Posted on 04/10/2006 8:45:19 PM PDT by rodeocowboy
Is Bush's Second Term Becoming a 'Harriet Miers Presidency'? by Jerome R. Corsi Posted Apr 07, 2006
Watching the immigration bill charade unfold in the Senate, many conservatives have begun to wonder if President Bush left his political compass back at Crawford?
Conservatives were very happy with Bush right through his second inaugural. But the Harriet Miers nomination was a shocker. There was so much conservative backlash that Miers had to withdraw her nomination. But, we were only some three months into the second term, and anybody can have a “Harriet Miers Moment,” trying too hard to thank a friend.
Then there was the State of the Union speech. There President Bush went “green” on energy, mouthing a line better than the political left or the radical environmentalists could make up, saying that America is “addicted to oil.” Wasn’t Bush an oil company executive once?
Someone should remind Karl Rove that conservatives like to drill for oil. What ever happened to the proposal drill in ANWR? Again, conservatives couldn’t believe what they were hearing. Was the Bush Administration’s solution to America’s dependency on foreign oil really going to be wood chips and switch grass? Bio-fuels were always a Democratic argument. What happened?
Then, the Dubai ports deal accomplished something most conservatives thought impossible. Defending Dubai, the President actually lost his ground on his major strength, the War on Terrorism. Bush actually allowed the Democrats to posture as hawks on the national security issue. Conservatives were beginning to get numb with shock.
Now, Bush is praising Senate Republicans for working with Teddy Kennedy and Harry Reid on the immigration bill. G. Gordon Liddy is right when he says the Senate “just sold America out to Mexico.” Bush and Sen. John McCain will probably never understand that for most true conservatives a “guest worker” program is just amnesty in disguise. Conservatives care about securing the border. For conservatives, “guest workers” are still illegal aliens. For conservatives, the illegal immigration threat is about national security, not NAFTA.
A strong conservative base voted for Bush’s re-election in November 2004. The President has made a series of decisions that suggest he wants to move more to the center, something the conservative base does not view with favor. Or maybe, as many have speculated, Bush is truly a CINO (Conservative in Name Only).
Still, there is one more explanation. Maybe Bush has decided to work secretly for the election of Hillary Clinton as President in 2008. Since the 2004 election, Bush has gone out of his way several times to talk warmly about President Bill Clinton’s budding friendship with his father, Bush 41. Surely the President realizes that most conservatives still cringe at the mention of Bill Clinton’s name.
But maybe the plan is to establish a Bush-Clinton dynasty? First Bush 41, followed by William Jefferson Clinton, followed by Bush 43, followed by Hillary Rodham Clinton -- that’s how the dynasty idea would go. From there, probably we are supposed to return to Jeb Bush, to be followed by Chelsea.
If that’s the plan, forget it. For most conservatives, even the mention of Hillary’s name is like the sound of scraping your fingernails on a blackboard. Conservatives might someday buy Jeb, but Chelsea? Probably never.
A “Harriet Miers Presidency” in which George W. Bush abandons his conservative base is a very bad idea.
If Karl Rove thinks the Republican Party will gain by pandering to all those illegal immigrants, maybe he should first worry about how many conservatives he is going to alienate in the process.
Right now, the 2006 midterm congressional elections are shaping up to be a major Republican Party setback. Maybe that will kill any thought that a “Harriet Miers Presidency” move-to-the-center is a good idea. It isn’t. Passing this immigration bill is probably a 2006 death wish for at least three or four Republican senators we can identify without thinking too hard.
Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.
George Jr.'s done damn little to earn the loyalty of those who hired him.
OK. I made my point, you made yours. Gosh, if this forum were really about true blue conservative litmus tests, I would have been banned years ago! :) By the way, I think Bush has made several severe judgment errors, and his low ratings are to some extent justified. I hope he can turn it around, but sad to say, he hasn't given an effective speech in a very long time.
I sometimes differ from traditional conservatism myself. The difference is that I don't attack conservatives for being conservative, I respect the difference of opinion even where I vehemently disagree.
When someone conducts a cut-and-paste campaign that directly contradicts the mission statement of the site, attacks with malice the majority of its users, and makes not even the pretense of a search for truth or justice or fidelity to the Constitution while doing so, traditionally here that's been cause to remove them. I struggle to find the difference between that poster and the libs who pop on here and troll the site in much the same way.
You choose to be politically irrelevant. No reason for us to waste time on you.
Well put.
Are we drilling in ANWR yet? No? Still talking about it, huh?
How about Kelo? Have we heard a peep from Bush about that outrage? How about legislation to moot it? No?
And Bush cares more about defending Iraq's borders than our own; we're going to be stuck babysitting those useless, defective Moos forever the way we're going. Speaking of Iraq, isn't it time for some oil reparations?
I've got lots more questions for "pubbies" on my FR homepage.
You are one of the best Bushbots in the place. I'm amazed at how well you get around from thread to thread to defend Bush's dumbest and wackiest moves.
Speeches aren't going to cut it; we've heard a lot of meaningless piffle from Republicans over the years, with damn little to show for it.
There's nowhere near the anger at GWB now than there was against Carter in 1979-80. That hatred was something savage. I was surprised somebody didn't try to take a shot at him.
Carter was buried by the Reagan landslide in 1980. The GOP will win handily in November. All they have to do is just hammer the war on terror like a litany, pay some lip service to homeland security, maybe have Dubya land on a carrier or two again, and the GOP majority will emerge intact. The Dems offer nothing in the way of alternative. And everybody knows it.
The Pubbies will win in '08 for the same reason. Hitlery has nowhere near the charm that Bubba had. Bubba could forge coalitions, at least enough to get elected. Hillary either enthralls or alienates everyone she meets. Nobody's going to elect her to any office outside the state of New York.
Wyche Fowler and Slade Gorton, just to name two losers, would beg to differ.
Communications skills are important, but yes, judgment errors are something else again. I saw that as a proud RINO. But Bush isn't running again. We must make the best with what we have, and move on.
So no matter what the Republican party does...you will vote for them? Do you have a breaking point? Let's say Bush raised taxes, pulled troops out of Iraq within 6 monts and declared an open border with Mexico, all with the compliance of the republicans in the congress and senate, would you still vote republican? These are hypothetical so don't bother pointing that out...if you would still vote republican then you are truly irrelevant.
Did we abandon Bush, or did Bush abandon us?
I don't recall conservatives clamoring for new entitlements, amnesty for illegals, massive new spending, ad nauseum.
And what about our enemies, the terrorists - wouldn't they be leaping for joy to know that a big chunk of voters have turned on the one person who wields the power to shut them down?
Jeepers, MNJohnnie, even if the President were a Clinton - in a time of war - I would hold my peace.
"Is there some way a red "T" could be placed by their name so that other posters, interested in discussion and debate, would know not to waste their time and to ignore them?"
Well, there's always the traditional way...
* * ASH ALERT * *
If you try to engage Ash (AshRedux, Ashlives, Ashisalive, Ashisaliar, ect) in debate, you will waste enormous bandwith and get nowhere. When he cannot refute you through misdirection or other obfuscation, he will hide from you. You will find yourself stuck like the Tar Baby in stories of old.
He has been banned many times.
He will, when ignored, strike out. He has claimed to have sent me money and claimed to know me and my wife!
He has shown contempt for the owner of this forum by returning under new names time and again,
he is, IMHO, a disruptor and a distractor.
The BEST policy (based on much advice, that I unfortunately ignored one week) is to act as if he IS NOT HERE.
From: DonMorgan (morgan@dmi.net) *
may i copy your post for future reference? ;)
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.