Skip to comments.
Conservatives Should Support the President Now and in November Becauseā¦
Jewish World Review, January ^
| January 13, 2004
| Martha Zoller
Posted on 01/13/2004 1:38:02 PM PST by quidnunc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 721-738 next last
To: WVNan
Sorry it took me a couple of seconds to post but I just yacked!!
To: RockyMtnMan
Re: Campaign finance reform
Bush warned Congress to be sure that what they passed was what they wanted because he wasn't going to veto it.
But the bandwagon was rolling and the pols were sure that the SCOTUS would find most of it unconstitutional.
The congresscreatures wanted to look good by backing the cause du jour and for Dubya to take the political hit by vetoing it.
Well, they miscalciulated.
102
posted on
01/13/2004 4:34:33 PM PST
by
quidnunc
(Omnis Gaul delenda est)
To: WVNan
Sorry it took me a couple of seconds to post but I just yacked!!
To: The Old Hoosier
"I'm still waiting for a reason." Dean, Clark, possibly Billary...
Want anymore?!
Funny how some conservatives, and yes, I am conservative, are willing to sacrifice umpteen other conservative issues in order to simply drive home a point!
'If I can't be blue, then I'm taking my game and no one's gonna play..."
Blah, blah, blah...
How does President Clark and Vice President Clinton sound!
To: AAABEST
2004 is a lost cause. It's time to start looking at 2008.
To: wingster
If Bush loses, he will have only himself to blame. He's big boy.
To: wingster
Sorry but once again I must go back to my previous post....... AGAIN!!!
To: billbears
There is simply no truth in that statement.
Conservatives agreed that the over whelming need to remove the Clintonistas required a vote for Bush, who did, as we have all noted, campaigned for our vote be it a humble foreign policy, a tax cut, small government...
We got the antithesis.
109
posted on
01/13/2004 4:47:22 PM PST
by
JohnGalt
(Neoconservatives: Appeasers to the Alien Invaders)
To: quidnunc
Well, they miscalciulated . . .So you assign no responsibility to Bush at all? If that's the way the game is played--if the President is not responsible for the legislation he rubberstamps--why even bother having a president? The position is superfluous. Let's just give him ceremonial duties like Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands has.
110
posted on
01/13/2004 4:49:49 PM PST
by
Kevin Curry
("I couldn't help myself. Congress made me do it!" President Bush on campaign finance reform)
To: jveritas
So what is the alternative my friends? A Democrat who is going to tax you to death, sell our national security to the UN and Europe. Please think very hard about this JMO, they don't. They would rather rant.
111
posted on
01/13/2004 4:52:46 PM PST
by
Dane
To: StoneColdGOP
And how is this Democrat going to accomplish any of this? Not with a Republican Congress, certainly! Yeah right the Speaker of the House, is Commander in Chief and Secretary of State all rolled up into one.
Get a freakin clue, dude.
112
posted on
01/13/2004 4:55:48 PM PST
by
Dane
To: sheltonmac
Bring back the good ol' days of gridlock. I honestly don't see how this is any better than having a Democrat in the White House You guys are carcking me up.
Well enjoy having France set our defense policy with a President Clark.
113
posted on
01/13/2004 4:57:51 PM PST
by
Dane
To: wingster
How does President Clark and Vice President Clinton sound! Like something that will reawaken the slumbering conservative lion.
114
posted on
01/13/2004 4:58:12 PM PST
by
Eris
To: Dane
Ofcourse, it's the same story for the last 2 1/2 years... Don't bother offering any new ideas or solutions to what they feel the problems are, let's just bitch. Because they know the Frankens' and the Carvilles' and the Kennedys' and the Daschles' will get the majority of the camera time on the major networks talking points.
Let's just get used to it and then watch with a smile when we spank the ever-loving snot out of them in Nov.
To: iconoclast
R.R. was not perfect ... GWB is not ....... in the same league. You're right. Bush hasn't signed a tax increase like Reagan did. And Reagan never signed a piece of anti-abortion legislation.
116
posted on
01/13/2004 5:00:04 PM PST
by
Dane
To: N3WBI3
yup keep ripping on them then when in large numbers they turn out to vote for a third party (large enough to make a difference) don't cry about it. I will not be used the same way the Democratic party uses African Americans. And that third party will be?
117
posted on
01/13/2004 5:02:28 PM PST
by
Dane
To: Dane
"Um, excuse me, Kofi..... would you or Mr. Chirac or Mr. Schroeder mind all that much if we defend our lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness. No? Aw, shucks.."
To: Dane
JMO, they don't. They would rather rant. No Dane, we don't think about this stuff. You're the great mind around here, you do all the thinking for us.
119
posted on
01/13/2004 5:05:00 PM PST
by
AAABEST
To: The Old Hoosier
Conservatives Should Support the President Now and in November Because
I'm still waiting for a reason.
Them sure is 3 mighty potent dots
120
posted on
01/13/2004 5:07:13 PM PST
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(Under penalty of law: This tag not to be removed except by the user.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 721-738 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