Posted on 07/03/2007 5:07:11 AM PDT by gpapa
I continue to admire and trust President Bush very much. I believe he has been nearly as profound a leader as was President Reagan. I believe that it is the nation that has failed President Bush, not the other way around.
We’ve tried two Bush’s as the heirs to Reagan, we’ve learned our lesson. A Bush couldn’t get elected to the Drain Commission as a Republican. He’s screwed the pooch, destroyed his family’s business.
If you are speaking for Hunter, it is this kind of talk that keeps him down in the polls. Be assured that you don’t speak for all conservatives. I’m happen to be one who is for the most part pleased with President Bush, and I refuse to dump on him for the few times he has done things that I disapprove.
If Hunter said what you have just said, and won the election in primaries, I would not vote for him in November. Bush is “a decent man,” and anyone who says otherwise has his own problems.
.....and so will I.
You're the one trying to confuse the issue.
Key passage:
Former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani is really just a one-issue candidate. We are supposed to believe that because he did an admirable job on 9-11 that this alone qualifies him to be president. I don’t really see this as being enough, but I’m not sure he has much more to offer. I think the vast bulk of his support comes from those Republicans who simply think he has the best chance of winning the general election. This support will vanish if the polls show another candidate with a better chance.
That candidate could be former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who like Reagan, also had a long career in Hollywood. Thompson looks and sounds the part, which is why he is leading some polls despite not even being an official candidate. If he were to hire some of Reagan’s speechwriters and articulate a clear Reaganite vision for the future that explicitly repudiates Bush’s deviations from conservative principles, Thompson could go all the way.
Sure we do. We want a candidate who is a REAL conservative, not a RINO in "compassionate conservative" camoflage. THAT is the kind of "anti-Bush" we need.
Then why not call it “right of Bush”, “real conservative”, “no more moderates” etc. ? Anti-Bush sounds like pacifist, blame-America, pinko protesters.
But this latest bill was fortunately defeated. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill of 1986 which legalized millions of illegals was passed and while Reagan was president. Now I ask you, did Reagan sell the country out?
My sentiments too. I didn't like the immigration bill either or the spending. But Bush's positives far outweigh his negatives. The tax cuts, the war on Islamo-fascism, the conservative supreme court justices are not mean accomplishments. Plus one other unmentioned good deed: his failure to act like an oversexed moron while President.
No.
This is nauseating...
Being anti-Bush is a dem ploy. Ignore it...and move on.... ;-)
I will settle for an "Isn't Bush", which by the way describes every single Republican candidate, as none of them "Are Bush". Bush is not running again, yet only the Democrats seem to fail to realize this.
The Democrats are burdened and saddled with the "Clinton" as Hillary is not only not an "Anti=Clinton", she is directly responsible for some of the most egregious and outrageous policy blunders and frauds of the long, mendacious Clinton years.
Why is fred thompson a keyword? Am I missing something....?
His name is mentioned in the article. For balance, I added these additional names to keywords: Bush, Reagan, Romney, Giuliani
I think Republicans WILL pull together. They'll pull together in looking forward, not backwards, and in forging a new course. It's really a blessing that the Bush admin has no successor, or else we'd REALLY be looking at a DEM president. As it is, we get a clean slate, which is a good thing. I don't think the nominee has to run away from policies, per se, but they will most likely want to be seen as a fresh start, not a continuation. Some policies started under Bush will remain, but with a new face, as it should be.
It has more to do with swing voters. You may be in Bush's ideal demographic, but there are definitely people out there who won't respond to the same appeals and qualities that they identify with the current President.
I guess Bartlett's mistake is in thinking that you can produce a candidate in accordance with a recipe. Republicans weren't looking for another Eisenhower in 1980. They chose Reagan on his own merits.
Older voters may see Fred and think Reagan, but a lot of younger voters will see him and think Bush, for better or for worse. Maybe he has to find his "inner Fred" and hope the rest of us will respond, and not try to copy someone else.
Whoever gets the nomination at the Republican convention will need the support of the President to win. That won’t be enough by itself to elect the next Republican President, but without it the Democrats will win.
Well, if Bush is going to be "that way" and try to boss the party around, maybe people are right to be fed up with him. I'd hope he'd have the graciousness to support the party's nominee wholeheartedly, and not make it about himself.
Where did I say anything about Bush boss8ing the party around? I have never seen any tendency on the part of Bush to boss anyone around. Whoever is the Republican nominee will have the support of Bush to win the Presidency, but if the nominee is "anti-Bush," and thinks he can win without the President's support, he will be in for a really great fall.
I'm not saying we need a Bush clone as nominee, but that the "anti-Bush" rhetoric is counter-productive.
It seems to me that no one eats there own like Republicans. It never ceases to amaze me.
The "Eleventh Commandment" works both ways, though. I hope the President recognizes that his successor is probably going to want to do things differently and doesn't expect too much deference.
I disagree with the idea of an “anti-Bush.” Yes, he is wrong about Amnesty, I will give you that. I don’t think that means that he was terrible, he was still a decent president, he’s just a little confused on that issue over immigration. It’s probably because his family is very insulated from the everyday consequences of illegal immigration. It has never impacted them and and it never will because of their status, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us should be asked to suffer anymore then we already are.
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.