Posted on 11/04/2004 7:13:08 PM PST by RabbitMan
Of course, we could have done it a lot earlier on election night but for "Boy Genius" Karl Rove. It's absurd that the election was as close as it was. If Rove is "the architect" – as Bush called him in his acceptance speech – then he is the architect of high TV ratings, not a Republican victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
The ban is on shaky ground in the minds of many because there is no exception for the health of the mother...
Good points.
I'd hate to see what you think about Rush, since you seem angry at conservatives with healthy and well-deserved egos.
Ann is clearly wrong.
I hope you're correct that Specter won't buck President Bush. Looking at Bush's appellate and district court nominees, I'm encouraged. Although there's been speculation about Alberto Gonzales, I doubt he'd nominate him (and I hear he's interested in the A.G. job should Ashcroft step aside), or anyone like him. I presume he'd nominate a "quiet conservative" - someone who isn't an activist or who has a large list of published material, so the opposition would have a hard time. That'll be tough. Hope for the best (and Chief Justice Thomas).
She's right on all counts.
With threads like this (and most Coulter threads, come to think of it), it's a wonder there are any conservative columnists.
"Bush won by a single state when running against the Senate's number One and Four liberals. That is not the performance of "genius."
Well put.
The GOP ran a lackluster campaign--to put it mildly. If it weren't for columnists like Coulter and the so-called new media and the internet people who got out the truth about Kerry that the GOP was too proud to ennuciate--we'd all be crying in our beers about President elect Kerry.
If somebody had told me on 9/12/01 that W would just barely beat a neo-hippy and personal injury trial lawyer for re-election, I would have laughed in their face.
This should have NEVER been anywhere near this close.
Zactly.
As for Bush, I’m glad he survived, if only because every anti-American on the planet was looking forward to dancing on his political grave like those nutso Palestinian women in the streets of Ramallah on 9/11. But I’m annoyed that it was this close. Two years ago I wrote that the President had missed an opportunity. In August 2002 I wrote in these pages, ‘President Bush has won the first battle (Afghanistan) but he’s in danger of losing the war. The war isn’t with al-Qa’eda, or Saddam, or the House of Saud. They’re all a bunch of losers.... In a unipolar world, it’s clear that the real enemy in this war is ourselves, and our lemming-like rush to cultural suicide.’ Transformative leaders use turbulent times to reshape the nation, as FDR did with the Depression. Back in his 90 per cent approval-rating days, Bush could have used the new war to shift the culture, to toughen it.The 43rd President is a radical, at home and abroad: had Kerry been elected, not only would he have abandoned this administration’s broader ambitions in the Middle East, but, unlike Bush, he would have made no serious attempt to reform social security. The Texan moron is, in fact, the kind of leader people always say they want: not poll-driven, with the courage to take the tough decisions, etc. But he’s very poor at selling them to the American people, and what seems obvious to him isn’t necessarily that obvious if you’re in one of the many cities with a reflexively anti-Bush monodaily. It should have been a bigger victory, and Republicans need to examine carefully why it wasn’t.
The election should have been an historic landslide, but President Bush was burdened with the neocon types who hamstrung him with questionable intel in the runup to Iraq.
Bush should have been universally hailed for his commanding performance of post 9/11 defense.
Instead he was forced to deal with the neocon stumblebums. The MSM had a heyday with story after story about the neocons bogus intel.
The neocons tarnished President Bush's peerless Commander in Chief credentials.
Here's a pathetic comment. And it's from Ann's column that's been posted.
"Amazingly, it was the Democrats – the ones who support gay marriage – who used the gay issue for political advantage, most famously when Kerry gay-baited Mary Cheney during the third debate."
As I said above, if Ann thinks that this issue was used to Kerry's advantage, I'm utterly stunned at her ineptness.
This column was particularly poorly written. Spinning it doesn't help.
"the neocon types who hamstrung him with questionable intel in the runup to Iraq."
LOL! Neo-Con German intelligence? French intelligence? The KGB? The Turks? The British?
All of the intellligence agencies--ALL OF THEM--said exactly the same thing, if you would bother to read up on the situation.
BTW, Bush won for his stance on the War On Terror, in case you haven't heard. Iraq was a winner--maybe the winning issue for Bush.
So you should thank the Neo-cons, whoever you imagine them to be.
I noticed that the folks who swung the election put morals, not legalizing prostitution and dope, as a top issue. Libertinians are the mercenary element of the GOP; if the Dems would offer them a few bucks in tax cuts, they'd cut and run.And ditch gun control, government regulation of business, drug laws, "political correctness", and pork barrell spending. In other words, they'd have to quit being Democrats.
-Eric
Stifle yourself, Ann. We're VERY fortunate to win this election given the high turnout. I guess you're pissed because YOU didn't get the credit.
Moron.
Listen closely: You don't attack political strategists like Rove, the very guy who helped us win the election! I don't give a damn how many bestsellers Coulter has...she's violating Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment. Her ego is a problem!!!
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.