Posted on 06/07/2006 7:19:31 AM PDT by george76
When President Bush nominated Gen. Michael Hayden to run the CIA, the press focused on disapproving Democrats and even some Republicans who were dubious about confirmation.
A month later, when the Senate confirmed Hayden by a 78-15 vote, the story was given much less emphasis in the media, which had moved on to other stories critical of the Bush administration.
Similarly, when Bush nominated one of his aides, Brett Kavanaugh, to the federal judiciary, the press was filled with reports about Democrats threatening a filibuster because Kavanaugh once worked for special prosecutor Kenneth Starr in the case against President Clinton.
Last week, there was much less media coverage of a Rose Garden ceremony in which Bush presided over the swearing-in of Kavanaugh, who had been confirmed by a 57-36 vote.
Bush has quietly been racking up small victories like these that seem at odds with the media’s conventional wisdom of a presidency on the skids.
In addition to success with his nominations, Bush also is presiding over a booming economy and ...
The White House remains convinced it is not getting a fair shake from the mainstream media.
“President Bush’s leadership is achieving a steady flow of results that do not always dominate the day’s headlines on their own but that together represent real progress for the American people,” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
What victories?
Maybe in how to lose credibility with your constituancy. Handing over the country to illegals. Giving Iran nuclear stuff and generally making me embarrased I voted for him TWICE?
Sheeeeesh. Victories my eye......
Liberal bloggers are crying in their keyboards this "mourning".
"Kavanaugh once worked for special prosecutor Kenneth Starr in the case against President Clinton."
That's reason enough for the media and the lefties to hate him.
I am so grateful that we have a president not wedded to public acclamation. I don't agree with all of his policies and of late, I disagree with him more and more. But I admire his ability to lead regardless of the personal consequences. I think historians will treat him well.
maybe if you would look past the ONE issue, you could see
Bush had the same platform for immagration that he does now when you voted for him. TWICE.
I have indeed noticed in the past few weeks that, with the exception of the immigration issues, Bush has racked up some nice wins. It just proves to me how the press is hoping, PRAYING for another Watergate. They haven't brought down a President in over 30 years, and they're licking their chops. It doesn't my heart good to see that they're gonna fail.
good point. THANK YOU!
Well like it or not, I believe Bush did support a guest worker program in 2000 so I expect he will have another win there too. I wish he would have won on private social security accounts.
Thanks.
The old media focus is on bad Republicans and good DUmmies.
The same old story is tiring.
It is nice to see the real progress with Brett Kavanaugh to the federal judiciary and a 78-15 vote on Gen. Michael Hayden to run the CIA.
Good ol'Mark Halperin! The very same Mark Halperin who said, before the 2004 election, that ABC news has to take Bush to task for everything he says and to not take Kerry to task for erroneous statements.
People like him should not be in journalism.
The DUmmies may say that they do not know anyone who supports Conservative issues.
These liberals do not get out much.
You mean like how Bush has successfully seated TWO conservative Supreme Court justices, one of whom is CHIEF Justice? Yeah, failure my @$$.
And as HOTTIEBOY mentioned in an earlier post, Bush's stance on illegal immigration isnt different than when he first ran for president, so if you dont like it, you should have known before voting for him. If you didnt know, maybe you weren't as informed of a voter as you should have been. But do NOT call him a panderer.
For the record, I don't agree with his stance on immigration yet I voted for him. I do support showing our President and congressmen where we stand on immigration. If we send out a strong enough message, they'll reconsider their own soft stance. That's the beauty of the vote-seeking politicians.
Didn't you read the article?
Maybe in how to lose credibility with your constituancy. Handing over the country to illegals. Giving Iran nuclear stuff and generally making me embarrased I voted for him TWICE?
Sheeeeesh. Victories my eye......
I agree. It's like getting a free meal for yourself as the people delivering the meal take your home out from under you. If he, analysts, can't understand this, well, then the problem's bigger and more widespread than we all think.
All of Bush's "little victories" only matter in a secure nation under the rule of law. Meanwhile he's far less domestically than is on paper to make our nation more secure at home, and his complicity in not enforcing our existing laws while blabbering about "immigration reform" when we need "execution reform" and "border security" reform instead, is reprehensible.
He has plenty of time to construct a wall across nearly the entie southern border during his term if he so chooses to endorse that. AFTER that we can discuss the disposition of illegal invaders currently here. What about that is so difficult to understand, for him!
It leads to the clear and obvious conclusion that he simply doesn't want border security and has an agenda, and one that's terminal to the health of our nation over the midterm.
On the flip side, if he were to construct such a wall, a real one, not a Mr. Rogers Neighborhood one, then he'd propel himself into greatness immediately upon it's construction.
The “happy talk” by Mark Halperin is trying to spin their California Congressional race loss.
Republican Brian Bilbray won.
************
That was a very pleasant surprise after all the media spin.
Yeah, you should have voted for Kerry and Gore.
Something needs to be done about it but don't expect a 50 year problem to be solved in a short while.
Too early not enough coffee yet.
We didn't have the extent of the problem nor was the problem that we did have highlighted to a fraction of what it is now post-911 either.
We didn't, couldn't have, and shouldn't have expected Clinton to do the right thing regardless of the circumstances during his term. But we should have been able to expect it from Bush.
Anyone reflecting on the "little victories" don't seem to be able to reason past the notion that if this country sees the loss of over 100 million of its current citizens, namely the baby boomers and older, the baby boomers of which make up the single largest demographic group in the history of the US, along with the same number (or so) replacing them of illegal (or legal) Mexicans will necessarily change the fabric of this nation permanently.
What's so tough to see thru here.
Present population: ~ 300 million
Loss of ~ 100 million over 30 years with nowhere near the birth rate to replace on the parts of "traditional Americans" = 200 million plus birth rate for what, a fraction of that in replacement.
Add to that 100 million Mexicans in a scenario in which it appears as an open door policy practically speaking, along with a birth rate of those currently here that very substantially exceeds that of "traditional Americans," and we're looking at approximately a nation with:
...about equal numbers of Mexicans and "traditional Americans" in about 30 years, and that's if others from all over the world don't get in on the gig.
So we'd have ~ 60-160 million Mexicans and high 200-and-some million "traditional Americans" with an enormous proportion of those Mexicans being "shoe-in" Dim voters. Add that to the already guaranteed lib voters plus the morons in this nation, and well, it'll be more than the swing that's needed to set the tone for reducing our Constitution to piece of arse-wipe.
Even if the figure is 40 or 60 million, it's still going to destroy our nation as we know it. They'll all end up voting and we can all then kiss conservative representation in anything even approaching a majority right out the window permanently.
And what happens when the voting majority in some southern states supports the "return of that state to Mexico?" Then what? Can't ever happen, right. Sure.
We'd all better begin to learn Spanish too, because I'll wager my life's savings that there will be absolutely no practical reason that Mexicans will ever have to learn English. As well, once this goes down, anything resembling the W/Senate immmigration plan, it will only open the door to future such policies, not the opposite.
These people won't ever really have to pay any back taxes as who's going to collect them if they don't? What, are they going to throw 20 million into jail/prison for tax evasion? Or more?
They won't ever learn Enlish witness that largely hispanic areas now where only spanish is spoken. Anyone thinking that they're going to be forced to learn American history and will is delusional.
It is stunning the number of supposed conservatives, or perhaps simply GOPs, that truly believe that additional laws that the feds say they'll put on the books will actually be enforced. If they were enforcing the ones we have, then this wouldn't even be an issue.
Vive Le U.S. of Mexico! /s
and I agree with you wholeheartedly, (though I am a little young to remember 1986!) But it is this kind of debate and airing of facts and opinions that I believe is healthy. But all the name-calling and insulting of Bush based solely on immigration (and soon, Iran) is getting old.
Looking past the ONE issue (and noting that the guy mentioned two, not one), I see:
- McCain-Feingold
- RKBA neglect
- TSA
- $8T debt
- 50% total tax rate
- $250B to NOLA
- and many more.
There are a few positives - trivial contrasted with the above.
Just do 3 things:
- lower taxes
- balanced budget
- full BoR protection.
As for the immigration problem that has been building for years Something done about it but don't expect a 50 year problem to be solved in a short while.
Huh? The vast majority of the nation is behind exactly that.
As to being a 50-year problem, I don't think so. It's been a potential problem for 50 years. It's only been a real problem since Mexicans, many of which are known criminals, began pouring over our borders in quantities that were far too great for us to absord without running the risk of altering this nation for the worse forever.
As well, we don't have 50 years to correct it. The more that come, the less likely the chances that any real action will be taken. I believe that Bush realizes this and is buying time by not acting immediately on this. We're close to the tipping point now.
Within 10 years you'll/we'll begin to see enormous regions of this country in which primarily spanish is spoken. Signs in many regions will read in Spanish only. Political representative will begin to mmore and more reflect the desires of a formerly Mexican populace with no serious loyalties to the U.S. The ones that are here now and have lived here for a while aren't loyal to the U.S.
Just wait. Many of those backing Bush on this are going to be scratching their noodles in 2010 or 2015 saying "WTH were we thinking!" But by then it'll be too late.
You can always halt something such as this an then reverse it in the future. You cannnot continue on in ignorance of the future and try to do then what they say is impossible now, namely deport millions upon millions. What, we're gonna try and deport 20% or more of our nation in 10 or 15 years? Right.
Fruitbat, keep writing....you ARE the voice of reason in the thread!
Top 11 Things That Anti-War Protesters Would Have Said At the Normandy Invasion on D-Day ( Had There Been Anti-War Protesters At Normandy )
11. No blood for French Wine!
7. The soldiers are still on the beach, this invasion is a quagmire
5. We are attacked by Japan and then [ we ] attack France? Roosevelt is worse than the Kaiser!
4. Why bring democracy to Europe by force and not to Korea or Vietnam? I blame racism
3. This war doesn’t attack the root causes of Nazism
2. I support the troops, but invading Germany does not guarantee that in 56 years we won't have a President who's worse than Hitler
http://nihlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/top-11-things-that-anti-war-protesters.html
I'm witchoo.
To begin with, no one with an IQ of a soapdish really believes the war in Iraq has anything to do with oil.
7. The soldiers are still on the beach, this invasion is a quagmire
I think the world knows we squashed any Iraqi military machine in about 72 hours. The cluster flub now is the administration's blind eye to the bumb rush our troops are experiencing with all the yahoo, jihadists allowed to run across the borders and blow up everything. Why that little sub-plot wasn't thought out is a real brain twister.
5. We are attacked by Japan and then [ we ] attack France? Roosevelt is worse than the Kaiser!
Ok....I bought into the "We are facing a imminent nuke/bio attack" ploy. But I get why we went to Iraq and Afghanistan. I still feel deep inside my knower that we are staged in the area to face an Iranian threat. Rummy knew it might blow up while we were there ... but it just didn't happen.
4. Why bring democracy to Europe by force and not to Korea or Vietnam? I blame racism
Again, I got the bringing democracy thing to the region ... but I'm over that fantasy now. It's not unlike having to watch the south Vietnamise spit in our faces back in the 60's.
3. This war doesn’t attack the root causes of Nazism
The only thing that'll stop radical Islam...is non-radical Islam. Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
2. I support the troops, but invading Germany does not guarantee that in 56 years we won't have a President who's worse than Hitler
La la land .....
And I am of the opinion that Bush had one of the largest mandates handed any major leader of the free world to clean house and he screwed the pooch.
...and I'd rather swallow your socks than vote for either of those two pigs...or any dim. Aren't you tired of having to vote non-democrat? I am.
Time will tell. Prior conservative appointments turned liberal.
Now try addressing my other points, rather than drawing more lines in the sand.
oh I was alive in 1986! one-year-old though...
I should read up on that some more. Guess I'll hit up my favorite source...LexisNexis... =)
That is probably the LEAST embarassing thing you have done.
Then the primaries is the time to do that... just make sure that you get a Pub who can win.
You and the Illegalaphobes are so full of crap that it prevents you from accurate observation and analysis.
Well, here's a little tune Congress is playing right now that'll surely put a spring in your step and thank Bush for providing the music:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1644973/posts?page=1
I'm disturbed by several things Bush has done/is doing. But I'm very satisfied about several other things he has done/is doing. I'm thoroughly disgusted by the Senate. The House is doing reasoanbly well (other than spending).
So it's a mixed bag to be sure, as is every group of politicians.
The following commentary is a MUST READ for anyone interested in an HONEST, ACCURATE appraisal of the Bush presidency:
THE ESSENTIAL PRESIDENT BUSH
http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/05/22/the-essential-president-bush/
POLLING UPDATES:
We all know the polls are BOGUS; however, it can be instructive to note trendlines . . . and the trendlines for the President are UP:
GALLUP:
36% approve 57% disapprove
UP from 31% approve 63% disapprove in early May . . .
Important Stat:
78% approval from Republicans (up from 69%)
http://poll.gallup.com/
COOK/RT STRATEGIES
37% approve 57% disapprove
UP from 36% approve 60% disapprove . . .
Important Stat:
77% approval from Republicans
--only 27% approve of Congress (again, who should be running from whom?)
http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2006_poll_tl_june6.pdf
Illegalaphobes? How do you say that in Espanole'?
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.