 |
| Thank you, Captain Obvious |
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 ...
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'?
A little evil can undo a great deal of good.
Thanks! Good to have the support.
You realize, I'm ripping off everything you write in this thread.....
It does not surprise me that he is a Christian man living a creed before he is a President, that he is a President before he is a Conservative. It seems to me precisely the right order of things.
You don’t have to agree with everything President Bush does; I don’t. But he deserves a lot better than he’s getting from his own side. He deserves, dare I say it, a spirit of compromise and workability, as opposed to the hard-line demand for a “perfect” solution (one which will never pass congress) to a problem no one else in government has even dared to even address.
This article speaks as if "conservative" is a political persuastion. It isn't, it's an ideology. There's no such thing as a "moderate" ideology. In this country the war is between "conservative" ideology and "liberal" ideology. "Moderate" is a temperament, and one that demonstrates a sheer and utter lack of taking sides for the most part trying to "get along" in "can't we all just get along" fashion while hoisting "compromise" as the standard in the interests of a temperament or attitude.
He deserves, dare I say it, a spirit of compromise and workability, as opposed to the hard-line demand for a “perfect” solution (one which will never pass congress) to a problem no one else in government has even dared to even address.
He deserves whatever he gets if he opens the doors to the destruction of this nation's sovereignty.
What a weak and pathetic line of reasoning this is. Oh, BOO-HOO, it won't pass Congress. It will in the House. Perhaps we ought to get the Senate on record as to exactly how they would vote on this issue so that Americans can take corrective action in the election this fall. Too much of a strategy I realize and not at all in line with Bush's "let's not rock the boat because I don't want to be perceived as a 'partisan' president" routine.
And at last check, wasn't Bush the president? Then why is he behaving like one of his cabinet members??? It's almost as if he hiding fearing criticism.
As to these ridiculous comparisons to Reagan with this strategy, if anyone truly believes that Reagan would sit here with his "Texas thumb" up his colon and essentially allow an open border with talks of opening this nation up to being overrun with Mexicans within a decade or two and one that would, in combination with liberals, EASILY control this nation politically, then they are smoking something really good.
The problem was not nearly this heightened or threatening to our very existence as the nation that we were created as, during Reagan's years.
By the same logic only going the other way I can put out that since we have no withdrawal plan in Iraq, and given the spread of the same exact types of problems now to other nations (whether Islamic or not), that we are behaving and holding the same views as the British Empire when they sought to control the world for the most part. Yet that's equally absurd.
Reagan did a "once and for all" amnesty and if his words are to be believed then he meant it. It wasn't for 20 million Mexicans and it did not provide for the entry of between 40 and 100 million more. In fact, it called for no more as the understanding that the problem would be resolved.
This issue within GOP ranks breaks down into two camps essentially.
The first realizes fully that Bush's plan, which is essentially the Senate's plan, paves the way for this nation to be somewhere between 30 and 50% Mexican within a very short period of time relatively speaking, perhaps between 10 and 20 years from now. (It's already reportedly over 15% and outnumbers the black minority demographic) Those of us seeing that realize that since these people would almost all be either from Mexico, that they would not have any particular allegiance to America, just as they now do not, and that the existing problem would merely grow to well beyond controllable proportions.
They also don't swallow the kool-aid being passed out to the party realizing that such a drink would be fatal and that "since when have politicians making promises" kept them.
The other side, I don't know, but it doesn't appear to look much beyond the '06 or '08 elections. Their primary goal seems to be keeping a GOP that has largely failed them in power over the long-term health of this entire nation. Either that or they simply don't see any issues with a general populace that is between a third and half Mexican, many of whom would like to see a good chunk of America returned to their homeland of Mexico.
They don't seem to believe that these people would ever have voting rights and therefore impose their collective will within the cities, counties, and states in which they live, perhaps even the nation as a whole.
Why not is entirely beyond me. It's not a difficult exercise when one looks at the rapid recent rise of the Hispanic demographic coupled with the birth rates and millions upon millions more to be coming here, with the nation on the verge of signing legislation, with Bush's blessing, to allow tens, perhaps even over a hundred million more in in the future. At some point the border wouldn't even matter as it'd be an open door. A North American union, shunned by most now, would end up being a "favorable outcome." Imagine!
Either way, US sovereignty as we know it would be kissed good bye forever! They apparently don't see/believe this. Why not is simply astonishing as there really isn't another logical outcome/conclusion to the matter when viewed realistically.
In the meantime, absolutely none of those on that side have given a moments notice as to how this nation, meaning all of us, are going to pay for the largest demographic of retirees (the baby boomers) in history while continuing to pay for the health care and other social costs of what are now illegals and which are well documented.
That's the difference. The first position is predicated on history, trends, solid analysis, and logic. The second is predicated on who-knows-what, but certainly not those things. All for what, to keep a GOP Senate that is complicit in all of this in the fall? Or what's the reason to sell out our entire nation and leave it's future to the will of people that never even grew up here, haven't a clue as to its history (Oh, I know, there all gonna learn American history, ... Right!), and may even have far greater loyalties to Mexico that it could easily spell disaster for America should that be the case.
Bush may have done some good things. But in terms of one of the single largest issues in the history of this nation, and the most threatening one to the continued successful existence of America as it was intended to be by those having laid the foundation for it, today, Bush is and continues to earn a big, fat F!
Meanwhile, those reflecting on "his achievements" don't seem to realize that they are focusing on the cheese in the trap just prior to having their proverbial necks snapped.
Prediction, the GOP will remain in charge after '06. But if we don't seal the border, then in 10 years, perhaps even less, all those favoring Bush's and the Senate's plan now, will have the biggest hangover of their lives in a decade or two and that hangover will be passed along to their kids and grand kids! And it's not going to be some simple political theme that can be changed with "getting the right people into power again" which will also be an impossibility given the demographical shift that will take place should a Bush/Senate plan or anything resembling it occur.
LOL...
|
| Thank you, Captain Obvious |
Many liberals do not want to give the current Republican team a fair level of credit for the economic gains like the unemployment rates ( folks with jobs ) or home ownership levels ( folks with homes )...
or give a fair level of credit for the Judicial and Legislative successes.
It is nice to see one positive editorial.
50% tax. OK. That figure must include state and local taxes, since the top rate is 35% in the Tax code. Bush has pushed for cuts consistently since taking office. He can't take all the blame when Congress drops the ball. Congress has the power to tax and spend. He can only do so much.
Blaming Bush for the deficit is like blaming me for global warming. I don't even know where to begin.
As for prior conservative appointments "turning liberal". I think you are confusing Republican appointments with conservative appointments. Stevens and Souter were never conservatives to begin with. SDO and Kennedy were never social conservatives. Roberts and especially Alito are proven conservatives. Roberts even cited the upholding of Miranda as an example of the SC "not being very conservative." I am willing to bet money that both of these guys are the real deal.
I don't always agree with Bush, but he has done a pretty good job.
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.