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.

[lsmith1990]

"' guess that not falling for the simplist "they hate us" answers offered by the administration and defending the constitution and demanding fiscal accountability and responsibility makes me dispicable. How ridiculous the republicans have become.

Richard W."'

Youre dispicable because you said blaming Al Qaeda is scape goating and you blame democratic capitalism for what happened on 9/11. No where have you even denied my belief that you blame Israel for 9/11. Its those Jews fault isnt it Richard?

[janetgreen]

do the sheeple imitation. It's all rage on FR now

It's now party over principle here. I can't vote that way.

[timydnuc]

GW can lose, if we sit on our butts.

Sure, I have my problems with GW. As a conservative, I don't like the federal budget, and I sure as hell don't like the administration's stand on immigration. But, we need a republican in the white house, and we need more republicans in the senate. If we don't correct the federal courts we will fall to the Marxists and we will lose our republic, and our liberty.

I will work for the president, and I will work for the republican party, and until such time as there is better, I will stand and deliver for these things.

Is this the lesser of two evils? I don't think so. In this party I can change things with a voice.

We have victory together, we die in parts, and if that happens the republic is gone. Think carefully about your vote, and your support this IS the defining moment of this republic.

Benjamin Franklin: "You have your Republic, if you can keep it". Well, I aim to keep it, and you should too. Don't go away, stay to keep our republic. I beg you. It's the only logical thing to do.

[azhenfud]

My take on any plan to overhaul the Immigration Code is this:

First: let's try reinforcing and enforcing the current code. If we give it our honest best and it fails, then we compromise. But from the outset of this "proposal", we're abandoning existing laws without ever really trying. Show Americans an honest attempt to enforce current law and we maybe can believe any revised laws will be enforced.

Second: let's see a proposal to fund additional enforcement officers and better equip them for their duties. Too many times those officers are hindered from doing their jobs and those hinderances need to be eliminated. The Bush Admin should consider funding Border Patrol/USCIS enforcement as importantly as any other of our Armed Service branches. The most critical battlelines in the war on terror are our borders.

[Consort]

If the Dems get back in control they will do all those thing you don't like....and undo all the things you do like. It's not complicated.

...but I'll at least be happy I wasn't fleeced by the other guys, who would have done it quicker and more insultingly.

It sounds like you would be happier being fleeced by the other guy...and it looks like you will enable them whether you intend to or not.

[Salamander]

Not really an ad hominem attack. I just happen to think that you are off in Twinkyville. Undoubtedly, trying to relate profiling to not enforcing border security will qualify you as one of the first moon settlers.

Ah. Well, then.

Just so long as you do not resort to insulting the poster rather than answering the post......(/dripping sarcasm)

LMAO!

[lsmith1990]

one thing you didnt mention and unfortunately is rarely mentioned is if you want to stop illegal immigration, you HAVE to prosecute Americans who employ these illegals.

Simply plugging holes in the border, wont work without going after Americans who employ illegals. Jail time no fines.

[kiki p]

Could you try to make my point any clearer? Another 10 years of unopposed Republican control over all branches of government might be the end of all of like savings, but I'll at least be happy I wasn't fleeced by the other guys, who would have done it quicker and more insultingly.

Here's what's bugging me. The democrats want all your money, but they admit it, freely and more than a little bizarrely. The republicans also want all your money, but they don't want you to know it. I'm beginning to wonder which is really more insulting.

[azhenfud]

Your point is well taken, I shall cease immediately - except for those credit card offers.

[kcar]

No, I'll vote for Bush due to the war unless he makes himself even more unpalatable. I just don't necessarily see that giving him a pliable Congress will help - that's where I'll look for evidence that Republicans are not just selling me out. Simple: Don't tack to the center/left.

Blacks are a kept voting block. Hispanics are not. Who does every one vie for? Conservatives should not allow themselves to be kept, comprehende?

[Salamander]

Well said.

Work to change what you can, a little bit at a time.

The party will *eventually* reform to match the will of its supporters.

Unfortunately everybody wants it all exactly how they think it should be, right -now-.

Taking your ball and going home won't change anything -ever-.

[MEG33]

I love the way some throw the party over principle accusation at those of us choosing to vote for a Republican,inferring we have no principles and that they don't guide us to vote Republican even if we do.

The implication is we are unprincipled or don't let our principles guide us.

[janetgreen]

Bush has been in office slightly over 3 yrs.

Bush was in office on 9/11/01. He didn't secure our borders after that horrible terrorist attack. His new "homeland security" program tells us that we are in danger, yet he still has done little to secure our borders. Several million illegal aliens have come over our borders since 9/11/01.

Mexicans aren't the only ones coming over the borders. If you were worried about someone breaking into your home who had a terrible weapon, wouldn't you do everything you could to secure your home? This is not homeland security, this is insanity. Now he wants America to accept "guestworker" privileges and possible citizenship for border hoppers who we are forced to support. Where is the rule of law?

[Types_with_Fist]

Thanks...:-) Not sure how I thought of that. I think I was still routinely furious at the Clintons around then.

[azhenfud]

Oh, I've not missed that. Bush's plan is for amnesty to those felons who hire and aid Illegaliens.

[janetgreen]

My friends are not stupid people, cinFLA. They have high principles, and prefer voting for the man and his principles rather than simply the party. Your rude characterization of my friends as stupid is unfounded.

[Salamander]

It's a priceless mental image.....:))

[lsmith1990]

<> what should be done? I want more crack downs on illegals and prosecution of those who hire them but not a closed border. It is very difficult for non-US/Candian citizens to cross the US/Canada border legally at least, but unless we become a police state we cant completely close off the border. Do you know that foreign businessmen are having a hard time getting visas to come to the US to inspect US good for export. So possibly more sale for companies like Airbus and less for Boeing, Cat, Monsanto etc.

[lsmith1990]

well i hear a lot about closing the borders but too little about going after the lily white people who hire them to cut their grass, tend to their gardens and take care of their children. Those people need to fill the jails.

[David]

"How will Hillary be worse than George II? Think Supreme Court appointees. Think abortion. Think Affirmative Action. Think judicial activism."

Even with several hundred posts here, this is a sufficiently important point to merit a response.

George is not going to get another conservative Supreme Court appointment through the Senate. Hillary should not be able to get a liberal appointment through a Republican Senate.

Abortion is legal and will stay that way until the center of gravity on the issue reverses. The trend is our direction and when we cross, we will be able to limit abortion, whether Hillary or George is president. George can't do anything about abortion until the electorial trend changes.

President Hillary is not going to have any material impact on Affirmative Action that I can see either. Slick Bill certainly did not.

President does not have anything to do with judicial activism I can see either. If what you mean is in the appointment process with respect to federal judges, a Republican Senate majority will be far more aggressive under President Hillary than it has been under George. Hillary is not likely to get a free hand on appointments any more than George has. And the Republican base will have a much more free hand in dealing with liberal appoitments without Karl Rove than with him. In fact on this issue, if you assume a Republican Senate, we are probably better with Hillary than with George.

I don't buy any of this. We would have been better off with four more years of Slick Bill than with George.