Republican rips Bush for caving on principles

Republican rips Bush for caving on principles ---------------- Be FAIR - GW is still married to his first wife, which is something McCain can't say.

President Bush's solution may have paved the way from a free market economy to regulated market economy. If the American people give the presidency and supermajority to the Democrats, then they will have provided the approval to the transition to socialism, but not a European style socialism. They have a parlimentary style of government that allocates proportional representation for consensus and a no confidence vote for change. We currently do not have that third party to leverage and the Democrats will most assuredly pass legislation to keep them in power. Who is going to vote against someone who controls over half your paycheck with taxes. Who will vote against someone who will take away health, retirement and unemployment benefits and will also control your job. The Clinton's have already taken the first step. Try and get your Social Security if you turn down Medicare.

Lets be clear about what is needed in the Republican party. They have had a crisis in leadership longer than this election cycle or this financial mess. That crisis runs through every political jurisdiction from the President to the local party officials. The immigration fiasco could not have been a more clear indicator of failed leadership. The party is in need of a revolution. The country club conservatives need to flushed from the party and the party needs to pick from the middle class where its supporters are. Current Senate and House Republicans as well as the Presidential candidate need to go.

If this happens, its WAAYY past due. About half way through Pres Bush's time in office would've been a better time to get rid of the RINO-types who inhabit the Center Left of the party. It's never too late for a good housecleaning!!

Soxconn hits it right on the head again. As a conservative I'm so discouraged right now. I try not to be but it's hard. Once it became apparent that W was a neocon I knew things might get bad - but I couldn't imagine a sellout of capitalism on this large a scale. Even if we're lucky enough to win this election McCain is not that far right of Obama. I don't see McCain doing what's necessary to get us out of the financial sector. If Obama wins God help us all.

soxconn: Please, aside from the tax break Bush gave me, tell me what has Bush, as president, done to bring down the economy. Precisely what is Bush's economic policy? I don't get it. However, I do see clearly that the Congress is guilty of gross negligence when it came to regulating (their fundamental duty laid out in the constitution) by committees; perhaps even accomplices in Wall Street greed. And, how has Bush directly caused you economic grief, today? Are you out of work? Give me a few hints here, please, maybe I'll see things your way.

Whatever comes out of this election, I think it's nice to read the words of a congressman who is obviously more concerned with stating exactly what he thinks instead of toning down his rhetoric so much that he ends up saying nothing in an effort to not anger anybody. I wish more people in those pillared D.C. houses would do the same.

I would rip Bush for his non-partisan, stay friendly to all, style of politics. The SNL skit with Pelosi, Frank and Bush was right on target with its portrayal of President Bush. When the Democrats take a poltical slap at Bush, he just turns the other cheek. Bush came into office promising to not bow to the partisan "tone" in Washington and he has kept that promise to his and the Republican's detriment.

I like the article except for the ending. A future rehab of George W is impossible if left in the same liberal hands of historians, who traditionally dominate the academia and the media. Today's revisionist historians would try to do a make-over of Truman only when defending him from his inept handling of the Korean War and his tragic loss of China to the Chicoms. Besides, Truman was no George W. Here's why: 1)Truman handed Pyongyang, Kim Il Sung's capital city during the Korean War, back to the Communists after US/UN forces captured the city on 19 Oct 1950 and occupied it thru 4 Dec 1950. To his credit, George W. never relinquished Saddam's capital city of Baghdad to the enemy. 2)Truman did not articulate the end game of his policy on the Korean War, vaguely calling it "police action," "limited war," a "conflict" not a war. George W.'s unchanging strategic objective is to win decisively. Partition of Iraq or Afghanistan along an imaginary parallel line is absolutely out of the question. 3) Truman did not allow his commanders to pursue attacking enemy planes across the border and destroy enemy supply bases north of Korea. George W. used whatever was needed to destroy enemy supply lines. 4)Hours after his field commander gave orders to destroy the 12 bridges across the Yalu River separating Korea from China, Truman countermanded the orders, allowing the massive flow of Red Chinese troops into Korea, who would later kill and mutilate thousands of young American and Allied soldiers. Imagine if FDR had countermanded Ike's orders not to cross the Rhine separating France from Germany and to destroy enemy bases along the river. No wonder, after the relief of MacArthur, Truman's approval rating sunk to 22%, the lowest to date of a sitting president inspite of what the media tells you about George W's. 5) In 1945 and following, Truman made a series of decisions to fatally weaken the democratic forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, our loyal WW2 ally, fighting the Stalin-backed forces of Mao Tse-tung, whom Truman's state department fondly called "an agrarian reformer" while calling the devout Christian, democ-ratic reformer Chiang a " despicable, corrupt authoritarian." Truman, very much like what the Dems did in Vietnam later, stopped all military aid to Chiang in order to force him to the negotiation table with Mao. Chiang at that time was on the verge of delivering the final blow to a desperate Mao who retreated deep in Northern China close to the Korean border, ready to wave the white flag. A year later in 1946 however, Truman suddenly withdrew 30,000 American troops from Beijing to signal the end of his support to Chiang while Stalin continued to re-arm Mao w/ Soviet armaments and captured Japanese war materiel.

I absolutely love you guys who want to "flush" a large portion of the party because of ideological impurity. Get rid of the RINOs and the "country club Republicans" you say? Well, who would be left? The "Rapture Republicans"? That would win us a bunch of elections, you betcha! You are already seeing the results of nominating Sarah Palin. Come January, we'd have a President McCain if it wasn't for that possibly worst VP pick since Tom Eagleton. Dan Quayle looked like a positively brilliant pick by comparison. She is scaring the crap out of the middle class and frankly, if something happens to McCain, with her facing down Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, you have a fine group of irresponsible no nothings with their fingers on the trigger, knowing, just knowing that their God will protect them. Thanks but no thanks, to that scenario. She can even have her bridge. For the first time in my life, I am voting for a Dem for president.

I doubt that "zigzag" ever voted anything other than 'to the Left'........ The fake republicans deserved to be defeated, just as the fake democrats deserve the same fate. As an independent, and proud of it, I don't appreciate wishy washy in politics - period. If you have an ideological preference, defend it, but only with FACTS, not smears and innuendos. I've been on this planet for more than 80 years, and I know what depressions are like, and what LIES lead to (WW II for example). I served in many lands and saw through the eyes of the 'locals' for many years. Freedom doesn't come cheaply, and nowadays there are far too many amongst us who would prefer that the 'people' really didn't have any. If you don't know who these phonies are, you aren't a very good citizen and thus deserve what you get when you vote in the blind as most seem to be doing in this election! Socialism is a nice dream, but in real life it becomes a living "H", and it only perseveres through the deaths of those who see through its LIES. But the liars can't kill everybody, and that is usually what causes it to collapse. But the suffering which results is immense. This country has had two revolutions - the first to gain its freedom, and the second over economic differences that were shrewdly inflated into stupidly fighting amongst ourselves. The next one will be about keeping our freedom from being stolen from us, or regaining it, if the evil powers who thrive on the deaths of others do manage to take it away. At this point I'm not sure that there are enough people left in this country who are still willing to die for it and the freedom it represents. Perhaps next Tuesday we'll have a better idea of what the answer to that thought might be.

The issue of redistribution I agree is a common unitive factor for the Democrats. This is an important insight. However, how redistribution takes place and what is redistributed, is a key difference between socialism vs individual economic rights in a capitalist setting. The income tax structure can be redistributive, and that can be socialism. However if redistribution is based on individual capacity, such as with collective bargaining, then one has the resurrection of democracy.