Posted on 06/01/2002 6:23:27 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:35 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Did you fly F16's, build them, design them or ??
Last week I was fishing in the American River in Sacramento, and a single F16 took off from Mather (I guess) and really torched it while heading to the NW.
No, it was a first step.
Here is a little know fact that I have copied from another thread re GW and California:
The funny thing is: the Democrats with the most to fear from Bush aren't the ones who aim to unseat it; it's those Democrats down the ticket. Consider what could happen in California. In the Golden State, the most recent Field Poll has Bush leading Gore, 48% to 41% - that's nearly a 20-point reversal from November 2000, when Bush lost the state by 12%. According to Field, Bush leads comfortably among men; he also led among women, albeit it a statistical dead heat: 49% to 48%. To give you an idea of how far Bush has come: two years ago, he lost the California women's vote, 58% to 37%.
Obviously, this is a nightmare scenario for Gore. If he can't win California, you can count on both hands the number of states Gore would carry against Bush. Call it rebuilding the Dukakis coalition from 1988, when the former Massachusetts governor won only 10 states (including West Virginia, which Bush won in 2000) en route to a 426-112 shellacking in the Electoral College.
Of course those who are scared of the reality of what GW is having in politics would never let anyone know about this incredible change in Kalifornia, my state. Actually the change is even more dramatic than what the writer notes. It has not been two years since GW lost in California. This poll was completed 17 months after lost California in November, 2000. Two years comes this November.
Yep that's it, I voted for Bush in Nov 2000 and it was really a vote for Gore. I got it now!
Geez
Been gone a couple of days and come back to see the other thread deleted. I'm not sure I understand why.
Regardless the quote above is priceless and oh so true with the Bush bashers here. I'm still not quite sure whether to believe that many of them are ultra conservative or DemoRats in right wing clothing.
I guess my only message is this. We're not all half-assed former supporters who are one issues voters or fair weather friends.
Some of us were hard core Bush supporters. I worked on Jebs campaign as a memeber of the Broward Republican Party and as a member of the Broward Young Repubicans. I, along with other freepers on this forum attended many protests during the attempted Gore election takeover. One guy I know has been a GOP delegate for years feels the same way many of us do.
We're not all fakes, or disruptors, or one-issue voters. Many of us are truly disgusted at being betrayed on issue after issue after issue. We think the huge spending, all of the newly created bureaucracies, the unconstitutional non-vetoes, the refusal to secure our borders and the breaking of campaing promises to be drastically opposed to our deeply held beliefs on where this country should be going.
For those of us who were hoping to roll back big government, or at least make a half-assed attempt at slowing it down, this admin has been a disappointment. I would dare say even a disaster.
I say let's agree that we're not going to agree on this. I'm too the point where I just want to watch the party burn and let the chips fall where they may.
The party of Reagan and the Contract with America has learned how to abuse our founding documents and spend our money for their own gain as good as any democrat, and some of us are just NOT going to support them anymore.
I've been voting for the lesser of two evils for years and I've decided I'll won't ever do that again. From now on I vote in the affirmative or stay home.
That doesn't mean we can't be friends (unless you're miss marple who hates the ground I trod upon).
Gee that sure gives me faith in your church.
I say give us the Senate for two years and then see if you still feel the way you do in Nov 2004.
The big spending came in after Jeffords came out of his closet. Now the rats with the Hilldebeast are bragging about the great spending they did, now they want to take away our tax cuts spend more.
Miss Marple you are an absolute gem! I too am impressed with people who while a small majority will just withdraw if everybody doesn't see it their way.
:)RWP
And stop calling me dear and kiddo, You don't know me and I am not your friend. Next time you want to go on an assault for someones spelling make the hell sure you understand what the damn word means in the context of the sentence!!!!!!
In answer to your question, they have been busy whining, crying and in general wringing hands about how bad things are.
As to your post, terrific!
I tend to think that Karl Rove wouldn't agree with you here, GD. The starting point for 2004 calculations is still gonna be the 2000 results, the post-9/11 polls notwithstanding. That puts the GOP at a half-million ballot deficit in the popular vote, right out of the box. No one in the Bush organization is going to hang their hopes on another Electoral College squeaker.
So, they need to make sure that any "outreach" to new voters doesn't alienate more old voters than it brings in, and they only have a few dozen votes to spare. In fact, they realistically need to make up that half million and then some.
You've suggested eleswhere on this thread that those who are saying they won't vote for Bush again never did in the first place. I'm sure that's true for some, but by no means all. I voted for Bush in both the primary and the general elections in 2000, and my vote is now his to lose... but he makes me nervous.
I don't care for much of his domestic agenda (especially the spending spree he outlined in the back end of his State of the Union address), though I'm about 90% in agreement with his foreign policy agenda.
But my potential split with him hinges on the subject of Illegals. With numerous opportunities since 9/11 to seize the political initiative, Bush has done nothing serious about this problem. He's left Ziglar, a do-nothing, in charge of the INS. Worse, he attempted to get Clinton's Section 245(i) Amnesty for Illegals extended in the Homeland Defense bill. That was a nail-biter, and the capital was deluged with e-mail and phone calls that were overwhelmingly opposed, including many from Republicans. I doubt that went unnoticed by Rove.
There's a lot of new heat on the issue of Illegals in the post-9/11 world. It may well become a new "third rail" in American politics. Maybe I'm wrong, but here's a way to test my theory:
I'll bet Bush handles Illegals with an 11-foot pole until after November. He won't risk defections with the elections on the line. Then in early 2003, he'll unveil an agenda for some sort of Amnesty ("regularization," "normalization," whatever the focus-grouped euphemism turns out to be) in the hopes of "reaching out" to Latinos and leaving himself enough time to mollify erosion in his base.
This assumes, though, that Daschle doesn't put forward 245(i) legislation of his own, or an even more expansive Amnesty. If he gets such a bill through the House and Senate before November, are you willing to bet the President wouldn't sign it?
It would be a politically shrewd move for Daschle to put Bush in that predicament, and don't think we'd see a veto. But if Bush ever does sign an Amnesty for Illegals, do you really think it wouldn't hurt him at the polls? With some of the GOP rank and file?
I think the President's own strategy indicates that he and his advisors know Amnesty would damage him, because if it would help and it was a winner, he'd propose it in the open as a stand alone bill.
Since he hasn't, I think it's safe to say the President knows that getting behind Amnesty would hurt him in polls such as the one at the top of this thread. And it wouldn't have to hurt much to be lethal.
The correct one word definition of what you've listed comes down to "Realism". It would have been great if the Republican Leadership had understood what we required.
"Mercenary?"
Karl Rove holds the Dick Morris Triangulation Chair on the Bush Adminstraion faculty.
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.