Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George W Bush - Political Black Ice
LonePalm | 7/15/2003 | LonePalm

Posted on 07/15/2003 4:05:20 AM PDT by LonePalm

Edited on 07/15/2003 11:46:35 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

In October of 2000, as new member of Free Republic, I coined the phrase, "Broken Glass Republicans" as a measure of the intensity of Republican turn out for GWB. (You can read the original post and national comments by Byron York and Peggy Noonan.) That is not important here.

I would like to coin a new term as it relates to George W Bush and the Democrats. The term is "Political Black Ice." I think that GWB is "Political Black Ice" to the Democrats in that, like real 'black ice,' you never see it coming and once you hit it, there is NO TRACTION and NO WAY TO RECOVER.

Black Ice forms when water on the surface of a road freezes. The ice actually isn't black, it's transparent and almost invisible on asphalt. Drifting snow, temperature fluctuations and freezing rain can cause black ice to form. Northern and mountain drivers are familiar with the condition, usually to their detriment. If you drive slow enough, it is not a problem. Usually problems with black ice are your own fault and you know it.

Like a speeding driver in winter, the Democrat’s tongues are wagging too fast for political conditions. Like real black ice, there is ample political evidence that it is out there. The Democrats are blinded by their prejudices and desperate to regain the power they think is rightly theirs. Bush confounds them at every turn, yet, like heedless drivers in a hurry to reach their destination, they speed on.

On issue after issue, they strike political 'black ice,' vainly seeking the traction that will gain them steerage against the President. Instead they spin out of control. Not seeming to care, they spin on and on.

Democrats labeled Ronald Reagan (CVN-76 a.k.a. Ronaldus Magnus) the "Teflon President" because none of their charges seemed to stick. Republicans dubbed Bill Clinton (x42i) "Slick Willy" for several reasons. George W Bush is "Black Ice" because his opponents won't know they hit it until it is too late.

The most common result of striking black ice is a wreck. This will be one for the records.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 3rdpartyequalsenemy; bush; democrats; realfringerswhine; truefringerswhine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last
In January of 1996, while driving a Ford Escort, I hit a patch of black ice on I-80 just east of the Delaware Water Gap in NJ. I made three 360 degree turns before coming to rest less than one foot from the guard rail in the right hand break down lane facing forward. Less than five seconds later an 18-wheeler that I had passed earlier passed less than five feet to my left. The driver had to have seen me spin. By the Grace of God and the steely nerves of that driver, I am alive today.

I have NEVER forgotten that incident. That was one of my brushes with death.

I do not think that the Democrats have had their brush with political death yet. If they continue, GWB may well destroy them by a device of their own making. If they survive, they will be wiser and more circumspect.

In a sense, they will be hoist by their own petard.

1 posted on 07/15/2003 4:05:20 AM PDT by LonePalm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
When Clinton was asked what he thought of foreign affairs he replied, "I don't know, I never had one." (As usual, he lied)
Free Republic
Your donations keep us laughing at liberals

2 posted on 07/15/2003 4:06:35 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog; CholeraJoe; Eala; coteblanche; frithguild; Calpernia; Gumlegs; Travis McGee; Coleus; ...
Ping in order of reply to my request for comments.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Jamais reculez á tyrannie un pouce!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! Never give an inch to tyranny!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

3 posted on 07/15/2003 4:06:50 AM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
BTTT
4 posted on 07/15/2003 4:10:34 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
I think that GWB is "Political Black Ice" to the Democrats

I agree. Sadly, though, his political skills are resulting in huge deficits, huge expansions of government size and power, burdens that we will carry years after Bush and friends are gone from the scene.

My kids and their kids will then carry the burden. Bush has been able to black ice the size, cost and power of government beyond what a dem would have been politically able to accomplish. Just as it took a Nixon to go to China, it has taken a 'conservative' Republican to run up a half trillion dollar deficit and all the rest.

Bush should be ashamed of this,but I fear he is shameless.

5 posted on 07/15/2003 4:19:28 AM PDT by RJCogburn ("All them Parmelees is teched. Harold's the worst.".....Lucky Ned Pepper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
Like a speeding driver in winter, the Democrat’s tongues are wagging too fast for political conditions.

At the rate they are going, the Dems will have to change their script every couple of weeks, right up until Nov '04.
May I propose a definition?
Black Ice: the phenomenon of gaining negative traction, as when a stationary Dummycrat takes a sidewise slap at a man on a galloping horse who is moving faster than the Dummycrat can even think.

6 posted on 07/15/2003 4:21:53 AM PDT by ARepublicanForAllReasons (Where would we be, in 2003, if we had elected "The Tree"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
Black Ice - Invisible and deadly.
7 posted on 07/15/2003 4:23:01 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (White Devils for Sharpton. We're baaaaad. We're Nationwide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I agree. Sadly, though, his political skills are resulting in huge deficits, huge expansions of government size and power, burdens that we will carry years after Bush and friends are gone from the scene

Huh, I guess following in Ronald Reagan's footsteps is such a nasty legacy.

Reagan went along with big deficits to defeat the evil empire, The Soviet Union. Bush is doing the same to defeat the evil terrorist network.

8 posted on 07/15/2003 4:29:04 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Sadly, though, his political skills are resulting in huge deficits, huge expansions of government size and power, burdens that we will carry years after Bush and friends are gone from the scene.

Sadly, you're tripe is FOS! Thank God GWB is there to put in place things that will protect us from more terror attacks which BTW would be a much larger, a more burdensome, and cost many more lives for years to come.

...and I doubt you even understand what a deficit really means.

9 posted on 07/15/2003 4:35:23 AM PDT by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
I watched a volkwagon enter the freeway going 50,hit the black ice and roll down a step embankment.We were aware of the danger and glad he came out ahead of us instead of behind.The dems may have entered this with the same foolhardy bravado indeed.
10 posted on 07/15/2003 4:38:10 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Your Reagan comparison is, of course, wrong.

Were the deficits Bush champions directed toward the defeat of the terrorists then sign me up. But it is a stretch to say the Medicare bill, the farm bill, the education bill are efforts in that War.

Reagan could not decrease the size of government. He did not have the votes. Nevertheless, he did not propose programs as has Bush, such as the ones I just listed, that are huge expansions of government size, power, and cost, and don't make you a tad safer from the terrorists....unless we could enroll them in Medicare, I suppose.
11 posted on 07/15/2003 4:39:53 AM PDT by RJCogburn ("All them Parmelees is teched. Harold's the worst.".....Lucky Ned Pepper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dane
FYI..I liked this!
12 posted on 07/15/2003 4:40:06 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
My, my...testy this morning?

GWB is there to put in place things that will protect us from more terror attacks

Yes, but perhaps you can explain how the farm bill, the education bill, the Medicare bill is protecting you from terrorists.

13 posted on 07/15/2003 4:45:23 AM PDT by RJCogburn ("All them Parmelees is teched. Harold's the worst.".....Lucky Ned Pepper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Reagan could not decrease the size of government. He did not have the votes.

Neither does Bush. A 51-49 majority is a bare majority, with a lot of RINO's thrown in. Also it is interesting that you are all of the sudden for the War on Terror, given your parrotting of the latest demo/liberal media tempest in the teapot on FR.

14 posted on 07/15/2003 4:46:10 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Yes, but perhaps you can explain how the farm bill, the education bill, the Medicare bill is protecting you from terrorists

Did Ronald Reagan get rid of the Dept. of Education? And as bad as the education bill was, it still calls for standards, a small step in the right direction etc. etc.

Look you can have your little pet issues, but I guess you have a hankering for a demo President and Congress who will raise your taxes, like they did back in 93.

15 posted on 07/15/2003 4:53:36 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Excellent point! His ?black ice? is making the Repubs slip further left to keep the Dems from having a campaign issue. But what scares me the most is his growing police powers. While we may not have anything to worry about during his administration, it is only a matter of time before we get another liberal tyrant in office who would love to use those powers!
16 posted on 07/15/2003 4:59:29 AM PDT by SpartacusII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm; Admin Moderator
BTTT!

Your links in the article don't work, BTW.... I bet the moderator would fix them if you said "pretty please". ;^)

17 posted on 07/15/2003 5:04:02 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
You appear to be a blind follower of a political party. Bush has been a huge disappointment for true conservatives. While he has been a good Commander in Chief, he?s been a liberal on the domestic side. He?s had only 1 conservative victory, tax cuts. Otherwise, he?s been nothing more than a Democrat-lite.
18 posted on 07/15/2003 5:05:03 AM PDT by SpartacusII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
From Neal's Nuze:
CLINTON’S RECORD BROKEN
George Bush has broken a Clinton record, though not one to be proud of. The Federal Register – the publication that lists all proposed and enacted federal regulations – increased to 75,606 pages in 2002. That breaks the previous record set by Bill Clinton in 2000.

You need to know that these federal regulations cost businesses (and, ultimately, the consumers) in America more than all business income taxes combined.

During 2002 Congress passed 269 new laws. During the same year regulatory agencies passed 4,167 final rules. Not one of these rules was then subjected to congressional oversight.

Some more things to think about when considering Bush’s record in the White House.

Federal government spending under Bush has increased at a rate faster than of any year during the Clintonista era.

George Bush has yet to veto one single spending bill.

George Bush has teamed up with congressional Democrats to pass massive spending increases in education, agriculture and other areas.

George Bush has been in office for almost three years, and has yet to recommend the elimination of one single government-spending program.

And you wonder why I vote libertarian?

***
The reason the Dems are having problems with GW is that he's an awful lot like 'em. I am not voting Libertarian, but I'd really like a a REAL conservative in the Whitehouse. One who will spend less. One who will fight illegal immigration.
I don't trust GW to put good conservatives on the Supreme Court, either.
19 posted on 07/15/2003 5:08:23 AM PDT by Little Ray (When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Someday your prince may come.
20 posted on 07/15/2003 5:11:52 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
I not gonna hold my breath...
21 posted on 07/15/2003 5:13:00 AM PDT by Little Ray (When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
I mean "I'm not gonna hold my breath." Geez.
22 posted on 07/15/2003 5:13:49 AM PDT by Little Ray (When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Yes, but perhaps you can explain how the farm bill, the education bill, the Medicare bill is protecting you from terrorists.

First, I would like to ask you something. Are you a Libertarian?

Addressing issues that need to be addressed for the sake of the American people is not PERMENANTLY growing Gov't, or would you like the Dems to be in charge of this???

People have this unrealistic picture of how to reduce the size of Gov't. You can't take something that has been given to people for 30 years and just YANK it away from them in the blink of an eye. That's not only cruel, it is devestating in some cases.

Have you ever heard of the phrase, "Cause and effect."

This idea that conservatives have of everything in Gov't needing to be reduced is at best, a pipe dream. The problem is the things that Gov't does do need to work efficiently, steamlined, and be cost effective.

23 posted on 07/15/2003 5:14:52 AM PDT by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
NO Democratic/Socialist Crime Syndicate member would EVER THINK of doing what President Bush HAS DONE with foreign policy. Nearly 100 years of domestic socialist drift cannot be undone by a first term President with a razor thin majority, courts packed with activist judges and an unparalled propaganda machine just starting to crack.

We are in the midst of one of the greatest president / administrations in the history of this republic.

24 posted on 07/15/2003 5:16:00 AM PDT by PGalt (Much harder to defeat than a foreign enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
Only for the unskilled driver.
25 posted on 07/15/2003 5:17:38 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PGalt
We are in the midst of one of the greatest president / administrations in the history of this republic

Unfortunately greatest is not synonymous with best. Greatest just means most effective with the biggest plans and actions. W may well be that, though he still has to top the pulling down of the Soviet Empire.

26 posted on 07/15/2003 5:25:23 AM PDT by ThanhPhero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
I see that you have posted "red meat" from Neil Boortz. A lot of those regulations probably put into the Federal register are to turn back some of the Clinton regualtions especially concerning labor and the enviroment.

But that doesn't matter to Neal as he puts out his red meat, it's the # of pages, not the nitty gritty substance of the pages.

27 posted on 07/15/2003 5:51:11 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Sadly, though, his political skills are resulting in huge deficits, huge expansions of government size and power, burdens that we will carry years after Bush and friends are gone from the scene.

On the surface, you are correct. I have a theory about this though. I have been trying to formulate it and get facts to back it up, but I'm going to throw it out there and let the sharks rip it up.

My theory is that GW is trying to pander to the more moderate liberals (traditional democrats). Remember, he barely won the election in 2000. He needs all the numbers he can get. I think that GW is going to pull in enough people to get elected in 2004, then you will see him reduce the size of government. Reagan did this. He cut taxes in his first term, then cut government spending in his second term and came out smelling like a rose.

GW would be stupid to cut spending now and risk alienating the moderates that he has been grooming. I also think he throws them a political bone once in awhile. I am thinking about things like Medicare, etc.

I don't know. What do you think of the theory? Maybe it's just wishful thinking. I hope not.

28 posted on 07/15/2003 5:52:31 AM PDT by Pest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
This idea that conservatives have of everything in Gov't needing to be reduced is at best, a pipe dream. The problem is the things that Gov't does do need to work efficiently, steamlined, and be cost effective.

A statement like that, and you feel at home on a Conservative Site? Nothing like arguing from a leftist position.

SFR

29 posted on 07/15/2003 6:10:18 AM PDT by SoFarRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pest
Me thinks you nailed it on the head.

The deficits have more to do with the slowing economy than increased spending. Once the economy turns back on, and it is doing just that, the deficits will lessen.

Geo MUST win in '04, so he can implement responsible government policies (reduce spending).

The dems (Domestic Enemies) are desperately flailing at the gates of the castle, and their efforts will be in vain - backfire if we're lucky.

Americans want security (we've saved two countries from Islamic fanaticism - Iran, North Korea, and Cuba to follow) and economic recovery (Geo providing tax relief, the market is raising, jobs will come back soon).

Geo's cool, calm, collected style is quite calculated and focused - we are lucky to have such a man of steel at the helm at times such as these.

I am amazed how many pinko leftleftleft America haters there are out there. Let's hope they are a very small vocal minority.

Let's just pray that enough true Americans wake up from their TV induced coma and vote for freedom in '04.

30 posted on 07/15/2003 6:12:54 AM PDT by ImProudToBeAnAmerican (Bill raped, Monica swallowed, Hillary totally sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ThanhPhero
Me thinks he will.

Reagan provided the impetious to tip over a toppling empire, Geo has to stare down the rising tide of Islamic fanaticism.

Both are imperative - the later will be harder to accomplish.

31 posted on 07/15/2003 6:17:16 AM PDT by ImProudToBeAnAmerican (Bill raped, Monica swallowed, Hillary totally sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SpartacusII
"...disappointment for true conservatives."


No one will ever be able to satisfy a "true conservative" since every "true conservative" has their own standards they will measure the candidate by.

There are many things I would like to see President Bush do, it is not going to happen. We live in a Republic, not a dictatorship (which I am happy for).

The President can guide and push, but there are limits to his powers. If the President came out for all of the things that would make "true conservatives" happy, he would be crucified by big media, and the American people would turn against him.

Like it our not, "true conservatives" are a minority in this country, meaning they do not have enough votes to give a true conservative President the support he would need in Congress, and the protection he would need in public opinion.

I belive that the nation at this time is just a little right of center, moving to the right, but the majority of voters fall in the middle. Presidents must play to the middle, or they will not win. Democrats move to the right, and Republicans move to the left.

"True conservatives" have only two options, support the President, or support the Democrats (and any vote for third party candidates, or staying home on election day is support for the Democrats). I don't make the rules, just pointing them out.

I do not like everything President Bush has done, but I do like a lot of what he has done. At some point in my life I realized I will never get everything I wanted, that is true in my personal life, and in my polictical life.

But then again, I am not a "true conservative"

32 posted on 07/15/2003 6:17:52 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SpartacusII
Bush has been a huge disappointment for true conservatives.

There are no true conservatives; only a bunch of WHINOs who mischaracterize themselves. People who think they are true conservatives seriously harmed this country in '92. Such misguided troublemakers are as Ideologically Correct as those on the Left are Politically Correct and both groups put their interests ahead of the country, party, and everything else — except themselves.

33 posted on 07/15/2003 6:36:59 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Addressing issues that need to be addressed for the sake of the American people is not PERMENANTLY growing Gov't, or would you like the Dems to be in charge of this???

People have this unrealistic picture of how to reduce the size of Gov't. You can't take something that has been given to people for 30 years and just YANK it away from them in the blink of an eye. That's not only cruel, it is devestating in some cases.

What would be a realistic way to reduce the size of gov't? And addressing your charge that any growth of gov't is not permanent, what was the last gov't program to be cut out? What are they phasing out?

Although I support GW Bush in his foreign policy, and think he is a good man, I am worried about the size of the gov't increasing. One day, someone else will be in power, and who knows how they will use the powers being put into place.

34 posted on 07/15/2003 6:39:28 AM PDT by eyespysomething (The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SpartacusII; RJCogburn; All
". . . Bush has been a huge disappointment for true conservatives."

I'm surprised that you didn't add the 'uber right' assertion that Ronald Reagan NEVER violated his conservative principles to achieve political/NATIONAL SECURITY ends. OH REALLY? Ronald Reagan was just as much of a political pragmatist/incrementalist as George W Bush -- GWB learned at the knee of the master!

And how did the 'uber right' react to Reagan's pragmatism (for the greater 'national security' good)? Just read the following excerpt from Anne Coulter's book TREASON:

"Reagan not only ignored the liberal elite throughout his administration but, when necessary, he ignored his conservative base, too. He did so rather famously in 1987 . . . A little more than a year after Reagan walked away from the negotiating table in Reykjavi, he suddenly switched course and began playing good cop with Gorbachev. He even agreed to sign a treaty banning medium-range missiles from Europe. CONSERVATIVES WENT BANANAS [DrDeb Note: Does this remind anyone of the current Road Map flap?!] They finally thought maybe liberals were right about Rreagan's encroaching dementia.

William F Buckley, Jr's "National Review" called the prospective treaty a "catastrophic" venture in "utopianism." Conservative Caucus Chairman Howard Phillips ridiculed Reagan as a "USEFUL IDIOT FOR KREMLIN PROGAGANDA," saying he was "LITTLE MORE THAN THE SPEECH-READER-IN-CHIEF!"

"A USEFUL IDIOT"; "LITTLE MORE THAN A SPEECH-READER-IN-CHIEF
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!! If uber conservatives said this about RONALD MAXIMUS REAGAN, it's no wonder they have nothing positive to say about our current COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF!
35 posted on 07/15/2003 6:51:29 AM PDT by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dane
"Did Ronald Reagan get rid of the Dept. of Education? And as bad as the education bill was, it still calls for standards, a small step in the right direction etc. etc."

Boy you really lost it on this one.

The so-called standards are yet another increase in the power and scope of the federal government over states and localities. Added to the other tests, my children will now waste even more time preparing for federal, state, and locally mandated fill-in-the-dot tests that most people agree really show very little. They will now take at least one and sometimes more of these tests every year from 2nd grade on -- it used to be just three during the 13 years starting with kindergarten.

And the federal standards are yet one more unfunded or poorly funded mandate. My state and/or local taxes will rise to cover this.
36 posted on 07/15/2003 6:54:38 AM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth; RJCogburn; LonePalm
"Sadly, you're tripe is FOS!}My sentiments exactly!

Great article, LonePalm. I love your black ice analogy!

37 posted on 07/15/2003 6:56:49 AM PDT by Slip18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
"But it is a stretch to say the Medicare bill, the farm bill, the education bill are efforts in that War."

It is if you stop for a moment and realize that the greatest terrorist threat to this nation is the Democrat Party. The President is neutralizing this threat in order to defeat the enemy within.

38 posted on 07/15/2003 7:08:13 AM PDT by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PGalt
We are in the midst of one of the greatest president / administrations in the history of this republic.

I sure hope you are right. Pushing for the Medicare bill has sure made me wonder.
39 posted on 07/15/2003 7:11:10 AM PDT by wasp69 (The time has come.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
***Sigh***...

Bush Ended Funding For Gun Buyback Program

In 2002, President Bush eliminated funding for UNFPA because the program was involved with coercive abortion in China.

The 2002 Bush budget called for zeroed out the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.

White House ends environmental research funding

Bush administration shut down Everglades restoration office

46 Education Programs Eliminated in the President ’s 2004 Budget

Bush in his first budget proposed a $248 mil. cut to the Health Professions Program and complete elimination of the Community Access Program. Both cuts were reversed by Congress and the programs received funding increases.

Bush cut funds for the Justice Department's lawsuit against the tobacco industry.

Just four weeks after the President signed the education bill into law, the Administration's budget cuts funding for it," Kennedy said.[Kennedy Press Release, 2/12/02]

President Bush proposed a 2.8 percent increase, roughly $1.4 billion, in education funding, the smallest increase in seven years. [House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Democratic staff, The Bush Budget: Shortchanging School Reform, 2/12/02]

In their FY 2003 budget resolution, Senate Democrats proposed larger increases in education funding than Bush and restored funding for the programs Bush cut in the education reform law. [Chairman's Mark — FY 20003 Senate Budget Resolution, 3/20/02]

Source

That's just what I found under a simple search, there are 346,000 more entries out there if you just care to look. And as you can see, it is a little hard to cut spending if the Dems keep restoring funding.

40 posted on 07/15/2003 7:18:34 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
"In October of 2000, as new member of Free Republic, I coined the phrase, "Broken Glass Republicans"...."

I liked your article. A lot. Very smart, very thought-provocative. But caution on the claims. I've heard the phrase Broken-glass Republicans for many years now, long before 2000. Otherwise, spot on.
41 posted on 07/15/2003 7:26:14 AM PDT by John Robertson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
BTTT
42 posted on 07/15/2003 7:52:23 AM PDT by Eala (Freedom for Iran -- http://eala.freeservers.com/iranrally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
BFL (bump for later)
43 posted on 07/15/2003 7:59:01 AM PDT by Fzob (Why does this tag line keep showing up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn; Little Ray; SpartacusII; LonePalm
Political Black Ice.

I like it.

I also like how this post allows the true colors of some of you to jump to the fore. You are negative, nay saying Neanderthals, one-issue voters, without the good sense to grab the gold ring in front of you. You talk of Bush’s signing of the Farm bill and Education bills only for their fiscal results, yet you ignore the political results, which are far more tangible and valuable to your own causes.

The reason that Republicans were able to gain control of Congress, is directly related to the passage of bills that Conservatives may not like or appreciate. Passing bills is deal-making. No one side is ever going to get everything they want in a bill, even if Congress was 99% Republican. The remaining 1% would be the most powerful entity in government. The powers to withhold, delay, stall, or filibuster an issue before congress is stronger than the power to get things done.

In spite of that, you negative nabobs never talk about the positives beyond the tax cut that Bush has brought to society. You don’t discuss how civil service jobs are being opened up for privatization. You never mention the positive changes taking place in the military, including leadership, or how pay has been raised more under Bush than under 8 years of Clinton. I don’t hear any talk about how interest rates remain low, along with the value of the dollar, which promotes trade by making imported items more uncompetitive without tariffs.

I might drop dead if one of you nabobs talks about how many potential terrorist attacks have been thwarted, how many assets of terrorists have been confiscated, and how Bush is actually reshaping the entire Middle East, which will ultimately lead to even better security here in America. How many of you nabobs thought Arafat could ever accept a Prime Minister, even in name alone?

Then there are all the bad things that DIDN’T happen because Bush is President, and we DO NOT have a Democratic congress. I would like to see some balance from you nabobs. Why don’t you discuss all the bad things that were avoided by this president? You talk as if Albert Gore would have been the answer to your prayers. You see the glass as half empty, and are up complaining, bitching and moaning before noon. It must suck to be you. People who can only see and focus on the negative, in spite of all the good and positive things around them, are hell to be around.

Why not go set up your own negative forums, so you and your partners in misery can all sit together sharing chicken little punditry until you get so worked up, you have to take a nap? Look around you. Life is good, people. Sure, people are losing jobs, and we have challenges here and abroad, but hell, did you think it was going to be cake? You think your vote is some kind of pact that the man you select is going to do your bidding. In this Constitutional Republic, the man you select is there to do what he thinks is best, with your faith and trust in his judgment over the other guy you did not vote for.

If you trust the judgment of Albert Gore, or Howard Dean, or Hillary Clinton, or anyone else this president may run against in the future, then knock yourselves out voting for them. But do this newbie a favor and stop bitching so much. Sometimes it’s not fun to come here in the morning and see your constant gripe, gripe, griping, when the truth is that there has never been more opportunity for good since Reagan. Things could be a LOT worse, dammit.

Anyone offended by what I said can just shut up, because I have not had my coffee yet this morning, and it could have been MUCH worse.
44 posted on 07/15/2003 8:04:32 AM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dane
it's the # of pages,

I see your larger point, but just the volume of them adds complexity that has a cost. If they truly reverse Clintoon regs, they shoul be removed from the books. If they are just adjustments back to the prior regs, there may be no net reduction of the burden, it might just be shifted to paper-pushers adjusting to compliance.

45 posted on 07/15/2003 8:05:33 AM PDT by StriperSniper (Frogs are for gigging)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
It works for me!
46 posted on 07/15/2003 8:05:41 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pest
My theory is that GW is trying to pander to the more moderate liberals (traditional democrats). Remember, he barely won the election in 2000. He needs all the numbers he can get. I think that GW is going to pull in enough people to get elected in 2004, then you will see him reduce the size of government. Reagan did this. He cut taxes in his first term, then cut government spending in his second term and came out smelling like a rose.

I'll believe this when I see it. I don't see any indication that he is actually interested in reducing the size of the state. I could br wrong though, and suspect we'll have the opportunity to find out, as I really don't think anyone the rats have put forward so far have a snowball's chance in hades of winning.

47 posted on 07/15/2003 8:06:52 AM PDT by zeugma (Hate pop-up ads? Here's the fix: http://www.mozilla.org/ Now Version 1.4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Huh, I guess following in Ronald Reagan's footsteps is such a nasty legacy.

Reagan went along with big deficits to defeat the evil empire, The Soviet Union. Bush is doing the same to defeat the evil terrorist network.>>>

No, actually Reagan wanted "less" government spending, he wanted to abolish the Dept. of Education and wasn't afraid of bringing it up while W added $15 Billion to it. Reagan also wanted to abolish other agencies as well including: Energy, transportation, commerce,etc. Reagan also eliminated thousands if not tens of thousands government regulations, I haven't seen any under this administration.

The budget increased under Reagan, yes, not only because of the military spending, it was having a Democrat House of Representatives who held the purse strings and increased entitlements and domestic spending and not allowing Reagan to consolodate federal agencies, Bush has a "republican" house of representatives and can't control spending and a republican Senate and can't get conservative judicial appointments through. However, when Bush appointed 6 pro abortion judges in NJ, he had NO problem getting those approved.

And Reagan dropped no bombs on the USSR and was still able to see its demise. Bush is no Reagan in my book.

I still like the president however when people say he's like Reagan, that is a misnomer.


48 posted on 07/15/2003 9:29:05 AM PDT by Coleus (God is Pro Life and Straight and gave an innate predisposition for self-preservation and protection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
Great Job bump, and Democrats watch out in 2004, a tidal wave is coming.
49 posted on 07/15/2003 9:31:26 AM PDT by Coleus (God is Pro Life and Straight and gave an innate predisposition for self-preservation and protection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm

I am STILL a Broken Glass  Republican.
Are you?

A BG Republican is one who would crawl across Broken Glass to get to the polling place today and cast his vote! Here is the first reference I have found to Broken Glass Republican. Posted on the FreeRepublic.com and here is the post:

To All:
I am now a Broken Glass Republican!!!!!!
I will crawl over broken glass to vote November 7th.

Again, please forgive the vanity post. I should be feeling better around January 20th.
1 Posted on 10/14/2000 13:12:09 PDT by LoanPalm (Broken Glass Republican)

+++++++++++++++++++++++

LoanPalm, thanks for the heads up. I truly am still a BGR. I like the Black Ice too.

A little look into the past. I still have this on my Gun Rights & Politics Page.

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

50 posted on 07/15/2003 9:41:03 AM PDT by Varmint Al
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson