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 ...
Did not. Came back and posted to deport. Look, I have no interest in debating you at this time. You whine and complain when anyone posts the truth about the Bush record. That gets real old and adds nothing to the debate. You ask off the wall questions that add nothing to the debate. You've got to learn to accept people who exercise their right to free speech. Engaging in political dissent is not bashing PresBush. If you want to be known as a Bush cheerleader, fine. Just don't expect to ever be taken seriously by this FReeper. When you want to honestly debate the issues, instead of offering up foolish drivel, look me up. Until then ....
And now he is involved the Aberhoff story. Yuk. I am so mad at him right now!!!
I am a broken woman. :)
I know he didn't answer. Probably because he couldn't.
And well you should be you...you...[sputter] you Bushbot, you.
LOL!
I wasn't aware that there was anything wrong with making critical comments. As far as indefensible, I continue to stand, unchallenged by the way, that the president has not done anything on illegal immigration. He has worked his arse off on SS reform, but nothing got done thanks to the dems. Irrespective of his efforts, I stand unchallenged on the fact that neither immigration nor SS reform has been accomplished. On tax reform, I am not as critical due to the tax cuts...but I think more should be done. Whether you like it or not, I am allowed to have and express that opinion.
I called you both on those comments, and asked you to defend them...
How so? I defend the comments as I always have... by pointing out that nothing is accomplished on immigration or SS reform and that this will allow attacks by dems at election time.
Principled said that I shouldn't wonder why people 'quit posting to me'.......and then disappeared as well.
He he, not so. I only had to go to work. You really become irrational - that's why I think people simply ignore you.
If you disagree with the President on issues, I have absolutely no problem with it, because I do as well.
I completely think this is a lie. You will not allow my dissent. You reject entirely my post that I think the president is ignoring immigration. You further reject me posting that the repubs are open to attack on immigration, tax and SS reform. I think you just want to hound anyone who criticizes irrespective of anything. As far as being a man, what does that have to do with anything.
What defense is necessary for the statement, "Bush has ignored immigration"? He obviously has.
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.
What? What can you say to me for posting that Bush has ignored immigration and for posting the repubs are open to attacks on immigration, SS and taxes? What is it you think I need to defend, eh? I think the problem is you are of the type that can't handle criticism of Bush. Hell I wasn't even criticizing him on taxes and SS - I even blamed dems!
I have no problem with the president, you dreamed that up in some irrational frenzy created when you attempt to slam anyone who criticizes him. Lighten up. Slow down. You're looking really foolish.
Do you agree or disagree that the president has ignored the immigration concerns of most everyone?
Do you agree or disagree that SS reform did not go anywhere and that the dems will attempt to use this in the elections? - even though it's their fault?
Take some time and think it through - I'm no enemy of Bush. Save your vitriol for them if you like.
I asked you a serious question about drawing conclusions based on the media, and you started throwing a hissy fit and throwing mud at me.
The words are here for everyone to see, Reagan Man. The only one whining here is you.
It may make you feel better to turn the blame on the one who questions you, but it's not the truth.
Now, if you are able, please tell us why you concluded the President Bush would have a 'lousy legacy' based on Kristol's editorializing.
That's all I ever wanted to know. Back up your criticism with facts and logic.
I am not a Bush hater. What indicates to you that I am? Or did you just jump without thinking? BTW that's a likely groupthink behavior - jumping without first looking.
I criticized the president for ignoring immigration concerns. How is that a GWB hater?
I said the repubs are open to attacks on SS and taxes because the dems prevented SS and tax reform so far. How is that being a GWB hater?
Really, how is it?
It isn't flattering.
Their on holiday with the Clintons. Didn't you hear? They are very friendly now.....LOL. I am sorry I could not resist.
Anyone reading the exchanges on this thread can see who's been rational and who hasn't.
This is patently untrue. You may, as I do, feel that he has not done ENOUGH, but to say he has done NOTHING is not factually accurate. And such claims should not go unchallenged.
You never addressed my question as to which side of your own split arguments you came down on. First you started with a 'cute' comment about the President, and then when challenged, you switched your argument to 'elections' and 'the Republicans.' You never gave me a straight answer.
He he, not so. I only had to go to work.
You made your silly comment about people no longer posting to me more than a work day ago, Principled. You are weaseling again. (And I have been more than rational. It is you who have engaged in emotional name-calling swill).
I completely think this is a lie. You will not allow my dissent.
I am not lying at all, and you know it. I have no problem with truthful dissent. It is your innaccurate hyperbole with which I disagree. I disagree with the administration on immigration. The fact that you are blind to what I have actually said based on your own defensive, emotional response doesn't negate what I've said or think. Clear up your head, and read my words without your emotions out of control. Go ahead. Go back and read what I've said, and how you've responded.
I think the problem is you are of the type that can't handle criticism of Bush
I have no problem with accurate criticism.........and I am not a 'type.' Repeating.........you never addressed the fact that you (in spite of your denials) implied in your first post that the President had character problems. If you had dealt with the issue from the first, this conversation would not have taken place.
Take some time and think it through - I'm no enemy of Bush.
And once again.........you are emotionally confused. I never said you were 'an enemy' of the President. Not even close. Calm down, and quit being so defensive, and your imagination won't get out of control like this.
I said it before, and I'll say it once again, since you've missed it. The President has not done ENOUGH about illegal immigration. On that we agree. But when you say he has ignored it, you are not being factually accurate.
And for a conservative, that is an essential element of rational discourse.
Oh..........and thanks for coming back. I enjoy discussion of issues and a good argument. They only take a downturn when people get all emotional and defensive, and don't bother to read what's actually been said.
Don't make assumptions about me out of ignorance any more, and we'll be fine.
I'm not interested in idle flattery, Principled............I'm interested in accuracy, and rational discussion.
Actually, I'm interested in upholding 'principles,' and those include honesty, logic, morality and integrity.
When a person lies about me in an emotional fit as Reagan Man did, and then leaves, I don't take it lightly.
(I haven't 'whined' for about 40 years. ;)
What has he done?
He he maybe you have a 9-5 workday, not me. Further, there are a lot of reasons one may not post for "more than a work day". Are you seriously thinking I'm afraid or something?
Not enough, but not NOTHING.
I disagree.
It is your innaccurate hyperbole with which I disagree.
Where did I post innacurate hyperbole to you?
I didn't imply anything about character as evidenced by the fact that you cannot find a post in which I did so.
Here is my first post, in case you can't seem to find it.
What has he done?
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.