Posted on 03/16/2006 11:56:08 PM PST by EternalVigilance
President Bush's troubles with congressional Republicans, which erupted during the backlash to the Dubai seaport deal, are rooted in policy frustrations and personal resentments that GOP lawmakers say stretch back to the opening days of the administration.
For years, the Bush White House and its allies on Capitol Hill seemed like one of the most unified teams Washington had ever seen, passing most of Bush's agenda with little dissent. Privately, however, many lawmakers felt underappreciated, ignored and sometimes bullied by what they regarded as a White House intent on running government with little input from them.
Often it was to pass items -- an expanded federal role in education under the No Child Left Behind law and an expensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare -- that left conservatives deeply uneasy. What Bush is facing now, beyond just election-year jitters by legislators eyeing his depressed approval ratings, is a rebellion that has been brewing since the days when he looked invincible, say many lawmakers and strategists.
Newly unleashed grievances could signal even bigger problems for Bush's last two years in office, as he would be forced to abandon a governing strategy that until recently counted on solid support from congressional Republicans.
*snip*
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This is what you said at 2:30 this afternoon, on this very thread:
---------------------------------------------------
To: Reagan Man
That was an excellent article. Unusual for the WashPost. No kidding.
Here's the thing, though: Reading this article it's easy to see that it's really the 'moderates' (read: liberals) who are trying to make hay out of the President's current difficulties.
They accurately describe the problems, and then offer their insane fix: more liberals advising the Commander-in-Chief. The right course for George W. Bush? Fire Andy Card and everyone who comes close to thinking like him. Then hire every hardcore conservative he can apologize enough to to gain their support. :-)
Then govern like a conservative for two years.
"No matter how far he gets, at least he'll get to have a whole lotta fun! LOL...
12 posted on 03/17/2006 2:27:39 AM CST by EternalVigilance ("After all I've done for you people!!!" -John McCain) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
----------------------------------------------
Contextual note: I did not increase the font size on the gigle at the end of your post.
Did you get an answer to what would happen if all illegals were deported?
Or, since we have grandchildren at this house, the question we refer to as the "And then what" question.
You're quite welcome. :-)
I know it took time and research.
Your work is appreciated very much.'
Thanks again!
The usual suspects.
If there are no takers, perhaps the employer might have to pay a decent wage and provide some benefits, eh?
Do you understand that the increasing supply of labor from the south, sought after in our trade agreements of recent decades, drives down wages for American citizens?
Or have you repealed the law of supply and demand?
Do you want a wage race for the bottom with China?
The fact that the illegals are operating outside the system only exacerbates the problem.
No,my premise is not faulty at all. Apply some brain cells to it:
If the government reports virtually full employment in this country, it is reporting virtually full employment for LEGAL CITIZENS or foreigners given permission to work, because illegal aliens are not supposed to be given jobs, correct?
Therefore, the government is only counting those legally allowed to work, no? Since it obvious that many illegal aliens ARE working, and they aren't being counted, then either the employment figures are cooked by the government or the people who supply the government with the figures.
Principled conservatives don't vote for $trillion budgets and blame Dubya for signing them.
As a side note, I bet if I called one of them that same name, I'd get suspended for a week.
No, you're mistaken.
Oh, how embarassing. :-)
BTTT!
Excellent.
Nailed again.
Well, I knew your first name was Tom, but I didn't know you last name was Hayden.
I'm sure you wouldn't have posted those graphs, without a soure for the information. Would you EV?
oh
Duh on us.
You're probably right..........LOL.
No they don't. That's why I defended Mike Pence from such arrogant attack. He's been one of the few real proponents of fiscal restraint in Washington.
Anything noteworthy this man Pence has accomplished in the House? Something that sets him apart from his peers? A masterful piece of "conservative" legislation that he has written and gotten through the committee and passed into law for the President's signature?
This is a serious question.
Only you could call someone 'Tom Hayden' for advocating for the market working within the law.
In fact, you are advocating for lawlessness.
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.