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 ...
Title should read "Bush Betrays Base".
Back in 2000, I was stunned by the overwhelming support he got in the primaries. I mean, any one of the contenders, besides McCain, was a better choice.
I'm proud to say I voted against W in the primaries. I voted for him in the general election, both times, but I will never vote for another member of the Bush family as long as I live. There are few political families as perfidious and who have done as much damage to the Republican party as this one.
There were better choices in the 2000 primaries. No, not McCain, but virtually anyone else who was running was better than king George. Why the big donors got behind dubya so quickly is something I will never understand. They seem to have repented of their errors lately, if reports from the various donor meetings are to be believed.
I agree. He's better than any alternative we've been seriously offered. However, The man is rapidly losing my support
I am a native Texan, and regardles....I still must face the fact that he has divided our party... He alone is responsible for any future defeat.
The reason Bush seems slow and flat footed is that he really does not agree with the Conservative base. All his policies point to this. He did just enough for the base to get reelected. After the election he ran from the base as fast as he could go. No mention of immigration, no marriage amendment, no cuts in spending, no strong conservatives for the court, nothing. Now that he is down in the polls he tries to give us 6,000 troops unarmed in support roles at the border to appease us (he still does not consider it a problem if he did the entire army would be there tomorrow) and Karl Rove is dusting off the same-sex marriage play book. It's not going to fly. We voters are not stupid. The leaders in our governments are getting what they have brought onto themselves. I hope Bush's approval goes to zero. And the Senate changes hands (it's democratic already anyway in all but name) If these two things happen watch McCain drop out of the race and more conservative candidates run for 2008.
The article has an answer to that argument:
"Sometimes it is better to stand on principle and suffer a temporary defeat. If Ford had won in 1976, it's unlikely Reagan ever would have been president. If the elder Bush had won in 1992, it's unlikely the Republicans would have taken control of Congress in 1994."
Bingo.
Oops, better not think that Newt is a "real conservative." If you do, you too will be buying damaged goods. I was absolutely on board with everything Newt at first until I watched him sell out his conservatives in the House during the first "government shut down."
Yes, yes, I know he referred to Sen. Robert Dole as Sen. Gasahol but Newt was unable to really lead when the rubber met the road.
He also was totally unable to speak out against Clinton during and before the Impeachment because, he too was having an affair with his Congressional aide.
The result, Newt sold out his base in Congress and they refused to come to bat for him when it counted. He knew he would not be reelected as Speaker of the House so he quit. Now he wants to be your President, nope not for me.
An excellent lecture about how America is defeating herself by being unwilling to believe that she have the right to defend herself.
leonard peikoff
http://www.peikoff.com/America Versus Americans
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=1150Leonard Peikoff, writer, objectivist philosopher
Undermining America's ability to defend herself.
Dr. Leonard Peikoff, intellectual heir to Ayn Rand, explores the unlikely tension between a democratic nation and its people. Peikoff claims that, from its beginning, America has stood for the ideals of the Enlightenment: reason, individual rights, capitalism, and the pursuit of happiness. He asserts that the dominant trends in America today, trends endorsed not only by our leadership, but seemingly by the general public, represent the opposite of these ideals. Dr. Peikoff, considered the foremost philosopher of objectivism, explores this contradiction, along with what he calls our current moral cowardice, with special emphasis on US foreign policy.
Audio Only
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/ram.php?id=1150&size=audioModem Video
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/ram.php?id=1150&size=loBroadband
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/ram.php?id=1150&size=hiFord Hall Forum
Sunday, April 6, 2003
Blackman Hall, Northeastern University
yep... any candidate will always be a lesser of two evils. People tend to forget that it would be exponentially worse if the Democrats were in power.
People also tend to forget that the MSM are absolutely against this President and would love to see him fail.
Which is the bigger betrayal? Bush's policies, or Viguerie
writing for the Washington Post?
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.