Posted on 02/13/2006 9:50:57 AM PST by presidio9
Please explain to me what political capital? Personally, I think he's better than that. His word, his bond, is worth more than some stunt.
Personally, I don't think he does understand. He spent four years kissing Ted Kennedy's ass, catering to his every whim, riding him everywher eon Air Force One. Did that benefit him at all in the 2004 election? Please explain to me how Kennedy took it easy on him.
Okay we are just not going to agree on whether a recess appointment is someone standing by his word and going to the mat to make something happen or a defeat.
As for numbers, we have them sure. But what about the 7 dwarfs? Do you remember how they basically condoned the filibustering and stonewalling by the Dems on judicial nominees? There's no discipline in the Senate or House. The difference between us is that I hold the Senate and House Republicans answerable.
The President is determined not to repeat the mistakes of his father and set himself up for a government shutdown unless he raises taxes, which is what Leon Panetta did to 41 during the Gulf War. If we weren't in a state of war, he could afford to assert himself to risk a government shutdown. Reagan could afford it, we can't.
Wow, we are just not going to agree.
If he's a Kennedy bum kisser, why are the Dems so angry? Why does he get so much of what he wants?
Why does he toss out useless "advisers" like Gergen?
Good luck in finding someone that beats Reagan. I'm sorry he's not good enough for you either.
Since President Bush took office in 2001, your poor simple math skills ( not to mention your lack of knowledge about politics, Conservatism, and the workings of government ) need to be corrected.
Homeland Security actually MADE GOVERNMENT SMALLER, because various departments were combined and while some new people were put in place, others were let go. Being a Conservative, does NOT mean you have a damned death wish!
And yet you, who claim to be a Conservative, want the CIA ( hellooooooooooooooooooooooo...the same CIA who bungled the entire terrorism stuff, which came before 9/11 ) to take over and the hell with Homeland Security, as a better run department? LOL, LOL, LOL
Your tenuous grasp on factual history, is about on par with my dust mop.
The president did NOT promise to sigh the assault rifle ban, unless this is something new and not the old, old, OLD hoary canard, that has been refuted for years here.
You're not only young, you're politically naive and stupid. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure...vote for Hillary ( though I highly doubt that she'll be the Dem presodential candidate in '08 ); that'll really "teach 'em." Oh yeah, the '94 Congressional elections sure did keep old Slick from signing all of those EOs, most of which can't be undone, rescinded the highest and most unconstitutional tax hike, in the history of these United States of America, and kept the Toon and his horde from giving/selling our secrets to China/the highest bidder.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
What happens? Maybe you should admit that you're an a--hole whose entire argument (a la the book title) can be refuted by any reasonably intelligent 9th grader in about 3 or 4 sentences.
I don't think he's out of his mind, I just think he's a true maverick. A maverick who I believe is seriously wrong on a number of major issues, but not insane. McCain believes in himself a little too much as some sort of savior or unifier and will pursue policies to appease both sides. Dubya said he was a unifier but does what he thinks is good for the country...not because he thinks he's unifying it. You are probably correct in thinking that the lib media's love for McCain will disappear instantly when Shrillary is nominated.
Your logic does not follow. How does being a realist translate into wanting the Dems to win? The fact is there are no popular conservative alternatives to McCain or Giuliani both of whom are extremely popular with the apolitical or independent voting population.
Additionally both have appreciable numbers of Democrats who like them. Many Dems (especially women, non-religious types, and Jews) who are pro-military, pro-Israel, and free-market but can't stomach Bush's Christian religious devotion and pro-life position would vote for Giuliani.
Remember in 2000 many notable conservatives (William Kristol, etal) boosted McCain. These same people will plump for him in 2008. McCain would not be my choice, but if it comes down to McCain or Clinton, there is no choice.
You're assuming the worst about the Bush admin and you are wrong. Voting for Hillary would cause far more harm and just about no good. Think about the war of Islamo-fascist terrorism. How do you think Hillary would do there. Not very well. Tax cuts. Forget about them. We'd be less safe and poorer. The deficit can be fixed a lot more readily than winning the war and undoing Dem tax hikes. Plus giving Shrillary a platform to broadcast (and enact) her left-liberal agenda will do untold harm. Look at the total picture.
Agreed, and also a source of extreme puzzlement as to why the Dems hate him so much. Nancy Pelosi wrote an article in the WSJ yesterday saying that No Child Left Behind is under-funded and that the Dems intend to change that. It was of course a Bush bill. He's done as much for liberals as he has for conservatives, yet they still hate him, which I guess says as much about their mental health as anything.
I really think that you should ping Jake the Goose to hear what he had to say. He was a McCain supporter in NH in 2000. Let Jake tell his story and then figure out if you agree that McCain is nuts or not.
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.