Posted on 07/13/2007 5:15:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Watching a steady stream of Democrats like Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer each take their turn delightedly pummeling President Bush over the war in Iraq today, I couldn’t help but think of fellow conservatives who are starting to give aid and comfort to these Democrat Party loyal oppositionists.
According to Byron York of the National Review, the Republican Party base has simply decided to throw Mr. Bush under the wheels of the bus. Since so many of us disagree with him on things like illegal immigration and Scooter Libby, York opines that a whole bunch of Republican loyalists are practically counting the days until Jan. 20, 2009, when a new commander-in-chief takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Other conservative voices are jumping on the Bush-bashing bandwagon. The other night on Fox News, I saw a radio host proclaim that the president’s soft stance on illegals has cost him support for the war in Iraq.
Just what, precisely, is the point?
Why do conservatives believe that trashing the Bush Administration’s efforts on everything from this complicated war to a commutation of a vice-presidential aide will accomplish anything but give Democrats more ammunition against the GOP in 2008
Look, I’m as disappointed in this administration’s attempted amnesty for illegals as anyone. But I looked President Bush in the eye in the Oval Office and saw a man who truly believes in his heart that giving illegals a “path to citizenship” is the right thing to do.
I believe he’s wrong. But I know that this good and decent man believes he’s right.
So because of this issue, I’m supposed to abandon my president?
I’m expected to go on radio and TV and give miserable attack dogs like Dick Durbin more ways to say, “See -- even Republican supporters of Bush are defecting!”?
From the day the bombs started dropping on Baghdad, President Bush kept telling us that nothing about this war would be easy. Our nation has never attempted something as bold as installing democracy in this troubled part of the world and attempting to make a country like Iraq stable enough so that they can handle their own terrorists without our intervention.
Simply put, the vast majority of Americans supported our country’s pre-emptive strike. The longer this battle rages, the more we see impatient Americans start complaining. I guess that’s what a society in a Tivo/Iphone era does.
And I certainly expect that from Democrats who blame George W. Bush for everything from hurricanes to health care.
But I think it takes some guts to stand behind a president who is doing what he believes to be right, even in the face of enormous opposition.
Liberals are emboldened by Republican-fueled criticism. And if good folks like Byron York aren’t careful, we’ll be handing over the White House on a silver platter to Hillary or Barack. After all, just how far can Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson distance themselves from the Bush Administration?
Liberals are emboldened by Republican-fueled criticism. And if good folks like Byron York aren’t careful, we’ll be handing over the White House on a silver platter to Hillary or Barack. After all, just how far can Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson distance themselves from the Bush Administration?
Besides, who really wants to be on the same side of the political fence as Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy…or Betty Williams?
Betty Williams won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 for creating a group that helped initiate peace talks in Northern Ireland. This week, she was the keynote speaker at The International Women’s Peace Conference in Dallas. According to the Dallas Morning News, during her speech she told the thousand or so attendees, “Right now, I could kill George Bush.” The paper said she went on to demand his impeachment since “the Muslim world right now is suffering beyond belief” as a result of this administration’s foreign policy.
What a woman of peace. That’s some “peace conference.”
I’m not sure what would happen if an American traveled to Northern Ireland and expressed a desire to kill Mary McAleese, the current President of Ireland. I doubt that such an opinion would be met with cheers and a standing ovation, as was reported had occurred when the Nobel laureate said what she said in Dallas.
And when we tracked Betty Williams down and put her on my radio show, I was shocked to hear her claim that any published report that quoted her as saying, “Right now, I could kill George Bush” was lying. I reminded her that according to numerous published reports, she used the exact same phrase in a July 24, 2006 speech to schoolchildren at the Brisbane City Hall. At that point in the interview, she sounded totally defeated and said she not only “regretted” saying it, when I asked her if she was sorry for saying it, she said she was. In fact, the Dallas Morning News sent me the audio of the speech which confirms their reporting of Ms. Williams comments about the president.
You can hear my interview with this awful woman at www.mikeonline.com.
People like Betty Williams and Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi and Keith Olbermann and so many others on the left have made it quite clear what they think of George W. Bush. They teem with hatred and contempt.
They sure don’t need to get any assistance from us. Now, more than ever, we ought to stand behind President Bush.
But if people on the left OR right don’t want to support him these days, I have a heartfelt reminder: November of 2008 will be here soon enough.
Until then, how about getting off the president’s back?
And you need to check who she was addressing in the post (88) you replied to her about.
philman_36 has been here since 2000 so you obviously were talking about me.
Care to refute?
I am as much against illegal immigration as you are. But I am more concerned about those who want to harm us or our children. Notice the recent case about the Ukranian girl from Tacom Washington who was kidnapped by an illegal immigrant from Thailand and was found murdered the other day, not about those who want to come here to have a better life. I do wish though they would do it legally
I’m for Hunter, too. He’s the man with the right message and the most experience.
Totally!
I'm one of the people who called you a Newbie. I was wrong; you're no Newbie. You have been a member of this site longer than I am, except for a short period when you were banned or quit on your own.
You accused me of Bush bashing which I did not. I have told you that although I'm disappointed in him I will not bash our CIC in time of war. That wasn't good enough for you.
I just advise you to stop using the reverse psychology of the "Newbie" thingy with "rolling eyes" as proof that you really are. I don't know who you are and I don't care. You won't fool many FReepers, though.
Finally, keep screamin' and howlin'; it won't do you any good.
If they aren’t willing to come here legally I don’t want them here. I don’t care what their motivations or desires are. Do it right or you don’t deserve to be here.
This thread is an embarrassment.
You’re right about Hunter. Right man, right ideas, right experience. Beyond that, I will not support a hater and a DU type gutter dweller for President. My Presidential candidate had better be tough but a decent person who shows a decent respect where he should show it. Just like Duncan Hunter.
The problem in a nutshell is the our President is following in his fathers New World Order footsteps and wants to do in America, in favor of a North American Union, merging Mexico, the US and Canada into one society with common laws and no borders. It seems that he will stop at nothing to achieve this end.
Some of us think that America was a pretty good idea and we would like to keep it intact, Constitution and all.
LOL - I took a look at that site. It is basically a party loyalist site and that is fine if that is your thing. FreeRepublic, however, is a site based on ideology not party loyalism.
Note in the FAQ that the "pratical conservatives" at WideAwakes do not allow any bashing of liberal sites but they do actively discourage the formation of third parties. That shows that the members there do not care about ideology but only "having their team stay in power" - what the "team" actually stands for is irrelevant.
Didn't you get the memo that nationalism is passe? (gag)
Who abandoned who here?
There, that's better.
Why are you blushing? Dubya probably learned Spanish early by getting women worked up at him. That's how to learn a language in a way to remember. Portuguesa is very confusing to learn after Spanish. Ciao!
You do that in the primaries. Electing Dem candidates instead of supporting the GOP nominee makes no sense. You are taking one step back towards political impotence. The power of incumbency makes it difficult to gain back seats. Are you suggesting that if we can't defeat Lott in the primary, we should vote for his Dem opponent or not vote at all?
The exception to this is when it is a Republican running if a very liberal state. In that case, you go for the most conservative guy that is electable.
That encompasses most RINOs. And then you have the case of very red states electing Dems, e.g., Montana and North Dakota.
Obviously you haven’t figured out that this thread is just what the liberals ordered. It’s making their day.
Keep it up. They’re all enjoying having their water carried for them.
Then go back and read the original article.
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.