Posted on 05/21/2006 12:53:53 AM PDT by FairOpinion
President George W. Bush strides across the world stage as much as the U.S. dominates the world's stage.
This is very good news for those of us who still believe in decency and democracy.
So forget what some slanted opinion polls say about the leadership of the 43rd president and his patriot countrymen.
Recall, Sir Winston Churchill was once one of the most detested men in Britain, then went on to save the free world.
That's Churchill's undisputed legacy.
In another era it may be Bush's legacy, too.
This past week, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, one of America's strongest allies, was in Washington on a state visit.
He was hailed by one and all in the nation's capital.
Later, Howard was in Ottawa to visit America's latest allies, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the newly elected Conservative government of Canada.
And we all know British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also one of Bush's -- and America's -- strongest allies.
Bush and America have many other allies throughout the world, too, although to read the nauseating Lib-Left news media, one would get the impression Bush is a pariah and America a rogue state.
Well, would you rather have the likes of Communist China, Communist North Korea, or Communist Cuba soldiering the world?
How about Middle East sheikdoms such as Iran, Libya, or Yemen running the show.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already let it be known when his nation gets its hands on nuclear weapons he will use them against the Western democracies.
North Korea's president Kim Jong-il boasts he already has nuclear weapons and is building intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry them to western countries.
Back in the 1960s, Castro tried to install Soviet missiles on his island nation aimed at Canada and the U.S.
Do you honestly believe Bush, Blair, Howard and the like do not have a duty to safeguard us against these types.
Or would you rather have a stack of African dictatorships in charge -- nations ravaged by tribal warfare with their hands constantly out for billions of dollars in western aid that invariably is used to build luxurious palaces and deposited in secretive Swiss banks.
Vladimir Putin's Russia is a mess -- democracy there is in danger -- and old Soviet-style hawks want to take it back to the days of Stalinism.
Many of its non-Eastern European vassal states are in a mess, too, governed by local chieftains.
In Latin America bullies such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez are on the rise.
Their hero, Fidel Castro, lives in luxury while his people continue to live under decades of food rationing.
India and Pakistan -- always at each other's throats, and courtesy of past Canadian Liberal regimes loaded with nuclear missiles -- pose a constant threat to that part of the world.
In Italy, we just lost Silvio Berlusconi, one of Bush's and America's best friends, in favour of left-winger Romano Ponti, and we don't know where he stands on preserving the international rule of law.
In Spain, when the Conservative government of Jose Maria Aznar fell, and Socialist Jose Zapatero came into power, the Spanish quickly capitulated to Islamic terrorist blackmail.
Thankfully, NATO and Norad are still holding together, and some perceptive Europeans leaders are even talking about a missile shield against rogue nations similar to the one proposed by Bush and rejected by weak-kneed types such as the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberals.
Gutless, every one of them.
Talk about 21st century Neville Chamberlains!
So we're left basically with Bush, Blair and Howard and whatever smaller nations such as freed Soviet slave states in the European Union can pull together.
Yes, we've all read in the midst of this international war on terror that Bush has slipped this month to an all-time low in opinion polls at just 29%.
But recall that back in 1951 during another war on terror -- the attempt to prevent Josef Stalin's hordes from advancing into Western Europe and the all-out effort to save South Korea from advancing Communist North Korean forces, backed by Red China -- Democratic President Harry Truman fell to 23% in the polls.
The anti-America mobs can howl all they like, but I'm sticking with Bush, Blair, Howard and other true leaders of the western democracies.
I hope you are, too.
Excellent points. But for the ideologically pure on this forum and elsewhere, if a pol isn't one hundred percent conservative, then he's a lib. It's nutty reasoning, but some people are never satisfied. Bush must be perfect to please them. He's not, but overall he's been very good. They can't see that.
I still think years from now when we forget our immediate disappointments and start looking at the Bush presidency in the big picture (which is the real picture for Presidents), we will see him as a man Reagan would greatly approve of.
Somehow I doubt it. Bush is doing what he signed on to do; create the North American Free Trade Zone which is integral to the creation of the One World Government. Remember that when you are standing in line for your implanted computer chip. By now this should be obvious to any sentient adult in this county, but you just keep drinking the Kool Aide brother and don't worry about a thing. Bush will take take of you.
How is allowing 100+ million illegal aliens into the country going to make you safer?
The sellout by the President and the Senate is liekly one of the greatest crisis facing this nation. 130 years ago they would have been run out of office on a rail for even discussing such treason!
"I still think years from now when we forget our immediate disappointments and start looking at the Bush presidency in the big picture (which is the real picture for Presidents), we will see him as a man Reagan would greatly approve of. "
Or maybe with 75 million quasi educated poor immigrants and riots in the streets, at that point we won't have enough time to remember Bush at all. Sorry to point out that the stakes on the immigration issue are show stoppers, but I live in a destination for illegals and we are already being swamped.
Continúe bebiendo al amigo de la Kool Aid.
I'm beginning to wonder..........SERIOUSLY wonder..........what the psychological problems are of all you freepers who keep saying you were 'betrayed.'
In addtion to your sel-absorbed view that the President of the United States, and Leader of the Free World is at your beck and call, and has to do what YOU want, or your feeling are hurt, you show an amazing ignorance of history, the Constitution, and the real world.
I feel sorry for ALL of you.
Great article, indeed.
I wonder if these lily livered folks who are running away from this President will get up the courage to admit how wrong they were when President Bush's legacy is clear.
Think any of them have the guts to say "I blew it" for all their grousing and self-pity during these amazing eight years of strong leadership and real courage?
I doubt it.
We just call them The Wrist Slitter Wing of the GOP.
Anyone who doesn't, has ignored the facts and is blind to what has been going on for the past 5 years.
And anyone who accuses you of drinking Kool-aid is an unimaginative dolt...........even if he thinks he's clever by doing it in Spanish.
I'm beginning to think that there's been some brain cell damage in some of these guys. All the more reason to think that they're liberals.....
Ditto.
Never forget that a choice between the lesser of two evils is still a choice.
I seriously can't believe all the whining and moaning going on around here. What is with all this 'he betrayed me' garbage??
Do they really think that the President's job is to make them feel better?? Too many self-esteem classes in public schools, and not enough government, history and civics is my guess.
Yep .. in the same way Reagan did
And I also remember how Reagan was treated by the hard liners as well as by the liberals
Some like to try and rewrite history .. I was there, lived through it and remember many things
Hey, I have an idea! How about you drop this stupid slippery slope fallacy and tell us why the President's immigration policy is good. You're not going to win anyone over to your way of thinking from the position that the only alternative to bad is worse.
Continúe apoyando a sus amigos de los liberales
Do you remember, after his first election, the yelling when he didn't immediately rescind the "no snowmobiling" rule at Yellowstone Park? I wish I could find some of those threads. I also presume the rule was rescinded, since nobody's yelling anymore.
He's a lame duck. Not a king-maker.
Many people will argue there is little difference between some of the RINO votes on issues and how the Democrats vote on those same issues. That is true but very misleading.
The party that controls the House and Senate decides what bills are brought before Congress. And if you think the RINOs would vote like the liberals on the Bills the Democrats would bring before congress Hillary has some ocean front propery in Arizona that you will surely want to check out.
If the Democrats controlled congress the issues brought to a vote would be far different. I submit that had the Democrats won the house an senate in 1994, the Clinton administration would have turned left faster than you can say "The House will be in Order." When the liberals lost .. Clinton was saing the era of big government was over.
What comes before congress is what the party that controls congress wants to have a vote on. Things that Democrats really would like to enact have zero chance of being brought up for a vote or even for hearings as long as Republicans are in control. Put the Democrats in control and you have a whole new situation. I would ask you to look a LBJ administration to see how that works.
What will happen if the Democrats get control of the House and Senate. The liberal establishment wants one thing in particular. They want to re-enact is the so called "Fairness Doctrine". This time they want to apply it to all media.
That would end Talk Radio and the Internet as a force for the right or left. It would leave the MSM as the only source for news and commentary. Those that can't see it as a big item in the Democrat agenda are just not thinking. All the right is thinking about is punishing RINOs while the Democrats are intent on using that revolt to emasculate the right.
The orginal Fairness Doctrine only applied to Radio and TV stations. But now the Democrats want to make it apply to all media.. including the Internet.
Under the orginal Fairness Doctrine in force from 1967 until 1987, political talk shows like Rush Limbaugh were illegal. A station that was bold enough to carry a show like Rush's in 1975 would have lost its license to broadcast at all.
Does anyone on Free Republic really understsand what a Fairness Doctrine applied to the internet would do to FREE REPUBLIC? It would make FR illegal. And the people who run and post on FR would be felons under the new Fairness Doctrine law being considered as one of their first acts once the Democrats get the House, Senate and Presidency. P>Does anyone think the MSM would oppose it? Of course not! Newspapers, and even the Broadcast Networks supported the Fairness Doctrine adopted during the LBJ administration. Reagan wanted to do a political talk show in the early 70s... But he could not! It was illegal. So one of Reagan's major goals was to repeal the Fairness Doctrine.
What many fail to see is that the a vote on the Fairness Doctrine by a RINO as opposed to the vote of a liberal are very different. Of course as long as the Republicans are in control there is no chance of a Fairness Doctrine being brought to a vote.
The primary message the Democrats are hearing is the Right will do all it can to help the Democrats remove their poltical influence. Democrats think that the political right is ignorant of the real world, and can be induced to do self destructive things. They hold conservatives in contempt. They know they can use the emotional responce of Conservatives to elect Democrats.
Does anyone with a brain fail to understand why the media is making illegal immigraition such a huge issue in 2006. It has been a major problem for decades. Does anyone want to bet me that illegal immigration will not fall of the media radar the day the Democrats take control?
Many Freepers are not aware that during WWII Roosevelt made criticsm of the WAR on broadcast stations a crime. Can you imagine a Presidnet Bush making criticism of the war in Iraq illegal? A Democrat President, FDR, made criticism of a war illegal.
Of Course Miss Marple is exactly right. After every election both parties persue the returns and then try to adopt what they think can give them a majority in the next election. If Democrats are getting elected, then both parties become more liberal. If Repubicans are getting elected then both parties become more conservative. The first act of a Democratic American Government is to enact laws that will keep Democrats in power.
Many people on the right can't see the forest for the trees. They gladly participate in their own destruction under the guise of seending a message.
What astounds me is my own experience in Ohio. I have met many of the county party officials especially in southern ohio. I am by far the most conservative of the bunch.
What one learns is conservatives rarely get involved in the Republican party. Conservatives stand on the side lines and demand that the party do what they want. But those who control the party, that is those that donate time, effort, money and skill don't share their conservative views on issues. The people who volunteer and do all the work, have no reason to grant conservative wishes.
What do candidates do? Here in Ross County there are a small number of Republican activists who can put 3,000 votes in a candiate's column when ever they wish to do so.
Do you really think a candidate is going to tell 3,000 RINO produced votes to shove it. What are the odds of a candidate trying to please some conservatives that never show up to do any work and never do anything except to say .. "Do what I want or I will take a walk." The people who have proven in many elections that they are good for 3,000 votes will prevail every time and they do.
Many candidates and party officials are convinced that only a handful of conservatives exist. They believe they are vocal but few in number. So even if the conservatives are a majority of Republicans the candidates and Party Officials do not believe it. The candidates believe in the people who show up to work for their election.
If the Democrats do win this fall, Republican candidates will assume the voters have moved left and if they want to win the next time they need to move more to the left as well.
The big question for me is why are there so few conservatives getting involved in the Republican party. The RINOs in charge say that is because there are really very few of them. Are they wrong?
I don't know.
But I do know this... those that get involved in a political party, do canvasing, man phone banks, work to get out the vote, recruit other like minded people to join the party, and build their own little political machine have a huge influence on a party and its candidates. Those that want to take their marbles and go home,have zero influence.
There are just two way to influence policy. That is to get involved and do all the hard work to gain majority support for that issue. To work for and help elect candidates that know what you have done to elect them. The other is to donate large sums of money. But money is only used to try to get more votes. It has been my experince with candidates that votes in the hand always beat money in the bushes.
Supporters who do the work to get out the vote rarely get told no on an issue they want a candidate to support. Those that stand on the sidelines threatening to send messages rarely if ever get told yes on an issue they want a candidate to support.
From 1961 until 1965 Barry Goldwater organized a grass roots effort that took over the Republican party. They were strong enough in 1964 to get Barry easily nominated. Their problem was they did not do what it takes to get the voters on their side. I was quite surprised after the 1964 landslide defeat, that the conservatives walked away from the Republican party and mostly just pouted. Some of them are still on FR and still pouting.
I have posted it many times and it is true. Get a majority of the Voters to support your positions and policitians will come out of the woodwork to adopt your platform and work as hard as they can to enact it.
Fail to get majority voter support and the most you can hope for is lip service and gross disappointment.
I greatly respect the service of your son/daughter to our country. That being said, blind allegiance to any political leader is foolish. Bush is no different. I do not completely trust anyone in Government (from the president on down to the dogcatcher) to do anything for me
Certainly Bush has done many things right. I voted for him twice. But he is dead wrong on the immigration issue and it will be extremely harmful to the United States if he and the Senate are allowed to set in place the North American Free Trade zone and ultimately further the goals of the One World Order (yeah, call me a conspiracy nut if you want, but there is plenty of documentation to support it).
You may call me a dolt but I am not alone on the immigration issue and apparently 80% of Americans of all political stripes agree on closing the borders.
You should really be asking yourself the question why in the face of such opposition from the American people would Bush and the elitist in the Senate be so hell bent for leather to push for open borders if there was not some greater agenda of which We The People are not being told?
LOL! As far as implying I am a brain damaged liberal I will put my credentials as a constitutional conservative up against yours anytime. I've been called many things but Liberal is not one of them. As far as the Spanish statement, lighten up. A little political satire is healthy.
Me too. I went from thinking Bush belonged on Mt. Rushmore - literally - to talking back to some radio host last week by starting out saying, "When we get rid of Bush we can ..." (in ref to the illegal problem).
BUT I know the dims would be VERY much worse. I think the reason we are so upset is because we weren't very realistic in our expectations. Until he just couldn't keep his mouth shut on the illegal business, Bush was very good or good enough on almost everything else (not CFR).
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.