Conservatives Still Wildly Support Bush

You started that post I quoted saynig all the bad republicans are divisive.

Then you started in on the divisiveness.

Your response to my post was even more divisive.

If you don't like what the republicans do, why do you do it too?

If the facts are on your side you don't need to call names.

You clearly don't know your own parties history if you dare ask us to be inclusive.

Do you know who Lee Atwater is? He's the Karl Rove of the 80's.

During his years in South Carolina, Atwater became well known for running hard edged campaigns based on emotional wedge issues.

Atwater's aggressive tactics were first demonstrated during the 1980 congressional campaigns. He was a campaign consultant to Republican incumbent Floyd Spence in his campaign for Congress against Democratic nominee Tom Turnipseed. Atwater's tactics in that campaign included push polling in the form of fake surveys by "independent pollsters" to inform white suburbanites that Turnipseed was a member of the NAACP. He also sent out last-minute letters from Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) telling voters that Turnipseed would disarm America and turn it over to liberals and Communists. At a press briefing, Atwater planted a "reporter" who rose and said, "We understand Turnipseed has had psychotic treatment." Atwater later told the reporters off the record that Turnipseed "got hooked up to jumper cables" - a reference to electroconvulsive therapy that Turnipseed underwent as a teenager.[6]

"Lee seemed to delight in making fun of a suicidal 16-year-old who was treated for depression with electroshock treatments", Turnipseed recalled.

Now do you want to defend Lee for doing this? Well then look at how sorry Lee was after he got a brain tumor:

Shortly before his death, Atwater said he had converted to Catholicism, through the help of Friar John Hardon[12] and, in an act of repentance, Atwater issued a number of public and written letters to individuals to whom he had been opposed during his political career. In a letter to Tom Turnipseed dated June 28, 1990, he stated, "It is very important to me that I let you know that out of everything that has happened in my career, one of the low points remains the so-called 'jumper cable' episode," adding, "my illness has taught me something about the nature of humanity, love, brotherhood and relationships that I never understood, and probably never would have.

Rollins tells several Atwater stories in his 1996 book, Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms. He states that Atwater ran a dirty tricks operation against vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro which included the allegation that Ferraro's parents had been indicted of numbers running in the 1940s. (Although the allegation was true, Ferraro's parents were never convicted.) Rollins also described Atwater as "ruthless", "Ollie North in civilian clothes", and someone who "just had to drive in one more stake".

My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The '80s were about acquiring — acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.

There's more. Read about your parties Southern Strategy. You may not be a racist, but your party purposely appeals to racists.

Remember the Willie Horton story? Get this:

Ironically, prison furlough programs had been long established in California during the governorship of Republican Ronald Reagan, prior to 1980.

One last lie from Lee: During the election, a number of allegations were made in the media about Dukakis's personal life, including the unsubstantiated claim that Dukakis's wife Kitty had burned an American flag to protest the Vietnam War, and that Dukakis himself had been treated for a mental illness.

So how dare you call me divisive? How do you not be divisive with a party like this? We have to get tougher with your kind, not kinder. You act like if we give you an olive branch, you won't whip us with it the first chance you get.

Sorry, you should have been more inclusive when you had the majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater
 
Last edited:
You started that post I quoted saynig all the bad republicans are divisive.

Then you started in on the divisiveness.

Your response to my post was even more divisive.

If you don't like what the republicans do, why do you do it too?

If the facts are on your side you don't need to call names.

Look at all the similarities between how the GOP operate today with how Lee operated back in the 80's.

Accusing Democrats of being commies and socialists? Does that sound familiar?

See, if you knew history, you'd know the GOP was full of shit. Either you are rich and you don't mind becaues you need the dumb ignorant racist votes, or you are one of the dummies the GOP lies to in order to get your vote.

Because if they were right, they wouldn't need to lie.
 
NORAD would have never allowed those planes to hit the World Trade Center. Only one problem. Chaney had control of NORAD.

So that alone puts all the blame on the Bush administration.

I think they let 9-11 happen so they could use it to lie us into war with Iraq. Remember Bush tried accusing Saddam of sending the Antrax too?

You are a fool.

If the government is evil, why do you defend it?


Oh and they aren't lying retard because the truth of the matter is more effective. The Democratic party is the party of more intrusive and bigger government at least prior to Bush II.


YOu fricking idiot everyone of those planes had impacted its target except for the one that impacted in Pennsylvania long before any NORAD response would have been possible under the rules that existed at that time. Which were hold overs from Clinton.
 
Last edited:
i hate the sub title in front of the party, I'm a republican plain and simple, one that doesn't really care about social issues like abortion or gay marrige even though i'm a reg independent

i like bush so if polled i would say i approve of him
 
this is one of the best threads ever.

Conservatives spent the last six months shouting that they never really supported Bush, and that they could barely force themselves to vote for him.

And yet we have a hundred post long thread of conservatives defending Bush, and making excuses for him.
 
And yet we have a hundred post long thread of conservatives defending Bush, and making excuses for him.

Nobody who is a conservative defends Bush. There are plenty of PARTISANS, Republicans, radio hosts, etc. who do what you say, but they are not "conservative" in the true sense. A few posts back you said, "then the Republicans must not have many conservatives" and there are "only a few hundred conservatives." That's probably about right.
 
Hell Limbaugh was on Bush ass for No child left behind, the medicare prescription plan, and a host of other things. So was Hannity and a whole lot of other conservative/libertarian radio host.

And I'm tired of this devisive crap. I'm a partisan of the right and will remain such. Why on God's green earth should I compromise with people whose ideas I consider to be tantamount to drilling more wholes in the bottom of the already leaky boat to let the water out.
 
this is one of the best threads ever.

Conservatives spent the last six months shouting that they never really supported Bush, and that they could barely force themselves to vote for him.

And yet we have a hundred post long thread of conservatives defending Bush, and making excuses for him.

I think you have to realize the difference between defending Bush as a'great' president or blind following of Bush... and defending that he is not the evil antiChrist that you and others on the far left try and portray
 
i hate the sub title in front of the party, I'm a republican plain and simple, one that doesn't really care about social issues like abortion or gay marrige even though i'm a reg independent

i like bush so if polled i would say i approve of him

But the GOP only delivered to the social conservatives.

If you are a fiscal conservative, what are you still doing being a member of the GOP?

Take out all the war spending and Bush still spent more on "descretionary" spending than any other president ever.

And Reagan & Bush 1 spent more than Clinton. So you are in the wrong party. Sure they say what you like to hear, but take a look at their actions for god sakes.
 
I'd vote for Booosh a million times before I'd vote for the DUmmie obamalama and the chicargo hood! yep!
 
72% of conservative Republicans approve of Bush, according to Gallup.

jpayitoqqusoa6s8ihwang.gif


Conservative Republicans Still Widely Support Bush



And the dumb get dumber, don't they get it? Keep supporting Bush and watch what happens to the party
 
Many of the people who continue to support the positions and people that Buch II worked for are simply defending their own rice bowls.

If you're very well off, or if your ricebowl depends on the very well off, (in other words you're a servant to the superrich) I don't blame you for supporting that philosophy.

If, on the other hand, you have to work for a living, and you are not a servant of those corporations which Bush II was protecting?

Then you're just a damned fool.
 
Again... depends on what you consider support... I highly doubt most people who claim "support" approve of every last thing he does or has done, or sings his praises on high like trumpeting arch angels
 
I wonder how much approval Cheney has, and I wonder how instrumental he was in guiding Bush on some of Bush's choices that Bush is now suffering for in approval ratings.
 
Again... depends on what you consider support... I highly doubt most people who claim "support" approve of every last thing he does or has done, or sings his praises on high like trumpeting arch angels


Yes, it does matter what specific issue we're talking about, I completely agree.

In this case support would mean continuing to support the policies which George Bush espoused before he became a Kynesian, I think.

I fully understand those of you who were Bush II supporters and who, after this so called bailout, are terribly disappointed in him.

After all, he finally revealed the truth of the matter....

What is the truth?

That there is an insider party, one which the likes of you or I will never be included, and their primary interest is keeping the status quo, and to continue giving every advantage to those of the monied classes (and their servants) which support them.

The Republican party is no more a friend of the bourgeois class than the DEMS are defenders of the working classes.

They think of us BOTH as tools because their uninformed partisans ARE their tools.
 
It doesn't look like they are. A true conservative would never support Bush and would never be considered a moderate or liberal conservative. It appears they've grouped neoconservatives with true conservatives.

ROFL... Do what? Get serious...

The entire premise of this thread is absurd. The idea that anyone supports everything GW has done is ludicrous, without foundation and stands as an irrational projection.

On the GWOT, GW gets an B+... IMO that which reduces his mark rests upon those instances where in he lent credence to leftists, reducing our efficacy in killing jihadists and thus setting our troops at greater risk and allowing more Marxist Muslims to survive to murder on mass at some point in the future.

On domestic policy he gets a D-... and for the same reason; the distinction being that he simply went left substantially more often on the domestic side; this illustrated by GW having signed more future policy failures into law than anyone since LBJ...

But this averages out to a C which would indicate support... and with the curve favoring the necessity of national security over the absurd luxury of said future policy failures (leftist policy), the wieghted score reflects a C+; this sure as hell does not indicate 'wild' support, as the idiotic OP demands... it simply is the reasonable assessment of a man that did what he had to do and who erroneously, but firmly believes that leftists have a right to their 'feelings' and that those feelings should be able to be reflected in Federal policy.

GW is a fascists and while fascists are to be avoided, we've never had a choice between GW and an American... and when given a choice between a fascist and a socialist, the fascist is vastly preferred; this a result of the simple fact that a culture can easily recover from fascism, in contrast to the catastrophic results common to socialism, which makes it exponentially less likely for a culture to survive.
 

Forum List

Back
Top