Bush: A Democrat in Republican clothing?

Source: Washington Times ^ | 07/28/2002 | By Nicholas M. Horrock

[staytrue]

If zell miller is so conservative, then why does he not switch and had the republicans the senate so that so of bush's judges get through. No zell is just as bad as the rest of them.

[jeremiah]

The democrats are attacking Bush, not because of his ideals, goals or beliefs, but because of politics. He could be the same man, with a democrat label, and they would love him.

[TLBSHOW]

Nope because George Bush has done this

killed the International Criminal Court
repealed Clinton's CO2 rules
appointed & backed John Ashcroft and Ted Olsen
killed the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming
funded Missile Defense program
stopped the womens rights WORLD GOVT PLOY
STOPPED FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS THRU UN

[TLBSHOW]

You might want to read this thread?

[zeugma]

Spending money for baggage handlers is not socialism.

But nationalizing an entire industry is.

[zeugma]

I was very dissapointed when they were "federalized" ^H Unionized.

Try "nationalized" it is closer to the truth.

[PhiKapMom]

Laz --

Sorry I took it out on you about Miller but that pushed a real hot button. I have been saying for months that he is fooling conservatives and really isn't that conservative.

Now if you had mentioned Ralph Hall from TX -- the response would have been much more positive.

I say it is time for Pres Bush to take off the gloves and come out swinging, make some recess appointments, and use the veto pen. You cannot deal with this bunch of Democrats -- they have absolutely no integrity -- zero, zip, nada. And IMHO the people like daschle, clinton, leahy, gephardt, and others could care less about this Country which they have demonstrated with their actions and gleeful attitude with the markets going down.

Hear one more time about this "new tone" in Washington and I think I will scream! Just like when so many Republicans in 1994 signing on to three terms and they are out of there -- you don't see the DemocRATS doing that. Republicans need to get smart and quit being wishy washy and get some backbone! We need to sweep as many RATs out of Congress as we can and being touchy feely "nice" is not going to do it!

My mini rant for this thread!

[Texasforever]

What did they nationalize?

[PhiKapMom]

I checked out the political contributions of the AFGE (civil service union) and was appalled. Over $300,000 was given in political contributions with 92% to the Democrats!(http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=P04)

And now they want to make more civil service people -- you cannot get rid of the bad ones we have now! Guess that adds up to more campaign contributions for the Dems!

[Gelato]

Who should replace Bush in your humble opinion?

Not sure what you mean. I guess you didn't read my #45 in defense of Bush.

I disagree with the author of this article, who seems to believe that increased government spending, for any purpose, is a Democrat philosophy. He calls Bush a "New Deal Democrat" for advocating such things as "hiring 40,000 baggage screeners to increases in the Border Patrol."

As I stated, this is ridiculous. Increasing the budget for our national defense has nothing to do with "New Deal"-type programs. Hiring better baggage checkers is a necessity for our safety, as opposed to advocating socialistic programs like FDR's.

On the other hand, I understand completely where the critics of Bush, on the conservative side, are coming from. In issues such as stem cell research, the ICC, and most blatantly with the CFR bill, Bush has let many of us down. In that sense, Lazamataz's joke about "I was promised a conservative President and all I got was this lousy t-shirt," was quite funny and fitting.

I think the thing to keep in mind is that there's nothing wrong with criticism of any president, when it's justified. I disagree with the camp of folks for whom Bush can do no right, and I likewise disagree with those who believe Bush can do no wrong.

The fact is, Bush is the president, I worked hard to elect him, but I can't help feeling the pangs of disappointment in some of the things that should've been no-brainers for someone who campaigned as a conservative. And I think when he does something wrong, we should all hold him to account for it. That is what government of the people is all about.

[Texasforever]

I understand what you mean. Bush's stem cell decision, the waffling on the ICC, and the signing of the CFR bill did it for me. Nonetheless, this particular issue--defense spending--is not something that qualifies him as a Democrat.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your words.

[Gelato]

But nationalizing an entire industry is

No, one could make the argument that that is fascism, but not socialism. Socialism--or more specifically, what is referred to in the article as the "New Deal"--is an economic/social principle.

I can understand a person disagreeing with federalizing the baggage handlers, and I personally think idea of letting the states take this one on is better. But even with that angle of criticism, I don't see how a person could assert that Bush is now a "New Deal Democrat." It makes no sense to me. And I’m no Bush apologist.

[Texasforever]

No, one could make the argument that that is fascism, but not socialism. Socialism--or more specifically, what is referred to in the article as the "New Deal"--is an economic/social principle.

I am assuming that he meant airport security. Many do not realize that those rent-a-cops were IN FACT government employees prior to 911. Airlines do not provide security the airports do. Airports are governmental entities and they have farmed out security to a few security firms. The real fact is that Bush did NOT want to federalize the security workers in the first place. He wanted to establish federal guidelines to standardize the national network. He lost, and rather than not do anything he signed the bill that federalized security. The situation as it now stands is that airport security will be under the Homeland Defense agency and he is threatening a veto of the HSA act if he does not get relief in weakening civil service protections for all employees within that agency.

[Gelato]

Forgive me if I misunderstood your words.

I lost a lot of respect for Bush when he signed the CFR bill, especially when he stated in the process that he had "concerns" about its constitutionality, but that he felt the courts would handle the mess. That's a violation of his oath of office. And it conflicts with his earlier criticisms of CFR during the campaign.

Since he signed the unconstitutional bill, I have a hard time taking him seriously as a person who understands the importance of his oath, of the constitution, and of restoring our nation to its founding principles.

But I accept the fact that he is better than Clinton and Gore, or any other Democrat. I just don't know if I can in good conscience work again to get him elected in 2004. I dunno. We'll see.

That said, I reiterate that it's important to hold the president--or any other servant of the people--to account. If he's done something wrong, we have the right and the duty to let him know. Expressing your ire, after all, is one way to persuade.

And on the other hand, let me reiterate that a person should not get carried away in criticizing. Exaggerating the situation, and treating Bush unfairly--as I believe this article does a bit--only hurts the conservative cause and erases credibility.

[brat]

"When we voted for Bush we were de-electing sleaze"

"So how is Bush sleazy? Just because you don't agree with him 100% of the time he is a sleazy guy?"

I think you've misread what Laz said. He didn't call Bush sleazy.

[brat]

"Is it me, or does it seem that no matter who is in office (lately), a certain agenda continues to be advanced????"

I agree....but that merely qualifies us for tin foil hats on this forum.

[Texasforever]

I really don't want to turn this into a CFR thread but I will just give you my take. The CFR as passed out of the Senate was "veto bait" from the first. The Senate leader was sure that Bush would veto it and give them an issue to beat up on in 2002 and beyond. Why do I believe this? Because this bill is heavily weighted towards the Republican Party. It not only maintains the GOP's advantage in hard money contributions it doubles it. The Democrat's advantage in soft money was greatly reduced. Now the democrats are evil but they are NOT stupid. They planted that issue ad ban poison pill and were too cute by half. Bush did not swallow the pill.

[Gelato]

The real fact is that Bush did NOT want to federalize the security workers in the first place. He wanted to establish federal guidelines to standardize the national network. He lost, and rather than not do anything he signed the bill that federalized security.

If it was something he wasn't even lobbying for, and just incidental, that leads further ammo to my question of why the author of the article suggested that something like hiring baggage handlers makes Bush a New Deal Democrat.

Only constructive criticisms based on actual facts and faults leads to any good.

[Texasforever]

The author is just using hyperbole to advance his argument. He does not acknowledge that those 40,000 screeners were replacements for the 40,000 rent-a-cops that were replaced.

[zeugma]

What did they nationalize?

The entire security apparatus at all domestic airports.

It was in all the papers, but the media whores couldn't bring themselves to say the word.