Posted on 05/22/2003 11:01:28 PM PDT by LdSentinal
Even FDR, socialist that he was, did not leave our borders wide open to a mass invasion from a foreign country. Or promote trade agreements that shipped millions of manufacturing jobs overseas. Or look the other way when American technology companies decided that many thousands of hi-tech jobs should go to imported H1b immigrants...with umpteen thousands of other jobs just plain "outsourced" to India and China.
Given the current trends of this madness, next year should be REAL INTERESTING. I don't think Bush can escape his complicity in this, especially when his fingerprints are all over it.
The only support for tariffs is from private sector unions. A fraction of the electorate.
Yes, 2004 will be interesting but not because Bush will face any opposition but because the third party challenge will come from the left. That is what happens to parties out of power. The minority must compromise with the majority and each time it does, the base of the minority is alienated. Republicans suffered from this phenomemon for decades.
68 House Democrats, almost one third , voted last night against the defense appropriations bill. The DLC and the progressives are at each other's throats. Blacks are alienated from the party leadership. Jews are shifting to the right. Republicans are beating Democrats over two to one in fundraising. Democrats neither have the money nor the power of the executive branch to mount a massive get out the vote drive among minorities as they did in 2000. There will be a strong third party vote in 2004, the Greens may exceed 5%.
And the Federal funds which come with that means Democrat will be in the minority for at least a generation.
Rove and Bush know of this of course. Their goal is to break the impasse once and for all--to give the GOP the type of majority status Democrats had for decades.
The only way the 'Rats can win the presidency is with the help of a third party candidate, like Perot. Calling John McCain . . . .
I would like to see you and other doubting Conservatives think long and hard too. 41 did 3 things that royally screwed the pooch.
1) He reneged on his "read my lips" pledge for no new taxes. He stupidly made a deal with the Devil's Earthly representatives, the RATS, to allow them to raise taxes and cut spending.
2) 41 then allowed the RATS to reneg on their part of the deal, by raising spending, and causing the economy to stumble in 1990-1991.
3) By his own admission, 41 didn't spend a lot of time campainging, and he allowed XXX42 to lie, distort, and go completely unchallenged with the B.S. about the "worst economy in the last 50 years".
I was so pissed at 41, that I voted for Buchanon in the primary, and although I punched the chad for 41, I was actually only voting against the The Devil's Sleazebag.
Eloquent, funny, and very true.
Given the fact that polls are showing (favorable) change of opinion for Bush in heavily Democratic states like New York, California, Minnesota, etc. spells TROUBLE for Hillary's re-election to the Senate. New Yorkers will throw her to the wolves (I believe, at least, they now realize what a TERRIBLE mistake they make in 2000, by voting her into office).
"And then, there was the time he could not--you know--treat me like a woman. Right Johnny boy? A little too much salt peter in your coffee dear? He isn't like my dear departed saint of a husband in THAT category--I tell you what. HA! Oh, and then he thinks he is getting his hands on MY MONEY! Oh look, he's having another flashback! DOWN BOY--oooh, this is so much fun."
The American people are very bright and very realistic. They understand and expect another "terrorist shoe" to drop in the United States someday. That's the reality we all live with after Sept. 11.
That said, many Americans still believe that Mr. Bush will be the right person to have in the White House should that occur. Many American voters simply don't believe that any of the Democrats running right now would confront or hit back at terrorists as hard as Mr. Bush would.
The recent terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco have the nine Democrats candidates and many liberals in the media charging that Mr. Bush's war on terrorism is a "failure." A little honesty and objectivity by those Democrats and those in the media would be appreciated by the American people.
As tragic as those attacks were, there are three things to remember: They were against lightly protected or unprotected "soft" targets, they were not in the United States (as there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11), and they could have happened almost anywhere in the world at any time.
Click here for rest of article
The recent terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco have the nine Democrats candidates and many liberals in the media charging that Mr. Bush's war on terrorism is a "failure." A little honesty and objectivity by those Democrats and those in the media would be appreciated by the American people.
A little honesty and objectivity by Democrats? Bush has nothing to worry about in 2004.
You neglected to add, No one with intelligence is going to vote for a Democrat or a Libertarian.......
Let's hope the freepers who make drastic and threatening comments about NOT voting for President Bush in 2004 have their logic overcome their bitterness when they get inside the voting booth......
Me, I only hope that Rove & Co. make sure the GOP voters do not get complacent in any degree. Build on the GOTV effort big time. If W looks unbeatable come votin' time, many Rats will stay home and, unfortunately, lazy Republicans. A huge Senate majority is definitely possible if the vote is turned out....
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.