Posted on 01/19/2014 7:43:20 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Yes, I am.
Well, we need to look again at the tax thing. Ask why Bush decided to increase spending exponentially while keeping taxes low. He never vetoed a single spending bill while he was in office. This reminds us that the Establishment long ago abandoned the idea of reducing the size of government. NCLB started out as the modest notion of providing a modest standard for measuring the success of a state’s publish schools. Even before Bush left office, it had moved toward this common core idea, which was that every student in every state would eventually have the same curriculum, one devised by the Department of Education.
I know why:
1) Re-election 2004, it worked too. free candy.
2) To keep Iraq funded and to later 2007 get the new Pelosi Dem House to fund a Iraq surge that most of them ran against to get elected. He wouldn't have got that if he didn't give Dems what they wanted.
Those were his priorities. Its no mystery to me,
I agree. With Pelosi he did the same thing that Reagan did with O’Neill’s House. The sad thing is that he would have won in 2004 even without the free candy, and then threw away his “mandate” on a reform with no support in Congress rather than concentrate on the wars in SW Asia. Then came Katrina, when he showed none of the leadership he showed after 9/11.
We certainly don't know that.
His free medicare drugs deficit bill got him that nice win in Florida, there were no recounts in 2004 as in 2000 because it wasn't close.
He also picked up seats in congress although looking back they didn't do much good those 2 years 2005 to 2006.
Passed VRA, yuck.
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.