Translation: Bush, et al, aren't all the way to the right on the political scale. Any presidential candidate will have to be at least somewhat moderate so that more than just party hardliners (like Savage) would vote for them. That and it makes Savage sound edgier because even Conservatives aren't Conservative enough for him.
2006-10-14 17:43:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Son of a Mitch 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree I'm an avid listener of Savage and the fact is Bush has made Government bigger and he spends just as much as the Democrats did.
2006-10-15 00:39:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by GloryDays49ers 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I TOLD HUGO CHAVEZ TO TELL EVERYONE BUSH IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Beyond Evil
is my exact words. Bush is has made very strategic mistakes worldwide. He could have had Russia as a friend but he tried to
screw them and now look where he is. He is bogued down in middle east with phony war. He is supporting war criminals In Israel and his only friend is his stooge blair. Europe has turned there back on American and the rest of the world despises us. How great! A leader do you think Bush is? his only bargaining chip is we will nuke you!! into sand. But what happens when the other guy says hold on, we can nuke you into sand. Does anyone talk anymore? Hell ! no I will never goto to Britian again, they kill
you just for not likeing the Bush House.
2006-10-15 00:50:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree. That is where the term neo-conservative comes from. As I remember it, that term was originally coined during the Reagan administration.
Supply Side Economics is a hallmark of neo-conservative policy. It is advanced by neo-conservative politicians as a conservative policy but has very little credibility among conservative Economists.
2006-10-15 00:39:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by imnogeniusbutt 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm not sure, but I do enjoy listening to Michael Savage. Pure common sense.
2006-10-15 01:21:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ændru 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
They're certainly not conservative when it comes to spending money. They campaigned that they were. They give these tax cuts that really didn't hardly help any working class people. The spend huge amounts on the conflict in Iraq. They waste money on staffing and endless trips, etc. They are not conservative in their ideology either.
2006-10-15 00:40:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by nobluffzone 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
In part, yes, but I still support Bush in the War.
I Cr 13;8a
10-14-6
2006-10-15 00:35:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
For the most part, yes. They are using liberal means (i.e. major government programs and spending) to supposedly reach conservative ends. If they were truly conservative, they would be much more prudent, instead of sacrificing principle and borrowing from future generations for expedient political gain.
2006-10-15 01:49:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by Eric H 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If that came from Michael Savage, now who am I to disagree. I would go one further and say that they are an anti-American cabal.
2006-10-15 00:45:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not too many Republicans are conservatives just as not many Democrats are true liberals. Those terms have really lost their original meanings and politics and issues have changed so much in modern times we probably should have different terms.
2006-10-15 00:35:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Ironwolf56 3
·
3⤊
0⤋