jerseyhoya wrote:I was pointing out that to do so would be retarded from the Republican point of view.

Just about everything Bush has done has been retarded from the Republican point of view.

momadance wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I was pointing out that to do so would be retarded from the Republican point of view.

Just about everything Bush has done has been retarded from the Republican point of view.

He got reelected.

jerseyhoya wrote:

momadance wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I was pointing out that to do so would be retarded from the Republican point of view.

Just about everything Bush has done has been retarded from the Republican point of view.

He got reelected.

Oh. Well, that makes it all okay.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

momadance wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I was pointing out that to do so would be retarded from the Republican point of view.

Just about everything Bush has done has been retarded from the Republican point of view.

He got reelected.

Oh. Well, that makes it all okay.

?

Not saying anything is "okay," whatever the hell you mean by that. Just that he has done alright by the party a lot of the time. He was partially responsible for our expanding congressional majorities in 2002 and 2004. He got reelected. Appointed two conservative justices. It's been pretty crappy going for the GOP for the last couple of years, again partially due to Bush, but it's not as if just about every action of his has been "retarded from the Republican point of view."

jerseyhoya wrote:Not saying anything is "okay," whatever the hell you mean by that. Just that he has done alright by the party a lot of the time. He was partially responsible for our expanding congressional majorities in 2002 and 2004. He got reelected. Appointed two conservative justices. It's been pretty crappy going for the GOP for the last couple of years, again partially due to Bush, but it's not as if just about every action of his has been "retarded from the Republican point of view."

If by doing alright, you mean possibly ruing the party's chances for years to come ... then yes ... He's certainly done alright. He, Rove, and the rest of those idiots in DC have ruined the image of the Republican party. Well, except in the Bible Belt. He was partially responsible for the expanding congressional majorities in 2002 and 2004 but almost completely responsible to the quick loss of many of those gains in 2006. He's alienated the core base of the party and has allowed it to be overrun with a bunch of religious zealots and fascists who have done everything they can to scare the sh*t out the American public.

His fiscal policies are a complete embarrassment to anyone who believes in the basic Republican fundamentals. He's run the country into the ground and the national debt to record levels. Yearly debt increases unlike anything seen in the past. He's stretched the military thin, has destroyed America's reputation in the international community, and has routinely wiped his ass with the Constitution. Of course, there are those who just go along blindly with whatever he does because the talking heads tell them to.

He's lucky that the Democrats pretty much can't tie their own shoelaces and get out of their own way or the party would really be screwed. The cockiness, sense of entitlement, and the sometimes "Just Happy To Be Here" attitude of the Democrats will keep dragging them down.

We'll see how good he's been for the party come November and the future. If the Republicans crash and burns this November, it could be a long, long time before they make any sort of resurgence. Only then will you be able to judge whether or not he was good for the party. Right now, it's not looking so rosey.

I've been voting Republican since 1996. It ain't happening this year and I'm certainly not the only person who feels that way. Yeah, the options from the other party may be no better, but I can't, in good conscience, vote for another guy who just wants to stay the course.

The Republican brand has taken a serious hit across the country. We're at decade or two decade low point with regards to people who self identify as Republicans. Bush has had a lot to do with that.

Two points:

1) Reasonable minds could have disagreed about whether pretty much any Bush decision was going to prove popular/beneficial for the GOP in the long run, with the possible exception of the privatization of Social Security. Now, when you add in the way he has governed, the lack of focus on competence and execution, then yeah, it's been quite bad at times from the Republican point of view. But at the outset, people didn't necessarily think the tax cuts or the war in Iraq would be damaging to the party's long term outlook.

Going into Iran would not be something reasonable minds could disagree about regarding whether it would help or hurt the party's reputation in the long term. It would be a disaster. We might have to institute a draft or else do something fairly extreme to boost enrollment in the armed forces. People who are on the fence still would jump. Hell, people not even on the fence might hop over to the other side too. So I guess I was going for that this would be a uniquely bad decision for Bush, which I guess would really be saying something if I thought he was as terrible as you all do. It's still saying something I guess. Given that I thought Warszawa was saying we were cooking up an Iranian invasion for our electoral benefit, that's where I was coming from.

2) Your blame for 2006 glosses too much over how crappy Congressional Republicans have been in all of this. How many members of the House Republican Caucus are going to end up in jail? Ney, Cunningham, now Renzi, maybe Young from Alaska, a few folks in California have been investigated. That's completely leaving out the Foley thing, which was absolutely devastating to us at a point in '06 where some of our polling had stabilized. I think Foley cost us 5 or so House seats, and maybe Conrad Burns, Jim Talent and George Allen.

Going forward in 2008, the two GOP Congressional Committees are absolutely garbage, getting creamed in fundraising and recruitment. 1/6 of the House GOP caucus is retiring. I think 4 or 5 Senators are retiring. They're making it so much worse, even if Bush isn't helping matters.

But then on the flip side, Bush hasn't ruined everything. McCain still has a legit shot of winning the White House. And if we lose, I think we're poised to do alright in 2010 in governors races, and hopefully in Congressional races to set ourselves up for taking a run the House post redistricting and closing the gap up tight again in the Senate in 2012.

Courage

jerseyhoya wrote:

momadance wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I was pointing out that to do so would be retarded from the Republican point of view.

Just about everything Bush has done has been retarded from the Republican point of view.

He got reelected.

Not so. He cheated his way in. Do the research. Between the massive disenfranchisement of votersof color and in traditional democratic strongholds, to local shenenagins with rep controlled election officials, to unprecedented exit polls not lining up with Diebold machines that had no paper trail and no assurances that votes weren't being altered. The electoral college system is antiquated and gives rural small states way too much juice. Supreme Court annointed Bush the first time... Gore won, Kerry won.

There was no mandate on GW ever.

And he's never "made policy" Cheyney is there for that, he's a puppet, a folksy figurehead -- and an embarassment to history and black-eye on this nation.

You think you live in Jericho don't you.

mpmcgraw wrote:You think you live in Jericho don't you.

More like 1940 Berlin.

Philly the Kid wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

momadance wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I was pointing out that to do so would be retarded from the Republican point of view.

Just about everything Bush has done has been retarded from the Republican point of view.

He got reelected.

Not so. He cheated his way in. Do the research. Between the massive disenfranchisement of votersof color and in traditional democratic strongholds, to local shenenagins with rep controlled election officials, to unprecedented exit polls not lining up with Diebold machines that had no paper trail and no assurances that votes weren't being altered. The electoral college system is antiquated and gives rural small states way too much juice. Supreme Court annointed Bush the first time... Gore won, Kerry won.

There was no mandate on GW ever.

And he's never "made policy" Cheyney is there for that, he's a puppet, a folksy figurehead -- and an embarassment to history and black-eye on this nation.

This isn't a joke, is it?

Philly the Kid wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:He got reelected.

There was no mandate on GW ever.

When GWB was asked after his reelection if he had a mandate, he answered "No, I'm married".

(rimshot)

::puts on tin foil hat. runs from black helicopters::

Philly the Kid wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

momadance wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I was pointing out that to do so would be retarded from the Republican point of view.

Just about everything Bush has done has been retarded from the Republican point of view.

He got reelected.

Not so. He cheated his way in. Do the research. Between the massive disenfranchisement of votersof color and in traditional democratic strongholds, to local shenenagins with rep controlled election officials, to unprecedented exit polls not lining up with Diebold machines that had no paper trail and no assurances that votes weren't being altered. The electoral college system is antiquated and gives rural small states way too much juice. Supreme Court annointed Bush the first time... Gore won, Kerry won.

There was no mandate on GW ever.

And he's never "made policy" Cheyney is there for that, he's a puppet, a folksy figurehead -- and an embarassment to history and black-eye on this nation.

Huh? Bush won by over 3 million popular votes.

1077 is right, I am shocked I said that, but the elctoral college does give too much power to small states.

I have long thought that Idaho has been getting a bit too big for its potato-stuffed Latter Day britches.

C'mon, Kid. Let's just enjoy the decline of our civilization in quietude and focus on our customized opiates of the masses: baseball, television, modern rock, beer that thinks it's better than me...

Disco Stu wrote:1077 is right, I am shocked I said that, but the elctoral college does give too much power to small states.

This is true, but it's also completely irrelevant to the election in 2004. As philliesphhan points out, Bush won by three million votes. Wyoming's disproportionate weight in the Electoral College didn't have much to do with how it turned out.

Hey guess what? We're headed towards financial ruin!

The Comptroller General of the United States proclaims that our current standard of living is unsustainable unless drastic action is taken. He warns that funding shortfalls for the Medicare program is five times worse than Social Security, and it will take $8 TRILLION to pay for what is promised today to beneficiaries, of which we have ZERO!

This unrealistic "promise" is fiscally irresponsible and is mortgaging the futures of our children and grandchildren.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs[/youtube]

Another one:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_APRkrXeY&feature=related[/youtube]

jerseyhoya wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:1077 is right, I am shocked I said that, but the elctoral college does give too much power to small states.

This is true, but it's also completely irrelevant to the election in 2004. As philliesphhan points out, Bush won by three million votes. Wyoming's disproportionate weight in the Electoral College didn't have much to do with how it turned out.

Popular vote doesn't matter. Bush may have won anyway, but it is still unfair. Count up all the states without their 2 freebees.