Bush Re-Election Sunnier Than Father's

Newsday ^ | January 23, 2004, 2:41 PM EST | NANCY BENAC, AP

[A_Niceguy_in_CA]

WASHINGTON -- A political snapshot of America taken from the White House window couldn't look more different for President Bush than what his father saw from the same vantage on a cold January day 12 years ago.

In hard statistics and a harder-to-define sense of how the country is doing, today's view is one Bush's father could only have envied as he entered the re-election year of 1992. And, likewise, the public's impression of this President Bush is much kinder than was the assessment of his father at the same point in his presidency.

[q_an_a]

I like RR and I wonder if you can tell me what he did when 200 marines got killed in Lebanon? Do you think that someone can bomb an American embassy today and get away with it?

Want to see how hard work and vision pay for the building of infrastructure? Look at The BallPark in Arlington, a Bush idea. The passed a tax for building the stadium and the team paid back the loan 10 years early. Just because there is spending does not mean it will make life worse. President Bush knows this.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

The more I read about GHWB's reelection campaign, the more it seems he just didn't try very hard. I heard he pushed very little in terms of issues, got beat up in the primary by Pat Buchanan, didn't take Clinton seriously enough, and basically he just didn't excite anyone. His political advisors that were there the first time like Sununu, Baker, Atwater, just weren't there the second time. (Atwater died, so his absence is understandable)

GWB on the other hand has his political team ready to go. 1992 this won't be.

[My2Cents]

Thanks for your comments, NordP. I didn't see them until this afternoon, but I didn't want them to go by without acknowledging them with my thanks.

Pres. Bush has a positive vision for this nation. While I have doubts about the practicality of his immigration proposal, I believe it represents an attempt to come to grips with the problem in a real way. It's elements deserve to be part of the debate. And I also believe that what motivated the proposal was a sense within Pres. Bush that it is the right thing to do.

We see a lot of ignorance among the naysayers on this forum. They were branding Bush's plan as "amnesty" before he even presented it, and they haven't changed their tune. It makes me wonder whether they've even read it.

In reading the stridency, incivility, and bitterness with which they attack Pres. Bush on FreeRepublic, I have come to the conclusion that their opposition to Pres. Bush is not based on ideology or opposition to any of this policies (they were slinging arrows at him before the Medicare drug bill, before CFR, and before his immigration policy); their opposition seems to stem from a visceral hatred of the man. In this, I lump many of the naysayers in with the Deaniacs, whose principal motives in their politics is bitterness and hatred. Hence, I've concluded that the source of their "opinions" isn't so much a long-held and well-thought out ideology, but is essentially a character flaw, a personality disorder, a spiritual disability. There are specific people here on FR whom I long ago crossed off my list of those I would engage in debate because they had proved themselves, over many months, to be incapable of civil and rational discussion. Gladly, the vast majority of people on FR are sincere, thoughtful, and courteous conservatives...who also have committed to supporting Pres. Bush this year, regardless of whatever issues they may differ with him on, because they see the big picture and the importance of keeping Pres. Bush in office to pursue things such as victory in the war on terror, protection of American sovereignty among nations, the nomination of conservative judges to the judiciary, and the reestablishment of faith at the center of our society.

[ohioWfan]

BUSH is NOT "TICKING OFF HIS BASE!!"

Stop repeating this lie.

Bush has 93% support among Republicans which is virtually unanimous, and unheard of in proportion. Not unanimous agreement of every policy, but near unanimity in wanting him reelected.

WE are his base, and he has our SUPPORT!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

GWB's re-election outlook is sunnier mainly because his father didn't want to be re-elected.

[ohioWfan]

Thanks for the TRUTH, Deb.

I am SICK of this lie repeated over and over again on this forum.

The antiBush crowd here cares no more for the truth than the left.

[ohioWfan]

Maybe the Lord was telling the father not to campaign too hard, because if the father hadn't lost in '92, his son wouldn't have run in 2000.

Not circumstantial to those of us who understand that he has been called to lead us right now, at such a time as this.....

[gatorbait]

Yet you think the TRUE amnesty plans offered by the Dem candidates are better? So you think you can read my mind, too? When did I say the Democrats' plans were "better"? We're talking about Bush's plan, aren't we?

But to "punish " us and "teach us all a lesson" let's work to help GWB lose. I know, you're not doing that, you have principles.

[TheExploited]

If Free Republic existed in 1984, many of our favorite posters would be complaining about how Reagan had completely alienated his base by actually raising taxes in 1982 after the 1981 Tax Reform Act, was spending money like crazy, withdrew from Lebanon, etc. They would all be longing for Goldwater.

People may want to stay home and not vote for Bush because of one or two issues. However, they can have to be prepared for this country being much less safer in the future if he happens to lose.

[Sabertooth]

Map Kernow: Bush is ticking off his base on two fronts: 1) out-of-control deficit spending; and 2) a radical amnesty plan to legalize millions of illegal immigrants and to hugely increase immigration levels. It makes me ill that Bush is proposing the latter when millions of Americans have lost their jobs.

If Bush and Rove think that they will win this November in a walk anyway, I guess they won't lose any sleep over the disaffection of many in the Republican base.

But if Black is being serious, and the 2004 election is expected to be a cliff-hanger like 2000 was, Bush had better think long and hard about the problems his spending and amnesty plan are causing among people who would otherwise consider him the obvious choice in an election against a Democrat.

ohioWfan: BUSH is NOT "TICKING OFF HIS BASE!!"

Stop repeating this lie.

Bush has 93% support among Republicans which is virtually unanimous, and unheard of in proportion. Not unanimous agreement of every policy, but near unanimity in wanting him reelected.

WE are his base, and he has our SUPPORT!

I think it's more complicated than both of you have posted, OWF.

I take a rather broad view of a politician's "base." It's generally any voter he got last time, or any likely party line voter, whichever is applicable. A "base" consists of thre votes that are a politician's to lose.

Anyone who voted for President Bush in 2000 is part of his base.

I am part of the President's base. I intend to vote for his reelection.

And I am most definitely ticked at him for his Illegal Alien Amnesty proposal, as well as his big spending. However, the Democrats are fielding a bunch of rotters, so I'll be wearing a clothespin on my nose when I vote for President Bush in November.

The point Map Kernow made about the "disaffection of many in the Republican base" because of "the problems [the President's] spending and amnesty plan are causing among people who would otherwise consider him the obvious choice in an election against a Democrat" is a perfectly valid one. There are many people like this who voted for President Bush in 2000, and are fed up with some of his policies. I know quite a few who aren't even posters on FR. Some of them won't vote for him, though I hope the President wises up and limits the damage by renouncing his Amnesty proposal.

Is it most of his base who feels that way? No, of course not. But Map Kernow did not lie in his comments at #5 (Though I think you overstated things, MK); there are members of the President's base who are less than thrilled with some of his actions, especially of late.

You may not like that, OWF, but it's a consequence of some of the ill-considered decisions President Bush has made.

[b9]

Gladly, the vast majority of people on FR are sincere, thoughtful, and courteous conservatives...who also have committed to supporting Pres. Bush this year, regardless of whatever issues they may differ with him on, because they see the big picture and the importance of keeping Pres. Bush in office to pursue things such as victory in the war on terror, protection of American sovereignty among nations, the nomination of conservative judges to the judiciary, and the reestablishment of faith at the center of our society.

Thank you!

What a patriot you are...
Your thoughts sink deep and rich and far.

The truth of Bush must be expressed...
It can't be sullied or repressed.

[ohioWfan]

The decisions were not all 'ill considered' Sabertooth. Some of them were well considered, and based on his own principles, but not to (y)our liking.

What I am tired of, is this incessant drumbeat of people who never supported the President saying that he is 'ticking off' his base because they don't like what he stands for.

Anyone who went into the 2000 election with his/her eyes opened knows that he never has been a straight line conservative. How can you be 'ticked off' because the man does exactly what he said he would do?

The fact that you know people off of FR who are not happy is irrelevant. For every one of them there are probably two people who weren't sure about him in 2000 who are VERY impressed with the job he is doing, and will vote for him.

I am not now, nor have I ever said that one shouldn't voice criticism of policy one disagrees with. But I will continue to call people on the claim that he is 'ticking off his base' when he has almost unanimous approval from his base.

[section9]

There's also something else. Bush's gastarbeiter program was designed to be broadcast into the Mexican community but to die in committee in Congress. It's sort of like the Sunset provision of the AWB. Bush says he'll sign it if it reaches his desk, because he made that promise during the 2000 campaign.

It won't reach his desk. It's not supposed to. Same with the Mexicans Under the Bed Program.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Mo1]

because they see the big picture and the importance of keeping Pres. Bush in office to pursue things such as victory in the war on terror, protection of American sovereignty among nations, the nomination of conservative judges to the judiciary, and the reestablishment of faith at the center of our society.

Thank you for the ping

I don't know why some keep comparing President Bush's presidentency with his father's .. IMO they aren't the same

[Sabertooth]

The decisions were not all 'ill considered' Sabertooth.

I didn't say "all."

Anyone who went into the 2000 election with his/her eyes opened knows that he never has been a straight line conservative. How can you be 'ticked off' because the man does exactly what he said he would do?

The President never said he was going to try and legalize millions of Illegals. Its' destructive and divisive, both as policy and politics.

Of course it ticks me off. How could it not?

The fact that you know people off of FR who are not happy is irrelevant. For every one of them there are probably two people who weren't sure about him in 2000 who are VERY impressed with the job he is doing, and will vote for him.

Lost votes are never irrelevant.

While the President has earned high confidence and new support for his handling of the WoT, the votes he is picking up from his Amnesty will be fewer than those he loses on that issue. He'll likely be reelected, but any diminution of his vote has effects down the ticket for Republicans in close races. There will be seats we don't win because the President has chosen a wrong and unpopular course on Illegal Aliens. Those lost seats will make the rest of the GOP agenda that we do support that much more difficult to realize.

I am not now, nor have I ever said that one shouldn't voice criticism of policy one disagrees with. But I will continue to call people on the claim that he is 'ticking off his base' when he has almost unanimous approval from his base.

OWF, he can still have overall approval from those he's ticked off. There are many examples of that.

And he can lose some of those votes that were his to lose, if he ticks them off sufficiently.

There's nothing to call on this; it's a simple political fact.

[thesummerwind]

she can wait until the convention if she wants to.

And she just may.

[Ohioan]

Do you know what the difference between a pragmatist and an idealist is? A pragmatist actually gets something done. An idealist will choose "neither", sit at home, and whine about why nothing is being done.

What you are missing--totally missing--is the objective of other pragmatists. Those of us who believe that an oath is sacred; that preserving the Constitutional heritage, sovereignty and character of the Americans, is the only reason to be politically involved, simply do not seek to find a pragmatic way to betray our own purpose. Your disparagement of our judgment does not convince us of anything but that you are suffering from a form of tunnel vision.

Now what is the most pragmatic thing that the Conservative can do? Why that, friend, is not play the game of trying to figure out how to elect the lesser of two evils. The pragmatist, looks at how to wake up the most of his neighbors; how to build a platform to gain his actual objective, rather than empower those who do not share that objective. The pragmatist understands the essential of consistency, in politics; both because he consistently seeks truth, and equally pragmatically, he understands that if you are inconsistent, your foes will hang you out to dry; that the last thing the pragmatist can afford is to blindly follow an inconsistent leader, who is likely to discredit the pursuit, and eventually cost the battle.

Perhaps my pragmatism is different than yours, because my values and objective are different. So why don't we cut to the chase, and discuss objectives, rather than disparage one another. You will not win one vote for the Rove position by doing so. Not one.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[ohioWfan]

Saber, this thread is NOT about immigration, and I am not going to discuss whether or not his proposal is amnesty.

I understand that one can be 'ticked off' and still supportive, but that is NOT what most posters mean when they say it.......and I think you understand that.

I'm not sure why you defend them so vociferously. I have seen more childish, hate-filled unthinking posts on this forum over the immigration issue in the past weeks than in my three years prior.

It's like everyone had been saving up their venom, and decided to let it all fly, regardless of how destructive it was. And there are a whole LOT of us who are sick of it.

And I don't believe his decision to open up the debate on this issue with this proposal was 'ill-considered.' I believe he is doing what he believes will begin to solve this enormous problem, and even though I don't particularly like it, I haven't lost one ounce of respect for him.

[prairiebreeze]

Wow, what great assessments you two. NordP thanks for sharing about the fella who wrote the book. I'll bet it was fascinating to speak with him about his ideas that President Bush has incorporated into the immigration proposal.

2cents, I also realized quite a while back what narrow focus certain posters on FR have. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees, these individuals are often able to see only ONE tree. But then some people can only feel good about themselves when they are trying to tear another person down.

Prairie

[onyx]

Here's a harrowing pair of facts for Democrats: In 60 years, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without carrying the youth vote. And right now President Bush's approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds is 62 percent, higher than his nationwide rating.

http://www.poliblogger.com/poliblog/archives/002654.html