You're standing in your high school principal?
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.
This just means that we have to work harder, in the real world, to get the vote out, for President Bush, to counter the Custer Conservatives. :-)
After years of contributing to various GOP fund-raising entities, I'm on plenty of mailing lists. These days, when they send me an issues poll to fill out, I dutifully note my responses, but when it gets to the point that they ask for money, I write "Rein in Domestic Discretionary Spending...then you'll start getting my contributions again!!" or something to that end. I'm sure plenty of these things are simply discarded--especially if there's not a check enclosed--but it makes me feel better...LOL!!
FReegards...MUD
You're standing in your high school principal?
As one who proudly considers himself to be part of the so-called "hard-right", I can only speak fer myself, but I've got no interest in "killing the Republican Party off." In fact, what bothers me is when the GOP pursues Leftist policy objectives that reek of DemonRAT-lite. I am an ardent supporter of Dubyuh's foreign policy initiatives and much that he does to win the culture war...it's just this willingness to adopt the Left's big-spending ways with regards to domestic policy that grates on me and many others I've spoken with. It's correctable, too, and anything we can do to strengthen Dubyuh's backbone on this issue will be to the ultimate benefit of the Country, Dubyuh, and the GOP.
FReegards...MUD
Your words prove that you are passionate about what you believe and are most thoughtful in your expression of your opinion.
You said:
There is a HUGE list, often posted to threads like this one, of President Bush's CONSERVATIVE accomplishments, during this term.
Of these "conservative accomplishments" which ones reduced the size, scope, and influence of the federal government?
Now, perhaps I AM wrong about MY opinion.
I've always had faith that the gop believed in, and would fight for smaller limited government, less federal regulation, and expanded personal freedoms.
I might be wrong, it appears that the majority of the supporters of the this republican party not only accept the opposite, but encourage it.
Agreed!
If one were to review the State Of The Union Speech, a time of great promises and spending initiatives, the only thing that stands out in my mind was the promise to cut the beans out of the discretionary budget and continue to provide the military with the things they need.
No ovation from the left.
The Congressional Repubs took a few days, but began saying similar cutting words.
All this with a election coming and cutting being a know divisive issue for the Dems.
Now, that took some guts!
He is leading, but not getting the credit for it.
As to what happened in the last two sessions of congress, I prefer to postpone that argument until after the nomination, because on some of it, there is a tactical aspect. On some of it, a veto would have sufficed to stop criticism from the right. But on those things, a veto may not have done anything and put other things at risk.
"All politics is local" comes to mind.
I fully expect that much will change, and not because of the griping.
It has been in the cards all along.
I really trust the guy, and I try to convey that trust. If he were to buy my trust and not get it willingly by trying to appease ME!, I would not trust him nearly as much in the future.
To the "true conservatives" out there: if you choose to be undependable, the GOP will not care what you think. Period.
Poohbah, isn't this your argument?
Me, too...and when Reagan was in Power, I yearned fer the day when the GOP took over Congress to make said dream a reality. Then, when we took over Congress in '94, I came to yearn fer the day when we had a GOP POTUS to go with our GOP Congress. Then, when we got Dubyuh in power to go with our GOP Congress, I said, "Alright, he we go!! It's time!!" When instead the federal government grew at an alarming rate with OUR guys in control, it's been like a kick to the groin...OUCH!!
"I might be wrong, it appears that the majority of the supporters of the this republican party not only accept the opposite, but encourage it."
I've spoken to plenty of the most sincere BushBackers and they will tell you they are disappointed with the growth in the Federal Leviathan, too...so I don't think we are that far apart in our ultimate aims, only in how we will get there.
FReegards...MUD
I know you did not address the question to me, but I believe he was trying to say that shooting yourself in the foot every election is bad for the numbers and a waste of time.
GWB did not have a mandate this term and it caused much of the things to which Conservatives are moaning about.IMO.
The federal government GREW under Reagan. Since he didn't crop nor stem the growth of the government,why are you counting on President Bush doing that...which he actual managed to do, in a small way.
Please refrain from claiming to know what others think. I want a smaller government;however, I know that it's not going to be done in one fell swoop and NEVER done by a Dem. There isn't one president, from Washington on down, who has made the government impressively smaller. Washington even made it larger. Some presidents did nothing, but most have overseen its growth.Even Ike, who didn't do a whole lot, added to the growth of government and look at what his federal roads programs did.
It's the big picture and the consequences that I look at. How about you ?
I did review the SOTU speech and in it Dubyuh pledged to hold Domestic Discretionary Spending growth to 4%...after some "griping" by the Right--both pundits and Congress--Dubyuh came out in a weekly radio address less than two weeks later and revised his pledge to limiting said growth to 1%!! And issued a list of 128 Federal programs he proposed eliminating or cutting back significantly.
"I really trust the guy, and I try to convey that trust. If he were to buy my trust and not get it willingly by trying to appease ME!, I would not trust him nearly as much in the future."
Fact is, Dubyuh's performance in the War on Terrorism has built up a great deal of trust in my eyes, too...and I am not so full of myself to believe he's gonna switch policy priorities to appease me; however, if I can be part of a cacophony of voices urging him to the Right, I will consider my time well-spent.
FReegards...MUD
Yes, it is.
LOL...that's just a nasty rumor!!
FReegards...MUD
What and not listen to them tell us how much better we'll be by shooting ourselves in the head by letting Bush lose the election???
BTW ... LOVE the graphic
FReegards...MUD
Yes, but you do it in a thoughtful and insightful way!
LOL!
You know that I follow no person blindly. But, withholding a vote or write ins will not accomplish that excellent and needed goal that you and I both seek.
You were correct to say that we all seek it.
I think we will get more than currently seems to be the case. I think government growth, as a percentage of GPD will be controlled.
I do not think that it will ever actually decrease in size. Unless of course, the economy takes another terror hit.
Now you are telling lies. No AWB bill has been sent to him from Congress. So how could he sign it? And he has not issued an EO to that effect, either.
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.