Posted on 01/02/2005 5:25:51 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
You've likely just previewed some of the music that will play on Rush's show tomorrow.
Given the lost election, exactly why are liberals on the attack with such vehemence against the president? You'd think they'd pause to catch their breath and consider their errors.
1. Their socialist agenda is threatened by the success of elections in Iraq. The ba'athists were socialists; Saddam was a socialist; and Ramsey Clark, a socialist, taking up Saddam's banner, is evidence that they are in terror of another major defeat for world socialism.
2. Jeb Bush -- They fear that Bush name and MUST besmirch it before George leaves office. It doesn't matter when Jeb will run for president -- 2008, 12, 16 -- but they know he will run. Expect some hefty attacks on Florida these next few years.
3. George Bush is still young. While a young Clinton is content to fritter his time away, Pres. Bush is a doer. I've no idea which direction W will go, but it worries the dems. In their minds, better to wound him if they can.
4. The 2006 the Senate is up for a filibuster proof majority on the part of the Republicans. Despite having just proven that a 2 year long campaign didn't do a bit of good, the dems apparently are going to keep snorting political methadrine and downing campaign no-doze. This will backfire (again) and is good for the pubbies....America is tired of non-stop campaigning. They will punish anyone who makes them put up with this crap much longer.
New Jersey:
When Whitman won the Republican primary in 1993, two other candidates drew over 24% of the vote each; She went on to win against Democrat Florio in the general election by 26,093 votes of 2,505,964 cast, or just 1%. Her re-election in 1997 was no easier, and she won with 49% of the votes to Democrat McGreevey’s 46%; Libertarian Sabrin won 5% of the votes.
That can be explained by the fact that the liberal idiots were right. Massive fraud, and President Bush's loss was actually foretold on the Sunday before the election...I mean, c'mon!! THE REDSKINS LOST AT HOME! /sarcasm
Whitman for President? Her social liberal views make anathema to the conservative base.
President Bush should expect books like this as long as he continues to appoint RINOs and Clinton demorats to positions of power.
Yes, but does SHE recognize that?
It's Christies Party
She can whine if she wants to
Whine if she wants to
Whine if she wants to
You would whine too if
you lost your job too. :)
In 1996, William Jefferson Clinton received 47,401,898 votes (49.2%). In 2004 George Walker Bush received 60,645,844 votes (51%). I'm sure any writer can manipulate numbers to fashion an incisive quote, but Bush received a greater percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat president (except FDR and LBJ) in any election since 1856.
No, I'm not going to buy the book. I refuse to read any book that's never been read by it's "author".
Well, it's kind of hard when you have a liberal MSM that took unprecedented steps to unseat a president. The liberal MSM was unmerciful with its' bashing of Bush 24/7 and simply refusing to go after Kerry.
"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."
She's buying into the "Moral Values" in the exit polls. Naturally, she ignores that Rove was going after the middle/swing voters with national security and the war on terror.
This is just sour grapes. Her political career is over -- even in New Jersey. She's got nothing to do but gripe that her tenure at the helm of New Jersey was nothing remarkable.
Well, winning with a narrow margin is better than losing, like for her the more congenial Bush pere, or Carter. And some incumbents were so wounded, that they did not run, like Truman in 1952, and Johnson in 1968. Her comment is false and misleading, particularly given that the economy had taken a tank, that Bush was not the most articuate guy in the world, and Iraq had taken a few bad turns for him. Bush's problems had nothing to do with Whitman's problems about him of that I am sure. I wonder if Whitman based Bush for wearing his religiousity too much on his sleeve? Probably not, but that helped Bush some places, and hurt him elsewhere, like maybe in NJ.
NH was finally conquered by the libs.
Its amazing . Win the Presidency, Get a bigger majority in the house and senate. Do well in increasing the Governorships and....
The losers in the party say:
"What price to governing and what risk to the future of the party."
Left field.
I swear many republicans are much more comfortable in the minority. That is the real danger.
The Whitman Wing? Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, John McCain....that wing? Have you forgotten this is a Conservative forum?
The way she packages it, absolutely. Now Rudy might be another matter.
I never forget that ever, and my presence here just shows the good judgment and toleration of the powers that be. :)
Republican liberals won't leave since they dread becoming part of the great unwashed. The reason they stay in the GOP, let's face it, they like the country club cachet that goes with brie&white wine liberalism.
The only reason she lost is that Florio was one of the worst governors New Jersey ever had, and there was a huge car insurance crisis under his leadership. It was "anything but Florio," yet she still barely won.
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.