[JustPiper]

We begged him!

[k2blader]

Hm, I wonder who Farah's voting for?

Despite the AWB, CFR, and Medicare, I had thought President Bush would be a shoo-in. ...But now I'm not too sure.

I was surprised by Kerry and Edwards placing above Dean--I do think a Kerry-Edwards ticket would be a definite challenge. Not to mention it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to keep pushing a highly unpopular illegal amnesty proposal into the collective face of one's conservative base.

[Mo1]

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.

Ahhhhhhhhh another stay home protest vote .. how original

[goldstategop]

Joe Farah never liked President Bush and won't vote for his re-election. Nevertheless, I think he's right Bush could lose if he's perceived as a Democrat Lite on spending and on amnesty for illegal aliens. If he doesn't rein in spending and stop pushing for handouts for illegal aliens, he could lose to a Democrat other than Nikita Dean in November. Especially if the Democratic nominee is John Edwards. Personally, I think the election is still Bush's to lose and the real point of Farah's editorial is the President should stop taking the conservative base for granted. While its true we have nowhere to go, it doesn't necessarily mean we'll turn out for this President. I hope that won't be the case since the man has fine qualities but he needs to get the grassroots involved to secure a second term mandate this fall. 'Nuff said.

[jaugust]

To those who wish for a third party candidate, I can't say that I would not wish for the same thing. Bush is like Nixon, but I don't think that the people are going to be fooled again. Nixon was left of conservative. Bush has been acting even further left than that. If this trend continues, I am afraid for the Republic.

[leadpenny]

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.

All due respect to the author, I don't believe that is what snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for GHWB. It was when he looked at his watch during one of the debates with Perot and Clinton. In his case I think it was deliberate. I don't believe he wanted another term but he did not want to pull and LBJ, "I will not accept my party's nomination . . ." thing.

There could be something in the Bush family genes; "Been there done that," short attention span, or something else. George HW Bush watched as Ronald Reagan got into trouble in his second term and may have just said to himself, "I'm going fishing and skydiving, but I'm not quitting." LBJ will be remembered for many things but the way he quit will be near the top of the list.

The defining moment for GHWB came on a stage in Richmond in 1992. There is a long, hot summer to get through and Crawford may look very inviting by Fall.

[Blake#1]

The Amnesty Plan....is a good plan. The USofA's White European population is dwindling. The Whites are not replacing themselves. The USofA will belong to those that survive. Immigration restocks our population. The hard working Hispanic (Mexican) is an ideal substitute for those Americans being killed by abortion. If we don't repopulate the USofA will disappear. The spirit of 1776 must live on.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

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.

Couldn't happen to a nicer socialist...

[Michael81Dus]

Ladies and Gentlemen, my fellow FReepers,

what has happened? Could anyone of you please give me a simple answer to a simple question:

Is it possible (not in theory but for real) that Bush won´t be re-elected in November?

My media here presents the Democratic candidates in a bright shining light, pretending that they´re the saviours of the world. So journalists here are completely biased regarding the presidential campaign.

I for one actually don´t really care about the election, since it´s not my choice. But I´d like to know wether the coverage like "Bush is in danger" is exaggerated or not.

Thanks in advance for your answer,

Michael

[shrinkermd]

IMHO everyone is missing one thing in this discussion. What is missing is the recognition of the "us vs. them" motive in human behavior.

Until about 6-10 thousand years ago we functioned in face to face, small groups. Competing for food and power resulted in a constant effort for one group to do in another. This has been so hard-wired into our psychology that even very simple social psychology experiments can show how readily even fictional small groups will punish other groups with unbelievable fury and consequences.

Usually, there is always an in-group morality and quite a different out-group morality. By now you probably think this just a piece of crap; however, see Adams and Hogg's book on "Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances (1990)." Also, contrast Deuteronomy 15:7-10 (in group morality) with Deuteronomy 24:21-22 (out group morality).

The upshot of this is that when we strongly identify with a group there is an atavistic tendency to resort to inapplicable, small group behavior. Hence, there is a tendency to feel and act in a deplorable way to the "out group."

Pesident Bush has inadvertantly slipped into this real quagmire--manifest hostility to the Mexican illegals. The emotions are powerful, not rational and dangerous. I credit him with trying to make an effort here. All previous Presidents have either made light of the problem, ignored it or in the case of President Reagan changed the law. IMHO the President has taken this effort on full well knowing it will cost him respect and votes.

What is usually suggested on these and other pages is a macho, macho send them back. Remember, there are 8-10 million of them and they came here to work and most do. It is morally hard to become angry and punitive (on an individual not a group basis) with someone whose chief failing is they want to participate and produce to feed themselves and their families.

[muslims=borg]

Bush is trying to play both sides of the fence. Spending 18bil Usd on Aids in other countries? I don't want to spend a dime on fighting Aids in this country. You might as well flush the money down the toilet. I seriously have to wonder about the amnesty for illegal aliens, and on this issue Bush may lose my vote( not that I'd ever vote for a rat), how does this benefit the U.S.? Maybe he should take the money to fight aids and spend it on cleaning up the illegal aliens and border security. The tax cuts I agree with, I think tax rates should be brought back down to the levels of the second Reagan tax cut. Bush is basically trying to out-democrat the democrats and lower taxes and fight the war on terrorism.

[ilgipper]

I am frustrated with some of these moves Bush has made, but this article is pretty much BS. His approval is at 58%, and this is during the Demo primaries with nine people bag endlessly day after day. He hasn't even started his campaign yet.

The White House is not making decisions based on assuming a Deam candidacy. Kerry, a man with absolutely no charisma whatsoever from Massachusetts will not beat a charismatic proven leader. Edwards is going to get a media pass for awhile but he is a political lightweight that would not win his home state, nor change the outcome in the south. Republicans have a 93% approval rating for this President. The base will be there.

[Destructor]

I would not want to be a liberal politician standing before the Lord for judgement!

[prairiebreeze]

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.

Anybody who doesn't vote, particularly in THIS election, deserves no consideration of their ideas whatsoever. If a person chooses to not vote, AT THAT MOMENT they lose every right to complain or criticize at any level. And this guy is a dispassionate observer as much as I am. Not.

Prairie

[Recovering_Democrat]

If ever there was a time for a third party to emerge with some alternative ideas, 2004 is it.

Farah is out to lunch on this one, imntbho.

[MissAmericanPie]

I have been trying to put it all together. Bush is a rich man from a rich family whose father blew it as president over "read my lips" and because he didn't do the right thing and take out Saddam when we were over there in 91.

He's been raised on globalist propaganda like some kids are raised on milk. The ignorant American citizen needs to be duped into what's best for them, or even worse, the American citizen stands in the way of big bucks and must be marginalized.

If he is a good man, he never once stopped to ask himself that if globalism is such a good deal for Americans why it must be snuck past free citizens of a free nation. At the very least it says he disdains our intelligence, or worse that he hates his fellow countrymen and believes us evil and standing in the way of globalist progress by clinging to our worn out Constitution, the last fortress and refuge from tyranny and the tyrant, that stands in the way of globalism and has them tearing their hair out designing ways to wrest it from us.

If he is an evil man then he is actively working towards the destruction of the majority population and working for an end to our constitutional republic form of government.

We know from Fox's statements that the two of them had meetings discussing how to implement the globalist agenda of melting our borders and forming one, no borders, federation along with Canada, bringing a standardization to wages. To be joined later by the rest of the Western hemisphere. I'm sure conservative, patriotic, common sense, Americans are seen as a major hinderance in the realization of those goals.

No one can deny that Bush hit the ground running in marginalizing his conservative base and pimping himself out to moderate democrats, hispanics, and everyone else he could think to cram in that "big tent" in order to marginalize us and leave us without any representation in the USofA. He was gambling and rolling the dice. Betting the farm.

He has two daughters that are not trilled with him being president, a new ranch he really hasn't gotten to live on, and a wife that misses her friends in Texas. So he's laid it all out on the table, to a point, he certainly hasn't been forth coming about dissolving our borders, or this federation that globalist politicians work under the radar to attain.

If Bush had worked as hard for his fellow countrymens best interest as he has to fulfill his promises to his old amigo Vicente Fox and his globalist pals, we could be impressed, even greatful. He has made it clear, to anyone with a lick of sense, through two stealth attempts at 245i and now this amnesty suggestion, that this is the most important and critical goal of his Presidency. If he cannot attain it I think he wants to find that out now, up front, and a second term is not that big a thing to him.

No matter what the true intentions in his heart of hearts, I think him a dangerous man, with a dangerous plan. The FTAA treaty is a huge globalist goal, it is the sword in the heart of a free and sovereign America, and Bush is already touting it for his second term. I think, hope, we send him to Crawford. Is he the only dangerous man we will ever face? No, we are swimming in a sea of sharks, attempting gridlock when we can, and knocking them down one at a time as we can. The danger that Bush poses is not different from the dangers the other's pose it's only packaged with a bow. Making his ability to implement greater damage more successful.

It's time for Americans to put aside our naive'te, stop jumping through our own backsides out of fear of not being seen as compassionate, or fear of being accused of being racist, because now they have come for your freedom and sovereignty, telling you that it is your duty and obligation to the third world to give it up. It's time to realize where your real and first responsiblity lies, your own survival as the nation of the free and the brave based on that rock, the Constitution of the United States.

[1rudeboy]

This reminds me of one of my favorite FR threads:

Bush Wins Iowa

[sinkspur]

Farah is really starting to suck. He's no supporter of Bush; just another bandwagon jumper.

[zook]

A crack pipe smoking analysis, if I ever saw one. The lies begin in the first paragraph.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Bush's campaign chairman, Gov. Racicot, spoke at my GOP caucus Monday and he showed no signs of blind overconfidence. He gave a very straightforward businesslike speech. Very refreshing after all the screaming lunacy inflicted on Iowa the past few weeks by the other side. It almost felt like listening to Tommy Franks methodically planning to beat Saddam.

[Corin Stormhands]

The big loser was George W. Bush.

You'd like that wouldn't you Joe?