Bush's Base Betrayal

The Washington Post ^ | Sunday, May 21, 2006 | Richard A. Viguerie

[unseen]

And how is that different from voting for Republicans lately. The filibuster works both ways you know. I would rather have a divided government that can not get anything passed then an out of control government that favors special interest at the expense of the American people and the Constitution.

[Coldwater Creek]

I don't think that you have any idea what a defeat for the Republican will mean for a very long time.

[lakey]

My 'betrayal moment'?

When he referred to the Minutemen as 'vigilantes.'

That's only one moment for me. He's Mr. OBVIOUSMAN

[ECM]

I understand your points, on the whole, but you don't consider Roberts and Alito strict constructionists? At least for the time being...nobody can quite chart how justices will act several years down the road.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

See my tagline, and don't do likewise.

[Coldwater Creek]

So don't vote. It will backfire in a way that will be very ugly!!!!!!

[LK44-40]

Hariet Miers: an inexcusable act of cronyism

What YOU said, Richard Viguerie!

That, especially, and then so many more sellouts.

Now a clear refusal to give priority in the immigration crisis to sealing the borders.

Rush, Richard Viguerie....just a couple more "sleeper disruptors" put in place so long ago by the fiendish libs just for this moment.

[steel_resolve]

Exactly right. He lost his damn mind right there.

[HitmanLV]

I don't think any less of a man or woman for cheating on and leaving a loathsome spouse. They should do it with proper channels, but if they don't, I think leaving a bad spouse for a better one is a good thing.

[unseen]

Iraq has nothing to do with the presidents current troubles. Those against the war still hate him. It is the 21% of his base that he has lost due to mismanagement on domestic problems that has caused his fall. Iraq is a non-issue at this point. The media wants you to believe otherwise because they are against the war and want to be vindicated. The media will not come out and say Bush is doing badly because he is being too liberal that would mean the Media understand that America is majority conservative. So they use Iraq instead to point to Bush's trouble which it is not.

[ruschpa]

If we stay home when its time to vote and the Democrats take Congress, believe me, it'll probably be 2 decades before we take it back.
Control of Congress just does not switch back and forth every 2 years... it'll take quite a while.

[GrandEagle]

He's better than any alternative we've been seriously offered.
That is what the Republicans have been running on for several years now. I call it the "we are no worse than the competition" campaign.
That is what they count on, that conservatives have no where else to go, so they can do what ever they want.
I've got no answer, primarily because you are correct. I can't see giving it back to the Dems.
I think creating gridlock would be the best we could do. 50% + 1 Dems in one house, 50% + 1 Rep in the other, with an independant Pres. Nothing would get done, and we would be better off for it.

Cordially,
GE

[SHOOT THE MOON bat]

That doesn't make you stupid. But understand that someone like Reagan doesn't come along very often. I pray that the next one will come from your generation. Many young people have turned to conservatism and your generation seems to be loaded with exceptional people. They are filling an all volunteer military force. They are doing community work in greater numbers than ever before and they are filling collegiate conservative organizations. The future looks good.

[BW2221]

Newt is not the answer. While I agree his marital infidelity reached all-time lows (like announcing to his first wife he was divorcing her while she was in the hospital for cancer), Newt has lots of other baggage, which forced his resignation as speaker.

In a word - Newt is "unelectable" as President. He could be an outstanding adviser, even a Cabinet member, but not President.

Like our current President, Newt squandered a lot of political capital.

[Coldwater Creek]

An honorable person does not leave their spouse for someone else while they are still married. Newt did it twice.

Either he was the faulty party or really has bad judgment in wives. You'll see, he will do it again.

[LK44-40]

Like most elections, we vote for whom we find the least offensive, not for someone with qualities we admire.

I am with you...I, too, would vote for him again -- any day -- in a match against Al Gore or John Kerry.

But I sure am not going to conceal the bitterness of my disappointment at his bungling, cronyism, tin ear, stubborn arrogance, big spending, and complete failure of conservative vision.

[GrandEagle]

Ya'll better nomimate a real converstiove (like Newt)
Conservative?

[Coldwater Creek]

True!!!!!

[HitmanLV]

I'm not advocating Newt at all, in fact I consider him a poor national candidate.

I was just saying there is a lot worse a person can do that dump a lousy spouse. Even dumping two lousy spouses. The truth is, leaving a loathsome spouse is a good thing and not a bad thing.

[unseen]

but you don't consider Roberts and Alito strict constructionists?


No because no true strict constructionists would be able to pass the left leaning Senate. I do believe they were some of the best that we could possible get through but we only got Alito after the base revolted against Miers. Bush again showed is liberal bent with that nomination IMO