Will President Bush will help or hurt '08 GOP candidates?

He'll help
30% (120 votes)
Nothing either way
28% (112 votes)
Somewhat harm
21% (83 votes)
Significantly harm
22% (87 votes)
Total votes: 402
Read comments

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think it just depends on

July 20, 2007 - 15:50 ET by bigtimer

I voted somewhat..the only one who did so far...lol.

I think it just depends on the person plus the area.

He'll help...

July 20, 2007 - 15:54 ET by Gordy

If for no other reason, because he's the President, and not an unpopular man on a personal level.  Hopefully, conservatives will continue to circle the wagons and keep infighting out of the headlines.  Leave the mudslinging to the experts, that what I say. 

-gordy.

He'll help

July 20, 2007 - 17:11 ET by Conservative Voice

President Bush will help whenever he plays the conservative card...ie fight the war in Iraq, call out for smaller government, and fights back congress. Where he will hurt is in illegal immigration. Republicans who support President Bush's illegal immigration policy will have a hard time getting elected.

He isn't a bad President, just not a good one as far as being a champion of conservative causes.  His problem is he gave in too much to the liberals.  Liberals hate him because they aren't in power (even though they got more under him than with President Clinton ), conservatives feel betrayed, and moderates are still in the huh stage.  His approval rating is about where I expect.  He could easily make it higher and help Republicans if he starts acting like a Texan ( ie a true blooded American who fights and wins ) and less like a hippie dressed in cowboy boots.

Bush taking them to the walls

July 20, 2007 - 17:17 ET by dagda

I think if he has the balls to veto the budget with all the hidden earmarks, and shuts the government down, he get major credit back. His standing is higher than Congress so he is holding the cards.

 

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

Some of us will be making

July 21, 2007 - 04:21 ET by sarcasmo

Some of us will be making snide comments about the virginity of veto pens if he "calls out for smaller government," because as you yourself say one paragraph later, "[the left] got more under him than with President Clinton." Some folks simply aren't being fooled by the talk this time, and we won't be shut up by a biased media, either. We want someone who's walked the walk, for decades, and we found him.
JMR

Sarc, Ron Paul, what a

July 21, 2007 - 04:46 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls

Sarc, Ron Paul, what a great guy.

Too bad though, he aint gonna win. No matter what.

I say (prediction) the great brainwashed masses are gonna put a leftist liberal socialist 'it takes a village (and lots of taxes)' in charge.

Boy do I hope I'm wrong!

D

I don't support our liberals or their mission.

I love these brave predictions

July 21, 2007 - 05:27 ET by sarcasmo

I love these brave predictions because they sound SO stupid later. At this point in the process, Bill Clinton was NEVER gonna beat Paul Tsongas. Never. Couldn't possibly happen! Except, then it did.

Let's quit with the predictions you people have absolutely no clue about anyway, so I can quit making fun of 'em. Let's concentrate on what's actually happening in realityville, instead. Why did Ron Paul kick such ass (and the media tried to ignore it, thank God for YouTube!) when he was (traditionally...) excluded from the "debate" in Iowa, ironically by a Christian and Taxpayer coalition? Why do we seem to have 100% of the excitement on the Republican side? Why does Ron Paul (and I'm sure this one gets under a LOT of skins around here -- tough!!!) have more money from the US military than any other candidate?? (Are soldiers stupid? I sure as hell don't think so, I think they study the issues and know terms like "blowback" better than Rudy does!) Why does one campaign resemble healthy a coral reef and the others all tend to resemble cornfields? The funny part is, I can tell you the answer publicly in the link above, and the other scampaigns still won't get it. :)
JMR

Sarbanes Oxley

July 21, 2007 - 05:31 ET by sarcasmo

People who've experienced the expense & stupidity of "Sarbanes Oxley" also seem to appreciate a politician with an economics-101-clue who votes intelligently, even when others are obviously in a panic. It's a sign of what I like to call Presidential-level leadership from a guy who was ready for the job in 1988, just as I said back-then.
JMR

I would welcome Ron Paul over ANY of the current crop of Democra

July 21, 2007 - 05:42 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls

Sarc, like I said, I hope I'm wrong, but (BUT), I was right in 2006 and think I have the pulse of the American voting public. There are a LOT of misinformed, ill informed sheeple out there and the least informed tend to vote Democrat.

My opinion, feel free to hold me to it.

I would welcome Ron Paul over ANY of the current crop of Democrats.

P.S. Here's a book that belongs in every American home.

D

I don't support our liberals or their mission.

I would just welcome fair

July 21, 2007 - 05:53 ET by sarcasmo

I would just welcome fair (for a change...) media coverage of Ron Paul. That includes our mast head, not just sarcasmo, noticing when there's blatant bias, because NB -- despite recent behavior of the editors -- ostensibly isn't an inter-Republican-party politics group, it's allegedly instead a "liberal" (whatever that means anymore...) media bias busting group. Why must I spend so much time busting-on what supposedly should be my allies? IMO it's because what's needed (until either NB or MediaMatters turns over a new leaf and gets-honest about all the pervasive antilibertarian bias) is yet another media bias group -- this one explicitly-libertarian. If I win the FL lotto anytime soon, you can bet your ass it's gonna happen in both a "soon" and "upsetting-to-idiots" way, but media bias groups aren't cheap, so currently I must use and try to improve this one.
JMR

Sarc We are only six

July 21, 2007 - 09:56 ET by botg

Sarc

We are only six months away from the major party nominees being selected (barring any delegates changing their proxies due to melt-down problems)  From there we have 9 months to the general with Conventions during the summer for laughs.  So things are closer by 3 months than in past years.  Personally i think that all states should agree to primary elections in May or June. 

When you win the lotto are you starting "Viewsbusters: exposing anti-libertarian bias"

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."     Einstein

I'd probably name it

July 21, 2007 - 10:08 ET by sarcasmo

I'd probably name it something more annoying, though. And I'm told I should buy a ticket today, as FL's has turned over a few times.
JMR

Bush should resign. Today would be fine, yesterday even better.

July 20, 2007 - 22:27 ET by Dave R

I voted "signifcantly harm" GOP candidates-if not outright destroy the Republican Party.

After playing footsies with the UN over Iraq for nearly a year, thus giving Saddam forever to prepare, his refusal to clean house at the CIA and over at Foggy Bottom, all the Haditha BS in which our "CIC" has allowed many fine Marines to be prosecuted based on the testimony of people associated with our enemies in this war, the Border Patrol agent prosecutions, the hideous and incompetent Alberto Gonzales, who should not only be fired but prosecuted for utter incompetence, as he has ignored the MSM's and many lib's efforts to aid our enemies in this war, the unprecedented increase in the size and scope of the federal governmnent, the Republican Party's apparent insistence on doing it's best to emulate cannon fodder in the Revolutionary War, and Mr. Bush's attempt to grant amnesty to millions upon millions of illegal aliens, I'd say his damage to the Republican Party, as well as to this country, may yet be beyond repair.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

Tides of war change

July 20, 2007 - 23:31 ET by Lame Cherry

I would agree Dave that President Bush is getting some horrid advice and is making horrid decisions as this globalist web of attack hammers him.

If I might though Dave, Bush is the horse we got and the one we are on. This is not directed at you, but allot of people make the mistake in thinking that America just decides to blow things up and we have our way. That is not the case at all.

Right now the Middle East is being stoked as it has been for several years to bring about a war which will cement a minority sect forever in control of the Israeli state and so pollute the region with radioactivity to drive America from it.

The net winners are Russia in oil blackmail as the only source and the central Europeans who want the greater Israel area.

In knowing that, Bush is probably going to be forced to blow the bajesus out of quite a bit of the Middle East with the Israeli's after Syria launches some of Saddam's WMD he has on Russian missiles.

That might be an exit strategy which looks like a winner and in the tides of battle turning as wars.........well Democrats have screwed around so much in policy there is a good chance most of America will see them as the cause and they will be routed in 2008 like never before in history.

Your man Fred is not someone who seems to like to sweep things under the rug like George Bush has about all the crimes of Clinton, Gore and Democrats. He wins and real Conservative Republicans win might just like Andrew Jackson did when people attacked him turn the Justice Department on them and toss the whole bunch in prison.

I hope Fred does by God's choice win this, because as Paston's Uncle told him in 1930, there is a hell of a war coming........there is a hell of a war coming and it will be in Eurasia and a world war. Thompson I believe can keep us out of it and keep a Chinese pinning invasion out of Alaska along with the Chavez Cuban southern front from happening. Central Europe and the Middle East though are going to be scorched earth.

It will happen though as it is too stoked not to. Bush tried in Iraq to set this up to fight it out in the Asian steppes where American firepower would be most effective. That all changed now and now masses of people are going to be slaughtered when this breaks.

So while I am not the greatest Bush fan right now. He did try allot but America abandoned him.......and he is still pretty good when in the closing stretch if you whack him with a willow switch between the ears.

God will make it right, but oh what a mess has been made.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Lame, I agree that events

July 22, 2007 - 18:03 ET by Dave R

Lame,

I agree that events in the Middle East are reaching critical mass. I also agree that Syria will be a player, as I am fully aware that the bulk of Saddam's former WMDs were moved their. Those weapons aren't going to last forever, as they do have a shelf-life.

As hard as it is for me to say this, I believe our effort in Iraq will ultimately fail. While the surge is seeing some successes, I believe in the end it will prove to be too little, too late. Had it been carried out 2.5 years ago or so, I might feel differently. There are just too many different factions involved, all with widely differing agendas. I do not see the Iraqi government having the strength to hold it all together.

As I see it, Iraq will most likey be partitioned into three pieces, with Iran and Syria getting two of them. Where the third one goes is anyone's guess until the boundries are worked out, and that is assuming a civil war can actually be avoided. I have my doubts here.

Iran is a huge problem, as I personally believe they are much closer to possessing nukes than most people seem to realize. The only semi-bright spot there is the fact that the "New Hitler" is quickly running the economy into the ground, and just perhaps the Iranian people, better educated than their Arab counterparts, might just remove him. After all, they have to realize this man is making them a target.

I am not counting in that, however, and the world sitting on its duff waiting until this clown actually gets a nuke or two will be too late. I would feel a little better about this if the Mossad was in a little better shape, but Israel's last little dust-up showed they weren't anywhere near being on the ball, from an intelligence or military standpoint. When you factor in Olmert's stifling idiocy, I think the Israelis are in deep trouble.

The sad truth of the matter, for me, at least, is the creeping realization that we are very close to entering that "leaderless time" the Bible warned us about. It seems this is a problem that does not exist just here, but all over the globe. No one appears to want to deal with the problems that most people know are rapidly spinning out of control. What is more, I believe Mr. Bush's failings could very well assure us of a democrat in the White House in '09. Possibbly one with a democrat majority in congress.

If you ask me, the world is begging for a dictatorship.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

The Most Powerful Voter is TRUTH

July 21, 2007 - 09:01 ET by gideonmjames

What's going to get Republicans, or ANY candidate, elected is speaking THE TRUTH. If you hold that forth, and don't back down from it, you have dramatically increased your chances of being elected.

BDS not Truth is the MSM clarion

July 21, 2007 - 09:49 ET by CT

The Leftwing Lunatic Moonbats and their MSM enablers have so distorted President George W. Bush's actions that the public perceives no amount of relevant truth anymore.  'W' has been his own worse enemy a lot of the time, but the BDS out there is so pervasive that reason has little chance to prevail.

The old Republican Queens in the House and Senate that mistakenly believe that a last minute retreat on their support for the war in Iraq will keep them in office maybe the one thing more damaging to the party than President Bush.  We all know who these quislings are and who here now finds motivation to contribute to the RNC.  I for one will support individuals and vote for ideas that I believe in as opposed to just voting against losers.

Al Gore didn't let Clinton help campaign and it cost him dearly

July 23, 2007 - 11:52 ET by kw

Don't listen to the media...remember Al Gore and his refusal to let Bill Clinton help him campaign?  This cost Al the election.  Bush will help .

Red v. Blue Charity Link

Clinton campaign help

July 23, 2007 - 11:55 ET by dagda

I disagree. I think that had Gore used Clinton he would have lost most of the independent voters. They would have tied him to the Clinton scandals. Not using Clinton kept him in the game.

 

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

kw

July 23, 2007 - 11:58 ET by shawn228

 

Dont forget you are talking 29 percent approval vs 66 percent approval rating.Even after the Monica thing. Clinton was still a popular President

clinton poll numbers