Posted on 06/30/2003 3:59:40 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
The Vast Dubya & DeLay Conspiracy
June 30, 2003
Depending on where you go and in what circles you travel, conservatives are livid with the Bush administration. Some, more so than others, are furious over the size of the federal budget, the failing to rein in any kind of spending, tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the list continues - and there’s a great deal of head scratching going on.
I came across an Associated Press story over the weekend that attempts to shed some light on what’s happening, which you can hear me read in the audio links below. However, the story seems to imply there’s a conspiracy between the White House and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Here’s just one excerpt: “DeLay has become the most identifiable representative of the party's right wing, and the two Texans have had a sometimes scrappy relationship. Clashes may become more frequent as Bush moves beyond his current phase of fund raising among loyal Republicans and shifts his attention to the general electorate, analysts suggest. At the same time, Bush and his advisers are mindful that if they go too far, they could alienate conservatives whose support he needs. ‘Bush is carefully picking and choosing his fights,’ said GOP consultant Scott Reed. ‘There's a healthy back and forth between the White House staff and DeLay that is mutually beneficial to both.’”
The story continues to suggest that Bush is telling DeLay to go ahead and stop what he’s trying to do - on purpose. The idea being that Bush can thus claim credit for supporting whatever measure, while DeLay and other conservatives can point to victory for blocking its ultimate passage. A caller later asked: “Isn't this the same strategy that Bush used on campaign finance reform, only he is counting on the Supreme Court to shoot it down?” You can hear my answer below.
Where President Bush's poll numbers are now don't mean a damned thing. Where they are, a year from now ... that's another story, but NOT as vital as where they'll be come election day of '04. If these basic facts have escaped you, then you'd best rethink your assumption that you know or understand anything at all about politics.
That's a CLINTON MAN........imagine what the numbers would be if it were unbiased!
yes, like a child with a bad case of the terrible twos, attention, ANY ATTENTION is what they need; or seem to. The old dog in the manger syndrome comes into play as well as the stamping of tiny feet and the threat of taking one's ball home. Well, hello ? You and I and quite a number of others have our own balls, bats, gloves, and home plate, for that matter !
Misery may love company; however, the perpetual doom & gloom nay sayers need to realize one thing ... such angst can cause actual physical illnesses. LOL
When some FREEPERs, supposed Conservatives, rely on Clintonites for refutations, they've gone into the dark side for sure and certain !
Of course politics is a snake pit/ dirty/ whatever you care to call it; always has been, from the dawn of time right through the founding of this nation and down to today. Whoever said otherwise ? And as far as your one item obsession, dear, dream on. What you crave is impossible for many reasons. It's the same old siren song, though, that the NIMBYs have ALWAYS and EVER screamed out here; only to fail.
Do I want ALL illegals caught/ stopped and deported ? Of course I do ! Is that within the realm of the possible ? Not now and probably not ever.
OTOH, not once, NOT ONCE , have I , or YOU ever heard President Bush say that our borders are wide open , everyone come on in. Do at least attempt to be rational and factual. Please ?
Bush may not seek second term -- Associated Press Maybe he's just teasing, but W seems to be indicating that he hasn't decided whether to run again in 2004. "I'm doing everything I can to keep [my expectations] low," he said.
OK, I'm trying to read the whole thread, but you keep harping on this so I just have to say----to use a quote from 3 months after he was first inaugurated, where he is already being pressed, it appears, about another run--and I would bet the context included the much contested election--and so President Bush demurs to commit to a run in 2004. Well, for you to pull that up and wave it around now at past the mid-point of 2003 as some possibility he might not run. That is just plain idiotic.
I'm sorry, but it is.
What you imagine he can/should do and what is in the realm of physical probabilty is farther apart than you admit to.
You want to change the immigration laws ? Elect more GOPers and lobby Congress.You want the INS to really do its job ? Expect mor taxes and a rough road ahead. You want troops on the borders ? WHICH BORDERS ? We have four and air ports to boot. Whilst our troops and police are manning all four borders and all airports , who, W-H-O is going to wage the wars/peace in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. ; not to mention fight crime here ? And, once the illegals are all caught, what about the courts ? You've heard of courts; haven't you and the liberal judges who rule by fiat, instead of by law? Oh, and what about getting CONSERVATIVE judges in there ? Well, without re-electing President Bush, you haven't a hope in hell, dear boy. Wakey, wakey !
You are correct.
But I think the context is easily divined. It was April 2001 and lefties the country (and world!) over were gnashing their teeth over the election of 2000. Evidently President Bush was being asked if he would submit to such a situation again, and because he doesn't then and there declare himself a candidate we have a poster who is deceitfully pulling the ancient quote up to stir the pot with "he might not run" questions when it is as plain as day that he is running and there isn't one question about it.
Courtesy ping to MAP since I am sharply criticizing your behavior.
That is about the biggest bunch of malarkey I've yet read on here. I'm quickly becoming anti-Bush myself, because he's not acting like a conservative. I voted for his father twice. I voted for Dubya and sent about a thousand faxes to influential people during the election dispute.
What you're trying to do is paint anyone who criticizes Bush as some kind of radical, which is utterly ridiculous and naive to the Nth degree. The problem is not with those who criticize him. The problem is not even with those who support him. The real problem here is with people like you, who BLINDLY support him just because he's a Republican in the White House. You tailor reality to justify this inaccurate portrayal of the man. You find genius and strategy in everything he does, when it's JUST NOT THERE.
You can spout all the nonsense you want to in order to convince yourself that only some tiny contingent of radicals are growing disenchanted with Bush, but that doesn't make it true. It just makes you look as ideological and disingenuous as those who supported Clinton no matter WHAT he did. You remember those people, right? The ones on TV night after night, defending his perjury because that was what was required in order to be a good Democrat?
What's the difference in what you're doing now? None. As I've said before, if Clinton had made EXACTLY the same policy moves as Bush is making now, you and most of the others here would have (rightfully) been screaming to high heavens. Bush does it, though, and it's genius. Strategy. Always some masterful plan of setting something up.
Bush is either a pro-big-government, liberal leaning Republican, or else he's almost as good at pandering and playing politics as the Slickster was. It's one or the other, no matter what other kind of delusional picture you try to paint.
MM
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.