Republican Right Abandoning Bush

MSNBC ^ | May 5, 2006 | AP

[wotan]

WASHINGTON - Angry conservatives are driving the approval ratings of President Bush and the GOP-led Congress to dismal new lows, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that underscores why Republicans fear an Election Day massacre.

Six months out, the intensity of opposition to Bush and Congress has risen sharply, along with the percentage of Americans who believe the nation is on the wrong track.

The AP-Ipsos poll also suggests that Democratic voters are far more motivated than Republicans. Elections in the middle of a president’s term traditionally favor the party whose core supporters are the most energized.

[papertyger]

Of course he wanted us to think he was conservative, but he never was - just seemed so after Clinton.

Are you saying he didn't intentionally posture as a conservative?

If he did, why all the lilly guilding now about how we should know he's not?

If he ran as a duck, by God, he better continue to "quack."

[papertyger]

Did he claim Harriet Miers was the best person for the job, or not?

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

>>>It's not like Bush and the Republicans can't make a correction, you know. Just like with Miers, all he has to do seal the borders and all is forgiven.

Hopeful bump

[Fishrrman]

DB writes:
All the while Iran is a growing threat.
A weak President and an Iran pursuing nuclear weapons unabated is a recipe for disaster.

You hit a home run there.

Here on FreeRepublic, we pillory the Clintons for giving North Korea nukes when they could have been denied them (with force, of course).

But unless Bush does something in his last 2 years of office, THIS administration will be to blame when Iran goes nuclear. And that is a far, far, far more dangerous situation, with ominous implications for the world's future.

Prediction: Bush will do nothing (or NEXT to nothing), and Iran WILL get its nukes. I hope that I am proved wrong.

If Iran wins (and once they have the bomb, they HAVE "won" the nuclear race), who will history hold responsible?

- John

[Dick Bachert]

No, Bush abandoned his conservative base!

And with Nutty Nancy running the House, at least we'll KNOW there are KNOWN big-spending socialist morons in charge instead of the current undercover socialists in the Oval Office and Congress.

It's the old story of Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber (aka the Republicrats).

[Les_Miserables]

A conservative version of a Republican would suffice.

[antisocial]

"Bush's accomplishments are huge. Watch his legacy in ten or fifteen years"

We will be a spanish speaking 3rd world country with a permanent leftist government mired in corruption just like Mexico.

What a legacy!

[freema]

"About half of the Bush discretionary spending increase went for Homeland security and defense."

And the problem with that is.......................

[Jack of all Trades]

Social Security and Medicare are going to bankrupt this country within a generation and there's not a darn thing any elected official can do about it.

Re. education, every teacher's union in the world hate's the President's guts, so he must have done something right.

Re. the criminal alien invasion, I would much rather that he had thrown a few billion at building a wall, than the current course of action.

Considering the hand he's been dealt, the President has done a great job.

[RFEngineer]

"Are you saying he didn't intentionally posture as a conservative?"

Oh, sure he did try to posture as a conservative. But this duck always quacked left. Conservatives were, for the most part, fooled. They won't be fooled again.

That this is so is the surprise.

Bush Republicans could not have done more damage to this country if they were democrats - especially when measured in terms of government growth. When you can't tell the difference, Republicans shouldn't be surprised they might have a problem at the polls.

[reformedliberal]

Republicans never get out and protest to the extent of the left because we have jobs, families, and responsibilities.

What the Republicans and conservatives lack is vast numbers of the *disenfranchised* who can be mobilized as proxy street armies. Even with the throngs of minions available to the donks, the MSM mourns the small numbers who protest the war and the illegals are now cowering from the backlash of their moment in the sun. I think we have made ourselves heard to the party and the (R) critters/Senators. I hear bleats of "border security first" from the GOP Senators. The House pubbies, so far, appear to be holding fast. A lot of what we hear from W, IMO, is necessary in order that we not be further mischaracterized and marginalized as bigoted rednecks. The left wants to be able to run on "Republicans hate Latinos (fill in whatever victim group you wish)", but it seems to me to be falling flat. When push comes to shove, I believe most of the base will work for conservatives to replace RINOs in the primaries, but will vote against the donks in the General. The Bush-bashers and unappeasables will sit home or write in some conservative critter who will garner .01% of the vote, but they have done that for at least the past 6 years and it hasn't made any difference.

Every Republican voter I have queried is furious, but will not do anything to enable a donk takeover. I still have not seen a conservative win over a RINO in the primaries to date, although I may have missed some Congressional primaries.

[thoughtomator]

We don't need you, you need us.

BS. The GOP 'moderates' (gak!) have no one else to deal with, either. You work with the Dems, you head directly to socialism, whether you like it or not. That election after election we hear the same call by the "moderates" for the right to put our principles behind us in the interest of winning shows who really needs whom. It's the right that produces all the winning ideas.

[WarrenC]

"As if money were no object."

It damn well BETTER be no object if we're to defend ourselves against the Islamofascists. I can see the future history books now --- "America would like to have defended her civilization from destruction but, unfortunately, it wasn't in the budget" - And please take your 'dosage' comment and stick it in your ear.

[wtc911]

My feelings exactly. Immigration, gas, the Dubai deal screw-up, the FEMA dysfunction in the gulf...

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Ditto. How W can say with a straight face that we cannot remove all the illegals is beyond me...
Then there is all the spending.

[papertyger]

I still have not seen a conservative win over a RINO in the primaries to date, although I may have missed some Congressional primaries.

When have they been allowed? Are you unfamiliar with the Toomey debacle in Pennsylvania?

[Fishrrman]

beaversmom writes:
It's obvious that many Republicans are not happy with Republican politicians. We don't want pandering, we don't want hem hawing, we don't want doubletalk, we don't want more government, we don't want more spending, we don't want loose borders, we don't want deals to appease the Dems. We need someone with fortitude and a big pair.

Well, you're not going to GET legislators like that, by REWARDING them with re-election for how they are behaving now. I've been faithful about voting in every election for decades now, but I think I'm going to sit this election out.

Let's get something straight, just to clear the air. I _DO NOT_ vote for Democrats. Once I did (years ago), but never, never, never, NEVER again. Got that?

But I want to _PUNISH_ the Republicans in this election. I actually believe they should LOSE.

Why the heck would I want that?
Answer: because they DESERVE to lose this time.

They richly deserve exactly that. If they are not punished now, they will keep repeating their current behavior forever, moving ever-more to the left.

If they lose in 2006, they may possibly (though I'm not optimistic) come 'round to their senses for 2008.

If that is the case, they may then be able to re-earn my vote in 2 more years.

But to continue to reward them for the mess they've made of majority rule? Absolutely not.

As I said, flame me if you wish, but this is one guy who has had enough.

- John

[reformedliberal]

I am familiar with Toomey. I live in Wisconsin and the RNC managed to sandbag Tim Michels. They tell me they aren't behind Scott Walker's withdrawal, but I think the party managed to shut off his funds thinking Green "had a better chance" (this is a Governor's race for the out-of-staters).

The conservatives do not control the party. Want conservatives? The younger ones need to get into the party apparatus, start at the bottom as county chairs/staff, and work their way up to the decision-making levels.

As it stands now, the decisions are bottom-line calculations of who can win, giving us control of chairmanships and the agenda. You are right: conservative candidates, outside of a few Congressional Districts, either do not run or are not supported by the party in the primaries. Like it or not, grassroots rebellions have not worked to date. They do not work in the House, Senate or the Presidential elections. They only occasionally work in gubernatorial elections.

We are no different from the donks in that regard: we run who can win and winners must draw from the middle. Change the constituency of the middle and you will see a change in candidates and in winners.

[tobyhill]

Very little will change in '06 because the congress is elected by district and even though there is a lot of a hooten and a hollerin' right now, most districts are happy with their own Incumbent RINOs, Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Communist, Socialist, etc.

[Mojave]

The far right is composed of various groups that share certain characteristics. One of those charateristics is their need to demonize their opponants.

You leftists never do that.