Bush Slams Democrats on Homeland

Yahoo News ^ | Mon Sep 23,11:03 AM ET | JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

[McGruff]

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - A day before senators headed into a showdown over President Bush ( news - web sites)'s proposal to create a new homeland security department, Bush on Monday said a dispute over labor rights threatened to leave America unprepared to "take the enemy on."

AP Photo

Democrats, who control the Senate by just a one-vote margin, largely oppose Bush's demands to be allowed for reasons of national security to implement a new personnel system in the agency and waive union job rules for the proposed department's 170,000 employees. Bush again threatened, in forceful terms, to veto any bill that does not include those powers.

He was seeking to persuade a few key wavering senators to back a bipartisan Bush-endorsed alternative to the Democratic homeland security bill. Some votes on side issues are expected starting Tuesday after three weeks of debate.

"It's a bill that will make America more secure and anything less than that is a bill which I will not accept," Bush told about 2,000 people gathered in a flag-adorned airport hangar at a New Jersey Army National Guard facility. "We must be flexible, we must be strong. We must be ready to take the enemy on anywhere."

After the campaign-style welcome rally, Bush was heading to a fund-raiser for Republican Douglas Forrester, seeking to unseat embattled Democratic incumbent Sen. Robert Torricelli ( news, bio, voting record).

Bush also chided senators for not sending him legislation he wants that he says will reinvigorate the economy, including energy legislation, a measure guaranteeing terrorism insurance and appropriations bills that include restraints on federal spending.

"What's happening in the economy is not good enough for a stronger America and Congress can help," Bush said at the rally. "What we need in Washington is fiscal responsibility, fiscal sanity. We need to set priorities with your money. And the most important priority I have is to defend the homeland, to defend the homeland from a bunch of killers who hate America."

Bush's policy speech allowed the White House to bill taxpayers for a portion of the otherwise all-political trip.

The Forrester fund-raiser was to be the opening event of an especially heavy week of fund raising for the president, who has blazed new fund-raising records this year.

By gathering $1.5 million Monday for Forrester, according to White House press secretary Ari Fleischer ( news - web sites), Bush raised his total for GOP candidates in this year above $117 million.

And he was showing no signs of a slowdown six weeks before the November election, scheduling four fund-raisers in three states. Bush is aggressively backing Republican candidates in an effort to recapture the Democratic-run Senate, which has been a graveyard for many of his initiatives.

Ousting Torricelli would be particularly sweet for Republicans. Torricelli was chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2000, and helped Democrats gain control of the Senate.

A Star-Ledger/Eagleton-Rutgers poll earlier this month showed the race a statistical dead heat — a dramatic reversal of fortune for Torricelli, who led Forrester by 14 percentage points in June.

In July, the Senate Ethics Committee "severely admonished" Torricelli after finding he accepted and failed to disclose gifts from David Chang, a businessman now serving an 18-month prison sentence for making illegal campaign donations. Forrester has made ethical issues central to his campaign.

Democrats said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., would help raise some $500,000 for Torricelli's campaign and the party, and later join New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey and Torricelli at a union rally.

Bush has three other fund-raisers scheduled this week.

On Thursday in Houston, he'll headline his second money-raising event this year for John Cornyn, the GOP Senate nominee in Texas.

On Friday, he'll stump in Denver for Bob Beauprez, a House candidate with no elected experience in a tight contest for a newly created Colorado district.

Later that day, he plans to raise money in Phoenix for Arizona gubernatorial candidate Matt Salmon

[McGruff]

Heard an audio clip of his comments. He was not in good moodski.

[billbears]

"We must be flexible, we must be strong. We must be ready to take the enemy on anywhere."

I'm sure glad Bush is planning on being President for life. Who knows who will be the enemy when he gets out of office and a Democrat like Edwards or Hillary gets in

[el_texicano]

"I'm sure glad Bush is planning on being President for life."

And what the hell is that supposed to mean???

[Diddle E. Squat]

Note how the writer briefly covers the title topic, then spends most of the article talking about fundraising.

[trebb]

"Bush's policy speech allowed the White House to bill taxpayers for a portion of the otherwise all-political trip."

May be technically true, but is it relevant?

[Miss Marple]

I watched the whole thing. He was really fired up! The speech will be on the White House web site later today and I will post it if no one else does.

[End The Hypocrisy]

Here's an interesting and highly relevant passage from http://www.NASAWatch.INFO:

Career tenure for federal bureaucrats was railroaded down U.S. taxpayers' & voters' throats during the late 1800's, before telecommunications breakthroughs made it possible for taxpayers to learn what was taking place.   The telecommunications revolution has also made statist monopolies and centralized planning comparatively very unnecessary.   Needless to say, deadwood bureaucrat beneficiaries of the lethargic bureaucratic malaise almost overwhelmingly tend to prefer those politicians who favor big government programs which keep them comparatively comfortably employed.  Now the U.S. Senate is their only hope for their continued "right" to take advantage of Americans.      

Anyhow, do the best employees of your local district attorneys' offices have (or need) career tenure to insulate their potential arrogance from the change in administrations?  No.   Communications have come a long way since that civil service full-employment act came about over a century ago, and politicians have to behave less politically and more responsibly with personnel decisions as a result.  Meanwhile, isn't the concept  of a job guarantee rather unAmerican?  Didn't the fall of the Soviet Union's show that it's also unwise?  Has NASA's "trailblazing" & "price-reducing" performance warranted the perpetuation of similar life tenure for its own bureaucrats?  How about the U.S. postal  "service's"?   Don't such career guarantees typically lead to arrogant treatment of taxpayers & genuine space entrepreneurs who are presently still forced to pay their bloated salaries, while the bureaucrats amazingly delude themselves into "nobly" thinking they could earn even more in the private sector (that they often jealously stifle, as http://www.spaceprojects.com/Mir documents).

[PhiKapMom]

He was not in good moodski.

My candidate for Understatement of the Day if we had one!

[hchutch]

I'm beginning to think the "new tone" was all a set-up. The Dems mistake that for weakness, and now Bush is kneecapping them with some hard-hitting stuff after tons of Daschle obstructionism.

I don't think Don Corleone could have done any better, IMHO.

[Mo1]

Bush's policy speech allowed the White House to bill taxpayers for a portion of the otherwise all-political trip.

HUH??? ... Ummm I'm thinking the liberal moron so-called reporter REALLY doesn't want to go down this road

[FreeTally]

I'm sure glad Bush is planning on being President for life.

Well, GW may not be planning on being king, er, President for life, but he knows damn well that he is above the law and no matter who is in power, nothing in thus "homeland security" bill will be used against him or his family.

[Carry_Okie]

I completely disagree with Bush on the matter of guaranteeing insurance coverage for terrorism. Insurance is the way a free market allocates capital to manage risk. It is the way we assure sufficient funds to get back to business after an event. It is the way we depress those activities that constitute undue risks thereby investing those that are safer investments.

Had the insurance market worked correctly, 911 would have never happened. Strong cockpit doors would have been there and pilots would have been armed because not to do so would cause rates to skyrocket. Instead the FAA said it was OK and the taxpayers picked up the tab. Had airline tickets reflected that risk, broadband investments might have reduced the impact of the dot com bust.

Socializing risk is a horrible idea.

[billbears]

It means exactly what it sounds like. This idea of 'Homeland Security' that just HAS to be in place is another example of good intentions that would go awry the first second a Democrat like Clinton or Edwards gets their hands on it. It's just like the Patriot Act that will never go away. Sure it has a sunset clause, but history shows that once government uses the power, it eventually abuses the power. So you better hope someone like Bush is ALWAYS in office. But to imagine that is even worse of a pipe dream than the one that this establishment of this department is being done for our own good. The only argument I've seen for 'Homeland Security' is that since the government failed with bureaucratic snafus to prevent 9/11, is that to prevent another terrorist attack we need more, not less, bureaucracy.

But of course this 'department' would never be used against the citizens of the respective states. Or don't you remember the 90s and the Clintons complete disdain for the Conservative Christians in this nation. Put the type of power that's being covered by the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Department in their realm of options and this nation moves one step further from what the Founding Fathers imagined

[Demidog]

I hope that his whole homeland security apparatchik goes down the toilet.

[Eva]

Thanks.

[alethia]

I firmly believe that the President is tremendously concerned that we're going to be attacked in the Homeland -- and soon -- and that the Dem's playing politics with the Homeland Security Bill is akin to playing Russian Roulette.

President Bush brings considerable business acumen to the White House -- individually and with key members of his Adminstration. As a business professional, I'll say that trying to move an organization swiftly and flexibly in uncertain, dynamic markets is contingent upon controlling it's vital resources. Having too much (or any) Union involvement in business is akin to turning a light, maneuverable sailboat or speedboat into a barge. Try turning a barge quickly -- it's virtually impossible even with a sail (and who's ever seen a barge with a sail? -- they're not even the same type of craft!!!)

The Senate is trying to give the President a barge instead of a speedboat. It's not the same type of Security "vehicle". Homeland Security shouldn't be the place to go for a guaranteed job and wage without accountability for performance. I don't have such luxuries in the real business world. Out here, performance and outcomes are what matters.

[Miss Marple]

It was VERY hard-hitting, hchutch. "As long as people who want to work can't find work, that's not good enough for me. I would hope that the Congress wouldn't think it was good enough for them, either. The House has stepped up to the plate, but where is the Senate?"

Not exact, but pretty close. Made it sound like the Senate didn't care about security or jobs. Lots of good shots at Daschle, without memntioning his name, of course. Ha!

[w1andsodidwe]

It's just like the Patriot Act that will never go away. Sure it has a sunset clause, but history shows that once government uses the power, it eventually abuses the power.

Are we still utting citizens of Japanese ancestry in camps? Of course not. When you are at war, you must do things that you don't do while at peace. Study a little history.

[w1andsodidwe]

utting = putting

[NormsRevenge]

Democrats said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., would help raise some $500,000 for Torricelli's campaign and the party, and later join New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey and Torricelli at a union rally.

Maybe we can send GraYouT Davi$ to help the Torch... I don';t think Tiny Tom is up to the task. He has more important taks to perform... Like Obstructing Western Civilization in any way he can.