Do you really call liberal things "nuggets" thrown to us? Not IMO. He is spending billions of our tax money which will be followed by tax increases. 50% is not enough for me. I can accept 70%, but, not 50%. My description of bush still stands until he proves otherwise, but, I hold no hope he will change his embracing the democrat's programs. He is, after all, a democrat.
Do you really call liberal things "nuggets" thrown to us? Not IMO. He is spending billions of our tax money which will be followed by tax increases. 50% is not enough for me. I can accept 70%, but, not 50%. My description of bush still stands until he proves otherwise, but, I hold no hope he will change his embracing the democrat's programs. He is, after all, a democrat.
Ugh! Where to start....First of all, Bush cut taxes and he is proposing more tax cuts! Democrats want to increase taxes, not Bush. Conservatives might have more influence if we would restrict our complaints to reality, and not our fears.
You say Bush is a democrat. Ok what democrat would cancel the koyoto(sp?) treaty? what rat would cancel the ABM treaty? What rat would renew Reagan's (pro-life) mexico city policy? What rat would restrict stem cell research? What rat would try to increase the impact of organized religion in our society? What rat would have dramatic increases in our defense spending? What rat would build missle defense? What rat would promote abstinence sex ed? What rat would reverse the Gov't policy regarding the 2nd admendment? What rat would reverse clinton's "enviromental regs that harm our coal plants? What rat would try to develop our energy resources? What rat would actually call evil, evil? Do you think that Algore would have done any of these things? I could list more, or should I start listing what an algore administration would do?
You say that 50% is not enough for you. Good, I'm not saying that it should be. We should fight for 100 percent. Let's just be smart enough to realize that we will never achieve 100 percent. There will always be some sort of compromise. And let's realize that 50% right is a lot more than the zero percent right that we could get with a rat administration. Bush has been making mistakes. These mistakes make him wrong, not a lib, not a rat.
The problem with Bush is not his philosophy, but his tactics. For example, Bush signed the farm bill, because he believes that it will give him one senate seat in the next election. A seat that could allow him to regain control of the senate. If we get the senate then we can get conservative judges approved. If that happens then we gain far more than we lost with the farm bill. Does this mean that I think Bush should have signed the farm bill? No! I wish Bush would have tried defeating the rats, instead of defanging them by taking away their issues.
Please understand all I am asking is that you accept the idea that Bush be wrong without being a rat or a lib. Is there a reason why cannot we oppose Bush when he's wrong, without ignoring or forgetting the good things that he has done. Why must we falsely pretend he's the same as algore, just to condemn him when he's wrong. Right now I am very worried that the Bush Administration is making a big mistake. I've heard that Rumsfield has embraced the idea that we can predict future conflicts. (i.e. we "know" that all we need is air power and Special Forces to win all our future conflicts.) It will be a big mistake, but it won't mean that they are rats or libs, just that they are wrong.