Posted on 02/27/2004 1:01:58 AM PST by kattracks
President Bush fired back at his Democratic critics Monday night. After being a sitting duck for the slings and arrows fired at him by the Hate Bush Brigade, the White House says the President plans to go on the offensive.
Its about time. We need to see a tough, straight-talking, Texas-style George Bush hammering away at his detractors. He also needs to reach out to his conservative base and remind them of whats at stake in this election, because he has a problem with a lot of them.
In recent weeks my conservative listeners have been talking about the same things Kerry and Edwards have been talking about. Theyre talking about jobs even though the unemployment rate is only 5.6 percent. Theyre talking about outsourcing, theyre talking about amnesty for illegal aliens these are the things that people who listen to talk radio are concerned about.
Their reaction to the Presidents handling of these issues should be a warning sign for the President. Conservatives are calling my show and telling me that they are not going to vote for George Bush because of his stand on amnesty or outsourcing, for example. And this simply amazes me. I ask them if they arent going to vote to re-elect George Bush are they going to vote for the Democrat? And the answer is inevitably, "NO! Im not going to vote for anybody. Im going to stay home on Election Day."
My reply is if you stay home and George Bush doesnt win re-election and instead Kerry or whoever the Democrat candidate is gets elected, do you think things are going to get really better? And their answer is, "Well, no, but I want to take a stand."
They should remember Custer. He too took a stand. It was his last.
That just stuns me because its utterly irrational. They dont understand they are taking a stand against themselves. By not voting they only help elect a liberal Democrat who wants to raise their taxes, enact all kinds of new spending programs. They would also endanger the nation by their already demonstrated ineptness and weakness in the war on terror, and hand over Iraq to the United Nations so it can create the same kind of mess we are now seeing in Haiti another UN and Clinton "success."
They are wearing blinders that only allow them to focus on one issue. They say they wont vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on one single issue even though he agrees with them on every other issue. Its utterly self-defeating.
Even though they staunchly support George Bush on his stands on tax cuts, how he is fighting the war, and applaud his pro-life policies, they disagree with him on the amnesty issue, for example, and therefore cant bring themselves to vote for him.
Theyll just stay home and help elect a Democrat who disagrees with them on just about everything. Theyd enact socialist programs that would cripple U.S. industry, yet some of my listeners applaud them not realizing that if you drive a companys profits down, you drive the value of their stock down and the millions of Americans whose 401Ks are invested in that firm suffer losses as a result.
When President Bush goes on the offensive, hes going to have to remind Americans that if they want to pay low prices for the goods they need, the reason they are going to have to look overseas is because Democrats in Congress have so regulated American companies that the cost of doing business has risen. Thats due to the unions and government regulations that have become so prohibitive.
Whats the Democrat answer? Well, they say theyd make foreign nations enact the same kind of onerous regulatory and environmental burdens we have here that would force the prices of their goods up to the same level as ours. In other words, wreck their own economies to make John Kerry or some other demagogue look good.
Fat chance.
Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Premiere Radio Network.
Democrats will use that KY JellyNo, the Dems will do it to us sans the lube.
Sean spewed out his usual criticisms of the President's policies. Too much spending, medicare prescriptions, blah blah blah, education bill, more blah blah blah and then concluded with how important it will be to re-elect the President.
With friends like Sean and certain others, who needs enemies. We are doing the job for the media and the america haters.
What have the republicans done to solve this problem?
Here it Is:...
'Why Is Bush Perpetuating Clinton Policies? - May 21, 2003
Why is President George W. Bush continuing policies that were initiated by Bill Clinton? The voters elected Bush to change obnoxious Clinton policies, and they don't understand why Bush is keeping the following seven in force.
One example is the Clinton Administration's abolition of the Army's "Risk Rule," which had exempted women in support units from areas that involve "inherent risk of capture." That policy change, ordered by the Clinton feminists, is the reason why a single mother of two very young children was killed in the Iraq war and another single mother of a two-year-old was taken as a POW.
When asked if this sending-moms-to-war policy might be changed, Bush said at his news conference, "That's going to be up to the generals." When Ari Fleischer fielded the follow-up questions, he accused the reporter of "dealing with a hypothetical."
But Jessica, Lori and Shoshana are not hypotheticals. They, and Shoshana's 2-year-old baby and Lori's three- and four-year-olds, are all victims of a Clinton policy that Bush could change with a stroke of his pen. But, according to Fleischer, this hasn't risen "to a higher policy level."
What's a higher policy level than defending mothers of infants against being killed or captured by the axis of evil? Keeping faith with a shameful Clinton policy? Fear of the frightful feminists who applaud our government giving Jessica, Lori and Shoshana their career opportunities on the battlefield, and who assert that mothers are fully deployable a few months after giving birth?
Why doesn't Bush terminate other Clinton rules that impose the feminist agenda on the military, such as coed basic training? The Army Training Command admitted that coed basic training, which is gender- normed to reduce female injuries, is "not efficient" and of no military value. That gave Bush a great chance to liberate the Army from Clinton's foolish policy. Without presidential leadership, the generals are certainly not going to act on their own.
Nor, without a presidential decision, will the generals overturn Clinton's convoluted "don't ask, don't tell" enforcement regulations, which a federal Court of Appeals found to be inconsistent with the 1993 law banning homosexuals from the military.
The feminists in the Clinton Department of Education engaged in aggressive enforcement of Title IX, using bureaucratically invented words and rules that were not authorized by the statute. They used Title IX to punish men by forcing colleges to abolish 171 wrestling teams and hundreds of men's teams in gymnastics, swimming, golf and even football.
President Bush appointed a commission to study the distortions of Title IX, but he foolishly gave some of the commission seats to feminists, and they used the media to grandstand for their side of the controversy. Secretary of Education Rod Paige then announced he would not implement any changes that were not unanimously recommended, so Clinton's anti-male policies about college athletics will continue under Bush.
The Clinton Administration persuaded Congress to pass a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles in 1994, and the ban will sunset next year. Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to continue the ban and, to the shock of the National Rifle Association, Bush announced that he supports the Democrats' bill.
President Bush seems to have forgotten that his steadfast support of Second Amendment rights was the main reason he carried the Democratic states of Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia in November 2000. If he had lost any one of those, Al Gore would be president.
Then there is the matter of Clinton sending U.S. troops to Bosnia and its relation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty which Clinton's emissaries enthusiastically helped to write and Clinton signed as one of his last official acts. Bush had a wonderful opportunity to withdraw our troops from Bosnia when the ICC impudently asserted jurisdiction over Americans even though Bush had "unsigned" the ICC Treaty.
For a brief few days, Bush stood tall for the protection of American service personnel by threatening to pull our troops out of Bosnia unless the United Nations promised us immunity from the ICC. But then he wobbled, accepting a lame compromise that left the U.S. with the almost impossible task of trying to negotiate separate immunity agreements with the 139 ICC countries, while at the same time keeping our troops on duty in Bosnia as a fig leaf to cover the ethnic hostility that is still as bitter and dangerous as ever.
Another Clinton policy, Executive Order 13166, requires all government agencies, and all entities receiving federal funds (such as doctors and hospitals), to provide their services in any foreign language demanded by a client. The perfect opportunity to rescind this costly unfunded mandate was served up when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that no one has a right to demand government services in languages other than English.
But President Bush chose to continue Clinton's pandering to non- English speaking minorities. Regrettably, Bush breathed new life into Clinton's EO 13166 with all its follies and costs.
We're still hoping for a repudiation these Clinton policies.
Phyllis Schlafly is the author of "Feminist Fantasies" (Spence Pub. Co., 2003)
Hmmm,...must be that ivy league 'Efite Elitism'...gets them RINOs every tyme, parsley & sage...hey, wake-up GWB!, the Party's Over...time to get Conservative!
(uh,...skully & bonesy said i wouldn't haf t'worry 'bout conservatism...isnt that like roomatism?)
The person(s) with the blinders on is George Bush and the Republican party.
I have to laugh (bitterly) at the fools who say that we former GW supporters are just focusing on one or two little issues that aren't important.
If I have a job tomorrow whose wages are enough for me to pay my bills, that is damn important to me and my family!
If I keep this job or it goes to a slave labor camp in Red China or a PhD in India that makes 20 grand a year, it matters to me!
If President Bush's amnesty plan goes into effect and my company decides to cut my wages and benefits in half so my job becomes a "job no American wants" and former illegals are brought in to take over, it matters to me!
If my kids have a reason to go to college with the expectation of learning a profession that will ensure a decent, better than average life, that also matters!
The Republican party is so enslaved to big business interests that it is sickening. I'm sure every free traitor, Wall Street hustler and greedy CEO scumball in the country will vote for GW. And apparently that is the one and only interest group that President Bush and the GOP care about.
I have heard many Republicans on this board say that Mr. Bush doesn't need my vote and that is fine with me.
Seeing as how GW won the first time in such a huge landslide, /sarcasm go right ahead GOP, Rove, and GW, keep kicking working white and blue collar people in the nads and you will get what you deserve on election day!
Just tell me one more time how great it is when my middle class job gets outsourced or off-shored so some filthy rich CEO can buy three or four new mansions and I end up as a door greeter at the Great Wall-mart!
Yeah that ought to do it!
At least with a demoRat president the GOP would fight against their one world, socialist, liberal policies, unlike now when their own President leads them by the nose down the same leftest path.
Shouldn't that be 'hairy kerry'???????????
"... because, other than the War on Terror: Bush ain't done nothin'!"
"... because other than the War on Terror, and cutting income taxes: Bush ain't done nothin'!"
"... because other than the War on Terror, cutting income taxes and helping to make the Partial Birth Abortion Ban possible: Bush ain't done nothin'!"
"... because other than the War on Terror, cutting income taxes, helping to make the Partial Birth Abortion Ban possible and standing up to the aggressive pro-gay, anti-family lobby: Bush ain't done nothin'!"
"... because other than the War on Terror, cutting income taxes, helping to make the Partial Birth Abortion Ban possible, standing up to the aggressive pro-gay lobby and recess appointing conservative jurists to the federal courts: Bush ain't done nothin'!"
"Don't confuse me with the facts! I'M PRINCIPLED, DAMMIT!"
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.