Posted on 06/05/2002 10:41:16 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
Around 1:20 PM, judt before he play the latest Paul Shanklin parody entitled, "BAD MOOD ON THE RIGHT", he said, now this is just in fun, and "I don't want anybody "GOING FREEPER" on me".
Sheesh....like someone said yesterday, it's not like he turned into Gore, it's like he turned into McCain! He's taking all of McCain's issues any way, not to mention Gore's.....
Why have individual parties if they all end up doing the same things?
What good are principles if you lose elections? They end up defeated, for the most part.
The time to get a candidate who reflects the platform is the primaries. That's the appropriate time for such things. But when you get to the general election, you put aside the differences in the primary, and you get behind the guy who won the nomination at that time - at least that's how I thought it was supposed to work.
Warner and DiFrancesco did not do that after their guys lost the primaries in the respective races, and they faced my condemnation for their back-stabbing. I'm not going to make an exception for those who do the same thing just because they happen to be more conservative than Warner and DiFrancesco were.
I wasn't aware that a "true" Republican would allow a Democrat that opposed everything in the GOP platform to win by sitting on his hands in a given race - or by sitting home.
Apparently you missed the point. Bush's little sneer was a jab at the bushbots. That would be you, for one.
And sometimes he got stuff off FR and never gave any credit; why, he even got some hot "tips" off his 800 number from some Freepers. Lo and behold, a few days later, here would be the "idea"......but it would have been Rush's alone.
What difference does it make if the Republican opposes the GOP platform?
LOL! Rush sticking to principle? Oh yeah Rush's principle is to take the bait of an erroneous NYT report and then quiver in fear over a Thomas Oliphant article.
Some principle.
I haven't seen anybody accepting them about Bush, have you?
The last point ought to be remembered by Rush next times he swings for the fences with an underweight bat ;-)
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, the President addressed a little bit of that in his remarks today. But the President has come out with a proposal on global warming, because global warming is a serious issue and the President views it as such. What he has said about it is that -- and this is consistent with what the President has said and this recent report that came out and that the United States submitted to the United Nations, that there is "considerable uncertainty" -- that's in this recent report -- relating to the science of climate change. This report submitted to the United Nations also recognizes that any "definitive prediction of potential outcomes is not yet feasible" and that, "one of the weakest links in our knowledge is the connection between global and regional predictions of climate change."
The President has outlined a new approach with a plan to significantly reduce the growth in greenhouse gas emissions while sustaining economic growth needed to invest in new technologies to make our environment cleaner, and invest in science to better understand the challenges presented by climate change. The President's budget for fiscal year '03 provides $4.5 billion in funding for climate change, with a substantial amount of funds dedicated to research, to reduce scientific uncertainties related to climate change.
So this is an issue the President has put his finger on previously, has announced a plan that will begin to address many of these problems without wrecking the American economy.
Q Ari, can I follow that? The President said -- I read the report of the bureaucracy. Was he referring to the EPA?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is a report that came out of the EPA.
I see a lot of people taking that view. Many comments have been posted along the lines of, "I don't agree with everything, but for the most part he's done a good job."
That's my own personal "take" on the matter. :D
And a good one, I would say!
Well, I tried to explain this in my previous post. I think Bush's response was calculated to defuse the issue. There would've been no issue to defuse if not for Limbaugh/Hannity. Therefore, Limbaugh's comments had an effect on Bush's dismissive response of the report.
Well, at least we all know that you will always put party before principle - if you have any. From your posts here it sounds like you don't and that you're purely out for power.
I have a conscience. Maybe, you don't.
Generally, he opposes SOME of the platform, not ALL of the platform.
You work for what you can get, you push him hard on other stuff you want, or you get used to the idea of getting someone who really DOES oppose the entire GOP platform.
If you are the sort to expect every single thing at once, then you need to read the Constitution and understand that the Federal government was designed to move slowly in any direction.
Big deal. I don't support term limits. I guess that meant I should have opposed Newt Gingrich back in 1995...
Medved's point is that no president, even Ronald Reagan can afford to be idoelogically pure, that Dubya has been conservative where it counts and the cases where he has strayed from conservatism are insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
Furthermore, Medved says, those Republicans heaping scorn on Dubya are doing damage to America and the GOP.
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.