The Final Straw? Accountability for President Bush

I’ve finally come to a real dilemma. With Election ’04 on the horizon, this dilemma is growing daily. On one hand, we have the President Bush whose strong stance in the face of international terror has kept us safe and inspired a renewed sense of American patriotism. A man I admire greatly for his courage and leadership. But on the other hand, we have the President Bush whose outrageous spending and domestically liberal policies have practically bankrupted the federal government, forcing almost imperial control over state rights.

It all started with the No Child Left Behind Act that the President signed into law on June 8, 2002. The bill, authored by Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Ted Kennedy, drastically increased, not only spending for education, but federal control over state policies regarding the issue. As an education major, I am witness to the flaws of this legislation. The main problem is educational standards. Let me explain. Each state is federally mandated to administer a standardized test to pupils to evaluate performance. The student performance level on this exam primarily determines federal funding, but may also cause a federal takeover of a school system if performance levels are not satisfactory for a given number of years. The stickler is that states are allowed to determine their own satisfactory performance level. For example, in Missouri, the current level for “proficiency” is 3 (out of 5). In Kansas, our neighbor state, the level for “proficiency” is 2. What does this mean? Quite simply it means, while it may appear that students in Kansas are performing at a satisfactory level, they are actually performing at a level lower than that of Missouri. It may appear that Kansas pupils are competent, but in reality, they are held to lower expectations in hopes of maintaining government funding. Missouri schools will lose funding and be placed on “watch” lists, while Kansas schools will be praised for their “successful” educational programs.

While I’m on the subject of education, what ever happened to the President’s school choice initiative? I, for one, was in full support of the voucher program, as were many of the constituents that got Bush elected in the first place. Maybe he’s waiting for an opportune time to announce a new proposal to Congress, or maybe he just forgot. Who knows? Regardless, the President’s handling of the education system garnered him “Strike 1” in my little book of disagreement.

I thought that this could have been a blunder on the part of the President. After all, all leaders are human and mistakes are going to be made. Then came “Strike 2”.

Last November, the President signed a bill granting tax payer-funded prescription drug coverage to America’s seniors. Congressional Republicans authored the legislation that is supposed to cost $400 billion over the next 10 years, but will be upwards of 2 trillion after subsidies kick in. The subsidies are basically entitlements for corporations—bribes so they won’t drop the current coverage their retirees receive. The program has increased, not only the size of government, which, by the way, Republicans should be against, but the spending rate to boot. It is inevitable that our well-deserved tax cuts will be repealed and raised drastically to pay for this monstrosity. Bush sold the economic welfare of my generation, and undoubtedly many generations to come, to assure a solid voting block of geriatrics come election time. Way to go, Mr. President.

Strike 3” came last March, when the President signed Campaign Finance Reform legislation, better known as McCain-Feingold, into law. While many view the bill as a ban on soft money, they neglect to see the massive encroachment of free speech the legislation entails. Attack ads, funded by Political Action Committees (PACs), are banned 30 days before a primary and 60 days before an election. Regardless of what you think of PACs, the Constitution clearly establishes that “Congress shall make no law abridging…the freedom speech.” If this statement can be used to cover someone burning an American flag, it damn sure covers the right of an organization to run a political ad. I suppose the Supreme Court should be lynched for this one too, since they found it constitutional in review, but had Bush not signed it in the first place, it would be a non-issue.

So I’m fed up, but its not over yet. The President now announces his proposal to basically grant amnesty to illegal aliens, illegally living and working in the United States. Now I know, the President said he was against amnesty and this program in no way grants it, but let’s be real. Amnesty is defined as: A general pardon granted by a government for illegal activities. The President proposal is rewarding those who came to this country illegally, and who work and live in this country illegally, with legal status by granting three-year temporary “work visas”. These visas are renewable—probably until the end of time.

Now I agree, something had to be done to remedy our current border debacle. Getting these people documented was priority one, and I applaud the President for getting this much done. I do realize that it is not feasible to deport these people, as well. But what the President has done is not the answer for which conservatives were looking. Along with getting these people documented, the President should have increased border security, even to the point of putting the National Guard or Army Reserves on the border. Yes, this would take a drastic overhaul of military resources, but it would be a necessary step if one were serious about stifling our now overwhelming illegal immigration situation.

By granting this quasi-amnesty, the President has done nothing but encourage further illegal activity. Yes, the proposal makes clear that it is necessary for these people show proof of employment, but I’m sure ways are being developed to maneuver around that inconvenience as we speak—after all, one isn’t supposed to live and work in this country illegally, in the first place. Ronald Reagan, perhaps the greatest President in American history, when questioned about granting amnesty in 1986, referred to it as the single biggest mistake of his presidency. President Bush should have learned something from this example. Hopefully Congress will.

By pushing all of this dangerous nonsense onto America, President Bush has taken steps to emphatically alienate his conservative base. He has taken us for granted in a grand series of political maneuvers. Bush expects that with the ultra-left rhetoric from the Democratic candidates and high likelihood that Howard Dean, the most liberal of them all, will receive the nomination, conservatives have nowhere to go—therefore, he can seek to expand his electorate by pursuing this domestically liberal agenda.

On defense, President Bush has no rival. His leadership in the War on Terror, coupled with the enhanced presence of military strength abroad, has satiated conservatives to the point where they are willing to overlook this reckless spending and domestic policies, but is that enough? I’ve defended the President on many occasions when leftists lambasted him for his failures. From tax cuts to terrorism, I have been on the President’s side. But this string of domestic policy has left me outraged and I find it hard to defend.

In the end, I suppose Bush is right, core conservatives have nowhere else to go. I can’t count on any of these democratic candidates to protect us the way Bush has, but it is enraging to sit back and watch Bush sell us down the river on domestic issues in an attempt to assure a second term. This is my quagmire.

The President will most likely be re-elected, and he will most likely get my vote, but I hope he reconsiders the direction he intends to lead this country. If not, it will take decades to undo the damage he has done.

The stickler is that states are allowed to determine their own satisfactory performance level.

Again, you blame BUSH when you emphatically state where the problem comes from.

From what I understand this procedure is not new. It is just that the media and democrats and the teacher's union (can you say organized crime?) are attempting to get you to blame the downhill race in public education that has been going on for years and years on President Bush, even while he is attempting to get changes made that will help correct the inequities of the past.

The trouble is we still have to undo all of the damage from the Clinton Administration.

You recognize this, I know it, but most of the public does not want to know this.

Everything WRONG with the country, with the Government is President Bush's fault.

Even this education bill. It was written by an ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE of our government, President BUSH merely initiated the concept, worked to gain the support of those reps. and then TED KENNEDY wrote it.

I have not yet seen the media, the DEM PREZ HOPEFULS, or most of the AMerican Public question or blame TED KENNEDY.

I wonder why?

It's true there isn't much left for conservatives to hang their hats on with Bush II. What keeps me leaning to him are three things.

First, national defense. If we had a Rat in there on 9-11, it would have gone the way Clinton handled it, treated as a criminal act with no action taken in the end other than jawboning and hand wringing. At least now we have someone who will go after the murderous barbarians where they live, instead of waiting for them to hit us again and again and doing nothing.

Second, tax cuts. Sure, I'd have liked them to be more, but at least we got a some. It's not that I'm satisfied with crumbs, but I'm thankful I didn't have a knife stuck in me any further, which is what you get whenever you elect a Rat (tax increases, not cuts).

Third, and perhaps most importantly, judicial nominations. I don't see any way that there won't be a vacancy or two on the SC this next presidential term. Rehnquist for sure will be gone and maybe O'Connor as well. I don't want a President Dean or President Gephart nominating justices to the SC or federal bench. That's just too horrendous to imagine. Clinton was bad enough with Bader Ginsberg and Breyer. We're stuck with those losers for a long time. Not to mention to raft of libs he put in the federal judiciary, and also the wholesale sacking of U.S. district attorneys. Those with their hands on the levers of power can influence the course of things long after they are gone via these lifetime appointments (judges). The behavior of the Rats on Bush's nominees so far is a clear indication of how they would go if they had the nominating power. Then we'd be forced into a blocking mode.

I think the immigration crisis (with or without a Bush plan), will bankrupt the USA.

I think the immigration situation (if it is a crisis, it has been a long,long,long term crisis mainly ignored by past administrations) needs to be addressed, and is. I think the plan (the real one, not the one the media and DEMs tell you is the plan - AMNESTY FOR ALL CRIMINALS) will help the US economy.

You say the USA will go bankrupt. Please tell me who is going to repossess it?

If being in debt means you are bankrupt, then we have been bankrupt for about 180 years.

THINK ABOUT IT.

This is another scare tactic being proliferated by the Democratic political machine, and even conservatives are falling for it.

Watch for the DEM PREZ campaign ads to associate the word "CREEP" or "CREEPY" with President Bush.

When they do, remember I TOLD YOU SO, and ask me why that would do harm to him. So many are being psychologically manipulated that I wouldn't be surprised to find the DEVIL himself elected soon, with the right people running his campaign.

You keep saying amnesty--amnesty means total forgiveness and no strings attached. The people that are upset about amnesty keep saying amnesty and really are not giving the whole immigration concept a good listening to. Before anything is written you are already yapping about RINO and voting for another party, etc.

If those writing it say it is not amnesty, and if amnesty means forgiveness without any special procedures then what Bush is presenting is not amnesty. I suspect then you would have preferred Ron Kirk a flaming liberal democrat over Cornyn who walks and talks like a conservative but disagrees with your version of immigration.

It probably has something to do with doing what he sees is best for all the people.

You hit upon a point that is ignored.

A POPULAR PRESIDENT is one who does things that are best for special interests and for lining his pockets, while promising to do everything for everyone in order to get their votes. (the media, the commies, the socialists, the muslims, the red chinese like you and will send cash money).

An UNPOPULAR President is one who does what is best for the country AS A WHOLE, and which may take time before the promised outcome is seen.

It takes an experienced, mature, strong, goal oriented person to stick with that, at the risk of being unelectable, even impeached.

I don't think that the title REPUBLICAN means all REPUBS are like President Bush, nor are all DEMS like Clinton.

I think the determining factor is moral values and religious faith.

Believe me, I am by no means a liberal, lol. I am an education major and I have seen the excessive damage this bill is producing for school systems.

1: The first problem I outlined is in the piece.

2: Another problem with the legislation is the use of sub-groups. A sub-group is a group of students in a school that number 12 or more. This can be LD, ADHD, Black, White, ESL, Latino, Asian, IEP, etc... If one subgroup fails, no matter the performance of the school as a whole, the entire school fails the exam. This means that a group of ESL (English as a Second Language) kids, who can barely read English, takes the test and fails, the school fails. Another example: LD kids (Learning Disabled) from no fault of their own are forced to take the exam. They have no hopes of passing--in fact, in many cases, they are told to do their best to mark inside the circles. They fail--school fails.

3: The Imperial Federal Government takes over if a school fails to show improvement in one or more sub-groups two years in a row. So, the government will take away the state's authority over the education of its citizens.

"On one hand, we have the President Bush whose strong stance in the face of international terror has kept us safe and inspired a renewed sense of American patriotism. A man I admire greatly for his courage and leadership. But on the other hand, we have the President Bush whose outrageous spending and domestically liberal policies have practically bankrupted the federal government, forcing almost imperial control over state rights."

I challenge you to list some defense contractors that work for free. You clam that President Bushes "strong stance in the face of international terror has kept us safe," but you don't seem to realize that the strong stance carries with it a big price tag! The so-called "outrageous spending" was out of necessity.

You want accountability from President Bush, while everyday provides proof of his accountability.

What promises he made as he campaigned, he has followed almost to the letter.

What he promised after 9/11 he has followed , even though most of America turned AGAINST HIM.

Every day more proof of the link between organized crime (IRA,AQ,TALIBAN,RED DAWN,call it what you will), and out of control despots whose very primary goal was the elimination of NON-MUSLIMS. This was SADDAM's DIRECTIVE, his heritage, his heavenly goal. The fact that Saddam was not a direct descendant of the Prophet of Islam, nor was he originally a Muslim, didn't stop him from being the coordinator, hotel operator, financier, and lastly blackmailed hostage of the criminals operating behind the cloak of religion. Whether you know it or not.

He had purchased uranium from Niger and it was on it's way to SADDAM (and would be handed over to the AQ or else they would overrun Baghdad and Tikrit - the only two cities still under Saddam's control).

That is why PRESIDENT BUSH made the statement that we had to stop SADDAM BEFORE..... since he knew the shipment was on it's way.

If President BUSH had delayed as the media and democrats seem to think he should, it would have been a case of DAY LATE, DOLLAR SHORT, and likely the US would be in total chaos due to small scale nuclear attacks from dirty bombs, etc.

YOU CAN'T ALWAYS WAIT UNTIL THEY PULL THE TRIGGER, TO TAKE THE GUN AWAY FROM THEM.

"Nor do I want republicans running the show like democrats!"

Do you really think that President Bush would put in a liberal judge? Do you really think that President Bush would increase your taxes? Do you really think that President Bush would expand and not try to reverse Roe v Wade? Do you really think that Presdident Bush should round up all the illegals, put them on train cars and ship them back to Mexico? Do you really think that of President Bush??????

And do your really think that President Bush is not the best for defense of the USA? or would Pat Buchanan be better? or Dean or some person from the Constitution party? Or yes, Kucinich, oh, yes, forgot about him and Clark? Sheesh!!!

Really????

The real question is “Do we want Communist Dean or Fruit Cake Clark as President?”

No! The real question is what must we do to restore the Republic of the Founding Fathers. That will not be doable this November. But that does not mean that it is not doable.

The time has come to realize that we have been had by the present leadership of both parties in Washington. It is sad. I wish that it were not so. Until January 1, I was willing to criticize but still hope that the President would wake up, fire Rove and change direction. His original promise to appoint strict constructionists to the Bench was the incentive to want to stick with him.

But the sad reality is that he will twist arms for an absurd Medicare Bill. He will spout absolute inanities about "no child being left behind," as though anyone acquainted with the educational process really believes that every child has comparable aptitudes to keep up. He will twist arms on other issues, including getting Americans rather than Iraqis to pay for rebuilding Iraq. But he will not twist arms to get those "strict constructionists" on the Bench.

And this religious poseur, can even countermand the belated--terribly belated--action of his Attorney General--in finally cancelling "Gay Pride" observances in the Justice Department, in 2003. Why? Does he believe that anyone has an inherent right to use a Governmental job and facility to mock thousands of years of Western Moral values?

On immigration, he can propose a revolutionary change, without ever even considering the interests of mainstream Americans in the preservation of the traditional culture of the American people. (America is not a game of musical chairs. It really does matter whom we allow in, and what qualities they bring with them.)

A plague on Bush--the same plague one wishes on Dean, Clark & Gephardt. None of them is acceptable. You can compromise away your heritage in the belief that you are slowing down the hideous unfolding reality; but in point of fact, your willingness to compromise with this ugly reality, but hastens the demise of everything most of us hold dear.

Enough is enough! There are Republicans running this year, who will have my support. But the head of the ticket? Forget it! The best we can hope for, in the immediate future, is a squabbling stalemate in Washington, where nothing gets done. That is infinitely better than the agenda of any of the candidates.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

Along with getting these people documented, the President should have increased border security, even to the point of putting the National Guard or Army Reserves on the border.

This has been done. The fact that the media doesn't mention it isn't new.

DO YOU KNOW WHY WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY MORE TERROR ATTACKS????????

It's not because they haven't tried.

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY TERROR ATTACKS or ILLEGALS have been CAUGHT and STOPPED since 9/11?

See, President BUSH is about ACTION.

Those who spend their time proclaiming their accomplishments or promised accomplishments(like BC) end up with little time to do so.

Those who publically discuss 'secret plans', lose the game.

I share your dismay at the number of takers out there, that's for sure, but I don't share your pessimism about the future of the Country, at least not for the reason(s) you state.

I'm deathly afraid that an American city will be leveled by those who hate us, thereby setting the stage for Martial Law to be declared, and the Constitution to be permanently 'put away'.

A recent edition of Cigar Afficionado (Now that's a magazine, ads so artistic and sexy you're left in shock, as you compare them with any other magazine out there, unbelievable!) contained an interview w/General Tommy Franks, which was illuminating and disconcerting all at the same time.

He talks about the possible death of the Constitution as outlined in the scenario I noted above, and it is an event I hope will never come to pass.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington and that caliber of being come around about every 5 to 10 thousand years, and I would hate to descend (sp?) into another dark age. So the things I'm most concerned about now are our National Security and the economy. National Security for obvious reasons, and the economy because without a strong one we will be less able to defend ourselves successfully.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.