Posted on 11/05/2008 6:46:24 AM PST by 82ndABNOfficer
I would have still voted for Bush both times knowing what I know now. Bush was a really good President his first term, he really let us down the second and because of that, the poor performance in his second term allowed us Barak Obama. Bush can't be blammed 100%, maybe 90% ... he got lots of horrible advice from his advisers which helped to lead to some of his bad decisions.
The media criticism of everything except the left is out of control. Republicans/Conservatives and Independents need to start making lots of loud noise in order to be heard.
The media helped to influence this election more so than most previous, you can bet yourself it is going to continue to influence public opinion. Everyone in the country does not have the internet, We need to be loud and make noise!!!
I'd take George Bush for a 3 term over Osama Obama.
You're incredibly naive if you think it's that simple.
It wasn't truly a "referendum on Bush." Rather, it was a referendum on how Bush was perceived; but more than that, it was a referendum on how Conservatism is perceived. And that perception was almost entirely driven by our opponents.
The Democrats, both in the party and the media, have been working since at least Reagan's time to shape the ground for this election.
We have not responded well to this trend; conservative talk radio, for example, is a niche market that preaches almost entirely to the already-convinced: it does very little to shape the broader political landscape. In fact, the strident and often silly tone of conservative talk radio has helped to create the negative perception of what conservatism is all about.
Just look at what the other side has done with regard to Iraq: only bad news when there was bad news to report; and NO NEWS when there is excellent news (including victory) to report. And thus the perception of Iraq is poor. Bush deserves high praise but got none -- because we gave him no way to break that information out to the population at large.
Go ahead and blame Bush if you must. But the plain fact is that if conservatism is going to make a comeback, it's got to deal with the facts as they currently stand. Wishing and whining about Bush ain't gonna give you squat.
We are faced with a population that has been conditioned to believe that we do not share their views on anything. We've got to figure out effective ways for how to counter that.
And taxes, and judges, and several other big political wins.
If he saw the mortgage crisis looming
He brought it up to Congress many times, and Congress was unwilling to do their job.
He did NOT use the bully pulpit to make it know.
Bush never had a bully pulpit. The media couldn't be bothered to pay attention to anything Bush said or did, except to make fun of it.
Bush was far from perfect as president; but for all that, he accomplished a hell of a lot.
He did not act alone - he had an army of RINO's marching to the left as well. Until the Republican party again embraces the idea of limited government, low taxes, and the elimination of the welfare state for able-bodied citizens (not to mention illegal aliens), they will continue to shrink.
I left the party in 2005 when, after the second attempt to push amnesty through, they lost me. They're just too tight with a handful of "preferred" entities, and too far away from the self-sufficient middle America that makes up the bulk of this country. They, like their "friends" across the aisle, prefer a larger, more intrusive government which is the opposite of what's needed if this country is to regain its position in the world.
As I said last night, the pirates have taken over the ship. We have a choice as to whether to continue to negotiate from a position of weakness or to simply sink the ship. It'll sink eventually under the weight of socialism - I just think we shouldn't do any more to slow the process.
Bush was perceived a certain way because he allowed himself to be perceived that way. The bailout is a perfect example. He reached across the isle to these snakes (dems)...walked out into the rose garden and talked about being all bipartisan...THEN allows that witch and dingy harry to frame him that the problem was his doing. He did not ONCE stand up and fight and defend himself. He has the bully pulpit. He could have spoken directly to the American people at any point and outlined how the DEMS brought this on...but he didn't. He sat there and took it. He allowed them to frame the war, the economy, you name it. He ALLOWED the perception to continue because of his lack of fight.
As far as the tone and being not perceived well as conservatives (and talk radio)...the polls just don't agree with that. Only a small % believed the GOP is too conservative (like talk radio). The problem was they are perceived...and in a lot of cases rightly so...as losing their way and not standing on their principles. That is the facts of exit polls and surveys.
People don't disagree with the message...they just expect the people preaching the message to not be hypocrites. They expect them to stay on message and not compromise their principles...especially with scandal. Our leaders can claim a lion's share of the blame for that.
“He brought it up to Congress many times, and Congress was unwilling to do their job.”
Next thing you tell me is he wrote a letter. Or maybe he had a bracelet.
If it wasn’t for the party kicking his butt over it, Harriet Meyers would be on the Supreme Court now. So he did get that right, even if he had to be taken kicking and screaming.
I wish the Republican congressional leadership had any stomach for a fight, or spine to stand up to the democrats/media for the truth. I wish President Bush didn’t seem to show an inability or unwillingness to defend himself.
Was there ANY effort to get the truth out about Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac Dem obstructionism? This should have been laid at the feet of the Dems instead of letting them paste it on us. Economics overwhelmed any other issue this election!
Who in the electorate saw the Barney Frank/Congressional Black Caucus C-Span clips? Only Fox news viewers? Why couldn’t Mr “bi-partisan” McCain run with it AND his own record of trying to push through more oversight? Sometimes I just want to give up on the “Stupid Party” but what’s the alternative?
So, I take it you like Libertine values unlike those crazy evangelicals and anarchy that obviates the rule of law for ILLEGAL aliens. Real conservative values there hoss.
Maybe his plate wouldn't have been so full if he had concentrated on the priority mission to get OSAMA in Afghanistan instead of pursuing a personal vendetta to get vengeance for his daddy on Hussein in Iraq. If, after he got OSAMA, and he felt that Iraq was still a threat, he could have pursued it then, but as it stands, he created an unnecessary second front when the priority mission was still unresolved. Now, having said that, our men and women who have served in Iraq are winners, and have acquitted themselves with honor and distinction, but I question our necessity to be there.
If Pres. Bush knew some overriding need to take down Iraq and install a friendlier regime there for national security reasons, he should have enumerated those reasons and most of us would have stood firmly behind him. As it stands, we are unsure how long the current leadership will last in Iraq after our troops are withdrawn, and if it is removed when we do leave, the last 7 years will have been for nothing. Also, where is OSAMA?
I am sick of neo-con RINO's who are too weak kneed to stand up for true conservatism calling those who can, and do, list the faults of the Bush/McCain elitist faction "libs". Neither Bush nor McCain is a conservative. The ONLY reason Bush ever got elected is because he was slightly less puke inducing than his opponents. McCain was just more of the moderate same, and that my FReeper FRiend is the reason Johnny Mc. lost his arse.
Nope. When you have learned the art of adult reasoning and conversation we can go beyond my simple negation of your idiotic response.
“Where is Osama?”
We couldn’t find Eric Rudolph in the woods in NC for years and you’re asking where Osama is? Do you have adequate intel to say he is positively in Afghanistan? I thought not.
As for your premise that we shouldn’t be in Iraq look at a map of the Middle East and maybe you’ll be able to figure out why we are there and in Afghanistan. Ever played Risk? Ever heard of Iran? Luckily my knowledge of geography prevented me from having to ask Bush to enumerate his reasons for being there and thus he has had my undivided support.
I hate the RINOS and have railed against them for years but facts are facts.
Bush>Gore
Bush>Kerry
McCain>Obama
Now we face Russia training with Venezuela close to our home, Iran going nuclear, it goes on and on. I would much rather have faced that reality with McCain rather than Obama and that, my FReeper FRiend, does not make me a neocon or a RINO.
Just like a lib, when you can’t argue the message, you denigrate the messenger.
Do you have adequate intel to say he isn't positively in Afghanistan? I thought not. See simple isn't it when you don't have an argument you just question the other guy's.
As for your premise that we shouldn’t be in Iraq look at a map of the Middle East and maybe you’ll be able to figure out why we are there and in Afghanistan. Ever played Risk? Ever heard of Iran? Luckily my knowledge of geography prevented me from having to ask Bush to enumerate his reasons for being there and thus he has had my undivided support.
Oh, I know very well where Iraq is. I still say that Bush needed to explain to all of us why we are there. Risk is a game, our actions in Iraq have real men and women coming home in body bags and with body parts missing. I have yet to see the strategic importance of Iraq, especially in light of the fact that there is no guarantee that all that has been done will last longer than it takes for the shadow of the last planeload of America soldiers to disappear. Iraq has cost billions, perhaps trillions as no one can give an exact figure for the cost, of dollars and destroyed thousands of American families for something that may be no more substantial than a fart in a hurricane.
I hate the RINOS and have railed against them for years but facts are facts.
I will accept your word on your hate for RINO's because I think we are on the same side.
Bush>Gore---->yes, barely
Bush>Kerry---->yes, barely
McCain>Obama---->yes, barely
Now we face Russia training with Venezuela close to our home, Iran going nuclear, it goes on and on. I would much rather have faced that reality with McCain rather than Obama and that, my FReeper FRiend, does not make me a neocon or a RINO.
Yes, Russia is training with Venezuela, but that's ok, because Pres. Bush looked in Putin's eyes and found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy, so according to Pres. Bush, there is no problem there. Iran is going nuclear is a problem, but what can we do other than attack them proactively. If we do that, then we are guilty of an act of war. The way to win this "War on Terror" is to establish specialized strike forces, and then work in conjuction with the governments of the countries they reside in. If we don't take that tack, then we might as well declare war on the rest of the planet, but if we do that, we will lose even though we are stronger than every other military on the planet, we are not stronger than all of the other militaries on the planet. We need to quit being the world's policeman. I would have preferred McCain also on the issue national defense, but the key word there is "defense". Bush's policies haven't been so much about defense as about "exporting democracy" which is nothing but nation building and empiricism wrapped up in a new name.
LOL! I know you're too stupid to appreciate the irony of your post, but .... LOL!!!!!
Bush always held conservatives in contempt. He showed his hand before his first primary when he dissed Robert Bork. If a Democrat politician had done such a thing he would have been toast. Democrats require a liberal world view before they’ll back someone. Accomplishments mean nothing. They know a liberal believer can be trusted to advance the liberal agenda. This is an evaluation based on reason. The Republican base seems to make evaluations based on emotion. A few phrases like “Jesus is my favorite philosopher” and pictures of a pretty family is all it takes.
As long as conservatives blindly trust the Republican leaders, we will be losers.
The Republican coalition has been country club Republicans (big business) and conservatives. The country clubbers give money to the party and the conservatives are the voters and volunteers. According to a political scientist I know and respect, political party leadership always is an extreme version of their electorate. The Republican leadership has been 100% about providing goodies to business (illegal aliens, prescription drugs, wall street bailout, increased spending on public schools etc.) But more than that country clubbers are social liberals and very secular. They have utter contempt for middle class values. Conservatives have to get it through their heads that the country clubbers hate them. The price of freedom is vigilance and conservatives have failed to look past the rhetoric and evaluate the deeds of the Republican politicians.
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.