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?
They asked how I would feel if Hildabeast was elected. I answered that, on the issue of border security, it would be no different than what we have now.
aw shucks...you're right.
This thread is not an embarassment for free thinking FReepers. I won’t make any comments about the Kool Aid drinking ones though.
If Bush had NOT tossed Donny under the bus first and wasn’t trying to run the war in Iraq out of the Political Office like an LBJ wannabe, you MIGHT... just MIGHT... have a point. But adding all this to the legion of previous betrayals, from supporting RINOs in Primaries to NCLB or Medicare D or CFR, forget it !
I have just one word for Bush.
“Nuts”
The “fine FReepers” who left were RINOs who were rabid Rutards or Bushbots who were all for liberal GOP policies and/or socialism. Other “fine FReepers” included the usual gang of harridans who claimed that the conservatives on this forum “had our feet on their necks for too long [on issues like abortion, gun control, taxes, and the like].”
The site is better off without the RINOs and Thank God for small mercies.
Oh, don't give me this "Old Ronnie was tricked BS". R. Reagan was a smart as hell man who knew the games of Washington and understood America better then 99% who make a living there. R. Reagan knew full good and well security measures that were "supposed" to be put in place were no guarantee at all -
Or didn't he learn from all those "supposed" cuts in spending that never occurred after his tax-cuts of 81?? No - R.Reagan was very aware of what his full amnesty program was and wasn't.
Furthermore both immigration and Soc. Sec were at much more manageable levels in the 80's...and the time to do something with both would have come much easier....Then trying to do things now. Yet, both huge issues, were simply passed on down the line to become much large issues / problems....with even fewer good options.
C'mon, Reagan addressed a fiscal reality. SS is, has been (and probably always will be) the "third rail of American politics". As the direct result of Congress robbing SS, Reagan did what was practical to try to salvage SS. Congress saw it as cover to not only continue robbing SS, but steal even more, causing additional increases. I don't consider Reagan part of the problem but, apparently, you do.
Get out of here with this - Soc Sec taxes (FICA) had been raised over 40 times prior to RR time in office. Did any of these tax increases help to solve the problem (the wealth stealing gov't scheme of Soc Sec?). No, it only grew the problem larger, while stealing more wealth from each and every American.
The correct path is to look for private accounts (which will return a far higher ROI) and within a generation 80% of American's will opt out of the scheme of Soc Sec.
Again, R. Reagan had a large majority in the Senate (Republican)...and the "Ds" during the 80's had a large segment of "southern Ds" - Which were more conservative then plenty of RHINO's today.
Trying to compare Rs and Ds simply has letters is meaningless. Yes, "Ds" had more in Congress in the 80's...but in the House plenty of those Ds were conservative southerns (on a great many issues).
SDO was appointed to the SC on the basis of having a solid conservative record prior to her appointment.
There were plenty of more qualified conservatives then SDO. She was appointed because she was a women plain and simple. It was a PC choice.
We have to remember that Reagan was unpopular with the press and the Democrats who successfully underminded him in '86.
Very true. But R. Reagan never had the 24/7 agenda driven MSM we have today (that GWB has been faced with non-stop). The MSM of the 80's...pale in comparison to todays openly and overtly factless MSM.
R. Reagan did not have to deal with the DEM 527 groups of today (moveon.org and such). The RNC was never outspent in elections when RR ran for office. The DEMs with 527s outspent the GOP in the last 2 elections.
Reality is GWB is being held to a much higher standard then was R. Reagan.
Both are great men & great POTUS.
Could well be OhioWFan or Pukin Dog too. I suspect it is the former given the hysterical and shrill nature of her posts on this thread.
B
U
M
P
It doesn’t matter which old bat is swinging... it’s words and tone speak all that is needed.
res ipsa loquitur
All the “she might be so and so” serves only to give it more attention that its rants deserve.
“And I will take a great deal of pleasure in flaming the doolts whenever and where ever I see them. They are right wing version of the DUers, and deserve the same treatment.”
Are you trying to committ FReepicide before you go to that RINO blog that you and your ilk admire soooo much (as you have posted on this thread)? You know you can go there and lead a closet existence without committing FReepicide, don’t you?
You’re right.
Again, you couldn't be more wrong. Reagan's vetoes were overridden several times by congress. That would not have occurred in a congress that had even 1/3 conservative members.
Yes, I said unwinnable. Genuine wars are winnable. This isn't a legitimate war or our military would be using the strategies and techniques that could actually stop the 'insurgency'. We'd surely be successful if we'd use the full power of our forces from the air and sea --- maneuvers that they're actually trained to do and are the best at.
And isn't it interesting that when the President's poll numbers drop we start hearing about the increased threat of terrorism in the U.S.? Don't you wonder if there's a correlation between the two? Shell game. Wag the dog. Look at the shiny thing while we scheme in the back rooms about making the world our elite little oyster, you insignificant little game pieces, you.
Before anyone gives me the line about how much worse it would be if Hillary! were president, I'd have to say I agree that it would indeed be much worse. However, while we still have the 'option' to vote, while we still have a United States of America, I'm going to exercise my right to speak out against a government gone bad. I guess it was succinctly put by Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
Ronald Reagan (Republicans) had control of the Seante when most of those vetoes took place - Reagan had around 75 vetoes or so (if I recall having read somewhere) and around 6-8 were overridden - Many having to do with elderly issues or copy-writing protection issues.....(we aren't talking overriding tax cuts or military increases).
No, there was a sizable segment of Southern D's within the "DEM" party back in the 80's. Those Zell Miller type D's who make most RHINOs today look like pure Libs.
Very much of a Howler I must admit and still sitting here cracking up at what I read!
Gallagher never has been the brightest bulb on the tree.
If you want to talk about what Reagan did in Beirut I will get my best buddy over here to give you a lesson. He was the last US Marine to lift his foot off Lebanese soil. Once again Beirut is a non starter in comparison to Iraq.
"Hey he tried to kill my Dad" I knew we were screwed from that moment.
The issue with Bush is incompetent management and communication. Put the Reagan stick away and discuss the current issues.
First, last year they both voted against the 2006 Senate bill. Since I don't have yet the list of votes selected for the 2007 rating, I have no idea if their vote on cloture will even be counted as a vote on a bill. Normally, the votes are not recorded on amendments, but the final bill. And since there are always around 25 different votes that go into the rating, the vote on one bill is not that significant one way or the other.
How about Voinovich who changed his vote after the outcome was known? Another trick is to vote for cloture but then against the bill. That way the senator makes sure the bill gets passed but then can say he tried his hardest to stop it.
Same answer as above. Normally, the rating is based on votes on the final bill. Senators/House reps can play such games on individual bills, but in order to manipulate their ACU rating, they have to know beforehand what specific votes will be used in the rating process. The reason they play these games is to fool their constituents, not the ACU.
Do you think the amnesty debacle was the only time that the senate has decided to do whatever the hell it wanted?
No, but even the Senate and the WH must pay attention when only 26% of the public supports a bill. The very fact that the bill got this far shows the power of the corporate and special interest masters who have more influence on Congress and the WH than the people.
I know the ACU tries to do good work with it's rankings but they are being played as patsies since they are so easily manipulated. <
Just not true. That is not the way the rating system works. If it could be manipulated, Hillary would have more than an 8. Take a look at the ratings and you will see that they do a fairly good job of rating the representatives. Some RINOs like Snowe [50] and Collins [54] approximate "conservative" Dems like Nelson [Neb] who has a 55.
Again, all Kennedy and Lott have to do is hammer out a bill that they know they can get 51 corrupt senators who would not take a political hit at home by voting for it. It's theater.
It is what it is. First you have to get 60 votes to get cloture [except appropriation bills,] and then you have to get the House to pass something similar and then you have to pass it. The WH can still veto it. It is rare when the Dems and Reps collude on such issues. Gridlock is more the order of the day, as the Dems are finding out despite being in control of Congress. The only way they got the minimum wage passed was to hook it on to the Defense supplemental and even then the legislation that came out of conference gave the small business concessions the Reps wanted. Politics is the art of compromise and there is no way that is going to change as long as we have this form of government and two parties that are roughly equal. We had almost a one party government in Congress from 1933-1995 with some few exceptions. The consequential policy debates took place within the Dem party.
That's exactly what I've been asking myself for the last few weeks. I sure hope they're not falling for the "it can't get any worse" tripe that came along with Ross Perot in 1992. The country is facing too many dangers from international terrorism for us to have such a collective conniption fit because the President doesn't support one or the other of our issues, that we cause marginal voters to go over to the Dems, or a third party candidate, which would have the same effect.
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.