Posted on 05/28/2006 1:37:09 PM PDT by ncountylee
Equal partners in govt. Both are in charge, but the president sets the agenda, and the Sentate is supposed to enforce. President nominates judges, sets energy policy, foreign policy. The Senate has to approve it. so far he's done little to convince them.
It's way to soon to have a comparison between the two Presidents. Besides our current President Bush has several more years to go before history will record his Presidency.
People forget that no President in recent history has had to handle the things that this President has had to deal with and has shown true leadership.
No President is perfect but respect the man for the way he handled 911 and all the other challenges he has had to encounter.
No President has driven liberals and their media to this edge of delusions and hate like President Bush. The man has simply beaten the crap out of them, and he showed them to be stupid, dumb, incompetent, wrong, and full of hate.
Reagan is considered by many to be the great leader of conservatism and he did give amnesty to 3 millions illegal immigrants. President Bush did not give amnesty to anyone.
Read my lips.
"No new amnesty!!"
Hopefully the House will get a handle on the the illegal issue so W's legacy can be a free and democratic Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, bad things will happen in spades .
Did you remember President Reagan only with his amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants?
Staying out of Baghdad is why terrorists began coming after us in the 1990's.
Despite dismantling Iraq in the 1991 war, they smelled weakness when we stopped and let the kurds and shia get slaughtered.
I'm afraid the bad he's done still far outweighs the good. And if he succeeds in getting his immigration plan passed, all that "good" will be repealed when the Democrats get their permanent socialist majority after the grateful illegal aliens (now voting citizens) get the right to vote. At that point we can kiss the RKBA arms and the rest of the Bill of Rights goodbye.
That immigration plan is the death of the Republican party, and of our country as something other than just another SSR. The immigration fiasco is the worst thing I've ever heard of or imagined for the future of this nation.
"What was your greatest mistake?" Any President is foolish to answer this question. The MSM gets to nail him with whatever he says.
If any major point from the Senate's plan becomes law, our country will suffer greatly, but it hasn't happened yet. That body needs to be held to account in a bad way (my two Senators voted the right way, btw). But George Bush isn't a Senator. He's a President with a penchant for signing whatever retarded bill comes across his desk. The Senate is to blame so far. Hopefully the House can hold the line. The best case scenario is no bill right now and a devastating 06 election cycle.
What? If it had been done then it wouldn't have had to be done recently. Amazingly stupid thing to say.
Yes, and besides Iraq and Afghanistan, his tax cuts, the booming economy (in spite of two back to back Cat 5 hurricanes, the greatest terrorist attack in US history, and millions of jobs lost to outsourcing). I'm sure there are more positive things, but I can't think of any right now. I hope they're not buried under the immigration guest worker-amnesty plan, but he's so determined to have it, that I'm afraid they're going to be.
There is no comparison! We had not had a 9-11 attack with the threat of more terrorist attacks when President Reagan gave 3 million illegals amnesty. There hadn't been an attack on a grade school in Russia that killed hundreds of children, at that time either. The images of that, plus the images of the WTC are burned into the minds of Americans. The illegals during Reagan's time didn't march through the streets of America DEMANDING RIGHTS. There weren't La Raza, MEChA or other racists marching through the streets telling Americans that America was THEIR land and telling them to go back to Europe. They let us know that they intend to take back "their land." THAT didn't sit well with any of us. Surely you can understand why Americans want the borders closed, and NO amnesty? They are a threat to Americans!! Need I go on, or can you see why it's useless to compare President Bush to President Raegan?
GHWB was an establishment guy as well. GWB did his best not to be a Washington establishment regular, but in the end, he's come to look like one, thanks to his stand on immigration.
The best thing about the father was that he was a part of that WWII generation and that gave him, almost in spite of himself, a greater stature than boomer politicians have had. That's not true of the son.
But of course, every President looks weak and troubled after six or seven years. People get tired of the person in charge and on some level, have already accepted that the current leader is already on his way out. Even very successful presidents have had poor approval ratings in their second terms.
Critics compare U.S. anti-terrorism practices to 'gulag' (12/12/2005)
Tom Raum
WASHINGTON – Secret prisons in Eastern Europe. Illegal detentions. Suspects snatched off the streets and shipped without extradition to other countries for harsh interrogation.
******
Remember this one?
AP Distorts Republican Senator's Remarks
Posted by Lisa Fabrizio on August 1, 2005 - 18:10.
Okay, so they call it a “Newsview,” which is, I guess, the AP’s way of sliming the administration under its supposedly unbiased banner and not being called on it. Sorry Tom Raum, you’re over the line on this one fella.
In analyzing President Bush’s recess appointment of John Bolton to the U.N., Raum dredges up all of the same adjectives used by ‘objective’ AP reporter-types when it comes to the Bushies and Bolton.
“In-your-face gesture,” “built-in handicaps,” “lame duck,” “streak of stubbornness,” “confrontational,” are just a few of the niceties that grace the prose of Mr. Raum’s tirade--fair enough when the piece is supposed to espouse an opinion. But in his commentary role, he could at least use quotes in context. Consider the following, especially the lack of an ellipsis:
Some Republicans weren't too happy, either, although they generally said they understood Bush's rationale. "I understand why the president had to do this," said Sen. George Allen, R-Va, adding: "I think it's unfortunate that he had to use this option."
The actual quote, courtesy of Mr. Raum’s friends at the AP:
"I accept and understand why the president had to do this. I think it's unfortunate that he had to use this option because John Bolton was denied the fairness of an up-or-down vote. I think John Bolton is well qualified. He is principled. And he will advocate for the U.S. taxpayers." -- Sen. George Allen, R-Va.
Mr. Raum’s byline states that he “has covered national and international affairs for Washington for The Associated Press since 1973.” That explains why this reads like one of their regular stories.
http://tinyurl.com/hcrty
Wrong. Wong. Completely and utterly WRONG!
Unemployment has been @ 5% for YEARS!
Another oldie by Raum...
PRAVDA ON THE POTOMAC
On Saturday, Raum wrote an AP story about (Michael) Moore’s remarks. Incredibly, this was his full account of the controversy about Bush’s service:
RAUM (1/17/04): The exchange recalled a controversy that was an element of the 2000 presidential campaign.
Bush served as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard from May 1968 to October 1973, mostly flying F-102 fighter interceptors. He did not go to Vietnam.
Bush spent most of his time in the Guard based near Houston, but in May 1972 he received a three-month assignment in Alabama with the 187th Tactical Recon Unit in Montgomery while he worked on a political campaign in the state.
Retired Gen. William Turnipseed, a commander at the Alabama base, said during the 2000 presidential campaign that he never saw Bush appear for duty for that unit’s drills. Bush maintains he was there, but records have never been produced to document that Bush was there.
Incredibly, Raum’s readers have now been told that there is only a three-month period at issue. Since he wrote the official AP account, Raum’s report almost surely ran in newspapers all over the country.
Does the corps tear up all the hopefuls? As we noted a few months ago, the corps fled from this topic during Campaign 2000, and totally dropped it after that (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/26/03). Now, Raum presents a baldly inaccurate account of the matter, and Broder’s account—while technically accurate—is as friendly to Bush as it can accurately be. After November 2000, the press corps never made the slightest attempt to sort out the issues involved in this story. No, Virginia, they don’t go after all the hopefuls. And do you see why it takes a fool to assert that they’re gripped by that vile liberal bias?
http://tinyurl.com/kd3uk
Another one...
AP Reporter: Bush White House Uses "Slash-and-Burn Assaults On Its Critics"
Just in time for Halloween.
- October 2005 -
In an October 19, 2005, article, veteran Associated Press reporter Tom Raum claimed (emphasis added),
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's CIA-leak inquiry is focusing attention on what long has been a Bush White House tactic: slash-and-burn assaults on its critics, particularly those opposed to the president's Iraq war policies.
"Slash-and-burn assaults"? This sounds more like something out of a Chucky or Halloween movie.
Apparently, this is the AP's idea of "news analysis." Yet at least one place on the Web, Raum's article appears as being just another newswire story. At CNN.com, for example, Raum is not even given a byline, and the piece does not carry any kind of "News analysis" or "Commentary" heading.
Another example of the increasing blur between "news" and "analysis"? It appears so.
Hat tip to Brit Hume's Political Grapevine at Fox News Channel.
http://tinyurl.com/ewd9z
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.