Yes you are 100% correct, he really is choosing to ignore it.
Here is the beginning of the solution . .
What part of the truth are you afraid of?
Posted on 01/20/2004 10:41:23 PM PST by JustPiper
The big loser in the Democratic presidential caucuses in Iowa wasn't Howard Dean. It wasn't Dick Gephardt. It wasn't even Al Sharpton who managed to attract about .5 percent of the vote.
The big loser was George W. Bush.
Only one thing can explain the bizarre positions taken by the White House before this week – an overconfidence that President Bush would be facing Howard Dean in his re-election bid this November. Karl Rove's polling must have made the president's political advisers so cocky about the race that they felt invulnerable.
What else could explain the president doing the following:
proposing a politically unpopular amnesty program for illegal aliens;
raising spending on domestic programs by bigger percentages than any of his predecessors, including Democrats;
proposing a vague manned mission to Mars without providing even the least compelling reasons, goals and objectives?
Bush has made many other mistakes in his term, but these whoppers are very recent gaffes made leading up to an election year.
Iowa should provide a wakeup call.
Instead of facing an angry Democrat out of touch with mainstream American values and temperament, Bush may well be facing a seasoned, smooth, mature political pro in John Kerry.
I wonder if he is up to that challenge.
How about a Kerry-Edwards ticket?
I believe if the election took place today, that ticket would have an excellent chance of beating Bush.
I say this as a dispassionate observer, a political analyst. I will not vote for either Bush or Kerry, or any other Democrat seeking the nomination.
But I think it's worth noting we are witnessing the self-destruction of a president – much like his own father self-destructed politically when he broke his "read my lips" pledge.
The latest polls show Bush in a tight race for re-election even before it's clear who his opponent might be.
As a result, Bush finds himself in a statistical dead heat with the opposition nine months before the election. When matched against an unknown Democratic presidential candidate, Bush squeaks out a 48 percent to 46 percent victory. On the question of who is most trusted to handle the nation's major problems, Bush is virtually even with Democrats, ahead 45 percent to 44 percent – down from an 18-point advantage Bush enjoyed nine months ago.
Americans think the Democrats would do a better job on domestic issues – the economy, prescription drugs for the elderly, health insurance, Medicare, the budget deficit, immigration, even taxes.
And why shouldn't they?
Here's the way this presidential race is shaping up: Bush will propose spending $18 billion fighting AIDS in other countries. The Democrat will up the ante to $25 billion.
Bush will propose spending 10 percent more on domestic giveaway programs. The Democrat will up the ante to 20 percent.
If it is conceded that more spending is good, a Republican will lose every single time.
And that's just what Bush has conceded with his phony, so-called "compassionate conservatism," that is really no more than old-fashioned tax-and-spend liberalism.
Bush gained no advantage with the public for his prescription-drug plan. He gained no ground with his bid to legalize millions of illegal aliens. He gained nothing from his attempt at inspiring Americans to join a new space program with a goal of a manned Mars landing. And his domestic spending increases, under attack by his own Republican base, have not served to win new independent or Democrat voters.
In fact, a CBS News poll showed similar drops for Bush support – notably over his plans on immigration.
If Bush were deliberately throwing this election, he couldn't do a more masterful job of losing votes, breaking bonds with his constituency and losing touch with his base.
If ever there was a time for a third party to emerge with some alternative ideas, 2004 is it.
Yes you are 100% correct, he really is choosing to ignore it.
Here is the beginning of the solution . .
What part of the truth are you afraid of?
None at all. It seems that you are afraid of a person addressing the issue that isn't as knee jerk as yours. Look you can't twitch your nose and Mexico goes away. Might be like that on TV Land, but not in the real world.
Oh, BTW, there are plenty of Americans who have dumps as yards. Are they more noble to you. How come you don't complain about them?
It isn't pandering but a proposal to do something about a problem that has been ignored for years, and you might as well face the facts that there are not going to me mass deportations of people picking lettuce to make a living.
How about contacting your congressmen instead of giving succor to the liberal press. Who will just use you and spit you out since the press supports the demos, who are all for a real amnesty.
Get off your high horse.
Bush is not taking the high moral ground by legalizing millions of illegal migrants.
It's soiling his image very badly. He needs to switch gears and put his loyalty back where it belongs - to America, not Mexico.
What part of loyalty to America and Americans and not Mexico and Mexicans do you not understand?
It's funny that this guy was considered a brilliant writer when his pen was aimed at X-42. But now that President Bush's actions and words are under scrutiny he suddenly becomes a nut. This seems to happen a lot.
You guys are unreal. I'll ask this question I've asked before and not yet received an answer for:
Whatever happened to keeping President Bush's feet to the fire?
That is what the rabid Bush supporters promised they would do if he won the election. I have seen no feet being held to any fire, just a swooning over some vague notion that throwing the Treasury doors open is part of some masterful strategery on President Bush's part.
I'm glad that settling for the only "viable" candidate who spends domestically more than any other President has is not considered throwing in the towel.
Well isn't that a great reason to give them voting rights...
Neither, it seems, do many people who post here.
They don't seem to understand that you can constructively criticize and still support the man. They seem to view any criticism as an attack. That is just plain wrong.
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.