alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Conservatives are revolting
- Thread starter alonzomourning23
- Start date
niceguyshawne
CAGiversary!
[quote name='E-Z-B']Perfect. The dems will take congress and the senate back in November.
[/QUOTE]
I'll believe it when I see it. From now until the election you'll just be seeing the GOP candidates differentiating themselves from Dubya to get the conservative vote. After the elections we'll be back to business as usual.
[/QUOTE]
I'll believe it when I see it. From now until the election you'll just be seeing the GOP candidates differentiating themselves from Dubya to get the conservative vote. After the elections we'll be back to business as usual.
The Republicans are definetly falling apart fast. In the last major election they attacked the Democrats because they were unclear in their party beliefs which was exaggerated by Kerry himself flip-flopping. Now you've got the republicans all over the place with issues such as immigration, the ports issue of a few months ago, etc.
I think I can say this pretty clearly.
As one of the few Republicans on this board, I am NOT revolting.
I hear that W's ratings are at an all time low, and it's only caused me to ponder. Who are they polling exactly? Everyone in my circle feels similar to me. We aren't blindly following a party line, but we are looking at the issues and forming our own opinions. Which is what I feel everyone should do.
It seems to me that the extreme left simply waits for the right to act, then they staunchly take the opposite side. Every W speech is wrong, every W selectee is wrong, every W agenda is wrong. I never hear any solutions, only that the right is wrong and confused.
I, for one, am open to opinions and view points. It is very hard to have a one way conversation where the others intent is to just make me know that I'm wrong.
As one of the few Republicans on this board, I am NOT revolting.
I hear that W's ratings are at an all time low, and it's only caused me to ponder. Who are they polling exactly? Everyone in my circle feels similar to me. We aren't blindly following a party line, but we are looking at the issues and forming our own opinions. Which is what I feel everyone should do.
It seems to me that the extreme left simply waits for the right to act, then they staunchly take the opposite side. Every W speech is wrong, every W selectee is wrong, every W agenda is wrong. I never hear any solutions, only that the right is wrong and confused.
I, for one, am open to opinions and view points. It is very hard to have a one way conversation where the others intent is to just make me know that I'm wrong.
[quote name='Derwood43']I think I can say this pretty clearly.
As one of the few Republicans on this board, I am NOT revolting.
I hear that W's ratings are at an all time low, and it's only caused me to ponder. Who are they polling exactly? Everyone in my circle feels similar to me. We aren't blindly following a party line, but we are looking at the issues and forming our own opinions. Which is what I feel everyone should do.
It seems to me that the extreme left simply waits for the right to act, then they staunchly take the opposite side. Every W speech is wrong, every W selectee is wrong, every W agenda is wrong. I never hear any solutions, only that the right is wrong and confused.
I, for one, am open to opinions and view points. It is very hard to have a one way conversation where the others intent is to just make me know that I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]
so you're saying, - since you don't happen to agree with the findings, they must be from a suspect source or somehow skewed and unreliable?
sounds familiar.... and fascinating since it's very easy to look up how this poll was conducted. i did it in about ten seconds.
About Ipsos Public Affairs
Ipsos Public Affairs is a non-partisan, objective, survey-based research company made up of campaign and political polling veterans as well as seasoned research professionals. The company conducts strategic research initiatives for a diverse number of American and international organizations, based not only on public opinion research but often elite stakeholder, corporate, and media opinion research. It has offices in Chicago, New York City, Ottawa, San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver, and Washington, D.C., with affiliates around the world. Ipsos Public Affairs conducts national and international public opinion polling on behalf of The Associated Press, the world’s oldest and largest news organization. Ipsos Public Affairs is an Ipsos company, a leading global survey-based market research group.
To learn more, visit: www.ipsos-na.com/pa/us/
if it's still unclear to you i would strongly encourage you to contact them directly and they'll be more than happy to explain why these polls are 100% valid and not skewed toward a particular political party
Dan Maceluch
Vice President Corporate Communications & Marketing, Ipsos
(604) 893-1635
[email protected]
John Wright
Senior Vice President, Ipsos Reid Public Affairs
(416) 324-2900
[email protected]
the wind has shifted
republicans ARE revolting
even if you're not
As one of the few Republicans on this board, I am NOT revolting.
I hear that W's ratings are at an all time low, and it's only caused me to ponder. Who are they polling exactly? Everyone in my circle feels similar to me. We aren't blindly following a party line, but we are looking at the issues and forming our own opinions. Which is what I feel everyone should do.
It seems to me that the extreme left simply waits for the right to act, then they staunchly take the opposite side. Every W speech is wrong, every W selectee is wrong, every W agenda is wrong. I never hear any solutions, only that the right is wrong and confused.
I, for one, am open to opinions and view points. It is very hard to have a one way conversation where the others intent is to just make me know that I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]
so you're saying, - since you don't happen to agree with the findings, they must be from a suspect source or somehow skewed and unreliable?
sounds familiar.... and fascinating since it's very easy to look up how this poll was conducted. i did it in about ten seconds.
About Ipsos Public Affairs
Ipsos Public Affairs is a non-partisan, objective, survey-based research company made up of campaign and political polling veterans as well as seasoned research professionals. The company conducts strategic research initiatives for a diverse number of American and international organizations, based not only on public opinion research but often elite stakeholder, corporate, and media opinion research. It has offices in Chicago, New York City, Ottawa, San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver, and Washington, D.C., with affiliates around the world. Ipsos Public Affairs conducts national and international public opinion polling on behalf of The Associated Press, the world’s oldest and largest news organization. Ipsos Public Affairs is an Ipsos company, a leading global survey-based market research group.
To learn more, visit: www.ipsos-na.com/pa/us/
if it's still unclear to you i would strongly encourage you to contact them directly and they'll be more than happy to explain why these polls are 100% valid and not skewed toward a particular political party
Dan Maceluch
Vice President Corporate Communications & Marketing, Ipsos
(604) 893-1635
[email protected]
John Wright
Senior Vice President, Ipsos Reid Public Affairs
(416) 324-2900
[email protected]
the wind has shifted
republicans ARE revolting
even if you're not
Cheese
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Derwood43']I think I can say this pretty clearly.
... every W selectee is wrong, every W agenda is wrong. I never hear any solutions, only that the right is wrong and confused.[/QUOTE]
Actually we were all pretty ok about Harriet Meyers.
The reason you don't hear solutions is because they're not as sexy to report on as problems. If you spend more then 30 seconds looking at any democratic leaders websites you can find solutions, new ideas and plans for action on a variety of topics.
... every W selectee is wrong, every W agenda is wrong. I never hear any solutions, only that the right is wrong and confused.[/QUOTE]
Actually we were all pretty ok about Harriet Meyers.
The reason you don't hear solutions is because they're not as sexy to report on as problems. If you spend more then 30 seconds looking at any democratic leaders websites you can find solutions, new ideas and plans for action on a variety of topics.
penmyst
CAGiversary!
I'm Republican. Very borderline Libertarian one though.
I don't find these polls all that shocking.
While politics is always an exercise of voting for the lesser of two evils, that doesn't mean people have to be happy about it.
The most conservative of Republicans feel as though their party has abandoned them on issues such as the illegal immigration, budget spending (nearly as pork-laden as any democrat), dealing with oil price issues, etc.
The general feeling is that these Republicans take for granted their very conservative members of base because those people simply have no other options in general elections since no single Democrat ever comes close to a conservative principle in any matter.
I live in Pennsylvania and it's something that goes on with Arlen Specter as our senator. Rick Santorum is very acceptable to any Republican, but Arlen Specter is a Republican in name only and is despised by the conservative base of the Republican party here. But the truth is... that most every one of them will STILL vote for Arlen over ANY Democrat.
But I really don't suspect this is just a Republican problem. If you look at many Democrat constituents, many of the left wing nutballs feel that their party isn't leftist and kook-laden enough. But they keep on voting Democrat because they simply couldn't ever pull that Republican lever.
Just a bunch of steam-venting, and come election day they will be voting along their party lines. I'll believe Republicans will lose their majority when it actually happens. Because Democrats are basing their hopes on the mistakes of their opponents rather than on making their ideas clear and known. But having seen most of those Democratic ideas in action for over 40 years of Dem domination of Congress-- I can't exactly blame them for keeping them as under-the-radar as possible with the electorate.
I don't find these polls all that shocking.
While politics is always an exercise of voting for the lesser of two evils, that doesn't mean people have to be happy about it.
The most conservative of Republicans feel as though their party has abandoned them on issues such as the illegal immigration, budget spending (nearly as pork-laden as any democrat), dealing with oil price issues, etc.
The general feeling is that these Republicans take for granted their very conservative members of base because those people simply have no other options in general elections since no single Democrat ever comes close to a conservative principle in any matter.
I live in Pennsylvania and it's something that goes on with Arlen Specter as our senator. Rick Santorum is very acceptable to any Republican, but Arlen Specter is a Republican in name only and is despised by the conservative base of the Republican party here. But the truth is... that most every one of them will STILL vote for Arlen over ANY Democrat.
But I really don't suspect this is just a Republican problem. If you look at many Democrat constituents, many of the left wing nutballs feel that their party isn't leftist and kook-laden enough. But they keep on voting Democrat because they simply couldn't ever pull that Republican lever.
Just a bunch of steam-venting, and come election day they will be voting along their party lines. I'll believe Republicans will lose their majority when it actually happens. Because Democrats are basing their hopes on the mistakes of their opponents rather than on making their ideas clear and known. But having seen most of those Democratic ideas in action for over 40 years of Dem domination of Congress-- I can't exactly blame them for keeping them as under-the-radar as possible with the electorate.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='penmyst']
Just a bunch of steam-venting, and come election day they will be voting along their party lines. I'll believe Republicans will lose their majority when it actually happens. Because Democrats are basing their hopes on the mistakes of their opponents rather than on making their ideas clear and known. But having seen most of those Democratic ideas in action for over 40 years of Dem domination of Congress-- I can't exactly blame them for keeping them as under-the-radar as possible with the electorate.[/quote]
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/10/congress.poll/
It appears that it's not an "I hate everyone" opinion, but more "I'm not making that mistake again" type of opinion.
Remember, there's a whole bunch of people who don't run screaming just because a democrat won.
Just a bunch of steam-venting, and come election day they will be voting along their party lines. I'll believe Republicans will lose their majority when it actually happens. Because Democrats are basing their hopes on the mistakes of their opponents rather than on making their ideas clear and known. But having seen most of those Democratic ideas in action for over 40 years of Dem domination of Congress-- I can't exactly blame them for keeping them as under-the-radar as possible with the electorate.[/quote]
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/10/congress.poll/
It appears that it's not an "I hate everyone" opinion, but more "I'm not making that mistake again" type of opinion.
Remember, there's a whole bunch of people who don't run screaming just because a democrat won.
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Derwood43']I think I can say this pretty clearly.
As one of the few Republicans on this board, I am NOT revolting.
I hear that W's ratings are at an all time low, and it's only caused me to ponder. Who are they polling exactly? Everyone in my circle feels similar to me. We aren't blindly following a party line, but we are looking at the issues and forming our own opinions. Which is what I feel everyone should do.
It seems to me that the extreme left simply waits for the right to act, then they staunchly take the opposite side. Every W speech is wrong, every W selectee is wrong, every W agenda is wrong. I never hear any solutions, only that the right is wrong and confused.
I, for one, am open to opinions and view points. It is very hard to have a one way conversation where the others intent is to just make me know that I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]
Fox News is reporting similar polls. All polls do a random sampling of the population. You and your "inner circle" are just the backwash of the 31%.
As one of the few Republicans on this board, I am NOT revolting.
I hear that W's ratings are at an all time low, and it's only caused me to ponder. Who are they polling exactly? Everyone in my circle feels similar to me. We aren't blindly following a party line, but we are looking at the issues and forming our own opinions. Which is what I feel everyone should do.
It seems to me that the extreme left simply waits for the right to act, then they staunchly take the opposite side. Every W speech is wrong, every W selectee is wrong, every W agenda is wrong. I never hear any solutions, only that the right is wrong and confused.
I, for one, am open to opinions and view points. It is very hard to have a one way conversation where the others intent is to just make me know that I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]
Fox News is reporting similar polls. All polls do a random sampling of the population. You and your "inner circle" are just the backwash of the 31%.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='penmyst']I'm Republican. Very borderline Libertarian one though.
---
I live in Pennsylvania and it's something that goes on with Arlen Specter as our senator. Rick Santorum is very acceptable to any Republican...[/quote]
To claim to have even a single libertarian bone in your body and yet you support Santorum? If the man had his way, there'd be a camera installed in every bedroom in the country, and non-approved sexual activity (meaning anything other than missionary position with your wife for the sole purpose of reproducing) would be punishable by death.
---
I live in Pennsylvania and it's something that goes on with Arlen Specter as our senator. Rick Santorum is very acceptable to any Republican...[/quote]
To claim to have even a single libertarian bone in your body and yet you support Santorum? If the man had his way, there'd be a camera installed in every bedroom in the country, and non-approved sexual activity (meaning anything other than missionary position with your wife for the sole purpose of reproducing) would be punishable by death.
[quote name='E-Z-B']Fox News is reporting similar polls. All polls do a random sampling of the population. You and your "inner circle" are just the backwash of the 31%.[/quote]
So wait, let's see.
I'm revolting and I'm backwash. I'll address both posts.
I'm revolting to you, Msutt77? Wow, that's a strong word. Especially since you and I have talked how many times before? ... ... 0?
Backwash, eh? What an intelligent comment from such an esteemed poster.
The question of who they were polling was a real question that popped up in my head. I wanted to meet the people that they were polling. I wanted to understand why they thought the way they did. It was a genuine question, and not a slant at all. Did anyone give me the benefit of a doubt? Nope.
As far as my "inner" circle; I used that term because they are the only people I can speak for. I don't know any members here as well as I know my friends. Therefore, I can't gauge where you're coming from. I am curious why some many dems on this board simply hate someone for being a Republican. It confounds me.
I really want to have dialogue with people on this board, concerning politics. It's extremely difficult to keep a level head when the first response is bashing and name calling. My feelings are in no way hurt, I'm just looking for some friendly debate.
So wait, let's see.
I'm revolting and I'm backwash. I'll address both posts.
I'm revolting to you, Msutt77? Wow, that's a strong word. Especially since you and I have talked how many times before? ... ... 0?
Backwash, eh? What an intelligent comment from such an esteemed poster.
The question of who they were polling was a real question that popped up in my head. I wanted to meet the people that they were polling. I wanted to understand why they thought the way they did. It was a genuine question, and not a slant at all. Did anyone give me the benefit of a doubt? Nope.
As far as my "inner" circle; I used that term because they are the only people I can speak for. I don't know any members here as well as I know my friends. Therefore, I can't gauge where you're coming from. I am curious why some many dems on this board simply hate someone for being a Republican. It confounds me.
I really want to have dialogue with people on this board, concerning politics. It's extremely difficult to keep a level head when the first response is bashing and name calling. My feelings are in no way hurt, I'm just looking for some friendly debate.
Do you support Bush?
If my assumption was wrong then I apologize.
However for you to say something like no solutions are offered is sad and false.
But take Iraq as an example, why should anyone offer a solution anyhow? Many on the left told you guys not to go in and now its our problem? It would be like you sticking your dick in a meat grinder and telling us we should be the ones to extricate it.
If my assumption was wrong then I apologize.
However for you to say something like no solutions are offered is sad and false.
But take Iraq as an example, why should anyone offer a solution anyhow? Many on the left told you guys not to go in and now its our problem? It would be like you sticking your dick in a meat grinder and telling us we should be the ones to extricate it.
[quote name='Msut77']Do you support Bush?
If my assumption was wrong then I apologize.
However for you to say something like no solutions are offered is sad and false.
But take Iraq as an example, why should anyone offer a solution anyhow? Many on the left told you guys not to go in and now its our problem? It would be like you sticking your dick in a meat grinder and telling us we should be the ones to extricate it.[/quote]
Do I support Bush? Yes.
Do I blindly support Bush? No.
Like I've said in other posts, I consider myself a middle conservative. If I have to choose a side, I choose Republican. Our values are more closely aligned.
I'll continue using your example, Iraq. That's quite a fatalist veiwpoint. Your view sounds something like this. You've just discovered the cure for AIDS. An AIDS patient comes to you and asks for your cure. You tell them, "You had unprotected sex, you got yourself into it, you don't deserve the cure.". What you didn't know is that the patient got AIDS from a blood transfusion. Since the majority of AIDS patients are associated with drugs/sex, you've decided that the cure isn't that important. Rather than help everyone, you want to deny the answer to the ones who need it.
How is anyone helped by witholding details to a "solution"? That argument doesn't make any sense to me. That attitude will only prolong Vietnam II. It's going to take everyone working together to figure out the solution. Right?
If my assumption was wrong then I apologize.
However for you to say something like no solutions are offered is sad and false.
But take Iraq as an example, why should anyone offer a solution anyhow? Many on the left told you guys not to go in and now its our problem? It would be like you sticking your dick in a meat grinder and telling us we should be the ones to extricate it.[/quote]
Do I support Bush? Yes.
Do I blindly support Bush? No.
Like I've said in other posts, I consider myself a middle conservative. If I have to choose a side, I choose Republican. Our values are more closely aligned.
I'll continue using your example, Iraq. That's quite a fatalist veiwpoint. Your view sounds something like this. You've just discovered the cure for AIDS. An AIDS patient comes to you and asks for your cure. You tell them, "You had unprotected sex, you got yourself into it, you don't deserve the cure.". What you didn't know is that the patient got AIDS from a blood transfusion. Since the majority of AIDS patients are associated with drugs/sex, you've decided that the cure isn't that important. Rather than help everyone, you want to deny the answer to the ones who need it.
How is anyone helped by witholding details to a "solution"? That argument doesn't make any sense to me. That attitude will only prolong Vietnam II. It's going to take everyone working together to figure out the solution. Right?
[quote name='Derwood43']Do I support Bush? Yes.
Do I blindly support Bush? No.[/QUOTE]
If you consider yourself a Bush supporter in anyway shape or form then blindness is inextricably a part of the equation.
BTW as for Iraq you seemed to completely have missed the point (no suprise whatsoever) solutions have been offered by Dems and people on the left. I was addressing the fact that you somehow seem to believe it someone elses problem rather than those mislead ourselves into the mess in the first place.
Do I blindly support Bush? No.[/QUOTE]
If you consider yourself a Bush supporter in anyway shape or form then blindness is inextricably a part of the equation.
BTW as for Iraq you seemed to completely have missed the point (no suprise whatsoever) solutions have been offered by Dems and people on the left. I was addressing the fact that you somehow seem to believe it someone elses problem rather than those mislead ourselves into the mess in the first place.
[quote name='Msut77']If you consider yourself a Bush supporter in anyway shape or form then blindness is inextricably a part of the equation.
BTW as for Iraq you seemed to completely have missed the point (no suprise whatsoever) solutions have been offered by Dems and people on the left. I was addressing the fact that you somehow seem to believe it someone elses problem rather than those mislead ourselves into the mess in the first place.[/quote]
Your first sentence is the reason you're a democrat, and I'm a republican. You think 100% of his decisions are wrong. To quote you, "blindness is inextricably a part of the equation.". Which means, no matter what ideas I may support, they are the wrong ideas. How very general of you.
Your second thought is completely off. I, in no way, think Iraq is "someone elses problem". I didn't pull the trigger to send us to Iraq, neither did you. It is our duty, as citizens to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem. I'll now direct you to the last sentence in my above post. Please read it and repost your thoughts.
It's going to take everyone working together to figure out the solution. Right?
BTW as for Iraq you seemed to completely have missed the point (no suprise whatsoever) solutions have been offered by Dems and people on the left. I was addressing the fact that you somehow seem to believe it someone elses problem rather than those mislead ourselves into the mess in the first place.[/quote]
Your first sentence is the reason you're a democrat, and I'm a republican. You think 100% of his decisions are wrong. To quote you, "blindness is inextricably a part of the equation.". Which means, no matter what ideas I may support, they are the wrong ideas. How very general of you.
Your second thought is completely off. I, in no way, think Iraq is "someone elses problem". I didn't pull the trigger to send us to Iraq, neither did you. It is our duty, as citizens to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem. I'll now direct you to the last sentence in my above post. Please read it and repost your thoughts.
It's going to take everyone working together to figure out the solution. Right?
[quote name='Derwood43']You think 100% of his decisions are wrong.[/QUOTE]
On questions of policy and whatnot id say something like 90% give or take.
It is not just about him being wrong (which implies "whoops no ones fault)
the problem is that for many of his decisions he either A) Lies B) Misleads or C) Breaks the letter or spirit of a law.
On questions of policy and whatnot id say something like 90% give or take.
It is not just about him being wrong (which implies "whoops no ones fault)
the problem is that for many of his decisions he either A) Lies B) Misleads or C) Breaks the letter or spirit of a law.
et tu, conservative base?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gallup polling organization recorded a 13-percentage-point drop in Republican support for Bush in the past couple of weeks. These usually reliable voters are telling pollsters and lawmakers they are fed up with what they see as out-of-control spending by Washington and, more generally, an abandonment of core conservative principles.
There are also significant pockets of conservatives turning on Bush and Congress over their failure to tighten immigration laws, restrict same-sex marriage, and put an end to the Iraq war and the rash of political scandals, according to lawmakers and pollsters.
Bush won two presidential elections by pursuing a political and governing model that was predicated on winning and sustaining the loyal backing of social, economic and foreign policy conservatives. The strategy was based on the belief that conservatives, who are often more politically active than the general public, could be inspired to vote in larger numbers and would serve as a reliable foundation for his presidency. The theory, as explained by Bush strategists, is that the president would enjoy a floor below which his support would never fall.
It is now apparent that this floor has weakened dramatically -- and collapsed in places.
"A lot of us have been like Paul Revere and sounding the alarm for three or four years," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). "Conservatives forgave Bush and Congress for our past mistakes because the war on terrorism was so important . . . but now there is a great deal of unhappiness. What you are going to increasingly see is a divided Republican Party."
Ralph Sivillo, a 64-year-old retiree living in Monroe, N.Y., said he started turning against Bush in January. He said Democrats are beginning to look better to him. "I'm really dead against Bush at this point. What's he doing? He's doing nothing. Everybody's just bailing on him because they feel the same way."
"He's not well liked," said Douglas Giles, 47, a self-described conservative from Buffalo. "A lot of people don't think he's very good."
Michael Dimock of the Pew Research Center, a leading polling group, said one of the most striking findings of recent surveys is the growing number of conservatives who "don't see Bush as one of them" as they did earlier. Pew found that Bush has suffered a 24-point drop in his approval rating among voters who backed him in 2004: from 92 percent in January 2005 to 68 percent in March.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a red/blue, con/lib, dem/rep issue at all.
If you say that there is no revolt then you have your head in the sand.
End of story
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gallup polling organization recorded a 13-percentage-point drop in Republican support for Bush in the past couple of weeks. These usually reliable voters are telling pollsters and lawmakers they are fed up with what they see as out-of-control spending by Washington and, more generally, an abandonment of core conservative principles.
There are also significant pockets of conservatives turning on Bush and Congress over their failure to tighten immigration laws, restrict same-sex marriage, and put an end to the Iraq war and the rash of political scandals, according to lawmakers and pollsters.
Bush won two presidential elections by pursuing a political and governing model that was predicated on winning and sustaining the loyal backing of social, economic and foreign policy conservatives. The strategy was based on the belief that conservatives, who are often more politically active than the general public, could be inspired to vote in larger numbers and would serve as a reliable foundation for his presidency. The theory, as explained by Bush strategists, is that the president would enjoy a floor below which his support would never fall.
It is now apparent that this floor has weakened dramatically -- and collapsed in places.
"A lot of us have been like Paul Revere and sounding the alarm for three or four years," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). "Conservatives forgave Bush and Congress for our past mistakes because the war on terrorism was so important . . . but now there is a great deal of unhappiness. What you are going to increasingly see is a divided Republican Party."
Ralph Sivillo, a 64-year-old retiree living in Monroe, N.Y., said he started turning against Bush in January. He said Democrats are beginning to look better to him. "I'm really dead against Bush at this point. What's he doing? He's doing nothing. Everybody's just bailing on him because they feel the same way."
"He's not well liked," said Douglas Giles, 47, a self-described conservative from Buffalo. "A lot of people don't think he's very good."
Michael Dimock of the Pew Research Center, a leading polling group, said one of the most striking findings of recent surveys is the growing number of conservatives who "don't see Bush as one of them" as they did earlier. Pew found that Bush has suffered a 24-point drop in his approval rating among voters who backed him in 2004: from 92 percent in January 2005 to 68 percent in March.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a red/blue, con/lib, dem/rep issue at all.
If you say that there is no revolt then you have your head in the sand.
End of story
[quote name='PKRipp3r']et tu, conservative base?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gallup polling organization recorded a 13-percentage-point drop in Republican support for Bush in the past couple of weeks. These usually reliable voters are telling pollsters and lawmakers they are fed up with what they see as out-of-control spending by Washington and, more generally, an abandonment of core conservative principles.
There are also significant pockets of conservatives turning on Bush and Congress over their failure to tighten immigration laws, restrict same-sex marriage, and put an end to the Iraq war and the rash of political scandals, according to lawmakers and pollsters.
Bush won two presidential elections by pursuing a political and governing model that was predicated on winning and sustaining the loyal backing of social, economic and foreign policy conservatives. The strategy was based on the belief that conservatives, who are often more politically active than the general public, could be inspired to vote in larger numbers and would serve as a reliable foundation for his presidency. The theory, as explained by Bush strategists, is that the president would enjoy a floor below which his support would never fall.
It is now apparent that this floor has weakened dramatically -- and collapsed in places.
"A lot of us have been like Paul Revere and sounding the alarm for three or four years," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). "Conservatives forgave Bush and Congress for our past mistakes because the war on terrorism was so important . . . but now there is a great deal of unhappiness. What you are going to increasingly see is a divided Republican Party."
Ralph Sivillo, a 64-year-old retiree living in Monroe, N.Y., said he started turning against Bush in January. He said Democrats are beginning to look better to him. "I'm really dead against Bush at this point. What's he doing? He's doing nothing. Everybody's just bailing on him because they feel the same way."
"He's not well liked," said Douglas Giles, 47, a self-described conservative from Buffalo. "A lot of people don't think he's very good."
Michael Dimock of the Pew Research Center, a leading polling group, said one of the most striking findings of recent surveys is the growing number of conservatives who "don't see Bush as one of them" as they did earlier. Pew found that Bush has suffered a 24-point drop in his approval rating among voters who backed him in 2004: from 92 percent in January 2005 to 68 percent in March.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a red/blue, con/lib, dem/rep issue at all.
If you say that there is no revolt then you have your head in the sand.
End of story[/quote]
I live in Oklahoma, we don't have any sand. :lol:
How many Republicans do you see storming the White House, demanding he be overthrown? Or, do you see Republicans (who are still Republican) becoming less forgiving? You've got Republicans who, understandably, are asking for a better answer. In the past, he's gotten by with just saying enough. Now people on both sides are demanding the full answer. Heck, I'm the same way. There are issues that I don't agree with entirely. You can't please everyone at once. I do have to trust that he has my core values in line when I vote for him.
If, for instance, you voted for Kerry, do you agree with every single talking point of his? I doubt you could truthfully answer yes. With two options, you have to choose which candidate best represents your beliefs.
Beginning of story.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gallup polling organization recorded a 13-percentage-point drop in Republican support for Bush in the past couple of weeks. These usually reliable voters are telling pollsters and lawmakers they are fed up with what they see as out-of-control spending by Washington and, more generally, an abandonment of core conservative principles.
There are also significant pockets of conservatives turning on Bush and Congress over their failure to tighten immigration laws, restrict same-sex marriage, and put an end to the Iraq war and the rash of political scandals, according to lawmakers and pollsters.
Bush won two presidential elections by pursuing a political and governing model that was predicated on winning and sustaining the loyal backing of social, economic and foreign policy conservatives. The strategy was based on the belief that conservatives, who are often more politically active than the general public, could be inspired to vote in larger numbers and would serve as a reliable foundation for his presidency. The theory, as explained by Bush strategists, is that the president would enjoy a floor below which his support would never fall.
It is now apparent that this floor has weakened dramatically -- and collapsed in places.
"A lot of us have been like Paul Revere and sounding the alarm for three or four years," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). "Conservatives forgave Bush and Congress for our past mistakes because the war on terrorism was so important . . . but now there is a great deal of unhappiness. What you are going to increasingly see is a divided Republican Party."
Ralph Sivillo, a 64-year-old retiree living in Monroe, N.Y., said he started turning against Bush in January. He said Democrats are beginning to look better to him. "I'm really dead against Bush at this point. What's he doing? He's doing nothing. Everybody's just bailing on him because they feel the same way."
"He's not well liked," said Douglas Giles, 47, a self-described conservative from Buffalo. "A lot of people don't think he's very good."
Michael Dimock of the Pew Research Center, a leading polling group, said one of the most striking findings of recent surveys is the growing number of conservatives who "don't see Bush as one of them" as they did earlier. Pew found that Bush has suffered a 24-point drop in his approval rating among voters who backed him in 2004: from 92 percent in January 2005 to 68 percent in March.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a red/blue, con/lib, dem/rep issue at all.
If you say that there is no revolt then you have your head in the sand.
End of story[/quote]
I live in Oklahoma, we don't have any sand. :lol:
How many Republicans do you see storming the White House, demanding he be overthrown? Or, do you see Republicans (who are still Republican) becoming less forgiving? You've got Republicans who, understandably, are asking for a better answer. In the past, he's gotten by with just saying enough. Now people on both sides are demanding the full answer. Heck, I'm the same way. There are issues that I don't agree with entirely. You can't please everyone at once. I do have to trust that he has my core values in line when I vote for him.
If, for instance, you voted for Kerry, do you agree with every single talking point of his? I doubt you could truthfully answer yes. With two options, you have to choose which candidate best represents your beliefs.
Beginning of story.
[quote name='Derwood43']I live in Oklahoma, we don't have any sand. :lol:
How many Republicans do you see storming the White House, demanding he be overthrown? Or, do you see Republicans (who are still Republican) becoming less forgiving? You've got Republicans who, understandably, are asking for a better answer. In the past, he's gotten by with just saying enough. Now people on both sides are demanding the full answer. Heck, I'm the same way. There are issues that I don't agree with entirely. You can't please everyone at once. I do have to trust that he has my core values in line when I vote for him.
If, for instance, you voted for Kerry, do you agree with every single talking point of his? I doubt you could truthfully answer yes. With two options, you have to choose which candidate best represents your beliefs.
Beginning of story.[/QUOTE]
agreeing with 'every talking point' is a red herring, has nothing to do with anything being discussed here and is simply a way for you to avoid the actual topic. nobody anywhere ever should believe 100% of what someone tells them, and i never intimated they should.
i live on the planet with the yellow sun... oxygen makes up about 21% of the atmosphere... big melting polar ice caps at either end... which one are you posting from?
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&l...tp://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=7035
^^^ some more 'talking points' for you ^^^
How many Republicans do you see storming the White House, demanding he be overthrown? Or, do you see Republicans (who are still Republican) becoming less forgiving? You've got Republicans who, understandably, are asking for a better answer. In the past, he's gotten by with just saying enough. Now people on both sides are demanding the full answer. Heck, I'm the same way. There are issues that I don't agree with entirely. You can't please everyone at once. I do have to trust that he has my core values in line when I vote for him.
If, for instance, you voted for Kerry, do you agree with every single talking point of his? I doubt you could truthfully answer yes. With two options, you have to choose which candidate best represents your beliefs.
Beginning of story.[/QUOTE]
agreeing with 'every talking point' is a red herring, has nothing to do with anything being discussed here and is simply a way for you to avoid the actual topic. nobody anywhere ever should believe 100% of what someone tells them, and i never intimated they should.
i live on the planet with the yellow sun... oxygen makes up about 21% of the atmosphere... big melting polar ice caps at either end... which one are you posting from?
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&l...tp://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=7035
^^^ some more 'talking points' for you ^^^
[quote name='PKRipp3r']agreeing with 'every talking point' is a red herring, has nothing to do with anything being discussed here and is simply a way for you to avoid the actual topic. nobody anywhere ever should believe 100% of what someone tells them, and i never intimated they should.
i live on the planet with the yellow sun... oxygen makes up about 21% of the atmosphere... big melting polar ice caps at either end... which one are you posting from?
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx%3Faid%3D7035
^^^ some more 'talking points' for you ^^^
[/quote]
Avoid the actual topic?????
Please, oh please, tell me how I'm trying to avoid the topic. Everything I'm saying goes back to "revolting Republicans".
I too live on a planet with a big yellow sun... media BS makes up about 79% of the atmosphere... big melting polar ice caps are a myth...
i live on the planet with the yellow sun... oxygen makes up about 21% of the atmosphere... big melting polar ice caps at either end... which one are you posting from?
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx%3Faid%3D7035
^^^ some more 'talking points' for you ^^^
[/quote] Avoid the actual topic?????
Please, oh please, tell me how I'm trying to avoid the topic. Everything I'm saying goes back to "revolting Republicans".
I too live on a planet with a big yellow sun... media BS makes up about 79% of the atmosphere... big melting polar ice caps are a myth...
It's a joke, calm down.
[quote name='Derwood43']Your first sentence is the reason you're a democrat, and I'm a republican. You think 100% of his decisions are wrong. To quote you, "blindness is inextricably a part of the equation.". Which means, no matter what ideas I may support, they are the wrong ideas. How very general of you.
Your second thought is completely off. I, in no way, think Iraq is "someone elses problem". I didn't pull the trigger to send us to Iraq, neither did you. It is our duty, as citizens to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem. I'll now direct you to the last sentence in my above post. Please read it and repost your thoughts.
It's going to take everyone working together to figure out the solution. Right?[/QUOTE]
Derwood,
I think that a lot of the anger felt from Democrats, liberals and the left comes from several sources.
First, they have been completely marginalized by a President who lied when he promised to be a "uniter." Basically what he meant by that was, if you agree with me, we can be united, otherwise
you. If you disagree with that sentiment, consider every thumb-in-your-eye decision Bush has made without any consultation with the party that represents roughly half of America (given the results of the last presidential election.)
Second, they have been branded traitors, weaklings and worse for holding opinions that turned out to be correct. Make sure Iraq has WMDs before invading. Don't cut taxes so drastically you blow out the budget and make it impossible to shore up Social Security. Create a Medicare drug plan based on people's needs, versus the desires of the pharmaceutical industry. These are all opinions I and many other people have held, and we were shouted down to the country's detriment.
Third, they are sincerely frustrated by a Democratic Party that has failed to live up to the title "loyal opposition." I understand it can be hard to serve that role while being assailed by right-wing media, etc., but the Democrats need to grow a backbone. I believe they do have ideas and plans that would offer a reasonable alternative to the rudderless, pandering crap now being dished by the Republican Party, but until they get leadership with balls none of it will amount to much.
And finally, they are frustrated by people who see the way the country is going, see the mistakes made by Bush and their terrible consequences (Iraq, Katrina, the budget, the erosion of personal privacy), but refuse to hold him accountable. Put it this way: if a Democratic president, let's say Clinton, took the country to where it is now, wouldn't at least some of the people you talk with be calling for his censure or impeachment?
I apologize for the long post, but I would sincerely like to know how you can still support this President given some of the ghastly mistakes he's made. He has clearly been wrong on some big damned issues, and has polarized the country. At what point do you acknowledge this?
Your second thought is completely off. I, in no way, think Iraq is "someone elses problem". I didn't pull the trigger to send us to Iraq, neither did you. It is our duty, as citizens to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem. I'll now direct you to the last sentence in my above post. Please read it and repost your thoughts.
It's going to take everyone working together to figure out the solution. Right?[/QUOTE]
Derwood,
I think that a lot of the anger felt from Democrats, liberals and the left comes from several sources.
First, they have been completely marginalized by a President who lied when he promised to be a "uniter." Basically what he meant by that was, if you agree with me, we can be united, otherwise
you. If you disagree with that sentiment, consider every thumb-in-your-eye decision Bush has made without any consultation with the party that represents roughly half of America (given the results of the last presidential election.)Second, they have been branded traitors, weaklings and worse for holding opinions that turned out to be correct. Make sure Iraq has WMDs before invading. Don't cut taxes so drastically you blow out the budget and make it impossible to shore up Social Security. Create a Medicare drug plan based on people's needs, versus the desires of the pharmaceutical industry. These are all opinions I and many other people have held, and we were shouted down to the country's detriment.
Third, they are sincerely frustrated by a Democratic Party that has failed to live up to the title "loyal opposition." I understand it can be hard to serve that role while being assailed by right-wing media, etc., but the Democrats need to grow a backbone. I believe they do have ideas and plans that would offer a reasonable alternative to the rudderless, pandering crap now being dished by the Republican Party, but until they get leadership with balls none of it will amount to much.
And finally, they are frustrated by people who see the way the country is going, see the mistakes made by Bush and their terrible consequences (Iraq, Katrina, the budget, the erosion of personal privacy), but refuse to hold him accountable. Put it this way: if a Democratic president, let's say Clinton, took the country to where it is now, wouldn't at least some of the people you talk with be calling for his censure or impeachment?
I apologize for the long post, but I would sincerely like to know how you can still support this President given some of the ghastly mistakes he's made. He has clearly been wrong on some big damned issues, and has polarized the country. At what point do you acknowledge this?
[quote name='Derwood43']
big melting polar ice caps are a myth...
[/QUOTE]
that statement sums you up nicely.... averse to and ignorant of facts.
Or possibly, a Polar Bear killed your parents in a back alley when you were seven and so you're OK with them being wiped off the face of the planet forever.
*shrug*
Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.
The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp
http://www.katu.com/stories/85773.html
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-lean080506.htm
big melting polar ice caps are a myth...
[/QUOTE]
that statement sums you up nicely.... averse to and ignorant of facts.
Or possibly, a Polar Bear killed your parents in a back alley when you were seven and so you're OK with them being wiped off the face of the planet forever.
*shrug*
Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.
The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp
http://www.katu.com/stories/85773.html
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-lean080506.htm
[quote name='PKRipp3r']that statement sums you up nicely.... averse to and ignorant of facts.
Or possibly, a Polar Bear killed your parents in a back alley when you were seven and so you're OK with them being wiped off the face of the planet forever.
*shrug*
Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.
The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp
http://www.katu.com/stories/85773.html
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-lean080506.htm[/quote]
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
Enjoy.
Or possibly, a Polar Bear killed your parents in a back alley when you were seven and so you're OK with them being wiped off the face of the planet forever.
*shrug*
Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.
The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp
http://www.katu.com/stories/85773.html
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-lean080506.htm[/quote]
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
Enjoy.
[quote name='dennis_t']Derwood,
I think that a lot of the anger felt from Democrats, liberals and the left comes from several sources.
First, they have been completely marginalized by a President who lied when he promised to be a "uniter." Basically what he meant by that was, if you agree with me, we can be united, otherwise you. If you disagree with that sentiment, consider every thumb-in-your-eye decision Bush has made without any consultation with the party that represents roughly half of America (given the results of the last presidential election.)
Second, they have been branded traitors, weaklings and worse for holding opinions that turned out to be correct. Make sure Iraq has WMDs before invading. Don't cut taxes so drastically you blow out the budget and make it impossible to shore up Social Security. Create a Medicare drug plan based on people's needs, versus the desires of the pharmaceutical industry. These are all opinions I and many other people have held, and we were shouted down to the country's detriment.
Third, they are sincerely frustrated by a Democratic Party that has failed to live up to the title "loyal opposition." I understand it can be hard to serve that role while being assailed by right-wing media, etc., but the Democrats need to grow a backbone. I believe they do have ideas and plans that would offer a reasonable alternative to the rudderless, pandering crap now being dished by the Republican Party, but until they get leadership with balls none of it will amount to much.
And finally, they are frustrated by people who see the way the country is going, see the mistakes made by Bush and their terrible consequences (Iraq, Katrina, the budget, the erosion of personal privacy), but refuse to hold him accountable. Put it this way: if a Democratic president, let's say Clinton, took the country to where it is now, wouldn't at least some of the people you talk with be calling for his censure or impeachment?
I apologize for the long post, but I would sincerely like to know how you can still support this President given some of the ghastly mistakes he's made. He has clearly been wrong on some big damned issues, and has polarized the country. At what point do you acknowledge this?[/quote]
You have some valid points. I won't argue.
I simply have a problem with the thought that people are "revolting". I think they're simply waking up, and thinking outside party lines.
As far as Clinton goes, no, I don't think we would. I can speak from experience when I thought it was a travesty that they impeached him for fooling around with Monica. I thought what he did was reprehensible, but not impeachable. Granted he did lie under oath,
I think that a lot of the anger felt from Democrats, liberals and the left comes from several sources.
First, they have been completely marginalized by a President who lied when he promised to be a "uniter." Basically what he meant by that was, if you agree with me, we can be united, otherwise
you. If you disagree with that sentiment, consider every thumb-in-your-eye decision Bush has made without any consultation with the party that represents roughly half of America (given the results of the last presidential election.)Second, they have been branded traitors, weaklings and worse for holding opinions that turned out to be correct. Make sure Iraq has WMDs before invading. Don't cut taxes so drastically you blow out the budget and make it impossible to shore up Social Security. Create a Medicare drug plan based on people's needs, versus the desires of the pharmaceutical industry. These are all opinions I and many other people have held, and we were shouted down to the country's detriment.
Third, they are sincerely frustrated by a Democratic Party that has failed to live up to the title "loyal opposition." I understand it can be hard to serve that role while being assailed by right-wing media, etc., but the Democrats need to grow a backbone. I believe they do have ideas and plans that would offer a reasonable alternative to the rudderless, pandering crap now being dished by the Republican Party, but until they get leadership with balls none of it will amount to much.
And finally, they are frustrated by people who see the way the country is going, see the mistakes made by Bush and their terrible consequences (Iraq, Katrina, the budget, the erosion of personal privacy), but refuse to hold him accountable. Put it this way: if a Democratic president, let's say Clinton, took the country to where it is now, wouldn't at least some of the people you talk with be calling for his censure or impeachment?
I apologize for the long post, but I would sincerely like to know how you can still support this President given some of the ghastly mistakes he's made. He has clearly been wrong on some big damned issues, and has polarized the country. At what point do you acknowledge this?[/quote]
You have some valid points. I won't argue.
I simply have a problem with the thought that people are "revolting". I think they're simply waking up, and thinking outside party lines.
As far as Clinton goes, no, I don't think we would. I can speak from experience when I thought it was a travesty that they impeached him for fooling around with Monica. I thought what he did was reprehensible, but not impeachable. Granted he did lie under oath,
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']If you consider yourself a Bush supporter in anyway shape or form then blindness is inextricably a part of the equation.
[/quote]
As much as I hate views like this, you can't win an election without encouraging it in your supporters.
[/quote]
As much as I hate views like this, you can't win an election without encouraging it in your supporters.
this is my favorite one so far
Boehner Ridicules Senate Republicans as Party Tensions Rise
By Laura Litvan
May 12 (Bloomberg) -- House Majority Leader John Boehner dismisses recent legislative proposals on energy, immigration and spending as ``stupid,'' ``insulting'' and ``dead on arrival.''
Boehner's scorn isn't directed at his usual target, the Democrats: The proposals drawing the Ohio Republican's contempt come from members of his own party in the Senate.
The harsh words reflect growing tension between House and Senate Republicans, a divide that may complicate efforts to strike compromises on legislation and retain the party's control of the House in the November elections.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
boehner and lott at each other's throats
it's like a retarded cock fight
i might have to start watching C-SPAN
Boehner Ridicules Senate Republicans as Party Tensions Rise
By Laura Litvan
May 12 (Bloomberg) -- House Majority Leader John Boehner dismisses recent legislative proposals on energy, immigration and spending as ``stupid,'' ``insulting'' and ``dead on arrival.''
Boehner's scorn isn't directed at his usual target, the Democrats: The proposals drawing the Ohio Republican's contempt come from members of his own party in the Senate.
The harsh words reflect growing tension between House and Senate Republicans, a divide that may complicate efforts to strike compromises on legislation and retain the party's control of the House in the November elections.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
boehner and lott at each other's throats
it's like a retarded cock fight
i might have to start watching C-SPAN
[quote name='Derwood43']You have some valid points. I won't argue.
I simply have a problem with the thought that people are "revolting". I think they're simply waking up, and thinking outside party lines.
As far as Clinton goes, no, I don't think we would. I can speak from experience when I thought it was a travesty that they impeached him for fooling around with Monica. I thought what he did was reprehensible, but not impeachable. Granted he did lie under oath,[/QUOTE]
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I get what you are saying regarding the semantics of conservatives' change of heart.
However, I must tell you that if Clinton did half of the stuff that Bush has done -- lying us into a stupid, costly, pointless war, neglecting homeland security, blocking investigations into 9/11, the Katrina response -- I would have turned on him in a New York minute and been one of those calling for his resignation. OTOH, if Bush got caught lying about a blow job, I would never support impeachment hearings because it's a question that has absolutely nothing to do with the management of our country.
I simply have a problem with the thought that people are "revolting". I think they're simply waking up, and thinking outside party lines.
As far as Clinton goes, no, I don't think we would. I can speak from experience when I thought it was a travesty that they impeached him for fooling around with Monica. I thought what he did was reprehensible, but not impeachable. Granted he did lie under oath,[/QUOTE]
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I get what you are saying regarding the semantics of conservatives' change of heart.
However, I must tell you that if Clinton did half of the stuff that Bush has done -- lying us into a stupid, costly, pointless war, neglecting homeland security, blocking investigations into 9/11, the Katrina response -- I would have turned on him in a New York minute and been one of those calling for his resignation. OTOH, if Bush got caught lying about a blow job, I would never support impeachment hearings because it's a question that has absolutely nothing to do with the management of our country.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Cheese']Actually we were all pretty ok about Harriet Meyers.[/QUOTE]
You're revising history again. Democrats immediately attacked her nomination as being cronyism. Of course, that was to be expected. What they didn't expect were the Republican attacks, which doomed her.
And it's Miers, not Meyers.
You're revising history again. Democrats immediately attacked her nomination as being cronyism. Of course, that was to be expected. What they didn't expect were the Republican attacks, which doomed her.
And it's Miers, not Meyers.
Cheese
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']You're revising history again. Democrats immediately attacked her nomination as being cronyism. Of course, that was to be expected. What they didn't expect were the Republican attacks, which doomed her.
And it's Miers, not Meyers.[/QUOTE]
Well I did use the qualifier "pretty ok" certainly more so then on Roberts or Alito. I'm pretty sure I read that Harry Reid recommended her to GW in the first place and urged him to keep her as his nominee.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1512198/posts
After democrats started looking at her more seriously it became a, "Well, it could be worse." sorta thing.
And it's Miers, not Meyers.[/QUOTE]
Well I did use the qualifier "pretty ok" certainly more so then on Roberts or Alito. I'm pretty sure I read that Harry Reid recommended her to GW in the first place and urged him to keep her as his nominee.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1512198/posts
After democrats started looking at her more seriously it became a, "Well, it could be worse." sorta thing.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']You're revising history again. Democrats immediately attacked her nomination as being cronyism. Of course, that was to be expected. What they didn't expect were the Republican attacks, which doomed her.
And it's Miers, not Meyers.[/quote]
While his point was an overstatement, I know some democrats supported her and, in the senate, democrats weren't the one fighting her nomination. In general democrats were open to the possibility of voting in her favor. Personally I wanted her to become a judge, because I felt she was the closest to a moderate Bush was going to nominate. I supported her nomination for that very reason, not because I actually wanted her to be a judge.
It's true her appointment was attacked as cronyism (which it probably was), but, in the end, she likely would have faired better than Roberts in terms of the democrat response.
And it's Miers, not Meyers.[/quote]
While his point was an overstatement, I know some democrats supported her and, in the senate, democrats weren't the one fighting her nomination. In general democrats were open to the possibility of voting in her favor. Personally I wanted her to become a judge, because I felt she was the closest to a moderate Bush was going to nominate. I supported her nomination for that very reason, not because I actually wanted her to be a judge.
It's true her appointment was attacked as cronyism (which it probably was), but, in the end, she likely would have faired better than Roberts in terms of the democrat response.
[quote name='elprincipe']You're revising history again. Democrats immediately attacked her nomination as being cronyism. Of course, that was to be expected. What they didn't expect were the Republican attacks, which doomed her.
And it's Miers, not Meyers.[/QUOTE]
no, YOU'RE revising history
stop it.... right now
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID (Democratic Leader of the U.S. Senate) ON THE NOMINATION OF HARRIET MIERS TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Monday, October 3, 2005
http://reid.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=246777
“I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.
[size=+2]“In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer.[/size] The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.
“I look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.”
And it's Miers, not Meyers.[/QUOTE]
no, YOU'RE revising history
stop it.... right now
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID (Democratic Leader of the U.S. Senate) ON THE NOMINATION OF HARRIET MIERS TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Monday, October 3, 2005
http://reid.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=246777
“I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.
[size=+2]“In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer.[/size] The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.
“I look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.”
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='PKRipp3r']no, YOU'RE revising history
stop it.... right now
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID (Democratic Leader of the U.S. Senate) ON THE NOMINATION OF HARRIET MIERS TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Monday, October 3, 2005
http://reid.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=246777
“I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.
[size=+2]“In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer.[/size] The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.
“I look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.”[/QUOTE]
As usual, you are looking at only one part of a large and complex picture. Harry Reid had nice things to say about her, but plenty of other Democrats did not. Here is a sample double the size of yours:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9837151/page/2/
stop it.... right now
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID (Democratic Leader of the U.S. Senate) ON THE NOMINATION OF HARRIET MIERS TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Monday, October 3, 2005
http://reid.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=246777
“I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.
[size=+2]“In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer.[/size] The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.
“I look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.”[/QUOTE]
As usual, you are looking at only one part of a large and complex picture. Harry Reid had nice things to say about her, but plenty of other Democrats did not. Here is a sample double the size of yours:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9837151/page/2/
bread's done