Posted on 04/13/2009 12:00:38 AM PDT by neverdem
Oh really? Let's see how this works. GWB and Cheney decides to invade Iraq and rebuild it. Even at the beginning it is not all that popular (and goes downhill every day.) And GWB cuts taxes to stimulate the economy , and to get a few more votes in 2004. Advisers tell him some voters will be offended by the tax cuts, so he throws in the old stimulus check(did this create jobs?). Funding Iraq starts to grow less popular, so Rove says to give the seniors prescriptions drugs to get their vote, and No Child Left Behind without vouchers to get single Moms votes. Are Hannity and Levin worried about the debt from Iraq, No Child, Medicare, tax cuts, and tax rebate checks causing national debt during 2004 debates?? NOOO! George Bush is great, great economy, war hero, you must vote for Bush. Later they all claim the war and tax cuts were important, but not that other stuff Bush passed to get votes without funding(debt).No they are real conservatives, They opposed it, but NOT when it counted.
What about the economy? GWB saved the economy after Sept 11, Great economic growth, jobs created, housing starts, even need illegals to build the new houses, and tax revenues increasing. OOOPs, gas prices up, food prices up, for-closures up, debt increasing, stock market crash, need a trillion in bailouts or we all die. Those darn democrats. GWB saved the economy and Barney Frank, Clinton and Carter all messed it up. Drat!
2006 Pelosi wins, 2008 obama wins, dont those voters realize that McCain must win to save EVERYTHING??we will all die from those WMDs if McCain loses.
and you wonder why voters turn off the TV when republicans get on.
Can you blame them? McQueeg with his Gods Children and Bush with his Great Religion Pap the Compassionate Malingering W Pant Load Iraq war with the Casualty rate spinning like a top and the end result is a communist take over of our government Thanks RINOs and Get lost!
Can you blame them? McQueeg with his Gods Children and Bush with his Great Religion Pap the Compassionate Malingering W Pant Load Iraq war with the Casualty rate spinning like a top and the end result is a communist take over of our government Thanks RINOs and Get lost!
What they don't realize and they probably will soon, is that Bozo owns this shooting now, he claimed he gave the order(but we all know he didn't)and the MSM has backed him up and praised him for it. Now if they start screaming unfair, all the Navy has to do is point to the Coward in Chief and say, "It's Bozo's fault!".
I think the MSM forgets sometimes that President Bush is not there to blame any longer.
Oop’s sorry about the double post!
Thanks for the ping!
“Funding Iraq starts to grow less popular, so Rove says to give the seniors prescriptions drugs to get their vote, and No Child Left Behind without vouchers to get single Moms votes. Are Hannity and Levin worried about the debt from Iraq, No Child, Medicare, tax cuts, and tax rebate checks causing national debt during 2004 debates??”
First, quibble - your timing is all wrong. Bush did NCLB in 2002, and Medicare even before Iraq got dragged out and unpopular. Alas, this was Bush’s ‘compassionate conservative’ (imho train wreck) policies. The trifecta on this pudding was immigration ‘reform’ which conservative grassroots opposition, incited by Rush, Levin, Laura I and others - stopped. PERHAPS they did get their eye off the ball in 2001-2003 when the GWOT was issue #1, and they only later awakened to Bush’s domestic policy spending problems - but
Second, your bashing the successful tax cuts of 2003, which helped bring back the economy, are ‘tax collector for the welfare state’ positions.
Third, the guy wearin the black hat in your script should be the big gubmint neocons like David Frum in the WH, not the outsiders like Marc Levin - fastforward and Frum is the insider-elitist taking on beltway-hated Palin and Rush, while Levin the outsider-populist takes on ... Frum:
http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=c9f0a139-c96f-4a28-b81f-68fb14f7b2d8
Now consider this cogent comment from the viewpoint of what these responsible conservative show hosts have to go through to support more moderate Republicans:
“I think that most of the offense that Mark Levin, Limbaugh and the conservative grassroots feel towards the moderates is very justified. It is important to remember that the so-called right of the conservative movement was trying mightily to shore up the sinking ship of the McCain campaign during the past election. They only started doing this with enthusiasm once McCain/Palin spiked in the polls after the Rep. Convention. Before that they were already reconciling to the fact that McCain would lose and that the with him the Rep. Party had already shifted to the left. Add to this the hostility of the mainstream media to conservatives and their obvious support of Obama and you have a fuel for conservative anger. Another factor too, is the fact that many conservative journalists were pointing out the fact that Obama appeared to be a very radical candidate and inklings of his agenda could be discerned, but were absolutely ignored by most everyone else. let’s even throw in the unfair treatment of Palin and is it any wonder that “moderates” who either endorsed Obama or attacked the MCain/Palin ticket are angry at those same people? I mean, given what we know see coming out of Washington, should not these same conservatives who were ignored and tried mightily to save the McCain ticket at least be given an apology?”
As I conservative, I truly believe in individual responsibility. It is truly unfair to blame McCain’s RINOism on non-RINO fellow Republicans. That’s Mccain’s responsibility. It is unfair to blame the big spending that Congress engaged in on conservative talk show hosts who never advocated or passed or voted for such bills, and who in fact warned against it. It is further unfair not to note the political context, that at ALL times and in all contexts, the liberal Democrats were wanting higher taxes, higher spending, more regulation, and were chiding and campaigning on the same - using these issues to win elections (drug benefit, SCHIP, etc.).
“George Bush is great, great economy, war hero, you must vote for Bush. “
And Thank God we did. We Roberts and Alito on SCOTUS instead of 2 Kerry-appointed liberals, and we got Iraq turned around before a Dim-wit President could lose in Iraq.
And btw, the economy was good in 2004. I dont regret voting for Bush despite his errors and some disagreements. Apparently in your world view we have to shoot our own and turn 100% of the power over to the liberals for the sin of being merely human and imperfect.
The basic premise that Bush was universally followed, that his every act was praised by conservatives and there were no misgivings - all of that is simply belied by the record. No President has faced such withering critic Check out FR’s history, it has proof enough of that.
Meanwhile, you have made serious accusations about where Levin and Rush (who could barely bring himself to endorse McCain) come down. But still no quotes. In the end the conservative defense of Bush, or McCain, was NOT carte blanche lemming-following but an intellectually defensible one. Your brilliant 20/20 hindsight on what should have happened notwithstanding. (As I mentioned earlier, it is way too soon to determine that McCain couldnt/wouldnt best Obama in the ‘keep us safe’ dept. Wait until a real crisis occurs.)
I would leave you again with this small but IMPORTANT point - Obama is a radical and his budget is a radical departure from what GW Bush, Clinton, GHWBush and Reagan did prior:
What was most striking about the budget - including that it will explode the federal deficit to $1.75trillion this year, its highest since the Second World War - was that it was a ruthless declaration of how Mr Obama intends fundamentally to change the American social contract, from Right to Left. Its goal is not just to rescue the economy. It is to crush conservatism, end the age of anti-tax, anti-regulation policies that have been the guiding philosophies of US governance for a generation, and usher in a fresh “epoch”, as his aides call it, of New Deal-Great Society wealth redistribution and central intervention that were repudiated by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago.”
Except stock market crash started Sept 2007, I will remember it forever. It was the day I called my stock broker and he told me it was NOTHING to worry about, true story, I am mad!
You still ignored my point. instead of you so called patriotic conservatives preaching that government is free by claiming re-building Iraq would be paid for by tax cuts (why didnt the stupid public believe this??)why not have GWB raise an Iraq tax on the patriotic conservatives? You would have worked a few more hours, right? Hannity and Levin would of, right? I mean for the troops, and to keep american safe. Instead you told americans to forget about taxes and run out and buy something. But lets say Bush gave a speech to tell us everything comes with a price, even Iraq, and we CANT push the future bill on the unborn. What sort of example would that be for democrats?
And stop the but Obama is WORST than US crap, it’s pathetic. you tried it three times. Have some diginity.
It’s all working out fine for GS, though. Just off the wire:
NEW YORK/SINGAPORE, April 14 (Reuters) - Goldman Sachs’ (GS.N) first-quarter profit beat forecasts, a further sign that the worst may be over for financial firms in the eye of the storm, but Singapore devalued its currency after a record GDP fall.
Banking shares in Asia rose on optimism about the U.S. financial sector after Goldman’s earnings while markets such as Hong Kong and Australia also climbed as they played catch up after the Easter holiday. [MKTS/GLOB]
***And btw, the economy was good in 2004.***
And the drug user feels really good during a high.
What's ol' Frum been up to lately?
Two logical errors: 1) Conflating President Bush with talk radio show hosts, who express opinions but did not enact the bush policies. Those talk radio show hosts DISAGREED with Bush on MULTIPLE issues, I named several of them. I mentioned Rush - HE OPPOSED BUSH ON TARIFFS IN 2003. HE OPPOSED BUSH WHEN BUSH SIGNED THE BIG-SPENDING PORK FARM BILL (THE DASCHLE BILL) IN 2002. In fact, Rush criticized President on certain things throughout his administration. Your attempt to tie talk radio show hosts to Bush's compromises on spending with Kennedy and Daschle is - bizarre and simply counterfactual.
2) Argument by strawman. It is a complete and utter strawman to claim anyone said 'government was free'. Not bush. Not levin. not anyone. I call BS. Show me the quotes.
And so it is with the whole post. You conflate talk show hosts with WH policy (two different things); you confuse the good tax cuts of 2003 with the flawed spending increases, and you cast the entire conservative movement as somehow complicit in bush's triangulation and compromises. It's a pantload - and we know because WE WERE THERE fighting the good fight AGAINST those compromises. Freepers opposed Medicare Part D WHEN IT HAPPENED. So did almost 2 dozen GOP Representatives. So did talk radio hosts oppose big spending bills.
Take out all your strawmen argumentation and you are simply left with the assertion that Bush was a bigger spender than he should have been ... gee, tell us something new for a change!
You are free to support your phony strawman claims against Levin hannity etc. with names, cites and quotes, its not like they dont have columns and tanscripts. but I am sure you cant because in the end they did have conservative POV and agree or disagree, they have a solid perspective. My own googling shows that RUSH LIMBAUGH OPPOSED MEDICARE PART D WHEN IT WENT DOWN. So did "Club for Growth" and other conservative groups BTW.
And BTW, you do have a very UN-conservative view on tax rate reduction: It reduces the price of Government. Blaming tax cuts for deficits is singing from the Democrat party playbook. ... I repeat: It's a false notion that tax-cutters are responsible or like higher spending /deficits. You can even check the votes - a distinctly DIFFERENT GROUP are voting and did vote for higher spending than for tax reductions. You can verify this by comparing NTU ratings and CAGW (Citizens Against Govt waste). They correlate. Fiscal conservatives like Coburn, DeMint, Rep Flake, Rep Shadegg, Rep Pence voted NO on medicare part D, but have been for lower tax rates. That is consistent fiscal conservatism.
NOPE. Laura Ingraham and others saw that harriet miers was a non-conservative dud and raised the hue and cry. When harriet met senators, they were shocked at how unready she was, and she was withdrawn.
Look, my FRiend, you are just WRONG to attack talk radio - you are accusing them of being silent when THEY WERE NOT SILENT! Merely repeating your non-factual zero-actual-quote strawman attacks dont make them more credible.
This is Rush in 2003!!! ....
http://www.dailycontentions.com/2003_07_01_archive.htm#105841250940864699
“Rush Limbaugh asks this question on his website, in his analysis of President Bush’s domestic efforts. Rush lists several instances of Dubya’s caving to the democrats including: Kennedy’s education bill, Daschle’s farm bill, medicare and campaign finance reform, a prescription drug benefit package, and “a ‘tax credit’ for parents who don’t pay taxes.” With the GOP in control of both houses of Congress and the White House, the party’s conservative base is being sadly let down.
But such cave-ins seem to be the norm in this post “new deal” era of the Federal Government; an era where education, healthcare, and other areas of state domain are increasingly being appropriated by our national government. So, when Rush asks “Where Have All the Compromises Gotten Us,” I’d say 500+ billion dollars of deficit about answers it.”
SEE - WE KNEW IT BACK THEN AND WE WERE FIGHTING BACK THEN. Bush caved to Democrats was governing from the mushy middle on domestic policy. Conservatives were arguing AGAINST the administration. .... THIS —
“instead of you so called patriotic conservatives preaching that government is free” - IS GARBAGE. FALSE. A LIE. NONSENSE. Nobody said it and you know it. Stop the BS strawman argument -its pathetic.
“And stop the but Obama is WORST than US crap, it’s pathetic. you tried it three times. Have some diginity.”
Have some intellectual integrity yourself. you are denying the obvious. $2 TRILLION DEFICITS and $16 TRILLION in spending in 4 years is far far far beyond anything ever done before in the US. Under the last GOP+Bush budget we had under 20% of GDP in Federal Spending. NEXT YEAR UNDER OBAMA IT ZOOMS TO 27%, HIGHER THAN ANY LEVEL SINCE WWII!
I am being honest. you are being self-deluded if you think Obama’s socialist is merely ‘more of the same’. It’s a whole new leftwing ballgame.
Economic growth, more jobs added, and fastest growth in a decade happened in the 2003-2005 timeframe. The economy was infull growth in 2004.
IF you take the LSD of extreme permabearism, any economic growth will look like a mirage. but it wasnt.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200412300923.asp
“It’s been going on all year. The strong recovery got no respect during the presidential election, as John Kerry and his minions pounded President Bush for presiding over a “Hoover” economy. Kerry said Bush failed to create new jobs, even though traditional measures of economic health have been advancing nicely for two years. The media largely reported it the Kerry way.
Bush may not have been the most adept debater on the economy, but the facts spoke loudly in his favor. The most comprehensive measure of economic health — inflation-adjusted gross domestic product — has been trending steadily around 4 percent for the last two years. This is half a percent above the nation’s 3.5 percent long-run growth trend.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate — which used to be the key election-year labor-market indicator — moved down from 6.3 percent to 5.4 percent, indicating strong U.S. work conditions. Then there’s the 2 percent inflation trend, a stat never mentioned during the campaign but a long stone’s throw from Jimmy Carter’s 15 percent rate of price increases.
Big media let Kerry get away with murder as he obsessed over non-farm payroll jobs, which were slow to recover but have in fact expanded by over 2 million in the past eighteen months. Nonetheless, the other major jobs report — the household survey — went virtually unreported.
The household measure shows a 2.5 million jobs gain during Bush’s first term and a whopping 4.2 million increase since the end of the 2001 recession. It’s a real measure, too: It gives us the unemployment rate. It also does not triple-count job gains or losses, as is the case with the payroll survey, while it does include self-employed workers and independent contractors, key parts of our new Internet-based information economy.
Then there’s the positive impact of reduced marginal tax rates. The Bush supply-side tax cuts were implemented early in 2003, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, a burst technology bubble, and the corporate scandals. They caused an immediate jolt to the economy, as both employment and investment responded to a badly-needed dose of economic incentives. By taxing work and investment less, the economy got much more of both.
Here are a few simple facts. In the six quarters after Bush’s tax cuts, real GDP expanded at a 4.6 percent annual rate, much faster than the 2.5 percent pace of the six earlier recovery quarters. Consumer spending jumped from 2.8 percent to 3.9 percent. Business investment in new plant and equipment surged to 13.4 percent from only 1 percent before the tax cuts. Personal income jumped to a 5 percent growth rate, nearly double the earlier speed of 2.6 percent. The average employment gain (combining both surveys) was 2.4 million compared with virtually no gain before the tax cuts.
Corporate profits, without which businesses cannot create jobs, now stand at a record $1.118 trillion — 56 percent above their recession trough, 25 percent above the prior recovery peak of the late ’90s, and at a near-record 9.5 percent of GDP. Broad stock market averages have jumped 60 percent from their lows. Home ownership is at an all-time high, as are existing home sales. U.S. household wealth stands at a record $51 trillion.”
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.