Posted on 06/09/2007 10:27:26 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
See post 31 as to why it only takes one HUGE negative to outweigh many small positives. "Fickle" has **** to do with it. Bush is sounding the death knell of any chance of further conservative governments in the US.
Bunch of nonsense. President Bush has done pretty much all he promised to do during his campaign. The economy is excellent, he has kept the baby-killers at bay, he has put education standards in place, AND he is an excellent role model as husband, father and son, and christian in our morally decaying society.
The following web site has some very well written articles on President Bush and his history. I neither support nor condemn the positions taken by the arthor but I do believe that President Bush is much more consistent to his beliefs and policies over time than most will admit or remember.... jmo.
Yes, for those who are weak of heart.
Actually, it's going quite well. America is winning the WOT quite rapidly as Anbar province is being won block by block. Despite what the media would have you believe, which far too may conservatives still swallow hook, line and sinker.
May God continue to bless President Bush as CIC.
One should not wait to give someone credit where credit is due. Those who have fought a good fight such as the pro-life one should be given encouragement WHILE they're fighting it, not years later.
Yes, he's a man of his word.
We are lucky to have a man of his word in the Oval IMO after having 8 years of lies, spin and even perjury.
The generals were lucky to have their media almost 100% on their side.
Who’s fault is that? Who is supposed to LEAD the nation?
Presidency in time of war is a gift that confers greatness through the ages. True from Washington on down.
To small of a man in to big of a job.
One more thing. The worlds only superpower is not supposed to be mired on the field of battle against a bunch of rag-tag irregulars going on 6 long years.
I'm sure you would join in the chorus "It's Bush's fault". LOL.
Ronald Reagan had the same commie media attacking him. No one ever said it was his fault. They recognized that the media was the enemy. I'm sure some more simple-minded people thought Reagan could just sit down with Dan Rather and convince him to stop being treasonous. However, understanding people know that the media can't be "convinced".
It was only after Reagan's term that he was recognized as a worthy leader who fought the good fight. It will be the same with President Bush.
Oh, wise one. You probably would have given up years ago.
You have no idea what an unmerciful pounding using all weapons in the arsenal would be delivered if i was in command.
America and Israel would be in grave danger with you and the rest of the "nuke them all" crowd in charge.
Splain that!
“rich” DC politicians live in their private compounds living off inherited moneyUh, no. Most Congressitters are self-made. We know a few who married money, and we know a few who inherited it. Frankly, if more inherited it, there'd be more sanity in estate taxes.
Just about the worst problem of Congressional isolation from the rest of the country is the nature of Congressional income: they have too many perks and not enough earned income which would be subject to taxation -- as well as anomolously large pensions. If they made more in salary and less in deferred income they'd actually realize just how detrimental the tax structure is to wealth creation.
Here for Answers to Questions About Congressional Pay & Perks
When they get nuked the danger quickly subsides. Ask Japan, they behaved like pussycats for the last 6 decades.
Right...good rationale for Russia to use them on us after you nuke Iraq, Iran and whomever else you choose.
On the other side, I have a problem with:One thing to consider, always, is what horrors an opposition-party president would have sponsored, and how much worse the existing legislation might have been.
I'm not a believer in "co-option" (also known as "triangulation"), or adopting part of an opposition agenda in order to defeat it. Still, there is something to be said for it: sometimes by moderating the worst of a national impulse we can defeat that impulse's worst impact. We also cannot ignore the immediate impact of co-option in its smothering effect: once enacted, a co-option law tends to shut down the agitation.
I'd put "No Child," Campaign Finance, and Medicaid Rx bills into the co-option categories. Since their enactment there's been precious little agitation by the opposition for more. The Rx giveaway even shut down the largest, most powerful lobby in DC, AARP.
But that's politics. I know the response this will illicit: where's the principle? Like I said, I'm not a fan of co-option, although I will admit its limited value.
No? You mean Reagan let them RULE THE AIRWAVES?
What was wrong with him?
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.