Posted on 11/14/2006 8:28:17 PM PST by Vinny
George W. Bush, who led the Republicans and conservatives to three straight electoral victories, who won the White House against an incumbent Democratic administration, who rallied this nation after 9/11, and removed two oppressive regimes in Aghanistan and Iraq, is suddenly responsible for all that ails the nation.
This is no surprise to those of you who have been listening to the Democrats for six years, but now we have the Republicans and conservatives joining the chorus, the same folks who once celebrated the President as the next Churchill.
I have something to say to Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan and the rest of the back bench second guessers who are maligning a good man whose winning percentage — close to 80 percent — is solid and who has more character than the rest of them combined.
Lay off. I am not sure what is more sickening, listening to Bill Maher or watching Scarborough and his media analysts cavorting as they try Freudian analysis on Bush and his father; or suggest with a straight face that the elder Bush and his team are foreign policy geniuses that George W. Bush should have consulted. You know, the guys who allowed tens of thousands of Shiites in the south to be massacred by Saddam because they refused to enforce the no-fly zone agreed to by the Butcher of Baghdad. Right, those geniuses.
George W. Bush, who led the Republicans and conservatives to three straight electoral victories, who won the White House against an incumbent Democratic administration, who rallied this nation after 9/11, and removed two oppressive regimes in Aghanistan and Iraq, is suddenly responsible for all that ails the nation.
This is no surprise to those of you who have been listening to the Democrats for six years, but now we have the Republicans and conservatives joining the chorus, the same folks who once celebrated the President as the next Churchill.
I have something to say to Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan and the rest of the back bench second guessers who are maligning a good man whose winning percentage — close to 80 percent — is solid and who has more character than the rest of them combined.
Lay off. I am not sure what is more sickening, listening to Bill Maher or watching Scarborough and his media analysts cavorting as they try Freudian analysis on Bush and his father; or suggest with a straight face that the elder Bush and his team are foreign policy geniuses that George W. Bush should have consulted. You know, the guys who allowed tens of thousands of Shiites in the south to be massacred by Saddam because they refused to enforce the no-fly zone agreed to by the Butcher of Baghdad. Right, those geniuses.
As for Buchanan and Limbaugh, they so worked up the nation about immigration that they almost hand-delivered the Hispanic vote to the Democrats. What made this issue a national emergency all of sudden? Actually, nothing. President Bush's policy on immigration was similar to that of previous presidents, but his proposed solution is more creative than erecting a 700-mile wall.
You might also consider that in the mid 1990s Gingrich allowed Clinton to walk all over him at a time when Newt was touted as the hottest political genius since, well, Brent Scowcroft I guess.
It probably wouldn't hurt for all those hurting or gloating because of last week's election to simply be quiet. I appreciate the difficulty of this request, since many of them are paid to blather endlessly, but truthfully they have nothing relevant to say and they are losing their wits.
Bush has been one of a few conservatives in the country, along with a few folks at National Review and in Congress, to show a little class and grace in the midst of defeat. He did what any president should do when the opposing party wins — he extended his hand in partnership, but without offering up his principles. His Democratic enemies will show their true colors in due course and once the Republicans stop the bloodletting, they might get around to helping the President manage a tough war and the critical issues we confront as a nation.
But kicking a man when he's down has never been a sign of character. Republicans and Democrats might observe the example of Ronald Reagan. After beating Jimmy Carter in 1980, Reagan wanted desperately to reach out to the defeated President in a graceful way. Even as he prepared to take the oath of office, Reagan looked to Carter for news about the hostages in Iran in the hope that he could publicly credit Carter for securing their release. That's class.
President Bush is a good (but stubborn) man who has faced unprecedented calamities that would have tested even our greatest presidents. In fact, every president faces political setbacks and stands accused of major mistakes, particularly during time of war.
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Reagan — all hailed as great presidents in many quarters, but all of whom had as many detractors as supporters. Even Churchill stood accused of major military blunders during World War I, and after saving his nation and leading it to victory in World War II, was immediately tossed out of power.
It is one thing to suggest that the war in Iraq could be better managed or that the President strayed too far from conservative principles, quite another to suggest that he has failed on every front simply because a confluence of factors led to shift in the Congress.
Here's hoping the President gets it right in Iraq, and leaves the White House in good standing, because he's still the toughest we've got. After all, any man who can drive the terrorists to applaud a Democratic victory surely is doing something right.
You might also consider that in the mid 1990s Gingrich allowed Clinton to walk all over him at a time when Newt was touted as the hottest political genius since, well, Brent Scowcroft I guess.
It probably wouldn't hurt for all those hurting or gloating because of last week's election to simply be quiet. I appreciate the difficulty of this request, since many of them are paid to blather endlessly, but truthfully they have nothing relevant to say and they are losing their wits.
Bush has been one of a few conservatives in the country, along with a few folks at National Review and in Congress, to show a little class and grace in the midst of defeat. He did what any president should do when the opposing party wins — he extended his hand in partnership, but without offering up his principles. His Democratic enemies will show their true colors in due course and once the Republicans stop the bloodletting, they might get around to helping the President manage a tough war and the critical issues we confront as a nation.
But kicking a man when he's down has never been a sign of character. Republicans and Democrats might observe the example of Ronald Reagan. After beating Jimmy Carter in 1980, Reagan wanted desperately to reach out to the defeated President in a graceful way. Even as he prepared to take the oath of office, Reagan looked to Carter for news about the hostages in Iran in the hope that he could publicly credit Carter for securing their release. That's class.
President Bush is a good (but stubborn) man who has faced unprecedented calamities that would have tested even our greatest presidents. In fact, every president faces political setbacks and stands accused of major mistakes, particularly during time of war.
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Reagan — all hailed as great presidents in many quarters, but all of whom had as many detractors as supporters. Even Churchill stood accused of major military blunders during World War I, and after saving his nation and leading it to victory in World War II, was immediately tossed out of power.
It is one thing to suggest that the war in Iraq could be better managed or that the President strayed too far from conservative principles, quite another to suggest that he has failed on every front simply because a confluence of factors led to shift in the Congress.
Here's hoping the President gets it right in Iraq, and leaves the White House in good standing, because he's still the toughest we've got. After all, any man who can drive the terrorists to applaud a Democratic victory surely is doing something right.
Now THAT bears repeating!
Hehehe, ;-)
LOL!!
Laughing too hard.
My face hurts.
I disagree. There are too many genuine silver linings in this dark cloud. Take Florida, for example, the scene of the big media fiasco in 2000, the Republcan Governor won there by 52% to 45%. That shouldn't make Mr. Dean very happy in a year when the DNC victory was called a tidal wave. If this is the best they can do, under these circumstances, the DNC is going to be toast in 2008!
Here are some more 'signs' that should bring humility to democrats:
In Virginia, Allen (incumbant) lost by a mere .3 percent.
In Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, defeated by 'moveon.org' $$ in the DNC primary, and a supporter of Pres. Bush on Iraq, won as an Independent by 50%-40%
In Alabama, Riley beat Baxley 58% - 42%, a margin only slightly less than Bush won the state in 2004 (62%-37%)
Its most likely that the illegal immigration and fence issues were the biggest factors. Losing the Hispanic vote was a big factor, imnsho.
War fatigue has to be acknowledged. Still, they couldn't do better than split the Senate, and get a small lead in the House? They are going to get their tails wiped in 2008.
Especially if the newly elected "conservative democrats" get feminized by Pelosi. Man, is she planning to spend big, and she's going so far to the left, you'd think she'd fall over from the weight.
Savage is an idiot. I'm convinced of it for a few reasons, one of which is because he donated money to Jerry Brown's campaign rather than Chuck Poochigian. Jerry isn't even qualified for the position of Attorney General according to California law!
I was a fan of Vice President Chaney, and it was reinforced when I met him in September. One of the finest men around! I'd love to see him as President. Maybe in the next life...
President Bush has been a good President delivering lots of things for conservatives especially with the two excellent Supreme court appointments. In his second term Bush has lost the ability to fight back and go on the attack at his opponents and instead is contend to play the nice guy. Nice guys dont do well in politics.
Yes, you're right about the Supreme Court appointments. I almost forgot that.
Yea, I don't think Bush is all that bad, but immigration and the expansion of the Nanny State tarnishes his record.
You can't have everything I guess.
Immigration became a serious issue especially when footage of Hamas/Hezbullah types coming across the border.
Conservatives were also wise to jump all over it when Hillary started trumping it in the press. That got the MSM covering it and people talking about lack of border security.
People forget that both borders have been a hot issue ever since 9/11. How this author can blame all of that on Rush is unbelievable and if Bush has hurt himself with this issue it's his own fault. After all he is the President and the one charged with protecting our Sovereignty.
The article IS right.
Exactly so.
Didn't Reagan conditioned it on the laws being enforced on businesses that hired (harbors) these illegal aliens?
Of course he did. Don't listen to the revisionists.
And Reagan didn't support open borders either. Reagan said: "A nation without borders is not a nation." Reagan did sign into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It specified prosecution and punishment for employers who hired illegals. If that law had been enforced, the IRCA of 1986 would have turned out to be what it was meant to be, a one time only amnesty deal. Instead, the Feds lack of enforcement led to a ongoing series of liberal immigration policies under Bush41, Clinton and Bush43, that has led to the 15 million illegals we have living in the US today.
So what does Bush want to do today? Even with the 20/20 hindsight of history, Bush wants to grant amnesty to those 15 million illgals. Giving the Dems more votes to count on.
Thanks, I knew I heard that somewhere before.
You da man.
The US stock market hasn't been at this level since right before it crashed under the Clinton administration in March 2000.
Lots of people have put Reagan on a pedestal and then either completely ignored every single fact, or they've never known any actual facts about what his presidency was like.
Don't get me wrong...I worked VERY hard to get him elected, think that he was a GREAT president, but I remember what actually DID happen.
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.