Bush Extremely Strong With Base (06/01/2002)

ap via newsday ^ | 5/31/2002 | Will Lester

[TLBSHOW]

WASHINGTON -- Occasional grumbling by some prominent conservatives about President Bush sometimes overshadows his extremely solid support among stalwart Republicans and conservatives around the country.

Many Republicans and Democrats seem to agree that support by itself does not tilt the 2002 elections toward the GOP. Some, however, say it could offset the gains the party out of the White House -- Democrats, in this case -- historically has made in midterm elections.

[Miss Marple]

Well, I see you are proud of yourself. In other words, you are PROUD that you helped contribute to the danger we are in now. You will be HAPPY if you can teach us a lesson by getting rid of Bush by withholding your vote. So what if we get Gore, or Hillary, because by golly, you will have taught us!!

As if anyone on the other side of the aisle is going to seal the borders and ship all Mexicans home.

I am glad you repeated your boast, and I am copying it so that I can quote you whenever you tell us how HARD you have worked for Republicans, and how MUCH you love your country.

[Texasforever]

Christians are told to gather together often, and pray at anytime, but the "law" that oppresses our right to do so could get us arrested. All other religions are embraced and taught as politically correct, but just try Christianity on public funded property!

I have a feeling that you and your "group" are really annoying.

[concerned about politics]

GUESS WHAT? There aren't as many of "you" as you think there are -- and we are SO happy about it. Nobody gives a crap about a voter who threatens to withhold his vote if he doesn't get what he wants.

You must understand that goes both ways. Who cares if some chose a Rino? Everyone can do as they please.

[Sabertooth]

Don't brag to me about teaching a lesson...the lesson I have learned is that to prove a point you will throw out an honorable man who loved his country and replace him with someone who darn near destroyed it, and who is directly responsible for the war we are in now.

No excuses for Clinton, but who let Saddam off the hook in '91?

While I voted for Bush the Elder in '92, I understand why many votes he thought were his by right went elsewhere. He ran a lackluster campaign and never took off the gloves against Clinton.

When a candidate loses votes and thus elections, it's always, always his fault.

I believe Ross Perot put Clinton into office, but only because George HW Bush frittered away votes and political capital so foolishly that Perot was able to scoop up many of his disenchanted voters.

Will Dubya repeat the mistake? That remains to be seen.

But I don't believe that Bush Loyalists help their cause any with the "we can win without you" and "don't let the door hit you in the a**" comments. And doubting whether those who've soured on Bush ever voted for him in the first place strikes me as wishful thinking. The President's numbers look good now, but we have to keep in mind that he starts from a hole in the popular vote and it wouldn't take much of a swing in a few other states to make things very difficult for him.

So let me ask you...

If some of the President's "outreach" plans compromise principles so much that they cost more votes than they gain, who's responsible if the Dems take back the White House in 2004?

[Howlin]

No group prayer on public grounds.

Is that the only place you can pray?

[PhiKapMom]

You didn't answer my question -- Where in the Constitution does it say Separation of Church and State? And where does it say that the Christian religion will be the only religion of this Nation?

[Sabertooth]

Nobody gives a crap about a voter who threatens to withhold his vote if he doesn't get what he wants.

It's my guess that people who put together winning campaigns care quite a bit.

Those voters are known as "Swing Voters."

[Texasforever]

No excuses for Clinton, but who let Saddam off the hook in '91?

The United States Senate AND the UN.

[concerned about politics]

I have a feeling that you and your "group" are really annoying.

Well, so are those who apologyze often for what Bush has done. I do get tired of hearing the silly excuses.
We bother no pagans. We just want our rights to do our own thing . The Constitution gave us a right of Freedom to do so, but those who are on power highs have chosen to change the wording a little, to the meaning of "is."
It's typical. Even "our own party" tries to dictate.

[Miss Marple]

I am interested in what you think is against the law. Here in Indiana we have prayer at the schools at the "See You At the Pole" ceremonies each year. We still have prayer at commencements, and the Indy 500 opened with prayer.

I often see people around here saying prayers in groups at restaurants, we have prayer grops that meet at lunch hours in businesses, and there is an after-school Bible Study.

Youth ministers are encouraged to eat in the cafeteria with the kids from their churches.

So I am trying to understand why you think we can't have prayer in public places. Did you miss the National Prayer Service at the National Cathedral, led by President Bush? Did you miss the prayer at the Inauguration?

Please explain whee you live and what has been prohibited Thank you.

[Sabertooth]

It is a win only for his term in office. The veto power is not absolute. The only way to actually kill it is to have it found unconstitutional.

CFR couldn't win with Clinton holding the pen. It had no steam out side the media/Beltway circle jerk.

Plus, I doubt it will all be held unconstitutional (though it ought to be).

[Torie]

Except for the fringe, it is likely that voters to the right of Bush will not be tempted to depart given the Dem candidate. The issues that animate you were given full play in the last election, and their champions ended up being off the radar screen. Bush basically is acting like the president he said he would be, a moderate conservative centrist consensus builder.

[Howlin]

I disagree; swing voters are the voters who go where they think they'll get the best deal.

The "votes" we're talking about here are out and out "my way or the highway" kinds.

[tet68]

Maybe Hookahed up?

Guess He'll have to vote for Nader again.

[concerned about politics]

Is that the only place you can pray?

Are YOU going to suggest a box somewhere if we chose a public place?Get the idea? YOU would prefer we move rather than just leave us alone. We "offended" YOU, and political correctness doesn't allow for that. We must be put out of YOUR way, no?

[Howlin]

Hey, now, a few of those provisions actually HELP us! Let's keep those!

[deport]

After all, there's a "separation of church and state",

...No group prayer on public grounds.

Weren't you just talking up about #113 about the separation of Church and State..... now which is it you want? Separation or the freedom to do as you please..... If it's the latter then you had better help get some people appointed to the Judicial system that may help your cause and the Senators to help get them confirmed, don't you think?

[FranklinsTower]

GUESS WHAT? There aren't as many of "you" as you think there are -- and we are SO happy about it. Nobody gives a crap about a voter who threatens to withhold his vote if he doesn't get what he wants.

It is this fact that has all the "purists" in a tizzy. They along with the DNC are mad because they cannot divide Pres. Bush's base. It's funny how they try to divide his base on a thread that shows their plans have failed miserably thus far.

[Poohbah]

No group prayer on public grounds. "When two or more of you come together, that's where I'll be." Christians are told to gather together often, and pray at anytime, but the "law" that oppresses our right to do so could get us arrested. All other religions are embraced and taught as politically correct, but just try Christianity on public funded property!

This is the first time I've heard of this. What is your specific complaint? I have never been chased off public property for praying, and the Good Lord knows I've done it often enough.

[Sabertooth]

The United States Senate AND the UN.

Nice cover, and it does offer plausible deniability. But neither could have stopped the American CoC had he decided to finish the job in Baghdad.

And we'd have been spared a lot of the subsequent nonsense, like Oslo.

BTW, whose idea was it to make that Gulf War a UN operation in the first place?