Bush Live - Speech on Corporate Responsibilty

MSNBC

[caddie]

Your point is well taken, but don't you think that Reno avoided prosecuting so many people, and did so many crazy other things, like sending back Elian at gunpoint, with the understanding and approval of Clinton?

I mean, that was a given assumption here on FR during the reign of Bill, wasn't it?

This is why I believe Bush, in tighter control of his people than Clinton, decides whom the DOJ will lean on, and whom it will ignore.

Also, does not the POTUS appoint the Attorney General, the head of the DOJ?

[steve50]

I'm appalled by the money missing at defense, housing, education and everywhere else. I consider SS the largest ponzai scheme every ran on a nation. The 50%+ taxation rate we endure is a joke, considering all we get is social/corporate welfare out of it.
The Republican Party I grew up in stood for smaller, limited and responsible government. The neoconservatives running it now are a disgrace to those principles.
As far as Bush being a man of his word he has already proven at least twice that he is not. I see no reason to trust him anymore.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"I get really hinky when I hear this guy talk.

Oh, for heaven's sake, we wouldn't want that to happen!

"that he would have no compunction whatsoever about adding on several hundred hours of paperwork annually to the average businessman's work-year, just to satisfy his naive notion of justice in his highly padded world. ,,,"

Yes, the average businessman = the CEO, in your rhetoric. BTW, that rhetoric is very familiar to me......I know I've seen it here before, perhaps under a different name.....

[Scholastic]

BUMP

[caddie]

No, really, I am just as happy to see GOP guys get put in the slammer as Rats. Seriously.

But you know as well as I what the reality is, and will be.

Let's compare what Nixon did as POTUS, and how he was treated, with what Clinton did as POTUS, and how HE was treated...Get the idea??

I see Bush's prosecuting 'swat team,' still in existence twenty-five years from now, run by a Rat POTUS (say, uhhhh... President Frankie Munoz) morphing into something that will prosecute one Rat for every twenty Republicans.

And we all may have to settle on that, because the Republicans indicted will get smeared and bashed by the press (remember Tammy Faye and Jim Bakker) whereas the Rats indicted will be championed in the press (remember that awful, dead, old hillbilly fart FOB and his skanky young wife Susan from Arkansas, I am blocking on their names -- you know whom I am speaking of).

You KNOW that is what is going to occur.

Until EVERY scandal is REPUBLICAN, over and over and over.

Merely reinforcing the concept of Republican Gordon Gekko in the typical voter's mind.

[Mo1]

I see no reason to trust him anymore.

Fine .. don't .. that is your choice and your right

[caddie]

Do you know how much nonsense the small businessman has to do to satisfy the Federal government now?

Do you know that even tiny companies can have a "CEO"?

Do you believe that only huge corporations will be affected by this sort of Bush meddling? You would be wrong to assume that.

There are a lot of small businesses that would ultimately be affected by the DOJ scrutiny that Bush wants to foist on these few wrongdoers.

I think that's my main point -- any such interventions by Bush, outlined by him today, are unnecessary, and will merely morph into additional regulations, agencies, offices, departments, etc., that will do nothing but torment small businessmen (CEOs).

You are deluded to think that only the most egregious cases will be prosecuted.

Prosecution will always be selective.

If not, why is Jesse Jackson not being indicted?

Why is Michael Eisner not being indicted?

[A Citizen Reporter]

"Do you know that even tiny companies can have a "CEO"?"

Do they have shareholders? Are they then average businessmen as your rhetoric proclaims?

[Miss Marple]

I run a small business. The federal government requires very little from me, as my only employee is myself. I do not do anything but file taxes.

The regulations you see here are for corporations with millioins of dollars in compensation and apply to publicly traded companies. A small private business is not dealing with shareholders or anything like that.

As far as Ashcroft and prosecution, the President has made a special point of NOT telling the DOJ how to do things. If you watch press conferences with Ari Fleischer, he repeatedly says that the prosecutorial function of the DOJ should remain independent of the presidency, and the president does not give his opinion on individual cases. It is a very bad thing to have a president stirring the pot at DOJ, and although there is delay because of this hands off policy, I prefer this to President Bush calling the shots and ordering Ashcroft to go after certain people, which is a Clintonian tactic and not in keeping with how I would like the government to operate.

One of the things I have noticed is that there are many people in American life who have lost the capacity for patience. President Bush has not, and for that I am most grateful. The desire for instant gratification, even in righteous causes, often leads one to make mistakes that eventually lead to failure. Just as in the war on teror, the cleaning up of corruption is going to be a long drawn-out process. Patience is absolutely necessary.

[olliemb]

I knew you would say that--CFR and what else--steel tariffs? Or are there other broken promises. Yep, I was right, the repubs are so righteous that you can't stick with your commander. You have a road map and a blue print and it must be followed. CFR--well if that was not signed there would be such a back lash--are you serious? stay on tho you know it is going to fail? Anyway, he did say during his presidency that he would sign CFR. Promises made by a candidate is one thing, promises made when you already have the office is one you hold that person. Steel tariffs--I am afraid I don't know that much about it, but who knows what kind of deals had to be made to move on some legislation.

Again, my point, you have 2 broken promises and you walk off and pout--going to vote for the guy who can't get 1% of the vote? Says not much for your reasoning and logic. A true republican would forgive and work for their cause. A republican should not sulk, go the high moral ground and get nothing at the end b/c you gave the ball to the opposing party.

Remember, a no vote for Bush and the republicans in 2002 and 2004 means the democrats will run your life. And then you can tell me what values you want have been flushed down the sewer.

[Sub-Driver]

DJ Support For Bush's Handling Of Economy Drops - Poll


Copyright © 2002, Dow Jones Newswires


NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--A poll released Tuesday shows that support has dropped for the way President George W. Bush is handling the economy, falling below 60% for the first time since last September.

The poll by the Cable News Network and USA Today shows 58% agree with Bush's handling of the economy, down from 65% in March and 72% after the attacks of Sept. 11.

CNN said 76% approve of the way Bush, a Republican, is doing his job as president but only 40% say they would vote for a Republican for Congress.

Nevertheless, only 39% said they would vote for a Democrat for Congress.

Asked if they thought big business, big labor or big government would be the biggest threat to the country in the future, 38% said big business, 10% said big labor and 47% said big government.

In late October of 2000, 22% of respondents said big business, 7% said big labor and 65% said big government represented the biggest threat.

The poll was based on telephone interviews with 1,013 adults age 18 or over. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

USA Today Web site: http://www.usatoday.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires 09-07-02

[Sub-Driver]

with Jon Corzine, now US senator from NJ

[Mo1]

Nevertheless, only 39% said they would vote for a Democrat for Congress.

Gee 39% ... doesn't say much for the Dems .

[steve50]

I've tried the lessor of two evils approach you seem to expouse for too long. I spent the last election cycle arguing the same points with the C3PO's, that we couldn't survive a Gore presidency. I now doubt we will survive a Bush one, at least not with anything vaguely resembling the Constitution left. No more for me, I'm too old for this. My son deserves better than where our leaders are taking us.

[Wphile]

LOL! Only 39% for the Dems and 40% for the GOP!! Sheeet....this is hilarious. Also love the fact that 47% believe big government is the biggest threat to the country vs. only 38% for big business. What a strange poll.

[Wphile]

Yes, I am well aware. Another one of the gazillionaire Dems currently in the US Senate, along with Kerry, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Feinstein, etc.

[olliemb]

What part of the constitution has Bush demolished?

[Wild Irish Rogue]

Your 2 cents are priceless! Thanks for all the time and effort you spend everyday,posting the truth.

[section9]

But you know as well as I what the reality is, and will be.

No, I don't. I don't think it's wise to predict the future. However, your caution is noted.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Mo1]

Yes, I am well aware. Another one of the gazillionaire Dems currently in the US Senate, along with Kerry, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Feinstein, etc.

You forgot to add Senator Corzine and Hilda, now that she got that 8 MILLION dollar book deal