"What I refer to are the claims that Bush is "Just like Gore" or, my 'favorite': "Worse than Clinton" and to some here, the embodiment of the RINO. The broad-brush ploy. "He's a traitor to the conservative base". I disagree.I dare say that nobody on this thread has said "worse than Gore" or "as bad as Clinton." If they had, I'd defend it by saying that Gore and Clinton are every bit the liberal statists they claim to be, while our president is certainly not the conservative he claims to be. Hipocrisy is no less a sin because it's committed by a Republican.
"...to some Bush-bashers on FR, everything the man does is wrong and somehow, a betrayal and a sell-out.
To virtually all of the "My Party Right or Wrong" Republicans, any criticism of der President is verboten and characterized as bordering on treason.
"...the DNC trolls wearing the 'conservative' disguise aside - this constant harping and complaining needs some balance with the reality of the Bush presidency and his handling of a myriad of difficult situations, a hostile media (the N.Y. Post BUSH KNEW! headline is a fine example of this) and an obstructionist Democrat opposition in Congress.
Then explain why the most liberal policies put forth by the GWB administration have not been the result of strategic losses to the dems, but the result of proactive GWB administration policies. There simply was no "obstructionist Democrat opposition" that would mitigate CPR, the Farm bill, the NCLB Education bill, Mineta's Follies, and the continued politicization of junk science and rampant Marxist feminism at HHS. It appears that the Republicans have bought the liberal lie that all conflict is bad conflict unless begun by a democrat.
"What's disingenuous is the mention of Rush Limbaugh."
Nonsense. I'm not a real big Limbaugh fan, but when he says that "Bush is putting forth the Democrats' agenda for them," he's calling it as many people are seeing it.
"President Bush is fair game for criticism from conservatives on some issues but he is not a political traitor or the 'socialist' (and other nonsensical labels) the diehards try to pin on him. That kind of smear is what I oppose and I'll continue to do so. It's disingenuous, at best. A deliberate lie, at worst."
The criticism of Bush is nowhere near as hyperbolic as calling anyone who dares find fault with GWB a "Bush-basher."
"I'll grant you the farm, education and campaign reform bills were correctly identified as 'liberal'. The President signed them for political reasons but the criticism from conservatives is justified on that count."
Funny how anybody who says exactly that without putting it behind at least three sycophantic paragraphs in praise of GWB gets called a "Bush-basher."
Harrison, I don't have time to chew this one over a dozen times so I'll make it easy and leave you the last word, a la O'Reilly. That knee jerks two ways. Some folks will bash Bush for anything he does that doesn't fit some ultra-rightist profile. Typical example: Bush appointed a gay man to some AIDS office. Pure PR but no, some Bush-bashers were proclaiming that Bush was 'in bed with the homos' and was promoting homosexuality. Please. This kind of hyperbole discredits many of these very threrads.
A hint: Because it doesn't appear on this thread doesn't mean a statement was not made. 'Worse than Clinton' is one of those.
Have fun.