That's too easy!
* secured passage through Congress of a $1.35 trillion tax cut
* gave working American's $100 billion stimulus tax cut
* largest increases in military spending since Reagan (14+% in 2003 budget)
* signed two military two pay raises; increased medical/housing benefits
* threw out the Kyoto protocol
* disposed of the ABM Treaty
* pro-life, anti-abortion President
* publically called for a right to life amendment to US Constitution
* eliminated taxpayer funding of overseas abortions
* has openly and strongly supported Taiwan
* designated N.Korea, Iran and Iraq, the Axis of Evil
* secured initial funding for a NMDS (SDI)
* promoted increases for off shore oil drilling
* strongly advocates drilling in ANWR
* pushed for building more nuclear power plants
* advocates reducing US dependency on oil imports
* repealed/froze many last minute Clinton EO`s
* proposed partial privatization of Social Security
* offered faith-based alternatives to traditional welfare
* stopped gov't funding for further destruction of human embryo's
* nominated conservative judges to the federal bench
* recognized 2ND amendment/RKBA as individual right, fully constitutional
* told Cuba/Castro trade embargo stays
* turned Russia into a strategic partner of the USA
* returned honor, dignity and trust to the Presidency
* has done an outstanding/remarkable job, leading America in the war on terrorism.
And in less then 17 months too.
Now tell me, how has the war on terrorism, gotten too big for its britches, for you that is? Can't wait to hear this explanation.
For those of you old enough to remember, Reagan came into office after an unpopular President, a horrible economy, a foreign policy disaster(Iran hostages), and double-digit inflation. Reagan immediately got tremendous political capital when the hostages were released the day he took office. The times were much different.
(Music please) All that I'm saying, is give Bush a chance...
Gore would not have done one of these things. Someone send this list to Rush.
Part of the same issue. Very small tax cut right now and if it comes around in 2006 with the 'threats' against Socialized Security, I'd be suprised. Let's see him make a statement against Social Security (and more than 1% going to to my choice of funds) and I'll change my mind
* largest increases in military spending since Reagan (14+% in 2003 budget)
* signed two military two pay raises; increased medical/housing benefits
Again part of national defense and in my mind a direct result of what X42 did to the military. Returning to the levels his father had, but hey it's all going to military contractors in the end, so I see it as a payoff for the military companies more than a huge increase in the military. Admittedly he did sign the pay raises for the military. Conservative? Maybe. More of a centrist attitude
* threw out the Kyoto protocol
Well that's a maybe but if there is any truth to said article above, he hasn't done crap and has caved in again
* disposed of the ABM Treaty
Again tied into more military spending. Really trying to extend your list by covering the same issue in different words is something I would expect from a liberal
* pro-life, anti-abortion President
Well he's said he is but I don't see many calls to cut funding to the Planned Parenthood. As for pro-life, by not making a decisive move on the issue of embryos, he's left the door cracked well enough for the next liberal POTUS to kick it wide open. As if that was a power of the executive branch, but hey in today's new Empire I guess anything he says is, is a power
* publically called for a right to life amendment to US Constitution
Well shoot me and call me Slim. Called for it has he? If I stand up on national TV, that makes me a conservative? No, more lip service to his voter base
* eliminated taxpayer funding of overseas abortions
Again covered above. Admittedly I'm suprised he cut funding for ANYTHING overseas since apparently we have the whole world to take care of(knowing that's not covered in the Constitution) but I'll give you this one. That was a conservative move, but what state is the world in when we have to call that a conservative move?
* has openly and strongly supported Taiwan
Well about every POTUS for the past 50 or so years has made a statement for Taiwan. Oh, but we promised them ships or something what, 10 years from now? I'm sure the President 10 years from now is going to make that the top of his list (if we're not already at war with China over the tariffs he's imposed, that's another non-conservative move, protectionism)
* designated N.Korea, Iran and Iraq, the Axis of Evil
What, are we so lame that speeches not backed up whatsoever do it for us now? I want to see some backup of that, not reopening talks with N Korea as has just happened. And I think we'll be getting the backing of Iran, at least lip servicewise, in any attack on Iraq
* secured initial funding for a NMDS (SDI)
Part of the military budget issue seen above twice. Initial funding? You mean to tell me Reagan didn't get any funding whatsoever for this? And how long have we been talking about Star Wars? Twenty years. Heck over half the movies are out. He better get moving if he wants to beat Lucas
* promoted increases for off shore oil drilling
* strongly advocates drilling in ANWR
* pushed for building more nuclear power plants
* advocates reducing US dependency on oil imports
Well that is conservative and like I said I give credit where credit is due. I didn't say he completely ignored his voter base but quite a bit. And I don't like this issue of nuclear waste being forced upon a state by the national government. If a station creates the waste, then it should be stored within that state. State's rights issue here. Will be suprised if he would agree with that
* repealed/froze many last minute Clinton EO`s
* proposed partial privatization of Social Security
First off, any POTUS of a different party is going to freeze the previous officeholder's actions. But he didn't say they would be permanently canned. He would 'study' them. And 1-2% of Social Security is not privatization. Do away with it completely (it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place for this long) or make it 50/50.
* offered faith-based alternatives to traditional welfare
* stopped gov't funding for further destruction of human embryo's
* nominated conservative judges to the federal bench
Again he did do 'some' conservative things but not a lot. The embryo point I covered already. That door wasn't closed like it should have been. As for the conservative judges, the voter base has been told to be good little Republicans and go out and vote this November for our Republican candidate to 'win back the Senate'. Tell me, if I do that, apparently it's a forgone conclusion I have to vote for Giddy Dolt. As liberal as she is, what am I winning back again? NC will be so far in the hole after she's finished with tobacco subsidies and more seatbelt laws, we'll all be strapped to bicycles riding to our work in the government tariff propped up textile mill making 6 an hour with cigarettes costing 6 bucks a pack!!
* recognized 2ND amendment/RKBA as individual right, fully constitutional
* told Cuba/Castro trade embargo stays
* turned Russia into a strategic partner of the USA
Well he did recognize the 2nd Amendment but that was just a reversal back to a previous recognition 60 years ago and already assumed by most conservatives anyway. As for Cuba, that was just a continuation of previous administrations, so no big change there. And how exactly in less than 16 months did he turn Russia into a strategic partner. Reagan did, Bush continued, and hatefully I can't believe I'm saying this, the dependence of money from the IMF kept bringing Russia back for more. No, he really hasn't done anything here but build on previous relationships
* returned honor, dignity and trust to the Presidency
* has done an outstanding/remarkable job, leading America in the war on terrorism.
As for returning honor, anybody except algoron would have returned dignity. That's not a conservative move, that's just being in the right place at the right time. And lead the war on terrorism? That's my point. With the Patriot Act, security in the airports, and Ashcroft wanting to start running through churches, wouldn't you agree this 'protecting our freedoms' has gone a little more to 'ensuring security' over freedoms?
Now before I get flamed here, I voted for Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, and Reagan. I don't know sometimes how to vote anyway but Republican. But I feel a little bit left in the dust when it comes to actual morals, family values, and following what the Constitution says instead of what they might want it to say by the Republican party
*dismantled that NAG-feminazi organization that used to ride PC-herd on the military, DACOWITS;
*has begun the process of reversing Bubba's dumb women in combat policies;
*axed unnecessary, pork-barrel weapons programs and is taking the heat for it;
I could go on . . . I am very sorry that we are not all rejoicing at what we got instead of bitchin' about what we don't got.
It wasn't long ago we had a pervert and predator in the Oval Office. But some people seem more in a tizzy about a dumb restatement of the obvious on global warming.
Someone mentioned this story was nowhere, zero on the establishment media today. Hmm, donchathink if Bush was truly caught in a Barnum-and-Bailey flip flop the talking heads would be foaming at the mouth today? Guess they read the report, not the NYT, and decided, nope, won't go there.