« Voter Intelligence Update | Main | Because No Cheerleader's Panties Have Ever Been Exposed Before »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I voted for W twice, and I don't think he's worthy of that kind of praise. I think he is a generally good guy, and would be fun to hang out with. I also thought that about Clinton, whose policy's, for the most part, I abhorred. But I bet you couldn't find a better drinking buddy.

I think Bush's plain speech and sideways grin helped endear him to most regular people. While he is a child of privilege, it makes him appear to be "one of us". I don't know that it's true or not, but given the choice between folksy, rich Bush and elitist, rich Kerry, I would take Bush just because I like him better. It all goes back to the old sales rule, "People buy from people they like".

I don't think that Bush is quite as popular with Republicans as you think he is. While he had some conservative traits, such as the tax cuts, his spending habits and his stance on immigration have been enough to sink him with most Republicans.

I think that the war is his grand unified theory. It is what keeps so many supporting him as they loathe other aspects of him. It is the same reason why Giuliani is the front runner, despite the fact that he would have made a great Democrat. The war trumps most every other issue with conservative voters, because they realize that losing the war means the other issues aren't really going to matter once we're in an Islamic theocracy. Then you're really going to see all of those constitutional abuses you've been fond of talking about.

I agree with Frank--to a point.

The key thing to understand about Bush is that he is not a conservative, but he embraces some conservative positions. This was apparent at the Republican convention in 2000. Somehow, the conservatives either ignored Bush's liberalism or had the wool pulled over their eyes.

The reason why Bush remains popular with conservatives is largely a product of BDS. Since the liberals are incessantly frothing with insane rage over W's very existence, the conservatives are too busy defending "their" man to engage in any meaningful criticism of him. The only exceptions have been when Bush's cronyism (e.g., Harriet Miers) or liberalism (e.g., his open-border fanaticism) have been so egregious that even the conservative base rises in collective horror and opposition.

Bush has been stabbing the conservative base in the back the whole time he's been in the White House. Think how many more of his cockamamie schemes could have been thwarted by conservatives if the loony left had not been so incessantly obsessed with denigrating him at every turn.

I forgot to mention the other side of the BDS coin: Bush Worship Syndrome, the kneejerk adulation of W and all he does. It would have been there regardless of the left, but the left's rabid attacks have only fanned the flames. Had the left been able to engage in constructive criticism, the Bush backers would not have needed to expend all their energy standing by their man. They might have been able to constrain W's excesses.

I held my nose and voted for Bush's reelection because it was a case of the devil you know vs the one you don't. I disliked him less than I disliked Kerry. *shrug* I'm a moderate libertarian; that doesn't give me many options usually - politicians feel they have to DO stuff to be effective. I just want them to leave me alone.

This is the first time I have heard the argument that the left is responsible for the Bush Administration's excesses. Squidley, normally your logic is linear, well thought out and difficult to refute. Please apply your sharp wit and destroy this piece of convoluted claptrap that you just put forth. You can do it far better than I and your self-respect will be back intact after you do it.

The left is not responsible for Bush's excesses. The left is responsible for distracting conservatives, the only ones truly capable of constraining W's excesses.

Since the conservatives are expending all their effort defending W against moonbat attacks, they defend him without thinking. They don't stop to consider whether or not W's harebrained scheme of the moment is worthwhile or not--they're too busy playing politics with the liberals.

If the left were not attacking Bush in a Pavlovian manner, but were instead a true loyal opposition, then the conservatives would have more resources to consider Bush's plans and support or reject them as appropriate. Perversely, he would have gotten much less of his agenda accomplished had the left not been attacking him every single time he made any policy announcement.

In psychobabble, the left has been the enablers, while the right has been the co-dependents.

The comments to this entry are closed.