Replies

Excuse me - But you are dead wrong. Look at the 2002 mid term elections. The base came out and we wiped the floor with the Dems.

The GOP's real base (i.e., those who actually vote for Republicans) actually turned out.

But the self-proclaimed "base" didn't--as they've done since 1992.

In 2002, the President showed leadership and took the bull by the horns. The Medicare program was brought to the floor by him, the Immigration "proposal" by him, the other liberal garbage, bu him. He will be a one term president unless he changes things around in terms of perception.

Fine. Then you deserve what you'll get.

People have short memories, and I am TELLING YOU LOUDLY & CLEARLY, that I as well as my family members who have voted 100% GOP in all of the previous elections, are pissed off and feel betrayed.

OK, you and your kin are apparently going to vote based on your FEEEEEEEL-INGS.

In other words, y'all are a bunch of liberals.

Call me whatever name you want, say my "base" vote does not matter, but it is the fact of the matter whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Bush is probably counting on getting more than one vote in exchange for losing yours.

Because the rest of the folks who agree with you, and think as you do, spent a decade slow-rolling the GOP...well, you're going to suffer.

Quit blaming Bush, and start blaming the folks who talked much, demanded much more, and never delivered anything in return.

Bush is probably counting on getting more than one vote in exchange for losing yours.

Oh, I have no doubt that he's expecting to get 2 squishy moderates for every 1 conservative he loses.

Heck, I'd do the same thing, if my priority was reelection.

I just can't vote for it, is all.

Continue to believe as you want, it is your right, but you are simply unable to see what is happening. For the what the polls are worth, admittedly not too much, Bush has not significantly increased his share of "independent voters." This will place more importance on the traditional Republicans turning out. I probably will because Kerry would be a total disaster, but that does not mean we allow Bush to give away only three quarter's of the store because Kerry would give the whole thing away. For your information, I think, believe, and know, that Bush's "proposal" is a betrayal and will be a disaster of yet to be known porportions. Comprende Amigo????

Bush is probably counting on getting more than one vote in exchange for losing yours.

You honestly believe enough of the citizens of Mexico will vote for Bush because of the amnesty that losing votes of Conservatives doesn't matter?

The GOP's real base (i.e., those who actually vote for Republicans) actually turned out. But the self-proclaimed "base" didn't--as they've done since 1992.

Either you need to support this claim, or you need to stop making it. If you are referring to this quote:

***********
Exit Polling data.. religious right
2000.... 14% of which 19% claimed to have voted for Gore...
1996.... 17%

The following is the Rove quote that gets bantered about.......

"We probably failed to marshal support of the base as well as we should have," President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, said yesterday. And by "the base" he means evangelicals.

There should have been 19 million of them, and instead there were 15 million of them. So four million of them did not turn out to vote. … But we also may be returning to the point in America where fundamentalists and evangelicals remain true to their beliefs and think politics is corrupt and therefore they shouldn't participate. … If this process of withdrawal continues, it's bad for conservatives, bad for Republicans, but also bad for the country. … It's something we have to spend a lot of time and energy on.
***********

then you need to provide some evidence that Bush has written off his base, other than your speculation. This quote doesn't support your claim.

Bush is probably counting on getting more than one vote in exchange for losing yours.

ROTFLOL

But the self-proclaimed "base" didn't--as they've done since 1992.

Pop quiz time:
What year was the most decisive GOP electoral victory in our lifetimes?
Let me know if you need a hint.

OK, you and your kin are apparently going to vote based on your FEEEEEEEL-INGS.

In other words, y'all are a bunch of liberals.

Liberals or not, do their votes count?

Bush is probably counting on getting more than one vote in exchange for losing yours.

Did you read the article?
Growing frustration over President Bush's immigration plan and lack of fiscal discipline came to a head behind closed doors at last weekend's Republican retreat in Philadelphia.
House lawmakers, stunned by the intensity of their constituents' displeasure at some of Mr. Bush's key domestic policies, gave his political strategist Karl Rove an earful behind closed doors.
< -snip- >
Many House critics of the Bush immigration plan said privately that the proposal was created to win Mr. Bush a larger share of the Hispanic vote in November and to mollify Mexican President Vicente Fox. Mr. Fox has supported relaxed U.S. immigration laws as a means to alleviate economic problems in Mexico.
Mr. Duffy said the president delivered a passionate defense of his immigration plan, telling the Republican caucus that his policy is not a political ploy.
"He said he didn't do it for politics [but] because that's what he believes is good for the country," Mr. Duffy said, adding that Mr. Bush drove his point home by saying, "I'm from Texas and I know this issue."

Well, I'm from California, and the President is dead wrong on Illegals, not only on principle, but on policy and politics as well.
But who needs those stinking votes?

Because the rest of the folks who agree with you, and think as you do, spent a decade slow-rolling the GOP...well, you're going to suffer.

Listen to you. What a coalition-builder.

Quit blaming Bush, and start blaming the folks who talked much, demanded much more, and never delivered anything in return.

Here's a question for your electoral calculus:
If a party has a constuency that can deliver decisive victories when motivated, and yet that party suffers defeats or mixed results when that same constituency is alienated, then isn't that constituency a bellweather for the party's prospects in any given election?