Posted on 01/02/2005 5:25:51 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN JAN 02, 2005 18:00:00 ET XXXXX
BUSH BASH BOOK BURSTS IN TIME FOR INAUGURAL
Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey governor who was President Bush's first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has written a book that touts the importance of moderates to the future of the Republican Party and flays Bush and his team for ignoring the country's middle.
Whitman charges on Page 3 that Bush's three-percentage-point margin in the popular vote is the lowest of any incumbent president ever to win reelection, the WASHINGTON POST reports in coming editions, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.
IT'S MY PARTY TOO: THE BATTLE FOR THE HEART OF THE GOP AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA streets during inauguration week, insuring heavy media coverage
"The numbers show that while the president certainly did energize his political base, the red state/blue state map changed barely at all, suggesting that he had missed an opportunity to significantly broaden his support in the most populous areas of the country," Whitman writes. "The Karl Rove strategy to focus so rigorously on the narrow conservative base won the day, but we must ask at what price to governing and at what risk to the future of the party."
Whitman details her many scars and frustrations in dealing with what she calls the "antiregulatory lobbyists and extreme antigovernment ideologues" that she suggests hold too much sway over the Republican party.
Developing...
I lost a lot of respect for her when she caved in on that "jewels in the crown" tiff. Having brought it up, she should have said "Is it the truth? Is it a term of common usage?"
This woman doesn't have a clue. Christie obviously isn't confortable being in the same party as the peasantry. She ought to go back to her country club and sip some lemonade with her blue-blooded friends.
Exactly. Both of Clinton's elections were low turn out events and, as I recall, he got 42% of the vote the first time (Ross Perot factor) and 46% the second time.
What'd I miss? What'd I miss?
You nailed it.
It seems like this book was written with a Bush loss rather than a victory. "Take back the party" is generally a statement made for the loosing party. A "I told you so" as a reason for the loss.
Now that Bush won and increased his majority, it seems there is nothing to "take back". I bet Mzzzzzzz. Whitman had some serious rewriting to do on November 3, 2004.
Where does she want to take the party back towards?
pre 9/11?
to minority status?
to appeasing the french?
to fear of speaking out agains political correctness?
to never winning on tax cuts?
to being pushed around by Bill Clinton?
to kowtowing to the UN while our enemies succeeded in conspiring against us?
Seems like a book written for the loosing party not the winning party.
Nothing. Just showing off my mathematical vocabulary. Ain't it special? Actually, I do have a love affair with statistics. It is endlessly fascinating to me. Almost as fascinating as the syndrome of litigation, with the lawyers on both sides managing to bankrupt their clients, before in an Epiphanic moment, with their invoices no longer being paid, suddenly seeing the wisdom of settling.
Yes, a knife in the back and who would have believed it would come from a former Connecticut governor?? I would, that's who. What ever happened to loyalty, particularly during these times? I hope Bush looks long and hard before making anymore NE blue state appointments to his administration.
As for Blue State appointments, I wouldn't mind seeing Mitt Romney in the cabinet. He's soft on a few issues but he's got his head mostly in the right place--and he seems to have a great lust for cutting taxes.
Actually, it's the chi-squared function. I suppose the square root of it is some sort of "chi" function, but that's not the use.
Statistics is boring to me. SSDD. Same statistics, different data.
Sam Waterston is enough law for me, to be honest. Civil law just has that Alchemic feel to it.
seems like she wrote the book from the perspective of positioning herself after a Bush loss.
Hard to wonder what she was thinking during the elction of 2004 as she was writing this book. Was she writing this book for a post Bush loss as she was campaigning for Bush?
(she seems about as valid a statement as the namless homosexual republican group that keeps trying to pull the party into the pro-homosexual camp.)
Maybe President Bush needs his own Fort Marcie Park(Vince Foster). It worked for Clinton to scare his people.
Which is why we need MORE republicans.
I think Mzzzzzz. Whitman is afraid of being on the recieving end of the "specter treatment" when next she makes a bonehead comment.
With more republicans it will not be a Rino force to make verbal public concessions to keep his job ala specter, it will be their political career on a platter.
We need to keep eliminating the Democrat party and then it will be a debate between Conservatives and RINOs.
Absolutely! Which serves two purposes:
1. Eliminates Democrats.
2. Marginalizes RINOs.
Perhaps she thinks stabbing Bush in the back will spice up her career?
I wondered about that; I thought I remembered that.
We should all get this book and read it, then take her advice; after all, she's been so successful, right?
Sorry, all those states are so little and crowded together that I get them confused. :0)
She did not write this since november.
She had to have been writing this book during the election. Who is she writing this book for? Must be for democrats who hate republicans.
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.