RE :” are you afraid to answer this?”
Because you are changing the subject to avoid my point. Bush turned the country off to republicans and on to democrats. The fact that Democrats were irresponsible on the subject National Security they polled high on makes your care worse, you and Bush turned the country to isolationism. You are beating yourself with your own arguments.
RE:”I can understand why you don't want to talk about Obama’s poll numbers...”
Because you jumped on me to defend Bush, but are trying to change the subject away from your nonexistent points to Obama. Every Bush-bot does that every post. Because they have no defense.
And you're still morning John Kerry's loss to Bush.
but this is 2009
Yes, Bush is retired and Obama is the President. How's Obama's poll numbers been lately? Oh, I forgot, you don't want to talk about that.
you paved the way for Obama/Pelosi for two election landslides.
I paved the way for Obama by voting for Bush in 2000 and 2004? Your logic is as kooky as your attempts at defending the Democrats.
Cheer that!
Why would I celebrate the elecion of people like Obama and Pelosi? That's your department. I voted against Obama.
Because you are changing the subject to avoid my point.
No I'm not. You had come up with some inane analogy comparing Clinton's lying to Bush's support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. When I linked the Democrats quotes on WMDs you started bashing talk radio (a typical reflex for your side when confronted with the truth). Then I asked you if you believed it would have been better for national security to abandon Iraq to al-qaeda as the dems wanted. You still don't want to talk about that, huh?
Because you jumped on me to defend Bush
I pointed out the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and you started bashing talk radio. If you and the Dems were correct that abandoning Iraq to al-qaeda was better for national security, why are you afraid to state this outright instead of hinding behind some poll numbers that you're unable to source?
I know a lot of people want to see Bush as this generation’s Ronald Reagan. While I sympathize with that desire, because I would love to see a person come along who could legitimately be seen as that, it is a massive insult to Ronald Reagan to claim he was nothing more than what George Bush was.
He could communicate.
He knew what to communicate.
He knew just what buttons to push on the left, and how to do it.
He got Democrats to come to his side of the isle, without ‘compassionate conservatism’ or selling his Conservative soul to do it, at the polls.
He wasn’t afraid to call a spade a spade. He told it like it was, and explained why it was.
He stood up to the Democrats, but in a way that got it’s leadership to join him.
He rebuilt our military, after Carter, and didn’t just set new lowered limits to gloss over the prior cuts.
I miss Reagan too much, to accept an inferior substitute.