Bush rips Democratic lawmakers' failures

Yahoo ^

[Sub-Driver]

Bush rips Democratic lawmakers' failures

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago

President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Saturday of being unable to live up to their duties, citing Congress' inability to pass legislation to fund the federal government.

"Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "This moment is a test."

The White House has said the failure of a broad immigration overhaul was proof that Democratic-controlled Capitol Hill cannot take on major issues. "We saw this with immigration, and we're seeing it with some other issues where Congress is having an inability to take on major challenges," said spokesman Tony Fratto.

The main reason the immigration measure died, however, was staunch opposition from Bush's own base — conservatives. The president could not turn around members of his own party despite weeks of intense effort.

The immigration bill was the top item on Bush's domestic agenda. With its demise, Bush was left to focus on the annual appropriations process and reining in federal spending.

Twelve annual spending bills dole out approximately one-third of the federal budget. They must be passed each year by Congress, before the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year, but lawmakers began considering this year's batch just in mid-June. The House has passed half and the full Senate has not yet taken up any.

"Democrats have a chance to prove they are for open and transparent government by working to complete each spending bill independently and on time," Bush said. "I urge Democrats in Congress to step forward now and pass these bills one at a time. "

[WhiteGuy]

“Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people’s money wisely,” Bush said in his weekly radio address.

“.....spend the people’s money wisely.....”

Like you did?

[over3Owithabrain]

Bush has spent like a drunken sailor and couldn't muster the strength to lift his veto pen for 8 years. And on immigration he got in bed with Teddy Kennedy, thankfully it was conservative Republicans who killed the bill.

Sorry, W - we gave you plenty of chances. Your words are empty now...

[RC2]

We can’t really blame any of them if we keep giving them our tax money. Cut back on the taxes, across the board, and they can’t spend it. Power is in money, the more we give them, the more at fault we are.

[VA Voter]

It’s about time.

[TomGuy]

The White House has said the failure of a broad immigration overhaul was proof that Democratic-controlled Capitol Hill cannot take on major issues.

Awwwwww. They didn't get 'a Congress we can work with' after all in 06.

Maybe if this White House would do the job they were elected to do, instead of pushing the globalist agenda, they wouldn't have these problems.

[Let's Roll]

Yep, Bush needs to be ripping congress for not making tax cuts permanent.

[NoGrayZone]

“”We saw this with immigration, “.....

Ummmm, don’t you mean amnesty? After all , you DID say it yourself.

[Condor51]

"Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Uh ... Dubya. I wouldn't go there.

[Cedric]

Who gave the radio address, really?

Somebody, call Roswell!!

[A.A. Cunningham]

"Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Pot, kettle, black.

[laurie_d]

Please provide your posts prior to 2004 where you complained about Bush’s stated agenda?

[Corin Stormhands]

Please provide your posts prior to 2004 where you complained about Bush’s stated agenda?

Since you just got here in March laurie, you'll have to take our word for it that FReepers were all over the President for the "no child left behind" and the prescription drug plan, among other spending items.

We've been steadfastly with him in the war on terror. But there has been no hesitation to criticize his domestic spending.

You can look it up. We really shouldn't have to do your homework for you.

[Iscool]

What? Is the President practicing for his new career??? A stand up comic???

[laurie_d]

Yeah, I’m often bashed for being one of those awful “newbies” (rolls eyes). Maybe you can suggest that registration here on FR be closed to anyone after a certain date. That would keep it “pure” for those of you bragging about your internet longevity.

It does not negate the fact that some of you...many of you here on FR are attacking this President for things that you didn’t care to attack when he was running for President. I’m sure you can provide all of your posts in the summer and fall of 2004 where you’re stating your concerns with his agenda for re-election, can’t you?

Now that the liberal media tells you his poll numbers are low, well, it’s easy to jump on the “let’s bash Bush” bandwagon.

Criticizing the President is one thing. Repeating lines heard by the liberal media and restating them in order to jump on the be popular and bash Bush bandwagon is another.

Get behind the guy. Yes, stop the immigration bill. Conservatives *DID* that. It doesn’t mean you continually bash the guy. Don’t you think he gets enough of that from the drive-bys????

Now, if you’re talking for everyone here on FR, that’s fine.
You seem to be claiming that.

This “newbie” knows enough that there isn’t a consensus on 2008 here at all. None whatsoever. The only consensus among some of you who are not “newbies” (once again rolls eyes) is that you constantly bash Bush.

And THIS conservative has had enough of Bush bashing from “conservatives”.

[laurie_d]

Yes, I “just got here” in March. As I told someone else, I really think all of you who wish to keep FR “pure” from any “newbies” suggest that registration be closed.

Why don’t you do that. It will keep out the “newbies”. (rolls eyes).

[TomGuy]

Please provide your posts prior to 2004 where you complained about Bush’s stated agenda?

You can't keep up?

He was pushing amnesty in 2001. The 9-11 attacks put that on hold. They re-started it in 2002. It was stopped in the Senate on a technicality. Do you know who stopped it? They tried to revive it, but with terrorism and the election top priorities, it never got much of a following to try again. Then amnesty was pushed after the 2004 election, because Bush knew (1) he didn't have to worry about re-election and (2) he had 4 years to make it happen. It was pushing through the REPUBLICAN SENATE in 2006. The Republican House stopped it. It was pushed again in 2007, with slight revisions. It was stopped in the DEMOCRATIC SENATE. It was resurrected, slightly revised, bumped up with a $4.4 billion bribe, and it got shot down again, most by Republicans in the DEMOCRATIC SENATE.

So, did you figure out who stopped it on a technicality in 2002? Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVA).

Like it or not, it seems a Democratic Senator shot it the first time, and the Democratci Senate killed it twice this year (so far).

That is a better track record than the Republican President pushing it, reviving it, pushing it, reviving it; and the Republican Senate passing it in 2006.

Just before the 2002 election the RNC sent out a memo to the party leaders through the country and told them to avoid the issue of immigration.

If you need more information, try googling. It can be fun and educational.

[laurie_d]

So, now the new FR line on the reason to bash Bush is as follows:

Bush was elected in 2000 by pushing amnesty. And then came 9/11 and everything was put on hold. Keep in mind you’re claiming that amnesty was a main agenda item.

So, Bush gets re-elected in 2004. Amnesty was a big topic of debate, wasn’t it? NO it was not.

Now, *I* am pleased that the bill WAS stopped. But to falsely claim that it was a big campaign issue in 2000 and 2004 is just a flat out falsehood.

Why do you bash Bush? Why, why why? The democrats are making a mess of this country with their control of Congress and their hundreds of subpoenas and demands for hearings. And you’re here bashing Bush. Some of you EVERY DAY.

[TomGuy]

the prescription drug plan

I remember sitting up all night on that one. Hastert called for a 15-minute vote around 1:00 a.m. CT.

By 2:00 still no end to the voting -- arm-twisting behind the scenes -- 5 hold outs.

3:00 still no end -- arm-twisting -- still too many holding out.

IIRC, the vote finally ended around 4:30. That was a long 15-minute vote.

[Weeedley]

If we get behind a duck not only lame but a double amputee, the republican party will be in more shambles that it is now and that insures a rat infested WH in 2008.

[the808bass]

And you’re here bashing Bush. Some of you EVERY DAY.

A lack of leadership is not something to be praised. He is one of the worst communicators we have had as President in the TV era. He has no cohesive agenda. He has few guiding principles to the naked eye. His pragmatism, cloaked in compassionate conservatism, has accomplished little other than tax cuts and two good Supreme Court justices (through no fault of his own -cough- Harriet Miers -cough-).

[kabar]

And they were joined by 15 Dem senators who voted against cloture.

[TomGuy]

Conservatives *DID* that. It doesn’t mean you continually bash the guy.

When he is doing the same damn dumb thing over and over, you do.

Someone defined stupid as doing the same thing over and expecting a different result.

And he has tried to push amensty for illegals now 3 times since 2006. Recall that it died in the late spring of this year. Who pushed to revive it? The White House, when GWBush made a special, unprecedented trip to Capitol Hill to push it and sent his posse back to Capitol Hill to arm-twist the week of the final vote.

So, yah, he deserves the criticism because who did he blame in this radio address? The Democrats. The 'Congress he could work with'.

[Corin Stormhands]

It does not negate the fact that some of you...many of you here on FR are attacking this President for things that you didn’t care to attack when he was running for President.

Oh get over your rolling eyes. The only point about you being new is your ignorance of what actually went on here in 2000 and 2004.

We were here. You weren't.

OF COURSE we supported him in 2004. That doesn't mean we supported his entire agenda. He was CLEARLY the better choice than Kerry and Gore and we STILL prefer to have him as President than either one of those buffoons. And we have supported him steadfastly in the war on terror.

That does not negate the fact that on many, many, many issues, HE has abandoned his conservative base.

And it ain't just the liberal media telling us his polls are low. We know they're low because WE PUT THEM THERE.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I never claimed to be speaking for everyone on FR. Even in those discussions there were two sides.

I'm merely addressing your ignorance because you don't know what went on here back then.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

[SIDENET]

(rolls eyes)

[texastoo]

Awwwwww. They didn't get 'a Congress we can work with' after all in 06.

Tch, tch, tch. Ol Bush , Tony and Rove were so happy that the Dems. would be easier to work with and they would get fat boy Teddy's comprehensive bill passed. The Republicans passed the comprehensive bill in the Senate in 2005 but the House dumped it in 2005. However, it looks like these 3 fools will keep on trying to pass Mexican bills (major issue) for socialisation of the continent.

[Lakeshark]

The democrats are making a mess of this country with their control of Congress and their hundreds of subpoenas and demands for hearings. And you’re here bashing Bush.

Well said.

I hated what he did with the immi bill. Just hated it.

But to go along with the destruction of all things Republican, and simply join those libs destroying W is short sighted beyond belief. A straighter line to Hillary as Pres with a Democrat congress can't be made than the let's destroy W crowd here, and most of the posters you are talking about will howl about the W "betrayal" all the way to Hill's inauguration.......

[Lancey Howard]

So Bush is finally attacking the party that has been attempting to destroy him for six years? Huh..... Interesting.
Better late than never.

[TomGuy]

to falsely claim that it was a big campaign issue in 2000 and 2004

Learn to read.

I never said that. Actually, just the opposite was true -- both parties hid the problem. That doesn't mean they were not pushing it as an agenda. And why did Bush wait until AFTER the 2004 election to start his secretive meetings with the Canadian and Mexican leaders regarding NAU/SPP/TransHighway?

[Joe Boucher]

“President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Saturday of being unable to live up to their duties,”
And what about your f-ing responsibility to protect our borders Mr. President?

[laurie_d]

AMEN!!

Very well said. Bravo.

[A.A. Cunningham]

We only loathe lazy newbies.

[laurie_d]

You’ll fit in well with the Bush bashing crowd here on FR.

[laurie_d]

lazy? Because I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of most of you?

Ahhh.... ooookay.

[grey_whiskers]

Umm, Laurie?

It's generally considered good form to give specifics rather than blanket statements.

Could you, for example:

--Give several campaign promises or pledges to which *you* objected:
--Give quotes from specific FReepers about those promises, and quotes later on showing the FReeper had backed down on their objections?

Cheers!

[Lakeshark]

Ggod luck here........unfortunately you are witnessing the conservative crack up in action, and these folks don't understand they are being Moby'd and used to put Hillary in office.

Don't bother with every little objection from the haters, just take on the important ones.

And try to keep your sanity...

:-)

[grey_whiskers]

If we get behind a duck not only lame but a double amputee,

Quadriplegic is more like it. Or even:

"It's just a flesh wound!"

"And I would have got away with it except for you meddling ...
TALK RADIO HOSTS!"

Cheers!

[laurie_d]

lol, will do. (good advice)

:)

[Lurker]

And yet another newbie chimes in. I love it when someone who has absolutely no knowledge of what went on around here shows up and demands to have 4 or 5 years of FR history handed to her on a silver platter.

They're called 'archives'. Search 'em yourself. We ain't here to do your homework for you.

And THIS conservative has had enough of Bush bashing from “conservatives”.

Well babe, don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

L

[jonrick46]

There is much criticism about the amnesty aspects of the immigration reform bill. Many blame President Bush. However, if the DemonRATs knew that the amnesty part of it was so against the will of the people, it was their responsibility to take it out. Why did the DemonRATs sit on their thumbs and not take the amnesty out of the bill? Why did they do everything possible to railroad this bill through the Senate? The only dumb-ass pill was the amnesty legislation in the bill. That was swallowed with glee by the DemonRATs. Answer me this: why did they swallow the pill without reading the bottle?

[1035rep]

Good to hear. Let’s hope we can make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

[AzaleaCity5691]

We don’t elect members to Congress to do the will of the President or what is good for the entire country. We elect them to represent the views of their district and to vote as their constituents would want them to vote. If a Congressman knows that their is a vote up, and it would be something that would be for the good of the nation, and if it fails, it could harm the nation as a whole, but it is unpopular at home, well, if he puts the national good above what his constitutents want, he deserves to be defeated.

By the same token, if there is something up that will hurt the nation, but benefit their home area, to be quite honest, if they don’t put what benefits their home area above what is best for the nation, they are failing in their responsibilites to the people who elected them.

And they ceetainly aren’t there to be the national rubber stamp for any executive. And if the voters of a district don’t particularly like the President at the time, then, their representatives have a duty to tear into said President. Just because the President today is someone I voted for doesn’t make this less true than it was when Clinton was in office.

Besides, gridlock is good for the country, cause it ensures no major harm cna be done.

[1035rep]

Draft dodger? That was Clinton. Try to keep it straight.

[sam_paine]

Laurie, the question to ask the conservative inactivists that plan to bash bush and stay home in 2008 to teach the GOP a lesson is thus:

Conservatives had to fight Bush on Amnesty, Ports, Harriet Miers, and won....but how much influence will conservatives have with a Hillary/Obama presidency?

[1035rep]

I suppose they think if they bash and slander him enough it will make the liberals more appealing....LOL.... Not EVER going to happen.

[Cedric]

Utter nonsense!

[Recovering_Democrat]

Bush rips Democratic lawmakers' failures
By JENNIFER LOVEN

Jennifer Loven's husband was an advisor to John Kerry's campaign....read her "news" reports with that in mind!