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.

[Howlin]

I asked a simple question: is the ONLY place you can pray on government property? Is that some kind of rule in your religion?

[concerned about politics]

You didn't answer my question -- Where in the Constitution does it say Separation of Church and State?

It doesn't. That's my point. The laws are based on the "feeling" that it does. No school choice? Separation of church and state!
We'd gladly get our children out of public schools, and that way your kids won't be "offended."

[A Citizen Reporter]

"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

I'll take that bet, Monty, and what's behind door #2.

[Texasforever]

But I don't believe that Bush Loyalists help their cause any with the "we can win without you"

First where do you get off with "Bush loyalists". Is that not as bad as "we can win without you?" The fact of the matter is that most of the "lost my vote crowd" never gave it in the first place. Bush was the best candidate running. Don't give me the money thing either. There were 9 GOP candidates in the primaries, EVERYONE were included in the 12 debates. Every one of them had an even chance to sell their message and the ONLY one that even came close was McCain. As to the 1 per centers it was the quadrennial parade of the same old faces with "messages" getting more bizarre as time went on. If you have a better idea of how to advance the conservative cause then PLEASE lay it out. Burning down the village to save it is NOT even an option.

[Howlin]

Purist is a good name, IMO. Pure as the driven snow. Let's all pretend their candidates were perfect.

[Miss Marple]

In my opinion, the 92 campaign was lost because of Pat Buchanan's attack, Ross Perot's candidacy, and the media drumbeat on the economy. It also was not as well run, but you must remember that President Bush's original campaign manager, Lee Atwater, had died. I think that, more than anything, caused the loss of direction and allowed Buchanan, Perot, and the media to chip away.

Saddam was let off the hook because we were operating under a UN mandate to kick him out of Kuwait, NOT go into Baghdad and kill him. You must also remember that at that time the Soviet Union was still fairly powerful militarily and sat right on Iraq's northern border, fairly close to Baghdad.

We had a Senate who would only operate under the UN mandate (and remember that vote was close...not a slam dunk) and they were itching to hit Bush with a violation of the UN mandate.

[Ben Ficklin]

"We want our rights to do our own thing"

Actually, you want your rights to be superior to other's rights. There are others who go into the public areas who are of a different faith or of no faith. Why should those others be inferior to you?

[Jorge]

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.

Thank you.
As much as we've heard from the nit-picking fault finders who repeatedlty threaten to abandon Bush over a single issue, it seems they are not as significant as they would like us to believe.
When Bush's numbers are sky high and even stronger among the Republican base...these whiners either never supported Bush or they are simply the perpetually implacable minority.
In which case worry about them is a waste of time anyway.

[Tuor]

my point is that all your right wingers continue to imply that YOU are his base; you are not.

You are correct. I am not. I guess my original post was unintentionally dishonest. I don't support Bush, on the whole, and never did. I didn't vote for him last election and wouldn't vote for him now.

I would've voted for Reagan, though. I think I would've voted for Barry Goldwater, from what I've heard about him. I wouldn't have voted for Nixon or Ford and didn't vote for Bush the Elder.

So, I'm not part of Bush's base, but I would vote for a good conservative candidate. I just don't consider Bush to be one.

Tuor

[Torie]

Saddam was let off the hook because we didn't want to dismember Iraq because we wanted it at the time to be a counterweight to Iran, who drove us nuts then as you recall. With hindsight one can question that judgment, but it was not a totally nutso one at the time.

[Howlin]

Just a little helpful hint:

This:

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?

is an overreaction when somebody asks you "Is that the only place you can pray?"

Perhaps your attitude is part of your problem; well, that and waiting for "the rest of them" to decide who you should vote for.

[Sabertooth]

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

I can't look at it through that lense.

I believe the Supreme Court erred grievously when it affirmed the post-Watergate limits on contributions. I'm in the George Will camp on this, based on a reasonable reading of the1st Ammendment... Unlimited contributions, no foreign money, immediate disclosure.

And it wouldn't take a SCOTUS decision to make that happen.

[Texasforever]

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.

Bullsquat. The middle eastern "coalition" was worthless in the front lines but at least they were not sniping our guys from the rear and they did give us the vital logistical support we needed that would have evaporated with a push to Baghdad.. However I give Bush 2credit for NOT going to the UN this time to get "permission". He is under none of the restraints Bush 1 put on himself.

[WRhine]

Who would you like to see as POTUS and why?

Given what I see in the Republican Party today the pickings are very slim. Tom Tancredo springs to mind but he is light on experience...not that Bush was all that well qualified before he took office either but he did have the all important connections. Oh and as for WHY, I see uncontrolled immigration as being America's greatest long-term threat. Tom has led the charge for sanity in our immigration policies and has proven his mettle in some very tough battles with this WH over this. On that alone he gets my vote.

You card carrying RNC types just can't quite grasp that our reckless immigration policies are putting in jeopardy much of the things we conservatives cherish...gun rights, low taxes, small government. It's straightforward math. I would have thought that the results of the last few elections would have driven home some realities by now.

[Howlin]

Actually, you want your rights to be superior to other's rights. There are others who go into the public areas who are of a different faith or of no faith. Why should those others be inferior to you?

GUESS WHAT, Ben? I'm coming out on the ledge with you:

THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT.........I am a Presbyterian but I am SICK of so called "Christians" making those threats over and over!

[Texasforever]

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

Yep, because it NEVER passed out of the Republican Congress did it?

[Miss Marple]

That is partially correct Also the Saudis were afraid of a break-up.

Hindsight is always 20-20, as the cliche says. I think they thought the Kurds would be able to revolt, but they didn't count on Saddam's ruthlessness.

I notice that we are NOT going through the UN this time. Seems that the son has figured that situation out.

[terilyn]

I see nobody has been able to post the conflicting data yet...

[WRhine]

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.

GUESS WHAT? I don't care what you think.

[nunya bidness]

Is this the Saturday night drunk thread?