Bush rips Democratic lawmakers' failures

Yahoo ^

[Sub-Driver]

Bush rips Democratic lawmakers' failures

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago

President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Saturday of being unable to live up to their duties, citing Congress' inability to pass legislation to fund the federal government.

"Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "This moment is a test."

The White House has said the failure of a broad immigration overhaul was proof that Democratic-controlled Capitol Hill cannot take on major issues. "We saw this with immigration, and we're seeing it with some other issues where Congress is having an inability to take on major challenges," said spokesman Tony Fratto.

The main reason the immigration measure died, however, was staunch opposition from Bush's own base — conservatives. The president could not turn around members of his own party despite weeks of intense effort.

The immigration bill was the top item on Bush's domestic agenda. With its demise, Bush was left to focus on the annual appropriations process and reining in federal spending.

Twelve annual spending bills dole out approximately one-third of the federal budget. They must be passed each year by Congress, before the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year, but lawmakers began considering this year's batch just in mid-June. The House has passed half and the full Senate has not yet taken up any.

"Democrats have a chance to prove they are for open and transparent government by working to complete each spending bill independently and on time," Bush said. "I urge Democrats in Congress to step forward now and pass these bills one at a time. "

[Weeedley]

If we get behind a duck not only lame but a double amputee, the republican party will be in more shambles that it is now and that insures a rat infested WH in 2008.

[the808bass]

And you’re here bashing Bush. Some of you EVERY DAY.

A lack of leadership is not something to be praised. He is one of the worst communicators we have had as President in the TV era. He has no cohesive agenda. He has few guiding principles to the naked eye. His pragmatism, cloaked in compassionate conservatism, has accomplished little other than tax cuts and two good Supreme Court justices (through no fault of his own -cough- Harriet Miers -cough-).

[kabar]

And they were joined by 15 Dem senators who voted against cloture.

[TomGuy]

Conservatives *DID* that. It doesn’t mean you continually bash the guy.

When he is doing the same damn dumb thing over and over, you do.

Someone defined stupid as doing the same thing over and expecting a different result.

And he has tried to push amensty for illegals now 3 times since 2006. Recall that it died in the late spring of this year. Who pushed to revive it? The White House, when GWBush made a special, unprecedented trip to Capitol Hill to push it and sent his posse back to Capitol Hill to arm-twist the week of the final vote.

So, yah, he deserves the criticism because who did he blame in this radio address? The Democrats. The 'Congress he could work with'.

[Corin Stormhands]

It does not negate the fact that some of you...many of you here on FR are attacking this President for things that you didn’t care to attack when he was running for President.

Oh get over your rolling eyes. The only point about you being new is your ignorance of what actually went on here in 2000 and 2004.

We were here. You weren't.

OF COURSE we supported him in 2004. That doesn't mean we supported his entire agenda. He was CLEARLY the better choice than Kerry and Gore and we STILL prefer to have him as President than either one of those buffoons. And we have supported him steadfastly in the war on terror.

That does not negate the fact that on many, many, many issues, HE has abandoned his conservative base.

And it ain't just the liberal media telling us his polls are low. We know they're low because WE PUT THEM THERE.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I never claimed to be speaking for everyone on FR. Even in those discussions there were two sides.

I'm merely addressing your ignorance because you don't know what went on here back then.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

[SIDENET]

(rolls eyes)

[texastoo]

Awwwwww. They didn't get 'a Congress we can work with' after all in 06.

Tch, tch, tch. Ol Bush , Tony and Rove were so happy that the Dems. would be easier to work with and they would get fat boy Teddy's comprehensive bill passed. The Republicans passed the comprehensive bill in the Senate in 2005 but the House dumped it in 2005. However, it looks like these 3 fools will keep on trying to pass Mexican bills (major issue) for socialisation of the continent.

[Lakeshark]

The democrats are making a mess of this country with their control of Congress and their hundreds of subpoenas and demands for hearings. And you’re here bashing Bush.

Well said.

I hated what he did with the immi bill. Just hated it.

But to go along with the destruction of all things Republican, and simply join those libs destroying W is short sighted beyond belief. A straighter line to Hillary as Pres with a Democrat congress can't be made than the let's destroy W crowd here, and most of the posters you are talking about will howl about the W "betrayal" all the way to Hill's inauguration.......

[Lancey Howard]

So Bush is finally attacking the party that has been attempting to destroy him for six years? Huh..... Interesting.
Better late than never.

[TomGuy]

to falsely claim that it was a big campaign issue in 2000 and 2004

Learn to read.

I never said that. Actually, just the opposite was true -- both parties hid the problem. That doesn't mean they were not pushing it as an agenda. And why did Bush wait until AFTER the 2004 election to start his secretive meetings with the Canadian and Mexican leaders regarding NAU/SPP/TransHighway?

[Joe Boucher]

“President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Saturday of being unable to live up to their duties,”
And what about your f-ing responsibility to protect our borders Mr. President?

[laurie_d]

AMEN!!

Very well said. Bravo.

[A.A. Cunningham]

We only loathe lazy newbies.

[laurie_d]

You’ll fit in well with the Bush bashing crowd here on FR.

[laurie_d]

lazy? Because I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of most of you?

Ahhh.... ooookay.

[grey_whiskers]

Umm, Laurie?

It's generally considered good form to give specifics rather than blanket statements.

Could you, for example:

--Give several campaign promises or pledges to which *you* objected:
--Give quotes from specific FReepers about those promises, and quotes later on showing the FReeper had backed down on their objections?

Cheers!

[Lakeshark]

Ggod luck here........unfortunately you are witnessing the conservative crack up in action, and these folks don't understand they are being Moby'd and used to put Hillary in office.

Don't bother with every little objection from the haters, just take on the important ones.

And try to keep your sanity...

:-)

[grey_whiskers]

If we get behind a duck not only lame but a double amputee,

Quadriplegic is more like it. Or even:

"It's just a flesh wound!"

"And I would have got away with it except for you meddling ...
TALK RADIO HOSTS!"

Cheers!

[laurie_d]

lol, will do. (good advice)

:)