I heard someone mentioning an idea recently.... Maybe folks who support Bush should just try posting graphics to the "conservatives" who try to bicker with us :-)
Posted on 02/27/2004 1:01:58 AM PST by kattracks
President Bush fired back at his Democratic critics Monday night. After being a sitting duck for the slings and arrows fired at him by the “Hate Bush Brigade”, the White House says the President plans to go on the offensive.
It’s about time. We need to see a tough, straight-talking, Texas-style George Bush hammering away at his detractors. He also needs to reach out to his conservative base and remind them of what’s at stake in this election, because he has a problem with a lot of them.
In recent weeks my conservative listeners have been talking about the same things Kerry and Edwards have been talking about. They’re talking about jobs even though the unemployment rate is only 5.6 percent. They’re talking about outsourcing, they’re talking about amnesty for illegal aliens – these are the things that people who listen to talk radio are concerned about.
Their reaction to the President’s handling of these issues should be a warning sign for the President. Conservatives are calling my show and telling me that they are not going to vote for George Bush because of his stand on amnesty or outsourcing, for example. And this simply amazes me. I ask them if they aren’t going to vote to re-elect George Bush are they going to vote for the Democrat? And the answer is inevitably, "NO! I’m not going to vote for anybody. I’m going to stay home on Election Day."
My reply is if you stay home and George Bush doesn’t win re-election and instead Kerry or whoever the Democrat candidate is gets elected, do you think things are going to get really better? And their answer is, "Well, no, but I want to take a stand."
They should remember Custer. He too took a stand. It was his last.
That just stuns me because it’s utterly irrational. They don’t understand they are taking a stand against themselves. By not voting they only help elect a liberal Democrat who wants to raise their taxes, enact all kinds of new spending programs. They would also endanger the nation by their already demonstrated ineptness and weakness in the war on terror, and hand over Iraq to the United Nations so it can create the same kind of mess we are now seeing in Haiti – another UN and Clinton "success."
They are wearing blinders that only allow them to focus on one issue. They say they won’t vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on one single issue even though he agrees with them on every other issue. It’s utterly self-defeating.
Even though they staunchly support George Bush on his stands on tax cuts, how he is fighting the war, and applaud his pro-life policies, they disagree with him on the amnesty issue, for example, and therefore can’t bring themselves to vote for him.
They’ll just stay home and help elect a Democrat who disagrees with them on just about everything. They’d enact socialist programs that would cripple U.S. industry, yet some of my listeners applaud them not realizing that if you drive a company’s profits down, you drive the value of their stock down and the millions of Americans whose 401Ks are invested in that firm suffer losses as a result.
When President Bush goes on the offensive, he’s going to have to remind Americans that if they want to pay low prices for the goods they need, the reason they are going to have to look overseas is because Democrats in Congress have so regulated American companies that the cost of doing business has risen. That’s due to the unions and government regulations that have become so prohibitive.
What’s the Democrat answer? Well, they say they’d make foreign nations enact the same kind of onerous regulatory and environmental burdens we have here that would force the prices of their goods up to the same level as ours. In other words, wreck their own economies to make John Kerry or some other demagogue look good.
Fat chance.
Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Premiere Radio Network.
Would you do a favor and post which of Clinton's EOs the Republican majorities in the Senate and House overturned?
We have bigger fish to fry, like the re-election of this President, winning the war on terror, battling the corrosive moral fatigue of the left, defending America's values in a dangerous and hostile world, reforming our courts with judicial nominations that respect and understand the original intent of the Founders, and bringing faith back into the mainstream of American society. George W. Bush is committed to these things. Apparently, the naysayers are not. To h*** with them. Follow or leave...whatever their wish. But I will not waste more of my valuable time stroking their egos by giving their intellectual drippings further attention.
The answer to this question is simple.
Nothing.
Since you asked me another question instead of answering, I'll be happy to reply.
I write my congressman, my senators, my president, the republican party, and I vote.
I also actively speak out about the changes that must be made if our children are to inherit the type of representative republic that our founding fathers planned.
I guess this, in your opinion is whining. OK, suit yourself.
Further, I guess this isn't concrete enough for some.....
That's OK too..........
Since we're on the subject, what have you done to encourage the return to the constitutionally limited government set forth by our nation's founders?
I heard someone mentioning an idea recently.... Maybe folks who support Bush should just try posting graphics to the "conservatives" who try to bicker with us :-)
Agreed, name calling bad- respectful discourse good.
It seems though, that it takes two to tango.
Also, it is dang late to be pushing for policy changes when the foxholes have been dug for the election.
That is all that most try (in vain) to point out.
That is what I am trying to point out.
Ok! back to your normal programming!
I hadn't thought of it that way before. That logic is very sound.
LOL! It is still February.
One wonders what the rhetoric will be in November.
Alas............A long year.............
Thanks for the reminder... now excuse me while I hurl.
Would that be The Savage Nation?
The mythification of President Reagan, instead of the factual history of his two terms,which keeps getting posted here, is not only galling, but insane!
Those who think that staying home/voting for a fringe party/imagining that a Kerry ( or whoever ) presidency will either make the American populace become " TRUE CONSERVATIVES ", teach the GOP/the DNC/President Bush a lesson,turn the country around, and/or bring about a bloody revolution, have utterly forgotten recent history...1993-2000 !
There is a HUGE list, often posted to threads like this one, of President Bush's CONSERVATIVE accomplishments, during this term. Are there still things he needs to do ? YES. Will a Dem President do any of them? NO! Will a Dem president countermand most of the good things that the president has done? BET THE HOUSE ON IT!
Will President Bush do more for Conservatives, when he is reelected? BET THE HOUSE ON THAT ONE TOO!
Those who expect immediate gratification ofallof their wishes,from any president, are nuts. The UNAPPEASABLES/dogs in the manger/cut of their nose to spite their face/CUSTER CONSERVATIVES, only delusionally imagine what life was like in America 200+ -100 years ago.And the government that the FFs put into place, was filled with men who were incapable of imagining things like 9/11 or the acceptance, by so many, Conservatives included,of today's kind of life.
Whoever, in their wildest dreams, would have thought that we'd now need a Constitutional Amendment,that states that marriage is between a man and a woman?
Agreed...and I've done my best to upbraid folks fer branding Bush supporters as "Bushbots" and the like...many of the most ardent BushBackers will admit that they are troubled by certain things he has done, they just have decided that--overall--he is the best candidate running next November. More power to them/you...it's a very defensible position, imho.
"Also, it is dang late to be pushing for policy changes when the foxholes have been dug for the election."
Not at all, imho...one of the things that struck me in the debate about prescription drugs was folks bolstering their PRO-position by emphasizing that Dubyuh ran on it in his campaign. Promises and priorities set in the campaign do indeed impact what is focused on for the next four years, and I sincerely believe that WeThePeople can impact that which the candidates give higher precedence to. If we can get Dubyuh--and the GOP Congress--to stress Fiscal Conservatism in the election, we can set the tone for the next four years!! That'll end up being to the Country's--and the GOP's--benefit in 2008 and beyond!!
"That is all that most try (in vain) to point out. That is what I am trying to point out."
I appreciate yer opinion, my FRiend...fact is, Dubyuh's spoken often of pursuing a more fiscally-conservative path, and in the upcoming budget debates, he'd be wise to follow through with actions that back up his words. Like I said, if he does so, a lotta "PrincipledConservatives" will gladly rejoin the march to get him reelected!!
FReegards...MUD
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.