Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

A New Study Shows That 2006 Was All About Bush, Coruption, and Iraq

Of course, I already knew and said that. But now lots of evidence is in on what really mobilized voters last time. The good news is that Bush and Republican corruption shouldn’t be issues next time; the president is leaving office and the Democrats now control Congress. And it’s pretty good news that there’s precious little evidence of any ideological shift in the Democratic direction. But voters may still want to repudiate presidential incompetence and choose someone who promises to get Iraq behind us. All in all the news is not that good, although no one at this point should predict with confidence how the war will affect the election. (If you think about it, 2008 seems something like 1952. Although the Democrats don’t have an Eishenhower, the Republicans seem stuck with what appears to be an unwinnable and badly run war.)

Discussions - 6 Comments

... and 2007 will be all about converting America into a third world country and destroying the middle class with a flood of cheap labor. I hope anyone who cares about the future of the Republic is calling their Senators and congressmen to oppose this Kennedy amnesty bill.

What we don't see in the article is what people didn't like about Iraq - Was it that we were there at all? Or that we didn't seem to trying to win?

I have nothing to back this up with but a hunch: my sense is

a) There's no support for using our troops as cannon fodder;

b) There was, and still is, a majority out there for winning;

c) In November 2006, a majority saw us as doing the former, not the latter.

wm and BD, excellent comments!

Peter -To make the 1952 comparison work, do you think that there is an overall appreciation from both parties that there is a larger enemy waiting in the wings (1952 -Soviet expansion/arms race vs. Islamofascist expansion/agression today)? I agree that the left does not have an Eisenhower (although maybe we could talk Bush the elder into throwing his hatin the ring -he had a tremendous understanding of how to run the spook sector almost as efficiently as Ike)-but do you see them acting like Ike in negotiating an end to one "hot" war in exhcange for the clandestine fighting of another? I am sure those guys in Langley are chomping at the bit -that is if they can infiltrate a tough objective.

One advantage the GOP may have is the possibility of an Anti-Bush. Bush's 2 legacies will be the disastrous amnesty bill for those who didn't see fit to follow our nation's laws, and an inexcusable lack of leadership in managing the war in Iraq, where incompetence has led us to the brink of defeat (a defeat we can not afford. Believe me, losing to Al-Queda in Iraq would be worse than having kept Saddam in power).
If the GOP nominee can be seen as repudiating the Bush policy on amnesty, and appear more competent in managing the war(which won't be too hard), he could easily shake off the disaster of 2006.

Don't expect any advantage because Bush isn't going to be on the ticket.

Did Gore enjoy any advantage because Clinton wasn't on his ticket? Of course not. The Democrat campaign is going to be designed to take MAXIMUM advantage of the entire nation's utter, profound, thoroughgoing disgust, ABSOLUTE DISGUST with this President.

Any Republican who deludes himself that Bush isn't going to be on the ticket so we're not going to have to worry about explaining away what he did, or what he failed to do, is simply a Republican without a political clue.

George Walker Bush is the greatest millstone this Party has had around its neck since Watergate. And every single one of us had better get REAL ACCUSTOMED to that thought, that idea, and we had better start preparing for a Democrat campaign AGAINST BUSH even though he's not going to be on the ticket.

12 years of Bush governance has left the entire nation sick at heart, sick in soul.

This nation needs a recovery, a recovery away from all things Bush.

This second term has been an absolute nightmare. AND EVERY ONE OF US HAD better digest that fact, and prepare for the most difficult AND important Presidential campaign in our lifetime.

If the Iranians are allowed to go nuclear, then EVERYTHING we accrued through our victory in the Cold War, we'll be throwing away with both hands. We can't allow the devotees of sharia and jihad to get within a stone's throw of nuclear weaponry. Because if they do, some of our cities are going to be nuked back to the stone age. And Bush, the verbal cripple, will be recalled in history as America's Chamberlain.

And that's a fricken fact people, that's a fricken fact.

I saw the disaster that was looming a good two years before it ripened. Everything that I called attention to, spoke of, warned of, has become a living nightmare. This Party refused to get in the face of the President in the Fall of '05, refused to demand Card's ouster, refused to demand that Bush get control of a CLEARLY insubordinate and mutinous Executive branch. How many excuses, how many rationalizations for plunging poll numbers? This Party allowed the worst, THE WORST communication team in Presidential history to go on, and on, and on. And no one, NO ONE demanded change. Not until the American people at the ballot box INSISTED upon some changes. And even now, even after that shellacking last November, there are many Republicans who prefer to wave it all away as "the six year itch." What is to be done with such blockheads?

Scott McClellan. ?????????????????????????????????????????????? What man in his right mind would think that Scott McClellan would be appropriate as the voice AND face of this, or any other, Presidency? Whose bright idea was that? Why wasn't that fool cashiered? Uh?

What twit thought it a great idea that the guy who was right there in the selection of Souter, should also be right there in the selection of subsequent Supreme Court Justices? Which rocket scientist was that?

I want to know why holy hell wasn't raised when it was suggested that a Bible belt clodhopper like Karen Hughes should go to the State Department, and that she, she, OF ALL PEOPLE, that it should be she who would be tasked to be America's point-man in her relations with islam? And she's still there!

WHO thinks up this crap?

What idiot would put up with it for a nanosecond?

It was ALL so easy for foresee!

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/10448