Hard Core Republicans Are Fleeing President

The Washington Post ^ | May 11, 2006 | JIm VandeHei and Peter Baker

[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.

[PRND21]

Prove that Conservative Republican Tom Tancredo KNOWINGLY hired illegal aliens to work for him, with a link.

I never said he did. I posted HIS OWN QUOTE saying it's not his responsibility to ask.
You're a hypocrite...quit fighting it, sheesh.

Sorry, I didn't read the rest of your deflection. ;)

[nicmarlo]

I didn't read the rest......

Well, that's been apparent, glad you finally admitted you have not had interest in actually reading anything I've been stating all along. Don't bother posting to me, as the only thing you're interested in doing is making false accusations, stating lies, and name-calling.

[Chickensoup]

I have supported and campaigned for President Bush. I am a solid Republican and came to the Republican Party after the Democratic Party left me in 1992.

I am begining to think that the Republican Party is leaving me too.

This is a no load situation. No illeagal immigration. Period. Your caught, you are deported. Caught twice? Dropped from a chopper into the Gulf.

[TAdams8591]

"A little perspective would go a long way with some of the posters on FR. Conservatives have finally accumulated enough power to be able to force a President to scrap his nomination of his good friend for Supreme Court justice, and you want to give that up by allowing the Democrats to win?"

I was just thinking about the above again today. And Dubais. Don't forget about Dubais.

The conservative media (talk radio, internet, books) has given conservatives a lot of clout.

[Lakeshark]

and name-calling.

Are you causing trouble again.......

:-)

[MJY1288]

" Dropped from a chopper into the Gulf."

And I'm to take you seriously?

[nicmarlo]

Hi sharky.

[Lakeshark]

Hi Nics.

Just wanted to cause some trouble.

Howzzit going?

[nicmarlo]

Good. How's things going in your neck of the woods lake? : )

[Palladin]

Two thumbs up for you and Tom Tancredo.

Bush's speech tonight will alienate even more conservative Republicans.

I hope Tancredo will consider running for President in 2008.

[Lakeshark]

Hey, we have woods here too.

Very nice, actually, not as much rain as I think you've had. It's still a bit cool for May.

I didn't hear the speech. What did you think?

*ducking*

:-)

freepmail me.......

[nicmarlo]

Tom Tancredo is doing what should have been done long ago. I'm very glad he's got the support of at least 40% of the Congressional Republicans now on his side.

He's attacked because he's been the only one who's been speaking out on what the ugly truth is. I'm glad that finally other Conservative Republicans are doing the same.

[MJY1288]

You are a troll

[Revolting cat!]

Tomorrow's headline today:

Hard Core Republicans Are Fleeing President

President Fleecing Soft Core Republicans

[Bobbisox]

I'm as hardcore as they get. I still support this President because he is our best bet. The Republican Party needs to hold together. Patience is not one of our finer qualities. It took us 40 years to take control. We must appreciate what we can get until we have more numbers on our side. The negative media is working a number on all of us, and we can't let them win.

[Chickensoup]

You are a troll



No, I am not a troll.

[VRWCmember]

As usual, the comPost writes a headline that doesn't reflect reality. "Hard-core Republicans" are the ones who will stick by the President even though they are not happy about their issue-du-jour (whether it is not pushing the Senate GOP to go through with the nuclear option to get the rest of his judicial appointments confirmed, or not being tough enough on the border, or not using his veto pen, or whatever). The people bailing on the President and the GOP congress are the fair-weather republicans and the wishy-washy independents.

If the hard-core republicans get more active, lobby their congress critters to get off their fat pork-barreling arses and pass some meaningful reforms, spending cuts, an energy policy that allows expanded oil exploration and makes expanded refining capacity feasible, then the wishy-washy indies and the fair-weather republicans would wander back into the fold. But contrary to the sub-high-school level journalism skills of the comPost reporters, "Hardcore Republicans" are much more committed to fighting for the agenda of continued tax cuts, winning the war on terrorism, and promoting economic growth here at home than they are surrendering the fight to the democrats.

[xJones]

You would think a brick in the head the last time with Clinton should have educated you enough to not repeat getting hit in the head with a brick again. What does it take for some people to learn?

The Clintons were disgusting, but remember Jimmy Carter in 1976? He was running for election after the grossly over-hyped 'Watergate scandal' when Republican was a dirty name, and he proceeded to drag the country down in so many ways.

Just imagine an Al Gore presidency after the 2000 election. He wanted the U.S. to be a signatory to the Kyoto Treaty and a member of the ICC, among many other things. Does anyone really think Gore would have been tougher than Jorge on illegal immigration? And what in the world would Al Gore have done after 9/ll besides gaining 50 pounds?

And then there was Kerry in 2004, and maybe he would have just thrown his ribbons over the Afghanistan border and walked off. (The only reason I regret Kerry's defeat was that Teresa Heinz (Pickles) in the White House would have been funnier than any Monty Python sketch.)

It would be interesting to have more than 2 viable political parties, but we always come down to the fact that nationally the Democrats don't field any half-way decent candidates. So we vote for the lesser of two evils unless you want to throw your vote away on some 3rd party candidate like Ross Perott or Pat Buchannan. Practically speaking, IMHO, promoting strong local Republicans for office and working from the grassroots up is the only outlet we have to try and improve things.

[xJones]

No, I am not a troll.

Prove it. Post some ID, and photos are always preferable. Trolls are short and stumpy, so we need a full body photo, suitably attired.

Hint: Victoria's Secrets outfits always pass the test.)

[A CA Guy]

xJones, IMO the reason we have had a lot or Republicans act out more to the left than we would like is because of the prior success Democrats have had in buying the vote by giving the treasury away.

How does the honest party compete by saying life takes hard work and sacrifice when the other party gives it away just enough to gain their dependence on them?

If you look at what is DEMOCRAT in the voting block, most of it IMO are public employees who are vastly overpaid and unions connected to government who we also know could NOT survive in the private sector.

IMO, the end of the Democrat party for good comes when the following simple law is passes:
No public/union job connected to the government that requires tapping tax payer dollars has the right to pay/pensions or any form of compensation that will exceed the average wage found in the private sector. This would NOT mean the private sector has to bump up wages, but the the public sector needs to lower them.

That is where the action is, and when you get the hands out of the cookie jar, more voters will vote what is best for the country instead of their state of federal sponsored wages.

The teacher's unions are the worst problem in America IMO, they play all sides against the end goal of increasing their power and pay and there is no accountability.

THE ABOVE IS WHERE THE ACTION IS, NOT IN ANY VIABLE 3RD PARTY IMO.