Posted on 05/06/2006 3:26:58 PM PDT by RWR8189
G.W.B. got the most votes in our history for a President and took a Majority of the popular vote for the first time since his father's first election in '88.
The GOP has bucked history and had successive victories when history dicates they should have lost seats. Their Majority Leader in the Senate was overthrown in '04. We have 55 Senators as a result of giving them "more votes" in '04.
What irks people is that we accomplished more in G.W.B's first term with lesser numbers than we have with greater numbers. Shouldn't it be the opposite in trend?
Your assumption is that with even greater numbers these problems go away. I don't think so. We have a leadership vacuum and until that is addressed I see greater numbers giving way to greater defections into the McCain camp. Not necessarily among the newer additions, that seem to be fairly dependable. Rather among the the old lions of the Senate that resent the more conservative tilt demanded such as McCain, Lott and Warner.
Without some discipline there is no guarentee added seats would serve the purpose of muzzling these renegades. Or Mavericks as McCain prefers to be labeled...
My suggestion for the GOP if they want to get serious and show an act of good faith? Target one of the key troublemakers. Take their pick. McCain or Lott.
I can remember in the early 80s when I was more moderate and Fred, Mort and even Krauthammer wrote for The New Republic.
Incredible eh?
I think William Kristol even wrote some pieces for them back then too. Horowitz and Collier too...Hitchens as well
The New Republic(and many others) was a bit of an incubus for NeoConservatism....and it shows today.
Children wail 'but you promised' when their expectations can't be met due to changing or unforeseen circumstances. The reality based adult meets the challenge and works toward achieving the outcome intended. President Bush has to work with the man/woman power the voters have given him. It has been explained numerous times on this board that a SUPER majority is needed to accomplish meaningful legislation because of the unremitting opposition from the RAT party. Sorry, but that is the grown up political reality.
Well said.
Reagan, yes. Bush, no.
I've rebutted your lies before with the facts, but you don't seem to take the facts seriously.
Reagan reduced the top federal income tax rate from 70% to 28%. Currently under Bush, the top federal income tax rate is at 35%. Faced with the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression and in order to hold down rising deficits, Reagan did raise gas taxes and later corporate taxes. He called them revenue enhancers. Reagan never even talked about raising individual income taxes. Bush never faced the same economic conditions Reagan faced. Bush inherited a strong economy, with historic lows in interest rates, inflation and unemployment.
>>>>Reagan was cowed by terrorists....
News to me. Maybe you'd like to elaborate on that one.
>>>>Reagan granted amnesty to illegals, Bush has not.
We all know Reagan signed off on the IRCA of 1986 that granted amnesty to 2.6 million illegal immigrants. But the Feds never enforced the employer sanctions, thereby undermining this one time only amnesty deal. Bush has promoted amnesty since he took office. If Bush gets his way, he'll be signing off on the Senate's immigration bill. The "McKennedy" bill would have Bush granting amnesty to 15 million illegals, and maybe more.
>>>>Reagan nominated two liberals to the Supreme Court, Bush has not.
Ridiculous. Reagan didn't nominate any liberals to the SCOTUS. Rehnquist and Scalia were solid conservatives. O'Conner and Kennedy were considered moderate conservatives. Ginsberg and Bork were conservative judges. No POTUS can be sure how his nominees to the SCOTUS will turn out 10-20 years down the road. That goes for Roberts and Alito too.
O'Conner and Kennedy were considered moderate conservatives.
You can squirm any way you want. The FACT is that Reagan raised taxes, twice, and nominated two squishes to the Supreme Court.
I find it hilarious that you are willing to cut Reagan slack in any number of instances, but you won't give Bush the benefit of the doubt on anything.
Anyway, it's been clearly demonstrated that Reagan had feet of clay just as big, or bigger, than Bush's. You won't admit it because you have a vested interest in keeping Reagan on a pedestal.
If Reagan's presidency had been evaluated exactly at this point in his presidency, he wouldn't look any better than Bush does.
Well, FGS, don't let some of the purist around here hear you say that! Have you lost your mind? :-)
I'd bet my house that the ones that are trashing Bush would have trashed Reagan.
I meant to ping you to 68.
I do believe that the bushbots have finally gone over the edge. In their little world, Reagan has now become a more liberal - and inferior - president than Jorge.
I always thought Reagan was a RINO.....
I used to believe in him ...I voted for him twice ,but lately I feel like he has let us down
Reagan is worse than a Democrat on Immigration
You would be correct. This place is over run with Birchers and they hated Reagan more than they hate Bush.
Our mutual hero was being kicked around pretty badly, wasn't he? Surely even you can see the parallels.
Can you not read and comprehend facts? Because that is exactly what he posted.
Just because it doesn't suit your argument doesn't mean anybody has "gone over the edge."
I just posted the facts and you can only squeal like a stuck hog.
I used to believe in him ...I voted for him twice ,but lately I feel like he has let us down
Reagan is worse than a Democrat on Immigration
ROFLMAO!!!
Reagan ousted chief of staff Donald Regan in 1987 and replaced him with former Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker.
1987! In his SEVENTH year in the White House!
And get a load of this:
However, as a testament to his skill as a negotiator and honest and amiable broker, Reagan tapped him to serve as Chief of Staff during part of his second term (1987-1988). Many saw this as a move to mend relations with the Senate, which had deteriorated somewhat under the previous Chief of Staff, Donald Regan. (Baker had complained that Regan had become a too-powerful "Prime Minister" inside an increasingly complex Imperial Presidency.)
;-)
Rich.
I bet the staffer that wrote that was a damn purist.
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.