[poet]

Hmmm, it must be close to re-election time. Do you think the real Constitutional Conservatives will fall for the BS a second time?

Review of Bush’s First 3 years:

1. Signed mis-named p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act into law,
2 Signed CFR into law commenting it
violates free speech, but, signed it anyway
3. $5 Billion GRANT to airlines
4. 60,000 more employees on public payroll. I was under the impression Republicans were for smaller
government.
5. Proposing food stamps for legal immigrants.
6. Proposing amnesty for illegals in country.
7. Signed democrat's education bill into law without .
reading iy.
8. $190,000,000,000 Farm Bill
9. “Homestead Security” Law. Remember "critical
infrastructures" which are in the law and which
includes the internet and whatever the gov't
says is a "critical infrastructure"
10. $782,000,000,000 NEW Spending
11. $390,000,000,000 New Spending for this fiscal year

Of course, he and his "conservative" accomplices in both houses have thrown us some "crumbs" which we devour as as a full course dinner.

I await a barrage of flames for daring to bring these issues to the forefront. "Overviews" reveal so much don't you think? Duplicity is acceptable when you guys and girls engage in it, but, it is unacceptable when the other guy's guys and girls do it. And the political whoredom beat goes on and on.

Flame away

FReegards

[RAT Patrol]

No flame from me -- I'm glad someone brings that stuff up. Still, we are infinitely better off than we would have been if the Tree had been elected. Maybe you could make a list of his positives too, just to feel a little better. There are many.

[Sam's Army]

"Review of Bush’s First 3 years:"

OK, Here's a flame since you beg for them so much....Learn math, Bush has been in office 2 years, not 3.

[Goodman26]

No flames from here. You're right.
And who in a straight-shooting administration would need to tell people in private meetings what the intentions are with respect to the base. Just SHOW us, if care to. We'll discern your intentions fast enough.

I think we are seeing an administration that tries to spin its base. It is time for the base to plug its ears and say, Enough of the Rovian hot air. Cut government. Give us a new, simpler fairer tax code (or eliminate it.) Now that "conservatives" arguably control all three branches of government, we want dramatic reform.

[WhiteGuy]

Way to scatch the surface......

Is this the "leadership" we deserve?

Government is larger and now operating in the red.

Choosing his battles indeed.

[Con X-Poser]

You forgot to mention that he:

* Has appointed SIX open homosexuals to federal positions with hardly a peep of protest from his RepubliCON comrades. Clinton named ONE and was raked over the coals. He tried to name a second (Hormel), who was REJECTED by Congress.

* Brought the UN-ICC in the back door. The ICC allows the UN to arrest and imprison ANYONE for any reason they invent, without needing any CHARGES or EVIDENCE and the accused has NO trial, No jury, NO counsel, No appeal, and NO presumption of innocence.

* Waited so long to decide what to do about embryo stem cell research that the amount of babies killed for the purpose swelled from 12 to 60. Allowing those stem cell lines to be used because the babies are already dead is analogous to the Nazis making lampshades out of the skin of dead Jews, since they were already dead.

*Rubber-stamped much of the Clinton's environmental agenda and socialized health care programs.

*Stated during the campaign that he SUPPORTED closing the gun-show "loophole". Congress REJECTED Clinton's attempt to enact this, but those *same* CON-servative RepubliCONS will certainly pass it if GWB proposes it.

Bush is a RINO, but then again, so are almost all of the RepubliCONS in Washington, aside from Ron Paul.

[Con X-Poser]

You forgot to mention that he:

* Has appointed SIX open homosexuals to federal positions with hardly a peep of protest from his RepubliCON comrades. Clinton named ONE and was raked over the coals. He tried to name a second (Hormel), who was REJECTED by Congress.

* Brought the UN-ICC in the back door. The ICC allows the UN to arrest and imprison ANYONE for any reason they invent, without needing any CHARGES or EVIDENCE and the accused has NO trial, No jury, NO counsel, No appeal, and NO presumption of innocence.

* Waited so long to decide what to do about embryo stem cell research that the amount of babies killed for the purpose swelled from 12 to 60. Allowing those stem cell lines to be used because the babies are already dead is analogous to the Nazis making lampshades out of the skin of dead Jews, since they were already dead.

*Rubber-stamped much of the Clinton's environmental agenda and socialized health care programs.

*Stated during the campaign that he SUPPORTED closing the gun-show "loophole". Congress REJECTED Clinton's attempt to enact this, but those *same* CON-servative RepubliCONS will certainly pass it if GWB proposes it.

Bush is a RINO, but then again, so are almost all of the RepubliCONS in Washington, aside from Ron Paul.

[dufekin]

George W Bush is quite possibly the BEST (sorry, Ms. Press Corps, not worst) president in most of our lifetimes (and NO, LBJ was the worst president since the Civil War!). Sure, he has his shortcomings, but he has become very learned in foreign affairs and takes national security as a deadly serious priority. Neither of these two paramount qualities was a hallmark of his predecessor, or, for that matter, exists in most any quarters of the Democratic Party.

The Founding Fathers used the veto very infrequently in their Presidencies, and Bush hasn't vetoed a Act of Congress yet. He appears content to allow the Congress to legislate as it wishes with regard to domestic affairs, so long as it passes a few White House priorities. His reluctance to veto legislation probably explains his signatures on the grant to the airlines, the campaign-finance reform law (which, lest we forget, impedes the fundraising activites of DEMOCRATS more than those of Republicans), and the abominable farm bill (which he should have VETOED more than anything else as fiscally reckless).

After the terrorist tragedy in New York, Arlington, and Somerset County, defense and security have trumped all other concerns. When these dastardly terrorists struck our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, the embattled President Clinton aimed a multi-million-dollar cruise missile at "a $10 empty tent to strike a camel in the butt" and errantly (?) bombed a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. Because he did nothing more to retalliate after his domestic adversaries did not relent in their drive to impeach him (and make a President Al Gore [barf!!]), he proved that he was never serious by failing to mobilize the nation and defeat the al-Qaida terrorist organization. I believe that the American people now KNOW deeply how the Clintons and Democrats betrayed them. Although Bush's worrisome initiatives to limit civil liberties in the Patriot act have caused much consternation in some circles (and not enough elsewhere), at least he's TRYING--and trying hard every day of his Presidency--to fight terrorism. And it's obvious--he's winning.

But he needs to do more to commandeer the Congress to quit the balloning pork budget. In the absence of a line-item veto, I'd propose a new appropriations bill, say "Corporate Welfare and Political Pork." The President would veto any other appropriations bill which contains corporate welfare and political pork provisions. The welfare/pork bill would always get the veto unless it gets down to $0. Perhaps now's the time to force a showdown on this issue...or, better yet, wait until the Democratic primary. That'll leave...The Rev. Al Sharpton.

No Republican is seeking the nomination for the Presidency in 2004, although I expect Bush to run again and win. At the end of his presidency, look out for Pres. Rice. (What will Democrats say then?)

[ewing]

You forgot to include giving retirement beneifts to illegal aliens.

[rwfromkansas]

Bush is not perfect, but what pisses me off is when you people ONLY focus on the bad, like your post.