Bush as Clinton: A terrible cost

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Tuesday, July 1, 2003 | editorial

[Willie Green]

George Bush has been pulling a Bill Clinton as of late. Politicos consider it politically savvy. We consider it not very becoming of a Republican who flashed conservative credentials that, on closer inspection, might as well have been manufactured by Hasbro.

[Search4Truth]

Well my friend, they seem to be working from a plan that you and I are not privy to. And to my neophyte view, so far so good. We will see what he has accomplished when his 2nd term is up in 2008. Will you give him the benefit of the doubt until then?

[KDD]

You are ignoring the first rule of politics - stay in power. Without which, all other questions of principle are moot.

If what it takes to stay in power is to share in the construction of a socialist U.S.A., then conservatism is dead as a movement. Those of us who believe that this is happening can point to one of several reasons...moral cowardice for instance.

[staytrue]

In a lot of the state govts., they are cutting spending because they have to and they are not raising taxes.

With regards to Willie's argument that the feds can keep deficit spending, I think eventually even the feds must stop.

Cut taxes, and eventually the govt. gets smaller.

[SUSSA]

I gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2000 even though I was well aware of his record here in Texas. He expanded government and spending here more than any state except 1 and more than Clinton expanded the federal government over the same 8 years.

Based on that and what he has done so far as president, I've had enough. If he doesn't move to the right, I'll bolt.

I was going to bolt in 2000 but at the last second I voted for him. I'm sorry every day that I did that I knew better but took a chance that he would at least be a moderate in the presidency. Instead he has nondefense, discretionary, spending more than anyone since Carter. With his socialist drug program he will be on a par with LBJ.

Nope, no more benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt. He is a big government liberal.

[Search4Truth]

"Those of us who believe that this is happening can point to one of several reasons...moral cowardice for instance."

So what "good" could a "moral hero" do without political office.

Your indignation should be directed at the morally ambiguous voting public who would vote Bush out, if he followed his personal conservative moral compass. Remember Clinton? They voted for him twice and almost put his proxy Heir Gore in the Whitehouse for another 8 years. Thanks to Bush and his performance to-date, that will not happen. Thank God.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" You are ignoring the first rule of politics - stay in power. Without which, all other questions of principle are moot. "

Rush just announced he doesn't care if we lose the House,principles are more important. Sean Hannity just said that Bush is a great wartime President,but, he "should stop spending so much." Sean should talk to Congress and stop blaming everything on President Bush. The areas of biggest growth are the military, which suffered cutbacks in spending under Clinton,homeland defense and the war on terror. President Bush does not operate in a vacuum,he is but one part of the legislative process and it is unrealistic to expect him to veto every single bill that arrives on his desk.I sick of Rush and Sean and their whining.

[Search4Truth]

"Nope, no more benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt. He is a big government liberal."

A little over the top with that don't you think?

You just can't get away from that monarch mentaility. Bush is serving the will of the people. A large part of which are Socialists to varying degrees. That is certainly a distressing fact. Bush either serves them too, or be remove from power to be replaced with a Democrat who will. Then all of your highmindedness will be for naught. And to lay all of the responsibility for changing that at Bush's feet, is political laziness.

[Howlin]

[Deb]

It is extraordinary how the Republicans get trashed no matter how hard they try to hold the line or no matter how much the Democrats cheat, obstruct, use the media and change the protocols of the past.

No Senate minority in history has ever attempted to stop judicial nominees by filibuster requiring 60 votes. And as much as the Republicans hated Clinton, they never obstructed legislation that was good for the country (the welfare bill) because it gave Clinton a victory.

If Bush didn't play politics as shrewdly as the Democrats, he'd get trashed for weakness and stupidity.

I don't doubt that if Bush were the King of America there would be a total move back to the Constituion. No government approved abortion. No department of Education or EPA. And a missile defense system before the first of the year.

Until he's King he'll have to compromise, play politics and sometimes lose. If that's not good enough for you...don't vote to re-elect him. Of course, if Democrats had abandoned Clinton as quickly as "conservatives" began sobbing and stomping their feet over Bush...President Goober would have been a one-termer.

[KDD]

Conservatives were listening to Rush and reading his books long before Republicans "discovered him". Kinda like this website was originally a conservative website that has morphed into a...well..read the mission statement to see what I mean. Bush will not make up the loss of his conservative base with voters from the 50% who voted against him last time. And a "no vote" is still a vote.

[Willie Green]

Cod crisis to cost 44,000 jobs

[Jesse]

Conservative with a spine...


Now, there's a novel concept. Would that include guts and cojones as well, or should conservatives just settle for what we can get and take the spine?

[No Dems 2004]

I love President Bush, I really do. But I have gotten very bugged with him of late, especially after he's refused to comment on the US Supreme Court's ruling on sodomy. After such a landmark ruling, he should have spoken like Bill Frist did, but he didn't. I'm very disappointed that he hasn't spoken out for the very law that he vowed to uphold as gov of Texas. That's not the only thing that bugs me about our President, but it's really fried me lately.

That said, I still support the guy, but he's going to have to re-earn some of my respect.

[TLBSHOW]

Based on that and what he has done so far as president, I've had enough. If he doesn't move to the right, I'll bolt.


snip

Nope, no more benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt. He is a big government liberal.



,,,,,

Truth that does not take a gift to see, just common sense right?

[Bill Davis FR]

why hasn't bush repealed clinton's tax increases om gasoline and social security???

[Howlin]

Touche! :-)

[TLBSHOW]

wow a bush is clinton thread....

Reminds me of what Ann Coulter said or me for that matter..

the blind are waking up don't ya think?

[SUSSA]

I have no monarch mentaility. I just expect a politician who claims to be a conservative to act like one.

"Bush is serving the will of the people. A large part of which are Socialists to varying degrees. That is certainly a distressing fact. Bush either serves them too, or be remove from power to be replaced with a Democrat who will."

So you are agreeing that Bush is a socialist or at least governing like one. Therefore, what is there to lose if we get a Democrat socialist? By your own words you have given up and are accepting the decline into an expanded socialist society.

I prefer to go down fighting. I haven't given up yet. If Bush isn't up to the task of leading us out of the slide into socialism, I'll vote for someone else. Nothing will be lost since as you say, "Bush is serving the will of the people. A large part of which are Socialists to varying degrees."

[Centurion2000]

almost certain re-election in 2004

Karl Rove is thinking just like you are. It is going to BURN Bush in the end to go this far left.