Posted on 05/10/2006 7:15:13 PM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
Disaffection over spending and immigration have caused conservatives to take flight from President Bush and the Republican Congress at a rapid pace in recent weeks, sending Bush's approval ratings to record lows and presenting a new threat to the GOP's 12-year reign on Capitol Hill, according to White House officials, lawmakers and new polling data.
Bush and Congress have suffered a decline in support from almost every part of the conservative coalition over the past year, a trend that has accelerated with alarming implications for Bush's governing strategy.
The Gallup polling organization recorded a 13-percentage-point drop in Republican support for Bush in the past couple weeks. These usually reliable voters are telling pollsters and lawmakers they are fed up with what they see as out-of-control spending by Washington and an abandonment of core conservative principles more generally.
There are also significant pockets of conservatives turning on Bush and Congress over the their failure to tighten immigration laws, restrict gay marriage and to put an end to the Iraq war and the rash of political scandals, according to lawmakers and pollsters.
Bush won two presidential elections by pursuing a political and governing model that was predicated on winning and sustaining the loyal backing of social, economic and foreign policy conservatives. The strategy was based on the belief that conservatives, who are often more politically active than the general public, could be inspired to vote in larger numbers and would serve as a reliable foundation for his presidency. The theory, as explained by Bush strategists, is that the president would enjoy a floor below which his support would never fall.
It is now apparent that this floor has weakened dramatically and collapsed in places.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Of course I brought it up. But it's my right to decide which portions of my own business I'll reveal here.
And I find it amusing that a "conservative" like you will take my response "as confirmation." That smells like leftism -- even fascism.
"I guess the only difference is that if you get caught using inside information to turn a profit for your investors you get arrested and prosecuted."
And I'm not certain that such criminalization is morally appropriate in a capitalist system.
ROTFLMAO!!! Funny.
Would you hire illegal aliens, knowing that to do so is illegal?
Would you use inside information to turn a profit for your business, thereby increasing the profits of your shareholders, knowing that to do so is illegal?
If your answer is "no" to both questions, congratulations. If your answer is "yes" to both questions, at least you are consistent but would be of questionable ethical nature.
If your answer is "no" to one and "yes" to another (and it doesn't matter which one) you have no ethical compass.
I don't want you to answer the questions because the answers, and the issues raised thereby, are arguably your own business - unless you have business partners or the answers/issues would create problems for customers/vendors.
Presumably none of anyone that might be effected post here.
"Would you hire illegal aliens, knowing that to do so is illegal?"
In my homeowner scenario, I'd never ask, even if the guy came down the street singing the Frito Bandito song. All I'd want to know was whether or not he could be depended on to do good work.
"Would you use inside information to turn a profit for your business, thereby increasing the profits of your shareholders, knowing that to do so is illegal?"
I don't own a business. But if information dropped into my lap though no illegal activity of my own, I'd weigh my actions based in part on the potential for profit vs. the likelihood of loss (including the loss that might come from prosecution).
My ethical compass may be different from yours, but I do have one. "Obeying the law" is not synonymous with "acting ethically."
I'll consider your response as acceptance of my point.
"There you have it! In his own words anything for a buck!"
That kind of mindless jumping to conclusions qualify you for a job at MSNBC. Congratulations.
And there's lots of other laws that many people regularly break, like robbery, burglary, and theft.
According to your logic, since this benefits themselves, and so many people do it, we should encourage it nullify laws against stealing.
According to your logic we must always obey every single law no matter what. (I'm intentionally trying to be as simplistic as you.)
Your position is to encourage and promote lawbreaking.
I do not.
Yes, it really is that simple.
Good luck with that! Under your philosophy we'd still be British subjects.
He showed you're a hypocrite.
Amazing frankness from the Com Post.
Only in your delusional mind. The discussion was regarding the meaning and intent of a law, the breaking of which is a felony.
He diverted the topic to an individual person who he claims broke a law which had absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion concerning the meaning of the law.
Naming a party (individual or group) who "knowingly" or "reasonable should have known" that they committed an act which is felonious, does not CHANGE the MEANING OF THE LAW, does not nullify the law, does not justify the breaking of the law.
But that is EXACTLY what you pro-illegals do: justify lawbreaking because you do it or know someone who has; in your minds you think that the definition of a particular law which displeases you can be broken, depending upon who committed the lawbreaking. I make no such exceptions. A felony committed is a felony committed, regardless person (that's why it's called a "law"): it applies to ALL.
And you insult the heroic acts of patriotic Americans who founded this country.
You are no hero or patriot.
The Republican Party can win me back by delivering on its conservative agenda.
As for the Bushes - never again. I wouldn't vote for a Bush if he dressed up like George Washington. Their liberal faces have been exposed behind the "compassionate conservative" masks.
nonsense.......political BS
You must be joking if you want a repeat of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.
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.