The list includes Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, and Mike Gallagher. Rush Limbaugh was invited but was unable to attend. The meeting lasted about 90 minutes and the transcript of what was discussed remains off-the-record. Some details of the meeting were leaked. Apparently Bush told his guests that the war on terror has to be about right versus wrong, "because if it's about Christianity versus Islam, we'll lose."
Other subjects reportedly discussed were interrogation rules for suspected terrorists, immigration and Bush’s thoughts on various foreign leaders. Neal Boortz said that Bush gave them a short tour of his private dining room. He also showed them the pistol Saddam Hussein had when he was captured.
I heard Micheal Medved and Laura Ingraham both discuss the meeting with the President on their respective talkshows. They both refused to disclose details of the meeting.
And everytime I hear them mention it, it makes them sound like they're waving it in your face ("I met with the president, and you didn't! Nah, nah, na-na-nah!)
But it speaks volumes that the only hosts who were invited are those that carry Bush's water on virtually all his policies. I've only heard them (Ingraham and Medved) criticize Bush on two fronts: 1.) that he's soft on immigration and 2.) that he's not out in front of the people making his case more often.
It's interesting that there two voices left out of this "inner circle" - Micheal Savage and Mark Levin. It's apparent that Bush wanted only ideas and not criticisms during this junta.
The BlogFather has alot to say about why the Republicans will get their asses handed to them this November :
|1.The Terri Schiavo affair: The bitterness it aroused, which was substantial, opened a fracture in the GOP coalition: Social-conservatives against the rest. And as I noted at the time, the social conservatives were pretty nasty to the rest. No, it wasn't really a case of "theocracy" at work, as people like Ralph Nader agreed with the social conservatives. But the haste to enact federal legislation over a matter of state law, and the mean-spiritedness with which those who disagreed were treated, did the Bush coalition no good. What's more, as I noted at the time (see first link above), this wasn't enough to make the social conservatives happy anyway. Politically, I think this marked the beginning of the end.|
2. The Harriet Miers debacle: Plenty of warning in the blogs that this was a big mistake, but all ignored by the White House and Congressional leadership. Social conservatives were mad here, and so was anyone who cared about the credentials of nominees. The nomination was withdrawn, but the damage was done.
3. The Dubai Ports disaster: Here I think that the Administration was on defensible ground from a policy perspective, but its ham-handed approach -- once again ignoring early warnings from the blogs -- turned it into a mess, and cost it major credibility with its national security constituency. The Administraiton was bumbling and inept in addressing this matter, which gained currency because of its flaccid stance on the cartoon Jihad. The consequence: Lost faith from its strongest constituency.
4. Immigration: Another unforced error. The national security constituency once again lost faith in the Administration. You can't talk about secure borders when the borders are porous. The Administration also failed to make a strong clear argument for immigration, outsourcing that to the Wall Street Journal, which did its best but couldn't do the President's job. Again, the White House's position on immigration was defensible in the abstract, but favoring easy immigration is one thing, favoring easy illegal immigration is another.
5. William Jefferson: A Democratic Congressman is caught in a bribery scandal with a freezer full of cash, and Dennis Hastert backs him up, making clear that protection of insider privilege is more important to the Republican leadership in Congress than either party or principle. The White House, at least, intervened here, eventually. Add to this the GOP leadership's failure to follow through on promised ethics reforms, and its addiction to pork-barrel spending, and you've got lots of reason to think that they don't stand for anything except stuffing their pockets.
6. Foleygate: Not much of a scandal in itself, but the last straw for a lot of people. As Rich Lowry noted, a long chain of missteps and self-serving actions has exhausted their stock of moral and political capital, leaving them vulnerable to, well, almost anything. This was probably enough.
At the end of this process, the Republicans have managed to leave every segment of the base unhappy, mostly over things that weren't even all that important. It's as if they had some sort of bizarre death wish. Looks like the wish will come true . . . .
As I've said before, the Republicans deserve to lose, though alas the Democrats don't really deserve to win, either. I realize that you go to war with the political class you have, but even back in the 1990s it was obvious that we had a lousy political class. It hasn't improved, but the challenges have gotten greater. Can the country continue to do well, with such bad political leadership? I hope so, because I see no sign of improvement, no matter who wins next month.
RINOS like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Lincoln Chaffee should be ashamed of themselves. Another issue that upsets Republican supporters is the incestuous bed of duplicity that Bush has maintained throughout his tenure.
Anti-Idiotarian blog wrote a scathing piece back in April :
Oh yes, its going to be a fun, fun November this year.
Theres more, and LC & IB Michelle Malkin is livid. With excellent reason.
I hope that come November 8th, I'm writing a blog post entitled "The Rumors of my Death were Greatly Exagerated" with regards to the Republican party.
Hope springs eternal. Maybe the GOP will start actually acting like the Republican party sometime before the elections.