Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

GOP rank-and-file abandoning Bush? Not really.

Regardless of whether you like Bush, hate him, or could have liked him if not for (fill in the blank), this story is fairly interesting (and likely stunning to liberals and the MSM, pardon the redundancy). From USA Today:

The Washington punditocracy has proclaimed far and wide that Republicans, disenchanted with the war in Iraq, are abandoning President Bush in droves, leaving him the lamest of lame ducks. However, the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll suggests Bush might not be as wounded as he appears — at least not among his party faithful.

The Feb. 9-11 poll puts Bush’s job approval at 37%, but among people who identify themselves as Republican or leaning Republican, his approval rating is 76%.

Thus, despite bad news from Baghdad and carefully crafted hand-wringing by high-profile GOP war critics in Congress such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, three of four Republicans in the country are hanging in there with the president.

The poll also shows that rank-and-file Republicans have higher regard for the president than they do Republicans in Congress. They gave GOP lawmakers a 63% job-approval rating, 13 points below Bush’s. And 72% of Republicans do not think Bush made a mistake sending U.S. troops to Iraq.

So if congressional Republicans figure the key to re-election in 2008 is taking a hard line against Bush on Iraq, they could be dead wrong. (Sucks for you, Hagel. – Ed.) They might lure some independents, but they risk alienating their GOP base. To win, you need solid support from your base plus independents, not independents alone.

Conventional wisdom also says the presidential ambitions of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., could be derailed by his strong support for the war. This poll, however, shows that his stance could be a plus among the base.
…
The latest congressional skirmish over Iraq underscores the point. In the House’s non-binding vote to oppose the president’s deployment of more troops to Baghdad, 17 Republicans voted with 229 Democrats to pass the measure. Four GOP representatives didn’t vote. Lost was the fact that 180 Republicans stuck with Bush. By that count, Bush gets a 92% loyalty standing among House Republicans who voted. Hardly a GOP exodus.

In the Senate, Democrats fell four votes short of the 60 needed to force a vote on an identical Iraq resolution. Why? Not enough Republicans would go along. Indeed, seven GOP senators broke with the president, and nine didn’t vote, yet 33 held firm. Among GOP senators who voted, that’s an 83% Republican loyalty rating for Bush.

Though the president may have lost the country on the issues of the day, rumors of his demise among Republicans voters and lawmakers are greatly exaggerated.

“Greatly exaggerated”? As in, the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) may have been…geez, dare I say it?…wrong??

Look, for what it’s worth (and this may tick off my conservative friends), I am looking forward to Bush’s departure on 1/20/09. I have stated before that when it comes to issues that I find important (tax reform, illegal immigration, federal spending, campaign finance “reform”), I was sold a bill of goods when I twice voted for him. I also feel that the administration has mismanaged the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (though obviously I don’t have the doom-and-gloom despair that the left has). Having said that, I am wary of a lot of polls out there, especially those that purport to speak for the right-of-center base.

February 26, 2007 Posted by | media bias, polls | Leave a Comment

Former VA ACLU prez: I have kiddie porn, and it should be legal!

If you ever had any doubts as to the depravity that exists in the peabrained gourds of ACLU types, you need look no further than Virginia. Hat tip to Texas Rainmaker:

Federal agents arrested Charles Rust-Tierney, the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, Friday in Arlington for allegedly possessing child pornography.

According to a criminal complaint obtained by ABC News, Rust-Tierney allegedly used his e-mail address and credit card to subscribe to and access a child pornography website.

The complaint states that federal investigations into child pornography websites revealed that “Charles Rust-Tierney has subscribed to multiple child pornography website over a period of years.”

As recently as last October, the complaint alleges, “Rust-Tierney purchased access to a group of hardcore commercial child pornography websites.”

Allahpundit says:

“He could be writing a book on child abuse, say, and wanted to see just how bad it can get.

But if he’s writing a book, he’s researching it awfully thoroughly.”

This story would explain why the ACLU is so eager to argue that child porn should be legalized. It probably also explains why Rust-Tierney once argued against restricting Internet access in public libraries in Virginia (hat tip: StopTheACLU):

“Recognizing that individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library, the default should be maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet.”

Child porn = valuable resources? Be sure to use that line in Cell block C when you get there…they’ll love it.

The ACLU: Pedophiles’ best friend!

February 26, 2007 Posted by | ACLU | 3 Comments

That’s your House Speaker

Some of you may have seen this late last week, so my apologies for weighing in on it now. The VP had a slight problem with the Murtha-Pelosi “cut and run…er, redeploy 5000 miles away from the war zone…or the money’s gone” plan, and replied to their idea thusly:

“I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy,” the vice president told ABC News. “The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people … try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.”

In other words, Al Qaeda’s stated strategy has been to break the will of the American public, and the Pelosi-Murtha plan would, in his opinion, achieve that goal (perhaps, or not, unwittingly).

So how did the nation’s first female Speaker respond? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney’s criticism of Democrats was “beneath the dignity of the debate we’re engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support.”
…
“And you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said,” Pelosi said. “It has no place in our debate.”

Nothing says “I’m a serious leader and I demand respect!” quite like whining like a bitch and running to go tattle-tale on the mean ol’ Veep.

As Reverse Vampyr observes:

Typical liberalism.
  • Claim to support the troops.
  • Attempt to insure America’s (and therefore, Bush’s) defeat.
  • Shame any opposition into silence.
  • Act insulted that their patriotism might be in question.
    …
    The only thing she forgot to do was claim that Murtha’s defeatist plan was “for the children.”

    • The VP may not have questioned her patriotism, but I damned sure do.


    The Jackass Party, drunk with their new power, is weary of publicly supporting Murtha’s plan

    February 26, 2007 Posted by | Cheney, defeatism, Iraq, Pelosi | Leave a Comment

    "Non-political art"?

    Any idiot can do something stupid and call it art, and this Brit is no different. From the New Editor:

    According to Reuters, London ‘performance artist’ Mark McGowan, dressed in a suit and wearing a George Bush mask with a sign on his posterior reading, “Kick My Ass,” will offer New Yorkers a chance to kick him during a 72-hour crawl across Manhattan, hoping “his performance proves therapeutic to the city’s denizens.”

    McGowan told Reuters that he “insisted his work was no publicity stunt but art: ‘It’s definitely an art form. A lot of the things I do are a bit silly but they always have a political edge to them.’”

    Reports Reuters:

    McGowan [who] said he does not have any particular political stance on the Republican president … made his name in Britain with a series of controversial acts including a performance called “Dead Soldier” where he dressed up in army fatigues and lay in the streets for a week. He also crawled 60 miles from London to the town of Canterbury.

    He “doesn’t have a particular political stance” on Bush, eh? Well, as a commenter so astutely pointed out:

    From Reuters:

    “McGowan [who] said he does not have any particular political stance on the Republican president”

    From McGowan’s website:

    “On a more serious note this is a protest against George Bush and his policies and i am expecting injuries, i just hope not to (sic) severe.”

    A fine deal of research done by al-Reuters, huh?

    Come on, #sswipe, if you’re gonna offer up your duff for pugelistic purposes, the least you could do is be a little more forthright with the world, hmmm?

    Liberal policy at its finest: “Please…kick our ass!”

    February 26, 2007 Posted by | moonbats | Leave a Comment

    Quote of the day

    Nicely done, Johnny Mac:

    After the speech, McCain was asked by an audience member if he was “sucking up to the religious right.” He drew laughs by responding: “What’s wrong with sucking up to everybody?”

    Boy, that will sure put a ding in that “maverick” armor that the MSM gave him when he was butting heads with Bush. Kidding or not, nothing says “I’m a man of conviction” like admitting pandering in front of the world.

    Here’s hoping that if by some miracle the man is elected, he won’t go “sucking up” to the Euros or the mad mullahs of the Middle East.

    February 26, 2007 Posted by | McCain, quote of the day | Leave a Comment

       

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 25 other followers