Replies

Nope, Laz is right, and must be, because right now, I think we would probably be better off with a conservative Democrat in the White House.

As sickening as the thought is, Evan Bayh would never have done all the FDR stuff that Bush has. I am not exaggerating.

What bums me out most about Bush is how much he COULD have done in the wake of September 11.

Let me review: New Yorkers beating the drums for war.

Hillary being booed.

Democrat Senators totally emasculated. In the words of Daschle, "let no light and no room come between Bush and us."

Polls at ninety percent.

People ready to consider immigration reform. (Will they ever do so again?)

The American Jewish vote, usually 90 percent pro-Rat, every single election, without fail. Bush had attracted their attention.

Imagine if only Bush had come out unequivocally in favor of the Israelis kicking the pals out. Imagine the American Jewish vote being majority GOP for the foreseeable future.

He instead had to have the fat-assed girl arab princes over to the Double Wide Ranch. What a fool.

It all would have been great, and Bush could have gained favor with so many other constituencies as well,

But moreover, he could have REALLY advanced the conservative agenda.

He could have made the conservative cause palatable and understandable to SO MANY liberals who would have listened, in the wake of September 11.

But he TOTALLY BLEW IT.

And he is going so far left now, there is just nothing to explain it.

Well said. Here's part of my post on another thread...

The GOP may be the only current viable party for the Constitution's (hopeful) revival, but certainly not in it's present form. We'll be back when you guys figure out that principles matter more than political gamesmanship. Loyalty to ideals, not loyalty to name brands. That's what is bothering so many of us the most, I think. I really, truly, honestly thought that GWB was a Reagan-esque man of PRINCIPLES. I was excited. My hopes were sky-high. I thought that my very first steps into 'active' political proselytising (and MARCHING, fer cryin' out loud!) would be vindicated. I SWORE to all my friends (and anyone who would listen) that THIS was the guy who would turn back the tide of Socialism in America. I got TWELVE non-voters and first-time voters to go to the polls and vote for him! Instead, he's made a BIG liar out of me on that "Socialism" stuff, and he's proven to be just "more-principled-than-Clinton-and-Gore-combined"... and that's a depressingly low bar to hurdle.

This post has been so long that I've forgotten the Bush faux pas listed in the original article, but here are a few others which also make my jaws clench: Amnesty for "illegal aliens." The retention Cabinet Secretaries Whitman, Mineta, Powell and their policies, (especially Mineta's rejection of racial profiling in search of terrorists, while searching little old ladies at the airport). His lack of directness with the Arabs about their support of terrorism. No off-shore oil drilling off of the coast of Florida or anywhere else for that matter! And that whole notion of a Palestinian State (that's just non compos mentis-duh). And the list goes on!

Nope, Laz is right, and must be, because right now, I think we would probably be better off with a conservative Democrat in the White House.
As sickening as the thought is, Evan Bayh would never have done all the FDR stuff that Bush has. I am not exaggerating.

This is true. Had a Democrat been in the White House, a lot of the proposals coming out of there would never have gotten this far. Could a Clinton have gotten away with the Section 245i Amnesty, or the USA Patriot Act? The Congressional Republicans would have blocked it. Bush's liberal programs are getting a free pass.