George Bush

What If George Bush Were the Republican Nominee?

Steve McCullough — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:13:32 -0500

Consider this. If George Bush were running against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, how would you vote? What are Bush's positions in the following areas? Are they much different than those of John McCain or, perhaps, are McCain's positions more conservative than those of George Bush?

What McCain has promised to do, if elected:

1. Taxes: "I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won't let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy."

2. Health care insurance coverage: "I intend to address the problem with free market solutions and with respect for the freedom of individuals to make important choices for themselves."

3. Federal Judges: "I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend."

4. Iraq: "I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen."

5. Iran: "I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions."

6. Radical Islamic extremism: "I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us."

7. Second Amendment rights: "I have defended my position on protecting our Second Amendment rights, including my votes against waiting periods, bans on the so-called "assault weapons," and illegitimate lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers."

8. Life: "I have proudly defended my twenty-four year pro-life record."

9. Illegal immigration: "It would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration."

Summation: "I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and unborn". (John McCain, Feb. 7, 2008 at CPAC Convention)

Now that you have considered all of this, ask yourself, what are Clinton or Obama's positions on these issues?

George Bush's legacy

Drew McKissick — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:54:07 -0500

The LA Times stumbled into the truth today, (the old "blind squirrel" thing), and discovered that George Bush's greatest legacy is likely to be his appointments to the judiciary.

WASHINGTON — After nearly seven years in the White House, President Bush has named 294 judges to the federal courts, giving Republican appointees a solid majority of the seats, including a 60%-to-40% edge over Democrats on the influential U.S. appeals courts.

The rightward shift on the federal bench is likely to prove a lasting legacy of the Bush presidency, since many of these judges -- including his two Supreme Court appointees -- may serve for two more decades....
In the year ahead, liberal activists will be playing defense. They hope to block as many Bush nominees as possible from winning confirmation to the lifetime seats on the appeals courts. And since the Supreme Court's two oldest justices -- John Paul Stevens, 87, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 74 -- are its strongest liberals, they are hoping a Democrat will win the White House in November.

In the party caucuses and primaries, the issue of judges hardly raises a ripple, but that will change in the months ahead, activists say.

Exactly. And remember, when it came to what motivated conservatives to help elect W in the first place, it was the judicary...and more to the point, the Supreme Court. Look for the same playbook in 2008.

Hey big spender!

Drew McKissick — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:54:11 -0400

This is not good.

WASHINGTON — George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he's arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.
“He’s a big government guy,” said Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.
The numbers are clear, credible and conclusive, added David Keating, the executive director of the Club for Growth, a budget-watchdog group.
“He’s a big spender,” Keating said. “No question about it.”
Take almost any yardstick and Bush generally exceeds the spending of his predecessors.
When adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending — or budget items that Congress and the president can control, including defense and domestic programs, but not entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare — shot up at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush’s first six years, Slivinski calculates.
That tops the 4.6 percent annual rate Johnson logged during his 1963-69 presidency. By these standards, Ronald Reagan was a tightwad; discretionary spending grew by only 1.9 percent a year on his watch.

Let's keep in mind that this happened WITH a Republican congress to work with. Now Bush doesn't get all the blame, as Congress has to pass the budgets...but he certainly could have found his veto pen much sooner in his tenure.

This is pretty much why the GOP doesn't win the "fiscally accountable" tag in most public opinion polls anymore which, along with "national security" and "low taxes" was the lone non-social issue categories where the GOP would out poll Democrats.

There's a lesson there.

Karl Rove; The Most Innocent Criminal?

Jackie_Mason — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:00:14 -0400

What did Karl Rove do to deserve so much hate from the left? How did this Intelligent, humble, easy going' guy from Texas become one of the most hated men in America?

The only crime that Karl Rove committed, at least the definition of the word crime on the left, is that he helped Bush win, not only once, but twice. Excuse me; he helped steal the election for Bush, not once, but twice. He was the master of the Cabal in 2002 to steal back the Senate and was probably behind every other Bad thing Bush did, or accused of, from orchestrating 9/11 to outing agent 99, Valerie Plame. To liberals, there is no actual crime this man could've committed, that equals getting Bush elected. You ask a liberal what crime Rove committed, they answer, "Oh like you don't know… you know… whatever it was… it was bad… he stole the election… NO WAR FOR OIL!"

You get the idea.

Click here to see the video…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDUV2ZyDBTI

Conservatives down on Bush over immigration

Drew McKissick — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:09:59 -0400

The latest poll from ABC News re: the President's job approval takes a look at how he's viewed by conservatives in reference to how he's handling the immigration issue. The numbers aren't good.

President Bush's immigration reform package has badly damaged his ratings on the issue from his core supporters, with his approval rating for handling immigration plummeting among Republicans and conservatives.
Fewer than half of Republicans, 45 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll, now approve of how Bush is handling immigration, down from 61 percent in April — that's a 16-point drop in six weeks. Just 35 percent of conservatives approve, down from 48 percent.
This marks one of the few times in his presidency Bush has received less than 50 percent approval from members of his own party on any issue in an ABC/Post poll. On handling the Iraq War, for comparison, he's never gone below 62 percent approval from Republicans.

Conservatives are talking, but is the White House listening?

"Letting go"

Drew McKissick — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:04:36 -0400

It's no secret that the immigration issue has driven a HUGE wedge between conservatives and the White House. What seems to have made it worse is that instead of working to address the concerns of the party base, the White House has gotten more strident, and in some cases gone on the offensive against critics on the right.

Peggy Noonan has an article in the Wall Street Journal today on the subject and essentially washes her hands of the administration.

What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future. ...
The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism." ...
Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? ... I suspect the White House and its allies have turned to name calling because they're defensive, and they're defensive because they know they have produced a big and indecipherable mess of a bill...
Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.

Strong stuff. But I'll have to say that the President and his staff have brought this type of thing on themselves by not being more in tune w/the party base. As the old saying goes, "dance with the one that brung ya'".

Dems feeling the heat

Drew McKissick — Wed, 02 May 2007 15:19:35 -0400

Democrats Feel Pressure After Bush Veto of Iraq War Bill - Democrats are under new pressure to craft a compromise following President Bush's veto of an Iraq spending bill which includes timelines for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. [Fox News]

Well, they asked for it. The problem their leadership has, or rather those in their party w/any sanity, is the moonbat/nutroot left-wing activists. Nothing but a complete and total withdrawal (read: surrender) will satisfy them...and the last thing that the moderate Democrats (who made the current Democrat majority possible) want is to reinforce the image of their party as being weak on defense.

But here they are. They've passed their bill...made their statement...and seen it vetoed as promised. Now what? The pressure's on them, not Bush, in this case. He should use this opportunity to hold their feet to the fire and accept nothing less than a clean bill, with no timetables and no pork. It's a lose-lose for them. The public sees them as dilly-dallying around on an important issue, (for the sake of more local pork projects?)...and their base sees them as caving in to the man they hate most in the world. Let's hope the White House plays this one right.