Posted on 03/23/2012 3:51:01 PM PDT by KantianBurke
President Bush's list of domestic accomplishments is already pretty thin. No Child Left Behind is now universally despised among conservative activists. Medicare Part D epitomized Bush's big spending ways and arguably paved the way for Obamacare. And even Bush's tax cuts are looking to be pretty temporary in nature.
The one saving grace Bush still has on the domestic front is the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito have so far proved to be good reliable conservative votes. But all that may change after Obamacare hits the Supreme Court.
Almost everybody assumes that Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Sam Alito will side with the National Federation of Independent Businesses and find Obamacare's individual mandate unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy is the consummate swing vote. But what about Roberts?
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
Doubt it. Dubya dabbled with certain vices though not weed which Trayvon was a dealer / user of.
“Maybe Eisenhower”
Somebody indeed needs to put the crack pipe away.
Some of the proposals that Dubya didn’t get were even worse.
Perhaps his worst idea was his 2004 plan to match American job openings with foreign nationals “if the company can’t find an American worker to fill it” (that phrase being a close cousin to Dubya’s “Jobs Americans Won’t Do” excuse for flooding the country with illegal aliens).
There was next to nothing required to buttress a company’s claim that an American couldn’t be found to take the job (something IT engineers are all too familiar with). There was to be no limit on the number of ‘temporary’ foreign workers allowed in under this program.
With foreign nationals willing to take very low wages simply to get a foothold on American soil there would be a tremendous pressure in favor of foreign workers and against hiring Americans. Contemplate what the current job market would be like if that treasonous monstrosity had become law.
I still think that he is a man of good character, in sharp contrast to his predecessor, and that he is a far better man than Al Gore or John Kerry.
His intentions are good, but of course we are all well aware that the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
I still say that George W. Bush hovers just above Bill Clinton as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history. Some people who post here on FR don't like that--and that is as it should be. People who post here tend to be highly intelligent and to think for themselves; so, as they are constantly evaluating and re-evaluating matters truthfully, their opinions will inevitably differ, which is a good sign of honest evaluation.
I still think that he is a man of good character, in sharp contrast to his predecessor, and that he is a far better man than Al Gore or John Kerry.
His intentions are good, but of course we are all well aware that the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
I still say that George W. Bush hovers just above Bill Clinton as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history. Some people who post here on FR don't like that--and that is as it should be. People who post here tend to be highly intelligent and to think for themselves; so, as they are constantly evaluating and re-evaluating matters truthfully, their opinions will inevitably differ, which is a good sign of honest evaluation.
Well said.
I agree with all that you say, except that I was never in favor of Dubya. When he was campaigning in 2000 and used phrases like “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande” I knew that Bush had no intention of enforcing immigration law.
He turned out to be worse than even I imagined, he not only didn’t enforce the law he worked to actively subvert it. Southern California already had serious problems due to years of illegal immigration, and Dubya threw gasoline on that fire. And far from just having local impact, this has given the Democratic Left a lock on California.
If you’ve never seen Larry Auster’s ‘My Bush Epiphany’ I know that you’ll enjoy it:
http://www.wnd.com/2000/09/3045/
Eisenhower was the consummate politician. You may remember only that he Was SHAEF in WWII.
He boasted that he was a Modern Republican (Progressive is the term today).
I Don’t have time to give you a history lesson. But all you crossed out would havve been far to the left of W. on most economic issues. Also on the strong stand bush took on Iraq.
Many meddled far more with American freedom than W. did.
You seem either quite young or did not pay attention to political issues most of your life.
Of course, there are exceptions.
“He boasted that he was a Modern Republican (Progressive is the term today).”
Good luck finding any source that will back you in labeling Eisenhower a ‘Progressive’. I remember the Progressive wing of the GOP of that era, the Rockefeller Republicans of the Northeast, and Eisenhower was hardly one of them
Eisenhower was perhaps the last of the small government Republicans. He was for a balanced budget and suspicious of big government working in tandem with big business, whether it be the ‘military-industrial complex’ or the ‘scientific technological elite’ that he mentioned in the same speech.
And it wasn’t just talk. Unlike Nixon and most every Republican President since, Eisenhower didn’t leave behind a host of new domestic programs that made the government bigger and more intrusive. His sole big spending program was the Interstate Highway System, something he saw as a military necessity from the time he participated in the first motorized cross-country military expedition in 1919.
Ad Hminem attacks are not considered the height of cerebral acuity. Lol.
Ad Hominum attacks are not considered the height of cerebral acuity, SB.
Actually the Progressive movement was contemporaneous with TR in the early 1900’s, Correct?
And thank you for the information on Eisenhower. My “Perhaps,” was based upon his reputation in some very Conservative circles of being more a politician than a Statesman, as well as my reading of his leadership at SHAEF.
“Actually the Progressive movement was contemporaneous with TR in the early 1900’s, Correct?”
The Progressive movement usually gets dated to the 1890s with both Democrats and Republicans involved in it. TR being one of them.
I read Gabriel Kolko’s “The Triumph of Conservatism” a few years ago; it deals with the progressive era and might be worth your time. The book title, BTW, is using ‘conservatism’ to essentially mean big business.
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.