The President Goes Negative [learned at the feet of Karl Rove and the late Lee Atwater....]

New York Times ^

[abclily]

Exactly!!!!

[weezel]

Where have they been on this? Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush By DOUG THOMPSON Jan 6, 2003, 19:21 Email this article Printer friendly page Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President George W. Bush by challenging his credibility and raising doubts about America, sources within the party tell Capitol Hill Blue. A multi-pronged attack against Republicans and the President will focus not only on economic issues, but question American values, raise doubts about how this country is viewed by other nations and question the patriotism of Bush and his party. The extensive campaign, developed by senior Democratic consultants and party leaders, was launched last week with attacks on the Bush economic plan by Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Richard Gephardt. In coming weeks, Democratic elected officials will question the President�s intentions on the pending war with Iraq. Writers and broadcasters friendly to the Democratic cause have already been provided talking points suggesting the war is about oil, not terrorism. Some Democrats admit privately they are uneasy with the party strategy to undermine American values in an attempt to get Bush. �My boss doesn�t want anything to do with it,� one senior Senate aide told Capitol Hill Blue on Monday. �You don�t undermine this country to win elections.� Others, however, are willing to try anything to put the White House and Congress back under Democratic control. �The real war isn�t in Iraq,� one Democratic consultant said. �It�s right here at home, at the ballot box in 2004.� http://web.archive.org/web/20030212115427/http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1476.shtml

[Lancey Howard]

From a newspaper that covered up the Holocaust at every turn.

Bump that.

[clintonh8r]

NYT: GFY

[Godwin1]

My Gosh! He didn't even mention Obama’s name! Touchy , touchy. Why did they assume he was talking about Obama? Is it because they know he is an appeaser? Something else may be at play. Obama’s picking a fight with the president adds to the perception that Obama is THE democratic candidate. But he is coming off a 41 point drubbing in West Virginia and about to suffer another defeat in Kentucky. If Florida and Michigan democrats are not denied their right to vote, Hillary is right there with him, despite the MSM chorus that this is all over. Maybe it ain't.

[Enchante]

Wow, when the leftist piglets at the NY Times are squealing like this we know they are in pain.

They KNOW they are puke-faced gutless appeasers, so they KNOW the Bush remark refers to all of them even if not by name.

The entire left is poised to raise hell whenever they are criticized during the next 5 months, especially about any national security topics, because they are convinced this is what Jon Carry failed to do in 2004.

They view any truth-telling about leftist appeasement as “SwiftBoating” and now they are convinced they have to strike back loudly whenever they are criticized.

[MarkL]

From a newspaper that covered up the Holocaust at every turn.

And they still long for the strength of Stalin, given the loving reports of Walter Duranty, the man awarded a Pulitzer prize while covering up the mass starvation of millions of Ukrainians, all with the NY Times knowledge. And to this day, they refuse to disavow Durante, nor give back the bloody Pulitzer prize that they were awarded based on mass murder and lies.

Mark

[rdwtic]

And shouldn’t it be pointed out that there are those in Israel who advocate appeasement as well? Perhaps he was speaking to them.
In which case GW would be criticised for interferring in Israel’s domestic affairs.
But, I guess, with the Messiah, it’s all about him. When it comes to a narcissist, Billy Jeff’s got nothing on Barack.

[adversarial]

President Bush’s penchant for slash-and-burn politics

I don't remember any slashing or burning. anyone have any examples?

[TNCMAXQ]

What fantasy world are these psychos living in?? GWB has NEVER been one for rough partisan politics. And that has been to his detriment, IMO. If he were more like Lee Atwater I think he would have been more successful. But that is a testament to the good character of the man, that he has always tried to be civil even as men and women of bad character have trashed him unfairly.

[andy58-in-nh]

Rather than propose anything resembling a coherent policy, Democrats have instead spent the last eight years calling George Bush every mean, rotten, nasty, cruel, vicious name they could think of (to the nodding approval of the New York Times), but apparently that's not "going negative". The Democrats and their media cheerleaders have endlessly criticized Republican policies, and hinted darkly at their motivations.

When the President chooses to respond to or criticize Democrats - they run like little sissies to the microphones and complain about how awful and unfair he's being to them. Obama does this reflexively, to the point where any difference in opinion with him is treated as a personal attack. We must have "Unity", you see, and the Republicans are making that impossible by... by failing to agree with Democrats.

[linn37]

More wailing, I love it. This is more like it. Tell the truth and watch them fall apart!

[x]

President Bush’s penchant for slash-and-burn politics, learned at the feet of Karl Rove and the late Lee Atwater, is unseemly when practiced at home. It is shameful for the president and damaging for the country when put on display abroad.

They have a point that Bush went too far in his speech to the Knesset, but when have we seen "slash-and-burn politics" in his speeches at home?

The President's spent an awful lot of time "making nice" with liberals in Congress, that's one reason why Washington is reacting so strongly to this speech.

If he had truly been in "slash-and-burn" campaign mode all the time, his comment wouldn't have had the impact that it has had.

That's one problem with editorials: the people who write them aren't the brightest one's in the world of opinion. They have a stock of charges and countercharges but rarely think anything through.

[CaspersGh0sts]

“The New York Times liberals are a mite twitchy this morning. Nowhere in the President’s address did he once mention Obama by name. What are they so upset about? The truth of the matter is Obama does want to grovel before America’s enemies. I guess that hurts.”

As another Freeper put it:

“When you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one who barks the loudest is the one who got hit.”

And Barack Obama was howling at the moon over that one.

Guilty as not-even-charged.

[CaspersGh0sts]

“I won’t waste one blood pressure point responding to these a**holes.”

You really can’t even respond to them. This is one of their little group editorials where they all band together and hide the actual author. They seem to do this alot when they’re bound to get a lot of nasty grams.

Well, they deserve them by the bucketfull for this one.

[Lancey Howard]

The scumbags at the Democrat NY Times are not content unless Bush sits there like a punching bag, as he has for most of the past seven years, and quietly takes slap after slap after slap from the scumbag Democrats and their publishing arm, the NY Times.

And now the scumbags are so impatient for a response from Bush that they have to fabricate one.

[BerniesFriend]

learned at the feet of Karl Rove and the late Lee Atwater

They forgot this guy as well..

[dalebert]

well nobody is listening anyway. for sure not the politicians.