Rove, Bush and the Republicans.

[Starbuck1975]

It's like the dog who gives you the 'where did that come from' look next to the mess on the carpet - Bush voters need their noses rubbed in the vote, not to let the marketers continually ignore the messes and get the voters to keep putting the next disaster in office again and again. These people run by saying conservative things and then governing badly for another agenda.

What you are talking about is the typical bait and switch...say one thing to rally a particular political base, and then fail to deliver on those promises once elected. Both parties are guilty of it.

The gripes you have against Republicans, or NeoCons, are not unique to that party...the Democrats are equally guilty of pandering to demographics, and furthering narrowly focused agendas that are not necessarily for the greater benefit of the American people as a whole.

The only distinction is that the Bush Administration is guilty of perhaps one of the most failed foreign policy decisions in American history, and I suppose that those who voted for Bush are guilty by proxy.

However, you cannot define Republicans or conservatives by Bush alone...there are some truly outstanding Republican mayors and governors out there, ironically enough in some fairly solid blue states...Republicans, when they stick to what once made the party great, have the potential to be quite effective and well respected leaders.

The Bush Administration represents how total power can utterly corrupt a political entity...left to their own devices, and in control of two branches of government, the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 to further an ill conceived agenda. Not to play devil's advocate or "what-if," but the Democrats are equally capable of such stupidity when left to their own devices out of check.

Those that did, I give a pass for 2000 (fool you once) and allow to disassociate from Bush for 2008. But the republicans had a huge, loyal turnout for Bush in 2004.
I saw the problems with Bush early on, and asked, how can a party put someone so damaging in power with unmet promises and expect to get elected again in 2008?

I know plenty of people from both sides of the political divide who would never even consider voting for someone from the opposing party...partisan politics at its finest...yet if you look at the mid-term elections, even those in the Republican base have started to question its leaders...as for 2004, what did you expect...there is no reasonable reason why Kerry should have lost, or for the election to even be close...could it be that Kerry was simply a poor candidate with no message? You won't hear the Democrats claim responsibility for that one. As for party allegiances, there are a handful of Democrats who have appealed to the Republican base, Clinton being a noteable example.

That people dismiss many Republicans as mindless sheep or ignorant rednecks is laziness and gross negligence.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The vast majority of you republicans fought hard for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and refused to listen to the democrats. He's your guy, you are responsible for him.

How do you define "fighting hard." If you mean by voting for a candidate, then yes some of us voted for Bush at least the first time around...many of us, myself included, chose not to the second time around.

And last I checked, citizens are not held responsible for who they vote for...accountability of government is the responsibility of all citizens, and most noteably, the system of checks and balances inherent to our system.

And what exactly are you referring to when you mention responsibility.

That our system of checks and balances failed to keep Bush in check is a failure of our ENTIRE system, both Republicans AND Democrats.

While quite venomous, your post really doesn't say much of anything.

Your first paragraph denotes that you are admitting that what the Democrats were claiming in 2004 (about the vote) is true. Your second paragraph couldn't be more wrong. If you put someone into power, you're then partially responsible for what they do with said power. And when you have the chance to vote them out of office once you've realized that they shouldn't be there, but don't, you're as responsible for their actions as said politician.

 

[Starbuck1975]

And when you have the chance to vote them out of office once you've realized that they shouldn't be there, but don't, you're as responsible for their actions as said politician.

Again, I have to respectfully disagree..as an obvious opponent to Bush, you probably new well before 2004 his shortcomings as a President...but to those who support him, where you perceive weakness and arrogance, they see strength and leadership. Now, you can dismiss these people as ignorant rednecks, but that is not a productive view of the world.

If you look at the timeline, Bush emerged as a popular war time President after 9/11...it wasn't until the war in Iraq started to derail that an opposition voice began to emerge...the "Bush deceived us excuse" only holds so much water...the truth of the matter is that out of political convenience, many of our elected officials refused to oppose a popular war time President, and only began engaging the issue once his ratings started to drop in the polls.

That being said, where is the call for responsibility on the Democrats who sat idly by and did nothing, and only had the strength to serve as the voice of opposition after it was too late. "I was before the war before I was against it." Surely the people who voted for such competent leaders are partially responsible as well. Of course, the armchair quarterbacks and hindsight skeptics make it such a black and white issue, but it is far more complex then simply "blaming the Republicans."

 

[godihatework]

Originally posted by: xenolith
Are you a neo-con?

Some of the questions are old. "Do you support enforcement of the "no-fly zone" over Iraq?" I guess you could replace that with; Do you support the Iraq war?

I scored; #1 centrist, #2 conservative, #3 paleoconservative ...

huh;
#1 liberal, #2 third way, #3 neo con.....

 

[Lemon law]

I disagree with the notion that Reagan fits in with the idea of a modern neo-con. While the economic policies are the same similar spend spend spend---at least Reagan did not engage in many foreign adventures that commited ground troops.---and always had a fall back on things like Iran Contra.

Reagan surrounded himself with advisors acutely aware of what the 6:00 news said about the administration---and GWB does not give a damn.---its full speed ahead---stay the course. In my heart I know I am right---no matter what reality says to the contrary.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The vast majority of you republicans fought hard for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and refused to listen to the democrats. He's your guy, you are responsible for him.

How do you define "fighting hard." If you mean by voting for a candidate, then yes some of us voted for Bush at least the first time around...many of us, myself included, chose not to the second time around.

And last I checked, citizens are not held responsible for who they vote for...accountability of government is the responsibility of all citizens, and most noteably, the system of checks and balances inherent to our system.

And what exactly are you referring to when you mention responsibility.

That our system of checks and balances failed to keep Bush in check is a failure of our ENTIRE system, both Republicans AND Democrats.

While quite venomous, your post really doesn't say much of anything.

You did more than just vote for them. You were in here cheerleading all along, casting aspersions on the Democrats. So now that their "plan" (stayyyy the course, stayyyy the course) has been shown to be a failure, you think you can spread the blame to those who have been railing against them throughout? I don't THINK so.
YOU'RE the problem, not us.