Who says George W. Bush has done "nothing" for conservatives?

WhiteHouse.gov; various news sources ^ | 1/27/04

[The Old Hoosier]

Sorry, but so little of our growth in spending and our new spending is 9-11 related. Bush's domestic average annual increase is something like 8 or 9 percent, against Lyndon Johnson's 4.3 percent.

It's these damned education/grant proposals, medicare "reform," and others programs Bush has created.

From this week's Brainwash:

With his State of the Union Address, President Bush has once again demonstrated a foolish willingness to indulge the culture of entitlement. He can’t veto the pork-laden spending bill currently before the Senate, but he positively promises to veto any attempt to undo his massive new prescription drug entitlement. He promises new funds for drug testing, job training, and half a dozen other initiatives, and sets a ridiculously low standard for the budget: “We will cut the deficit in half over the next five years.” (“Vote Bush: Only a quarter-trillion dollar deficit by 2008!”)

Is it any wonder that NBC News Wall Street Journal poll from last month shows Republicans have lost their advantage with voters on the issue of controlling spending?

...President Bush...responds to Democrats’ provocations with concessions and new wasteful social programs that they could have hardly dreamed up themselves: Now we’re buying people’s drugs for them, making payments on their houses, subsidizing teachers’ unions with massive education spending, and we may soon pay college tuition for illegal aliens, and send Social Security checks to Mexico as well.

Ronald Reagan had a hostile Congress, and even he did better to keep spending down than this president.

Last Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal reported that, on average, Bush has increased domestic discretionary spending by 8.2 percent annually, putting Lyndon Johnson’s 4.3 percent average to shame. Remember, this isn’t war-on-terror spending—it’s “let’s-buy-votes” spending.

[PhiKapMom]

I thought so too until I had to go observe the Dean blog after the Iowa caucus -- guess what -- some of their posts were word for word what I see on here by posters. The same can be said of the others campaigns.

How can you tell the difference? The negativity of the weekend by "new" posters was unbelieveable. Are you telling me that all these "New" posters and screen names on here just happened to be Anti-Bush but not from the liberals?

Coincidence and I are not on the same page!

[MJY1288]

And who in the Constitution Party are you voting for?, have they fielded a candidate yet? and what chance does that candidate have?

If you answer #1 with a name and yes to #2 and None to #3 that equals "irrelevance"

[blackie]

I'm one conservative who supports President George W. Bush 100% ~ he is the man!

[b9]

Well, then what do you have against bikers?

[A Navy Vet]

Thanks for compiling this list. As one of President Bush's critics here at FR, I will admit I often lose sight of his many accomplishments.

That said, he is not a fiscal conservative. Spending increases have occurred at more than twice the rate during clinton's terms. The tax cuts are overshadowed by the huge yearly deficits he's allowing to build. He has yet to find his veto pen, and actually encourages more spending which all but negates the tax cuts.

Also, although I am pleased to see him consolidate so many overlapping agencies, his policies toward illegal immigration are mostly smoke and mirrors. And his latest proposal of amnesty (call it what you will) is wrong-headed and will only encourage more illegal entry - it already has according to the latest Border Patrol reports, not to mention the increase in OTM's (other than Mexican) entries.

Agreed, no one can satisfy everyone, but the above are two VERY important issues where he is lacking. The first has not even been addressed and the latter has received a band aid approach.

[Ophiucus]

For your consideration!,/i>

Thanks for the ping - I like the list.

[Valin]

CFR was profoundly bad law. The President signed in knowing full well it was unconstitutional. Most people don't care since they don't engage in political free speech.

Plenty of guilt to go around on this.
So DO something about it!
/short rant
HOORAY For John!

Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
Special to FreeRepublic | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."

So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.

But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.

Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.

This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.


Fair enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts



Update
I've already tested the idea of my in-your-face challenge ads, first in the print media and then deliberately illegal on TV, with certain editors I have a long relationship with. I could trust these two gentlemen, one in the print media and the other in the broadcast media, with a "heads up" on what I am planning. Both said they wanted to know, in advance, when I am about to do this.

The bottom line is clear. If I am willing to put my neck on the line, with the possibilities of a fine and jail time, THAT effort will put CFR back on the front page in all media. And that is part of the point. There's not much value of going in-your-face against the enemies of the First Amendment unless the press takes up the story and spreads the word. It is now clear they will do exactly that.

Update 2
QUICK PROGRESS REPORT, ANSWERING A SUPPORTER'S QUESTION:
We have about 15% of the needed 1,000 sign-ups.

Spread the word, direct folks to the front page link on my website.

Google-bomb the phrase "anti-CFR" directing readers to that page and link. (We're already #2 and #4 on Google.)

Target date is now August, since the NC primary looks to be put back to September. (Remember, the ad isn't illegal until the 29th day before the election.)


Cordially,

John / Billybob


Note if you are interested in more on this please contact Valin or Congressman Billybob
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066138/posts

[A Citizen Reporter]

"My own observation is that we have far fewer liberal disruptors here than we've had in a long time."

Doubtful. I believe we've got the same liberal distruptors here we've always had and more, returning with different screen names and under the guise of being disgruntled conservatives. They know they can't stay if they claim to be liberal.

Same ole Terry McAwful technique they use as CSPAN callers. "I've been a Republican my entire life, but by golly this year I'm voting for Kuchinich!" LOL!

[onyx]

Neither will we, Mr. President. We're going to see that you're re-elected.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for your comments! That is exactly what some of us have been trying to get across -- we believe that although we may not agree with the President 100% of the time, we believe he is far better then any Democrat and not even in the same category as his Dad.

This President is much more conservative IMO then his Dad. Do not believe you would ever get a Souter on the bench with this President. The Supreme Court nominee will be so vetted there will be no chance of another Souter.

[woodyinscc]

Kudo's too you, and do not forget all that is happening, that cannot be told.

This President leads by deeds and action, not hollow words, a faux economy, and a kick the can down the road foreign policy. The Clinton adm. put many roadblocks in his way. He has never publicly said this, or laid blame. He has just picked up the load that was given to him, shouldered it, and set out to correct it.!

[dts32041]

Yup the bots just want their borders opened and the illegals granted amnesty look at WSJ's journal today.

And of course they forget CFR, increasing education spending under Kennedy's bill, etc.

The fail to realize, we are like the frog in warm where the temperature is gradually being increased.

We will boil in our own juices, and not complain.

BTW have you heard when he is going to tighten up the ASW ban or better known as the 1994 fire arm act.

Bet that will get done in the next 6 months?

[MJY1288]

Congress spends money, Bush did not attach the pork to those bills, those wheeling and dealing Congress Critters did. Sure he signed them, but the Republicans in Congress agreed to the Pork to get enough votes for passage. Blame your Congressman and Senators

[Consort]

Are question like these considered conservative any more?

They are good questions and you are right to ask them. However, their intended impact and significance are becoming diluted and blunted, unfortunately, by the Perpetually Disgruntled and Eternally Disenchanted who use them to attack rather than to persuade and, consequently, they are in danger or becoming trite, IMO.

[EllaMinnow]

I believe that you mentioned earlier that you are a Texan.

What was President Bush's spending and budgetary record in Texas?

I've going out to get a sandwich, so you don't need to rush.

[antiRepublicrat]

I've been over some of this before, but I'll go into a few points here. I do agree that most of these are good points, especially the line item veto amendment, but there some that aren't right.

First, notice all of the items that have $ in front of them. That's your tax money people, and he's spending more than Clinton ever thought to. Second, a lot of this stuff is supposed to be done by the states, making GW a supporter of a large, powerful federal government at the expense of state autonomy. Now some points:

Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.

We are going to refuse to our soldiers a service that is legal in the US. Not good.

Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms).

And we've seen the idiocy that follows zero-tolerance policies, taking the discretion away from teachers and administrators.

Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight

That opens a whole can of worms, from teachers teaching not a well-rounded course of instruction to them now teaching only for passing the tests, plus other problems.

Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.

It was already dead.

Initiated review of all federal agencies with the goal of eliminating federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while increasing private sector jobs.

So we're cutting federal jobs, but we're not cutting federally-paid positions and therefore the size of government.

Killed the liberal ABA's unconstitutional role in vetting federal judges. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not the ABA.

While I applaud the move, it was not unconstitutional. The Constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate, but does not preclude advice and consent from other sources.

Freedom of Speech

George is known for suppressing dissent, such as how he allowed protests for his cause in front of the governor's mansion, but had those against him removed. Plus, as usual, protesters against him as president are always moved out of camera range.

Limited Government Power

Government power has expanded enormously under his presidency.

Private Property Rights

GW had the Rangers stadium built with $135 million of public money, to be paid for by a raise in sales tax. He then was part of a land grab to buy or steal the land surrounding the new stadium (often at prices set below-value) using a newly created public entity to do so. Several landowners won lawsuit against Bush's Rangers totalling over $11 million. The Rangers then tried to pass off that cost to the taxpayers, but finally paid up for the stolen land several years later. Whenever you hear of gross abuses of eminent domain, remember that Bush supports and was even part of eminent domain land grabs.

[.45MAN]

Thanks for the ping..I am bookmarking it also.

[RiflemanSharpe]

Most (60%) of the money TX spends is by law earmarked for education. He nor does anyone have much room ro manuver on this one.

[The Old Hoosier]

Two words: VE-TO.

I'm not talking about pork projects, even--although Bush is responsible for everything he signs. I'm talking about HIS initiatives, like expanding Americorps, "21st Centruy Jobs," the new Marriage Initiative, the drug-testing initiative, the "homeownership" initiative, etc., etc. No one to blame for these but the President, because he invented and announced them.