Posted on 05/06/2006 4:53:38 PM PDT by neverdem
Edited on 05/06/2006 7:01:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
That cackling you're hearing comes from the chorus of Bush critics (an all-inclusive term that accounts for spittle-flecked bloggers and moderate liberal finger-waggers alike) giddy over Bush's basement-level poll numbers. Several bloggers have gone to the trouble of showing side-by-side charts of Bush's approval rating following close behind former President Richard Nixon's. At the end of the trail is the X-marks-the-spot treasure trove "Nixon resigns."
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Ain't that the truth. (and the problem)
Bush's low poll numbers come from conservative disappointment in a number of his positions. Democrat hatred of him has been unchanged since his first day in office, a solid wall of noise that never varies, neither more nor less, and consequently can be safely ignored.
Democrats may thrill to his low numbers, but they shouldn't. They gain nothing from the fact that conservatives are mad at him. Conservatives are mad because he's too much like them, too willing to compromise with them, too many of his values align too easily with them. Conservative anger will not translate into a single vote for their side.
We want a conservative who will fight, who will spit in their eyes. Bush is never stronger than on those rare occasions when he's up for a fight. He wins almost every time. Its the rest of the time, when he's trying to woo the other side, when he's trying to split the difference with them, that his numbers fall to the point of disappearing.
So let that be a lesson to anyone planning to succeed Bush in the White House. I want bold. I want someone who is conservative, who understands conservative principle and isn't afraid to explain it and defend it. I want someone who isn't afraid of a fight; we'll be there with you, don't worry.
I want bold.
>>>>Bush rejects limited government and many of the philosophical assumptions that underlie that position. He favors instead strong BIG government.
Nothing wrong with favoring a strong government. Just cut the overall expectations down to size.
You'll get Hillary
Here is a story I remember from decades ago. It pertains to Nixon when he got started in politics.
He said it didn 't matter. He could be a Democrat or Republican.
Now go back in time. California was probably MORE Republican, then. Hence Nixon became a Republican.
But give Nixon credit. He was willing to confront totalitarianism; then called "communism." His democrat opponents were less willing to.
Likewise Bush today seems willing to confront islam's worst side. His opponents seem less willing.
Nixon led a fascinating life. Like him or hate him, he was "In the Arena."
All the President's Men 8:00 PM, 2 hrs 30 min Sat 05/06/2006 WPTD 16 Other/Drama PG, Strong Language, English, 1976 Alan J. Pakula's account of the Watergate scandal as uncovered by Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman). Jason Robards (Best Supporting Actor), Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, Hal Holbrook, Jane Alexander. Oscar-winning script by William Goldman, who adapted Woodward and Bernstein's book. Cast & Credits: Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Jason Robards, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam
At least we'll recognize Hillary as the enemy.
Oh, now that's a reason to throw your vote away if I ever heard one ;)
Yawn ... yet another calculated attempt to disenchant the base. This will increase in fervor as we get closer to November.
I don't suppose there's a chance that, if she is elected, you'll leave FR, is there?
Are will you have the nerve to sit here for 8 years whining about what a B*T*H she is and how she's ruining the country?
I think one day Bush43 will get credit for standing strong in the face of terrorism and for advancing a tough foreign policy agenda. Likewise, Bush will also be remembered for a failed domestic policy agenda. Spending like a liberal, expanding the federal bureaucracy and promoting a liberal policy of open borders and illegal immigration, shows how far Bush and the GOP Congress have strayed from the conservative agenda.
Very true - if you want "bold" you really need to go with a lefty; they really know how to stay in goosestep and on-message while our conservative coalition always fight each other like wildcats.
Ah, Jonah...another Bot falls by the wayside. Have you taken down your altar yet?
And perhaps Johah is twisting history to try to make a point.
I want effective. Bold and ineffective stinks. They are not mutually exclusive, though. If it's one or the other, I'd pick effective.
My post is obviously way over your head.
Really? Prior to 1966 or 1967, I don't think so. Bobby Kennedy was on Joe McCarthy's staff. Kennedy and, mainly, Johnson, got us into the shooting war in Vietnam. George Kennan, the author of the containment doctrine, was a democrat.
Sure, Nixon was an anticommunist (I disagree with confronting "totalitarianism", but debates about Chile, etc., aren't for this thread). But, until Bush II, Democrats were the ones who got us into wars.
Don't kid yourself.
It most certainly is not.
Ignorance is just that not hard to spot.
And the solid wall of noise will never end until RATS are back in control of everything.
You want bold? That's not do-able without a solid wall of noise. No matter who gets in, if they are a Republican, the media will pump out that solid wall of noise night and day until we want someone else.
It seems to be a stratagy that works.
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.