How Bush could lose it

OC Register ^ | 1/25/04 | John Hood

[NormsRevenge]

President George W. Bush blew it Tuesday night. He delivered a State of the Union address that downplayed his most promising - and potentially revolutionary - domestic-policy initiatives. Earlier drafts had reportedly contained a lengthy exposition of his vision of an "ownership society," expanded and strengthened by tax changes and Social Security reform.

[contessa machiaveli]

i'm proud to be nationalistic, this country has given opportunities unheard of anywhere else. my great grandparents and grandparents immigrated here at the beginning of the century and were able to work themselves up into living the american dream. and there's nothing wrong with that.

[janetgreen]

I have never seen such anger in my lifetime over the immigration issue.

It's the huge numbers in our state that are scaring people away from Bush's proposal. We're living with a situation that we know will only get worse, not better. All we want is enforcement of existing laws, something Washington has failed to do.

[eleni121]

You write with high regard for our President

I do and have high regard for all the reasons already mentioned and many more.

A couple more full terms of conservative Republican presidents/congresses and many of the socialistic policies put into place since Roosevelt could wither away...it cannot be done overnight.

[PersonalLiberties]

there's nothing wrong with that.


I was on your side

[lsmith1990]

The fastest way for lose liberties is for terrorism to prevail. The Patriot Act is not a threat to liberties, terrorism is. If the Patriot Act prevents terrorism, it is protecting liberties, not threatening them.

I really wonder about some of the people here sometimes.

They are unaware of the loss of liberties in the UK because of IRA successes.

They complain about an alleged loss of liberties but are ignorant of the real liberties that were lost in WW2 and the Civil War. There is no historical comparison between the inconveniences today and the loss of liberties in WW2 and Civil War. Yet, they whine.

[13foxtrot]

you dont take terrorism seriously

there wont be another batch of Republicans who can win in 2008. If you beleive history, the election of 2004 will be historic. Every 36 years since 1860, there has been a political shift in the country. The winner in 2004, will likely have the White House for possibly decades.

1) I take terrorism more seriously the the current crop of Republicans.

2) The last thing I want is for the present Republicrat policies to be in the white house for decades.

If the Demos come to power they will stumble. Then a new breed of Republicans may be elected in.

[lsmith1990]

"'1) I take terrorism more seriously the the current crop of Republicans."

No reasonable conservative would think you do if you want a Democrat to win in 2004.

[RiflemanSharpe]

When the amnesty was originally proposed it looked like Dean had a lock on the dem nomination. That has changed, I hope GWB takes a moment and seriously thinks about that and how this is angering the base. This election will be close.

[eleni121]

You know, libertarians could lose the WH for this President in a close election.

That happens...look forward to at least 4 years of vast expansion of government...would that satisfy you?

[PersonalLiberties]

the civil war? That made a mockery of the constitution and states' rights. But I suspect most of us were not alive then to complain about it.

[lsmith1990]

"'If the Demos come to power they will stumble. Then a new breed of Republicans may be elected in."'

they controlled the white house from 1932 to 1952. They would have won ever election from 1932-68 were it not for Eisenhower.

By the time 2020 rolls around it will be demographically impossible for the GOP to win, even in a Democratic Recession, unless the GOP can win aleast a large minority (40%) of the hispanic vote each and every time. What has happened in IL, CA, NM and NJ will soon happen over the next 20 years in TX, FL, AZ, NV, CO. It will be an impossiblity for any GOP candidate to reach 270.

[MEG33]

I shudder to think conservatives would risk any one of the dems running winning the Presidency.

[Dec31,1999]

...the problem is not "corporations"; it's the federal and state governments and the burdensome regulations, taxes, and bureaucracy that they have imposed on American corporations, raising the cost of doing business here.

I agree. That and the fact that we have a lot of competition in the world today. It's a fact of life. The devaluation of the dollar is beneficial in this aspect; it makes our goods and services more competitive in the international markets.

[Dane]

Make that four. Not getting my vote

He never had it. You probably voted for a no name third partier in 2000. Your disingenuousness is very tansparent.

[13foxtrot]

1) Farm Bill
2) China Policy
3) Immigration Reform
4) Spending
5) ad nauseaum...

Myself and many other conservatives refuse to be captive voters - ensnarred in the choice of evils trap.

That is how Clinton operated - he could screw over his core constituencies because they had nowwhere else to go.

[Twinkie]

YOU'RE NOT KIDDING! We got a mailing from Bob Barr
yesterday & he seemed to be hinting strongly that
Hillary WILL run this time, IF things fall in place
like she and Slick have planned. Although Barr didn't
specify, Wesley Clark figured heavily in their plans,
possibly the "attractive" ticket of Clinton/Clark.
Catchy, cutesy names & all that jazz.

[RiflemanSharpe]

After the amnesty proposal I left the rep plantation. I am now going to vote for the Constitiution Party.

[MEG33]

I know we will have a battle on our hands and hope sanity prevails.I trust President Bush,I cannot trust a dem with my country.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" I would rather put Demos in "

As a veteran, the father of 2 soldiers,one active duty,one about to go and the brother of one just returned from Iraq-the thought of a Democrat Commander in Chief,sickens me. To wish for Democrat control of any of our institutions, is incomprehensible. And after 9/11 -irresponsible.