Posted on 01/16/2009 6:31:14 PM PST by Delacon
I thought that President Bush did pretty well. I didn’t agree with everything he said. But he did good.
Well when you consider the two alternatives (Gore & Kerry) to “W” he really does not look all that bad IMO.
Only Obama is probably going to be Gore and Kerry rolled into one big dink.
Deroy is being too kind. Only one tax cut worked to help the economy, the one in 2003, and that was the the one for which W had the least input. If anything, W gave tax cuts a bad reputation.
With Gore & Kerry in charge, there is no telling how may smoking craters around this country we would be building memorials for.
He does deserve credit for the tax cuts, and he deserves more credit than Murdock gives him for his protection of life.
Otherwise, I’m afraid much of this is true.
And he doesn’t even mention immigration reform, which fortunately Bush was unable to pass. But not for want of trying. Or the huge trade deficits with China, which clinton started by Bush eagerly jumped on. Or Kosovo.
Yes, Bush is basically a decent man, but he was out to lunch on numerous important issues.
I am going to work dressed in black. I wish I could see better, I would wear a veil.
Tuesday is the inauguration. And I plan on hanging my flag upside down in my window on that day.
1. He was right on the most important issue of our time -- the War on Terror. He has won that war -- to date.
2. I disagree with virtually everything he's done the past two years. And much of what he did before.
3. Still, he's a good man. I've no doubt that, at every juncture, he did what he thought best for the USA.
I've voted for Presidents from 1964 forward. Where would Bush rank in that group of eight Presidents? Realistically, a solid #2.
Think about it...
The writer states what I have always said and that is Bush never responded to the lies said about him and his policies. He should have learned from the 2004 Presidential Election, but then since he won the election, thanks to the Swift Boat Vets, he ignored its lesson of immediately responding to critical claims and charges. The writer is correct, Bush covered up the Clinton staff destruction in the White House. He should have been doing what the writer said.
Why monday?
This is sophomoric drivel. But then again, most of things are.
The "new tone" wasn't about being nice. It was about having a bipartisan raid on the Treasury, while W signed everything that crossed his desk.
Do you mean Tuesday?
“Well when you consider the two alternatives (Gore & Kerry) to “W” he really does not look all that bad IMO.”
Never liked the lesser of two evils argument. The republican party has been bad to cons since the Contract with America. Since 94 it has served up washington insiders and demlites. Cons must take the party back so that we dont repeat our only choices being Bush v McCain in 00 or having several big government republicans divide the vote as in 08.
I liked Bush a LOT. He’s not perfect, I didn’t always agree with him, but he’s a man who has the courage of his convictions. WOW. He’s a very honorable man.
Those old tax cuts seem a lifetime ago. Jeez.
Too bad he didn’t spend properly. The growth rate of domestic spending has Republicans labeled as both ‘only for the rich’ and ‘big government’ spenders.
That’s going to be damn hard to shake off.
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.