His tax cuts were a pittance in relation to the major spending programs he has signed onto.
As for appointing conservative judges and privatizing social security, how many conservative judges have been confirmed, and what concrete steps have been taken toward privatizing social security? Talk is cheap. Doing the legwork to see both become reality requires commitment and stamina.
As far as missile defense is concerned, pulling out of the ABM treaty was a step in the right direction. Now let’s watch and see how many more steps in the right direction he takes, post ABM. The senate armed forces committee is determined to cut missile defense funding for 2003. Bush cannot capitulate on this. The PAC-3 antimissile system, and the sea-based and ground-based missile intercept programs desperately require additional funding and need to be continued (especially in light of Iran and North Korea spending billions every year developing long-range weapons). This is not the time to cut funding for such programs (as if there ever were such a time). Bush has never been in a better position to press for a well-funded missile defense program (and his new pact with Russia should silence those poised to label him a hawk). If the President doesn’t make the most of his current popularity in order to sufficiently fund missile defense (senate foot-draggers notwithstanding), he has betrayed his conservative base in the worst way possible….where national security is at risk.
Bush is so desperate to regain control of the senate that he is willing to sign many bad bills, in order to deny the democrats issues.
A certain amount of compromise is necessary in order to be an effective leader, but not when compromise includes signing bad legislation so as to deny public opinion ammunition to one’s ideological enemies. That is called surrendering (no matter how temporarily, or seemingly insignificantly) to the political and media information manipulators/propagandists. It amounts to allowing himself (and the people who elected him) to fall victim to ideological extortion. Not the kind of strength of character one seeks in the leader of the free world. (When he was in kindergarten, do you suppose he maintained a steady diet of insects because the playground bullies warned him, ‘Eat that bug or I’ll tell everyone your mother wears army boots.’?) I, for one, am not into insect eating….especially when those seeking to feed them to me are leftists.
Bush is trying so hard to set a high standard of Presidential behavior (to repair the damage that Clinton has done) that he is failing to engage in the politics necessary to advance the conservative agenda.
I’m scratchin’ my head here. Are you offering this explanation in the President’s defense? Do you think a President should devote one iota of his time or energy making mental comparisons (and hoping that others will, as well) between himself and his predecessor (no matter the vermin-like nature of the man who occupied the oval office before him)? A man of character will be recognized as such without having to focus on exhibiting it for public consumption. Among a myriad of other things, Ronald Reagan taught us that.
He has committed himself to advancing major parts of the conservative agenda i.e. tax cuts, conservative judges, missle defense, privatize Social Security, etc.
His tax cuts were a pittance in relation to the major spending programs he has signed onto.
So! He cut taxes, and he cut all the tax rates. Cutting Taxes is a conservative position. Bush did something conservative. Give him credit for it. And don't blame Bush because the Rats opposed and watered down the tax cut. Bush did go back and try to expand the tax cut, and the rats tried to repeal it. The point is the Bush has publicly taken a conservative positon and got a tax cut passed. Not stealthy
As for appointing conservative judges and privatizing social security, how many conservative judges have been confirmed, and what concrete steps have been taken toward privatizing social security? Talk is cheap. Doing the legwork to see both become reality requires commitment and stamina.
Bush nominated Conservative judges. He's keeping a campaign promise, a conservative campaign promise. Again He's doing something conservative that everyone can see. Not too stealthy.
He appointed a commission of Reformers to work on SS. I expect this to be a major issue for the 04 campaign. And don't forget my point. Bush has publicly taken a conservative stand. A stand that is considered political suicide. Again not too stealthy.
It's up to the rat controlled senate to confirm them. They are violating their own ethical standards by their stonewalling. And if you refer to my first post, you will see that under point 4, I critized Bush for not fighting as vigorously for his judges he should have.
As far as missile defense is concerned, pulling out of the ABM treaty was a step in the right direction. Now let’s watch and see how many more steps in the right direction he takes, post ABM.
Wow Another Issue where Bush public took a conservative position, was attacked for it by the europeans, rats, and media. Again not to stealthy.
The senate armed forces committee is determined to cut missile defense funding for 2003. Bush cannot capitulate on this.
Who's the problem here, the rats who want a weak America, or Bush who is fighting to build missle defense. And my point is that again Bush is taking a conservative stand.
The PAC-3 antimissile system, and the sea-based and ground-based missile intercept programs desperately require additional funding and need to be continued (especially in light of Iran and North Korea spending billions every year developing long-range weapons). This is not the time to cut funding for such programs (as if there ever were such a time). Bush has never been in a better position to press for a well-funded missile defense program (and his new pact with Russia should silence those poised to label him a hawk). If the President doesn’t make the most of his current popularity in order to sufficiently fund missile defense (senate foot-draggers notwithstanding), he has betrayed his conservative base in the worst way possible….where national security is at risk.
So right now Bush is doing what you want him to do for this issue. He's funding Missle defense, and he got a treaty that will silence critics.
Bush is so desperate to regain control of the senate that he is willing to sign many bad bills, in order to deny the democrats issues.
A certain amount of compromise is necessary in order to be an effective leader, but not when compromise includes signing bad legislation so as to deny public opinion ammunition to one’s ideological enemies. That is called surrendering (no matter how temporarily, or seemingly insignificantly) to the political and media information manipulators/propagandists. It amounts to allowing himself (and the people who elected him) to fall victim to ideological extortion. Not the kind of strength of character one seeks in the leader of the free world.
I agree, as Rush as said many times compromise should at least partially advance your agenda, and that Bush should use his high poll numbers to advance his agenda. But this is a tactical mistake, Bush is compromising his values hopefully for important victory in this upcoming election.
Bush is trying so hard to set a high standard of Presidential behavior (to repair the damage that Clinton has done) that he is failing to engage in the politics necessary to advance the conservative agenda.
I’m scratchin’ my head here. Are you offering this explanation in the President’s defense? Do you think a President should devote one iota of his time or energy making mental comparisons (and hoping that others will, as well) between himself and his predecessor (no matter the vermin-like nature of the man who occupied the oval office before him)? A man of character will be recognized as such without having to focus on exhibiting it for public consumption. Among a myriad of other things, Ronald Reagan taught us that.
Reread what I said!! I said that Bush is trying to repair the DAMAGE that Clinton has done. I never said that Bush was trying to avoid comparsions with clinton. Clinton corrupted and degraded both the White House and the political process. Clinton poisoned the relationship with Congress that Presidents have enjoyed in the past. Bush is trying to repair the damage by treating the members of Congress courteously and respectfully.
And I'm not defending the Bush here. (I said that he was failing to advance the conservative agenda.) I am explaining why Bush is acting the way he is. It' a little bit more than "he's a stealth conservative."
Personally I am very disappointed with Bush lately.(And I've send several e-mails to congress and the white house expressing my disappointment.) But I am objective enough to give him the credit he's due. Is it possible to give Bush the credit for good positions he's taken as well as critize his bad positions. A lot of people here cannot! Either Bush is the devil or he's the second coming. He is neither, He is a lot better than his father, but not as good as Reagan.