Bush has been supporting McStain...a person that Conservatives have said en mass that is not qualified or approriate as a Candidate for President...especially after his back-stabbing RINO ways have been exposed.
The RNC is literally ignoring the American public, and it's voters with it's pro-Illegal Immigrant stand that is pi$$ing off 80% in polls.
It seems like the Bush Administration is doing a bang-up job alienating the base that would be needed out in force to prevent a DemonRAT election to the Presidency...is that good strategery?
I agree with other commenters here and that is that what W said was along the lines of the Texan dry sense of humor, and, that he was just being gracious. Not to underestimate his sense of politics, either. But, the rest of what you write, the cult thing, FR, "laughing stock" and all that...it's unsupportable intrigue.
Is it a dry sense of humor that invites Clinton to Kennebunk? Is it a dry sense of wit that allows these slimy Clintons to attack without ever firing back?
Do you regularly sup with someone who is diametrically opposed to everything you say you believe in?
Or is it more likely they find "Common ground".
Tell me, how many impeached rapist P.O.S's do you find "common ground" with? How many do you allow to take the spotlight with your blessing?
And as I said...when a Conservative forum is reduced to a "cheer-leading" pep squad clique, and when Conservatives are attacked for complaining about things that if Clinton were doing them, we'd be screaming about how bad they were...
That is what makes a laughing stock. Blind Support a la Klintonistas....versus reasoned Conservative principles and values that do not change with a letter behind a name as in (D) or (R)!
And I am not alone in my observations or beliefs.
REALLY classy people on this thread, telling you to shut up and calling you names. They don't want to allow people to speak unless they agree with them; now who does THAT sound like?
Look, you are way overreaching and certainly overdramatising the site itself, most all conservatives -- anywhere and also specifically here -- and certainly President Bush and his father and family, AND, rewriting by supposition most of what the rest of us have written in a "throw it in the air and let it fall back down all jumbled up" "restatement" process.
I think you need to get a lot off your chest and then maybe just try to read what people write and not apply an added layer of intrigue-bordering-on-paranoia to what is being opined and shared by others.
Just as a point here, do you KNOW for a fact that you and your family have never "entertained a rapist" in your home? Do you know, REALLY?
And, President Bush -- both of them -- including former President Clinton are not going to be doing ANY entertaining in any group setting with any proximity to one another or even partial of those without a GREAT DEAL OF SUPERVISION AND SECURITY. As to Clinton's bad character and seedy behaviors somehow "rubbing off on" (bad allusion there, sorry) on other Presidents and their families, I think that the Bush family -- the senior and current generation, at least -- are undoubtedly capable of being around all manner of characters and maintaining their principles.
You never know, perhaps Clinton's being helped with his bad character. It's a good thing to hope for.
But I hardly think that the Senior Bush isn't capable of maintaining his course without coming away dirty, so to speak, by fundraising with Bill Clinton.
I don't get from this article and the comments here that there's evidence of "two families consolidating power" in and for the U.S.
I do agree that the illegal alien problem has diminished good faith in the second Bush Administration, given the acceleration of problem since his term and the insulting "guest worker" plans (which I don't support and hope do not reach implementation).
No Administrations, however, have been known to fully represent the American people but I do hope that lobbying can become a diminished practice and soon (that will, hopefully) encourage a bit more accountability.
More of your issues...commenting...
Goldwater lost because of the nuclear bomb political ads the Democrats ran. It capitalized upon the national fear of World War III and people opted for "comfortable, homey" Johnson instead. McGovern lost not because he was an admitted leftist running as an admitted leftist but because he wasn't popular enough to win -- people just didn't trust him to respond capably if and when the time required firm and quick response.
I do believe, however, that there are more than a few percentages of voters who do, still, vote based upon commercial and cosmetic and media-presence as to "likability" of candidate. Some voters still just vote for who they think is "the nicest" or most easy to listen to, or, against the person who is most annoying or whose voice is offensive when compared with the other candidate.
There are a surprising number of voters who "just vote" and they follow the most appealing presence, when they do.
You're right, unfortunately in the views of many of us, as to the illegal alien problem, illegal immigration. The GOP needs to get smart about this and right quick.
No, you're not! Anytime you get the "Howler's" claws out, you know you're doing good. Blackbird.