Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WilliamReading

It was precisely W’s New Tone which was responsible for the Republicans’ diminished standing. A true wimp in the face of political venom. Had he effectively lead his party in slapping down the Democrat slander of our fighting men and women in the military, the American people would have followed as well. Instead, he ceded the field of political battle to the traitors.

And now we see the results.


8 posted on 11/09/2008 11:40:08 AM PST by Jeff Chandler (Chimpy ObaMao is not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Chandler
President Bush's poll numbers have been dismal ever since Katrina--if he had played that in a politically smart way, like Bill Clinton would have, he might have actually gained popularity from it. He refrained from putting the blame where most of it belonged--on the Democrat governor and mayor and on the Democrat local officials who had failed to make the levees strong enough.

Likewise with the financial meltdown--the Republicans didn't try to put the blame where it belonged. The public didn't know what to think and was willing to believe the Democrats' accusation that it was Bush's fault.

Little was made of national security this year--as if our enemies are going to stop trying to destroy us just because an apostate Muslim is President. Out of highmindedness, Bush never made an issue of Clinton's refusal to take Obama from the Sudan when they offered to hand him over--and in return, had Hillary waving a newspaper headline on the floor of the Senate suggesting that he had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and Bill & Hillary getting their henchmen Ben-Veniste and Gorelick on the 9/11 commission.

36 posted on 11/09/2008 11:48:25 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Chandler

i agree with you. there were many winning issues for republicans but
neither bush or cheney rarely defended themselves and let dems
set the agenda. zero, zero leadership. bush apparently could
not bring himself to engage in pr.


51 posted on 11/09/2008 11:56:18 AM PST by gussiefinknottle (woof!woof!woof!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Chandler

“And now we see the results.”

Exactly.

Which makes me surmise that Bush purposely had a hand in the Hussein win. Not sure why.

I also find it interesting that even when McCaine-Palin were trending strongly upward in the polls — mainly due to Palin — Bill Clinton was interviewed and said “Don’t worry. Obama will win handily.” He was right, but did he have access to information that no one else did?


68 posted on 11/09/2008 12:05:24 PM PST by GoodDay (Palin for POTUS 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Chandler
Exactly right!

Bush had the chance to use the presidency as the bully-pulpit and he chose not to do so.

He could have vetoed many things, including McCain/Feingold but chose not to do so. We still have border guards in jail while a drug trafficker was allowed into the United States.

We have the corruption of Dodd and Frank with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and there are no justice department investigations in the making. Yet Stevens from Alaska is indicted with taking illegal gifts?! Good grief.

90 posted on 11/09/2008 12:15:29 PM PST by Northern Yankee (Freedom Needs A Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson