Today on Blogcritics
Home » Is the bloom off the Bush?

Is the bloom off the Bush?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The right-wingers
are starting to show doubts
their boy. Are they finally catching on?

E&P read 27 columns by conservatives who mentioned Bush during the
past 13 days. Nine of the columns had at least some questions about the
president and his policies.

For instance, George Will of the Washington Post Writers Group wrote that
Bush’s "accumulating errors are undermining the premise of his reelection

Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times added: "Most worrisome to Republicans is Kerry’s war-hero
image while, in the words of one prominent Bush supporter, ‘our guy was
drinking beer in Alabama.’"

Wall Street Journal contributing columnist Peggy Noonan wrote of Bush’s "Meet
the Press" appearance: "The president seemed tired, unsure, and

often bumbling. His answers were repetitive… . He did not seem prepared."

Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that the
Bush administration’s "first-term spending spree isn’t sitting well
with those who have to bankroll it. "

William Murchison of Creators asked: "Why no Bush vetoes of inappropriate

Pat Buchanan of Creators wrote that the Bush administration "invaded
an oil-rich country on what the world believes were false pretenses and
forged evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

Another Creators columnist, Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly, was quoted
by Reuters as saying he’s "much more skeptical about the Bush administration
now" since weapons inspector David Kay expressed doubt about Iraq
having WMDs.

Still, criticism from conservatives is sporadic and relatively muted —
with the majority of columnists on the right remaining solidly behind Bush.
& Publisher

It’s a start.

Powered by

About Hal

  • Mac Diva

    Careful, Hal. Blogcritics own Freeper for Bush, David Flanagan, will be unable to achieve nocturnal emissions if he reads this.

  • Eric Olsen

    As I said here, Bush has to become much more candid and trust the American people to trust his vision, a vision he desperately needs to restate in clear, unambiguous terms, while admitting mistakes, explaining his budget moves. He has to show people that he is in touch, and he has to explain and reconfirm why the war on terror is the most important issue of his presidency. And he has to explain how Iraq fits into that war since an awful lot of people – like Hal for example – don’t see that as the case.

    It’s a critical time for him.

  • Chris Kent

    Let’s be frank – Kerry is pretty damn impressive, and he has all Republicans (and Republican writers) a bit jittery. It is indeed a critical time……

  • Shark

    Eric writes:

    “Bush has to become…
    …trust the American people
    …vision …a vision
    …admitting mistakes
    …explain his budget
    …show…he is in touch
    …explain …why the war on terror is the most important issue…
    …explain how Iraq fits into that war…”

    Eric, I think you’re right.

    And I think any rational Republican who scanned that list is probably on the phone right now either calling Dr. Kervorkian for some “therapy”—or calling John McCain to see how long it might take to get the ol’ Straight-Talk Express gassed up and back out on the road again.

  • Mac Diva

    Eric, I believe the gay marriage issue, which Shrub has jumped into with both feet in an effort to deflect questions about why he was moved to a disciplinary unit from the Air National Guard, is going to be the deciding factor domestically. He is gambling that outrage against gays getting married is deep enough that he can benefit from siding with the Christian Right. That may not be true. I haven’t gotten around to moving it to Blogcritics, but this entry is worth a read.

  • Shark

    MD, I totally disagree.

    The Repubs met months ago and decided ‘gay marriage’ was the next Democrat buster. And they may be right.

    If the Dems let them determine this debate (like they have for the last 10 or so years) the Dems will go down faster than RuPaul at a Chippendale’s show.

    Keep your eye on the ‘sanctity’ of marriage, America… you’re getting sleepy, sleepy, sleepy…

  • Mac Diva

    Shark, you really think antipathy toward what someone else is doing in his or her bedroom runs that deep?

  • Mac Diva

    BTW, did you read the entry I cited, Shark? I think Bush was still undecided on whether to go after gays until the scandal about his military record got louder last week.

  • Shark

    re: Pat Buchanan’s: “Bush…invaded an oil-rich country on what the world believes were false pretenses and forged evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.”

    You know you’re in trouble when you find yourself agreeing with Pat Buchanan— but TRUE old school conservatives have little in common with these neo-con nut-bars.

    It took a Bush-Cheney administration to make one long for the likes of Buchanan and his ilk.

    Where’s the “Take Back The **Republican Party” movement?

    Oh, yeah, tax breaks for the rich… I forgot.


  • Shark

    MD: “…you really think antipathy toward what someone else is doing in his or her bedroom runs that deep?”

    Um, it’s not about the bedroom.

    A couple of more shots of gay couples tongue kissing on the steps of city hall, AND SHARK IS GOING TO WORK FOR BUSH.


  • Mac Diva

    Okay, I have been straight since infancy. (Can vaguely remember thinking men were hot very early on.) Maybe I am missing some sense of things here. My position is that we don’t know why a minority of humans are homosexual. But, all through history that minority has existed and will continue to do so. Since their sexual activities are private just like heterosexuals’, I can’t think of any reason to have special rules for them. Most significantly, in this context, I can’t think of any real harm that would be caused by recognizing gay marriage. Is there some error in my thinking I am not seeing?

  • Mark Saleski

    i don’t understand the gay marriage freakout either.

    on the other hand, i’m not convervative, not religious and…well, that’s it.

    social conservatism is some powerful voodoo.

  • JR

    Republican are going to have to distance themselves from Bush if he loses the election. On the other hand, failing to close ranks behind him could be what loses the election.

    Wow, tough to be a Republican these days. I can’t believe they didn’t foresee this when they nominated such a weak candidate four years ago. I mean, even the parents favored Jeb.

  • Mac Diva

    JR, that last part is cruel. If Shrub sees it, you will have driven him to drink . . . if he ever stopped.

    (Also, check your mail. I sent you an URL I don’t want to post.)

  • Eric Olsen

    As I said, this is a turning point and it can go either way. ialso hope the gay marriage bashing is not Bush’s Big Political Move – it’s pathetic, bigoted and shouldn’t be what he is about. He should be selling the cruciality of the war on terror – that’s his strength, that’s his one real conviction, as far as I can tell.

  • Hal Pawluk

    Come on, what strength?

    He’s an empty suit. And the tailor wants it back.

  • Mac Diva

    LOL @ Hal. Gee, are you guys throwing the zingers today.

    Eric, I’m not sure Shrub will understand that much of the population doesn’t toss its cookies at the thought of gays ‘doing it.’ I wasn’t invited to those meetings. Neither was Hal or Shark. Karl Rove presided. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson held forth. Those are the people who have Shrub’s ear and what he heard from them was not balanced.

  • Shark

    I remember a few years ago when the Republicans had one of their little ‘closed door’ strategy meetings to decide that the next big Democrat Buster would be a ‘Balanced Budget Amendment’.


    That was their mantra then.

    Seems pretty funny now.

    How quickly we forget.

    And Eric, as to Bush reelection plans, I think we’re going to be hearing “madman” “liberation” and “fighting terrorism” a lot these next few months.

    If the Dems are really smart, they’ll push Bush to invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as the next step in fighting terrorism.

    Oh yeah, and Florida.

    PS: I hear they’re adapting the “Missile Defense System” with a new low-altitude setting:

    “Crop Duster”