Replies

Not to deny that he has any. But asides from the marginal tax cut, and the hopefully strict constructionist judges, I am forced to ask: Such as?

First and foremost. Bush's tax cuts (plural) were not marginal. They were enormous, when combined together, from a historical perspective. From the Tax foundation:

Tax Legislation Tax Cut in Billions of Current Dollars (a) Tax Cut in Billions of Constant 2003 Dollars Tax Cut as a Percent of National Income (b) Surplus or Deficit (-) as a Percentage of National Income (b)

The Kennedy Tax Cut (Revenue Act of 1964) ($11.50) ($54.90) -1.90% -1.00%

The Reagan Tax Cut (Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) ($38.30) ($68.70) -1.40% -2.80%

Bush Tax Cuts:

Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 ($73.80) ($75.80) -0.80% 1.50%

Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 ($51.20) ($52.00) -0.60% -1.70%

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 ($60.80) ($60.80) -0.60% -3.20%

2001, 2002 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts if Combined in 2003 NA ($188.10) -2.00%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html

This is WHY the economy has reacted the way it has.

the running roughshod over a balanced budget with his deficits

The FY2006 Budget Deficit Was $248 Billion/1.9 Percent Of GDP, Down From An Original February Projection Of $423 Billion/3.2 Percent Of GDP. At this level, the deficit is 0.4 percent below the 40-year average of 2.3 percent of GDP.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061011-6.html

This, despite fighting two hot wars on the other side of the world, and spending billions more on homeland security and building up the military.

and his trampling of fiscal sanity with the prescription meds, and his misconcieved increased federalizing of education

Bush ran on both of those issues in 2000. And on those I can agree they are liberal. However, Bush has supported school vouchers, charter schools, metric and testing, school choice and non discrimination against religious schools--which are all conservative positions. In addition, all the libs keep screaming that "no child left behind" is severely underfunded. So he obviously ain't follwoing the dems party line. He did what he said he would do.

not to mention the McCain/Feingold constitutional travesty

Yes McCain Feingold is an unconstitutional POS, and needs to be axed. The President had deep reservations about it and should not ahve signed it, instead hoping the court would expunge the unconstituional parts. Bush signing was a crappy deal he made with McCain to get McCain's campaign support in 2000. A faustian bargain, but one that resulted in GWB and not Algore being CIC. And for all of MFs sound and fury it did NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to reduce money flowing to campaigns. It did not reduce ad money, it did not stop Moveon.org or the the Swiftboatvets or the NRA, it did not silence talk radio, it did not stop editorials, it did not limit campaign stops, rallies doorbelling, billboards, debates, TV appearnaces, etc, etc. So the effect that McCain Feingold had was the exact same effect, as all smart people knew it would be, that all the other dozens of unconstitutional campaign finance laws have done over the decades; namely nothing.

His multiculturalism is clearly liberal

What the hell does that mean? Did Bush create a dept of Multiculturalism. Did he start hiring diversity advisers? It's a nonsensical statement.

His Feminist rights stance in the military is clearly liberal

What are you smoking? Did Bush put a bunch of nags in charge of the Pentagon? Hire nags for the joint Chiefs? Order women into combat positions? Hire sensitivity coaches for the Military?

Bush could bypass new torture ban Waiver right is reserved

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief...

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

Bush caught a ton of flack for that, but he stood his ground.

His endorsement and continued pushing for totalization with Mexico is clearly liberal.

This is that globalist nonsense again. He's pushing no such thing, despite what the Jerome Corsi's & Savages of the world think. This ntion that he is a puppet of the Mexicans is absurd. He has allowed executions of mexicans by state governments DESPITE the howls of protest from Vincente and the boys. And despite the big brouhaha over the two recently sentenced BP agents, there have been MANY BP agent shootings of mezcans that were not prosecuted, much less reprimanded. Does Bush get credit for that? Nope, only if something bad happens, then the Birchers come out and protest.

His use of the liberal Harriet Meiers for his General Counsel for 6 years has severely damaged countless conservative causes, from sabotaging the reversing of affirmative action, to creating a climate where the Kelo decision could even happen.

Bush has had a VERY strong record on judge nominees, and obviously, Harriet Meiers was leading the screening process. Whether or not she herself was qualified, is certainly debatable (I certainly think he should not have selected her), but the federal bench has moved in the best direction under Bush than under any POTUS in recent history. And blaming Bush for Kelo is such a stretch that its not worth refuting.