[KantianBurke]

There would be no infighting if Bush had simply acted like a Republican. Contrary to what most bots think, I don't take pleasure in bashing our President. I like and respect him. But enacting policies of the left is something I think is worthy of being critical of. Politics is the art of compromise. But not when its favored to the Rats and espcisally when we have nominal control of all 3 branches of the Fed gov.

[Spiff]

The actual Reagan may have issued an amnesty for illegals, but the Ideal Reagan would have done no such thing. So unless Bush packs freight cars full of gardeners and dishwashers and dumps them off at the Mexican border, some voters will just sit this one out.

The Ideal Reagan would have eliminated the National Endowment for the Arts; the actual Reagan proposed a $1 million increase in his final budget. But Bush increased NEA funding. So angry conservatives might just sit this one out.

False arguments. Enforcement of illegal immigration does not mean cattle cars full of illegals being shipped home. If we start strict enforcement, one illegal alien and employer at a time, the illegal aliens will deport themselves as the employers stop employing them. This false argument is used constantly by liberal and conservative alike and it is just stupid.

The budget argument is also false as conservatives don't necessarily demand Reagan-like budget cuts, they would like to at least see some fiscal restraint. Non-defense discretionary spending in the budget has been higher than spending under the Clinton administration and he bulled through a federal entitlement program rivaled only by LBJ's.

Bush deserves the criticism he is receiving. If he had not done these things the party would not be grumbling right now, the infighting would not be occurring. The buck stops in the oval office on this one.

[BenLurkin]

"Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush."

[WayneM]

The actual Reagan may have issued an amnesty for illegals, but the Ideal Reagan would have done no such thing.

However, neither the Ideal Reagan nor the Actual Reagan would have issued a second amnesty after 15 years of seeing the destructive results of the first one-time only amnesty.

[swampfox98]

And some conservatives will be happy to help, it seems

That's a bare faced lie. What are we conservatives supposed to say when we have been betrayed beyond reason? Bush's betrayal goes even beyond the usual stupid party's lilly liveredness.

He has made intolerable statements about illegal immigration. He is spending like there is no tomorrow. He has chosen to help with the outsourcing of millions of American jobs, and calls it good He never fought for his judges, allowing Orin Hatch to play ball with the Democrats and not putting a stop to it.P> Only those who don't care about America's future refuse to speak out.

[CA Conservative]

Your headline is a bit off the mark - it is not the Republican party that is acting stupid - it is all of those self-declared "true conservatives" (usually Buchanan or Keyes supporters) that will vote against anyone who doesn't meet their single-issue litmus test. Much better to throw the whole country to the dogs (or to the Dems, which is worse) just to prove a point.

[tkathy]

It's alright to whine but not alright to continually announce the intention to not vote.

[SpinyNorman]

Let's just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Baathists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council's table. It's a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush.

That is worth about five bumper stickers!

[jolie560]

This kind of stuff is human nature--the desire to rule.

It is also what make US look so crazy to the Muslim world.

They settle their differences more gentlemanly--with weapons.

[Sloth]

Why is the required compromise *always* to the left and *never* to the right?

[scory]

Agree with posts that state in effect that Bush inflicted this upon himself. His apparent disregard for a notoriously touchy base is mystifying. His policies can be modified or voted down if we let our congressmen and senators know what we want. And don't stop lambasting the White House with letters, calls and e-mail. But for heaven's sake don't sit out the election. If we vote a dimrat into the White House we risk far more than mere money. We risk the lives of untold numbers of Americans and our allies as any dimrat who runs is going to do so on a promise to retreat in the war against the islamofascists. We simply cannot afford to do this. Bush is our only choice in 2004.

[Jim Cane]

Stupidity is an affliction of the head. Bush is the head of the GOP. If you want to end stupidity, cure the head first.

[Yardstick]

If the inevitable renaissance of Iraq happens on Kerry's watch, and the economy truly picks up steam in the first few years before the business cycle and Kerry's tax hikes kick in?

This is a persuasive angle to me. Bush has taken huge political risks to set these things in motion. It would be sickening to see Kerry get the credit when they pay off.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks, I couldn't agree more.

Reelecting George W. Bush appears to the Bush camp to be a close thing. I don't think the final tally will be very close at all (he'll win by 10 per cent), but it's clear from his recent public appearances that he does, and that his campaign does.

He's carefully staked out positions that "out" the so-called Democrats -- from the space program (Florida, Texas, California are listening), illegal aliens (see previous parenthetical), gay marriage (also a salvo in the effort to reclaim the Democretin-packed courts), all the way to the bread and butter issues (ALL the Democretins want to raise taxes on the working folk) and the War on Terror / Liberation of Iraq.

During the 2000 campaign, the partisan shill media never emphasized Gore's "carbon tax" advocacy -- one with which John Kerry agrees. Had that been hammered home by actual journalism, Gore would have lost by a landslide.

Proposed Carbon Tax Would Impose Enormous Costs
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
12/7/1992

Studies have shown that a carbon tax necessary to achieve that objective would exact massive costs on the economy in the form of lost jobs and reduced economic growth. By the year 2000, a total of 600,000 jobs would be lost, according to the CONSAD Research Corporation, with job losses reaching 1.5 million by the year 2005. Nearly 5 million other jobs would be at risk of reduced wages and hours worked, with shorter employment terms and longer layoffs. A carbon tax would produce annual losses in gross national product of 1.7 percent. Thousands of businesses in the coal, mining, petroleum, utility, and transportation service industries would be forced to curtail operations or close down. Michigan would be among the states hit hardest, with 23,000 jobs lost primarily in the mining, paper products, and transportation equipment industries... Surely, ecological central planning can be no more successful here than economic central planning was in Eastern Europe and the old Soviet Union, especially if it is backed up by poor information.

The Clinton-Gore Administration's Anti-Consumer Energy Policy
Patrick Burns
July 20, 2000

Gasoline prices have risen 50 cents to 60 cents per gallon over the past six months, and in some areas costs more than $2.00 per gallon. The surging price of gasoline has highlighted America’s increasing dependence on foreign oil. In 1974, net imports of crude oil supplied about 35% of our gas needs. Imports now supply more than 55% of U.S. petroleum consumption, the highest ever.

I'm surprised no one seems to worry about the inside job going on at Fox -- O'Reilly suddenly becoming a different kind of demagogue; Chris Wallace being the new host of the Sunday news/talk show; more. If anyone thinks Fox is just trying to position itself for the election year, they're sadly mistaken.

[k2blader]

See tagline.

[sully777]

I make it a policy to never agree to not disagree nor imply any agreement to the contrary. It is my right to communicate such matters.

"Now, there you go again." -- Ronald Reagan

[Joe Hadenuf]

Pure garbage article.

[general_re]

Ah, yes. Election season. That magical, wonderful time, when thousands of freepers set aside their petty differences in order to work in peace and harmony towards a common goal. And we all have a Coke, and apologize to each other for being so mean and insensitive during the rest of the year. And then we sing together on a lovely green hillside, about how much we love each other, and about how happy we are that at the end of the day we can come together to make the world a better place, all by selflessly working together for the good of everyone.

It really is a shame we only get to do this every other year, isn't it?

:^)

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Oh, sure, Bush is fine on the foreign affairs stuff, and yes, there's a partial-birth abortion law, and the tax cuts were nice, and come to think of it, Sept. 11 wasn't followed by blow after blow after blow, for some reason. The nation endures, at least at press time. But that's hardly enough. Where's that bill requiring 60-foot Ten Commandments monuments in every capitol rotunda? Let Kerry win. Teach the GOP a lesson, it will.

Lileks-Nails-It-Once-Again BUMP! :)

[Swanks]

Once again, and every four years at election time: Don't you stupid conservatives know your place on the Plantation? Yours is not to lead; yours is to vote RINO every four years, and we'll drive things from there.

This piece is the same old "F-U-D" (fear uncertaintly and doubt of the Rat Party in power) Party line dredged up to keep the slaves on the plantation. Ain't gonna work this time though.