Bush begins to lose support amongst conservative core

[sysyphus]

Pfft. Bush isn't going anywhere. If he murdered someone in the Oval Office, he still wouldn't be seeing jail time.

Well, precedent has already dictated that fellatio from a fat chick is okay...

 

[Uiler]

Well, precedent has already dictated that fellatio from a fat chick is okay...

There's a saying. To be evicted from the US government, you need to be found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

 

[Brian_B]

That was actually coined by former Lousiana governor Edwin Edwards... who is currently serving a 10 year prison sentence for racketeering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards

 

[bhsup]

"...begins to lose..."?? Try has lost. I support him in the war, but that's just about it. His economic policies are a mess, spending like a Democrat on a prom date, supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, isn't pushing hard enough to abolish abortion, et cetera. The chances of the Republican party retaining my vote in 2006 and 2008 are probably somewhere around 20% right now.

I'm a fiscal conservative AND religious right fella. I feel like the Republican party has abandoned me on multiple levels.

 

[Phlegmak]

Only if it was covered up. Nixon and Clinton almost got impeached for less. So he would too unless they found a way to cover it up.

I'm not convinced it would matter if it was covered up. All he really has to do is just lie about it. Everyone who knew about it would also have to lie about it. Group lying has already happened in the Bush administration.

 

[Phlegmak]

"...begins to lose..."?? Try has lost. I support him in the war, but that's just about it. His economic policies are a mess, spending like a Democrat on a prom date, supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, isn't pushing hard enough to abolish abortion, et cetera. The chances of the Republican party retaining my vote in 2006 and 2008 are probably somewhere around 20% right now.

These two were also done by Reagan, fyi. I don't see how Democrats spend more than Republicans though. My statement about the similarity to Reagan in spending is just that -- he spends like Reagan did.

 

[bhsup]

Yes and no. Reagan had to deal with a Democratic house, so he had to swallow the massive increase in entitlement spending that the Dems insisted on, which increased more than defense spending.

Yeah, though, you're right about the amnesty under Reagan. He did it as well, which if anything shows that it doesn't work. Just have to do it again in 20 years because everyone knows that they'll be rewarded for breaking the law.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'm a fiscal conservative AND religious right fella. I feel like the Republican party has abandoned me on multiple levels.

I am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing since I have been considering switching partys from Democrat to Republican after I return back to Catholicism. Eventhough I dont agree with the Republicans on certan stances such as minumum wage and labor unions (I do support and for minumum wages, even living wages, as well as labor unions)

I dont agree with the Democratic party's platform on being pro-abortion, and pro-same gender marrages (I remind everyone here that I hold a libertarian view on all marrage, homosexual and hetersexual marrages).

 

[bhsup]

CivGeneral, check out these fine folks as a possible alternative. They were on the ballot in Missouri in 2004 at every State-level race, as well as the Presidency.

Hrm, I don't like their new website. Too bland. Here is the one for the Missouri chapter of the party, which closely resembles their old site.

 

[Cuivienen]

A new poll from Harris Interactive shows that Bush has broken into the 20s for the first time. 29% approve of the Decider.

 

[Cuivienen]

I dont agree with the Democratic party's platform on being pro-abortion, and pro-same gender marrages (I remind everyone here that I hold a libertarian view on all marrage, homosexual and hetersexual marrages).

The Democratic Party (at least the national party) does not endorse same-sex marriage. I believe the national party settles for no blanket ban with encouragement of civil unions (but the acknowledgement that it isn't really the federal government's domain).

 

[cgannon64]

A new poll from Harris Interactive shows that Bush has broken into the 20s for the first time. 29% approve of the Decider.

Is it just me, or are these polls trying to race each other to the bottom?

There's a new one every day that announces it dropping lower and lower; that can't be helping Bush.. 71% of America can't be wrong, right?

The Democratic Party (at least the national party) does not endorse same-sex marriage. I believe the national party settles for no blanket ban with encouragement of civil unions (but the acknowledgement that it isn't really the federal government's domain).

There's a shock: The Democratic Party doesn't endorse something.

 

[Phlegmak]

Yes and no. Reagan had to deal with a Democratic house, so he had to swallow the massive increase in entitlement spending that the Dems insisted on, which increased more than defense spending.

Yeah, though, you're right about the amnesty under Reagan. He did it as well, which if anything shows that it doesn't work. Just have to do it again in 20 years because everyone knows that they'll be rewarded for breaking the law.

Hold on. Reality shows that the last two Republican presidents (before Bush #2) spent like madmen.

What is this entitlement stuff you're talking about? The defense budget of the US ballooned under Reagan, more than any other president except for the current one.

Various info:
Source

Defense spending under Reagan:

Defense Spending. From 1981 to 1989, the Pentagon budget doubled from $158 billion to $304 billion. The years of the greatest spending hike in the military budget were 1978-87, when the Pentagon's expenditures rose from $180 billion to $280 billion in real 1987 dollars

Honestly, please explain this myth that Democrats are heavy spenders. I've heard Hannity and some Republican Congressmen say that before, and I don't see it.

Another graph of defense spending for the last 50 years.
Graph
Source

 

[GenMarshall]

The Democratic Party (at least the national party) does not endorse same-sex marriage. I believe the national party settles for no blanket ban with encouragement of civil unions (but the acknowledgement that it isn't really the federal government's domain).

My view on same-gender marrages and civil unions is that the Government has no buissness in the affairs of two people.

See also Libertarian view on same-gender marrages

CivGeneral, check out these fine folks as a possible alternative. They were on the ballot in Missouri in 2004 at every State-level race, as well as the Presidency.

Hrm, I don't like their new website. Too bland. Here is the one for the Missouri chapter of the party, which closely resembles their old site.

Hmm, third parties are realy not for me since they dont realy win an office. I pretty much chose to go in one of the two major parties.

 

[bhsup]

@Phlegmak: Yes, defense spending did raise dramatically under Reagan, and rightfully so. The defense of the nation is actually a legitimate thing for the federal government to spend money on, and Carter practically left the US ready to be taken over by the Soviets, so Reagan had to spend that. Also, that spending helped win the cold war via economics, so again worth it.

However, the Democrats in Congress forced through entitlement spending growth that even outstripped the growth in defense spending. Defense spending on its own would not have led to the huge budget deficits under Reagan. It was the idiotic entitlement spending that did it, spending which is NOT a legitimate thing for the federal government to spend money on, unlike defense spending.

Bush's (and Republicans in general anymore) problem is that he seems to enjoy spending way too much. The man can't say no to a program. Education? Since when does the Federal government have any business in that in the first place? Republicans used to understand that and tried to leave it to the States. Not anymore...now it's an issue that 'resonates' with voters, regardless of the fact that it should be left up to the States, not the Feds.

 

[MobBoss]

Only if it was covered up. Nixon and Clinton almost got impeached for less. So he would too unless they found a way to cover it up.

News for you. Clinton didnt "almost" get impeached...he DID get impeached!

 

[Lotus49]

I don't care about any of this silly coffee-talk crap. Just keep giving the big corporations tax breaks, especially the energy sector. Abolish the 35% corporate capital gains tax, and I'll donate to a 3rd term campaign personally.

A government... by, for, and of... the corporation. That's good stuff. A bunch of monolithic cash cows growing earnings by double-digits, driving stocks higher and higher. That's what I care about. All the rest of this sounds like kindergarteners sitting around whinning about who's gonna use the play-dough machine next.

Booyah... capitalism rocks!

Cha-ching...Cha-ching...Cha-ching.......

 

[friskymike]

This is how Bush is doing against Nixon, and this with a growing economy and without any congressional investigations. If either of those two factors change things could get interesting...

 

[FriendlyFire]

News for you. Clinton didnt "almost" get impeached...he DID get impeached!

I think he meant Nixion resigned ? (he did to avoid impeachment right ?)

 

[Alpine Trooper]

George Bush Out! - Ryan Seacrest

Bub bye everybody bub bye! - Conan O'Brien

Thanks for everything! - Marge Simpson

Bye bye son of a *****! - Delbert Harris

Thank you, and God Bless America! - Bob Dole

Bye bye! - Teletubies

Some farewells to the Anti-Christ, I mean GW.