Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Posted on 01/27/2006 7:24:20 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
With all the problems the Bush administration is having in Iraq with surging oil prices and the media hammering the president 24/7 on just about everything, you would think liberalism would be getting some traction in North America. But apparently it's not.
Polls show that Americans support conservative judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court by a wide margin, Canada just elected a conservative prime minister after 13 years of liberal rule, and the president's terror warrior poll numbers dwarf those of any Democrat, despite all the controversies over eavesdropping and interrogation.
So what's going on?
The answer to that question can be best summed up by a new Gallup poll that says that 51 percent of Americans will not vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton under any circumstances should she secure the Democrat nomination for president.
So, evidently, it doesn't matter what Mr. Bush is doing, most Americans don't want the most well-known liberal Democrat in the country sitting in the White House.
That's a tough situation for the left. All the Bush-bashing in the world does not seem to be making liberal candidates more attractive. And the bashing might just be the problem.
For example, the four Bush-hating columnists at The New York Times, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich, have written an astounding 148 anti-Bush op-ed pieces in the past 13 months. That represents 47 percent of their total work output. I mean, how much loathing do you need? Why doesn't the Times just put a "We Hate Bush!" banner on its op-ed page and have everybody take a long lunch?
This kind of overreaction to a sitting president actually creates some sympathy for him among fair-minded Americans. After a while, the cacophony of hatred from the left is just numbing.
And it's also mean. American women, particularly, do not respond well to nastiness. Do you think Ted Kennedy's attacks on Samuel Alito and the subsequent tears from his wife helped the Democrats? Do you?
To be fair, Republicans made the same mistake with all the Clinton bashing. After a while, it just became boring.
But that was then, and this is now. We are living in a much more dangerous time. All the polls show that Americans remain uneasy about terrorism and their own personal security. And in this area, the Democrats poll far below the Republicans.
That's because the Dems do not put forth concrete solutions to vexing problems. What's the liberal solution to the chaotic illegal immigration situation and the porous southern border? How would the left handle Iran if it continues to develop nukes? And on Iraq, the Democrat message is mixed. Hillary wants to win it; Howard Dean says we can't achieve victory. When it comes to cohesion, the Democrat Party rivals the Balkans.
Finally, the left-wing media unknowingly hurts the Democrats, the very party it wants to promote. By making celebrities of loons like Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte, the press spotlights the radicalism on display on the fringes of the Democrat Party.
Republicans and conservatives hoot down Ms. Sheehan and Mr. Belafonte all day long, but liberals are largely silent. Believe me, that silence does not go unnoticed by independent-minded Americans.
And the Democrats have little chance to regain power in America without a substantial number of independents shifting to their cause. But right now, that is not happening, and I see no liberal strategy on the horizon to change the situation.
At this point, the champions of the blue states are, indeed, singing the blue
"Which is why I suspect she (Broomhilda) will run as an independent. A transparent strategy, but a plausible one."
Ohmigod, that would be the biggest, most humongous, Thansgiving Day or ANY day present of all time. Hell Hil, run in 2008 as an Indy, 2012, 2016, til you drop...toooo good. Broomhilda, the new Pat Paulsen.
About Newt cheating on his wife, you can be sure the MSM would beat that drum hard and long.
"Did you see they took a poll in Florida and Newt is the potential candidate moving up the list the fastest.... tied with McCain who is dropping... George Allen isn't gaining any traction in the polls. Given he is young, perhaps VP could be a better start for him."
Forget VP. I'd vote for Newt in a heartbeat!
So would I, past cheating or not. He's an excellent speaker, a really smart guy, and a good conservative. He's not perfect, but it sure would be nice to have a candidate who could effortlessly articulate common sense and conservative ideals. Articulation is not exactly one of W's strong points, so at least that aspect would be a refreshing change.
As for whoever suggested Jeb Bush - please no. He'd no doubt be much better than his jelly-spined, tax-raising father, but we've had more than enough Bush's in the White House. This is a republic, not a monarchy.
~LOL~ but running against Hillary with all her skeletons or Kerry with all his skeletons????? Like I said, I'm neutral right now, but from what I know of Newt Gingrich he wouldn't let anyone steamroll over him and his knowledge of history would sure help in the mis-step department... and I would vote for him in the primary over McCain in a heartbeat...
I didn't write clearly, I ment Newt for Pres and Allen for VP and then he could move up to Pres.
Like murdering Vince Foster from a black helicopter ? Face it, a lot of the Clinton hating was over the top vitriol.
The public never cared about Clinton's womanizing. Powerful men fool around. They always have and always will.
Damn, Bill! Keep your big mouth shut!
"Powerful men fool around. They always have and always will."
If Reagan and Bush did, it would certainly matter. The press would have suddenly become morality avengers shouting about infidelity from the rooftops. The only ones who get a pass on that are Democrats.
Nonetheless, I think OReilly has written a decent article here.
The things he's right on are significant things, and he has a huge audience. The things he's wrong on bother me...some more than others: homosexuality, free market oil, democrat treason, ....
He's right on: the war on terror, child abuse, child sex abuse, aclu, namla, life, nomination of judges, morality,
Overall, I'd far rather have him with an impact than have the alphabet MSM...cbs, abc, cnn, etc...
Hey, watch what you say about my wife.
--Mike.
Agreed. I'm hoping for a Giuliani/? ticket.
I believe that kerry will help it continue with his newest "filibuster Alito" campaign. Nothing like a loser and his sour grapes to make the American public wary of putting dems in charge.
Let's remember that when RINOs say that Hillary is virtually undefeatable, and the only way to stop her is for the GOP to nominate a socially liberal.
Do you think President Nixon did? How about President Reagan? President Bush or President Bush II?
I don't think so. They don't all do it.
They are not the same because their values differ.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Thanks for the ping. O'Reilly's on the money on this one...
Thanks for the ping!
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.