Posted on 05/30/2007 8:51:02 AM PDT by westcoastwillieg
As Paulie Walnuts would say, This guys Whack-a-doo.
I understand the question and the frustration that propels it, but my answer is that it depends on the issue. I can defend his handling of the WOT and several other things, but on this I agree I cannot. Doesn't mean I can't defend him on the rest of it, though -- because I do.
Sometimes my dear husband acts like a jerk too, but I'm not going to divorce him over it regardless what it's about.
And when the liberals tried to slander Bush's military record, his SOTU speech about uranium in Niger, etc.
Here's the thanks we get. Bush "reaching across" the aisle to the Rats, signing Teddy's education bill, signing Medicare Part D, "bipartisanship" crapola.
Don’t imagine there will be too many illegals/criminals making their way across HIS ranch, but the rest of us got to put up with them trashing our land and doing God knows what to our cattle and other livestock.
One suspects that if your hubby brought home
felons riddled with hepatitis, and tuberculosis,
and offered them your bed, your health insurance,
and your share of the income, perhaps by the time
the felon count of several thousand, you might
reconsider your relationship.
Can anyone defend Bush anymore? When your liberal friends trash him do you fight back? I can’t nor will I.
Fight back? I am the biggest trasher of Bush now. He disgusts me. But he is not alone, I abhor the members of Congress that support his new immigration (welfare) plan as well.
Bush has caused me to switch parties, you can’t get anymore disgusted than that.
One doesn’t know me though, does one?
Even if he gives away your food, money, house, and childrens' safety and income?
To switch to what party? Surely not the dems.
Agreed.There are other issues,such as the tax cuts, that were very good. However, this immigration deal reeks. I have to think he’s just worn out from the constant bashings,the Dems hammering away at him and a war that has been traumatic (to put it very mildly) on so many levels for all americans.A lot of issues are closing in on him,and with his term nearing an end,maybe he just doesn’t care.Sad to say,but I believe it’s true.
As far as anything "good" Bush has done what does that matter when he wants to allow the whole country to become a third world country? By letting the illiterate and unproductive dregs of South America in. This country is not a garbage dump for the trash of other countries.
Bush was a fool when he started his "new tone in Washington" idiocy. His "turn the other cheek" way of doing things with the Democrats only showed him as a weak person who wanted to be liked. Even as the Democrats slapped him over and over he never fought back. He is displaying the same type of stupidity with this illegal alien issue.
I promoted and defended George W. Bush for many years but I have come to relaize he is a lightweight and there is not much to the man. And he does not even understand his job. He is not the president of Mexicans or South Americans. His job is to PRESERVE and PROTECT this country.
If this bill is passed and he signs it I will start calling for his impeachment.
Cheney? I have to beleive he’s on board with amnesty. His domestic policy advisor is one of the biggest open border proponents around and helped defeat prop. 187. And his son in law was general council for Homeland security and did nothing to solve any of the problems.
Cesar Conda, former domestic policy advisor for Cheney and Grover Norquist, Bush’s main immigration man, whose brother David Norquist is Chief Financial Officer at the Department of Homeland Security. His wife also works for Bush at USAID, a palestinian Muslim.
Cesar Conda earned the wraith of the Ludwig von Mises Institute: “Joining in this richly-funded campaign of hysteria and smear was the entire official libertarian (or Left-libertarian) movement, including virtually every “free-market” and “libertarian” think tank except the Mises Institute. ... For their part, the neo-conservative and official libertarian think tanks joined the elite condemnation of Prop. 187. Working closely with Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, Cesar Conda of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution circulated a statement against the measure that was signed by individuals at the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Reason Foundation, and even the Competitive Enterprise Institute.” [13]
(http://www.mises.org/econsense/postscript.asp#p407) _____________________
In a letter to the WSJ signed with LINDA CHAVEZ, Grover Norquist, Tamar Jacoby, Newt Gingrich, Cesar Conda and others he promoted Bush/Kennedy Amnesty as the only workable approach.
snip] The Wall Street Journal February 6, 2004 Welcome to America
President Bush has proposed a new legal path to work in the U.S. through a temporary worker program that will match willing workers with willing employers. We applaud the president and believe his approach holds great promise to reduce illegal immigration and establish a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration that will aid homeland security and free up border-security assets to focus on genuine threats. The president has shown courage by calling on Congress to place reality over rhetoric and recognize that those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave. Congress can fulfill its role by establishing sufficient increases in legal immigration and paths to permanent residence to enable more workers to stay, assimilate, and become part of America.
Immigrants are crucial to our competitiveness and future labor and economic growth, as well as our military strength. Our country’s welcoming attitude to immigrants will permit the U.S. to grow and prosper, as the populations of many other nations stagnate and decline.
Co-authored by Stuart Anderson, Jeff Bell, Linda Chavez, Larry Cirignano, Cesar V. Conda, Francis Fukuyama, Richard Gilder, Newt Gingrich, Ed Goeas, Tamar Jacoby, Jack Kemp, Steve Moore, Grover Norquist, Richard W. Rahn and Malcolm Wallop
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836137/posts?page=65#65
He chided us on our opposition to the Harriet Myers nomination.
He chided us on our opposititon to the Dubia-controlled ports deal.
Is there any doubt this man would not have been seriously considered as presidential candidate if his last name were not Bush? Is he any less of a bumbler now than he was during the 1999-2000 campaign season?
Folks, you got what you voted for. Stop nominating weak-principled moderates if you want principled government!
Oops, didn’t see your post #26. I had the same thought. Hard to remain married to someone who gives away everything that’s dear to you.
Nobody can defend this socialist/globalist sellout any longer. In arguments with liberals, I basically have to concede that he is a failure, but not for the same reasons they believe he is a failure.
It really takes a certain type of idiot genius to get so many people on both sides of the aisle to hate you like he has.
Our farmers are the most productive in the world and would have no problem feeding even a larger population than we have now. The only reason we import food from other countries is because it is cheaper, largely because of cheap labor rates and, in the case of China, almost slave labor.
That being said, I would rather the U.S. taxpayer not have to pay for feeding an invasion of poor, uneducated, government dependent illegal aliens.
Nonsense. He has always, and still does, insist he's against amnesty. He's lying.
I hate to say it, I really do, but Bush has lost me as a supporter. And as far as the left wing’s attempts to get him through impeachment..........well, let’s just say my phone number is unpublished.
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.