Posted on 02/02/2004 2:15:54 PM PST by quidnunc
By the end of 2003, after months of falling popularity and an unceasing barrage of criticism from Democratic presidential aspirants, George W. Bush suddenly seemed to be leading a charmed life. His surprise visit to U.S. troops in Baghdad over the Thanksgiving holiday introduced a note of high confidence and inspiration. Two weeks later, the world was treated to footage of a helpless and disheveled Saddam Hussein in American custody. Although attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq continued, their ferocity diminished amid promising signs that the battle to rebuild Iraq and fight terrorism elsewhere was on course. Within days of Saddam Husseins capture came the announcement that Muammar Qaddafi had agreed to open his program for amassing nuclear weapons to international inspection. That same week, France, Germany, and Russia, persistent opponents of the Iraq war, acceded to American requests to forgive a portion of Iraqi debts. By mid-December, a CBS poll showed 59 percent of Americans approving of the way the President was handling Iraq the highest level since early July.
At home, there was still more good news for the White House. In late November, the Commerce Department reported that the economy had grown at a startling 8.2 percent in the third quarter the highest level in nearly two decades and a figure that exceeded even the most optimistic projections. There followed a cascade of other positive economic announcements. Inflation and interest rates were at their lowest point in decades. Productivity was historically high. Housing starts were soaring. Manufacturing, only recently thought to be disappearing from the America landscape, hit its highest level in twenty years.
Congress, meanwhile, had passed a bipartisan overhaul of Medicare that, while highly controversial, was clearly a political victory for the President. Flush with this legislative success, in late December the White House released word that it was considering an overhaul of Social Security and possibly re-establishing manned flight to the moon.
Is everybody happy, then? Hardly. For one thing, not since Richard Nixon has there been a Republican occupant of the White House who has provoked such naked antipathy from his political enemies on the Left. Bill and Hillary Clinton generated their own fevered response from the angriest and most conspiratorial corners of the Republican Right. But what is striking about todays liberal hatred of George Bush is not how shrill it is, but rather how even the most extreme outbursts have been fully embraced by mainstream Democratic politicians and journalists.
But criticism of the President has not been confined to Democrats or the Left. For the past year, a chorus of dissent has arisen as well among some conservative pundits and intellectuals the very group one might have thought would rush to the defense of a President under assault by his liberal antagonists. In a particularly harsh and surprising condemnation, the talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listeners in December that Bushs legacy to the nation would be the greatest increase in domestic spending, and one of the greatest setbacks for liberty, in modern times. This may be compassionate, warned Limbaugh, playing on Bushs 2000 campaign slogan, but it is not conservatism at all. To be sure, conservative discontent with President Bush is likely to have few if any political consequences in the short term; unlike his father before him, George W. Bush will win the Republican nomination unopposed. Despite grumbling among some conservatives in the House of Representatives, no splinter group of disaffected Republicans seems set to take on the cause of Bushs Democratic opponent the way some embraced Clinton in 1992. Still, Bushs ability to remain a popular Republican President while causing so much dismay on both Left and Right does demand an assessment of the direction in which he has been taking the GOP and the country. Should he be reelected this fall, he will remain not only a controversial figure but possibly one of the most consequential Presidents we have had in the modern era.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
|
||||
Compare Candidates | ||||
|
|||||
Remove | Remove | ||||
Choose Another Candidate | |||||
Kerry | Bush | ||||
General Information | |||||
Party | Democrat | Republican | |||
Has Held Elected Office | Yes | Yes | |||
Served in the Military | Yes | Yes | |||
Issues | |||||
Abortion | |||||
Appoint Judges Who Will Outlaw Abortions | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Outlaw "Partial Birth" Abortions | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Outlaw Abortions Except for Rape/Incest | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Parental Notification for Minors Under 18 | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Gay Rights | |||||
Constitutional Gay Marriage Ban | Somewhat Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Equal Rights for Civil Unions | Strongly Favor | Somewhat Opposes | |||
Allow Gays to Openly Serve in the Military | Strongly Favor | Strongly Opposes | |||
Religion in Government | |||||
Organized Prayer in Public Schools | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Commandments Displayed in Federal Buildings | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Federal Funding of Religious Charities | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Gun Control | |||||
Safety Devices on All New Guns | Strongly Favor | Strongly Opposes | |||
Background Checks on Gun Show Purchases | Strongly Favor | Somewhat Opposes | |||
Require Safety Course, License Before Gun Purchase | Somewhat Favor | Strongly Opposes | |||
Allow Lawsuits Against Gun Manufacturers | Somewhat Favor | Strongly Opposes | |||
Death Penalty | |||||
Abolish the Death Penalty | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Opposes | |||
National Review of Death Penalty Fairness | Strongly Favor | Strongly Opposes | |||
Education | |||||
No Child Left Behind Act | Somewhat Favor | Strongly Favor | |||
Vouchers for Public, Private or Religious Schools | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Increase Federal Funding for Higher Education | Somewhat Favor | Somewhat Opposes | |||
Homeland Security | |||||
The Patriot Act | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Tighter Immigration Controls | Strongly Favor | Strongly Favor | |||
Iraq | |||||
The War in Iraq | Somewhat Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Turning Over More Political Authority to U.N. | Somewhat Favor | Strongly Opposes | |||
Immediate Withdrawal of U.S. Troops | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Opposes | |||
Foreign Trade | |||||
Embargo on Cuba | Somewhat Favor | Strongly Favor | |||
U.S. Involvement in NAFTA | Strongly Favor | Strongly Favor | |||
Mandatory Labor/Environment Standards in Trade Agreements | Somewhat Favor | Strongly Opposes | |||
Health Care | |||||
Universal Government-Supervised Health Care | Somewhat Opposes | Strongly Opposes | |||
Medicare Prescription Drugs Coverage By Private Insurers | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Expand Medicaid to Cover More Uninsured Americans | Strongly Favor | No Opinion | |||
Limit Malpractice Suits Against Doctors, Insurers | Somewhat Favor | Strongly Favor | |||
Welfare Reform | |||||
Hiring Welfare Workers Tax Incentive | No Opinion | Somewhat Opposes | |||
Welfare Benefits for Legal Immigrants | Strongly Favor | Somewhat Opposes | |||
Child Care Services for Getting Off Welfare | No Opinion | Somewhat Opposes | |||
Social Security | |||||
Raise Retirement Age | Strongly Opposes | No Opinion | |||
Privatize Social Security | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Cap Payments to Wealthy | Somewhat Favor | Strongly Opposes | |||
Tax Cuts | |||||
Roll Back the Bush Administration Tax Cuts | Somewhat Opposes | Strongly Opposes | |||
Roll Back Cuts for People Making Over $100,000 | Strongly Favor | Strongly Opposes | |||
Additional Tax Cuts for Businesses | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Jobs | |||||
Raise the Minimum Wage | Strongly Favor | Strongly Opposes | |||
Extend Unemployment Benefits | Strongly Favor | Strongly Opposes | |||
Environment | |||||
Oil Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Favor | |||
Mandatory Clean Air Emissions Standards | Strongly Favor | Somewhat Opposes | |||
Tougher Fuel Efficiency Standards | Strongly Favor | Strongly Opposes |
Reagan(incumbant) was behind Mondale during the 84 demo primaries and Bush was leading Gore(incumbant) during the 2000 primaries.
You should look at recent electoral trends.
Yep that your spam list comes from an uber Libertarian and it shows. It comes from a Harry Browne supporter, you know the guy who said that 9/11 was America's fault.
Refrain from misusing terms you neither understand, nor know the meaning of. Elsewise, you just PROVE what everyone suspects a bout you.
Patently untrue. You should be ashamed for saying such things.
Enemy combatants are routinely rounded up during wars and held without trials, without attorneys, and without the protection of POWs. The Geneva Convention states that enemy combatants are those spies and/or sabotuers who are caught on the battlefield without internationally recognized military uniforms or military ID tags. Such people can, per the 1947 Geneva Convention, be SHOT ON SIGHT or given any other battlefield justice deemed appropriate by their captors.
That's hardly Bush "inventing" anything.
During WW2, FDR faced a similar problem to what Bush faces today. In 1940, Adolph Hitler had sent letters and placed ads worldwide calling on all true Aryans to return to the Reich to fight for the Fatherland. More than 1,000 U.S. citizens answered Hitler's call to arms, all of whom were killed or captured on the battlefield during WW2 after the U.S. entered the war. None of those enemy combatants were given attorneys or trials, either, save for 8 of them who were caught on U.S. soil (they were brought back here by German U-Boats) wearing civilian clothes with no military ID's.
Those 8 were given military tribunals, and at least 5 of them were executed without appeal.
Again, this is hardly something that Bush has invented. See Taliban Johnny fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan or dirty bomber Jose Padilla getting caught here on U.S. soil.
Any person claiming to be conservative who is not motivated to keep the Democrats out of power after knowing EXACTLY what they will do with it if given the opportunity, has a real problem with reality. They're either political martyrs, have not been paying attention to what the Democrat candidates have been promising they will do if elected, or are ignoring (or are totally or willfully ignorant of) the history of the last seventy years, or are incredibly dense or insane, or have a morbid desire to toil their lives away in the misery of a Liberal Hell! Any person who would support a third party candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning even one state or even a single electoral vote is so politically naive and devoid of the brainpower that The Creator so graciously endowed upon them, that it's not even worth wasting pixels on.
And I can tell you, that I probably won't be wasting very many more pixels on people who are coming to FR to trash and bash our candidates and or to trash and bash and drive away the very posters I'm trying to attract. If the intent of third party supporters is to cause as much hell and discontent on our forum and to inflict as much damage to FR as they possibly can, well, I can assure you we will have many fewer third party posters left on FR very soon. The LePur colony can have them. Thank you very much.
It might be different if there was a primary involved. These kind of battles need to take place as part of the process of selecting the best person to run. In this case, there will be no primary. God willing and barring any major disasters, George W. Bush will be the candidate. So it will either be Bush or one of the Democrats that gets elected. No one else stands a snowball's chance in hell. And I've given every person on this web site plenty of advance notice (I've been saying it for the last three years) that FR will NOT be used to help replace Bush with a Democrat. Period. End of story.
Again, if that is your intent, leave now or get yourself banned later. Excessive and repetitive attacks on our candidates or our posters will not be tolerated. Try your luck at DUh or LibertyPost. In presidential politics, they are interchangeable.
So are you going to stop with the Patriot Act defense? It is complicated enough that no one can know what it all means or how it will be interpreted. How about commenting on the other items on my list! I am especially anxious to hear what you think about enemy combatant treatment for native born US citizens.
Indeed. Bush promised not to sign any new gun control during his 2000 campaign, though he also said that he would consider signing renewals of old measures providing that they didn't have new anti-gun restrictions in them. The AWB falls into that latter catagory.
But the AWB is hardly more than symbolism. I can still buy my high capacity clips, and so can you. That's hardly the stuff of great restrictions.
And a *promise* to renew that one existing law is hardly worthy of bashing the same man who has given us numerous pro-gun victories in the last few years.
For instance, Bush:
Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit
Is currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers
Ordered Attorney-General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, NOT a leftist-imagined *collective* right
Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e. the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty)
And he also signed the 2004 Omnibus Budget 1/26/2004 that now MANDATES that gun buyers' background check information be fully and permanently destroyed within 24 hours of the completion of the check, no matter what.
Logical fallacy - guilt by association.
If you noticed, those little "source" tags means they are real news stories. Try to to better with your retort next time.
Yes, about our friend Jose-How do you know he had plans to do a dirty bomb? Did a jury of his peers look at the evidence and find him guilty? No, all that happened is that John Ashcroft and George Bush said so. He has been in jail for 19 months and counting with no charge or trial. If that precedent stands, then some future president (maybe Hillary) could decide that FReepers are enemy combatants and round up the bunch of us.
All those linked sources are discredited? Do tell. Otherwise, just another guilt by association logicall fallacy (from you yet again).
So? They still constitute your agenda, which is a Libertarian one, whose nominee in 96 and 2000, publicly stated that 9/11 was America's fault.
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.