Bush Presidency is Advancing the Progressive Agenda

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

[SUSSA]

Nothing changed except that people are starting to see Bush for what he is.

[ApesForEvolution]

OK. In reality, with the proof in the pudding already tasted, we now officially have two major choices in America:

Communistislamofascist (RAT) or Socialist Light (aka compassionate conservatism) (GOP)

[G.Mason]

Re:140 posted on 06/17/2003 11:10 AM EDT by TigerTale

Very well said!

[TLBSHOW]

Good try but as I said Rush should talk about the good Bush has done, why we don't ever want more rats elected because that good would not of been done and why socialism is not what America needs to become. Oh and that we should let Bush know we are not happy with the direction he is going over this issue.

Because no matter how many times he caves to the rats they will still bash us and Bush.

[SUSSA]

Bush's tax cuts were offset by his tax increases. You are right that state taxes have nothing to do with federal taxes and the two should be kept seperate.

My problem with his tax policy is, Bush's tax cuts are mostly future cuts but his tax increases are right now.

[Howlin]

Good try but as I said Rush should talk about the good Bush has done

Actually this is EXACTLY what you said:

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

[deport]

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

---

The above is your words...... not mine.

So in effect they are incorrect. Clinton fired Ms. Tripp not President Bush. True he didn't rehire her as he didn't rehire others as normal in any Presidency.... False accusations from a so called right winger.... lol

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Clinton fired Linda on Jan 19. W's no re-hiring her on Jan 20, the way he re-hired the State Dept's spokesman, for example, was as good as firing her.

I do admit that, technically, it is true that W's administration did not fire Linda Tripp. But, for all intents and purposes, they did and they know they did. It was in their power to 'reverse' Clinton's firing her and they didn't.

I give you another example, all cabinet resigns at the beginning of a president second term. The prez. then accepts some resignations and not others. Those whose resignations are accepted are in effect fired.

[No Dems 2004]

"This board SKEWERED Clinton daily (rightfully so!) for the same kind of policymaking. Now, because Bush has an (R) after his name, he can do no wrong. It's sad to realize that the ideologs on the right are no different in principle from those on the left: If it's "our guy," find a way to justify whatever he does."

I can't agree with your assessment. Yes, President Bush definitely plays politics, and that isn't right, but he's not the personification of the caricature you are presenting here. Don't forget the brighter side of things: His personal life seems very clean (after Klinton, this is a must!), he frequently appoints (and re-appoints) staunch right-wingers like Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owen, Bill Pryor and Tymothy Tymkovich to the federal courts. He's done many things to express his opposition to abortion, both through legislation and judicial nominations. He vocally supports abstinence and marriage, in spite of having only slim support for it in Congress. He's the staunchest supporter of the death penalty we've probably ever had in the White House (the first 3 federal executions in 40 years have taken place under his watch - 2 of which were minorities. Bill Klinton stayed the execution of them, simply because he was Hispanic). He very courageously stood against global popular opinion during the Iraq war and was and still is demonised for it. The list goes on. Yes, his approach to homosexuality has been disappointing, for sure. Yet, how often do you hear him verbally promoting it like Klinton or Gore did? He refuses to sign 'Gay Pride Month' year after year. The White House endorsed the recent Texas DOM Act which banned both gay marriage and civil unions. The President also refused to reprove Senator Santorum, though he surely should have done more to support him, I know.

Yet, people accuse Bush of being no different from Klinton. I encourage those people to sit back and very calmly think back to what the Klinton presidency was really like. Do you know why the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most liberal Appeals Court in the country? Dig a little and have a look at the percentage of Clinton appointees that are on that court (I'll tell you that he didn't appoint very many Bill Pryors or Charles Pickerings). Have a look at his 2 US Supreme Court appointees, openly called moderates but with a radically liberal voting record. Think back to the "I have one thing to say to American people . . ." speech. Think to the Starr Report and the unsuccessful impeachment trial in the Senate. Think of that whole era that stripped America of its moorings like never before. And then ask you if President Bush has done the same. You'll be out of your poor minds if you think we're no better off now than before.

[TomServo]

Actually this is EXACTLY what you said:

Don't bother. He's always right. (/chortle)

[deport]

There is a balance here but no conservative in their right mind can support the socialist agenda and not slam bush over it.

---

But coreless people will support him for re-election come May 2004 while calling him a Socialist, UN Man, etc. Yep you have principle it seems....

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Lowering taxes is never a bad thing!

Really? Let's start with the extreme. The taxes are cut to 0% and spending is doubled. Would that be a good thing?

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

You and I both know there would be a revolt if there were across the board tax cuts right now. Think of this as a chess game. He gave up a pawn now for a queen down the road.

Follow the money.

[Howlin]

What part of "they didn't want to hire her" don't you understand?

[ApesForEvolution]

What if by some fluke the 'assault weapon' ban makes it to his desk and he signs it?

[Howlin]

That was pretty quick; only took 24 posts for a revesal.

[TLBSHOW]

do you support the Bush Agenda fully?

[Howlin]

Er.....reversal.

[SUSSA]

Conservatives in congress cut AmriCorps. Bush is trying to expand it. This from their web site:
Statement by Leslie Lenkowsky
CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service
March 4, 2003
"We are grateful to the President for proposing this vital legislation. President Bush has again demonstrated his strong support for AmeriCorps by proposing legislation to give AmeriCorps the flexibility it needs to support at least 50,000 new AmeriCorps members in 2003.

"These no-cost changes would liquidate prior-year obligations for education awards in the National Service Trust, provide flexibility to allow the transfer of program funds to the Trust, and repeal the recently enacted cap that limits AmeriCorps enrollment in fiscal year 2003 to 50,000 members.

"The President strongly believes in AmeriCorps and the good it does in American communities. He proposed significant increases in both his 2003 and 2004 budgets to allow AmeriCorps to expand up to 75,000 members. At this time of great national need, the President has urged Americans to serve their nation, and that's what the legislation he is proposing today will help accomplish.

"President Bush has proposed a solution that will achieve what everyone wants—more opportunities for Americans to serve their communities and country through AmeriCorps. We greatly appreciate the support and close attention that Congress has given to AmeriCorps and urge Congress to act on the President's request and pass this legislation as soon as possible."


http://www.americorps.org/enrollmentupdate/statement030403ll.html

[deport]

Enough to support him for re-election... more than you are doing..... When and if you support him come May 2004 then you display a lack of core values... you scream about his actions them come to support him..... lol