Bush Presidency is Advancing the Progressive Agenda

Sierra Times ^ | 6-17-03 | John Bender

[Amelia]

Its just a question of what will bring America to a flash point.

And you are looking forward to this?

[sauropod]

Yes. America is no longer free.

[sauropod]

"That’s what the Clintonistas said when people pointed out the truth about their idol."

They're still saying it (as we found out last night at the latest Hillary! book signing).

[sauropod]

What crap!

Get your head out from where the sun don't shine!

[sauropod]

Spot on!

[sauropod]

We will agree to disagree agreeably.

I know someone that sat at a table with either Karl Rove or Andy Card (can't remember which) and asked him "What about the conservatives?"

The response was "We don't care about the conservatives. They have no place else to go."

True story.

[TLBSHOW]

Its just deb, she has been the Bush defender of whatever he does since the start. I think she knows just what Bush is and still promotes it.

ie socialism,,,,,

my humble thought.

[sauropod]

Tell you what, sweetie cups. You can pay my increased state taxes for me. You can go through the ridiculous security checks at the airport. You can go ahead and do my job search when i lose my job due to H1-B visas. You can go ahead and pay my increased health care costs because of out of control tort lawyers and lots and lots of illegal immigration because W. won;t do a damn thing about the borders.

[TLBSHOW]

The response was "We don't care about the conservatives. They have no place else to go."

True story.


Sounds about right from the way he treats the conservatives.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

uh huh. sure.

[Amelia]

Yes. America is no longer free.

So you want a civil war?

You are out of your ever-lovin' mind.

[jeremiah]

The truth is that in the future, when medicare and it's sidekick costs, nearly quadruple what they are projected, and there is no political way to cut them, we can all thank a "conservative" GW and his foresight.

[SUSSA]

After the 94 take over of the House, we were set to take the presidency, but the RINO wing of the party worked their butts off to nominate one of their own. With the help of the elite press, they managed to get Dole nominated assuring that no matter who won the presidency we would have a lying, liberal, scum bag in the presidency.

Many pro-life Christians, Second Amendment supporters, and other conservatives who make up the base, either sat out the election or voted third party. There was no real difference between Dole and Clinton. The main distinction between the two is that Dole never raped anyone that we know of.

That is why we failed to take back the presidency in 96. It wasn’t because conservatives can’t win. We didn’t have one running.

The 92 and 96 elections should be a lesson for the Bush camp. There are enough conservatives who will only take so much, to derail a Republican’s campaign. There aren’t enough swing votes to offset the loss if the candidate is too far left for the rock-ribbed conservatives in the base.

George the Elder and the RINOs who ran the RNC in 96, made the mistake of thinking they could scare enough conservatives into voting Republican. They thought wrong. They underestimated the commitment many conservatives have to some issues.

Look, Bush is doing well on foreign affairs. He is doing pretty well on taxes. If he will shift gears on spending and entitlements, and veto the ugly weapon ban extension, he will hold the conservatives that his father and Dole both lost.

This isn’t too much to expect. And IMHO it is the lesson of 92 and 96.

[Mulder]

In 1980, Reagan won the presidency, the GOP won the Senate, but the Dems kept the House. This was repeated in 1984, but the GOP lost the Senate in 1986.

In the 80's there were many democrats in the House, mostly from the south, who were more conservative than the northeastern Republicans. You have to keep in mind, that most of the south was a one-party region until 1994. So while the House may have been "democratic", it was somewhat conservative to the point of voting for Reagan's massive tax cuts.

Also, since democrats controlled most state houses, until recently, the districts were biased towards the dems.

In 1986, fallout over Iran Contra cost the GOP the Senate.

In 1994, the GOP took back both houses of Congress, but Dems kept the presidency (it being an off-year election) and also kept the presidency in 1996.

They won in 1996 because the GOP nominated Bob Dolt and the Congress backed down to Klinton. If you looked at policies, there wasn't much difference between the two candidates in 96.

Frankly, it looks to me like this is generally a divided country, but maybe that's just my opinion.

That's what the RINOs want you to think. As long as enough people believe this crap about a 50/50 split, the trend towards more government will never be reversed. You know, "we can't rock the boat with all this division". Politicians have really done a good job turning men vs. women, whites vs. blacks, etc.... when the real enemy is THEM.

Maybe I'll believe the country is really 'divided 50/50' when the liberals can duplicate the 4 landslides the conservatives have had during the last 20 years.

Of course, if Bush continues to follow in the legacy of his daddy and Klinton by leaving our borders open, the country really will be divided. But not for long, as we're quickly outnumbered by third world parasites.

[Ben Bolt]

Actually ,

If we need to come full circle to get back to being a Republic then so be it . Is it not how we began ?