Posted on 10/11/2009 6:53:02 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
As I am sure you realized, the last half of your sentence refers precisely to Barack Obama. So, my question, is WHY NOT? Why not, for either of them, who STILL have infinitely more experience and independent stands on things than Barack Obama.
Obama was an affirmative action candidate with the wind of the blow-hardy media with him. Special case in ways that don.t pertain here.
Obama was an affirmative action candidate with the wind of the blow-hardy media with him. Special case in ways that don.t pertain here.
Obama was an affirmative action candidate with the wind of the blow-hardy media with him. Special case in ways that don.t pertain here.
You must be new to the political scene, so you can be forgiven for asking such an easy question.
As the rest of us can recall, the tax cuts barely passed as they are, the permanant tax cut was a goal that was left unachieved.
Again, that leads me back to the original challenge. What did Bush do to give us low unemployment?
I am not new to the political scene. My first vote for president was for Ronald Reagan in 1980. My problem is with giving Bush credit for things he didn't do while overlooking all the things he DID do that led us to Obama.
It is my opinion that Bush's presidency will be seen truthfully for having led the country into socialism. He was horrible president, as was his father, when it came to strengthening conservatism in this country.
He had a GOP Congress for six years and what did he pass? No Child Left Behind which opened the doors for the federal govt. to take control of schools instead of dismantling the Dept. of Education, or at least scaling it back. Because of Bush's expansion of the Dept of Ed. it gave Obama the lead in for his speech.
What else did Bush pass? Drugs for seniors. That is the argument the left is using when we claim Obamacare will be bad. They point to the Drug program as a success. And, it is in the eyes of the socialists.
Bush pushed for a bilingual nation. Before you go off laughing see this:
| We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture. Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende. For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America. Our future cannot be separated from the future of Latin America. As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico. George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000. |
Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:
In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster
Bush would have gotten another amnesty if it were not for 9-11. We would now be inundated with all those new citizens families putting downward pressure on our resources at this time.
If you are one who is inclined to believe Bush holds no responsibility for the housing crisis check out Ol' Dan Tucker's page (Kudos to Dan for all his work). Bush pushed Fannie and Freddie's purchasing of mortgages UP during his admin.
Bush's policies and lack of leadership led to schizophrenic GOP. Were they conservatives or "compassionate conservatives" (read: socialists)? Bush continued to lean to the left all through his admin. till in the end the nation couldn't tell the left from the right.
Bush supported RINO's all over the nation the most telling was Arlen Specter. He never once went to bat for a real conservative candidate that I know of.
So, tell me, what exactly did Bush do to keep the economy booming.
Note that I was directly responding to a specific comment.
Courage, convictions and vision are also areas where Sarah Palin outshines every other prospective candidate out there.
A permanent tax cut would require a constitutional ammendment. What chance would that have?
And Dobson is a real Christian? - He's an ecumenical, not a Christian. - Anyone that thinks Huck is any kind of Christian have no idea who Christ is.
On second thought, leave the horse out of it.
Bush was/is a “compassionate Conservative”, which meant in Bush's case, socially liberal, and conservative on government taxes, strong on defense and second amendment rights, against late term abortions. ETC.
He ... actually believed he could get along and be friends with the Democrats/liberals, starting with Kennedy; and the education bill which he wrote. WRONG.
He became too loose on spending in Iraq. He believed, if Iraquis tasted Freedom; and being in control of their own destiny, they would be eager to change into a democratic government.
Too idealistic. He was influenced to much to spend big and allowing corruption in the members of government. MO
He did attempt ‘to pull in’ Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac ... several times in fact. Congress was controlled by the democrats and it did not happen.. Check the record, Google it.
I voted for him, I did not agree with or like much that he did. He WAS the man for the 9/11 attack and keeping us safe afterward.
There is never another person with which any thinking person 100% agrees. MO.
Check it out.
Huh? An Amendment? How is it that Congress can raise taxes and how is it that under Reagan taxes were reduced from 90% to about 30%? I don't recall an Amendment then.
And obviously, no tax cut has ever been permanent!
They go down, and then they go up. - every congress can do as it pleases without an amendment.
I contend that the Reagan tax rate cuts led to, amoung other things, a boom in employement.
I imagine you either don't agree, or that somehow the Bush tax rate cuts differ from the Reagan cuts in some manner.
Or it may be something else that differentiated the Reagan rate cuts from the Bush rate cuts. Could you elaborate?
Your post is interesting, but factually wrong on just about every single point.
The first four primaries were Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, and Nevada.
Of those, McCain lost three. His one win was in NH, where he edged out Romney 38%-32%. He lost the other three.
Additionally, of those four, only Nevada is an open primary. Wyoming and Nevada are closed. New Hampshire is only "open" if you are independent. Those registered in a party cannot cross party lines to vote.
The fact remains a Rino won the primary ...
Those are also closed and McCain lost there too.
I think you misunderstand the terminology in this case. Bush's tax cuts are scheduled to end next year. If they had been passed without that proviso then they would be considered permanent and would require an act of Congress to change the rate. As it is the rates will go back to what they were before and Congress has only to do what it does best - nothing. The rates will revert without any action.
My point was that the RNC didn't foist him upon us poor Republican voters. The Republican voters themselves selected McCain.
McCain and his ilk are not the Republicans In Name Only. We need to realize that the RINOs are us.
The Republican Party voters themselves are not conservative enough. We conservatives are a minority in our own party, for now. We didn't have a strong conservative candidate that rallied the moderates in our own party to our side.
Hopefully, we'll have a better candidate next time. If a conservative candidate can't win over a majority of Republican voters, what chance does he stand in the general election?
Noted. We’re on same team...
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.