Posted on 01/25/2008 12:49:01 AM PST by Aristotelian
Declarations: The primary campaign is tearing the Democrats apart. President Bush already did that to the Republicans.
We begin, as one always must now, again, with Bill Clinton. The past week he has traveled South Carolina, leaving discord in his wake. Barack Obama, that "fairytale," is low, sneaky. "He put out a hit job on me." The press is cruelly carrying Mr. Obama's counter-jabs. "You live for it."
(snip)
As for the Republicans, their slow civil war continues. . . . The rage is due to many things. A world is ending, the old world of conservative meaning, and ascendancy. Loss leads to resentment. (See Clinton, Bill.)
(snip)
It will all come down to: Whom do Republicans believe? Mr. Romney in spite of his past and now-disavowed liberal positions? Or Mr. McCain in spite of his forays, the past 10 years, into a kind of establishment mindset that has suggested that The Establishment Knows Best?
Do conservatives take inspiration from Mr. Romney's newness? Or do they take comfort and security from Mr. McCain's rugged ability to endure, and to remind?
It is along those lines the big decision will be made.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
How proud Reagan would be of your intelligent post.
You claim Bush and Romney "aren't fit to carry Reagan's slippers"--and that's NOT idolizing Reagan.
Anyone who thinks I idolize Romney can't read--it's as simple as that. I've bashed him repeatedly on this site and said I would SETTLE for him but wouldn't like it. WOW, I'm his high priest!
I mention I am displeased by some of Bush's policies--yep, that's idolatry!
Your ignorance is bested only by your inability to behave as anything more than an arrogant child, spouting swears and sputtering instead of engaging in discussion. Now go suck your thumb, baby.
Whether he meant to destroy the GOP or not, there’s much Bush *could* have done to prevent the bloodshed we are seeing this year. He could have
a) defended his administration far more than he has, letting everything from his judicial nominations to social security reforms die with hardly a whimper.
b) talked Dick Cheney into stepping down so that a VP could be named who would transition into the favored nominee in 2008.
c) taken steps long before now to try to head off some of the looming economic crunch, particularly the shrinking dollar, the rising cost of gasoline and the credit crisis. If our economy does slip into recession, that will only increase the chances Republicans will be blamed and Democrats will reap the political windfall.
It’s as if Bush got his ass kicked somewhere during the course of his presidency and doesn’t seem that interested in fighting for anything now. We’ve needed leadership and the president has not been willing to lead even his own political party.
I think the federal government was not a part of this SC appeal? Maybe, with the SCOTUS in favor of the 2nd Amendment, GW wanted the U.S.A. to be included and get an all inclusive decision once and for all?
yitbos
**** BIG BUMP **** !!!!!
You nailed it!
Bush is not perfect but if you thought Gore or Kerry wouldn’t have been ten times worse you’re just fooling yourselves.
At least with Bush you have Alito and Roberts on the SCOTUS, or would you rather have had another Ginsberg and another Stevens there. And do you really think that would be been better for your 2nd amendment rights?
Put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.
And Reagan did? Oh, right--he signed an Amnesty bill. Something Bush hasn't done, whether you like it or not.
- has failed to restrain spending
And Reagan did?
"While spending grew fastest during the Johnson years, during which the welfare state was greatly expanded (the "Great Society") and an expensive war in Vietnam was pursued, it is interesting to note that spending rose faster under Reagan than under the two presidents who preceded him and who followed him. It was even higher than the average rate of growth (the dashed line in the chart) during the entire 42-year period and has since been eclipsed only by George W. Bush, who like Lyndon Johnson, pursued both an expensive war (Iraq) and a huge expansion of the welfare state (Medicare-financed prescriptions)."
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_10/bradford-reagan.html
- has sold out the North Korean people
And what did Reagan do for the NK people?
- is in the process of selling out Israel
And what did Reagan do for Israel?
- has empowered Condi Rice to let Iran off the hook
Yup, Reagan sure showed them Iranians what's what...uh, didn't he?
- sold out Agents Ramos and Compean
By letting our justice system do its job? How awful.
- sought to legalize millions of illegal immigrants
LOL!
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
...and the list goes on and on.
Yeah. I'll bet.
As for Bush's choices for the SCOTUS? Before the BushBot apologists (yeah I'm talkin' to you DarkWolf) start praising Bush for Roberts and Alito, don't forget that Bush tried to sneak the ill-qualified RINO Harriet Myers by the American people and it was only because of conservatives raising holy Hell that he was prevented from doing so.
Yes--but when WE raised a ruckus, he changed his choice, didn't he?
Bush = Alito and Roberts.
Reagan = Scalia (good) Kennedy and O'Connor--WOW!
Now as for "many of the sins" of Ronald Reagan, I don't think there is a conservative American alive that would choose what is going to be the disgraceful and shameful legacy of George W. Bush, over that of our 40th President. Enjoy your BushBot Wheaties w/extra nutty apologies this morning. Whitewash with extra milk.
Blah blah blah bushbot wheaties, blah blah blah...
You REALLY need to do some research before posting this stuff. LOL!
“Before the BushBot apologists (yeah I’m talkin’ to you DarkWolf) start praising Bush for Roberts and Alito, don’t forget that Bush tried to sneak the ill-qualified RINO Harriet Myers by the American people and it was only because of conservatives raising holy Hell that he was prevented from doing so.”
What does it matter, the fact is conservatives raising hell can influence Bush. Do you think conservatives raising hell would have changed Al Gore’s SC nominee?
Wake up and live in the real world. Life is always made of far more disappointment than satisfaction. All you can do is make the best with what you have.
Sixty f-n years a—hole. And you pass it off as if it were cherios instead of raisin bran for breakfast.
Yep, lecture me about what rights we would lose if Hillary were president, while Bush destroys them for her.
It is remarkable what you folks will defend in order to keep Hillary from doing what our side already is.
I think Darkwolf is righht, Aristot...imagine the world we would be in if ALGORE had won....or KERRY...we would be out of Iraq, the terrorists would probably be ruling it by now, gas would be $6.00 per gallon instead of $3, more Americans would be endangered by the enemy...you name it.
I agree with Aristot in that Bush could’ve been a more conservative executive, and it would not have hurt him—it would’ve helped.
So, for some voters, this is like 1976 (if any remember it or care to study the history). A lot of voters will view the Republican nominee as “not conservative/pure enough”...like many conservatives viewed Gerald Ford. Those people, at least many of them, sat out the election. And we got 4 disastrous years of Jimmy Carter.
Imagine 4 to 8 disastrous years of another Jimmy Carter...all because the nominee isn’t perfect in the eyes of some. We shouldn’t let that happen to America.
Yep, lets just let our side dismantle the Amendments to the United States Constitution. It’s not important anyway.
It’s happening all over again.
Your pathetic whining didn't "call me" on anything. I didn't slander Reagan, I merely pointed to things he did I consider sins, such as signing an amnesty. If you could stop with your idiotic whining and point out the "slanders"--and please, first look that word up, because you obviously have no idea what it means--you might have a point. But you can't. You obviously know nothing about Reagan, and only know him as a caricature, and not the real, flesh-and-blood man who created a revolution (and whom I call the best president of my lifetime--funny how you just ignore that).
Adults can criticize those they love. Children, such as yourself, can only deal in factoids, not facts, and whine, and swear, and take a tantrum when those they see as 2-dimensional fantasies are sullied by the facts.
Go away, child, you bother me with your lack of intelligence.
Oh he wasn’t a conservative. He was no better than Bush or Romney. He was severely flawed don’t you know. /s
Well Wolf, you sure let your animus for Ronald Reagan slip out there pal. Thanks for putting that on display for us.
DoughtyOne however, took you to the woodshed good and proper, not that it’ll sink into your skull, but nice job D.O.
I have watched Bush's second term with the horror of one watching a car wreck. He had the opportunity to be a truly conservative president, and instead he tried to be a moderate in the mistaken belief that this would make the middle and left love him.
I think it happens to all two-termers--they start "reaching toward the middle" when they SHOULD push hard to be the ultimate of what they were elected to be. Cutting spending, doing the right thing on illegals, and being a CONSERVATIVE while not having to fear re-election pressures.
What a missed opportunity!
You’re right, I’ll mark you down for a vote for Hillary.
Thanks for helping to make the US a better country.
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.