Bush to Develop Think Tank Affiliated With His Library

Wall Street Journal ^ | November 12, 2009 | John D. McKinnon

[La Enchiladita]

Former President George W. Bush on Thursday outlined plans to establish a $300 million library, museum and research institute, taking a step back onto the national stage.

The George W. Bush Policy Institute—which would be the first think tank to be affiliated with a presidential library—will address issues that were priorities during Mr. Bush's presidency, such as education, global health, political freedom and economic growth, and seek to promote advances by offering practical solutions, the former president said.

In a speech at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, where the center is slated to be built, Mr. Bush said the institute would undertake projects "designed to make an impact in the real world."

...

In his public appearances, Mr. Bush generally hasn't directly criticized President Barack Obama or his policies. On Thursday, the former president appeared to deliver an oblique rebuke of the Obama administration's approach to Iran and other oppressive regimes, which some critics view as too conciliatory.

"Today, the forces of freedom and tolerance face new challenges," Mr. Bush said. "From labor camps in North Korea, to political prisons in Cuba and Burma, university halls in Iran, coffeehouses in Venezuela, and other places, dissidents and reformers are seeking strength and support. When America stands for liberty, they take heart. When we do not, the dictators tighten their grip."

Mr. Bush didn't directly mention Iraq or Afghanistan, although former First Lady Laura Bush did, as she described another initiative that would focus on advancing women's rights, especially in the Middle East.

[La Enchiladita]

FYI ping.

[La Enchiladita]

It’s too bad you think it’s okay to take a dump on this thread and then you sing a different tune on another thread with similar theme. You’re a two-faced snake.

[DoughtyOne]

You know the answer to this one. Think about it.

If you’ve got a guy on the opposite side doing your bidding, what’s the best way to kill his efforts? Why you compliment him of course. Never compliment a guy who is doing your bidding from the other side of the isle.

If he’s doing your bidding, yet you’d like to see him come farther in your direction, what do you do? Why you criticize him of course. It may or may not move him, but it will move others who want to be popular with both parties.

Look at the Republican party, and how far to the left it has moved. Didn’t it do that so that it could appeal to at least some of the Democrats? Won’t it move farther to the left, the more rabidly the left attacks it? Why sure, they have to silence their critics.

Up until now the Republican party has pretty much held on to it’s base. Now the base is leaving. So it trashes the base for being irrational, and stays left to curry favor with the leftists.

Sadly, it doesn’t realize leftists vote for Democrats, not wanna be leftists in the Republican party. McCain(D) has no appeal to Democrats. He didn’t have enough appeal even to Independents in 2008.

If people want a true blue diehard leftist, they know where to get one. It isn’t in the Republican party.

Now..., where do people go for Conservatives? Damned if I know. The Republican party wants no part of them.

Take a look at the Republican reregistration numbers vs Democrats. The Republicans think it’s because they aren’t leftist enough. Go figure.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you Yaelle. I appreciate it.

Contrary to public opinion, I get no pleasure from saying that.

Sadly, the only way to make sure it doesn’t happen again, is to pound folks over the head until they get it.

Good luck with that...

[DoughtyOne]

Perhaps you would be generous enough to tell me what comment you’re upset about now.

[La Enchiladita]

Thank you, MEG. There is a world of difference between the Bush presidency and this one, and I certainly prefer the former.

The fact that in the Bush years we were increasingly disliked by Ahmadinejad, Assad, Castro, Chávez, Kim Jong Il, Morales, Ortega, and Putin, may in retrospect seem logical, just as their current warming to the U.S. may prove to be cause for alarm, given the repugnant nature of these strongmen.

[La Enchiladita]

I don’t like dishonesty. You are dishonest.

[Favor Center]

“Saved your ass, like it or not.”

He certainly didn’t save the 30,000+ Americans dead since 9/11 due to his favorite people south of the border. He certainly didn’t do that when he ENCOURAGED more Muslim immigration, funded Islamic terrorists in Kosovo and the Palestinian territories, or waffled on North Korea.

He wouldn’t even override gun control executive orders.

He was a MEDIOCRE President at best.

[Favor Center]

“God Bless President Bush.....our last American President.”

That was Reagan. Bush was the best President Mexico ever had.

[Just A Nobody]

Bush had a Republican Congress for six of his eight years

NO, he did not! Anyone that believes there was a Republican SINate for 6 years are being willfully blind. Couple that with the presence of John MeInsane, Arlene Sphincter, Collins, Snowe, Coleman, Hagel, Grahamnesty and a few other RINOs, even when they had a 5 seat majority, they still weren't the majority. Gang of 14 anyone?

107th Congress (2001-2003)
(Jan 3-20, 2001)
Majority Party: Democrat (50 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
________
(Jan 20-June 6, 2001)
Majority Party: Republican (50 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
______
(June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --)
Majority Party: Democrat (50 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)
Other Parties: 1 [caucused with rats = 51-49]
Total Seats: 100
_____
(November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003)
Majority Party: Republican (50 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)
Other Parties: 2 [caucused with rats = 50-50]
Total Seats: 100

_____
108th Congress (2003-2005)
Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat) [caucused with rats = 49-51]
Total Seats: 100

_____
109th Congress (2005-2007)
Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat) [caucused w/ rats = 55-45]
Total Seats: 100
_____
110th Congress (2007-2009)
Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)
Other Parties: 1Independent; 1 Independent Democrat [caucused w/rats = 50-49]
Total Seats: 100

Now the DemonRATS know what to do with a 1 or 2 seat majority, but the republicans, when faced with that scenario, offer to share power...leaving them powerless.

History of US SINate party division.

[Just A Nobody]

LOL! How did I miss that first one...it is awesome!
The last pic is wonderful...love him...miss him!

[STARWISE]

;)

[DoughtyOne]

Below this response, people will be able to review the posts across two threads that prompted it.

This makes it two threads you communicated on with me.  You've been quite upset on both.

One thread was titled, "Bush to Develop Think Tank Affiliated With His Library"

The other thread was titled, "What Bush Inherited, and What He Left Left Behind"

The first thread focused on Bush intending to start a think tank.  I explained that I do not care to have Bush start a think tank, because I do not think he was sound enough in his Conservative principles, to be seeking to influence policy decisions.  I then mentioned some reasons why I have come to that conclusion.  At no time did I rag on him for not implementing more liberal agenda.  Whether you agree with me or not, there should be no doubt whatsoever what side of the isle I'm coming at this from.

The second thread did list what Bush inherited, what some of his actions were, and what he passed off.  It's emphasis IMO made it clear that Obama needs to stop blaming Bush and move on.  I chose to address that premise.  I stated my thoughts on that point clearly.  Yes, I could have pointed out that the recession Bush inherited is laughable when you consider the economic melt-down he handed off.  It was still my opinion that this sought to take Obama to task for continuing to blame things on Bush, and that he needed to start taking responsibility himself.  I agree with that.  I reinforced that premise with my response on the second thread.  I did not give Bush kudos.  I did not make contradictory comments on one thread compared to the other.  That is not the reality of it, and where that impression exists at all, it is in your own head, and possible the head of a few others who haven't given my responses enough thought.

In loose terms, this was actually a stand that could be seen as favorable to Bush.  It said, no matter what Bush did, positive or negative, it's past time when you can still legitimately blame continued downward spiral on him. I believe that to be true. It's also my belief, which I have stated on this forum many times, that the Democrats in Congress, the Republicans in Congress, Bush, and even former presidents share fault that this economic melt-down that took place.  Obama even contributed to it along the way, through his association with ACORN.  Still, in the eight years of the Bush administration, he and the Republicans could have taken measures to avoid or at the very least, minimize this problem to some degree.  They didn't.

I admonished the Obama administration to take ownership, and knock off putting the blame on Bush.  By now Obama's actions should be resulting in progress.  Are they?  No.

Is it possible to give Bush grief for his actions outside the bounds of what traditional Conservatism values would be, but then be critical of Obama for continuing to blame Bush for the nation's ills?  Yes.  Does that reflect a conflict in arguments?  No.  Would one have to be lying or misleading to make the cases I did on two different threads?  No.

I take Bush to task because he implemented leftist policy, and I don't want that repeated.  Obama takes Bush to task to avoid blame.  These are two entirely different reasons aren't they.  Point to one place in all this where I absolve Obama of anything.  Point to one place where I blame Bush for implementing Conservative policy.

There is a tendency, for some Republicans to defend Bush's every move, because he was "one of our own".  When his policy was sound, I agree.  Where his policy wasn't sound, we need to recognize it and speak out forcefully in objection.  If a policy is leftist in nature, it doesn't matter if it's implemented by a Bush or an Obama, IT IS BAD POLICY.  It should be spoken out against.  And the person pushing the bad policy should take plenty of lumps for it.

I am critical of our side for implementing leftist policy EVERY SINGLE TIME they do it.  The left doesn't implement Conservative policy ever.  NEVER NEVER NEVER.  So over time, which way does this nation move?  Why it moves left.  Is the proof in the pudding?  Why yes it is.  Our nation has moved considerably left in the last twenty years.  That must not only stop, it MUST be reversed.  We won't reverse it by shielding bad policy decisions by our own, and only attacking the implementation of bad policy by our political enemies.

It's time we face up to the sad fact that anyone who implements leftist policy is to one degree or another, our enemy.  This insidious movement left with baby steps by people professing to be a player on the right, MUST END.

You and I carrying on exchanges like this, when we both realize this nation must stop moving leftward, is ridiculous.  I ask you to join me in attacking everyone who seeks to implement leftist policy.

Does Bush deserve our thanks for some of his policies?  I have said so countless times on this forum.

Obama will do bad 100% of the time.  He can't help himself.  Bush did bad 33% to 50% of the time.  That means that 66 to 75% of the time, our nation moves left.  If you want to defend that go right ahead.  I won't be joining you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no problem with you pulling my quotes over from other threads, because I believe that if folks get to read them in context, they'll understand why I made them.

For that reason, I ask you to link those comments, even if they are copied verbatim, so that folks can read them in context.

If your arguments have merit, it won't damage your case to do that.

Just providing the name of the other thread and the response number, makes folks have to go to too much work to find contextual relevance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush to Develop Think Tank Affiliated With His Library
Saturday, November 14, 2009 2:35:37 PM · 62 of 72
La Enchiladita to DoughtyOne

It’s too bad you think it’s okay to take a dump on this thread and then you sing a different tune on another thread with similar theme. You’re a two-faced snake.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Bush Inherited, and What He Left Left Behind
Saturday, November 14, 2009 2:39:01 PM · 30 of 35
La Enchiladita to DoughtyOne

You left out this:

“For what, pegging Bush for who he was all along? No, it’s because you can’t accept that Bush had a Republican Congress for six of his eight years and failed miserably to advance our cause. He also handed off a terrible recession, an economic abyss, teh beginnings of massive debt, and a political environment perfectly staged, for an activist Marxist to come in and manipulate for optimum destruction of our founding principles. He didn’t get our borders under control. He tried to get the illegal immigrants naturalized. He passed a new Great Society program. And he more than any other person, is the reason why we have Barack Obama in the White House today.

....

22 posted on Friday, November 13, 2009 12:53:05 PM by DoughtyOne”

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Bush Inherited, and What He Left Left Behind
Saturday, November 14, 2009 2:44:23 PM · 31 of 35
La Enchiladita to DoughtyOne

And this:

“People get really defensive about Bush. He’s in effect their Reagan. I have no idea how that came to be, remembering the genuine article, but it none the less seems to be the case.

They thought Obama was going to teach us a real lesson, oh boy Bush was going to look good to us now. Aren’t we sorry for trashing him?

Well, sadly, Bush remains the same in my mind, a person who threw away so much opportunity with both hands, and prepared the table Obama eats at. For that alone he should be skewered for eternity.

.....

30 posted on Friday, November 13, 2009 2:06:37 PM by DoughtyOne”

Are you two people, or one? Or just a phony, a liar.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush to Develop Think Tank Affiliated With His Library
Saturday, November 14, 2009 3:00:05 PM · 67 of 72
La Enchiladita to DoughtyOne

I don’t like dishonesty. You are dishonest.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DoughtyOne]

You said that I was two-faced. I asked you to provide comments that reflected that, and this was your response.

Was that too tough a question for you?

Provide two comments that I have made that conflict.

I’ll respond.

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, good point. Now, how do you explain to me that during a two year (the 109th Congress) stretch Bush had a 55 to 45 majority, and didn’t seek to push through a number of Conservative agenda items?

You mentioned leftist Republicans, all well and good, but how do you reveal those leftist Republicans for who they are without trying to pass Conservative agenda over their objection?

How do you advance Conservative agenda, if you don’t push for it’s implementation and explain to the public why things need to change? We have a lot of leftist rubbish, that doesn’t even get a public airing. Isn’t that supposed to be the job of the President?

All I get is the woe is me defense. Sorry, it just doesn’t fly.

We do have those leftists in the Republican party. We shouldn’t. That doesn’t mean that they won’t vote with us on any issues. We may or may not have been able to pass Conservative agenda, we’ll never know.

What we do know, is that we didn’t try and Conservative ideals were kept in the closet when they should have been dusted off and taken out in public.

I’m tired of watching folks try to run cover for the indefensible.

[DoughtyOne]

For the record, we waited for those two years for over fifty years. I think I can be excused for thinking we really blew it by taking a pass on a number of agenda items, while we did have the clear Congressional majority, and the White House.

[roses of sharon]

[Favor Center]

Cute graphics do not change reality. Bush was an internationalist liberal.

[Just A Nobody]

Now, how do you explain to me that during a two year (the 109th Congress) stretch Bush had a 55 to 45 majority, and didn’t seek to push through a number of Conservative agenda items?

I will try, DoughtyOne. So as not to waste a lot of my time, could you give me a hint as to what Conservative agenda items you would have liked to see pushed through? I have my ideas, but I want to know what was important to you.

You mentioned leftist Republicans, all well and good, but how do you reveal those leftist Republicans for who they are without trying to pass Conservative agenda over their objection?

There are a number of bills that were stopped dead, not only by the rats, but a number of RINOs. Generally speaking, you can find those RINO names right here on the member list of the Republican Main Street Partnership.

These names should have been distributed far and wide within the conservative movement. Instead, those of us who tried to expose them were shunned.

Other names to expose are those listed here on the Senate Centrist Coalition list. And of course there is always the House Centrist Coalition.

If you really want to expose these cretins, it is not necessary to push an agenda to reveal who they are.
Scroll down and read names.

Read the names carefully. There are a few recurring names that you will recognize immediately and one in particular on nearly every list. Also, note when most of these groups were founded.

Let me know what agenda items you would like to explore.

[DoughtyOne]

When it comes to the Senate, we can pretty well agree that Collins, Snowe, and McCain are a write-off. Of course Graham and a few others are too.

I concentrated on the Senate, since the list gets pretty long in the House.

I did note the mention of Schwarzenegger and even that nut-job Ritter in there.

Of course McCain’s name is central.

Let me give those efforts some thought. Over eight years there were so many issues. I’ve got some that would come right to mind, but there are others.

I don’t want to do it on the spur of the moment.