Posted on 03/08/2009 8:02:43 AM PDT by FreeManN
The Republicans' Bizarre New Strategy Dan Gerstein, 03.04.09, 12:00 AM EST Instead of trying to out-Bush Bush, they should outsmart Obama.
Ever since last fall's deck-shuffling election, the strategist in me has been very curious to see what the Republicans would do both to repair the damage the Bush presidency had done to their brand and to reposition their party to compete in a radically different political environment. In particular, I wondered how would they win back the trust of the sensible center that thoroughly repudiated their governing approach in November.
Well, just six weeks after the official start of the Obama era, the results of the GOP's deep soul search seem to be in, and Republican leaders have more than lived up to their promise to think outside the box. Indeed, I doubt anyone outside Rush Limbaugh's reach would have ever guessed that the right's strategy for countering Obama--and ultimately escaping the minority wilderness--would be to out-Bush Bush.
...The cumulative upshot of a month's worth of coordinated Republican attacks on Obama's stimulus plan, Bobby Jindal's widely-ridiculed response to the president's address to Congress and the lock-stepped echoes heard at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference. The economic climate may have dramatically changed, as have voter attitudes about government's role, but the GOP formula has stayed almost exactly the same...
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Who is in the Rep establishment?
Give an inch and they take a mile.
Gasoline prices went up in the beginning of 2006, not last summer. That was what did Bush in.
People who “don’t like Bush” can just be quiet about the things they don’t like.
Reagan did plenty of non-conservative things but those are forgotten— which is fine because I also like Reagan— and we emphasize the good things he did as a way of emphasizing a positive consevative history.
Bashing bush helps the Neo marxists that presently own the country.
The Media and all the rich Bush enemies were trying to tank the economy in September prior to the election. Bush did the right thing by threatening to pour billions of dollars into the sytem to preserve the system.
utlimately, he spent less than half because the panic the Radical Left sought to create was abated. The funds can also be paid back by banks. That is not the case with Obama’s massive spending.
Another View:
“Since Obama is doing what Bush did, we will have same result. Except this time it will be a bigger disaster because he is making the mistakes even bigger. The only difference is when Obama is cutting taxes he wants to throw in a small tax increase for the rich, Big deal. Everything else is the same, a massive increase in government spending and an inflationary government policy. The big problem is not what Bush did but the Bush rhetoric. Since everyone associates Bush with conservatism and Laissez-faire, with leave the government alone and deregulation, what Obama is able to do is say ‘What I want to change is that attitude. We need more government and regulation ’. But what George Bush was about was more government and regulation. He was a big government guy. Obama is out-Bushing Bush but trying to pin the as conservative Laissez-faire label on him, which he never was. Unfortunately the cheerleaders of the phony Bush prosperity are now trying to criticize Obama and they really can’t do it because they look like fools. That’s the same problem the republican congress is having when they try to criticize Obama. Where was the criticism (by Republican congress) when Bush was doing the exact same thing? It wasn’t anywhere.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2201936/posts
Rumsfeld was excellent. Read Devsix’s posts. I agree with him. The Surge would not have worked until the Sunni Tribes experienced the Al Qaeda terrorism first hand. Once the tribes turned on Al Qaeda a surge would be successful. Timing is everything, the Surge was successful. Bush saw his error with Harriet and gave us Alito. Alito is impressive.
Regarding the Banking Crisis, history will be the judge. You and I do not have all the facts nor do we know the numbers Bush saw. You and I don't have the balls to lead. We just have the balls to BS on this forum. At least I do not piss on my allies. You on the other hand......
As long as the Repubs engage in pigeon-holing and labeling of voters, the Repubs will continue to lose support and the Repubs will eventually be replaced by a Third Party.
Horse manure.
Bush drove the scumbags nuts with his EPA deregulations, opening up wilderness areas to logging, etc. In many ways Bush was Scumbag-lite, but Dumbo is Marxist-heavy. Any comparison is pure horse manure.
Lousy try.
“phony Bush prosperity”?
Kelly Wallace: But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
President Bush: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I-I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became-we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we find a training camp, we’ll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That’s one of the things-part of the new phase that’s becoming apparent to the American people is that we’re working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money. And we’ve got more work to do. See, that’s the thing the American people have got to understand, that we’ve only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don’t know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it’s going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I’m not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Republicans jumping onto the leftist driven, anti Bush, hate machine isn’t going to do the Republican Party any good. Don’t look now, but 0bama’s stimulus package, his return to radical welfarism, and his politics of class and race warfare are driving his numbers down, and if this nation survives 0’s Socialism, people will long for another Reagan, and wish Bush were still here with the adults. We are still less than two months into the 0bama debacle, and already people are wondering if the US can survive it. Wait until 2010.
Ref post #4.
Plus, Bush was not a leader. At best he was a poor administrator.
Also, he was a RINO. He spent all his time kissing the lefts’ butts.
He had no use for us conservatives. My feelings toward him are mutual on my part.
You know ...that big mid decade party we had where all we had to do was buy a house with no money and the bank would offer us cash for free based on increased equity...where our 401Ks were skyrocketing...where endless high paying government jobs were being generated (we still have that part)., lots of high paying real estate and stock market broker jobs.
It was phony, all just borrowing and printing money. If real wealth was generated, we wouldn't as a nation be in hock up to our necks.
Hannity still talks about the good old Bush years, the days of plenty, as if you could borrow forever. Rush skips Bush now and goes back to Reagan tax cuts in his speeches.(smart move!)
Re Bush. The Pernicious ‘No Real Economic Progress’ Myth
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-pernicious-no-real-economic-progress-myth/
I don't recall the Republican congress being at all supportive or helpful of Bush. Maybe if they were a supportive conservative congress, Bush would have had some allies who could have supported conservative governing. Instead, I always got the impression the Republicans were just sitting around looking at polls and trying to be nice, and dumping on Bush when the polls said they should.
Bush should be held responsible for his decisions, but maybe if he had some support, he'd have made different ones.
Distinction between Republican and Conservative are obscured. RINOs claim they are Republican. Conservatives are diluted. If you are for free-trade or against it, if you are for world policeman or against it, if you think Bush was a conservative or you don't - conservative becomes self-declared. “I'm a conservative” has become like “I'm Spartacus”.
You mean supportive of conservative initiatives like TARP and amnesty? Where they (R congress) were supportive of Bush is bankrupting this country so Obama could do even more of the same and blame it on Bush.
The Reps had relatively slim margins in Congress under Bush unlike what the Dems have today.
i did not say that.
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.