Posted on 01/01/2006 12:32:44 PM PST by ncountylee
CRAWFORD, Texas — For six days, President Bush has stayed in nearly complete isolation on his ranch here — just mountain-biking and brush-clearing, the White House insisted daily, and seeing only one visitor, his mother-in-law, Jenna Welch. He never even ventured into this little town of 600, not even to the cheeseburger joint that he often uses as a political tool to show that he is in touch with his neighbors.
But on New Year's Day, after a brief stop at an Army hospital in San Antonio to visit wounded soldiers, Bush is scheduled to return to the White House earlier than usual from his break and start a campaign to set the tone for 2006 and, perhaps, the remainder of his presidency.
As part of an ambitious strategy the White House has mapped out for the next four weeks, Bush has scheduled two major speeches — one on the economy on Friday in Chicago, another on Iraq — ahead of the State of the Union address, which is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 31. By the time he appears before Congress, Bush's aides are hoping, two of the immediate challenges the president faces — the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. and the permanent renewal of the Patriot Act — will be behind him.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesargus.com ...
Apparently, RM is still trying to find one example to back up his assertion. (Or else he's gone off in a huff when I asked him to back up his own statement.)
You're bound and determined to make Reagan the issue. Newsflash: Reagan isn't POTUS. Bush is POTUS and Bush is the issue. Btw, Reagan never advocated the elimination of boundaries. That's a blatant lie. Reagan did say, "A nation without borders is not a nation."
If you want to return to that debate we had about Reagan signing the IRCA of 1986, I'll be happy to respond. What we all need to do is hold Bush and the GOP controlled Congress accountable for whatever immigration reform they may come up with.
>>>>Define big government and how does that differ from what President Bush has always been?...
One obvious example. When GW Bush ran for office in the 1999-2000 timeframe, he didn't propose a trillion dollar Medicare prescription drug program that will eventually help bankrupt the government. Bush did propose a limited PDP for the elderly poor that cost roughly $150 billion over ten years and didn't give handouts to multi-milionaires and billionaires like Bill Gates. In addition, while everyone knew that GW Bush wanted to advance an education agenda as POTUS, no one had any idea he would double the budget for the Education Dept. in five years. And finally. Bush ran the first time on wanting to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the federal budget, but he's never once used his Presidential veto power to accomplish this goal of fiscal responsibility.
>>>>Like I asked you before, did you know anything about him prior to his being elected? You indicated you did but it must have been a very shallow knowledge.
You have a extremely poor memory. As I reminded you earlier, on most issues you and I, along with other FReepers would routinely defend Bush during the first campaign versus Algore and through most of his first term. The hotly contested Calfiornia Recall Election is were we began to seriously part ways. To now say I have shallow knowledge is silly talk and you know it. Been kicked in the head by a mule lately? LOL
And please explain (you haven't done so yet), why you believe that a President who has restored the military, cut our taxes, restored our value of human life, freed 50,000,000 people, and is waging a successful war on terror and keeping Americans safe and free could possibly have a 'lousy legacy.'
You unfailingly support Reagan in spite of his failures and necessary compromise, yet you require perfection in President Bush, and that he never compromise, before you support him.
I'm trying to see a modicum of consistency in your opinion of the two men, RM, and it just isn't there.
You're so right. I think that the 2006 elections will go the way we want them. G.W., I think, still has a card or two to play before all is said and done.
****
GWB: HBS MBA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070924/posts
The American Thinker February 3, 2004 | Thomas Lifson
*****
One final note on George W. Bush’s management style and his Harvard Business School background does not derive from the classroom, per se. One feature of life there is that a subculture of poker players exists. Poker is a natural fit with the inclinations, talents, and skills of many future entrepreneurs. A close reading of the odds, combined with the ability to out-psych the opposition, leads to capital accumulation in many fields, aside from the poker table.
By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, at least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.
For some reason, I have been labeled (on this thread) as a Bush Basher because I pointed out that the republicans will face attacks in two areas (IIRC immigration and SS/tax reform).
I did not blame the president, nor did I blame anyone. I simply identified two areas I believe expose republicans to attack. I certainly don't blame the failure to get these things accomplished on any one individual, much less the president.
With that said, I must add one area of weakness not heretofore identified (by me anyway); that is the unwillingness to allow dissent in thought, the prohibition of non-cheerleader words, the groupthink moniker.
This is more prevalent on FR than life, but I'm hoping FR is a place to discuss, analyze, and plan for improvement... that is if one is allowed to assert that improvements are possible.
This is your first post on this thread.
It is incongruous with your last post. Which one do you mean? (Can we all assume that your use of the word 'he' was not in reference to all Republicans, which you are now asserting?)
If you just want to 'discuss, analyze, and plan for improvement' there is no need to attack the character of the President (which you did by asking if "he" would 'pretend'.......ie, be dishonest.......that there was no illegal immigration problem).
If you want civil discussion, discuss civilly. It is not 'cheerleading' to defend the character of George W. Bush. When and if you call it into question, as you did on this thread, you need to be tough enough to accept the consequences and the response to what you have said.
That's what FR is all about.
This is more prevalent on FR than life --- you must be living in a pretty ideal environment. Generally dissent is honored here, if it is accompanied by facts.
To me, there is no doubt that FR is the finest news gathering site in the country, and there are many hundreds (+) of brilliant and serious thinkers working for positive results for this country. And as a bonus the humor here is often side splitting or so very subtle. A good combination.
Check my tagline.
Is it just me or does Cindy Sheehan resemble a chipmunk?
Hence my position that we're vulnerable in those areas. Do you agree?
Of course it's the dem strategy to block substantive reforms. In that they have been sucessful.
Geezus! I did not call any character into question! What the heck is wrong with you?
I said the repubs are vulnerable in two areas; immigration and SS/tax reform. I also believe W is ignoring immigration and SS reform (not that he always has but is now).
Do you agree that immigration problems are a potential weakness to the repubs?
Your myopia prevents you from seeing what's really being said. Step back and take a breath. There is no bigger supporter of the president than I. But I separate support from election analysis. Sheesh.
Secondly, questioning whether the President is honest (i.e. that he would 'pretend' a serious problem.....that he, incidentally has already been addressing......does not exist), is indeed questioning his character.
Perhaps you meant it as humor. It wasn't funny.
I agree that immigration is a serious problem for the Republicans, and that they need to address it. I believe that the President has been late to the fight, but recently has shown more seriousness about the subject. He is, in NO way 'ignoring' the issue.
SS is on the back burner, IMO. The President has not 'forgotten' that issue. There were other serious issues to address in 2005. The ongoing War on Terror, the rotten RAT attack on the President and our troops about Iraq, and a couple of significant hurricanes. The Republican 'leadership' for the most part has failed, IMO. They have not defended the President, the War on Terror, the troops, fought for drilling in ANWAR, SS reform, the Patriot Act, or practically anything else INCLUDING immigration. IMO, they have failed us and the President big time.
Once again, however, you started out with a comment that in no way can be called 'election analysis.' It was a personal slam of the President, which does not jibe with your claim to be addressing Republican election issues.
So I still don't know which side of your two sided debate you are actually on. Do you stand with your first post, or with your later ones?
How can you froth at the mouth so? WHy can't we all just be cheerleaders?!
How can you slam the president's character so?
You probably wonder why people just quit posting to you.
Huh?? I agreed with you on the Republicans and immigration. Are you not well?
btw, reasonable people with good arguments don't 'quit posting to me.' That other guy lost his argument to about a dozen people here and apparently ran away in a huff.
If you have the wherewithall to defend your argument and agree or disagree with what I've said, please do. Don't be afraid. Be principled.
Sanger can resist no longer. The pen flies into his hand. He ignites it in an instant and writes furiously against the President. Rove's lightsaber flashes into view, blocking Sanger's blow before it can reach the President. The two weapons spark at contact. Sanger turns to face Rove with his Fitzsaber.
You two are like peas in a pod.
You both made critical, indefensible comments about the President.
I called you both on those comments, and asked you to defend them, but instead, you called me names (dumb ones, I might add), and displayed outbursts of emotion, all the time evading the defense of your own words.
Reagan Man disappeared, and Principled said that I shouldn't wonder why people 'quit posting to me'.......and then disappeared as well.
Well, I don't wonder why either of you ran from this fight. You could not defend your positions, so you lashed out instead with weak attacks on me ('cheerleader' is particularly dopey, and 'love the President more than life' is bordering on psychosis, IMO).
Anyone reading the exchanges on this thread can see who's been rational and who hasn't.
This 'cheerleader' is just interested in the truthful exchange of ideas. If you disagree with the President on issues, I have absolutely no problem with it, because I do as well. But when you make critical statements, you need to be men enough to defend them rationally.
If you would have done that, there would have been no need for either of you to cower and run away from this discussion as you both have.
I will continue to call Bush critics to account for their words, even if some of them...........like you two...........apparently can't handle it. I've been around here too long to be bothered by childish name calling and histrionics of those who can't defend their words with logic.
Just for the record. No response necessary.
Ooooo, now you've gone and done it, OWF. The GWB haters around here are not going to post to you anymore. Why I'm sure everything in your world will just come crashing down. You won't be able to pay your bills anymore. You're family and friends will forget you exist. Oh the humanity! The horror of it all! [snicker]
I asked him to give one example of when he had defended Bush. He never answered.
They sent my parents a subscription form.Mom attached one of her post-its with the drawing of a man with head firmly inserted in his a$$.Caption was,"Your problem is obvious".They(NY Times) paid for it with their enclosed "no postage required" envelope.lol!
Typical.
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.