Posted on 05/20/2006 5:11:47 PM PDT by gwb43_2004
As a candidate in 2000, George W. Bush was a Rorschach test. Country Club Republicans saw him as another George H.W. Bush; some conservatives, thinking wishfully, saw him as another Ronald Reagan. He called himself a "compassionate conservative," which meant whatever one wanted it to mean. Experts from across the party's spectrum were flown to Austin to brief Bush and reported back: "He's one of us."
Republicans were desperate to retake the White House, conservatives were desperate to get the Clinton liberals out and there was no direct heir to Reagan running for president. So most conservatives supported Bush as the strongest candidate -- some enthusiastically and some, like me, reluctantly. After the disastrous presidency of his father, our support for the son was a triumph of hope over experience.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
That question would be meaningful if that was the entire range of options, and it's not. A person can marry another person who, over time becomes a poorer and poorer companion. Maybe they started out fine, and became more loathsome over time. This change need not happen overnight.
Also some people just marry a poor choice for a spouse from the beginning, and come to realize it years later, after a lot of angst and aching.
Also, someone can be a good spouse and things can deteriorate quickly - they can become smitten with a coworker, for example, and have no interest in cultivating their relationship with their spouse.
Someone can be a good spouse and because of increasing work demands neglect their spouse. Often they don't intend to do it, it just happens over time. They make the series of decisions at the expense of their marriage and the alienated spouse finally calls them on it, and finds someone better.
Second, how do you know Newt's wives were loathsome? Seems rather a rush to judgment on your part against two women you don't know at all.
My comments were not regarding Newt at all, but against the general principle that leaving a spouse inexorably makes for a lousy person. I don't think leaving a spouse, or cheating on a spouse (in a certain set of circumstances) necessarily makes a person bad. Indeed, there are some conditions where it can be a good thing.
it might have started for me during the reelection in the second debate. Who was that man in the debate against Kerry I wondered. the one that couldn't put two words together who tried to left lean the dem? Well after the election I found out it was the real Bush not an impostor. to my dismay. But like I said before it was a series of events that led my to look at Bush as a failed President. The images of 9/11 on standing on the pile of debris clouded my reasoning I guess. Still wondering how long it will take for others to see what our leaders are doing to our country. Hopefully the alarm bells will go off in their heads too soon before its too late.
To be entirely fair, there is no compelling reason for her to.
His handling and leadership of the Congress has been abysmal.
But I really broke ranks over immigration. I'm very angry. I think I'll contribute to Frist's opponent.
The thing that struck me about him is that he hit bottom and managed to come back through force of will. Unfortunately, he seemed to have been damaged by the spotlight.
Single moms never did. It was married, white women who voted for Bush in large numbers along with white men in general. Those two groups largely put him over the top. He never did well with either single or divorced women.
It is a sin and a serious one, violating a Commandment. How can that be a good thing?
Interesting. So why did they get behind him so fast? I never understood that, and I was baffled in 2000. I mean, this it the son of George H.W. read-my-lips Bush, a lackluster Republican if there ever was one. I knew Dubya was a bust from the beginning.
To be entirely fair, there is no compelling reason for her to.
No compelling reason for the Wall Street guy to vote dem, but they do.
"Dude, that tax break just put $60k in your pocket! Are you nuts?"
"Yeah, but I just can't vote for Bush..."
Bush is Bush. He hasn't wavered from what he said he would do, and what he has done.
I'm probably more upset with Congress right now.
As much complaining as we see about Bush, we have a congressional majority and nothing happens.
Is this Bush's fault?
Duh no.
If there is a lack of direction in the Republican party it's because:
-There is no clear agenda or strong leadership in the party. Say what you want about Newt, but be formed a strong coalition within the Republican ranks.
-There are too many stinking rat CINOs in the party.
If the Republican party is going to allow so many liberals into their ranks, they are going to lose conservatives from their ranks.
He never did well with either single or divorced women.
I didn't know that, thanks...
"I still must face the fact that he has divided our party
How do you figure that?"
Are you following this thread? Yes, we're really united!
You give him too much slack. U.S. citizens are obligated to take arms to protect the sovereignty of our country when the government ignores an invasion on our soil.
There's a word for what Bush is allowing, promoting, and it begins with a "T."
That's a strange post for someone so 'conservative'.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a democrat." -- Will Rogers.
While conservatives can be a poweful voting block, we are still a minority when compared to the total population and shouldn't allow the arrogance that comes with political power to allow us to forget that.
What's strange about it, it's all true.
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.