Posted on 01/24/2005 6:34:19 AM PST by paudio
It's an unresolved question whether the hyperpartisan Democratic critics of Bush have achieved or surpassed in vitriole the hyperpartisan Republican critics of Bill Clinton. Only the course of the second term will tell. Sixty-nine percent of Americans in a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll said Democrats in Congress "should find ways to compromise" with Bush. Unfortunately, the views of the 28 percent who said no compromise, even if "nothing gets done," are amply represented among congressional Democrats and the party elite. Indeed, many regard steadfast opposition as the way back to control of Congress, perhaps as soon as 2006. Could be. But a better question to ask, given that 69-28 split, may be whether Democratic obstinacy in opposition will persist to the point at which it inflicts further political damage on an already weakened minority. This, we shall see.
But two lines of attack on Bush that will not pass the scrutiny of historians are, first, the charge that he has not been level with the American people about what his true intentions are; and second, that he is anything but fully in charge of his administration. On the contrary. Bush exemplifies what Alexander Hamilton meant when he wrote in the "Federalist" about the need for "energy in the executive." Bush knows his own mind. He knows where he wants to go. And he knows how to lead. It's probably this combination, rare even among presidents, that so vexes his critics they see these qualities as their opposites.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
I smell a BIG victory in 2006 for Republicans.
Interestingly a man that says what he means, and means what he says, is beyond the comprehension of the Lefties little minds.
Thanks for posting -
most stimulating reading. What strikes me in particular is the 'not being in charge' attack. Probably based on such non-info as Michael Moore's notorious school vid from 9/11. What I saw was a man in sincere meditation, trying to come to grips with a situation which would have metaphorically killed lesser individuals. Not so GWB - and this was proven by the fact that he did not put one foot wrong after that.
Any takers?
I.M.
uh...didn't we just have a vote on this?
for those of us old enough, many of us democrats, we were lied to and taken for granted as the "democratic" party moved to the left.
and then when the clintons emerged we reacted.
and then kerry appeared and we voted.
we voted against the vietnam war as conducted by kerry-fonda-hayden and the democrat media for the 2nd time.
bush won. it's simple, not complex.
"It's an unresolved question whether the hyperpartisan Democratic critics of Bush have achieved or surpassed in vitriole the hyperpartisan Republican critics of Bill Clinton."
I swear, I know this is the first line, but I stopped reading right there! Anyone who could make such an asinine statement is not worth wasting my time any further!
Please keep reading. The article is not about it.
Denny Crane: "I look to two things: First to God and then to Fox News."
Well, at least "the people" get it; THEY need to compromise with Bush; all this talk about "Bush finding a way to compromise with the Democrats" is BS.
It's worth the read..That one threw me,too.
I think the author's first sentence is wrong. I think the vitriol against Bush has far surpassed anything that Clinton went through. Although Clinton had his share of detractors too.
I wonder why. :)
Guess they've been wrong about our President all along.
Of course that won't stop the lies and slander against the man.
I'm soooooooooo confewzed.
President Bush is dumb ... President Bush is smart, but evil ... President Bush is an evil puppet ...
First they make me dizzy with the old comet will kill me routine ... then it will be a meteor ... now it will be a tsunami.
Hell, I spent 20 years living in fear of drinking coffee. It was bad for you, then it was good, then it was bad, then it was ....
Will someone tell "they" to get it straight?
I first began to dislike having Bill Clinton as President (it has never been personal) when he promised a middle class tax cut and immediately reneged. Actually, I suspected the talk about the tax cut was campaign rhetoric and, when he reneged, he cemented himself as someone who would say anything to get elected and deal with the consequences later. In my mind, that kind of politician is not qualified to be dog catcher, let alone the President of the United States.
My dislike was cemented when abused an intern. Nothing else matters other than that he used the power of his office to sexually use a stupid kid. That should never be tolerated and the kind of man who can do such a thing should never have power.
There have been Presidents I disagree with, but none before Bill Clinton whom I considered a disgrace to the office.
Whatever the left has against President Bush, any claim to the moral authority to hate him is lost based upon their support of President Clinton. They are just children acting the role of sore losers and their political discourse can be ignored until they grow up.
Shalom.
"I think the author's first sentence is wrong. I think the vitriol against Bush has far surpassed anything that Clinton went through."
My point exactly! Which is why I stopped reading after the first line. Anyone who could start a piece with such a demonstrably false premise doesn't deserve my attention!
Correct. Lies & slander have become par for the course in Europe too. Perhaps it's too difficult for most Euros to comprehend the fact that a man with a mission is needed. Not only in these times, but in all times.
See: Clinton wanted to keep everybody his friend. Bush isn't afraid to make, and confront enemies. And herein lies the difference.
As usual, the lefties just continue to ignore the truth and hack away. Inevitably hacking themselves apart in the process.
Yeah I missed the part where the NY Times called for Clinton's assassination, like they did with the current President.
The lefties are also unable to comprehend planning your moves and then carrying out your plan based on what you think is right. They would have been able to have understood Bush better if that time period (was it 7 seconds or minutes - I can't remember) had been spent polling the populace to figure out what his response ought to be. Either that or figuring out how to give a response that looks right regardless of whether it is the right thing.
Shalom.
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.