Posted on 05/18/2006 9:59:12 PM PDT by RWR8189
I'll dispute this assertion. In regards to Iraq, conservatives still back the President, although only about 90%, with 10% bailing for reasons of their own, mostly independent of the issue of the War on Terror.
Yes, I pulled those numbers out of my ***. But dissatisfaction with the President is not predicated on Iraq, but on his handling of domestic issues like immigration and spending, and on those issues even a moderate Republican like Bush is preferable to a Democrat.
Mr Baker presents the British Establishment voice. Of course it explains his glasses' colour.
I'm going to step out on a limb here. It's VERY early, but I'm going to make a prediction. OK, here it is...McPain is the RNC's annointed one for the 2008 election. I've been watching his recent performances in the Senate, and I'm convinced he's the heir apparent. The RNC will not back a conservative...that's obvious.
I second that dispute. This is the second time this has been said tonight. The ENEMEDIA is working overtime telling us all the President's problems are the Iraq War. That tells me everything I need to know...it is anything BUT the Iraq War.
A major diversion tactic is at play as the Iraqis prepare to announce their government Saturday.
Bump.
His conclusion, however, is interesting and makes one wonder whether the McGovernites have finally broken their pick with thinking people by siding, however incredibly, with the scum of the earth in their drive to bring down Republicans, conservatism, and America?
Well, that explains the urgent push to legalize 20 million new voters. Sorry, I will never vote for McInsane.
suggests a subtlety about Mr McCain that had not hitherto been a notable feature of his career.
Must have changed his meds.
Pathetic, ephemeral conventional wisdom. Mundane.
Iraq was a risk heard round the world. The after shocks will be heard for decades IMHO....for the betterment of the region.
I'll have to think about that for a bit.
McCain is clearly the 'Rats' favorite Republican. His ADA rating has been rising steadily for years, ever since the early 90's -- both he and Orren Hatch have shown the same tendency to vote with the 'Rats and, in Hatch's case, to pal around with them, most notoriously with the U-Boat Captain. Hatch has also taken to dressing like a Manhattan fop instead of a Western senator.
Your reading of the tea leaves depends in part on press coverage, which of course is in the hands of the enemies of the GOP. But the tendency of the GOP Establishment, whom I call the Yacht Club, to select "their" candidate early and to move early to lock up the nomination by starving everyone else for money is documented in the past. Journalist Theodore White (who wrote the Making of the President series -- I have a copy of his volume on the 1964 campaign, which is excellent since White, complacently rambling about this doubtelessly very satisfying -- for him -- election, lets his guard down and lets all his prejudices show clearly) once devoted chapters to the subject of how the inner wheels of the GOP go about selecting their presidential towel-boys, and I can't say that anything you've observed is inconsistent with what White described.
I'm not voting for any Senator who hasn't been a co-President.
Texasforever wrote: "No one has been "anointed" yet. McCain just has the name recognition that Hillary has. "
Oh, I said I was going out on a limb, but McPain definitely is acting "presidential" in the elitist RNC sense.
lentulusgracchus wrote: "But the tendency of the GOP Establishment, whom I call the Yacht Club, to select "their" candidate early and to move early to lock up the nomination by starving everyone else for money is documented in the past."
President Bush was definitely the annointed one, and McPain is far more acceptable to the RNC than any of the conservatives. Plus, McPain and Bush sound like they are reading off the same script on the immigration debate (we all know where the RNC elites stand on immigration--legalization, legalization, legalization).
I really hate to see supposed conservatives toss around the word "elitist". I guess you have your reasons but I can't figure that out. My point was that we are going to have a pretty big slate to choose from in the primaries and I am sure that each candidate will have his/her opportunity to make their case.
Texasforever wrote: "I really hate to see supposed conservatives toss around the word "elitist"."
OK, what do you mean by "supposed" conservatives? Don't tell me you are another one of those "if you don't agree with me 100% I'm gonna call you an idiot, call your conservatism into question, or declare you a troll" guys, are you? THAT, my fellow FReeper, in uncalled for!
What I meant by elitist is exactly that. I have seen the elitists on the RNC support one RINO after another, including in my home state. I call them elitists because they have the inside track in the Republican Party. They are the power brokers who typically support moderates over conservatives, in spite of the conservative base--the non-elite rank and file. Does that clarify my position?
Hey if you want to talk like a Marxist that's your business. Have a good day.
Texasforever wrote: "Hey if you want to talk like a Marxist that's your business."
Amazing. Absolutely amazing. Now I'm a Marxist.
Whether you agree or disagree with my position, calling me a Marxist is extremely unkind and totally out of line. You could have simply said you didn't agree with my characterization of the RNC.
No doubt the doom-crazed gang at Liberty U slobbered all over such ravings. More temperate minds could inquire how a nation that can't defend its own borders from unarmed invaders plans on reshaping the planet.
Regarding the cherished, sacred Bush Foreign Policy Legacy...Please. As if it's anything other than reheated vomitus from Woodrow Wilson:
"It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance. But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts—for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free." 4-2-1917
Delusional Utopian dingbat--I mean, quite the optimist! What an ambitious plan! Freedom for the whole flippin' world, as specified in our Constitution (somewhere, I'm sure). How did Wilson's plan turn out, BTW?
I concur. And people who've read the history of the Titanic know that J. Pierpont Morgan and his British partners didn't build her for the first-class passengers, but to haul masses of steerage passengers to the New World to populate the hinterland next to Morgan's huge railroad land grants, so they could pay "all the traffic can bear" to Morgan's railroads to have their produce brought to market in the cities.
The superrich have always tried to keep plenty of replacement workers on hand, so they can break unions and underpay and maltreat their workers.
And I didn't say that -- Milton Friedman did.
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.