Bush's Base Betrayal

The Washington Post ^ | Sunday, May 21, 2006 | Richard A. Viguerie

[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.

[HitmanLV]

Murder - one person's dead.

Adultery - one person gets loosey goosey with a person not their spouse. Other spouse's feelings get hurt.

Not even remotely comparable.

[BW2221]

Last comment because it's after midnight.

I believe a lot of conservatives have had a number of issues with Bush, primary issues they considered minor, but there have been a number of areas in which his base felt betrayed ... but not enough to truly become disenchanted.

I know it's a bad analogy, but just as 9/11 was a defining moment, so was Monday night's speech. To steal a line from the movie NETWORK; "We're mad as hell ... and we're not going to take it any more."

On Fox Newwatch, Nutty Neal accused Bush of making Monday night's speech to appease his base. This may be true and, if so, Bush and his staff are certainly out of touch with conservatives. The speech definitely energized his base, but not in the way Bush had hoped. Good night all!

[RKBA Democrat]

"The Democrats literally ran its right wing out of the party."

Mmmmm. Not completely. There a few of us left. But a threatened species to be sure.

I think the issue was more one of conservatives in the Democratic party being attracted to the Republican party and then leaving en masse. The radical left in the Democratic party was more than content to hold the exit door open as the conservatives walked out.

I think in the long run, that exodus of conservatives from the Democratic party has proven to be a disaster for conservatives. Conservative Democrats did, and to a limited extent still do, act as a counterbalance.

[smoothsailing]

I guess it's just all way over my head, quite frankly.

To me, having a limit on what anyone can be paid, either be it a maximum or a minimum, ultimately constrains the free market and threathens capitalism. I see no reason for any limit, up or down.

[Lib-Lickers 2]

Reagan never had to worry about terrorists blowing up millions of Americans

pretty much trumps all the other stuff

[Old_Mil]

Murder - one person's dead. Adultery - one person gets loosey goosey with a person not their spouse. Other spouse's feelings get hurt. Not even remotely comparable.

While I appreciate your reasoning, and you make the case why ou believe that murder is worse than adultery, this really doesn't address my original point which was the reason why either act is a moral wrong to begin with.

[HitmanLV]

It didn't address it because i agree with you on that. I just don't find the sins remotely comparable, that's all.

[unseen]

When you cheat you betray your vows. i.e your word it makes no difference why you did it. Rather you found the person sexually stimulating, you were out for revenge, you were bored it doesn't matter you broke your vow to that person. So when the spouse says "how could you do this to me" they are right. You broke your vow to him/her. So you having sex with someone else is doing something to your spouse. You broke your word, you lied you betrayed them. The act of having sex is not what a spouse is arguing about it is the breaking of the vow.

The spouse that doesn't break their vow is the good spouse. The cheater is the bad, no matter how bad the marriage is they kept their vows to remain faithful the other did not.

Better and worse means what it says. If the marriage is rocky or a bad marriage so what? You want to make it better work at the marriage. He vowed to keep her for better and worse in sickness and health. By your argument if your spouse stopped being able to have sex it would be perfectly ok to go have it with someone else. The marriage vows is what holds the marriage together. Lust is no excuse to throw away your word.

I'll say it again a person that cheats for whatever reason be it once or for years has a serious character flaw and is not a person I would consider a good person.

[nopardons]

Oh goody, yet another n00b, with MARXIST tendencies, when it comes to financial matters. Just what FR needs...NOT!

Did history begin twenty years ago?

Instead of mouthing off ab out what CEOs are paid now, how about going back, oh, let's saw 125 years ago. I would suggest that you go back further, to begin your research, but I don't want to overtax you; especially since envy is eating you up alive, as it is.

Psssssssssssssssssssst.......in 1880, Marshall Field ( the owner of Field's department store, made $600.00 an HOUR, whilst his shop girls made $3.00 to $5.00 a WEEK and their salaries WERE charged for breakage, mistakes, lunch, and there was NO overtime, health insurance, sick days, pensions funds, 401Ks, nor anything else you take for granted!

[durasell]

Hunt's Point is one of the seventh wonders of the world. That they all don't speak english well doesn't matter -- they all curse like native born Americans.

[unseen]

Did you vote for him?

yes,, God help me

Hmmmm and here I was thinking the president's job is to veto out of control spending

Oh he should just let the Congress have its way? You have heard of checks and balances? That's why the president has the veto power to have some control over Congress. If Congress is out of control the president is Constitutional responsible to step in and stop them as much as he can be it spending, suppressing freedom's (finance reform bill), or any other nutty thing they can think of.


The UAE (and especially Dubai) has a lot freedom of religion for the Mideast. It's also an ally in the War on Terror. Do you have a problem with that and do you have a problem with it supplying security to U.S. Naval ships docking there?

Yeap go read a Bible and have a church meeting there and see what happens to you. And yes I have problems with a country linked to the 9/11 highjackers and to UBL providing security to our ships and to the WOT

Which means you should not have a problem with Bush since he never sent up a stealth liberal nominee.

prove that she wasn't...you can't

That's Max Mayfield and the reports I've seen are Dubya having to press Nagin. Emergency procedures worked as expected in Mississippi and that was hit just as bad.

Nagin was a joke and Blanco also and so too was Bush the three stooges running the show IMO but Max personally called Nagin and pleaded for him to call the evac. which he did half-assed

Spending bills start in the House. They are free to ignore what the President submits and almost always do. There is no line item veto. Unless he President wants to veto the whole thing, he has to accept it.

He doesn't have to accept anything. Veto the whole thing and send it back with why he vetoed it. You think 3/4ths of the house would support a bridge to nowhere if it stopped the bill from getting signed?

Rule of thumb that you can take to the bank -- If the NEA is against it, it is good.

Another rule of thumb if Kennedy is a cosigner it's a bad bill

So you're saying Specter was not the Republican incumbent?

No he was the liberal RINO incumbent that could have been defeated. What has that support of the President got him? calls for wire tap probes? Hmm another win-win there for the REPS.


The 9/11 attackers came with approved Visas and on commercial flights. They did not sneak over the border.

Never said they did I said tougher border entry standards which means granting Visas after back ground checks, and the airports they they arrived too last time I looked was still in US lands.

Oh yeah. Dubya is just a big supporter of the UN.

He keeps funding them. He's also going to them for Iran.

[Maynerd]

Reagan never had to worry about terrorists blowing up millions of Americans pretty much trumps all the other stuff

If terrorirsts are on the verge of killing millions of Americans then why in the hell isn't Bush sending the military to secure the border and ports? Why isn't the TSA profiling at airports instead of wanding grandmas? Why does Bush show deference and respect to their ideology (Islam)? FDR didn't play patty cake with fascism. Reagan stated communism will be consigned to the ash heap of history.

The Soviet Union and economic decline (stagflation) and malaise were much bigger challenges than the current collection of mideval religious fanatics. I support Bush's (limited) WOT but he won't take the ideological fight to Islamfacism. Saudia Arabia is our friend, remember? /sarcasm

[unseen]

Murder - one person's dead.



Adultery- one family dead..

Sounds prettly close to me.

[unseen]

normally I would agree with you. But with gas/oil it is something that Americans need. therefore if gas goes to high people can not say oh well I just won't go to work anymore. In view of the huge importance oil/gas plays to our economy and national security there must be some government regulation of the industry and we should not be held at knife point to greed of oil execs. What type of regulation that is needs to be debated.

[unseen]

no he had to worry about Russia blowing all 300 million of us up.

[Maynerd]

Also, I don't recall Reagan saying, "Communism is a philosophy of peace."

LOL. Sounds like a good tagline.

[smoothsailing]

LOL! You're good, np. The noob has been in my sights for a while too!

We'll all be so happy once we know the acceptable norm! :D

But alas, the noob has left the building, perchance to massage his ego.HA!

[smoothsailing]

normally I would agree with you..

Why? Or to put it another way, what to you is "normally"?

there must be some government regulation..

Oh my, now you've totally lost me. :)

[unseen]

normally the free market works in the short term. Over the long term free markets tend to become unfree markets due to monopolies. It is the government's responsibility to regulate commerce so that a free market is always there. When one company has a product that is necessary to the continuation of our economy it is the governments resposniblitity to ensure that that company does not do the economy harm in its pursuit of profits. For instance, one company could conceivable buy all the electricity plants in the country and charge whatever they want. Because they would have economy of scale they could put any new electric company out of business and raise rates to the point that they maximize profits. This rate could be more then a large percent of the population could afford and many deaths may occur. These deaths could be from eating spoiled food, lack of air conditioning during warm spells, lack of heat during cold spells, like of water due to pumps not working, etc. In this example it is the government's responsibility to ensure a free market so that prices can be kept at market prices and not artificially high. with only 5 major oil companies left in the USA it is not technically a free market.

[rdb3]

Ya'll better nomimate a real converstiove (like Newt) in 08 or it's the Constitution Party for me.

Okay. See ya.