Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George W. Bush is about to fritter away his party's last advantage.
Washington Times ^ | February 24, 2006 | Wes Pruden

Posted on 02/24/2006 4:57:39 AM PST by When_Penguins_Attack

George W. Bush is about to fritter away his party's last advantage. What Republicans have had going for them is that they aren't Democrats. Over the past few days we've seen the men at the top of the Grumpy Old Party drifting toward something that looks suspiciously like an Old Boys' Party. When he hears applause only from Jimmy Carter, who gave away the Panama Canal (now controlled by the Chinese), and Bill Clinton, his newly adopted little brother, George W. should be looking for the panic button. Once they're no longer regarded as the toughest party on national security the Republicans will be burnt toast.

(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bushbotattack; bushbots; ports; wespruden
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 381-391 next last
To: indcons

Not any longer. Rush stated that the UAE wanted to work closely with the EU and the US in shaping the new governement the Palistinians have elected.

LLS


61 posted on 02/24/2006 5:36:04 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: When_Penguins_Attack

Pruden mentioned what (to me) is the major issue:

"Like every president, George W. wants whatever he says to be taken as the last word, but no president before him, not even Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln, was accorded that kind of deaf, dumb and blind acquiescence to authority. That kind of acquiescence is practically un-American."

I have not taken a position yet on this whole port deal. I'd like to know more about it. I'm not comfortable just taking the President's word for it, regardless of which party the President is part of.

Most of us would probably agree that democracy is not a spectator sport. We shouldn't just be satisfied with a statement that someone else has reviewed the deal and doesn't have a problem with it.

The President has not made a compelling case as to why this is a good deal, why he supports it. Now we know that the senior members (Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Homeland Security) of this committee charged with reviewing foreign acquisitions didn't even know about the deal before it was approved. Doesn't that raise legitimate questions about the thoroughness or top-level supervision of this review? I think so.

Let the record reflect that I have not taken a position on this deal one way or the other. I'd like to take an informed position so I need more information.

Let the record further reflect that I am proud to support President Bush. My family and I pray for him every day, and we have materially supported both of his campaigns. I generally support his initiatives. I'm not sure yet about this one. As much as I support the President, I do not blindly/unquestioningly follow any man.

I am a Washington Times subscriber. Pruden's column is always a must-read. He does a great job. I almost always agree with him and I consider myself to be a true conservative.

Thanks for 'listening'!


62 posted on 02/24/2006 5:36:09 AM PST by seanmerc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

21 or six, makes no difference since it only involves commercial port operations and doesn't impact security.


63 posted on 02/24/2006 5:36:15 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: indcons

Let me make this as clear for you as I possibly can.

Miers---after weeks of disagreement favor shifted to those dissenting that her confirmation was a good idea. The administration was hard pressed to find anyone that would support the nomination aside from Hugh Hewitt.

Ports- After about a week of furor favor is shifting decidely in favor of the administration's argument and the port sale itself.

You need to realize that all the people that opposed Miers, like myself, are not on your side in this. This is a different issue and a different day, and those that have been hysterical about the sale are losing just judging by the numbers now supporting it or giving the deal a second look in favor.

This isn't like Miers much at all. It's more like Katrina when lies, spin, and misinformation were embraced with Republicans/conservatives running about like their heads had been taken off. And on Katrina, I was with the admin.


64 posted on 02/24/2006 5:36:49 AM PST by Soul Seeker (Mr. President: It is now time to turn over the money changers' tables.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Coop

I noticed the hype,too. Hey but when a person jumps on the MSM bandwagon without checking out the WHOLE story then that is what takes place.

Don't understand the PRESIDENT. He will survive this and I support him more than ever now. :)


65 posted on 02/24/2006 5:37:41 AM PST by Paige ("Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coop

The port sale bothers me, however, what bothers me more is the proposed pilot project of a Mexican government run customs facility in my city. While I'm not against free trade, global trade or whatever I am seriously concerned about the fact that the perimeter of our border is being moved from Laredo to Kansas City. Goods shipped from Asia will not have to stop at Laredo for inspection but will continue to Kansas City. KCSmartport estimate that there will be 600 trucks a day in and out of the West Bottoms area by 2012. While the Mexican government may not appear to be a security threat to my state or my country I question the wisdom of this "historic" arrangement.


66 posted on 02/24/2006 5:38:37 AM PST by Lobbyist (I want my American dream!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker

One question that's occured to me--will not Ports World also be managing Great Britain's ports? Apparently, the British government has checked this out as well and also sees no significant risk in the deal.


67 posted on 02/24/2006 5:39:40 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Lobbyist
The port sale bothers me...

The ports are not being sold.

68 posted on 02/24/2006 5:40:04 AM PST by COEXERJ145 (Pat Buchanan lost a family member in the holocaust. The man fell out of a guard tower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Paige
What really bothers me is the war on the President is being won. The position at the top truly is a very lonely place.

We are a military family, both retired and active duty. Our loved one goes into the UAE ports when on sea duty, If we thought that there was a real threat, we would yelling bloody murder.

The real threat to our ports is the longshoreman's unions.
69 posted on 02/24/2006 5:40:50 AM PST by Coldwater Creek ("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Yes, but you don't necessarily have to sell them your ports either.


70 posted on 02/24/2006 5:40:57 AM PST by seanmerc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker

Good post.....at least you are making an argument and I respect your opinions (unlike some others). Let us see where this goes; I will be the first to admit if I am wrong.


71 posted on 02/24/2006 5:41:35 AM PST by indcons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: zook

Same with Australia where they already have operations.


72 posted on 02/24/2006 5:41:40 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

Sorry for the mistake. I'll take more care next time.


73 posted on 02/24/2006 5:41:58 AM PST by Lobbyist (I want my American dream!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: IrishMike
Agreed Mike.

A couple of things will happen with this issue.

The first thing is it will be delayed passed the '06 elections.

The second is that as time goes by and scrutiny over the deal reveals no security risk to the U.S., politicians will look for a way out of the hysteria they fell for or into.

Last, the president will prove his critics wrong again and those who aligned themselves with the Democrats and the unions will feel kinda silly, except for a select few who remain adamant in their objection. I don't blame them, some have the best of intentions, they want us to remain safe from another 9/11 and that is commendable yet sometimes fears are without merit.

We will always need these people and their objections, one day we may be asleep at the wheel and they will be there waving the red flag and quite possibly save us from our own inability to recognize a real threat.
74 posted on 02/24/2006 5:42:05 AM PST by TheForceOfOne (Memogate was Dan Rathers Little Big Horn, Buckhead has the scalp to prove it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: When_Penguins_Attack; Dane
Let forth the howling dogs who will now decide that Wes Pruden is a closet lib, or disloyal, or that they never liked him anyway.

Pinging the howlingist, doggiest of them all: Dane.

Watch with amazement as he turns on Wes Pruden.

75 posted on 02/24/2006 5:42:51 AM PST by Lazamataz (Islam is a fatal disease that must be eradicated from the body Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

Thank you!!!!!!!!!


76 posted on 02/24/2006 5:43:02 AM PST by Coldwater Creek ("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Lobbyist

I don't know anything about that program.


77 posted on 02/24/2006 5:43:18 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Actually it should read, Due to the lack of leadership in the Republican party and within the Conservatives, the Democrats plan to turn the party and the Conservatives against the president was extremely effective.

Even though, the whole truth was not told and what information was given was skewed the Conservatives jumped on the MSM bandwagon while the Democrats gleefully pat themselves on the back and toasted each other for a well laid plan that the Conservatives fell for hook, line and sinker.


78 posted on 02/24/2006 5:43:23 AM PST by Paige ("Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Click your ruby red slippers three times Dorothy, and you will have national security.


79 posted on 02/24/2006 5:43:34 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: seanmerc
Nice post...you articulated the views shared by my wife and I.

As in the Harriett Miers nomination, I believe that all of the facts were not presented to President Bush. Let's bring them out, in public, then go from there.

IMHO, that's the stance that Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin are advocating, as well.

Better get ready for work...

80 posted on 02/24/2006 5:43:36 AM PST by Night Hides Not (Closing in on 3000 posts, of which maybe 50 were worthwhile!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 381-391 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson