George W. Bush -- grand strategist

townhall.com ^ | 2/11/04 | Tony Blankley

[ClancyJ]

Look, try and get a little objective here. You know full well that every person disagrees with a president, every person voices their concerns.

Yet, when those concerns are voiced as a threat of losing a vote, when those concerns are used to draw people to vote against him, when those concerns are used to join the trash Bush at all costs group - they are hurting the conservative cause and they know it because that is their purpose.

Look at Liberty Post. Any legimate concerns voiced - no - only trash Bush even worse that DU does. They openly admit that they cannot get their conservatism unless the world is "shocked" at how bad things are under a democrat so they help get a democrat elected. How does that help conservatism?

The next time a GOP candidate is in office - the very same will be done because he did not jump when they thought he should. So easy to sit and condemn what others can get done when you have to do nothing but critique.

So - please explain how conservatism is helped by these tactics. Looks to me like they are democrats in disquise. If it looks and acts like a duck - it is a duck.


Now - do you expect me to believe that these are legimate voiced concerns to get the word to President Bush? Baloney. These are to prevent Bush from winning another term and to throw the country into the control of the Democrats.

These "conservatives" do not earn any respect from me. They are working as fast as their fingers can to destroy President Bush and make a "statement", get into arguments to spred their venom and help the Democrat party.

All over the airwaves are people who have complaints against Bush. Any complaints against Kerry? Why are the complaints only against Bush? Now you add it up.

[ClancyJ]

Well put!!!! I agree.

[reformedliberal]

Thank you all.

[Mudboy Slim]

"I do think folks will look back at this period of history 100 years from now and see it as a unique opportunity lost."

"If that were the case, folks would be taking a totally different look at FDR."

The folks who see FDR's great lurch towards socialism as a positive ain't the same folks who I foresee looking back longingly at a missed opportunity to rein in outta-control Federal Expansionism, my FRiend...in fact, they are polar opposites.

FReegards...MUD

FWIW, I align myself with the latter folks.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thank you ! This looks juicy.
bttt for later read ! ...

[Dead Dog]

The only international laws are the laws of physics.

[NYC Republican]

Excellent Article Bump!

[finnman69]

The smart liberals who hate Bush the most realize this and are aghast that Bush has effected decades of change.

[My2Cents]

I think JimRob agrees with you.

[windchime]

Bump!

[Lyford]

Good stuff bump...

[pax_et_bonum]

great post bump

[Hildy]

My favorite boss of all time told me this:

A good leader is someone who takes a machete and cuts a path through the jungle for his workers to follow. A great leader find the highest tree, climbs up and plans the best course for his workers to follow. (or something like that!)

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the nice post. I pretty much agree with you.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your comment. I've been off the forum for a couple of months. I don't think talking about domestic spending is off topic on a thread talking about grand design. Later.

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

Look, try and get a little objective here. You know full well that every person disagrees with a president, every person voices their concerns.

Yep, I know that.  And when I express concerns some person or another pops up to tell me that I need to put a sock in it and remain positive.  Here's your exact words on the topic, "It might help matters if there was a little less criticism and more support and help."

I've been off the forum for several months.  Yesterday was one of only a couple of times I've ventured back on the forum recently.  In my comments I said I'd vote for Bush, but I did address some issues I have with him.

I would suggest you gain a little objectivity there fella.  If I'm willing to say I will vote for him, you could at least do me the courtesy of listening to my concerns.

Yet, when those concerns are voiced as a threat of losing a vote, when those concerns are used to draw people to vote against him, when those concerns are used to join the trash Bush at all costs group - they are hurting the conservative cause and they know it because that is their purpose.

I said I'd vote for Bush.  I didn't not urge anyone to vote for anyone else.  I did not trash Bush at all costs.  Therefore I was not hurting the conservative cause and these comments are inappropriate to say the least.

Look at Liberty Post. Any legimate concerns voiced - no - only trash Bush even worse that DU does. They openly admit that they cannot get their conservatism unless the world is "shocked" at how bad things are under a democrat so they help get a democrat elected. How does that help conservatism?

Could you please stick to the comments I made and quit trying to morph this discussion into something it's not.  We're not on Liberty Post, so let's leave that forum to it's own design.

The next time a GOP candidate is in office - the very same will be done because he did not jump when they thought he should. So easy to sit and condemn what others can get done when you have to do nothing but critique.

This is a public forum where people get to express their reasoned views.  I expressed my view and you've chosen to go balistic over it.  You nonsensical comment about "...what others can get done when you have do nothing but critique", is just childish.  By your standard nobody but the office-holder him/herself could discuss an issue.  Is that really what you think?

So - please explain how conservatism is helped by these tactics. Looks to me like they are democrats in disquise. If it looks and acts like a duck - it is a duck.

Let me see, I talked about securing our borders, preventing persons or contraband from being introduced into our nation.  This sounds like a democrat to you?  I'm not talking about what takes place on another forum or even another thread.  You addressed me here and have tried to make it appear I am the proverbial duck.  In the same vein, I'm sure you thought our founding fathers were ducks since they disagreed on a good number of issues, and expressed their views loud and clear.  I'm sure you must think that they should have gotten together, patted each onther on the back and simply agreed to oppose the RedCoats in general.

Now - do you expect me to believe that these are legimate voiced concerns to get the word to President Bush? Baloney. These are to prevent Bush from winning another term and to throw the country into the control of the Democrats.

You addressed my comments and suggested I should refrain from criticizing and voice support instead.  Now that you've been called on it, you're trying to turn the conversation into anything other than it's original intent.  If you wish to talk about Liberty Post and the posters there, please talk to someone else about it.   I am not trying to keep Bush from winning re-election, so your comments about that just don't belong here.  Make them to someone that is.

These "conservatives" do not earn any respect from me. They are working as fast as their fingers can to destroy President Bush and make a "statement", get into arguments to spred their venom and help the Democrat party.

I addressed issues of long standing conservatism.  I did not suggest Bush not run or that another conservative should run.  You would do well to address my comments instead of running off on some imaginary situation that has nothing to do with the reality of our discussion.

All over the airwaves are people who have complaints against Bush. Any complaints against Kerry? Why are the complaints only against Bush? Now you add it up.

My consern is with our borders being secured, contraband being prevented from entering our nation, and the ceasation of immigration from terrorist states.

Please point to one democrat who has advanced any concern for these issues.  There is supposed to be a conservative president in office.  It would seem reasonable to mention that these issues should be a shoe-in for support from a conservative leader.  Evidently that's a foreign concept to you.

I think Kerry ranks right down there with Jane Fonda.  There, I've said it on this thread.  Evidently you think I need to before I can address issues of merit.  I don't.

101 posted on 02/11/2004 9:55:48 AM PST by ClancyJ (It's just not safe to vote Democratic.)

Look, try and get a little objective here. You know full well that every person disagrees with a president, every person voices their concerns.

Yep, I know that.  And when I express concerns some person or another pops up to tell me that I need to put a sock in it and remain positive.  Here's your exact words on the topic, "It might help matters if there was a little less criticism and more support and help."

I've been off the forum for several months.  Yesterday was one of only a couple of times I've ventured back on the forum recently.  In my comments I said I'd vote for Bush, but I did address some issues I have with him.

I would suggest you gain a little objectivity there fella.  If I'm willing to say I will vote for him, you could at least do me the courtesy of listening to my concerns.

Yet, when those concerns are voiced as a threat of losing a vote, when those concerns are used to draw people to vote against him, when those concerns are used to join the trash Bush at all costs group - they are hurting the conservative cause and they know it because that is their purpose.

I said I'd vote for Bush.  I didn't not urge anyone to vote for anyone else.  I did not trash Bush at all costs.  Therefore I was not hurting the conservative cause and these comments are inappropriate to say the least.

Look at Liberty Post. Any legimate concerns voiced - no - only trash Bush even worse that DU does. They openly admit that they cannot get their conservatism unless the world is "shocked" at how bad things are under a democrat so they help get a democrat elected. How does that help conservatism?

Could you please stick to the comments I made and quit trying to morph this discussion into something it's not.  We're not on Liberty Post, so let's leave that forum to it's own design.

The next time a GOP candidate is in office - the very same will be done because he did not jump when they thought he should. So easy to sit and condemn what others can get done when you have to do nothing but critique.

This is a public forum where people get to express their reasoned views.  I expressed my view and you've chosen to go balistic over it.  You nonsensical comment about "...what others can get done when you have do nothing but critique", is just childish.  By your standard nobody but the office-holder him/herself could discuss an issue.  Is that really what you think?

So - please explain how conservatism is helped by these tactics. Looks to me like they are democrats in disquise. If it looks and acts like a duck - it is a duck.

Let me see, I talked about securing our borders, preventing persons or contraband from being introduced into our nation.  This sounds like a democrat to you?  I'm not talking about what takes place on another forum or even another thread.  You addressed me here and have tried to make it appear I am the proverbial duck.  In the same vein, I'm sure you thought our founding fathers were ducks since they disagreed on a good number of issues, and expressed their views loud and clear.  I'm sure you must think that they should have gotten together, patted each onther on the back and simply agreed to oppose the RedCoats in general.

Now - do you expect me to believe that these are legimate voiced concerns to get the word to President Bush? Baloney. These are to prevent Bush from winning another term and to throw the country into the control of the Democrats.

You addressed my comments and suggested I should refrain from criticizing and voice support instead.  Now that you've been called on it, you're trying to turn the conversation into anything other than it's original intent.  If you wish to talk about Liberty Post and the posters there, please talk to someone else about it.   I am not trying to keep Bush from winning re-election, so your comments about that just don't belong here.  Make them to someone that is.

These "conservatives" do not earn any respect from me. They are working as fast as their fingers can to destroy President Bush and make a "statement", get into arguments to spred their venom and help the Democrat party.

I addressed issues of long standing conservatism.  I did not suggest Bush not run or that another conservative should run.  You would do well to address my comments instead of running off on some imaginary situation that has nothing to do with the reality of our discussion.

All over the airwaves are people who have complaints against Bush. Any complaints against Kerry? Why are the complaints only against Bush? Now you add it up.

My consern is with our borders being secured, contraband being prevented from entering our nation, and the ceasation of immigration from terrorist states.

Please point to one democrat who has advanced any concern for these issues.  There is supposed to be a conservative president in office.  It would seem reasonable to mention that these issues should be a shoe-in for support from a conservative leader.  Evidently that's a foreign concept to you.

I think Kerry ranks right down there with Jane Fonda.  There, I've said it on this thread.  Evidently you think I need to before I can address issues of merit.  I don't.

[ClancyJ]

I should have been more clear. I was not saying you specifically were doing all the things I described - I was talking in generalities about the Bush-bashers we get on FR. Sorry that it was read that I was saying you were doing those things.

We were discussing complaining about Bush and I was making comments about the differences in bringing up issues and in destroying the man.

My points were directed at all the "he's lost my vote because......" posters and the fact that many of those are in reality out to draw votes away from Bush and then to get a democrat elected.

Unless we were involved in a long discussion, I would not know where exactly you stood on Bush and his re-election.

My point is - there is a difference in having issues with Bush and in trying to work against Bush's re-election. With all of the Bush-bashing going on everywhere - one tends to assume that negative comments are for the purpose of swaying the election.

We all tend to do our complaining but we seldom pitch in and help his re-election or put praise in print. Therefore, any reading our complaining assume we agree with them that the man is worthless. Some of us get a little tired of a good man being torn apart.

[FBD]

"The folks who see FDR's great lurch towards socialism as a positive ain't the same folks who I foresee looking back longingly at a missed opportunity to rein in outta-control Federal Expansionism, my FRiend...in fact, they are polar opposites.

...FWIW, I align myself with the latter folks."

Well duh Mud, I knew that.
And I'm there too...Sheeesh!
But we are talking about how history views a wartime president, which will overshadow his failures to reduce domestic spending. That was my point here. C'mon, get with the program! :^)

[Luis Gonzalez]

Returning the favor!

A Grand Strategy of Transformation

[nuconvert]

ING