36 months - the Bush record

January 12, 2004 | Texasforever

[MissAmericanPie]

You say Bush never lied about being soft on immigration, well he never trumpeted it either. Bush's statement, "I want to see a free trade zone from the north of canada to the tip of cape horn", isn't lying about his intent to destroy our sovereignty and Constitution with the FTA treaty either, but the devil is in the details isn't it, and the details are not laid on the table.

It doesn't matter if he passed a poison apple tax cut, walked on water, and saved babies from burning buildings with one hand. It's what that other hand is doing behind his back and ours that should be of concern. And you really should be concerned.

[Jumper]

It is still far better that a republican sits at the control of this Country, even in conservative conservatism by way of taking the media-punch out of the democrat message. The democrats have only one voice in opposition to President Bush and that lone voice is anti-military, anti-war, anti-christian, pro-abortion, pro-gay in its skewed orientation. Bush is the man who will leave Hillary's aspirations flowing as tears in the gutter of her improvished mind.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...Why do I get the feeling that a lot of the anti-Bush posters here are either DU tourists or part of that whopping .003 percent of the Libertarian electorate?...

Because you have only just come to the party and don't know that many of the guests were in the trenches years before and are well aware of evrything that has transpired.

They cry out not in ignorance but in knowledge.

Knowledge of the depth of betrayal of the entire government, of whom, Bush, is just another cog in the great machine.

[Protagoras]

Why do I get the feeling that a lot of the anti-Bush posters here are either DU tourists or part of that whopping .003 percent of the Libertarian electorate?

Because you are in denial. Whistling past the graveyard.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Because you are in denial. Whistling past the graveyard.

I guess we'll both find out in November when Bush carries every state except the District of Columbia.

[Protagoras]

We will find nothing out about your original comment, no matter what happens in the future.

[Johnny_Cipher]

By my original comment, did you mean "Why do I get the feeling that a lot of the anti-Bush posters here are either DU tourists or part of that whopping .003 percent of the Libertarian electorate?" Well, considering that a feeling would indeed be difficult to "prove" either way, I guess you're right.

[DustyMoment]

I'm a life-long Republican but, for the life of me, I don't know what makes a Republican - ANY Republican - in the WH better than a Dem. Sure, I know that if a Dem were in the WH (Gore . . . yuck!), 911 would have gone unpunished, there would be no War on Terrorism and we would be under daily attack by the Muslims and the nutjobs. However, it is unlikely that we would also have:
1) CFR
2) TSA
3) Unfunded Medicare Prescription Entitlement
4) Useless Dept. of Homeland Security
5) Exorbitant Agriculture Spending Bill
6) Steel Tariffs
7) Crappy Education Bill
8) A lousy "Immigration Reform" proposal on the table that rewards lawbreakers and invaders
9) Unable to accomplish his agenda
10) Won't fight for his judicial nominees
11) Abandoned his proposal to privatize a tiny portion of SS

I know that custom requires the party in the WH not to rock the boat by fielding a challenger to the Oval Office Occupant, but I would love to see one. Bush knows that many Republicans are unhappy with him, but he also knows he has nothing to fear because we are more afraid of a Dem in the WH. I'm quickly reaching the point that, based on policiy, it doesn't really matter if the WH occupant has a D or an R after their name; each is about as bad as the other.

And before you start, I know that whomever is in the WH won't do only the things that make me happy; compromise is part of politics. However, there is compromise and there is selling out. Bush, IMO, has co-opted the Dems' agenda and claims it as his own in order to win points; points he's not gaining because he has the R after his name. All he's accomplishing is turning off a lot of conservatives who have been in his corner and bought into this notion of a Republican at any cost. I'm not sure, anymore. I don't see a major difference other than the War on Terror.

And, I'm not sure that's enough.

[Jumper]

Dusty...:

Freedom of Religion vs. Freedom from Religion, Socialism vs. Capitalism is the difference. On the daily scene we still slip, at a slower rate, towards socialism and Freedom From but I have lived in Europe the past four years and I will tell you socialism and freedom from sucks.

[Mr. Mojo]

6. I am sure there are others but these appear to be the main ones discussed

Also his promise to sign the AWB renewal (if it reaches his desk) has been the subject of much discussion. But that shouldn't surprise anyone; he made that intention plain during the 2000 campaign.

36 months

And ZERO vetoes.

Good post, btw.

[PRND21]

bttt

[MEGoody]

Sorry, but your information is misleading at best. The $15M was approved by CONGRESS and hadn't gotten to Bush as yet. As soon as I saw that error, I didn't bother reading anything else.

[MEGoody]

"SHUT THE DOOR IN 2004 Vote Tancredo."

And ensure one of the 9 dwarves gets elected.

Well, you'll have to live with the guilt, not me.

[DustyMoment]

"On the daily scene we still slip, at a slower rate, towards socialism and Freedom From . . ."

I couldn't agree more. I was 12 when I last lived in Europe; that was a loooooooonnnnnnnggggg time ago. It's a different Europe today, one that no longer bears any resemblance to the one in which I lived. Prior to the War on Terror, I had a soft spot in my heart for Europe - but, no longer. Welcome back to whatever remains of the freedom and capitalist system we have left.

[Texasforever]

Tancredo gets my vote. Too bad I live in Maryland

Good for you. I wasn't trying to persuade anyone with this I was just trying to add some perspective.

[Vision]

I wasn't trying to persuade anyone with this I was just trying to add some perspective

Oh, don't worry. Bush has done all the persuading for you.

[Texasforever]

Oh, don't worry. Bush has done all the persuading for you.

Carry on.

[Texasforever]

Bush, IMO, has co-opted the Dems' agenda and claims it as his own in order to win points; points

Oh come on. Either you are being coy or you didn't listen to Bush during his 2000 campaign or research his history as governor of Texas. Every one of the "sell-outs" I listed at the front of this article Bush campaigned on from education to the Medicare plan. Because you were possibly uninformed does not mean he "sold you out". Bush has done more in 36 months to put conservative policies into place instead of just rhetoric than Regan did in 8 years.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Well, you'll have to live with the guilt, not me.

I'll sleep like a baby with Jorge out of the Whitehouse. Perhaps the Senate and House will remember they're supposed to be REPUBLICANS and hold one of the dwarves in check.

[DustyMoment]

I appreciate your allegiance to Bush, but don't sell me short. I voted for Bush to be Texas Gov. I voted for his dad to be President. I voted for Bush to be President and I voted for Jeb to be FL Gov.

Bush campaigned on restoring the dignity and prestige of the WH (which he has done), on privatizing a portion of SS (which he has abandoned) and on cutting taxes (which he has also done). He also campaigned on restoring the military (which he has also done). He DID NOT campaign on passing the highest Agriculture spending bill in history for an agency that doesn't produce a single food product. He didn't campaign on introducing unreasonable steel tariffs that made the union workers feel good but took us to the brink of a trade war, nor did he campaign on introducing an unfunded Medicare entitlement for prescription drugs (although he did campaign on providing a prescription drug benefit for old farts). He didn't campaign on creating a useless, bloated organization such as TSA that provides no better service than the private screeners did, nor did he campaign on increasing the size of government by creating the Dept. of Homeland Security which merged 20+ agencies into one without cutting a single redundant function in any of those agencies. Further, he didn't campaign on the cool idea of ERODING OUR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION by allowing his RINO pal McCain to get CFR through the Congress.

I agree, that Bush has done a great job in prosecutiong the War on Terror and removing our support for the abominable Kyoto Accord, but clinging to him for those makes this, essentially, a race with very few plusses and gives him a pass on everything else he has done. All I am suggesting is that we conservatives take a step into the sunlight, remove our rose colored glasses and assess Bush objectively; leaving all of the other hysteria behind. When you assess his first term in office objectively, what I see is a president who won't fight for the things that are important (getting his judicial nominees approved; privatizing SS as notable examples). In an effort to appease the Dems, he has allowed Teddy Chappaquiddick to author an atrocious Education Bill that he supported and he has allowed John McCain to author a Bill that memorializes Vicente Fox's idea of "immigration reform". Having completely failed to veto a single bill that has come across his desk, I seriously have to wonder if he even knows how to spell veto?

If we take these issues and call them things that Clinton did, we would be screaming for his head. But, because Bush did these things and we are petrified of turning the WH over to a Dem, we are willing to give him a pass and change the topic by saying "Yeah, but, the War on Terrorism . . . (blah, blah, blah)". We need to have some perspective. I don't want to see another Dem in the WH any time soon, but I'm also not enchanted with the policies of this president. Taking his entire record into account, there is little difference that I can see between him and a Dem.

AS for the differences between Bush and Reagan, let's be frank: Bush is no Reagan. I applaud Bush for being able to overcome the obstructionists in Congress and improve the economy that Clinton gave us. But, this economy doesn't begin to approach that of the one we had under Reagan. As long as Bush allows jobs to be exported, it is questionable how long the recovery will last. Businesses are still closing their doors and people are still losing their jobs; it's just occurring at a slower rate.

Perspective. Let's look at the whole enchilada, not just the part sitting on top of the plate.