Bush Presidency is Advancing the Progressive Agenda

Sierra Times ^ | 6-17-03 | John Bender

[Zack Nguyen]

While he was governor of Texas he grew the government of Texas more than Clinton grew the federal government in the same 8 years. According to the Wall street Journal, during Bush’s 8 years as governor he grew the state government more that every state except one.

This is true. IF anyone had bothered to look at his Texas record they would have understood immediately that Bush likes to spend money. Lots of it. I live in Texas, and the budget growth under his administration was simply staggering.

But in Texas, no one cared, partially because state government just isn't a big concern, and partially because the economy was good and taxes never had to be raised.

Bush would never be able to get away with many of his policies as President were it not for the war. I have a pretty good sense of his supporters, and I can tell you that nothing matters more to them than national honor and security. I feel the same way. This trumps all else, and gives Bush a wide berth to massively increase spending, further federalize education, sign a viciously unconstitutional campaign "reform" bill, and so on.

Now having said all that, I will almost certainly vote for Bush in 2004, unless he neames a pro-choice running mate. I doubt it will be an issue.

[DeathfromBelow]

"All W had to do was to re-hire her and, perhaps, re-instate her in her 'non-political' job. After all she WAS a 'whistle blower'. "

She was an audio taper of a "whistle blower" Clintoon's whistle to be exact. and why in the world should the president be concerned about some low level employee who was "fired" by her agency. as though that is all he had to worry about. Right

[ApesForEvolution]

There's no doubt there is a very well crafted agenda by the author of this piece. The problem is, when you add in what's missing, it still isn't a pretty picture. But then you never in a million years would admit that, which is why you have zero credibility.

You wouldn't say "Bush is wrong on (insert socialist clap-trap initiative here)" if you had a mouth full.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Please read my comment. Note, her assignment ended on Jan. 19 because she was a 'political appointee'. All W had to do the following day was to allow her to continue. Many political appointees are allowed to do so.

And, if you say it ain't so, check the current State Dept.'s spokesman. He had exactly the same job under Clinton. I suspect he resigned on Jan 19 and he was then re-hired on Jan. 20.

If you want me to say that Clinton/Bush fired Linda Tripp... then I have no problem with that.

[No Dems 2004]

This article, IMO, is intended to denigrate President Bush's legacy rather than to extol it. Sounds like a typical Californian pundit - full 'o nonsense. President Bush has made his mistakes, yes, but he's been an exceptionally good President in most ways. I'm no fan of big government, but I don't think Mr. Bush is either.

He's got my support for a second term.

[Mr. Mojo]

This article doesn't even mention his pro-Mexican immigration policy, to match his pro-Israel foreign policy and pro-Communist education policy.

I despise Bush's immigration and education policies, but what's the matter with supporting the only democracy in the Middle East? Would you rather him have a pro-Arab dictatorship policy?

[Zack Nguyen]

As I explained, Gore would have been blocked by the Congress.

This is certainly true. Bush has re-aligned his party.

[G.Mason]

"Oh, don't rain on the Bush-Bashers' parade. They have so little of substance to stand on...just vapid comments based on nothing of reality."

I stand here in amazement, reading these posts and wondering why all the venom.

It would seem many have little reality as to what era, and with just how many factions in America, we are living with.

A human condition, I'm afraid.

Who would these "true conservatives" vote for?

If I remember correctly, Pat Buchanan was shot off the radar screen, along with Phil Grahm, Tom DeLay, Ron Paul, Dick Armey, and Bob Barr etc etc.

[ApesForEvolution]

"Snappy" comebacks represent the majority of your arsenal Howlin...

[Howlin]

I did read your comment.

This is what you said:

Did anyone mention that he fired Linda Tripp as soon as he got himself installed at his desk?

That's a flat out lie.

But keep using it to push your liberal agenda.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

and why in the world should the president be concerned about some low level employee who was "fired" by her agenc

Thank you for supporting my point. W couldn't give a rat's ass about 'little people', like Linda. Even little people that risked their career to help him win the presidency.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

First, you complain that Bush's tax cut is ineffective because the states and local governments will increase their taxes to compensate. After reading that complaint, I can only come to the conclusion that:

1)You don't believe federal taxes should be cut for any reason or,

2) It is possible you believe only your pet federal programs should be cut, and

3)You don't believe the states have the right to govern as they see fit.

Lowering taxes while spending more is INSANITY.

Lowering taxes is never a bad thing!

You are right about one thing. There is definitely some INSANITY going on here.

[dsutah]

Uh, excuse me, but didn't Bill Clinton fire Linda Tripp? Or cause her to get fired? If I remember right at that time, Linda Tripp liked GWB, and was glad he was in! I think you're a little confused!

[Howlin]

Tune into Rush today he will talk about the good things Bush has done that no rat would of done

Oh, good. Then after Rush's show, you'll be able to answer deport's question, right? As soon as Rush tells you what to say, right?

[RightWhale]

That's a good metaphor. Don't buck the tide, sailing takes some finesse.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

what's the matter with supporting the only democracy in the Middle East? Would you rather him have a pro-Arab dictatorship policy?

None, for as long as we aren't pushed to fight their wars while paying them to watch us fight. But this should be (and was) the topic of another/many others thread.

[ex-snook]

So what changed? You wouldn't know that the Bush being criticized now is the same Bush that has been doing these same things since he got elected.

So what has Bush suddenly done to cause this barrage to raise the Bush 'negatives'? The only change I can see is the Bush effort for peace with his roadmap. Anyone see anything else? But let's see if Bush straightens out and gets back to being 'a war time President', if the negative barrage will cease.

[SUSSA]

The article also fails to mention that Bush gave Red China Most Favored Nation status while they were selling munitions to the Taliban we were fighting in Afghanistan. This was just days after he said that nations were either with us in the war or against us.

[Howlin]

Who would these "true conservatives" vote for?

Well, there you have the problem: they have NO candidate; they never voted for Bush, never even thought about it, and won't next time.

In the meantime, they intend to divide as much as they can.

[dsutah]

You know, I think I stumbled into a colony of pure Bush hate. At least there are some like you who will defend him from time to time. I thought all of this 'hate' wasn't worthy of "Freepers". But I guess I was wrong! Apparently, there is a 'clique' of them that do. It's sad though; but there is no getting through to some of them.