“Only in the minds of the reconstructionist globalists and communists is the idea that a man is elected to the presidency to ‘craft is views’ into policy!”
That is exactly what happens isn’t it? The candidate runs on whatever views and ideas he/she believes will be successful and make the nation/state/county/city/village better. If people do vote for that individual then it is a presumption that that person’s views are acceptable to the majority of the electorate isn’t that true? Thus (I know, this is plain spoken logic but please try to follow along)the majority of the voters have provided their authority for the candidate to implement whatever plan they campaigned on.
Now let’s put this all together for ya! Bush campaigned on a number of major points..War on Terror, the Economy, Immigration Reform, Social Security reform, etc.
The War on Terror as a whole is going rather well all things considered. The situation in Iraq has been mangled pretty badly...but we need not look too far back in to history to see examples where other presidents have encountered major problems with war fighting, but they did not turn tail and run, act like a bunch of snivelling cowards. They kept working hard to find the right combination of leadership and strategy that would lead to victory. President Lincoln suffered through signifciant incompetance in the leadership of the Union army before finally finding Generals like Grant and Sherman to finish that fight. President Roosevelt also faced daunting challenges in WWII, and he lived long enough to see fortunes change thanks to the tireless work and dedication of the American people. Vietnam was not a military defeat, it was a politcal defeat that never, EVER should have happened. Bush has shown the courage to stick it out through tough times in Iraq...and that patience and confidence in our troops is paying off - despite the best efforts of a bunch of defeat oriented congresscritters.
The failure of social security reform was more a failure of a Republican Congress to do the right thing. Energy Policy? Same problem...Bush made sound suggestions for improving our energy situation, it was a linguine-spined Congress that failed to act with authority to make important legislation that would have had long term benefits to our energy needs.
The economy....what’s our unemployment rate? How many new businesses have started since Bush’s tax cuts took office? Isn’t federal tax revenue up by a significant margin thanks to tax cuts?Yes, there are troubling signs of pending problems, but how many of them are directly related to anticpated democrat legislation to increase federal regulations, increase taxes, increase the minimum wage, so on and so forth.
Is Bush responsible for some of the challeges we face? Sure, he the POTUS and much of what is going on could have been better handled. But you sound like Bush is to blame for every problem and every failure...and frankly he’s not. Bush AND Congress have a great deal to answer to. Bush, however, doesn’t have too much longer to worry about all these things does he? Yet, many Dims, and apparently a few alleged republicans seem to think Bush is running for a 3rd Term. He’s not folks.
We do need to fight with all our energy and ability those policies and proposed articles of legislation that are not conservative, but we also need to focus less on Bush and more on who we choose to support for making sure the Dims don’t get the White House in 2008. In my book, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and Newt (maybe....he’s made me a lil nervous as of late)are the best opportunity for bringing a true conservative view into the Oval Office. However if the nation elects another moderate like Bush to the White House, then that POTUS will have been authorized by the American people to offer solutions to the problems the nation faces that are based upon what they campaigned on.