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.

[Badray]

It sounds like yours is used to doing too much bending over and backwards.

[Tammy8]

What people here dont understand is Bush as a core belief believes in open borders.

President Bush has said many times that he understands the importance of a secure border, he has promised to secure the border, and he has not delivered on that promise.

I do think you are correct that he has a core belief in open borders, but that is not what he said in any of his campaigns, in fact he has yet to say it.

Do you think his promises to secure the border, when now it is obvious he did not mean to do so have anything to do with the anger over the issue?

If he had secured the borders, he would have more support now for a guest worker plan. Anyone who understands the border issues knows that no guest worker or amnesty plan or even enforcement plan of any type will work without first securing the borders.

[Eighth Square]

Ping!

[hinckley buzzard]

It may be a good thing in GWB's favor that he wants to have all Americans like him.

I don't think this is a good thing. Reminds me of that Al Franken character.. Wanting to be universally liked is neurotic and self-defeating.

[ElPatriota]

Voting for a rino because they are not as liberal as the rats is like thank someone for hitting you with their fist instead of a bat. I will only vote for conservatives.

I LOVE your sentence!... That is E-x-a-c-t-l-y the way I feel... :) - if having a pack of rinos running aroung is "winning," I would rather lose and have a shot at winning later with a better hand :)

[TXBSAFH]

That is what I am thinking as well.

[reformedliberal]

Worked well for those who were going to get rid of DeWine in the Ohio primary, didn't it?

Pluralities only count when there are more than two candidates. Who were the third party candidates who have recently won the House, the Senate or the Presidency?

I suppose there may be an example of third party candidates winning a primary, somewhere in America, at some point in time. I do recall some Libertarians winning state and local seats. I don't recall where it benefitted the right.

[SeaWolf]

Perhaps it is not too early to start thinking of Bush as Custer. They share more than a first name. George A Custer arrogantly charged across the Little Big Horn in search of absolute victory and glory, George W Bush is arrogantly charging all over the place pandering to create his "Big Tent", big government Republican Party... It appears that both are going to end up the same, a sad foot note in history.

[hosepipe]

[ 6 months is an eternity. Take some Bromo-Seltzer. ]

So true.. It CAN get much worse.. To think Bush is destroying the republican party majority is NOT on purpose is a stretch.. Its like saying Bush is a moron.. He is not, he is NOT a moron.. It IS on purpose.. Could take 5 years for some to see that, but it will eventually come out, on Free Republic probably.. That is if Hillary does not outlaw conservative websites like Free Republic.. We might be just singing in the rain here..

Amazing there are STILL BushBots here.. A hard rain is gonna fall on this illegal and legal alien issue.. Its even primary to the war on terror.. The voting demographics of America is changing QUICKLY.. right before our eyes.. And the White House is the gorilla in the ally PROMOTING IT... ON PURPOSE...

[hinckley buzzard]

I would have a little more hope if President Bush even acknowledged that the border issue is one of the causes of his low ratings but when asked about his low ratings, it doesn't enter his brain at all.

I wonder if I am the only person getting these bogus "surveys" from the GOP Senate committee, asking about crucial issues but which don't even mention the border security issue. The Senate is A-F*ing WOL on this issue, and maybe GW realizes that he has a band of cowering nobodies behind him on Capitol Hill. If so he needs desperately to reconsider his political strategy, and run against the Congress if necessary to galvanize them into action. The real polls are on the side of strong border security, and the 'rats will not overlook that fact.

[Badray]

You ignore the fact that the RINOs that you count among our 'army' are really enemy soldiers within our ranks. They want what the enemy wants. Their election does not bring us closer to what we want.

[TAdams8591]

"Bush has pretty much lived up to what he campaigned on. His viewpoints on immigration legal or other wise were there for everyone to see."

His stands on all the issues were there for everyone to see when he campaigned. I feel neither disappointed or betrayed. He's governed pretty much as I thought he would.

As a Presidential candidate he was not nearly as conservative as I would have liked, so it was difficult for me to be as enthused about him as I was about Reagan. And I said as much to many people at the time.

[TAdams8591]

I am a life-long conservative. President Bush has done some good and some bad. Right now people are really angry with him about the immigration issue including me, and thus many of them have forgotten about the good.

[Badray]

Calm down. I got lazy and didn't say 'overseas' but I did say that domestically he is abysmal and that does include protecting our borders.

[Badray]

Well said. Thank you.

[Mogollon]

All the republicans have to do is pass H.R. 4437 close the borders, and start sweeps to catch, fine, and imprison employers that hire illegals. Their poll numbers would go way up with conservatives, independents, and some democrats also.

[sayfer bullets]

The way I think is that an elected official has to earn my vote. I refuse to vote for some who is not conservative. Voting for a rino because they are not as liberal as the rats is like thank someone for hitting you with their fist instead of a bat. I will only vote for conservatives.

I just wanted to see that in black and white again. That's the best paragraph ever authored by an acronym. I'll make sure to credit you when I slap libs upside the head on other boards with it.

[papertyger]

Pluralities only count when there are more than two candidates.

Sorry. Sloppy phrasing. I meant a plurality of total voters. I don't think there are as many voters interested or motivated to "stop" conservatives as there are conservatives. i.e. Running a true conservative will bring out more than will come out to oppose.

As for DeWine, I'm not too familiar with the particulars, but is there any reason to believe there isn't an analogy to the Specter situation?

[Badray]

You need to take your head out of where ever it is and put it into the Constitution.

'Faith' based or not, where is the constitutional authority for governement 'charity'?

You praise him for what he did after Katrina, but ignore that he, and a willing and pandering Congress, took money from people at the point of a gun and gave it to someone else. When people give freely, that is charity and it is blessed.

When government does it, that's not charity, it's coercion.
Did you ever stop to wonder about his 'compassion' for those he is taking from?

I don't know when you got your priorities confused, but you definitely got 'em wrong. He can be as charitable as he wants with his money, as can I. He has no authority to be charitable with taxpayer money.

[Badray]

BS

She, and you, are surrendering to the lesser evil, not standing up for liberty.