Posted on 11/06/2005 9:05:21 AM PST by doug from upland
Edited on 11/06/2005 9:47:26 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
In plain English, they're traitors.
Democrats are just being Democrats. As a political party that represents our country's Godless communists, socialists, traitors, criminals, perverts, race-baiters, parasites, and the feeble minded, they are just representing their constituency.
If so the Administration's approval ratings would be at 60% + by now.
It's about freeping time!
Mark
Good luck....... the old, lying meia will eat them alive.
Bush has been acting like a limp wimp the last few months.............. a wimp who can't even put a sentence together. If that's what "born agian" does to you, it's not for me.
We need a man in the White House who will stand up for himself. He hasn't lately....... quite the opposite!
*****
Fight back.... I'll believe it when I see it!
I'm ready.
It's probably bull.
lol
It's past the time to open a can of WOOPASS and kick a$$ and take name, but no prisoners. Amen.
There's that bit about waiting until one can see the "whites" of their eyes. Why waste a good shot? Plamegate, Sheehan, Rockefeller memo.. and so much more. It's always good when launching to leave plenty of room for those at your sides to have "digging in" grounds, too!
The RATS are doing that? Why, didn't we get instructed by the very same people NOT to do that?
1.8 million tons of yellow cake. that was clear to me.
Why Doesn't the Administration Fight Back?
I don't understand it, and neither does Bill Kristol. The Democrats are mounting the most scurrilous political campaign that has been seen in American politics since the Civil War. The administration can easily win the argument over Iraq, but instead it has abandoned the field to the enemy. Why? Kristol wonders, "[D]o they enjoy being punching bags at the White House?"
It's as good a theory as any I've seen. Turning the other cheek may be good theology, but President Bush owes the country a far more aggressive response to the Democratic Party's perfidy. Bush is letting down the country badly by failing to respond to the Democrats' charges.
I have suspected for quite some time that "discovery" data must be used in Saddam Hussein's trial. Until that time, that this data is brought up, I'm not quite certain it is prudent to go "hog-heavy" with the WMD-related materials found in Iraq and for the express purpose of "slamming it to the Democrats"...
"Long overdue ... Reagan was the Great Communicator. Thus far W has either been the NonCommunicator or the Poor Enunciator. Harry Truman managed to turn things around. Does W have what it takes?"
REALLY?! Here's some HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
HARRY TRUMAN
Barely elected to his first term (assuming office after FDR's death does NOT count as his first term), Truman's political viability was so poor that he was unable to run for re-election -- many blamed the Korean War.
RONALD REAGAN
During his second term, Ronald Reagan suffered the largest single drop in job approval ratings for any president in the history of Gallup polling (23 points). . . The culprit: Iran Contra. The Reagan 2nd term never recovered:
Fred Barnes:
". . . For Bush's consumption, there's a Republican twist to the advice. Two establishment mouthpieces who served in Republican administrations, David Gergen and Ken Duberstein, have urged Bush to act like President Reagan after Iran-contra. Reagan rejuvenated his presidency and left Washington on a high note, they claim, and Bush can do the same.
The Reagan recovery they describe, however, is largely fictional. Yes, Reagan apologized for a guns-for-hostages deal with Iran. But he didn't believe a word of it. When I interviewed Reagan a few weeks later, he insisted there had been no guns-for-hostages arrangement. Duberstein boasted in the New York Times that Justice Anthony Kennedy was "confirmed overwhelmingly by a Democratic Senate" in 1987. He didn't mention what preceded it: the historic rejection of Robert Bork for that same Supreme Court seat. Bork, by the way, blames a feckless White House, stocked with fresh talent, for doing nothing to help his nomination.
Reagan's final years in office were ones of presidential weakness. He was humiliated by the Senate when it brushed aside his ardent appeals and overrode his veto of a highway bill. To give the president some innocuous talking points, the White House dreamed up something called the "economic bill of rights." It had no connection with political reality. His success in foreign policy was cooked in the cake from his pre-scandal days.
What the Gergens and Dubersteins are offering Bush is the establishment option. And it has been enthusiastically endorsed by Democratic congressional leaders--and the more partisan the Democrat, the more enthusiastic they are. Naturally, firing Rove is a step Bush must take if he and Democrats are to "come together," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and his House counterpart Nancy Pelosi said in a letter addressed to the president but sent to the press.
The other possible course for Bush is the Rove option. That means Bush would retain his loyal staff, pursue a conservative agenda consistent with his campaign promises, and continue to thumb his nose at the Washington priesthood. Bush loathes Washington. He doesn't socialize with the establishment crowd or seek its advice. It's this strategy that irks Washington the most. In pursuing it, Bush accepts polarization as a fact of life and wins victories (legislative and electoral) not by heavily diluting his conservatism but by assembling narrow conservative majorities. This is the approach that gained Bush a second term.
You can tell which option Bush is likely to take from Rove's work schedule. He arrives daily at 7 a.m. He and Bush counselor Michael Gerson are working on next year's State of the Union address. Rove is the chief administration mediator with congressional Republicans on the touchy immigration issue. He's talking to public intellectuals, think tank scholars, and business leaders, and arranging for them to come to the White House for brainstorming sessions. Bush wants to unveil new proposals in 2006 since those he touted in his first campaign have been either enacted or defeated. Rove, I'm told, got teary-eyed when talking about how Bush and White House staffers have stood by him.
You can read the entire article at
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/306sjnbg.asp?pg=1
I don't know how many times I've posted this comment, but I will do so again. Bush & Company need a "war" room. They need to get out in front of stories, not wait to speak until three days after a story has captured headlines and been broadcast on every MSM outlet there is.The communications team, McClellan, Bartlett, et. al., have not served the President well.
Bush is scrappy. He wants to win, but doesn't want to destroy his opponents. I think he now realizes that you can't play "nice guy" with people who would destroy you. He understands this when in comes to terrorists, but now realizes he must apply the same rationale to his politcal opponents. If they could, Bush's critics would kill him. Such is their hatred for this fine man.
We must pray and we must work to counter the lies with the truth.
..... when and if it happens
Even if a good defense is created the lamestream press willl mute it or kill it.
Most Americans are FOOLS!
***
The old established/liberal/socialist media is America's most ruthless, relentless, and destructive enemy.
***
I'm sure the WH is watching what is happening here.
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.