Bush was good on terror but he was dishonorable about upholding the laws of the land, and preserving and protecting our borders, and he broke an oath sworn on the Bible

How could he be “good on terror” if he was terrible on security and immigration?

Yes government should protect its citizens but it has NO business declaring a religious war. Terrorists have a hard time separating politics and religion, our nation does not. And this is coming from a churchgoer, alright.

The Jihadists have already declared the religious war. In fact, they declared it over 1300 years ago.

You think I want Holy War. I want no such thing. I want the U.S. government to work towards separating us from the Muslims who DO want Holy War. Completely different.

Exactly… more comedy gold from the GOP!

benny shakar on May 1, 2009 at 12:23 AM

This is a first. I’ve got benny shakar agreeing with me.

Bush was not honorably about amnesty, and tried to hoodwink the public. Bush called the Minutemen vigalantes which is not honorable. Border agents who did too good a job were pressured to stop. Bush intentionally did not enforce laws about border control and he looked the other way as employers replaced legal workers with illegals.

I think if Bush had his way, Campeon and Ramos would still be in prison.

Bush was an honorable, honest man . . . who was obviously wrong about Specter.

rplat on April 30, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Bush had to take out Specter’s conservative opposition to keep Specter on committee for the amnesty strategy. Bush was not honorably about amnesty, and tried to hoodwink the public. Bush called the Minutemen vigalantes which is not honorable. Border agents who did too good a job were pressured to stop. Bush intentionally did not enforce laws about border control and he looked the other way as employers replaced legal workers with illegals.

Bush was good on terror but he was dishonorable about upholding the laws of the land, and preserving and protecting our borders, and he broke an oath sworn on the Bible

Instead of working through treaty ratified by the Senate, Bush worked out deals under the SPP, security and prosperity partnership which is basically an unsigned ever changing treaty disgusised as a partnership. In terms of the American public this ‘partnership’ did not exist to the point there is a Q and A section at the website to disclaim the myths about the partnership, something you hardly need in legitimate and properly legislated agreements

IMHO the DEMs will use the old fool Specter now for his vote but they will not trust him as a Democrat. Whether they want to keep the old rat through a primary has got to be making them sick to their stomachs because Specter is beasically untrustworthy unless you keep bribing him

Wow. How stupid of the NRSC! How does dragging Bush’s name through the mud help the Republicans?

President Bush was so unpopular among Democrats that any association with our former president could spell disaster for anyone trying to run as a Democrat. I am glad that Specter will no longer be associated with the Republican Party. However, I would be happier if he were defeated by a Democrat primary challenger. This would ensure that Specter does not get re-elected.

I think that this ad will help achieve that goal.

benny shakar on May 1, 2009 at 12:23 AM

You, my dear benny, are comedy gold. Keep it up.

How does dragging Bush’s name through the mud help the Republicans?
terryannonline on April 30, 2009 at 6:43 PM

Exactly… more comedy gold from the GOP!

Call Specter’s office is good place to start….Sure you wish you had your money back from some other Critters.

TN Mom on April 30, 2009 at 8:46 PM

Sen. Reid is the gift that keeps on giving. I would think his party could look at him and rethink this seniority deal.

2Brave2Bscared on April 30, 2009 at 8:18 PM

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. W is from Texas and Hispanics are a huge part of his daily life. It has always driven me crazy that many appear to equate secure borders with a dislike of Hispanic people. Another instance of people talking past each other and no on “getting” it.

Pass the popcorn!

The U.S. government’s job is to protect the citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic.

2Brave2Bscared on April 30, 2009 at 8:26 PM

Yes government should protect its citizens but it has NO business declaring a religious war. Terrorists have a hard time separating politics and religion, our nation does not. And this is coming from a churchgoer, alright.

I’m sorry but what exactly did want Bush to say “Islam is evil.”

That would have been a good start, yes.

No thanks but that’s not government is supposed to do.

The U.S. government’s job is to protect the citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Furthermore, after 9/11, a day on which we were attacked by Muslims waging Islamic Jihad against our country, Bush for 8 years talked about how peaceful Islam is, all while cozying up to the pro-sharia, anti “Big Satan” Saudi government.

I’m sorry but what exactly did want Bush to say “Islam is evil, we’re going to get involved in a Holy War.” No thanks but that’s not government is supposed to do.

Whatcha testing?

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM

Something was wrong with my HA account but it is fixed now :)

the promotion of security was much more on my mind.

Same here. Which is another area in which Bush was horribly inadequate. The man refused to seal the borders off from illegal immigration. Indeed, in a speech in Miami before he was even elected for the first time, he celebrated the hispanic, multicultural takeover of the United States:

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We’re a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey … and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change — some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

Furthermore, after 9/11, a day on which we were attacked by Muslims waging Islamic Jihad against our country, Bush for 8 years talked about how peaceful Islam is, all while cozying up to the pro-sharia, anti “Big Satan” Saudi government. Meanwhile, Muslims continued to stream into our country, en mass, as Bush did nothing to stop islam from further infiltrating America by way of our insane (legal) immigration policies.

Bush didn’t keep us safe. He further endangered us. He rooted for our own cultural destruction at the hands of hispanics. And yet this is a man you call “honorable.”

If that is honor, then honor is no longer an attribute to be attained.

terryannonline on April 30, 2009 at 8:10 PM

Whatcha testing?

2Brave2Bscared on April 30, 2009 at 7:54 PM

I will agree that he did nothing for conservatism but after 9/11 the promotion of security was much more on my mind. In retrospect I should have written to my representatives more. I have been a regular pen pal since the introduction of TARP. I won’t change my mind about the disrespectful treatment of him, especially by his own party. Sen. McCain would have been much like him probably and as horrible as that sounds it still would have been better then where we sit now.

Sorry to disappoint you. While W was in office and the Republicans held Congress, how much griping did you do.

Well, full disclosure: I voted for Bush in 2004. However, at least midway through this second term, I realized how wrong I was and what can of damage he was doing to the country. So for at least the last couple of years of his term, I did quite a bit of “griping.”

Which is more than I can say for most of the mainstream conservative talking heads, who waited until AFTER he was out of office to criticize him, if they even critized him at all.

And to say our current president is “giving him a run for his money” could only be classified as a vast understatement.

Yes, I agree that I should have used stronger language. I even thought about rewriting that part before I posted it. I agree that Obama is horrible, and when all is said and done he’ll make Bush look like Ron Paul (economically speaking, of course).

But that’s beside the point. The point is that Bush has done nothing good for conservatism, and as long as conservatives fail to realize this, they’re going to remain in a rut. I shouldn’t be attacked for saying these things, for calling Bush out for his betrayal, I should be getting amens.

2Brave2Bscared on April 30, 2009 at 7:31 PM

Sorry to disappoint you. While W was in office and the Republicans held Congress, how much griping did you do. Not counting the immigration deal, because everyone raised hell about that. And to say our current president is “giving him a run for his money” could only be classified as a vast understatement. But if you think it’s a winning strategy, by all means contribute and encourage them to do more.

Why are you upset? Because the GOP is criticizing Bush and trying to seperate themselves from him and other “moderates” like Specter?

Can you please tell where in that video where it describes both Specter and Bush as moderates and that is why you shouldn’t support them? That is not the point of the ad.