Posted on 04/02/2006 4:52:01 PM PDT by mathprof
George W. Bush is taking time to explain himself, open up to the public in new ways and court the U.S. Congress as he tries to breathe life into a presidency beset by sagging ratings and influence.
With a job-approval rating under 40 percent, Bush, who went to his Crawford ranch for a quiet weekend, has a long way to go. Aides acknowledge it will take a while to rebuild his image, and much will depend on the outcome of the Iraq war.
White House staffers, who have long limited the president's appearances to speeches and photo opportunities with little contact with regular people, are now inclined to let Bush be Bush.
He is talking at length. His March 21 news conference lasted nearly an hour. A Freedom House speech with questions from the audience in Washington on Wednesday went on for an hour and a half.
Bush even took questions from gray-haired retirees at a senior citizens' home recently and they asked some tough ones. More such sessions are planned.
``The president enjoys the open question-and-answer formats,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. ``The more we can put him in settings where people can get a better sense of his thinking and his beliefs, the better.'' SNIP
Democrats are not impressed by the more-open Bush. ``The president can give all the speeches he wants but nothing will change the fact that his Iraq policy is wrong,'' said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Presidents HAVE to be nice to each other. I tell you, the whole lot of you have gone 'round the bend!
The Democrat Party is NOT the Democrat Party of my mother. Were she alive she'd spit on them. That you would even think to blame this problem on President Bush after all the Great DORIS MEISNER laws, how the INS was turned upside down, how current laws regarding illegals was utterly abrogated by the Clinton Administration.. and even in "hypothesis" wonder about Impeaching a President who has done so much good for our country. People like you live in a pre-911 mindset, IMHO. You forget we had thousands of our own countrykin murdered, that we had a huger more immediate crisis on our hands than what MORE THAN LIKELY WOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH IMMEDIATELY -- ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
You don't get it. You don't.
Had 9-11 not been "grown" during the Clinton years, if it had been dealt with. Illegal immigration alongside social security, medical reform, etc., would have been front burner.
Most the illegals here are not trying to drive airplanes into large metro areas killing masses. There's this "priority" thing which escapes most the "illegal immigrant reform" boobs, and I do mean boobs. It's like ya'll just realized there was a fire in your house.
Mine are too. And I agree with nick.
As the descendent of an immigrant, you are by extension an immigrant -- unless, of course, you are an 'American' Indian?! [I guess legal immigration was just 'peachy keen' for you and yours; just not for "wink, wink" those other people . . . Today those other people are Mexicans; yesterday they were the Italians, Germans, and the Irish; tomorrow who knows, maybe the Jooooooooooooz (Jews) -- just tossed that in to aggravate your patron saint, Pat Buchanan!]
Ah, like the "new tone" in Washington thing where Kennedy and the rest of them kick Bush in the teeth and he never does anything? Like maybe veto something?
I have not gone "round the bend". I'm a conservative and Bush isn't.
I pinged you because I wanted to provide you with some perspective relative to your use of the word "tepid"!!
Well, Tooty-toot for ya both. His are single-issue and yours are comprehensive and you both believe, what? President Bush is "tepid"? Was that what you agree with Nick about? Or is it.. the "impeach bush" thingee.
Can you not debate the points RM made?
No doubts, OhioWFan can and has done so in the past. Why bother responding to another: I wish I was a man like Bush post?
You have a different definition of "immigrant" than I do. I was born here. Of course, I wonder how you conclude that Indians are not immigrants by your definition. Didn't their ancestors come from somewhere else? I do have some Indian blood, if that makes a difference to you.
Our responsibility is to Americans, not Mexicans. If you are going to open the doors and pretend that everyone who comes here from anywhere in the world is an American, entitled to demand that I pay for their welfare, and their social security, and their education, then all I've got to say is that this is precisely why immigration has become such an issue. You're potentially leading us down the road to civil war, I think.
You want President Bush to be a different person than he is?
You seriously think that yelling at Ted Kennedy would be productive at any level?
You think that not punching Fox in the face has anything to do with vetoing legislation?
Can we try to be a little more logical here, and have one thought flow into the next?
And can we at least TRY to understand that being President is more complex than typing on a keyboard on the Internet?
btw, I am a conservative as well. And President Bush IS conservative in many critical areas. You just choose to ignore them all.
For what reason, I don't know. Perhaps because it makes you feel 'cool?'
What is the difference between what the Dems did though and what Bush did? If you just ignore the law and allow 11 million illegals enter the US, and then announce that you want to give them what amounts to amnesty, how is that different from "overturning the will of the people" and "approving legislation making it EASIER for illegals to enter the US?" It's the same thing.
I don't think he's capable of reasoned discourse any more.
I would be happily proven wrong over time, if the old RMan would choose to return....
Nick didn't say anything about impeaching Bush.
Do try to differentiate between posters.
Oh, I see, avoid the debate by mischaracterising the post. That's clever.
Still, if that's your method, it has to at least be logical. How the heck do you get "I wish I was a man like Bush" out of "Bush and Cheney have done a lousy job of communicating their message to the people"?
"I'm a conservative and Bush isn't."
Question 1: Was Ronald Reagan a conservative?
Question 2: Whose record as president is more conservative, Ronald Reagan's record or George W Bush's record? Do the research. [You can use information provided in my posts at #61 and #85 as reference points!]
He made a reasoned post on this thread. If you can't debate his points, he's not to blame.
So that's the one sentence you are choosing to say you agree with?
You've been spending too much time with Snugs, Ohio.
(if that's possible)
I quote: The whole lot of you have gone 'round the bend.
However, the statement is quite true, old girl.
DrDeb,
Get off this thread at once!
You know this kind of thing upsets you and we need you for the wonderful info on the Day in the Life thread.
M.
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.