Posted on 03/03/2006 3:26:40 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
Oh I see shut up and support the party... where have I heard that kind of rhetoric before?
You support a party. But which one?
Yeah, but just because a guys poll numbers plummet doesn't mean his is the "most inept administration in American History". That award goes to Jimmah Cahtah.
There's one thing people seem to be forgetting. GW is not running for re-election. He can pretty well do what he doggone well pleases.
As has every other MSM reporter.
I challenge anyone to find a single MSM puff piece (the kind we saw daily re the Clinton administration) on GWB dating back to the 2000 campaign.
Even when the good news is unavoidable, it gets a negative spin.
Last week ABC radio news ran a story on an unexpected surge in jobs. The "however" was quickly injected, advising us all that it may cause inflation to go up and force the Fed to raise interest rates.
That's the kind of reporting we've seen/heard every day and every hour for six years.
The MSM may be losing its influence, but this kind of constant bashing is bound to take a toll.
A lot of people are ready to abandon him for that. And that limits his courses of action.
Which law should Bush start with?
I dont support a party, I support conservatives. I would vote for a Zell Miller over an Olympia Snowe any day of the week and twice on sunday..
Anybody who isn't appropriately fearful of DPW operating terminals in our ports is wrong and anybody who isn't totally disgusted with Bush is a kool-aid drinking Bushbot. Two and a half years of that is going to put Hillary in the White House.
With regard to our enemies rejoicing about what they read here at Free Republic, I don't think you need worry too much about it. I don't think the people we have to worry about have time to lurk here reading us.
In addition, I think your fears about the DPW-terminal issue are overblown, but that is my personal opinion, and I'm willing to say that you may be right that we should be "appropriately fearful of DPW operating terminals in our ports." Obviously, I hope you are wrong, but you may be right.
And finally, I don't think Hillary has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being President. It's just not going to happen. It may be that some other Democrat will win in '08, but it won't be Hillary. The trends are all against her, and she's an idiot, and the New Media will destroy her (if you think the Swift Boat Veterans did a good job, wait 'till you see who comes out of the woodwork from Hillary's past).
Anyway, you can flame me if you want, I'm only expressing my own opinion here. Maybe I'm wrong.
(steely)
How many seats does the Conservative Party have in Congress?
Sad, but true.
By not buying the paper, I have more money I can contribute to my favorite charities or political causes. At first, I thought I would read some Newsday articles online, but I've found that do that rarely.
I noticed that he seemed very relaxed the other day, during a news conference at the White House. Even the commentator mentioned that Bush seemed at ease.
Some of them ARE us.
I don't think Hillary has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being President.
Her husband got re-elected in '96. Hell could freeze over again, especially if the Republicans self-destruct.
That's the kind of reporting we've seen/heard every day and every hour for six years.
Maybe you don't remember, or were too young to notice at the time, but the very same, exact formula was used by the MSM during the Reagan administration. Every single piece of good news was followed by a "however," it was just as predictable as Chevy Chase saying "I'm Here, and You're Not" at the end of Weekend Update. The tactic of offsetting every good unemployment report with fearmongering about the inflation rate and the Fed raising interest rates started during Reagan.
The MSM has lost an incredible amount of their former power, but not in their own minds. Like the Al Pacino character in Scarface, they've become their own best customers, snorting their own product by the bucketful and acting irrational.
(steely)
I've got a hint for you - the GOP will not win elections in 2006 or 2008 if they continue to ignore legitimate concerns from the conservative base about spending and illegal immigration, among other things. Presidents ignore their base at their own peril. But some will try to act like it's the fault of the base for not going along with presidential agendas that are anethema to their core values.
There is a war on. Does anybody owe him any loyalty?
He's a president, not a king. Tens of millions of conservatives voted him into office twice. If the GOP wishes to have those people vote for a GOP presidential candidate again, they need to quit treating us as automatic votes by discregarding our key concerns.
I am not demanding that Bush give into my every concern. I have been more than willing to look at both sides of the port issue, and my position opposing such has softened since the story first broke to where I am neutral instead of opposed.
But regarding Bush's key transgressions, fiscal restraint is suppose to be a core GOP value. That should not be negotiable here - but instead it has been trampled into the ground.
And regarding illegal immigration, Reagan showed that amnesty does not work. And all the guest-worker programs I've seen are backdoor amnesty policies. If the GOP is not willing to address illegal immigration in a manner other than simply solving the problem by declaring what has been illegal to now be legal, then we need to create a party that will. It just comes down to that.
Not really. All the GOP members of the house and many GOP Senators are up for re-election in 2006. They have to face the voters. And they will not go along with aspects of the Bush Admin agenda that would sandbag their re-election chances.
And if the Bush Admin wants a GOP successor come 2009, they had better start listening long and hard to the base over spending and illegal immigration.
Yeah, well. There could be a massive H5N1 epidemic, and a nuclear exchange could happen between India and Pakistan or between Iran and Israel, and oil could hit $200/bbl, and the stock market could collapse again. Any of those things actually could happen, without Hell freezing over.
(steely)
Fixed it for you..
You can't really punish the President for not doing what you want. He is not running for anything. All you can do is weaken him. When you do that you strengthen his enemies. The result is domestic enemies in power, and foreign enemies emboldened. Is that your intention or just an unfortunate by-product?
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.