Posted on 07/28/2002 6:24:02 PM PDT by Lazamataz
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:55:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON, July 28 (UPI) -- When President Franklin Roosevelt, a member of one of the most wealthy and prominent families in America, was constructing the New Deal, which brought forth the Securities and Exchange Commission, strong banking regulation and labor protections, he was excoriated as a traitor to his class. Even one his own family members wrote him to complain.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
But nationalizing an entire industry is.
Try "nationalized" it is closer to the truth.
Not sure what you mean. I guess you didn't read my #45 in defense of Bush.
I disagree with the author of this article, who seems to believe that increased government spending, for any purpose, is a Democrat philosophy. He calls Bush a "New Deal Democrat" for advocating such things as "hiring 40,000 baggage screeners to increases in the Border Patrol."
As I stated, this is ridiculous. Increasing the budget for our national defense has nothing to do with "New Deal"-type programs. Hiring better baggage checkers is a necessity for our safety, as opposed to advocating socialistic programs like FDR's.
On the other hand, I understand completely where the critics of Bush, on the conservative side, are coming from. In issues such as stem cell research, the ICC, and most blatantly with the CFR bill, Bush has let many of us down. In that sense, Lazamataz's joke about "I was promised a conservative President and all I got was this lousy t-shirt," was quite funny and fitting.
I think the thing to keep in mind is that there's nothing wrong with criticism of any president, when it's justified. I disagree with the camp of folks for whom Bush can do no right, and I likewise disagree with those who believe Bush can do no wrong.
The fact is, Bush is the president, I worked hard to elect him, but I can't help feeling the pangs of disappointment in some of the things that should've been no-brainers for someone who campaigned as a conservative. And I think when he does something wrong, we should all hold him to account for it. That is what government of the people is all about.
Forgive me if I misunderstood your words.
No, one could make the argument that that is fascism, but not socialism. Socialism--or more specifically, what is referred to in the article as the "New Deal"--is an economic/social principle.
I can understand a person disagreeing with federalizing the baggage handlers, and I personally think idea of letting the states take this one on is better. But even with that angle of criticism, I don't see how a person could assert that Bush is now a "New Deal Democrat." It makes no sense to me. And I’m no Bush apologist.
I am assuming that he meant airport security. Many do not realize that those rent-a-cops were IN FACT government employees prior to 911. Airlines do not provide security the airports do. Airports are governmental entities and they have farmed out security to a few security firms. The real fact is that Bush did NOT want to federalize the security workers in the first place. He wanted to establish federal guidelines to standardize the national network. He lost, and rather than not do anything he signed the bill that federalized security. The situation as it now stands is that airport security will be under the Homeland Defense agency and he is threatening a veto of the HSA act if he does not get relief in weakening civil service protections for all employees within that agency.
I lost a lot of respect for Bush when he signed the CFR bill, especially when he stated in the process that he had "concerns" about its constitutionality, but that he felt the courts would handle the mess. That's a violation of his oath of office. And it conflicts with his earlier criticisms of CFR during the campaign.
Since he signed the unconstitutional bill, I have a hard time taking him seriously as a person who understands the importance of his oath, of the constitution, and of restoring our nation to its founding principles.
But I accept the fact that he is better than Clinton and Gore, or any other Democrat. I just don't know if I can in good conscience work again to get him elected in 2004. I dunno. We'll see.
That said, I reiterate that it's important to hold the president--or any other servant of the people--to account. If he's done something wrong, we have the right and the duty to let him know. Expressing your ire, after all, is one way to persuade.
And on the other hand, let me reiterate that a person should not get carried away in criticizing. Exaggerating the situation, and treating Bush unfairly--as I believe this article does a bit--only hurts the conservative cause and erases credibility.
"So how is Bush sleazy? Just because you don't agree with him 100% of the time he is a sleazy guy?"
I think you've misread what Laz said. He didn't call Bush sleazy.
I agree....but that merely qualifies us for tin foil hats on this forum.
If it was something he wasn't even lobbying for, and just incidental, that leads further ammo to my question of why the author of the article suggested that something like hiring baggage handlers makes Bush a New Deal Democrat.
Only constructive criticisms based on actual facts and faults leads to any good.
The entire security apparatus at all domestic airports.
It was in all the papers, but the media whores couldn't bring themselves to say the word.
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.