Skip to comments.
Bush Turns More Partisan With Coming of Elections
Washington Post ^
| 05/19/2002
| Dana Milbank
Posted on 05/18/2002 7:49:27 PM PDT by Pokey78
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:30 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
President Bush and the White House have set aside earlier worries about the president openly engaging in political matters, launching an unabashedly partisan effort for November's congressional elections.
The change was on full display last week. On Tuesday, word emerged that the White House had approved the sale of a Sept. 11 photo of Bush on Air Force One to Republican donors. That same day, Bush headlined a $33 million, record-setting fundraiser, one of more than two dozen he has keynoted this year and his second in as many days. Big donors received private briefings by senior White House officials and Cabinet members.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
To: Pokey78
Oh I knew it I knew it! Somehow I just knew those wascally Wepublicans would be the first to turn partisan didn't you?
Stoolie Dashole tried so hard to be compassionate too!
To: DallasJ7
That is a V ERY good observation. Its not the democrat and Dashole and the rest of the partisna jerks, its only Bush according to Dan Milbank - minion #235 of the DNC.
To: Pokey78
"You must win by seizing upon the enemy's disorder and derangement, and by not according him even a little of recovery." - Miyamoto Musashi, A Book of Five Rings,1645.
23
posted on
05/18/2002 9:45:59 PM PDT
by
PsyOp
To: desertcry
These organizations(the liberal media) of traitors have a lot to answer for. - agreed!
To: Common Tator
Good analysis, however, you failed to mention that the Democrat's money for Gore was reduced by 25% to elect Hillary. The allocation of National Party Funds to Elect Hillary made her Senate Seat the most expensive in history - the Democrats lost the Presidency simply by spending in the wrong place - their strategy is Rodem in '04 and one more.
25
posted on
05/18/2002 11:59:12 PM PDT
by
Jumper
To: Common Tator
Nice metaphor.
I hadn't seriously considered whether Bush could get 60 Senate seats. I had mostly figured they were just trying to get back a voting majority- hmmm, but that's thinking like the dems actually. The dems are the ones desperate to hold on to a voting majority in the Senate because it's the only platform they have- except the media, of course- and while the media is a powerful tool to have in one's arsenal it still can't vote on things.
But, yes, I suppose thinking to win big and long term it would make more sense for Bush to push for the big pie. It doesn't hurt if you're unsuccesful (you were campaigning anyway) and if you win you win all the marbles. If Bush succeeds in that endeavor, I suppose he would make a big push over the next two years to win California and New York. With either of those two, he would be unbeatable.
To: Common Tator
Great analysis! We have got to take back the Senate and if this latest round by the Dems/press hasn't emboldened people to that reality I don't know what will. Seems it may have reunited the bickering ranks of the GOP.
The Dems will stop at nothing. Let's stop then this November!
27
posted on
05/19/2002 7:58:06 AM PDT
by
Wphile
To: Pokey78
Republicans need only get the truth out there and not let these idiot liberal media hacks/Demonrats get away with their hit pieces.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson