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.

[PersonalLiberties]

you know that definition of insanity. To keep doing what you always do but expect different results. If you want different results then you must act differently.

[Wolfstar]

RiflemanSharpe wrote: "The problem I have with GWB is that I am having a hard time telling the difference from him and some of the dems."

To which I reply: Then you sure as h@ll are not very bright or perceptive. That being the case, why should I or anyone else pay the slightest attention to you.

[imintrouble]

Thank you for your reply.

I am honestly unsettled by the President's plans for the Mexican people, but I will have faith he knows much more than I will ever know for his decision.

I must disagree with him however as long as their is poverty and homelessness plaguing the people who live in the United States as legal citizens and/or residents.

We must see to our own back yards first.

[MEG33]

Are you the "teach the Republicans a lesson ,punish them,show em" conservative or the "I like divided government better" conservative?

When was the last time in history you think America had a conservative government?

[Beck_isright]

"I really would like you to vote for Bush.I truly believe he is the best for the country at this time in our history."

Funny. Carville said the exact same thing in 1996 about another candidate. I have principles. I shall not sacrifice them for any emperor or man.

[Hand em their arse]

"The problem I have with GWB is that I am having a hard time telling the difference from him and some of the dems."


So exactly which one of the dems do think realizes that without putting the security of this beautiful nation and it's people first makes tax cuts, healthcare, immigration, education, prescription drugs and every other issue they'd like to place in front of it COMPLETLEY OBSOLETE!

[MizzouTigerRepublican]

"Right now the Repubs are spending like drunken sailors.

As someone else pointed out on another thread: Drunken sailors spend their own money."


LOL that is so true. That is why I said no offense to the sailors. Dammit Dubya stop wasting my money! I want a staunch fiscal conservative. Oh yeah, I need you to stop proposing we let ILLEGAL's get off scott free in this country.

[MEG33]

You know my posts.Surely you don't compare me to Carville.Surely you don't think I would not say this if I did not believe it...did not have principles.

[Beck_isright]

No comparison. I do not know you so there is no comparison. Carville however stated words to the same effect in 1996. When "conservatives" start sounding like rats, it's time to run. My beliefs, the issues I believe strongest in, have been betrayed. I will sleep well at night knowing how I voted. Since the current two party system will prevent any difference in the legislative results, I shall focus my efforts locally on the third parties and nationally on no one. If you don't like it, take the party line and do the sheeple imitation. It's all rage on FR now.

[Salamander]

This is a loose historical analogy:

The Dems are like the Roman legions.
They fought with a hive-mind mentality.
There were no "single soldiers".
All of them were were trained to consider themselves personally unimportant and only part of greater unstoppable whole.
The Celts, OTOH, were fiercely autonomous.
Each Clan was a "kingdom" unto itself, only loosely joined to other Clans by culture, language, shared beliefs and blood ties.
The Romans conquered them because the Celts could not shake off their ideas of "honor" and "single combat" with the enemy.
Their "freestyle" battle techniques could not withstand the relentless surge of legions of single-minded Roman automatons.

Historians credit the defeat of Gaul by Caesar to the Celt's inability to unite under a single flag, as it were.
The very individuality and self-reliance that made them such a magnificent culture was their undoing, ultimately.

They simply could not put aside internecine rivalries long enough to form a cohesive front against the tide of a focused horde of single-minded invaders.

Conservatives are like that.
We put great stock in fighting fair, never cheating to achieve a goal, standing up for ourselves rather than leaving our defense to the socialist nanny-state.

The very principles that make us "better" also make us vulnerable to an "enemy" who has no principles and who will do *anything* to conquer us.

Having said that, I have no idea how to unite conservatives into a front that will pay off in the long run.
Too many of us have "issues" that cause us to stay home on election day rather than vote with an eye to the "in the long run" future.

Long ago the Dems that controlled my state were decent, conservative people.
Slowly and without anyone noticing, they began to be replaced by pure Socialist scum.
Still, my state went "Dem" in every election, out of sheer habit and loyalty to a party that really existed no more.

The Dems were smart that way.
Elect a "dixiecrat" this time, a more liberal one next, and so on and so on until the changeover was complete.

I detest RINOS and my governor is one...but...he sets the precedent for a more conservative RINO next time, and so on and so on until hopefully, we get a -real- conservative governor.

That is the big picture I look at when I vote for a less-than-perfect conservative and it's my only hope for the long run.

Sorry this is so long and meandering but this is what I think has to happen, nationwide.
We'll have to learn to use their own tactics to beat them.

Dems never "fight fair" and would elect the Devil himself if he ran with a (D) by his name.
We're gonna lose the whole country unless we all realize that and respond aggressively and cohesively.


A lion may be the "noble king of beasts" yet a horde of tiny hive-mind army ants can bring it down.

[arete]

So, in effect, you are going to cast a non-vote, which is effectively a vote for the Democrats when the nation is at peril? So, you're tired of the lesser-of-two evils argument, so you are going to allow that the not-Conservative-at-all party win? Wow!

I am going to vote and it will be counted just like any other vote. What I won't do is vote liberal dem or liberal rep. My vote will be a "no" to socialism regardless of party.

Richard W.

[Old Sarge]

That was great. Wonderful post. And I don't care about the length; the message needed it.

[4integrity]

Well, if a Dem is elected because "Republicans" or conservatives, unhappy about immigration, won't vote, I wonder how happy they'll be when our new Pres seeks permission from the UN/"world community" before making decisions. And, will they be happy when 9month fetuses are aborted? And, will they be happy when the Supreme Court consists of ONLY liberal judges? And, if some of those unhappy "Republicans" happen to be Christians, will they be happy when God is removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and when they can no longer say God or Merry Christmas (I know, this is happening today)? Even if we do not agree with everything our Pres does, there is no candidate who would be a better leader for our country.
Please urge all to be open minded......economists tell us jobs follow about 6 months after the stock market starts to pick up. Further, an economist also spoke about and supported the immigration proposal. Newt Gingrich also supports the immigration proposal. These are knowledgable people. So let's think about this before condemning the Pres.

[sinkspur]

what makes you think banks and corps won't as well to get lower interest rates?

Give me just one example (ONE) in which a bank has called a CD or a corporation has called a bond.

[MEG33]

He is strong arming some reps about this now..says he wants descretionary spending held to 1% increase.They put this junk on bills for miltary spending,etc and then he can't veto because they need it now.

He would not be talking about this if he hadn't been flooded with complaints.They wait til the last minute to pass the budget so it doesn't get scrutinzed.

If he picked up all illegals ,families and shipped them home the outcry would be incredible.We don't have enough support from locals,state and federal to do what we need to do in either case.It took guts to bring it up.It got the conversation going,we don't want all these illegals pouring in. He raised a lot of people's recognition that we have a problem and he found out his idea needs a big stick to go with a carrot.

[Salamander]

Well God bless you for that....:)

( and when they come and flame me silly for it, perhaps you'll zip up my asbestos undies for me? )...LOL!

[MEG33]

I am sorry to lose your vote.I must respect your decision.I do not agree,of course.

[VRWC For Truth]

"Die-hard conservatives thought that if I couldn't get everything I asked for, I should jump off the cliff with the flag flying-go down in flames. No, if I can get 70 or 80 percent of what it is I'm trying to get ... I'll take that and then continue to try to get the rest in the future."
-- Ronald Wilson Reagan

Despite my quarrels with domestic Bush policy, there is no way I can let the 'Rats win by voting a third party. United we stand, divided we fall. Winning the war is more important than winning the battle. It took 70 years of the "New Deal" to get here. Repealing it overnight won't be possible. I'd rather chip away till it crumbles, and not allow the 'Rats to make it petrified.

[Owen]

This is what we face:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1065083/posts

The Democrats care nothing about anything but winning. They are focused and hatred is a powerful thing. That is their level of zeal. They are choosing the leftmost candidate of the viable two (Bush vs. whoever). They are interested in winning because they have come to realize that if you do not win you have no power to do anything.

The key phrase is they are chossing the leftmost candidate of the viable two. They are falling into line. There will be no Nader. They seek the presidency when USSC openings will occur and the gutless GOP Senate will not obstruct the sort of stealth Pro Choice nominees that will be sent forth. The GOP Senate will nod and say, "go ahead and kill more unborn children. Our extremists wanted it that way by defeating Bush."

That's what you face, people. You don't have a choice in the general election. You can get all principled and self-righteous in primaries, but incumbents generally don't have those, so the choice is what it is. You can vote for the rightward most viable candidate or you can act to elect the leftward most viable candidate. That's your choice. There are no others. Look in the mirror when you make it and think about those babies.

[Old Sarge]

Let's discuss gender first, deal? ;^D