Posted on 05/31/2006 6:00:16 AM PDT by rhombus
thing=think.......(coffee overload....)
Look, I'm not saying that I agree with him, especially on the issue of illegals. He is no Ronald Reagan (although the big guy gave us Amnesty I), but he never claimed to be. I merely contrast GW's priciple with Slick Willy's constant flip flopping to satisfy polls. History will not deal kindly with the slickster.
As for Ms Miers, I would be willing to bet that GW STILL thinks that she is the right person for the job.
No.
President Bush has angered the Republican base over several key issues, to wit:
Open bordersHowever the Republican Base remains loyal for three extremely good reasons:
Illegal immigration
Government spending
Failure to nullify the Supreme Court's Eminent Domain decision
The litigation crisis, which as priced medical care out of the reach of everyone
Et c.
No matter how lax the Republicans may have been on each of these issues, the Democrats would be FAR WORSE! E.g.: the Democrats actively (if covertly) encourage open borders and illegal immigration because they expect them to enlarge the Democrat base support.
If the Democrats were allowed to seize power, they would take the U.S.A. down the same path of decadence that has doomed Europe.
9/11 was never repeated because of President Bush and his expert leadership.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I've never been a big Bush fan, either 41 or 43, and I worked for Alan Keyes in 2000. Having said that, however, he is SOOOO much better than the alternatives (Gore/Kerry) and I will always support a principled, God fearing man like GW in the face of the lies and manipulation of the MSM and the socialists.
Draft Condi in '08!
On many issues, conservatives are a lot closer to independents than are the liberals.
Spending restraint and immigration are issues that the base can be stoked while mostly appealing to independents as well.
The Senate immigration bill was not written to appeal to the broad swath of independent voters, but rather as a sop to the cheap labor lobby.
101% correct, E. Yet we're portrayed a *right wing extremists* by people who don't know the difference.
Excellent tagline, BTW.
Ya know, I understand you want to think the President isn't a politician, and I don't blame you, but when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...
Miers was an attempt to dodge a fight, pure and simple.
I respect you opining on the subject, but I think your desires are getting in the way of clear perception.
And in the present circumstance, what's the fundimental difference between the President "sticking to his principles," and a Caesar dictating "do it cause I said so?"
It's midterms, the middle doesn't even know there's an election.
Let's hope so. There certainly is no shortage of dummies on this forum who are more than willing to allow Pelosi to be Ms. Speaker.
You know, nursing this grudge makes you look like a schoolgirl who didn't get asked to a party, and she brings it up at every opportunity.
To me, all those who continue to throw this out as a negative against Bush look mean, petty and vindictive.
Is Bush king? Who originates and passes legislation in this country?
Another petty, vindictive point against Bush.
I am VERY pissed off at the president regarding immigration. I think he lost his eye on the prize of guest worker when he bought into McPain/Kennedy's virtual amnesty scam.
Hiring a sierra club environwacko for tres. secretary does not help either.
HOWEVER I will be working to vote republican and elect republicans.
The Democrat Party is NOT to be trusted in any way shape or form. Democrats do not support 2nd amend. rights, the Federal Marriage Amendment, and seek to immediatly surrender to the French.
I think the author is full of feces as this is a push article to try and scare politicians who are stupid enought to believe it.
If he works for the values of the base, the middle will follow because the middle agrees more with conservative values than left wing deviant, anti individual rights, surrender monkey politics of moral relativism.
America is likely to grow more cranky and polarized in the next 20 years. The aging Viet Nam veterans and the aging antiwar types are still angry at each other. John O'Neil and John Kerry will likely hate each other until they depart this earth.
The latter is what we have. In 2004, while campaigning a tight election, Bush proposed only of a "temporary" worker program. Now, he is gung ho for the Senate bill and its millions of Green Cards. Try to find where Bush proposes granting permanent legal status to umpteen million illegals in the Tempe Bush-Kerry debate , or in 2004 when President Bush Proposed a New Temporary Worker Program .
Debate:
And so in order to take pressure off the borders, in order to make the borders more secure, I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card that allows a willing worker and a willing employer to mate up, so long as there's not an American willing to do that job, to join up in order to be able to fulfill the employers' needs. That has the benefit of making sure our employers aren't breaking the law as they try to fill their workforce needs. It makes sure that the people coming across the border are humanely treated, that they're not kept in the shadows of our society, that they're able to go back and forth to see their families. See, the card, it'll have a period of time attached to it.
Proposal:
This program expects temporary workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired.
2004: Temporary work, go home.
2006: Immediate permanent legal status for millions.
= a liar who tells me what I want to hear and then sells me out when the chips are down.
"I think that strategy would result in more lost seats than a strategy focused on building a winning coalition of Republicans and ticket-splitters."
Only a genuine horse's ash would believe this crap.
Whoa. If the Bushes don't qualify as politicians, I don' know who does! They are as political as any other, but, they have SOME principles to back them up and GW (as opposed to GHW) seems to use those to make tough decisions and let the chips fall where they may.
Love the caeser reference. The difference is that you won't have praetorian guard knocking down your door and burning you as a torch in the colesium to feed the blood lust of the Roman mob!
Bush won without the "monkeys in the middle" in 2000, 2002, and 2004. "Middle of the road, independents" are less likely to vote than the base of either party.
Come on. You're being disingenuous. Burning in the colosseum is a secondary effect, and you know I was referring to primary effects ;o)
a grudge? A GRUDGE?!!! Ha! You silly rabbit! There's a huge difference between a "grudge" and a recognition/concern of a mindset evident by our president that borders on elitist and snobbery. He has not retracted it that I am aware of. And for him to use such language clearly shows he is out of touch on the whole illegal alien issue and thus out of touch with the vast majority of the electorate on said issue.
By using this type of language, it shows he is a "political animal" trying to discredit those who oppose his wrong headed policy on the illegals by labeling them. He provides no evidence to back it up, just aspersions on the character of honest people. It taints Bush as the one who is petty and vindictive. President Bush fails to recognize and pursue the right course that is consistent with national security. Shut the Border!
But then being charged as nursing a grudge by you is par. You have already damned and convicted the Marines under investigation for the incident in Haditha. So, flame on sink...
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.