Posted on 07/01/2003 8:46:22 AM PDT by justshe
The Summer of Our Discontent with George W. Bush
The amount of discontent being expressed toward President George W. Bush on Free Republic seems to be increasing exponentially.
For the purpose of discussion, I have attempted to to draw up 2 lists. The first list is of accomplishments or 'directions' this administration is going. The second list, is for those items or behaviors many would like to see addressed or changed. I have made every attempt to list as many items as I could recall....or find by perusing MANY threads. I am sure I have missed some items.
Obviously, some of you will think some items on each list are not correct, that they should either NOT be listed, or are listed on the wrong list. Either way, it IS a start.
I have gleaned these items from multiple threads and posts going back over two years on Free Republic. These are NOT listed in any 'time-line' order.
If you have individual ping lists.....please use them to facilitate the widest possible discussion.
Presidency of George W. Bush --the first 30 months
Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court.
Killed the U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses.
Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy.
Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California.
Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules that would have shut down every home business in America.
Passed 2 tax cuts----1 of which was the largest tax-Dollar value tax cut in history
Pushed through TWO raises for our military.
Increased Defense Dept funding which had deteriorated during the previous 8 years
Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit
Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers.
Ordered Attorney-General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, NOT a leftist-imagined "collective" right.
Successfully executed 2 wars: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom.
Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the Presidency
Reorganized bureaucracy...after 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency: the Department of Homeland Security.
Initiated discussion on Social security and individual investment accounts.
Improving govt. efficiency with .8 million jobs put up for bid...weakening unions and cutting undeserved pay raises. Wants merit based promotions/raises only.
Executed a WAR ON TERROR by getting world-wide cooperation to track funds/terrorists (has cut off much of the terrorist's funding and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network)
Stopped foreign aid that would be used to fund abortions.
Ended abortions on military bases
Signed E.O. reversing Clinton policy of not requiring parental consent under the Medical Privacy Act
Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control.
Set to sign Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Orchestrated Republican control of the White House, the House AND the Senate.
Killed the liberal ABA's role in vetting federal judges for Congress.
GWB signed an executive order enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision (re: union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes)
Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed
Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ.
Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia
Initiated comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE was critical.
Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first ten ABM silos in Alaska, so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes
Turning around an inherited economy in recession.
Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.
Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains
In process of eliminating IRS marriage penalty.
Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people
Signed into law the CFR legislation (under dark of night)
Signed into law the No Child Left Behind legislation delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations)
Reorganized the INS in an attempt to safeguard the borders and ports of America and to eliminate bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability.
Signed trade promotion authority
Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men and women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa
Urging Medicare Reform
Urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits
Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims
Submitted comprehensive energy plan--awaits Congressional action. ( works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy)
Endorses and promotes The Responsibility Era ("In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else -- to one in which every single American understands that he or she are responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself. " -----this quote was too good to leave out)
Started the USA Freedom Corps
Pushing for passage of Prescription Drug Benefit package for Seniors which will have 'means' testing with a goal towards privatization of Medicare and CHOICES based on current Federal Employee Health benefits program.
Initiated review of all federal agencies with a goal to eliminate federal jobs (review to be done by September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of federal gov while increasing private sector jobs.
Part of coalition (Russia, Israel, Palestine, USA) for Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace"
Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become The League of Nations ( in other words, completely irrelevant)
Nominated strong, conservative judges to the judiciary.
Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary clean-up of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger.
As part of the national forests clean-up, the President restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges) and removed the need for an EIS (Enivironmental Impact Statement) before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger.
Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.
Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%.
Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water.
Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons
Proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii
Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%
Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government's ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws.
Approved the sending of letters by Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.
Appointed John Negroponte -- an unindicted high-level Iran Contra figure to the post of United Nations Ambassador.
Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rainforest conservation.
Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of care for people without insurance.
Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.
Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on public lands.
Cut $60 million from a Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America program for public housing.
Proposed to eliminate a federal program, designed and successfully used in Seattle, to help communities prepare for natural disasters
Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.
Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees (though it still pays for Viagra).
Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing
Appointed Otto Reich -- an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure -- to Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.
Proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an animal placed on the Endangered Species List
Rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming.
Gutted the White House AIDS Office.
Renegotiated a free trade agreement with Jordan to eliminate workers's rights and safeguards for the environment.
Cut the Community Oriented Policing Services program
Allowed Interior Secretary Gale Norton to shelve citizen-led grizzly bear re-introduction plan scheduled for Idaho and Montana wilderness
Continues to hold up federal funding for stem cell research projects
Makes sure convicted misdemeanor drug users cannot get financial aid for college, though convicted murderers can
Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah
Refused to fund continued litigation of the government's tobacco company lawsuit.
Signed a bill making it harder for poor and middle-class Americans to file for bankruptcy, even in the case of daunting medical bills
Cut $15.7 million earmarked for states to investigate cases of child abuse and neglect
Helped kill a law designed to make it tougher for teenagers to get credit cards
Canceled 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high mileage cars.
Earmarked $4 million in new federal grant money for HIV and drug abuse prevention programs to go only to religious groups and not secular equivalents
Reduced the Low Income Home Assistance Program by 40%; it aided low-income individuals who need assistance paying energy bills
Told U.N. "NO" re: global tax
Items still to be accomplished and/or addressed
Allow sunsetting of AWB
Fix illegal immigration issues and border control
Limit/eliminate federal entitlement programs
Cut size of federal budget
Shrink federal government job force
Hate all Dems and do not treat them civilly
Don't appoint any homosexuals to public office
Don't meet with Grover Norquist--or Muslims--or Homosexuals
Kill all terrorists in Israel
Drop the idea of a Palestinian state
"Eliminate" all Palestinians
Need means testing on Senior Rx legislation
Get the United States out of the United Nations
Banish the United Nations from U.S. soil.
Stop all foreign aid.
Stop all foreign aid to the Palestinians
Eliminate Steel and Wood tarrifs
Talk non-stop, at every opportunity, about judicial nominees and lack of Senate vote.
Push Frist out.....bring back Trent Lott
Fire Karl Rove
Fire Colin Powell
June 2002 - Washington, DC—A leading pro-life advocate on Capitol Hill says an amendment passed last week by the U.S. Senate is worse than previously thought.
Last week, the Senate passed an amendment sponsored by two pro-abortion senators, including pro-abortion Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), that would allow taxpayer-funded abortions to occur at American military bases. Although similar to a pro-abortion amendment offered by pro-abortion Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and defeated in the House, John Cusey of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus told the Pro-Life Infonet the Senate amendment is much worse.
"Senator Murray’s amendment ... goes even farther than the Sanchez amendment that was defeated in the House this year," Cusey explained.
Murray described the amendment as follows: "So I will this evening offer an amendment to ensure that military personnel serving overseas have access to safe and legal abortion services."
That is only half the truth, Cusey says. The Murray amendment "not only removes the ban on abortion in military hospitals overseas, it also removes the ban on abortion in military hospitals in the United States," said Cusey. "The Sanchez Amendment removed the abortion ban from overseas military hospitals and left the ban in place for domestic military hospitals."
Then, a few months later...
2002-NOV-15: USA: Ban on abortion for military on overseas bases: The year 2003 military spending bill had contained an amendment which would have allowed U.S. military personnel to obtain privately funded abortions at overseas bases. It was passed 52 to 40 by the Senate. But the amendment has been removed because Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich, felt that President Bush would veto the entire bill if the provision remained. The revised bill was passed by the House on NOV-12 and by the senate on NOV-13.
You must have been thinking of this one (this one mentions the previous year's veto threat):
May 25, 2003 - On Thursday, May 22, both the House and Senate defeated a pair of pro-abortion amendments that would have mandated performing abortions at taxpayer-funded military bases. In the Senate, pro-abortion Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) offered the amendment and the Senate defeated it by a close 51-48 vote. After the Senate last year approved a similar amendment, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that President Bush would veto the bill unless the provision was dropped from the bill, which it was.
Meanwhile, in the House, pro-abortion Rep. Loretta Sanchez put forward the pro-abortion amendment, as she has in previous years. The House defeated the Sanchez amendment by a 227-201 vote. Pro-life lawmakers gained a 12 vote larger margin than they had to defeat it the last time it was proposed. The House rejected the amendment in each of the last seven years.
Strangely, after watching Strom's funeral, I am more in charity with Joe Biden and less with Rush.
I suppose so much stridence and nastiness from the far right are doing what I feared...driving me to the middle.
In the last two weeks Rush has recieved a bunch of negative emails, for directing excessive attacks against PresBush. On two recent occasions, I've heard Rush specifically say, PresBush is not a liberal. I repeat, Rush said Bush is not a liberal. I don't think Rush would call Bush a socialist either. Rush will be voting for George W.Bush next year and has basically said so on numerous occasions.
The person in question, his "mouthpiece", doesn't speak for Rush Limbaugh. He's just a bigmouth and a bulls**t artist!
Yeah, well, you know that's the way show business is, unfortunately. Rush has to do something to keep his audience interested. He's got competition.
Yep, but "whatever it takes" can often be a risky strategy.
I used to never miss his show and taped all his TV shows way back when.
I've been very disappointed. I never would have guessed I would turn him off as I did over a year ago.
I love your moral equivalance. But Condi Rice just announced the figure is $1 billion, in addition to the $300 million we gave them 2 weeks ago.
There exists an economic principle called the “median voter model” that suggests if a politician wants to be successful he should find the person in his district, state or nation who is perfectly neutral on all issues, and the politician should court that person’s vote. It is that person, and that person only, who holds the winning vote.
Those candidates who can successfully represent leftist or conservative views yet still work themselves toward the middle where the most voters are will be the candidates who represent their respective parties in the general election.
And in a general election, when the two candidates have been decided, the victorious candidate will be the one between those two who can draw the votes in the middle of the model.
The median voter model, then, says simply that it is not the conservative Republican or the leftist Democrat who wins an election, but the most moderate Republican or most moderate Democrat who successfully seeks office.
The median voter model is one economic principle. Another is the idea that voters are “rationally ignorant” because, of course, no one single vote is going to win an election. Even in a close election, such as the one in Florida in 2000, the margin of votes separating the two candidates was still in the hundreds (how many hundreds will remain the subject of debate until all who care or ever cared are dead).
Though it is the voter situated perfectly in the middle (the median voter) that Republicans and Democrats attempt to woo every time they begin campaigning, it is not that single vote that wins the election. It is the ability to move that person and those like him that wins the election.
Therefore, economists will argue that it is a waste of time and effort for a person to cast a vote because one’s vote will make no difference in the election. Certainly, anyone who has voted and then reflected on that vote has come to the conclusion – whether the vote was cast for a winning candidate or a losing one – that “my vote really didn’t matter.”
The economists are essentially correct – voting is a waste of time. If the candidate you are rooting for wins by anything larger than one vote, you still have the satisfaction of seeing the other candidate defeated or the joy that the person who will be making laws to take away your money or your rights is the person you wanted. And you could have stayed at home. If the candidate you wanted to see defeated wins then you should have stayed home.
In 2002, I voted for Sonny Perdue to be the next governor of Georgia. Perdue won and became “the first Republican governor in 130 years” as people introducing him at speeches and appearances continue to remark. It was a narrow race, with the incumbent Democrat Governor Roy Barnes getting 937,062 votes and Perdue getting 1,041,677. A difference of 104,615 votes.
While that’s considered a fairly close conclusion – certainly not a landslide – it would have made no difference to Perdue or Barnes or anyone else in the state if I had not cast my vote.
Now, if the benefit is gained not by who wins or who loses but by the knowledge that I have performed my duty as a citizen, then arguably I could vote for anyone. I could have voted for the third party candidate on the ballot with Barnes and Perdue – Garrett Michael Hayes who received 47,122.
Certainly, unquestionably, Hayes is the candidate who most represented my politics in the fall of 2002. And if he had had 47,123 votes that would have sent a stronger message by one to the Democrats and Republicans that the Libertarians are coming to get them. What if I had convinced my wife to vote for Hayes, too. She voted for Perdue for many of the same reasons that I voted for Perdue, so it stands to reason that she could have voted for Hayes for the same reasons I might have voted for Hayes. And I know of at least three people in my wife’s office who voted for Perdue because of the influence my wife had on them. If their spouses were indirectly influenced by my wife – as I believe perhaps one of them may have been – then we’ve already given Mr. Hayes eight votes that would have pushed him into the 47,130s instead of the 47,120s. Barnes wouldn’t have won, Perdue wouldn’t have lost, but perhaps Garrett Michael Hayes would have felt a little better about the eight additional votes. I would have voted on principle, my wife would have voted on principle and the six people voting with us would have voted on my wife’s principles.
So instead of voting for a Republican just to beat a Democrat (or vice versa), isn’t it better to vote for the third party candidate who most closely represents one’s political philosophy?
Now you argue: “But, the Democratic candidate most closely represents my political philosophy. So I did cast my vote on principle.”
Or you might argue: “But, the Republican candidate most closely represents my political philosophy. So I did cast my vote on principle.”
Perhaps this is true. Perhaps these two candidates trying to push each other out of the very middle position do most closely represent your political philosophy. Perhaps, but not likely.
Very few people are actually centrists in their political philosophy. Those who bulge up the middle of the median voter model are people who vote but do not take an active role in thinking about or discussing political philosophy. Those are the people who are swayed back and forth by candidates who appeal to them on one level or another. People who might have voted to re-elect Bill Clinton in 1996 because 1993, 1994, 1995 and the first 10 months of 1996 had gone pretty well for them. These are the if-it-ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it voters.
Other median voters might catch a bit of a campaign speech on the news as they’re flipping to something else. If they hear something appealing to them, they will invest no more time or energy finding out about the candidates but simply vote for the candidate they caught on the news – provided they can remember his name.
I would venture to say that the majority of the voters who are responsible for our candidates moving toward the middle rather than standing for political principle are uninformed, ignorant of politics, centrists who may go this way one election and may go another way another election.
It is more likely, then, that you find yourself somewhere along the sloping lines of the median voter model – either on the left or on the right. Third parties may appeal to you on some issues and not on others, so you consider yourself a Republican or a Democrat. Probably, unless your considerations are only to see your party represented in the White House, you are often disappointed by the results of a primary election. I can think of one example of where this may not apply, and that was with the 2002 Republican Primary. John McCain, thanks to his voting record, had already – early in the primary – established himself as the most centrist between himself and Bush. Not the most centrist for the party, but for the nation as a whole. Republicans choosing a candidate viewed McCain as being too far to the left. This perception might have helped McCain beat Gore by a wider margin than Bush did, but it lost him the primary.
Candidates should always remember, do not move too far toward the center until after the primary.
So, perhaps the Republican Party platform does appeal to you, or the Democratic Party platform is exactly your cup of tea, but these centrist moving candidates surely do not.
Have you been satisfied with George W. Bush’s willingness to work with Ted Kennedy on education reform or was the $400 billion Medicare prescription drug benefit – the largest social spending program since Johnson’s Great Society – what you had in mind when you voted for a Republican?
So if Republican and Democratic candidates, in seeking office or reelection, so freely abandon “their base” and their party’s platform in an effort to woo the median voter, then I find it highly unlikely that the people who win elections ever honestly represent the political philosophies of those who have political philosophies. Instead, I think the candidates who win elections represent the political philosophies of those who do not have political philosophies, those who can be swayed by any number of insignificant things but never a belief in the role of government.
Third parties, as they are known, abandon the economic principle of the median voter model. They do not dispute its legitimacy as a phenomenon of voting habits, but simply choose to stand on principle rather than woo the centrist voters.
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.