Funny how another Bush staffer disagrees with the flunky.

Jason Recher, who served as special assistant to President Bush and as a traveling aide to Palin during the campaign, said the former President was well aware of Palin — especially since the two met in person in Alaska just three weeks before Palin was added to the Republican ticket.

During a stopover in Fairbanks on the way to the Beijing Olympics last August, Recher said Bush met with Palin and even made a knowing reference to her rising reputation in the Republican Party.

“The president was fully aware of who Sarah Palin was,” Recher told CNN. “Even so much that when he greeted the governor and Todd in Fairbanks during a re-fueling stop on the way to the Beijing Olympics, he threw open his arms and said “Madam Vice President!’”

For you calendar challenged out there, the Olympics started 8/8/08. That would be three weeks BEFORE Palin was announced as the VP pick.
*quote available at Texas for Sarah Palin

“Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say,” the president said, “but I redefined the Republican Party.”

as i understand it, conservatism means to “preserve” or “keep” what the constitution represents and the principles of freedom that our country was founded on.

anyone who comes along and tries to expand the size of government and basically ignore or “redefine” the constitution is therefore considered a…. liberal.

being that no conservative or republican needs anyone to redefine anything and doing so goes against the principles of conservatism, that sounds to me like — no matter what he says, bush must be a liberal, of sorts… (albeit, unknown to him.)

it would make sense…… because no liberal could ever do so much damage to conservatism from the outside. only someone who is carried as the banner of conservatism could therefore go against it and “redefine” it (when it never needs to be) and trash its good name.

the republican party then sways over to the left and the democrat party goes from the center-left and sways radically over even further to the far left. and the loons, the real radicals come out in full force.

voting libertarian does no good. the left will vote in lock-step for the democrats. splitting our votes over to a hapless party that has no shot at winning will mean more victories for the left.

we should not divide, but quite simply, get back to conservatism.

alliebobbit
Name one Republican who benefited in a criminal way and from bribes from mortgage companies.

Ed wrote about this, but I’m having a hard time combing through the headlines from January and February, which is when I seem to remember seeing this. I can probably search for it later, unless someone else knows off the top of their head.

I’m voting Libertarian in 2012. Wayne Allen Root. “Conscience of a Libertarian”. Read it, love it, change the country back to what the Founders started….Republicans and Democrats only want re-election.

adamsmith on September 16, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Republicans and Democrats are as human as any Libertarian, so voting L isn’t a magic bullet. The Libertarians would behave just as badly as the gop and dems if they captured power. I don’t view a third party vote as an effective weapon to battle corruption, some other mechanism is required. Term limits might be the best answer.

change the country back to what the Founders started….Republicans and Democrats only want re-election.

adamsmith on September 16, 2009 at 9:13 AM

All politicians want re-election. The Founders were very realistic about human nature and government. Both the Democratic and Republican party work within that existing framework. People need to be more informed and active in their government, and it seems they are awakening.

But if another viable party wants to participate in our political system, they should start building their party at the local levels of government first. They are doomed to splitting the vote and helping an incumbent, otherwise.

That does not mean what you think it means. Religious and moral. That is not a Christian only club.

never said it was…just another ASSumption on your part.

but do you really think islam is compatible with freedom?? have you noticed what happens when muslims reach a certain percentage of the population??? check out nigeria…

The Christian Right should stop acting like this is the case, they should also resist the impulse to push for a ‘Christian Nation’ whatever that means.

Holger on September 16, 2009 at 2:08 AM

uh we don’t push for a ‘christian nation’ unlike you atheists who want to push christianity out of public life…

dogsoldier:

No, Bush is not an idiot.

The thing is Bush never pretended to be anything he was not. He did not pretend to be Pat Buchanan when he was Governor of Texas and then turn into something else when he became president. He ran on education, he wanted to be the education president. He did not sneak No Child Left Behind up on people, it was part of his campaign.

He was never anything but supportive of Palin and McCain in the campaign.

He was not responsible for corrupt Republican Congressman who misused their offices for personal reasons.

It is just sad to see conservatives working along side Democrats to hurt the people Democrats want to hurt. They believe any silly crap anyone comes up with even if there is no evidence of it.

The truth is when Bush was riding high and his numbers were good, a lot of people liked him..when things got tough they looked for reasons to bail on him.

Terrye on September 16, 2009 at 7:14 AM

He was not completely honest. If he had made his intentions on amnesty clear in 2004 I don’t know if I could have voted for him, but he forgot to mention that part of his agenda during the campaign.

He was not responsible for corrupt Republican Congressman who misused their offices for personal reasons.

Yes, he was. The President is the de facto leader of his party. Bush might as well as hung a shingle out that the White House was open for business and K Street need not even use the service door. “Just come on in, boys.”

Again, I preferred Bush over Gore and Kerry. He was the best the Republicans had and the right President for the time.

Under Clinton, the Democrats had built up an impressive fund-raising apparatus, and it would be hard to beat them without a good ground game. Bush was able to do that, and I don’t blame him for encouraging lobbyists.

He did let it get out of control, though. “Wall Street has a bit of a hangover” or whatever he said was shocking to most Americans, myself included. This idiotic idea that housing prices would keep going up was unfathomable, not even just in hindsight. But Paulson and Bernanke are economists; they have their jobs, because they are supposed to be able to read these trends. The government and the American public need to get it through their thick skulls that the “bigger fool” theory of economics is not a recipe for long-term financial stability.

But there were Republicans taking bribes from these mortgage companies and investment banks. Not as much as Democrats in comparison, but we had both houses of Congress until 2006. Bush should have reigned in his party.

In The Flesh on September 16, 2009 at 12:34 AM

Strange that with the Democrats trying to take over a sixth of our economy and nationalize healthcare, we haven’t heard much from our Ivy League alumnus one way or another about this. I wonder why? Maybe he doesn’t want to bring up his own failed Romneycare he introduced in Taxachusetts.

Yeah, let’s run Romney in 2012, who couldn’t even beat McCain in a primary. I’m sure he’ll get crowds of 60,000 or more to hear him speak. His volunteers will be manning the phone banks and… I’m just going to stop there. Romney is not going to be the 2012 nominee unless Republicans want to lose.

No, Bush is not an idiot.

The thing is Bush never pretended to be anything he was not. He did not pretend to be Pat Buchanan when he was Governor of Texas and then turn into something else when he became president. He ran on education, he wanted to be the education president. He did not sneak No Child Left Behind up on people, it was part of his campaign.

He was never anything but supportive of Palin and McCain in the campaign.

He was not responsible for corrupt Republican Congressman who misused their offices for personal reasons.

It is just sad to see conservatives working along side Democrats to hurt the people Democrats want to hurt. They believe any silly crap anyone comes up with even if there is no evidence of it.

The truth is when Bush was riding high and his numbers were good, a lot of people liked him..when things got tough they looked for reasons to bail on him.

Well, well. I was wondering what happened to Poptech. What happened dipshit, did you puncture your inflatable girlfriend or did your mommy finally kick you out of the basement?

The jig is up. You might have fooled us if you weren’t so transparent in your psychotic, masturbatory hatred for Palin and didn’t spout the same tired old Axelrod talking points. You didn’t bother to deviate from the script in the least, blabbering your stupidity about the Africa/continent and carbon emissions/I do! I do! ad nauseum. Those are signatures for you, but being the infantile troll scum that you are you routinely project your own stupidity onto everyone else. If you’re going to hide behind another name, update the schtick.

Come on dickless, post a resume or two for old times sake.

In The Flesh on September 16, 2009 at 2:36 AM

It is also possible to be a conservative who does not particularly favor Palin, without launching into ad hominem attacks and repeating every absurd canard as justification for opposing her. Whatever happened to “I prefer so and so” and listing his strengths? Continuing to tear into someone who truly has been publicly abused is not the way to make a case for a different candidate.

BS. You are no conservative. You’re an elitist squish.

If you were truly a conservative, you’d appreciate Sarah Palin for her principles and her record of governance.

She kicked Joe Biden to the curb in the debate.

Now go crawl back under your rock, troll.

atheling on September 16, 2009 at 2:16 AM

I would appreciate her principles? Well, I dont appreciate the her principle of LYING about being against the bridge to nowhere. I dont agree with her principle of allowing her unmarried daughter and boyfriend shack up in her home. I dont agree with her principle of spending $100k on clothing for herself and her family members on the campaign. I dont agree with her principle that knowing and understanding the world is unimportant. I dont agree with her principle that using hick language like “makin” and “doin” and so forth is a good example to the nation’s youth. I dont agree with her principle of being so clueless that she thinks Africa is a country and cant think of any newspapers in the country. I dont agree with her principle of quitting her post and fulfilling the entire term that she was elected to do….WITH NO REASON…I.E. WHE WASNT BROUGHT INTO A CABINET…SHE JUST WANTED TO FACEBOOK, WATCH GILLIGANS ISLAND RERUNS AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE HER KIDS ARE. I dont agree with her principle that all “lame ducks” are just politics as usual and should therefore quit.

As far as her record of governance….you must be joking. She hasnt done anything of note in her entire 2 year career. HA HA HA HA. A one half of a term…wow, what a record.

No, it is possible to be a conservative, as I am, but not want to be led by a truly flaky and dumb person.

Yeah, she did OK in that debate with Biden…but the majority of people who watched the debate believed she lost. I didnt feel she lost…but the majority of people did. Also, one highlight was when asked if she believed in cap in trade she replied: “I do! I do!” Greeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaat.

Your definition of a troll is somebody not dumb and blind when it comes to Sarah Palin.

In The Flesh on September 16, 2009 at 2:08 AM

BS. You are no conservative. You’re an elitist squish.

If you were truly a conservative, you’d appreciate Sarah Palin for her principles and her record of governance.

She kicked Joe Biden to the curb in the debate.

Now go crawl back under your rock, troll.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

right4life on September 15, 2009 at 3:14 PM

That does not mean what you think it means. Religious and moral. That is not a Christian only club.

I cannot find a quote where the Founding Fathers make the argument that only Christians can be moral and religious, notably because they knew about Deism and what it infact means. Rightly understood, everyone who is religious and has God(s) is Deist in the first principle, believing in God. After that they degenerate into the superstition of Revealed Religion and various mysticisms. And if the Founding Fathers did, it’d be laughable.

“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” — John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved–the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” — John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

Some did infact make the argument that Christianity is the best but by no means would they consider Buddha, Ghandi, the Dalai Lama among many others to be mere Savages unfit to live under the Constitution.

The Christian Right should stop acting like this is the case, they should also resist the impulse to push for a ‘Christian Nation’ whatever that means.