Posted on 03/08/2006 7:48:03 AM PST by Paul Ross
:
Dubya's last stand
By Joseph Farah, Posted: March 8, 2006
WorldNetDaily.com
Lame duck George W. Bush obviously has no care for how his party performs in the 2008 presidential election.
But he has a little more time to consider his own fate in the 2006 mid-term congressional elections.
Oh, it won't make any difference whether Republicans or Democrats are elected this fall to the rest of us. After all, with Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House for the last six years, spending has increased way beyond anything we imagined during President Clinton's eight years in office.
Republicans have also shown that they don't really care more about national security than their Democratic opponents. Just look at our still-unguarded borders and reflect on the plan to turn over port operations to the Islamists in the United Arab Emirates.
So, as far as I am concerned, I don't have a dog in this race. Republicans have so badly mangled any opportunity they had to show the American people a distinction between the two parties that I'm at the point where I wish for a plague on both their houses.
But Bush should care.
Why?
Because his legacy is at stake.
In fact, his presidency is at stake.
I'm going to make a prediction, and I don't think I'm out on a limb on this one.
If the Democrats win the House and Senate this fall – which appears to be a distinct possibility with Bush's 38 percent approval rating – then Bush will be impeached in 2007.
I don't know what the grounds will be. Take your pick. The Democrats will find something – or invent something.
They will take revenge on the Republicans for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
There is not a doubt in my mind. And, unlike the Republicans, if the Democrats control the Senate, Bush is no longer a lame duck – he's a dead duck.
And I for one won't lift a finger to defend him – even against charges that may be as bogus as a Jimmy Carter dollar bill.
While the Democrats will impeach Bush for the wrong reasons, I can't deny that in a righteous country that honored and lived up to its Constitution, Bush would surely deserve to be impeached.
In essence, he has been something we haven't seen in American politics for a long time – a kind of absentee president.
His failure to exercise a single veto in six years in office is perhaps the gravest indictment of his lack of leadership.
I'll never forget the first time I ever met George W. Bush. He was speaking to a relatively small but friendly crowd when he was asked a softball question: "Governor Bush, what will you do as president if a clearly unconstitutional bill arrives on your desk?"
Bush's unbelievable response was: "How will I know if it's unconstitutional?"
That was it for me. I vowed not to vote for Bush in 2000, even though he was running against a man I truly feared and have described as a fool and a demagogue – Al Gore. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Bush over Gore, even though I had personally been harassed and persecuted by the White House during his reign as vice president. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Bush in 2000, even though I knew his opponent to be a cheap crook.
Yet, some astute observers attributed Bush's victory over Gore to the latter's failure to win his home state of Tennessee, where an 18-part WND investigative series on his corrupt antics was widely reprinted and reported and talked about on radio shows. While Gore was clearly unworthy of the White House, I take little pride today in any role our expose played in benefiting Bush – despite the fact that the series resulted in a $165 million lawsuit against my own company – one we are still battling six years later.
If anyone were truly hoping to be proved wrong about George W. Bush, it was me.
Unfortunately, my initial assessment was right.
And while I did endorse him in 2004, it was strictly out of sympathy with the Swiftboat Vets and their righteous and successful bid to deny John Kerry, a traitor to his country, the White House. I make no apologies about that decision.
Bush's success has largely been due to the total unworthiness and unfitness of his opponents.
Unless he miraculously changes his governing style in the next six months and wins back the American people, he had better hope they are not up to the task of impeaching him. Because that is what's coming if the Democrats win big in November – as it appears they will.
We went from approximately 50 attendees in an off-year, in 1998, to 80 in 2000, and then yesterday...only five attendees.
All who showed up were rock-ribbed conservative republicans, and all were convinced that there was widespread distrust and disgruntlement with the administration, and no amount of spin was going to change that. The President's Dubai-port deal reactions, which were executed in classic liberal kool-aid style, crystallized the conservative national consensus that there is something extremely wrong in the White House. The triangulation is not going to work.
Our town caucus was just a foretaste of things to come.
I would quibble with Farah over the lot of good national security republicans. I think Duncan Hunter (R.-CA, Chmn House Armed Services Committee), J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), Curt Weldon (R-PA), Peter King (R-NY, Chmn Homeland Security Committee), Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Senator John Kyle (R-AZ), my own Congressman John Kline (R-MN), along with the surprising and hopeful 11th-hour conversions by GOP leadership, Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert will yet save the party the greater fallout from the Dubai debacle. We'll see.
I don't think we need "spin". I think we need to be clear-headed. And stop operating out of fear.
Republicans will keep both houses and will win the presidency in 2008. Count on it. The Democrats are in disarray, the terrorists and the mullahs aren't going away, and the electorate knows it.
If there is anything that might help the dems win Congress, it is the public's awareness of the above. However, I suspect that by election time Iran will have come to a head and everyone will be forced to jump on board.
By the way, when the TMRs reply to you with ad hominems against Farah (whom I sometimes consider nuts), my advice is to just say, "Okay. Accepted. Now rebut the argument."
While the Democrats will impeach Bush for the wrong reasons, I can't deny that in a righteous country that honored and lived up to its Constitution, Bush would surely deserve to be impeached. In essence, he has been something we haven't seen in American politics for a long time – a kind of absentee president. His failure to exercise a single veto in six years in office is perhaps the gravest indictment of his lack of leadership.
Bush should be impeached for failing to veto anything? I must have missed that codicle to the Constitution.
I’ll bet Farah uses a short yellow typewriter.
If he appoints another good justice to the Supreme Court it will atone for a lot.
Yeah and they are coming to a port near you soon thanks to Dubai Bush and the feckless republican cowards in control of Congress.
I agree that Repubs will remain in control. The panic and fear of such an article as the above comes under the heading of "Paranoia will Destroy Ya". Dems have NO agenda, weak-kneed hi profile libs like Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid and many more. The perception of the public is that both parties are a let down. Dubai is a major dissapointment, so is the border issue and spending. Better of two evils...Republicans.
It is because Democrats became hostages of sexual diversity and abortion industry. Otherwise Republicans would not stand a chance.
If this is true, then Farah is a traitor, and a moonbat conservative.
Yep.
Two years ago, I was derided (and worse) for saying that Mr. Bush would destroy the conservative movement.
I got that impression during the 2000 primaries and the GOP convention.
Two years ago, the choice was John Kerry and GWB. Whose side were you on ? If you were on Kerry's, you are a nut case and a traitor to the US.
In 2006, the choice is between the democrats in congress and the republicans. Whose side are you on ? I know which side I'm on.
And I [the great and powerful Joseph Farah] won't lift a finger to defend him . . .
My approval or disapproval of Bush's job performance does not translate into support for the RATS. NO WAY IN HADES would I vote for anyone on the RAT ticket. They are devoid of character and honor and weak on national security. They would sell their mothers to regain power.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
LOL
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.