Listeners: Bushs incompetence makes him a horrible President.

It is the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq and recently there were protests all over America and the world against our occupation. Over the weekend, I decided to ask my audience if they supported this war and I tied it into Bush’s overall performance.

First, surprisingly I learned that most callers, emailers and quick poll respondents would feel better about supporting our efforts in Iraq if they saw progress and believed that there was a reachable goal that was articulated by this President. Even though I have always supported the effort in Iraq, it has been increasingly clear that Bush and his advisors are incompetent in the “politics of perception.”

Secondly, in response to Sunday’s quick poll question, I learned that most of our audience believes that Bush is a horrible President (66%). While unscientific, it is significant once you realize that 70% of our show’s audience is conservative to moderate politically. This tells me that Bush is in big trouble with the public’s perception of his Presidency as a whole.

This is borne out in the comments of many of those who called the show, including an Iraq war veteran Marine who no longer supports the efforts because of mis management of the occupation and his perception that we are not making progress there. He like so many in the US have fallen victim to the liberal media’s portrayal of nothing positive in Iraq. Yet, the President is partially to blame because he has not been out in front countering each lie or distortion of the MSM. Human nature tells us that silence is an admission of guilt and his failure to aggressively take on his critics has lead people to believe the lies of MoveOn.Org.

His administration is not actively combating these negative reports with positive facts even though they have made progress with the addition of Tony Snow. Staunch supporters of the war are having doubts about our direction, as the polls indicate.

Even I have written an unpublished op-ed to the Oregonian about the troop surge that is critical of Bush’s plan.

The Democrats continue to seize on Bush’s inability to articulate what the goal in Iraq is or for that matter the broader war on terror. They are masterfully using it to destroy our nations desire to win this effort and Afghanistan or any other future engagement we may find ourselves in, The MSM joyfully joins in with them and the predictable result is a loss of support here at home for war.

This is nothing new however, as images of dead Americans from the civil war to today have always created doubt on the home front. Many of this nation’s war efforts have failed in times past because of ineffective leadership and has affected Presidential poll ratings, with Harry Truman having the lowest ever recorded (22% approval) during the dark days of Korea in 1952.

Adding fuel to the fire is the PC inspired mismanagement of occupation strategy by the Pentagon, the State Department’s interference with an effective policy towards Iran and the President’s stubbornness to stick with people like Rumsfeld who end up a liability.

All of this because a President cannot communicate.

I suspect that behind these leadership failings are Karl Rove and his merry band of pollsters who are constantly advising the President in one public relations disaster after another. Bush’s inability to articulate almost anything with any real charisma or passion is also at fault for the loss of support for this action and if not corrected soon, will do lasting damage to our nation’s ability to fight any war in the future.

These failings can be rectified if Bush does a few things immediately.

He must first fire Karl Rove and go with his gut instincts and defend himself once a week in a press conference. You must remember that Bush is a fighter pilot and I can tell you from personal experience that they are all very cocky and aggressive. I saw that quality in him when I had a short encounter with him after 9/11 and I believe that advisors like Rove have kept that passion and aggressiveness suppressed. It is time for it to remerge and Bush to get engaged. He is at his best when he is passionate about something he really believes in and this is his opportunity to articulate a strategy powerfully and influence the world’s thinking to counter the Democrats and the MSM’s open hostility.

Secondly, he must unleash Tony Snow who knows the game of public perception better than anyone else around the President. There is no doubt that Tony is being muzzled and only occasionally is give permission to go after the David Gregory’s of the White House press corps. Tony is more than capable of creating sound bites for the evening news that will be controversial, yet persuasive in the court of public opinion.

Thirdly, the President must tell us over and over again what is his definition of winning and how he is going to get that done. He must constantly remind the American people that winning the war on terror is our only option and he should skillfully use the images of 9/11 to reinforce the need to do so. His failure to do this was reflected in many comments from my listeners this weekend and is a clear indication of what must be done to change the public’s perception of our efforts.

Amazingly, the polls released yesterday indicating Iraqi public opinion reaches a different conclusion than what the Democrats and the MSM are saying. Most Iraqis don’t want us to leave yet, think they are better off without Sadaam and don’t think they are in a civil war.

Bush needs to seize on this today and start passionately telling us that his troop surge and change in strategy with putting Gen Petraeus in charge over there is producing positive results. His poll numbers will improve immediately, a point I sensed from my callers this weekend and that America is hungry for good war news. We as a nation must feel that our sacrifice and direction is producing positive results and this President is the one who needs to be out in front articulating the goals and positive message of our accomplishments.

If he does that, then conservatives like me who have voted twice for this man will once again support his leadership and will no longer think he is incompetent.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:39 | Posted in Measure 37 | 38 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Wayne Brady

    I agree President Bush is terrible at public relations. I am thankful that he is willing to stick it out in Iraq in spite of the pressure to leave.

    I am optimistic about the new approach in Iraq. I think we have been too timid in the past and changing the rules of engagement to give the troops more freedom to act can make a big difference.

    One thing is sure, leaving Iraq would set us up for a much worse situation later on.

  • jeff

    The surge is working – even the MSM is being forced, finally, to admit it and start showing good news from Iraq.

  • Clay Fouts

    Sure, Bush can’t effectively communicate anything more sophisticated than “I’m hungry,” but that’s not the real problem. The real problem is that the US public (not to mention the rest of the world) won’t stomach hearing about the real object of this war, which is inimical to “Iraqi freedom” or whatever they’re calling it this week. Few people are willing to hear that the primary objective of our war efforts are to further extend the reach of US empire by colonizing the region with military bases and establishing hegemonic control over Iraqi/Iranian/X-istan petrol reserves.

    As much as the public doesn’t seem to actually care about “Iraqi freedom,” they’re willing to keep petting that dog because it sounds nice and doesn’t threaten their willful ignorance of the direct ties between the standard of living which we so enjoy and the perpetual warfare that enables us to achieve that standard. The administration has to lie, spin, duck, and dodge to keep the puppets dancing in this elaborate theater. But increasingly even the most entranced in the audience cannot help but see the tattered edges of the costumes, the curling cardboard facades, the sweaty paste of make-up on Bush’s furrowed brow…

    • Dylan

      Forgetting the message deliver (GWB) for a sec. Just so I follow you … Your thesis is that easy for the public to understand and follow a pro-military intervention policy than a message from the anti-intervention crowd that prefer a diplomatic solution … correct?

      I’ll admit .. I have no facts to back up my believe and I would love to see some stats from you if you have something to back up your thesis. But I think it’s infinitely more difficult to argue on behalf of the intervention. No one wants their son or daughter or friend dying in a needless conflict so I would think the natural presumption would be against the President. Plus … the MSM images work against you on a daily basis. You can talk about security improving in Iraq, which I think it is, but a picture is worth a thousand words and they make delivering the a pro intervention message infinitely more difficult.

      • Clay Fouts

        That’s not quite what I’m saying. 9/11 got people riled up enough that they were more interested in retribution — no matter how roughshod — than diplomacy. My point more regards:

        “No one wants their son or daughter or friend dying in a needless conflict…”

        Of course not, which is precisely why so much effort has gone into producing the appearance that the conflict is needful and has purpose. And not just any purpose, but one that makes people feel good about the country and themselves. The winning combination of appealing to humanist values (freedom, democracy, etc) and religious intolerance (mutual, at that) allow much of the nation to get on board with the occupation necessary for hegemony without compromising those values.

        • Dylan

          Interesting … actually I am not totally against your argument here. Rage and revenge can be powerful motivating forces and I am sure placed blinders on the judgments of many Americans immediately after 9/11. You lost me when you started with the religious intolerance and hegemony argument … makes you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist with a big thesauruses by your side. Or maybe I am just too idealistic … but I do actually continue to believe in the good of America.(the humanistic values that you speak of) You can label me a neocon and judge for it. But I believe in America as a beacon of freedom and democracy. And I hope that we continue to promote it. I fundamentally believe that the Iraqis have asked for our help … and I am glad that they have a historic opportunity to vote freely.

          As for the later argument on the thesis … you and I don’t disagree … You and I both believe that the Administrations position must make a case as to why the sons, daughters, and friends are to be put in harms way. Again .. by using words like the “the appearance that it is necessary” you come off sounds like a Halliburton created this war nut job. Do you seriously think that the administration (Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rice) don’t believe their public motivations for this? Regardless … I think my argument is historically true. The longer a war goes along … the more unpopular it becomes. Not because the war is failing … but because it is harder to make your case in this environment. People have a nature presumption to be against you. I think you right in the beginning 9-11 created a more nationalistic tone but that faded. Unfortunately, we live in an instant gratification culture and 9-11 was just too far ago for people to still use it as a reference point. But I remember crossing the Key Bridge in Georgetown and seeing the smoke from the Pentagon.

          • Clay Fouts

            “I do actually continue to believe in the good of America.(the humanistic values that you speak of)”

            But see, that’s my point. I believe that, too. It’s through exploiting the good will and humanistic values of Americans (and hiding the costs of their choices) that the administration can conduct their war with the consent of the citizenry.

            “Do you seriously think that the administration (Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rice) don’t believe their public motivations for this?”

            Yes. They are flat-out lying. They barely care for the welfare of soldiers stationed over there, nor for the families they leave behind, nor the ones who’ve come back injured. They don’t care for our poor, our disenfranchised, our sick. What evidence can they show that they care one whit about the Iraqi people? They believe in the health of the State, not its constituents, and use the noble lie to meet that end.

    • Steve Plunk

      While I certainly have to admire your prose I see less substance than meets the eye in your post.

      People often forget that this was precipitated by 9/11 and while Saddam was not directly involved he was part of the overall problem of the the middle east/ radical muslim mindset. Like a child that will not show you what’s in it’s hand The iraqi regime refused to come clean on WMD’s leaving us no choice. Even pre-war Dems were certain of a clandestine weapons program.

      Those who cannot grasp the bigger picture here seem to have their vision clouded by pacifist leanings. Heck, we all have a bit of that but it takes rational thought not encumbered by emotions to make policy. We have a sound policy that needs to be followed.

      Wars are tricky endeavors to say the least. The idea that a lack of planning has lead to disaster is off base. You can’t plan for every contingency on a battlefield yet many think we can. This is too simplistic and exposes a lack of historical understanding of war.

      It strikes me that people speak of a US empire being force upon the world when in fact the world reaches for US influence and many want nothing more than to come here. It’s a tired mantra of the left with little substance. A quick glance at the anti-war protesters and you will see essentially throwbacks to the anti-war crowd of generations past and much of the same rhetoric.

      • Clay Fouts

        “Like a child that will not show you what’s in it’s hand The iraqi regime refused to come clean on WMD’s leaving us no choice.”

        This is patently false. The US forced UN weapons inspectors — who continued to show zero evidence of WMD — out of Iraq and then proceeded to fake “intelligence” to make it a plank in the case for invasion. So bent on this in fact that they outed an undercover CIA agent who *was working on suppressing Iranian nuke programs* when her husband revealed the flimsiness of their efforts.

        “Even pre-war Dems were certain of a clandestine weapons program.”

        Well, at least to the extent that they realized they could hop onto the kill-them-all zeitgeist and retain the option of later blaming the administration for the faked intelligence. I’m no Democratic apologist.

        This isn’t about pacifism. It’s about taking an honest look at motive. I have a healthy respect for those who support this war *because* it’s a blatant power grab. They believe in US hegemony and see occupying Iraq as the obvious next step. Many of them serve in Bush’s cabinet. It’s the foundation of the neocon ideology, as is Straussian “noble lie” for the sake of pacifying the people.

        • Steve Plunk

          What you consider “patently false” is, in fact, true.

          I think you should consider for a moment that the “power grab” is really an rational use of power in order to send a message to those who would harm us. It is also a legitimate attempt to establish a democracy in an area of the world where democracy could be the only hope for stability. It could also be an attempt to re-establish respect the power of the US military after losing that respect in previous years. It could also be retribution against an enemy who has killed US soldiers in previous wars. It could be a convenient target of opportunity post 9/11 to gain some satisfaction for the thousands of innocents killed. It could be all of this and much more. All of these and others reasons seem a very calculated exercise of foreign policy power.

          Taken as a whole the set of facts does justify and will continue to justify this war. The sum is greater than the individual parts just totaled up.

          • Clay Fouts

            “is, in fact, true.”

            Believe what you will, but Hans Blix — who was actually there and actually working with the Iraqis and actually in charge of the inspections — disagrees vigorously with this notion, especially to the extent that it could be used to justify military invasion.

            As for your other points, I don’t disagree at all. I never meant to imply that this was an irrational use of power. It’s a respectable course of action when viewed *in those terms*. It’s certainly a confluence of interests that led to the occupation. My contention is that those are not the reasons the administration keeps repeating are the reason we’re there and that that disconnect (along with, you know, all the scandal and corruption) is harming their ability to maintain respect and lead. They say “we’re there to liberate the Iraqi people” when they mean “we’re there to establish a series of permanent military bases in order to better ensure our quality of life.”

  • Senatortom

    It is obvious that if the premise for starting the war in the first place became false, public acceptance and support would erode. It has. No big surprise. I still am baffled how any fiscal conservative could ever support such a thing. The entire concept of conservatism is to conserve. In other words, do not go more than one trillion dollars into debt unless it is entirely necessary.

    No amount of explanation will convince me that what we did was necessary or wise. Elimination of Saddam had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. We now have completely destabilized the region and handed it to Iran on a silver platter. Absolutely absurd logic, which we seem to practice on a regular basis. Why does it take genetic mutation to achieve placement in the White House, or Congress, for that matter?

    • Chris McMullen

      Yeah, all those Al Qaeda terrorists pouring into Iraq and fighting our troops have done nothing to curb their propagation and influence. Please.

      Funny how terrorists supported the Dem takeover of congress. Gee, I wonder why THAT is?

      The war has been mismanaged, but the reason to go there was sound.

      • Clay Fouts

        Wait, which reason are you talking about?

        Was it the WMD — that didn’t exist?

        Was it for not complying with UN weapons inspections — except that they had?

        Was it the nuke program — which the administration fabricated?

        Was it the ties to al Qaeda — that didn’t exist?

        Was it to free the Iraqis — to break down into anarchic chaos?

        It’s so hard to keep track.

        • Sakaki O.

          The problem with Mr. Fouts’s arguments is that all of them are unprovable, especially the UN Weapons Inspector story.

          Unless Mr. Fouts actually has other knowledge besides what he has found in the mainstream media, I think his points are pretty much moot.

          WMDs: The name Georges Sada mean anything? The #2 man in Saddam’s air force states that the WMDs were moved into Syria. Until Syria is invaded, we won’t know. But being as he was a general in the military, I’m willing to believe him over the rest of the mainstream media.

          UN Weapons Inspectors/Nuke program: He was complying only on surface plants, keeping secret the underground plants which are known to be populating the sands of Iraq. Israeli intelligence has known about these “bunker nuke plants” for a while.

          Ties to Al Qaeda: We do not know the full story, and never will know the fully story.

          Free the Iraqis: Read Milblogs? The people are starting to loosen up, and things are getting better.

          The basic point of my statement here is that certain people are willing to predicate and attack the president because they have “media mind”, that is they take all of the media sources and use that as their argument…like Mr. Fouts has done. They don’t actually dig deeper, or look closer, to actually see what’s going on.

          And I suggest people do that.

          • Clay Fouts

            Give me a freaking break with your supposed ultra-double-secret fact finding insights. You and I don’t learn squat from what *any* media outlet or government agency releases. The tiniest nuggets of info are nuanced and shaped into easy to swallow kibble pellets. Even individual accounts come hopelessly coded with the person’s personal biases, if not outright prevarication. The world is a blur of conflicting information, and the only thing that can help us understand what’s at the heart of any matter is the Second Law of Thermodynamics: There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

            Lunch costs energy. The big lunch we all feast upon every day costs enormously. All but a tiny fraction of that cost is paid for by our Sun. When we can’t harness enough immediately available energy from it, we have to plow into potentia built up millions of years ago. Our extravagant custom of living, our growth economy all demand increasingly large amount of decreasing resources. The middle east has the energy we need. The most effective means — from several perspectives — of securing our access to it is through imperial conquest.

            We’ve made our bed, and now we must sleep in it.

          • Sakaki O.

            True. Most of my information comes from troops on the ground.

          • Clay Fouts

            Like these fellows: https://www.ivaw.org/

          • Sakaki O.

            They’re not on the ground anymore, are they?

            Oops.

          • Clay Fouts

            What does being on the ground or not have to do with whether or not we’ve engaged in this occupation for the exoterically contrived reasons?

          • Sakaki O.

            Everything.

            BTW, I see that certain members of Blue Oregon are visiting. I’d like to welcome them to the blog and state that no matter what, we won’t ban your comments or yourself.

          • Clay Fouts

            “Everything.”

            Nothing settles a debate like the crushing power of quiet reason.

          • Sakaki O.

            It is the difference between an armchair quarterback and an actual, on the field, quarterback.

            iwaw folks are armchair quarterbacks. People like Petraeus are on the field.

            Which reminds me:

            https://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/why_its_working_____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm?page=0

          • Clay Fouts

            Again, what does this have to do with whether or not we invaded Iraq to preserve our empire’s hegemony by establishing permanent military bases in order to more readily project the force required to secure access to the region’s petroleum reserves? The article you link only maintains that there’s a perception that we are gaining control of the area and has nothing to do with why we’re even there in the first place.

          • Sakaki O.

            Prove your points. You haven’t so far.

            Basically stating, your entire argument is predicated on the idea that oil is the major driving force. If that’s the case, then why do we not Invade Canada, which has much more of an oil base than Iraq has ever had? You argument is predicated on a lie.

            And I’d like you to try and prove it.

          • Chris McMullen

            Or Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela?

          • Clay Fouts

            “Proof” is a mathematical concept, not a historical or geopolitical one. I don’t have any more “proof” than you do. I’m looking at history and economics and following the yellow brick road. It doesn’t lead to Canada because our economies and alliance is already tightly intertwined (and their reserves are mostly in natural gas a oil shale, rather than sweet crude) . Similar with the Saudis. We found a point of cooperation that made alliance (omitting OBL and some others) cheaper than invasion.

            Iraq and Iran don’t like our game, so we have to go the expensive route of forced occupation. In addition to their oil reserves, they (and Afghanistan) form a keystone in a region that is not particularly under our sway politically, providing us with further reason for occupation. Venezuela has the former, though not the latter, and is less militarized, making them a target of lesser importance. However, that doesn’t seem to stop us from fomenting coups to overthrow Chavez!

          • Sakaki O.

            Dodging the issue. Put up or shut up.

          • Clay Fouts

            If our objective really had anything to do with liberating a population, there are far better examples of situations where oppressive regimes are killing people in droves every day, yet our government does nothing but look the other way. We go out of our way to protect regimes who are friendly with us, never mind the fact that they’re run by dictators and engage in genocidal massacres. We contribute to military and political coups against leaders democratically elected by their constituents, and when we succeed we install the most brutal thugs we think we can control. Nicaragua? Sudan? Rwanda? East Timor? El Salvador? Chile? Iraq? Saddam was our creature, after all. Iran? Anyone remember Mossadegh?

            Where’s your “proof”?

          • Sakaki O.

            It’d be nice if you had something to back up your assertions with. But you don’t, and that’s fine. I’ll leave your example up, as a way to show others how not to battle.

            Next time, bring some studies, rather than the Tom(Potter)foolery that you post on other sites.

          • Clay Fouts

            Forgive my oversight. In other fora I don’t usually have to go through to trouble to point to well documented historical fact. Here’s a short reading list to help you scratch the surface.

            Giving Suharto the nod to invade East Timor:
            https://www.etan.org/news/kissinger/ask.htm

            Fomenting a military coup and installing Pinochet in place in Chile (Kissinger was a busy man):
            https://web.mit.edu/hemisphere/events/kissinger-chile.shtml

            The current administrations failed attempt to depose Chavez:
            https://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

            Remember the “Contra” part of the Iran-Contra Scandal? We sold arms (to Iran!) and drugs (to our own citizens!) to financially support the Contras in their efforts to overthrow the democratically elected Sandinista government:
            https://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

            Think Iraqis had it bad under Saddam? Look at at the Sudanese (since Bush won’t):
            https://news.google.com/news?q=sudan

            We told Saddam that we had “no opinion” on his preparations to invade Kuwait. Surprise! Turns out we did:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

            Hmmm… Why is Iran so uncooperative with us now? Maybe it has to do with our direct role in overthrowing one of their most loved leaders:
            https://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm

            Our foreign policy evolves from raison d’etat, not from some high-falutin’ humanistic values of peace, happiness, and freedom. We are fighting wars of conquest for access to natural resources and power, not wars of “liberation”. This is the history of the world, and we are no different from Rome.

        • Chris McMullen

          No WMD? Moot point, Clay:

          https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
          https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001528.html

          UN compliance? Please, lay off the bong hits, Clay.

          Fabricated Nukes? I guess the yellow cake Saddam was seeking in Niger was for pastries.

          “The panel found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

          And even if it was fabricated, the congressional Dems sure bought it all hook, line and sinker. An easily manipulated bunch, they are.

          No ties to Al Qaeda? Then what are they doing in Iraq terrorizing civilians and attacking our troops?

          And, I guess Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and constant warring with Iran was good for his country, eh?

          Just to clarify, the idea Iraq would become a model Democratic middle east country after we invaded is foolish. However, invading was warranted, albeit mismanaged.

          • Clay Fouts

            Please. We uncovered a tiny pile of chemical weapons that was so old (from the Iran/Iraq war) and had long ago lost any functionality that even Saddam had forgotten about them.

            Everyone except Dick Cheney not admits that the centerpiece document for the yellow cake fiasco was a forgery.

            Al Qaeda weren’t terroizing the Iraqi people before we invaded… because they weren’t there. The only places in Iraq where they had a presence before we invaded were the areas that Saddam didn’t control!

            And Saddam likely would not have invaded Kuwait had we not given him the nod so that we could use it as an opportunity to get a foothold there.

            Face it, Chris. Take the red pill. We’re a warfare nation bent on hegemonic empire. Love it and accept it. Stop scrambling for excuses.

  • devietro

    I honestly dont think he is as bad as your all making him out to be. Frankly when he is in an unscripted off the cuff situation he is a great speaker. Its when he is forced into the tradition press conference style that he struggles. Either way the Surge is working and we need to focus that now.

  • Dylan

    Seems a little ironic that former Rep. Kropf would be advocating a cut and run strategy from Rove after Jeff abandoned his legislative friends in the last election to work as a lobbyist.

    I hope LOYALTY isn’t important to the Biofuel people.

  • Sassy

    Yikes!

    Great discussion! We need more like it.

    Now let me throw this into the mix … I am glad that what happens in Washington DC, or even Salem for that matter, is not the end all for us (our nation).

    God is sovereign.

  • je

    I like Jeff and the way he conducts his radio show and most of his policy positions, but he is wrong to focus so strongly on Iraq.

    There are other reasons why President Bush is doing so poorly among conservatives.

    Competence in executing the office of President has been questioned, with so many stories coming out of Washington about executive fouls ups.

    Iraq was poorly executed literally for years (thankfully, the surge appears to be working, but it’s early).

    Just two examples: not enough troops on the ground at the start of the war. And, instead of “secure, hold, and build”, we had “secure, retreat, and reinfestation” (admittedly, the second may be a result of the first), but my thinking is that while mouthing “secure, hold, and build” we rarely implimented that because Rumsfeld wanted a “light footprint”, and a “just in time delivery model”, that doesn’t work in an unpredictable war environment as opposed to the business environment.

    Immigration policy, both in a transparent non-enforcement, and proposing amnesty legislation while saying it’s “not amnesty” has caused many conservatives to lose respect for Bush’s intellectual honesty, and caused sharp disagreement on policy.

    limited goverment as a goal of the Republican Party has been exposed, at least in Bush’s case as boiler plate.

    The perception that corruption has infiltrated the White House. I say perception because it’s hard to know one way or the other.

    Conservative polcies have tended to be clothing worn at will and not an expression of his core principles (meaning power was his ambition not good policy).

    The president has exhibited an arrogance and hubris which considering his record is undeserved and is unattractive to many conservatives regardless.

    Finally, I am pessimistic President Bush can turn it around because many of his failings are policies he defends and a stubborness born out of his own fear he will blow away in the politcal winds and waves if he changes.

    If you’re counting on Bush, don’t.

  • Sassy

    I doubt very seriously, especially now, that the only people listening to Jeff’s show are mostly conservatives.

    The other side is flooding the airwaves and anything else they can get thier hands on.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)