Bush's Record Calls into Question His Conservative Label

The American Partisan ^ | June 5, 2002 | David T. Pyne

[rightwing2]

Do you know how long it took to build up to the D-Day Invasion? Why didn't we go blasting in when we entered the war, why did we wait several years until 1944? How many lives were lost in the delay, how much more destruction took place, all because we were waffling and appeasing Hitler? Clearly Eisenhower was no general.

You've completely lost me here. What is your point? You are saying that Bush has some secret plan to launch a massive assault on the left and that is the reason he has been so busy appeasing and accomodating them by signing their agenda into law? If you believe this crap, I have a bridge to sell you in Moscow.

[Republican Wildcat]

Please cite your source for when the Bush administration called them the "occupied territories." I'll be back later for your response.

[hobbes1]

And, while justified, I don’t know how on earth you can say increasing the military is shrinking government. That’s nonsensical.

No it is not. Shrinking the pie of available dollars, and then giving a larger slice of the Pie to the military, cuts into what is left over for Domestic Investigatory, and Regulatory departments. (I.E. who do you want to have more money, the Military or the IRS?)

[Registered]

Dude, you need to look at the Annual Budget, I see no shrinkage there.

[rightwing2]

My goodness. So many exaggerations, and even some blatant inaccuracies...and so little time for those of us that actually work for a living. Overall it is just plain stupid.

Well instead of attacking my fact-based statements about the Bush recrod as somehow spurious, why don't you put up some facts to defend your favorite centrist President from his conservative critics like Rush, Dave Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.?

[NittanyLion]

You know, it is quite possible that there is global warming, but that the Kyoto Treaty won't do anything to help it but will harm our economy. Denying global warming, if it turns out to be true, is a losing issue. Much better to do research and find out if it is indeed occurring and come up with conservative, pro-American solutions.

The research is out there, MM. It's indicative of ground-based warming due to man-made structures (roads, buildings, partking lots, etc.) The upper atmospheric readings do not indicate a warming trend, which goes a long way toward debunking the "greenhouse gas" myth.

[NittanyLion]

Stick to cartoons.

You've got some nerve. The man posted a FACT - polling data was posted immediately after the article.

[Registered]

Let me lend a hand..."Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop"

[rightwing2]

Please cite your source for when the Bush administration called them the "occupied territories." I'll be back later for your response.

You are way too funny. I ask you for a fact-based response to my facts about Bush's record and you come back with a nitpicky challenge to the words "occupied territories." I think I will await your response to my facts about the Bush record before I address your complaint about the "occupied territories." But since you "work for a living" I think I will have to wait half a lifetime for your feeble response. Instead of getting bogged down in wordplay, all you need to know is that Bush supports a PLO led independent Palestinian state, which even Bill Clinton refused to support.

[Registered]

Look at post 48.

[NittanyLion]

No it is not. Shrinking the pie of available dollars, and then giving a larger slice of the Pie to the military, cuts into what is left over for Domestic Investigatory, and Regulatory departments. (I.E. who do you want to have more money, the Military or the IRS?)

If you can provide source data I'd be interested in seeing it (that domestic programs' $$$ is being redirected to the military). If true, much of the criticism of Bush would be unwarranted.

[rightwing2]

Let me lend a hand..."Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop"

Great comeback! Seriously if this is all Wildcat can come up with to rebut my conservative critique of the Bush record, then it looks like we have won the argument over whether Bush is a conservative. He's not. So all conservatives need to unite in an effort to persuade him to doing what is right by his conservative base.

[dead]

Shrinking the pie of available dollars, and then giving a larger slice of the Pie to the military, cuts into what is left over for Domestic Investigatory, and Regulatory departments. (I.E. who do you want to have more money, the Military or the IRS?)

If non-military federal spending was concurrently decreasing, you might have point.

But it isn’t and you don’t.

[Spiff]

Dude, you need to look at the Annual Budget, I see no shrinkage there.

You've got that right. Knowing how you like graphics, here's one of Sentry's charts that well demonstrates your point:

[Protagoras]

So what is your policy recommendation for the President? Unrestricted libertarianism I should think...

Why ask a question if you think you already know the answer. Your crystal ball must be on fast forward. LOL

[NMC EXP]

RW2 -- don't be so hard on the guy. After all, he must out democrat the democrats to get himself re-elected. THe tattered remnants of the Constitution are woth sacrificing as long as "our team" wins, right?

So long as "our team" wins the game it doesn't matter if the playing field and stadium are nothing but a smoking ruin when the game is over.

Winning the office is all that is important. Any amount of collateral damage is acceptable to the ruling class.

For the true believers out here in flyover country, all that matters is whether the team jersey has an "r" or "d" on it, and if their boy is in their opinion a nicer guy and more trustworthy than the other guy. Don't confuse the true believers with minor details.

Regards

J.R.

[The Old Hoosier]

Payne's got several facts wrong (no endorsement from the WH in TN, and Bush didn't create Parskey in Calif), but this kind of thing needs to be written anyway, to keep the heat on.

Here's Bush's current mindset: Don't raise taxes, don't cave on abortion and related social issues, and I'll get re-elected. Everything else I can co-opt to eat into Dem-leaning but currently vulnerable swing groups: Jews (finally waking up to see which party supports Israel), Hispanics (pro-family, pro-life), and Union members (pro-gun, pro-life).

I'd like to add that in spite of what people say here on FR, all three of these groups are very winnable for Bush, and could result in an historic era of dominance for Republicans. But this idea will suit you well or poorly, depending on what kind of conservative you are. If your main issue is abortion, you'll be at least somewhat happy. If it's immigration, you should be at least somewhat pissed off. I think all of us feel a bit of both.

For conservatives to get much more from Bush, we have to give him the Senate in November. He should be doing better NOW, though, in bargaining with the Dems. There's honestly no excuse for it.

But his current haplessness could also be by design: Always smile, say almost nothing bitter or partisan, and you suddenly contrast heavily with Daschle, who kicks and screams like a baby to get his way and, to some extent, gets it. The discontent against the party in power somehow transfers to Daschle, and the election goes our way. At least, that's the thinking.

[Howlin]

What will have been won?

Nobody's asking you to vote for him. Go ahead and vote for Gore/Clinton/Liebermann/Edwards, et al.

Then see what you loose.