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.
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?
Excellent post in its entirety! A keeper.
Great job, DB.
It's obvious that you are an honest individual who deserves a lot of pats on your back.
Some anti-DPW folks, who should have known better, who have been appearing on TV and radio, have played, very publicly, right into the Democrats' hands. They are now trying to pretend they have been moderate all along.
King (and Hannity) should have sent a clearer message that they wanted more investigation, rather than immediately reacting to all the anti-DPW misinformation by 1) stepping up on their soapboxes and 2) giving the whole world the impression that they thought the deal was a totally bad idea.
Hannity has become so defensive about his position that, while speaking yesterday to the young man who taped his teacher, Hannity just had to take the opportunity to portray himself as a victim.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have been eagerly citing Peter King's comments as "proof" that the deal is bad (i.e., proof that the Bush administration is bad).