I prefer to call it a RINO stampede.
Instead of "reaching across the aisle", Bush needs to attend to his own side of the aisle!
Senator Tom Coburn PING.
On all sides, conservative Republicans are working against him.
Little children throwing sand in the sandbox.
Just wait until that new immigration bill hits his desk. If he vetoes it, expect all out war.
This article forgot to mention illegal immigration. There is a huge difference between the bill the House passed and Bush's 'guestworker' (a disguised amnesty) plan. This will be the undoing of the Republicans in 2008 if things don't change.
I would think that there might be a big difference between this lame duck and his relation with the GOP Congress - and a conservative lame duck and his relation with the GOP Congress.
Many here at FR will just say that we have to let the geniuses at the WH do what they need to do -- because they are the masterminds, they know best.
But I am inclined to think that had GWB never pressured Congress on prescription drugs entitlement, never signed McCain Feingold, never cozied up with the assault weapons ban, never countenanced the Dubai port debacle, never nominated Harriett Miers...and generally never been a big spender, then, things wouldn't be this sour. Reagan, after all, didn't go out like this with his own party, though the media couldn't wait to get rid of him.
I think when Republicans in power govern like conservatives, their popularity will increase and they will gain strength. But to do that, they have to truly understand that the MSM is always against us, and the Dems are not worth talking to as they are beyond redemption.
I can't decide if this Administration's "inert posture and opacity" stems from arrogance, stupidity, or both.
In another time in another country, a certain party whipped up a frenzy among the population against an entire class of people as being the cause of all their problems.
Labeling every single arab as an "Islamofacist" is a very dangerous road to go down. Take out the fanatics, take out the terrorists, but don't paint an entire race or religion with the same broad brush.
I fear we may be heading for another Kristallnacht here in the United States.
C'mon George, get some balls and veto the whole bill! It's time there was a "line item veto"
If our cowardly "amendment crazy" congress can't step up and send up a clean bill and a separate one for what they really want, George needs to send it back with a signature contingent on removing the offending amendments!
Who ever gave the congress the right to amend bills with crap that doesn't pertain anyway?
(I'm sure some studious soul will enlighten me.);^)
C'mon George, get some balls and veto the whole bill! It's time there was a "line item veto"
If our cowardly "amendment crazy" congress can't step up and send up a clean bill and a separate one for what they really want, George needs to send it back with a signature contingent on removing the offending amendments!
Who ever gave the congress the right to amend bills with crap that doesn't pertain anyway?
(I'm sure some studious soul will enlighten me.);^)
President Bush did OK on Iraq. He did OK on the tax cut thing. Other than that, though, he hasn't done so well, overall.
Immigration and this Dubai business are going to be the end of his power as a leader. The explosion of opposition to the Dubai ports deal, misunderstood or not, is the final nail. When Bush announced that he'd veto any bill against the deal, and did that before he really even knew much about the deal, he made a huge mistake.
The people...the voters...made their feelings known loud and clear to their legislators. Bush isn't listening to those people because he isn't running for anything. Congress is always listening.
Congress is now in control of the country. President Bush is finished as far as power and influence go.
This is long overdue. It may be too little, too late.
Sad thing is I think that GWB is as conservative president as we will see. Just look how close election '00 and '04 were. The sheeple will believe what the media says, and the new generation of voters are totally off the conservative radar...
not looking pretty for the US...
Given the hysterical rantings from both the left and right concerning the current political viability (and legacy) of President George W Bush, I think it’s time for some historical PERSPECTIVE!
Since many at FR, and around the radio dial, like nothing more than to bash GWB with the record of President Ronald Reagan, I will use the former president as our historical benchmark:
RONALD REAGAN
[NOTE: All ratings are based on Gallup surveys unless otherwise noted.]
Average Job Approval Rating:
RR: 53% (first 5 years: 52%)
GW: 60%
Number of Years With an Average JA Rating in the 40s or Below:
RR: 3 (first 5 years: 2)
GW: 1
Lowest JA Rating:
RR: 35%
GW: 37%
[Keep in mind that GWB is the first war-time president since FDR to run for and win re-election! Truman, LBJ, and Bush 41 all had JA ratings in the 20s at the end of their tenure!]
Highest JA Rating:
RR: 68% (shortly after assassination attempt)
GW: 90% (shortly after 9/11)
During both 1982 and 1983, President Reagan posted an average JA rating of 44% . . . MANY Republicans wanted Reagan ‘to retire’ so that they could nominate a more POLITICALLY VIABLE candidate in 1984. Reagan declined. However, Republicans/conservatives continued to wring their hands about 'polls’ that predicted Reagan would lose the election to, among others, Gary Hart. The hand wringing didn’t abate until Hart self-destructed in the spring of 1984!
President Reagan won his re-election in a landslide and coasted to high JA ratings during 1985 and most of 1986 . . . and then he experienced a political tsunami -- the Election debacle of 1986 (he lost the Senate), the explosion of the Iran-Contra scandal, and the borking of Judge Bork.
The following article describes the fall-out:
Title: “The Reagan Presidency Fades Into Its Twilight”
“It was vintage Reagan: flinty-eyed, sure of his aces. The terse words evoked the “make my day” challenge he had once used to with Democratic talk of tax increases.
But this time it boomeranged. Bork’s nomination quickly plunged toward a resounding and stunning defeat, and much of the commentary that followed had the pall of a post-mortem on Reagan’s political career.
This was not just any lost cause. It had been Reagan’s self-proclaimed “No. 1 domestic priority.” And it had been a cause that most thought Reagan could have won – should have won.
The label of “lame duck,” which some had tried to paste on Reagan just days after his landslide re-election in 1984, seemed at long last to stick. Reaganism, the dominant political force in America for the better part of a decade, now clearly seems to be a spent force.
. . . It’s variable when lame-duckism begins,” notes Nelson W. Polsby, professor of political science at UC Berkeley, “With Reagan, you would have thought it would be later. But it began with Iran-contra.”
FOLLOWING REVELATIONS OF ARMS SALES TO IRAN (and the diversion of resulting profits to aid the contras), REAGAN’S GALLUP POLL RATINGS TOOK A 23-POINT NOSE DIVE. IT WAS SAID TO BE THE MOST PRECIPITOUS DECLINE IN A PRESIDENT’S APPROVAL RATING SINCE GALLUP BEGAN ASKING QUESTIONS.
. . . Iran-contra may have permanently broken Reagan’s unique grip on the American imagination . . . (however) the more structural setback to his power was his party’s net loss of eight seats in the Senate election of 1986 which turned the upper chamber Democratic.
The Senate elections took on a personal dimension because Reagan had stumped for GOP incumbents as few presidents before him. He all but pleaded with his traditional backers to “win one more for the Gipper” and, in so doing, preserve his beachhead on Capitol Hill.
. . . For some, THE MEAN SEASON BEGAN FOR REAGAN EVEN BEFORE THE SENATE DEBACLE. THEY POINT TO THE OCTOBER 1986 SUMMIT MEETING IN REYKJAVIK, ICELAND, WHERE REAGAN APPEARED UTTERLY UNPREPARED FOR THE CHALLENGE PRESENTED BY THE NEW SOVIET LEADER, MIKHAIL S. GORBACHEV. [Note: Conservatives, e.g., William Buckley et al, attacked Reagan relentlessly on this issue!]
. . . (Bottomline) the administration will muddle through 1988 in much the same mode as it has through the past year (1987). The constraining circumstances of Democratic strength in Congress, the diversion of attention to the choice of a new president and the sheer old-news nature of the Reagan presidency will conspire to devalue the White House coin.”
-- CQ Weekly October 17, 1987
INITIAL POST MORTEMS ON THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY:
GALLUP’S PRE-REPUBLICAN CONVENTION POLL
8/10-12/1992
Presidential Approval Ratings for Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter:
Reagan: 47.55% approve 49.21% (-1.66)
Carter.: 49.50% approve 43.06 disapprove (+6.44)
[Yep, one of the worst presidents in American history actually outpolled RR a mere 4 years after the end of RR's HISTORIC presidency and a mere 12 years after RR had defeated him in a landslide!]
SIX MONTHS LATER (February 1993):
Looking back, do you think the economic policies of Ronald Reagan were a success or a failure?
Success 28.72% Failure 61.24% (-32.48)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! The more things change the more they stay the same!
It took the American public almost 20 years to appreciate the legacy of Ronald Reagan (a man many, including conservatives, savaged during his historic presidency). The same will happen for George W Bush!
</sarcasm>
A pox on both your houses.
Congress overspends, Bush signs.
Conservatives? I think not.
This Phyllis Schlafley article from 2005 explains a lot that I've been wondering about.
CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html