Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/29/2005 9:16:35 AM EDT

Bob Shrum with a Good Cause
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 29, 2005

Now Bush has Sandra Day O'Connor's seat to fill. For those conservatives confident that Bush won't betray them, let's review Bush's other ideas about what constitutes a good Republican.

In 2002, Bush backed liberal Richard Riordan in the Republican gubernatorial primary in California against conservative Bill Simon. This triggered a series of events that culminated in Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming the governor of California. But I don't think even liberals would claim Karl Rove had a plan for California voters to elect Democrat Gray Davis, erupt in a rage at him, and demand a recall election in which a famous Hollywood actor would enter the race and beat the sitting governor.

In 2004, Bush backed liberal Republican Arlen Specter over conservative Pat Toomey in the Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania. Bush still lost Pennsylvania and, worst of all, Specter won. So that worked out well.

In 2004, Bush backed Mel Martinez for the open Senate seat in Florida and asked the magnificent Katherine Harris not to run against him, so she graciously bowed out. Martinez has since called on Bush to shut down Guantanamo. What's Spanish for "buyer's remorse"?

This year, rumors have it that Bush is again discouraging the magnificent Harris not to run for the Senate. Here's hoping she ignores him. How much would Bush's support be worth to Harris at this point anyway? If Bush really wants to keep Katherine Harris out of the U.S. Senate, maybe he should just endorse her.

It's not like Bush owes Harris or anything. If Harris were as pathetic as the typical Republican supported by Bush, she would have defied the law during the 2000 election crisis and proclaimed Gore the winner just to get the media to love her. Gore would be president now, and Harris would have her own show on MSNBC. I'd be storing away all my summer burkas and, accompanied by a male relative, taking my winter burkas to the dry cleaners to be freshened up.

Also this year, Bush is backing developmentally disabled Lincoln Chafee over the only Republican in the race, Stephen Laffey, Harvard MBA and mayor of Cranston, R.I. Chafee opposes Bush on taxes, Iraq, abortion and gay marriage. This man is literally too stupid to know he's a Democrat. If Chafee hadn't inherited hundreds of millions of dollars, he would be living in a shack tending weeds. In the last election, Chafee famously refused to vote for Bush, instead writing in Bush's father.

What is Bush getting out of this again? Is this the masterstroke of that Machiavellian genius Karl Rove?

Karl Rove is Bob Shrum with a good cause. (Shrum has run eight presidential campaigns; number won: 0, number lost: 8.) Bush calls Rove the "architect" of his 2004 victory. In 2004, America was at war and the Democrats ran a gigolo to be commander in chief. The nation hasn't changed so much since Reagan was president that the last election should have even been close.

Whenever the nation is threatened by external enemies, the only way Democrats can win a presidential election is with another Watergate. And yet Bush nearly lost the last election. He would have lost, but for the Swiftboat Veterans – also dissed by Bush.

The "architect" of victory was nearly the architect of Bush's defeat when he advised Bush to come out for gay civil unions one week before the election. In terms of generating enthusiasm, this was the campaign equivalent of a teacher assigning homework late on a Friday afternoon. Judging by the results of more than a dozen elections where gay marriage was on the ballot last year, gay marriage is about as popular in this country as a day celebrating Hitler's birthday would be. (It is even less popular than the idea of John Kerry as commander in chief in wartime!)

If Ronald Reagan were running today, Rove would have Bush endorse Reagan's opponent. Establishment Republicans all pretend to have seen Reagan's genius at the time, but that's a crock. They wanted to dump Reagan in favor of "electable" Gerald Ford and "electable" George Herbert Walker Bush.

Newsweek reported in 1976 that Republican "party loyalists" thought Reagan would produce "a Goldwater-style debacle." This is why they nominated well-known charismatic vote magnet Jerry Ford instead.

Again in 1980, a majority of Republican committeemen told U.S. News and World Report that future one-termer George "Read My Lips" Bush was more "electable" than Reagan.

The secret to Reagan's greatness was he didn't need a bunch of high-priced Bob Shrums to tell him what Americans thought. He knew because of his work with General Electric, touring the country and meeting real Americans. Two months a year for eight years, Reagan would give up to 25 speeches a day at G.E. plants – a "marination in middle America," as one G.E. man put it. Reagan himself said, "I always thought Hollywood had the wrong idea of the average American, and the G.E. tours proved I was right."

Because of these tours, Reagan knew – as he calmly told fretful advisers after the Grenada invasion – "You can always trust Americans." The G.E. tours completely immunized Reagan from the counsel of people like Karl Rove, who think the average American is a big-business man who just wants his taxes cut and doesn't care about honor, country, marriage or the unborn.

Reagan knew that this is a great country. If only today's Republicans would believe it.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:23:22 AM EDT
I am so in love with her
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:27:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:29:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shooter0311:
I am so in love with her



Watch it, buddy! That's MY girl you're talking about!!!

Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:29:49 AM EDT
GW Bush is turning Socialist on us.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:32:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
While pessimistic, I have yet to see where what she says is factually inaccurate.



I've never seen her so down on her own team before. Usually her schtick is attacking liberals, so it's unusual to read her being critical of Bush et al.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:32:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:38:56 AM EDT
That's because everything that I was warring with RikWriter and EricTheHun about before the last election was indeed the truth.

The Republican Party is a sham, and has been infiltrated by liberal turncoats... all the way to the top. It is in shambles, and has completely disgusted a whole lot of conservative voters who aren't going to buy into the hysteria any longer.

I'll reserve my judgement before I see who wins the primaries in 2008, but I don't think Hitlery is a shoe in for the candidacy. If the Dems are smart and run a middle of the road Dem candidate, I might be inclined to vote for them.

I know there are a whole lot of other conservatives out there who feel the same.

The GOP leadership had better get its head out of its ass.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:48:14 AM EDT
This is news?

GWB spends like a drunken sailor and has increased the size of the federal government like no one before him.

His legacy of tax (cuts) and spend will be tought for his successors to get past.

His appointments, with few exceptions, are middle of the roaders or, worse, submarines.

He fails to act like his party:
1. Controls the legislature
2. Is different than the liberls.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:49:24 AM EDT
It's nice to know we're not alone in our thinking. Hopefully the pressure will mount on W and he'll swing back to the right.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:49:25 AM EDT
I agree with a great deal that is written in her piece, however I will reserve judgement on the next SCOTUS appointment until it is announced. If Bush nominates a Gonzales type I'll go apeshit. Something tells me he is going to appoint someone conservative such as Janice Rogers Brown or someone similar. We will see.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:51:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 9:56:35 AM EDT by raven]
Coulter isn't even really attacking that. That's too obvious. Lord, she is attacking Karl Rove and attributing his success solely to the fact he sided on the right ideology, and she's suggesting it is seemingly by chance. Had he signed on with liberals, he'd just be a loser like Bob Shrum. This is what I love about Coulter, she is an ideologue and completely and fully understands the conservative worldview and buys it.

I am willing to believe what see is saying here seeing how clueless Rove and Bush are on the immigration issue. It's a no-brainer, and Rove/Bush sides with teh goddamn Mexicans. NO YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:53:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
GW Bush is turning Socialist on us.



This is NOT a recent development!

IBRW (In before Rik Writer)!
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:59:58 AM EDT
...Very interesting assessments...

Good thought starters to be sure.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 10:43:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
GW Bush is turning has always been a Socialist in Republican clothingon us.

Fixed it for ya.


Originally Posted By BenDover:
That's because everything that I was warring with RikWriter and EricTheHun about before the last election was indeed the truth.

The Republican Party is a sham, and has been infiltrated by liberal turncoats... all the way to the top. It is in shambles, and has completely disgusted a whole lot of conservative voters who aren't going to buy into the hysteria any longer.

I'll reserve my judgement before I see who wins the primaries in 2008, but I don't think Hitlery is a shoe in for the candidacy. If the Dems are smart and run a middle of the road Dem candidate, I might be inclined to vote for them.

I know there are a whole lot of other conservatives out there who feel the same.

The GOP leadership had better get its head out of its ass.



Doubly so in Ohio!


Originally Posted By spm681:
I agree with a great deal that is written in her piece, however I will reserve judgement on the next SCOTUS appointment until it is announced. If Bush nominates a Gonzales type I'll go apeshit. Something tells me he is going to appoint someone conservative such as Janice Rogers Brown or someone similar. We will see.



I'd be happy if whomever he nominates thinks the ruling by the SC was WRONG regarding property rights and local/state governments "seizing" property to do WTF they want to w/it. And is friendly to the second. It'sd be a "bonus" if they were a social liberal, and fisical conservative, but hey, I'm not greedy.

As for AC - well, hasn't she ALWAYS tended to be sorta "pessimistic"? I always thought so. Maybe it's just 'cause I'm a damn liberal!
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 11:32:12 AM EDT

By the way, what's Ann Coulter's screen name? Is she a team member?

Jim
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 11:34:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KS_Physicist:
By the way, what's Ann Coulter's screen name? Is she a team member?

Jim


She goes by Diabolical_Chicken here.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 11:50:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By KS_Physicist:
By the way, what's Ann Coulter's screen name? Is she a team member?

Jim


She goes by Diabolical_Chicken here.



30,000 im's will result from this one post, bringing arfcom to its knees
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 12:05:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
While pessimistic, I have yet to see where what she says is factually inaccurate.



I've never seen her so down on her own team before. Usually her schtick is attacking liberals, so it's unusual to read her being critical of Bush et al.


She attacks liberals.
Bush is turning into a liberal.



I don't think Bush is a liberal, I do think right now there if very little difference between the two parties. That is not to say there are fringe members of both parties that are polar opposites.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 3:51:01 PM EDT
Anne will you marry me?????????
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 4:26:49 PM EDT
She's honest.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 5:32:41 PM EDT
A very big +1 for the Lady.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 5:45:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:
That's because everything that I was warring with RikWriter and EricTheHun about before the last election was indeed the truth.

Your manifestos were a treat to read at that time..


The problem is that there is little difference between Dems and Repubs in how they believe government should operate. They simply want to use the same power structures, and methods, but achieve ends.

For example:

-Democrats are as zealous on guns, as Republicans are on Drugs...
-Republicans will call Democrats 'Social Experimenters' and that they should stay out of the lives of the citizenry, but will then say that gay marriage, porn, drugs, saying 'Douchebag' over the airwaves, etc... needs to be banned for the benefit of society at large.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:06:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
That's because everything that I was warring with RikWriter and EricTheHun about before the last election was indeed the truth.

Your manifestos were a treat to read at that time..


The problem is that there is little difference between Dems and Repubs in how they believe government should operate. They simply want to use the same power structures, and methods, but achieve ends.

For example:

-Democrats are as zealous on guns, as Republicans are on Drugs...
-Republicans will call Democrats 'Social Experimenters' and that they should stay out of the lives of the citizenry, but will then say that gay marriage, porn, drugs, saying 'Douchebag' over the airwaves, etc... needs to be banned for the benefit of society at large.



+1.

Different stripes, exact same animal.
Top Top