Katrina and Iraq (up to this point) should have had nothing to do with the slide in the president's popularity. The others can be laid at his doorstep.
The White House got Zarqawi. With a lot of help from their friends on the ground, in the air and at sea of course.
John LeBoutillier thinks the MSM's negative spinning on
Immigration/amnesty, Dubai Ports, Harriet Meyers, Katrina, deficits and Iraq have destroyed Mr. Bush’s credibility as president?????
What a wuss!!
Start shipping the illegals back --- now!
And Dubai Ports. If we'd broken our deal on Dubai Ports, all the IOUs that the US is giving out around the world would have been worthless.
This sums it up, though...
Both George Bushes - father and son - tried to portray themselves as conservatives; both were cynical manipulators who cleverly used symbols - pork rinds, country music, a phony ‘ranch’ with no animals - to hide their Rockefellerism belief in massive federal power, especially when they control that power.
I seem to recall that this guy has ALWAYS hated Bush.
The one I'm most angry about right now is the failure to immediately, that's IMMEDIATELY........... END THE DEATH TAX !
Bill Archer and the Republican Congress are rolling over for the Democrats on this issue. If we can't get anything done when we control the Presidency and both Houses, why in the hell should we continue to work for the election of these worthless clowns ?
I'm completely fed up !
Iraq and Katrina neither one are high on my personal list of bad moves. In fact Iraq is just about where it should be (other than this recent spate of BS involving ALLEGED murders).
Katrina never was "his" to fail or succeed at. That was all on the state of Louisiana. Mississippi got hit one hell of alot harder than NOLA did, you didn't hear them whining and crying. They bucked up and got the job done and helped one another, as NOLA should have.
Immigration tho, that's a stinker. I don't agree with the President on this issue, but I have to admire him in that he has not changed his stance. He made a decision on what he wanted and then went after it. He hasn't wavered.
I prefer that quality in a leader rather than a vacilating pig like Clintoon was.
But he's still wrong on Immigration.
It's immigration that has ruined Bush with conservatives. He is choosing to give away our country and it's sovereignty to whoever can get here by whatever means.
Amazing that the one issuers are now promoting a guy, leboutillier, who promoted mccain to the hilt in 2000.
>>>Since when did we conservatives believe the federal government should usurp state’s rights?<<<
Since federal and state judges started usurping state's rights. If LeBoutillier took the time he might recall that state legislatures now serve at the whim of state and federal judges, who have, at the encouragement of the ACLU and similiar haters of American culture, systematically made "unconstitutional" everything that was good and decent in our culture. There are few options in restoring our culture, other than constitutional amendments, or impeaching large numbers of judges at the state and federal level.
There is one other option: the congress could limit, via legislation, the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, for example, in matters of religion, abortion, and public decency. If the judiciary is forbidden to rule on cultural issues, they are also forbidden to destroy our culture.
Of course, as long as there is the unconstitutional filibuster in the senate, it will be difficult to place restrictions on the judiciary.
the Bush/Senate/McCain/Kennedy amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The fact that Bush's name is among the others along with a GOP Senate largely complicit, says more than enough on that issue.
So they are - again - trying to federalize a state issue: marriage.
Since when did we conservatives believe the federal government should usurp state’s rights?
While I agree with just about all of the article, it seems that they are trying to make this ammendment specifically for purposes of state's rights. Not making it would seem to entail that what's good in one state must be honored in the other 50, which then by default inhibits state's rights. Thoughts?
Of course the "slippery slope" part of that is using the Constitution for moral issues in a nation whereby moral relatavism reigns.
For a good chuckle, check out the Democratic Underground Zaeqawi thread.
Basically, it's more lies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2327738#2327740
The author of this hit piece is full of crap. Dubya is a student of history and is fully cognizant of how lessons learned from from a historical perspective can prevent the same mistakes, or missteps, from occurring again. This author doesn't grasp the concept that this nation is at war, granted not the intensity of a WWII, but every bit as dangerous.
>>>Katrina and Iraq (up to this point) should have had nothing to do with the slide in the president's popularity. <<<
Somewhat true on Katrina. The media created the myth that the federal government screwed-up by not instantly coming to the rescue of everyone in the 91,000 square-mile area of devastation, and by not instantly cleaning up and rebuilding. The media also greatly exaggerated the problems at the shelters. Bush's popularity was hurt (IMO) because he did not stand his ground against the onslaught of the media, but instead gave them a scapegoat in Mike Brown. That was the poorest, wimpiest exhibition of leadership I had ever seen, and led me to question his leadership from that point on.
On Iraq he has also failed time and time again to stand his ground against the constant onslaught of lies and distortions by the media. There will be critics of his handling of the military operations by arm-chair generals and monday-morning quarterbacks, just as there were critics of Ike's D-Day planning and operations. The difference is Ike's critics were not in virtual 'real-time', and you could be hung or shot for treason in those days. These days treason will get you a Pulitzer. Why? Because Bush will not stand up to those treasonous sobs and throw them in jail. Instead, he acts like an ultra-left wing public school teacher toward misbehaving children who tries to 'understand them', who doesn't want to hurt their feelings.
Anyway, my wife and I have tried to understand Bush, believing at times that he was just too arrogant (too above us mere mortals) to bother to comment when he was criticized. At other times we thought he was too dumb to respond. In either case, he is no conservative and he has proven to be as poor a leader as his father.
Question: why didn't these oh-so-brave congresscritters stand up against all this other crap? Did they HAVE to wait until the dam broke?
John LeBoot has been bashing away at President Bush from the moment he took office way back in 2001.
A Ronald Regan is a rare phenomenon. Looking for one is an admission of hopelessness.
Dubai was fearmongering by Schumer and a bunch of paranoid handwringers. Politically it hurt because the GOP in the Senate and House lost their nerve.
Deficits have never been a motivating factor for the average voter--even in '94 the average voter wasn't freaked out about the deficit. Even Reagan wasn't too upset: he said the deficit is "big enough to take care of itself". In jest, of course, but the point is clear: deficits are not a big factor in the mind of Joe Sixpack.
I think Bush's low numbers stem from immigration and gas prices. Not necessarily in that order. Of course, the factors you mentioned probably HAVE hurt him with his base but not the average person.