Well, you have stated the opposite opinion to Limbaugh's on the matter!My bets with Limbaugh.---David, have you seen Kathleen Parker's piece on the Webb Novel Meltdown?I tried to argue for about a milisecond.
"Republicanism lost last night, not conservatism."Being a political party FIRST before advancing a valid ideology first is what lost.
One difference between Limbaugh and me, doug, is he's rich.Another is that he's an entertainer.I'm merely calling it as I see it as an old lawyer and a sometime student of history.We'll see who's got it right.
Vnjagvet,I vote with your take. He's free now. He actually met his political obligations better than Reagan did in '86. You remember, right? That was just a couple of years before the collapse of the USSR. Those darn lame ducks just can't get more than a few things done.
I agree and I don't listen to Rush so I have no idea what he said. But I think Bush will survive this unless his own party destroys him.But you know what a lot of Republicans are forgetting? They rode Bush's coat tails to that majority they lost. When they impeached Clinton in the House there was a backlash and and that was not Bush's fault, he was not around. They lost seats and they did not win big again until 2002. Now they want to blame someone else. I am so sick of hearing that. They got their fence and they lost the House.
Well, if the WoT is truly going to be for the long haul, it is likely we will need a variety of leaders of different styles and different strengths at different times. Bush seemed about right post 9/11 and beyond. Perhaps Bush is not the man for all seasons, but then who is for that matter? We will see whether Bush can advance ideas and issues effectively while fighting the opposition. Maybe having an opposition Congress will force him and the WH to communicate more clearly and effectively and advance an agenda.However, I fear that the process (for success)in Iraq is a much longer time frame than Bush has. I don't think there is a grand idea that will quickly resolve the difficulties in Iraq. There are better and worse strategies and right now we can't tell if the best or good one is being followed. There are few decent metrics in the short term for giving one the sense that this is going to work. Ambiguity is the enemy of a sitting President at this juncture. One of the reasons I wonder if Dem control could have an unplanned benefit (and I'm not in favor of Dem control, but trying to be optimistic) is that the population might tolerate some ambiguity in Iraq for a while longer since any Dem influence would not expected to be immediate (assuming the WH stays in charge or via a miracle some Dems actually come up with good ideas). A problem with my glass half full line of thinking is that assume the Dems don't make much mischief. That assumption is almost certainly false and the mischief will be quite problematic, I think.
Bush road to victory on Conservatives coatails....and trashed the coat.---Bush and the Pubs made it easy for the Dems to out-conservative them.Emanuel's strategy was simple.Shut up Nancy and Harry, and let the "Conservative" candidates carry the election.------Thomas Sowell Sowell: A New Voter Fraud ---Democrats are getting people to vote for moderates in order to put extremists in power.
The man has not shown any balls in 5 years, yet some still believe....only if compromise with everyone wins:Including our enemies.
Terrye:Conservatives produced a majority in 1994.Comprimise and corruption since gave it back to the Dems.
rick—Are you going to do an election post-mortem?
doug:What is your opinion of Abraham Lincoln? Winston Churchill?Mine is that they were two of rhe most gifted and successful leaders in the Western world.Each was, shall we say, ideologically pragmatic.Please do not think that this point is intended to compare George Bush with either Churchill or Lincoln in stature. It is not.The point is simply that in order to lead, some degree of flexibilityin ideology is essential, and was practiced even by our greatest leaders.
Loner,I'm going to wait until all the vote totals are in. There are a ton of races that were razor thin and I want to compare the shifts.'08 will be very interesting.
Bush's ideology was wrong from the begining.He got in by feigning enough conservatism to get elected.
A leader does not leave all of Clintons Traitorous Leakers in Justice, CIA, and etc.Should have cleaned house like Clinton did at the begining.REALLY should have done it after 9-11.And Mineta for transportation!Give me a break.
doug:He's the only President we have for two more years. IMO, he was a better choice than the Democrat alternatives in 2000 and 2004. I suspect for all of your antipathy towards him, you do not disagree that Gore and Kerry were even worse choices.Am I wrong?
doug:The hell he trashed it. Bush was a governor and his bipartisan style of governing was plain to see for anyone, he never pretended to be Newt Gingrich, if he had Al Gore would have won.After 9/11 and Bush's response to that awful day I began to vote for Republicans. That is the only reason I ever voted for one. In 2002 a lot of Republicans wanted to be seen with Bush and they were more than happy to accept his help because it was beneficial to them.Bush did not tell Cunningham and Ney to break the law. He did not tell DeLay to be so obnoxious. He certainly did not tell Foley to send dirty messages to young guys. These guys had more to do with this defeat than Bush.BTW, Bush's attitudes on immigration are in the mainstream and well established. If the base could not tolerate that, they should not have nominated him.Now Bush's approval rating may not be great, but it is a lot higher than Congress's is.And you know what? I do not give a damn what Sowell thinks.
If you don't like it doug, nominate Buchanan, see where that gets you.It is just amazing. The left goes after Bush because he is a "right winger" and the right wingers go after him because he is not right wing enough.
As usual, the left is wrong.
doug:So are you.
rick—I'm looking forward to it. Best.
Loner,I just went through the 53 seats that I was following and a 1.5% shift in 16 districts would have raised the Dem total to 43. Maybe you ought to do a postmortem first. The outcome is significantly worse than I had originally thought.
doug - thanks for that Sowell link. i especially liked this: "Facts are the only real antidote to a seductive vision. But facts do not “speak for themselves.” Somebody has to articulate those facts and explain their implications. The liberal media will certainly not do it and too often the Republicans do it badly or not at all.he nails it with."
Hewitt points out that Bush campaigned on up or down votes for everyone in 2002.(Red Meat for Conservatives)But John McCain never makes mistakes, so who to blame?
ex-dem,Yeah, that's why Reagan was so great....but he spent all his adult life studying and speaking about it before becoming President.
A very sad story about Michael Steele
Reagan also said that people needed to take half a loaf sometimes. He could be very pragmatic and he was not really that fiscally conservative.
rick%mdash;I'm having computer problems at the moment, but, hopefully, I'll have e-mail sometime tomorrow. If I can get my thoughts in order while dealing with techs/computer components and rain I'll send you an e-mail.Best.
For the Record:JD Hayworth's opponent won by mimicking JD's stand on immigration!
Post a Comment