Amen.....but civility doesn't sell.
Lando 
Posted on 01/28/2006 8:02:57 AM PST by pissant
Bush's stretegy of changing the tone has worked brilliantly in most cases. Just as Reagan kept his sense of humor about being slimed in the Press and by the Demrats, Bush knows that his elevated discourse makes them even more frothingly furious and he's letting them dig their own grave.
LOL. Apparently.
It sounds like what Lincoln had to endure.
Bush's stretegy of changing the tone has worked brilliantly in most cases.
It has worked when he has defended himself, as he has done most vigorously lately. When the rabid criticism from the Democrats has been met with his silence, he a nd the nation have suffered.
Ann Coulter could use a lesson here.
ping
True, silence is not the answer. Defending oneself by being aggressive, confident, AND civil is what he does best.
I still think his silence in defending the war over the summer was a strategy to embolden the defeat/retreat/traitorous democrats to come out and say what they really think. Now he's got them on the Ropes and only Murtha, Pelosi and a handful of others are still clinging to the idiotic retreat rhetoric of september.
She could, but her motivation is to sell books, and it pays to have harsh invective. Otherwise she would be lost in the bargain rack with all the other political tomes.
I disagree. I believe that W thought that the truth would be obvious to the American people, and that he had more important things to do than to constantly campaign. He seems to have finally realized that he has to constantly "sell" his policies to the public to counter the Marxist Media.
I didn't read the article, but liberals are incapable of learning....otherwise they (liberals) wouldn't make the same mistakes over and over and over and over......
well most liberals .....
Amen.....but civility doesn't sell.
Lando
I believe Rush would disagree with this statement, as would I. Otherwise, it is a pretty good article.
I agree, he doesn't fully state Rush's position, but otherwise an excellent take.
I still think his silence in defending the war over the summer was a strategy
I disagree . . . He seems to have finally realized that he has to constantly "sell" his policies to the public
I concur with your disagreement. :-)
Enthusiastically, with a booming hosanna!
Maybe he was waiting for the 2006 election season to rise in the East. That might be good strategy in normal times, but it has given me quite a fright, because Democrats are much better exploiters of opportunity politics than Republicans.
I kept asking myself, why doesn't he come out and fight?
Gallant. That's a good word to describe President Bush.
Worse than that, I kept asking myself, why doesn't he come out and show his face? Instead of Where's Waldo, it was where's W?
Oh, well. No point in dwelling in the past. W has come out swinging, BIG TIME, and the nation is better for it.
Part of W's strength comes from a recognition I have tried to give my kids. It is true of confident people, that if one doesn't has any respect for what a particular person thinks, one doesn't give a rat's a$$ what that person says.
Rush has certainly said that the liberals have not had to debate because of their media monopoly - and now that they don't have a monopoly and do have to debate, they don't know how to.That is true - but it doesn't mean that in fact there actually are sound arguments for liberal positions which the liberals are failing to forward. The reality, IMHO, is that liberal politicians merely advance political positions which flow from the perspective of mass market journalism. And the perspective of mass market journalism is that mass market journalism is the font of wisdom and objectivity.
The implication of that is simply that there is no bottom line apart from how what you say sounds on TV and looks in print. But let the media monopoly falter, and let talk radio, the internet, and FNC shine some light on the bottom line rather than simply going along to get along with the MSM, and dedication to the perspective of "objective" journalism no longer is enough. All of a sudden good intentions are not enough, and you need policies which are based in reality and promote a good bottom line. And liberals simply are at sea when they are held to account for results rather than only for their professed intentions.
Say what? An author/talk show guest and the POTUS are equivalent? Whatever.
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.