad. GOP has to quit running RINOs and old men (Dole and McCain.)
Thanks. Take care...
Agreed. And Bush moved the party so far Left that Obama can now say he is governing from the 'Middle' which is where the Left used to be before Bush and his compassionate conservatism, aka Liberalized gobbley gook double speak, and the current Right is now considered to be the far Right fringe by the Left and the third estate, the MSM..
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.