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 ...
A President Hillary would be a real screwing to the USA.
I think Republicans will come out against her in mass.
Yet the lack of border security will cost the Republicans dearly IMO everywhere.
So am I.
If you Can find my post when they backed down in Fallujah You will find out I said then we should have pulled our troops out.
That's when they took it away from the military and turned it over to the State Department [ read politicians] and allowed the money makers [Haliburton] to rush in before the shooting had even stopped.
I said that we would end up dragging this mess out with no end in sight. I said we where going to end up with the same thing happening to us in Iraq as was happening to Israel with these terrorists picking our soldiers off till the people at home got sick of it.
The reason I said that was because we where fighting the same people they where with the same people dictating to our military that dictates our foreign policy to Israel.
The political leaders have learned nothing.
There is no reason that the supposedly most powerful nation on earth should still be trading shots three years later with a third rate country whose army was already broken down.
This what you get when politicians dictate military action. They fight PC wars by the polls.
All we are going to get out of this mess is dead solders, a discouraged military and citizens, richer businessmen, an Islamic Iraq as it was before we got there or worse and enemies around the world with a lot less fear or respect for our nation.
The politicians will once again blame the people for their failure.
It is not our soldiers fault nor is the people's .
It is once again leaders starting a fight they don't have the know how or the stomach for, nor the common sense to leave to those who do.
Does logic tell you that the articles are either all right or all wrong?
Or do we just pick the ones we like?
I know the above was the sentiment at the time particularly among some conservatives in Washington, New Gingrich being one of them. I disagreed then and now.
Firstly, Clinton WAS impeached. He was NOT removed from office.
Secondly, had he been removed from office, Al Gore would have done no more damage in the years remaining than Clinton.
Thirdly, it is unlikely Gore would have been elected to a new term. A majority of Americans, after having the opportunity to get to know him, would have discovered they didn't like him. Dubya would have won far more easily.
Futhermore, you might recall from your history books, Ford was not elected to a new term upon finishing Nixon's term. I believe the scenario would have been the same for Gore.
Lastly, sometimes it is in the best interest of the country to do what is expedient. More often it's in the best interest of the country to do what's right.
Wow Howlin, you're in a spot. If you don't believe one child molester then how can you believe the other?
Translate, please.
Right. Conservatism isn't monolithic.
So you believe people in the midwest or in the south are going to refuse to vote for their local congressman because there is no wall on our border with Mexico? I don't even think people in Texas or California are going to refuse to vote based on that issue. Are you?
If you're saying that it's not a credible site, then none of the articles are credible, right?
Yeah, I saw that today with the two Andrew McCarthy articles.
I have a Police Capt right here and he knows better than to ask about a Mexicans legal status unless they are suspects and apprehended for committing a serious crime.
Good Lord, woman.
I never said anything about the site. I'm trying to figure out why YOU are selectively citing it.
Yeah, well, that's your opinion. If I wanted your opinion I would have asked for it. I instead stated what has become apparent to a much wider crowd than me, myself and "I". Last election, the GOP nearly lost with immensly better numbers than they have now. The dems haven't been able to take a majority win since I was a kid. Perot got 19 percent after bailing on the election and coming back at the last moment.
Why? Simple - a majority back then wanted neither traditional party in office. Perot voiced the positions that average Americans could understand and agree with. He very likely would have won if it weren't for betraying the electorate. common theme, huh... The GOP will lose next go round for exactly the same reasons. Bush is the defacto head of the party and everyone is fed up with his globalist nonsense. Immigration somehow has become the spearhead of that front. I don't know why (sarcasm). No matter who runs for office next time around, it will be with Bush pulling the strings behind the scenes. And being a wartime president doesn't get him a buy on selling us down the river on everything else to do with our national security.
I'm not the one sitting with a shattered base, falling numbers and popular support in the face of upcoming elections in an evenly split country. If a Ross Perot stepped up today, he would be elected. The country is tired of non-performance and betrayal. They're also tired of being tired.
Still waiting...
That's rather obvious.
A lot of folks including many newbies haven't a clue as to how the winds of change whirl around this joint.
During Schiavo, most of the Bots high fiving each other on these immigration threads were ready to commit suicide or opus or run join the clowns and now that they are back in JR's good graces again they act like they own the damn place.
Next crisis issue and they'll all be handwringing and talking about some silly Turkey gang exodus.
I'm not selectively citing it. I happen to have read the article about Connie over there last week and I know that it's the truth.
And that's Morris Dees' site.
So why would I now think the article about Simcox would be fabricated?
Talking in circles. You should recognize that as long as you've been here.
Believe them what?
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.