Just something that popped into my mind.
Who stated the following:
"Government ought to have a policy that helps people with a downpayment."
A. 
- OR - B. 
Posted on 08/25/2002 12:50:21 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Recently, I did an interview with Focus on the Family in which I stated that pro-family conservatives are not motivated to vote in the upcoming elections in November 2002. While I stand by that statement - because it is true - I was contacted by a high level White House staffer who pointed out all the reasons he believes that pro-family conservatives should be motivated to get out there and support President Bush. Taken together, it is a pretty impressive list. I will mention some of the items on his list, but by no means all of them, for purposes of discussion.
First there is the passage of the tax cut and the effort to make it permanent. Then, there is the nomination of excellent judges and the defense of those nominees who are encountering opposition for partisan purposes. President Bush rejected the International Criminal Court. He got us out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and thus paved the way for a missile defense system. The Ashcroft Justice Department, directed by the President, opposed partial birth abortion in the Ohio case and opposed euthanasia in the Oregon case.
The President opposed human cloning and has pushed for the right legislation in the Congress to ban it. The President opposed taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research. The Justice Department has supported the correct view of the Second Amendment.
The President has pushed for energy independence. He signed the parsonage tax credit bill and the Born Alive Infant Protection bill, during which, at the signing ceremony, the President made the strongest pro-life statement coming out of the Oval Office in a couple of decades.
The President signed the Child Custody Protection Act. In the Prenatal Health Insurance Bill, he insisted that the definition of eligibility include the fetus. In the House he pushed for a welfare reform bill where marriage, work and the family are central.
The President rejected the United Nations Rights of the Child Treaty. He rejected funding for the United Nations Population Fund. He raised abstinence education funding to a record $300 million.
In addition, the President has praised single sex schools, highlighted the Boy Scouts, and condemned the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
My White House friend says that the whole demeanor and atmosphere in his place of work has changed. He is right about that. No more pot smoking, condom swinging, late night liaisons with teeny-boppers at the White House. It is a dignified place to work once again.
Now, in fairness, all of this has to be weighed against the sight of the president and Teddy Kennedy working together to pass the budget-busting education bill that threw out vouchers on day one. And there are liberal holdovers at the Justice Department and others departments pursuing policies that should be rejected by a conservative administration. Moreover, the administration seems to have a weakness toward homosexuals. Not only have there been a number of high level appointments, but the Justice Department, under the leadership of one of the heroes of the religious right, had a so called Gay Pride event. The President signed into law the so-called campaign reform law which has hurt the ability of every pro-family organization to explain to the voters the records of the Members of Congress or the positions of the challenger candidates. Then there is the huge agriculture subsidy bill that undoes most of the excellent "Freedom to Farm" reform effort of 1996, with most of the money going to big farm conglomerates, doing little for the family farm.
And now the Department of Health and Human Services has ruled that the government can share medical records with employers and insurance companies without your consent. And HHS is pushing a plan to deal with 9/11 type medical emergencies that all but does away with any remaining states' rights.
Again, I could go on. You will have to determine which list means the most to you.
But of the many good things the president has done, almost no one knows about them. I was speaking with some Midwest grass roots activists, who pride themselves on knowing what is going on. I read them the list from the White House staff member. They were shocked. They had heard of only about a quarter of the items mentioned. If folks like this haven't heard the good news, it is a lead pipe cinch that folks in the precincts know less.
If the Bush Administration expects to motivate voters for this fall, it had better learn to tell its story, short and sweet. One way that might be done would be for the president to cut a series of radio spots to be played in states where the stakes are high.
But what the heck, my advice on such things is never followed anyway.
Well,you are being quite presumptious if you believe that I am not.
Let's roll to:
A Day In The Life of George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Saudi Arabia
Ethanol = Corn = farmers = Iowa
I was close last time, I'm sure Bush and Rove are making sure it is in the bag next time.
Bush administration proposes $4.5 billion plan for long-term help to African nations - 08/21/2002
Saudis pull $200 billion out of the U.S. economy
Investors pulled a record $49.0 billion from U.S. stock mutual funds in July
Consumer Confidence Hits 9-Month Low
Iraq war to carry a high tab:(100 billion dollars)
Bush spares Kabul, Haiti drug sanctions (billions and billions, down the tube)
A liberal is a socialist who wants to be a communist as soon as they confiscate your guns
I like that (as far as the American use of "liberal" is concerned).
Whose is it?
Just something that popped into my mind.
Who stated the following:
"Government ought to have a policy that helps people with a downpayment."
A. - OR - B.
Why the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts here?
You should have sufficient ammunition to support your argument without distortion and near-lies.
Or maybe it was Fox's statement about us needing to get over our "notions of sovereignty" that I was thinking about when I typed that distortion.
(God bless you for the spoonful of sugar that is your more amusing graphic presentation of the truth these days ... Tasteful. =)
Let's not forget that all of our elected officials are "public servants" not Dukes, Princes, Kings and Queens. Thus, it is for elected representatives to show "respect" to the citizens that put them in office. If they do their job well their "respect" then becomes earned. Too often I've noticed that many people treat their elected officials as Royalty. If that is the message our politicians receive from their constituents then we shouldn't be too surprised when they start acting like they are royalty.
I love that statement. It's supposed to be the conservative coup d'etat in a discussion of the merits of Bush II and his presidencey.
One should quietly agree, and forfeit the match.
I revere Ronald Reagan, I believe his face should be set into stone on Rushmore.
But we forget a lot sometimes.
Ronaldus Maximus knocked down the Berlin Wall, and then brought down the Iron Curtain on an Evil Empire.
He made us feel good about ourselves for the first time in quite a while.
And he quietly "forgot" campaign promises such as the abolishment of the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy somewhere along the way.
As far as bargaining with the Democrats on his terms, Ronald Reagan had landslide elections, that's a mandate, it gave him firm ground to stand on. But a contested election and a Democratic Senate do not. Let's nt mention 9/11 and the economy.
Even at that, Reagan obtained congressional funding for anti-communist guerillas around the world by trading away control of the domestic agenda.
The criticism of Reagan was every bit as intense then, as the one towards Bush is today.
"There is only one problem with that Luis, George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan."
Playing for the Miami Dolphins must suck.
If you're a quaterback, you will never be Marino, and regardless of how many Superbowls you win, you will never be the '72 team.
If you're going to compare Bush to Reagan, then level the playing field.
Remember the history, not the hype.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.