Bush: A Democrat in Republican clothing?

Source: Washington Times ^ | 07/28/2002 | By Nicholas M. Horrock

[Lazamataz]

WASHINGTON, July 28 (UPI) -- When President Franklin Roosevelt, a member of one of the most wealthy and prominent families in America, was constructing the New Deal, which brought forth the Securities and Exchange Commission, strong banking regulation and labor protections, he was excoriated as a traitor to his class. Even one his own family members wrote him to complain.

[Lazamataz]

We ignore this editorial at our own peril.

[Lazamataz]

Disgruntled conservative bump.

[nonliberal]

Bush a Democrat in Republican clothing?

Welcome to Kansas, Toto!

[RJCogburn]

Bush a Democrat in Republican clothing?

No, he is just a 'third way' politician in a business suit. A nice guy, though.

[SamBees]

VERY VERY UPSET CONSERVATIVE BUMP

[SuziQ]

no less a supply-sider than Jude Wanniski sent a warning to House leaders that forcing firms to report stock options as a business expense, where the investors would see it, would have chilling effect on the entrepreneurs who built the boom of the dot.coms.

Yeah, and we all know how well those dot.coms have done, huh?

I don't pretend to understand all the ins and outs of what has transpired with this stock market, but I do know that unless and until the confidence of the average person in the management, reporting and oversight of companies returns, it will be a long slow climb out of this. Investors have been shaken to their bones by the deception practiced by a few large companies, but because of those few, most stocks suffered, and as a result folks lost earnings and retirement funds.

As a comment on the article itself, I believe Pres. Bush has in mind the reorganization of Govt. in order to rein in some of the bloat that has been created over the years. He won't be able to do it overnight, or even in year or two. It is my understanding that the new Dept. of Homeland Security will pull together and replace several agencies which had been charged with the protection of the nation, but were sometimes working at cross purposes with other agencies. It is my understanding that those other agencies will be closed, thus ending those costs and they will be absorbed in to the new dept.

[supercat]

wiping over a trillion dollars in assets

Why do people regard "market capitalization" as a number that means something? If a company sells 100,000 shares at $10 each, someone sells 100 of those shares for $100 each, and that's the last trade of the day, the company's "market capitalization" is $10,000,000 (100,000 shares times $100/share) even though investors only put $1,000,000 into the company. There is also no way that investors, on a whole, could get anything close to $10,000,000 out of the company (some might get more, but only if others lose money). What, then, is the meaning of the $10,000,000 "market capitalization" figure?

[staytrue]

The first bush act was to fight for a sizable tax cut. Bush respects the men and women in the military and for keeping it strong. Bush expects and demands ethics from businessmen. Bush appoints judges who respect the law instead of creating it. Bush wants a strong and effective public school system. The last point while a noble one, is probably where he has gone off the reservation. The public school system, like any monopoly, can only be reformed by letting the free market work its will. Mostly, Bush is very republican.

Let's look at what a democrat really is. A democrat says one thing just to get votes and then does another to enrich himself. A democrat used to stand for the little guy. Now, a democrat gives the same speech but generally will do anything to stay in power and that includes screwing the little guy. I don't know what democrats stand for except money and power. This does not describe President Bush.

[foreverfree]

bump

[supercat]

It is my understanding that those other agencies will be closed, thus ending those costs and they will be absorbed in to the new dept.

One would hope that would happen. In reality, though, government programs almost never go away.

[Torie]

What is your opinion regarding the big CPA firms, how they are structured, and GAAP? Do you think the status quo is adequate? If you don't have an informed opinion on this, then your disgruntlement as to these matters strikes me as somewhat kneejerk. We would be better served to assess each issue on its merits, and opine when we are informed, and absent that ask intelligent question hoping for an informed response. JMO.

[staytrue]

Ok Laz, it there a single democrat in the house or senate or governorship that you would prefer to Bush ? If you can not name one and I sure can't, then I fail to see how Bush is a democrat.

[Torie]

But last week, as the accounting bill was in final debate, no less a supply-sider than Jude Wanniski sent a warning to House leaders that forcing firms to report stock options as a business expense, where the investors would see it, would have chilling effect on the entrepreneurs who built the boom of the dot.coms.

Yep, hide the ball. We don't want honest numbers reflecting the real economics to get in the way of dotcomers or other high tech types raising capital. Of course the jig is up anyway.

[Ipse Dixit]

I expected better from Dubya than what we got from his father. My bad.

[sinkspur]

We ignore this editorial at our own peril.

Yeah, yeah. And if the stock market turns up (even if only slightly, as it has begun to do), the writer of this editorial will be wiping egg off his face and the cowardly Republican senators will be saying how smart George W. Bush is.

If Bush is such a Democrat, why are the Democrats attacking him?

[Tauzero]

"What, then, is the meaning of the $10,000,000 'market capitalization' figure?"

It is neither less nor more meaningful than folks' 401(k) balances. They couldn't all cash-out and expect to get the dollar figure in their quarterly statement.

[RAT Patrol]

You can add me to the disgruntled conservative bump list. I've been in a Bush-bash state-of-mind ever since he signed CFR!

[Abundy]

Oh I hope you have your asbestos long johns on, dude.

You are soooo in trouuubllleee....

[WhiteKnuckles]

Bush a Democrat in Republican clothing?

Not even close.

Quite a few people called Clinton the best president the Republicans could have had. Do you agree?

[gcruse]

Jude Wanniski sent a warning to House leaders that forcing firms to report stock options as a business expense, where the investors would see it would have chilling effect on the entrepreneurs who built the boom of the dot.coms.

This should send chills down the spine of every investor, conservative, and capitalist. Our trust may be misplaced, after all.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Very litle of what Bush has done could be labled as conservative. "Compassionate" conservative apparently equals "liberal".

[Jhoffa_]

I think allot of the criticizm leveled at the administration over Wall Street is completely undeserved. they even admitted that Bush's case was dropped over 12 years ago and my understanding is that Klayman had to recruit his clients against Cheney.

I think it's trendy November window dressing for the most part.

The expansion of government and it's powers are what worry me, not old hat that even the SEC admits isn't actionable.

[RAT Patrol]

A democrat says one thing just to get votes and then does another to enrich himself. In many ways, that describes Bush precisely. Admittedly, he's great on faith issues and I was getting pretty sick of the Christian bashing done by the previous WH occupants. I'll always be grateful to Bush for that. Sure would be nice if he'd act like a conservative too. I voted for him because of his stand on the issues. Like a sucker, I believed he meant what he said. (Maybe he did mean it but when push comes to shove he just always gets pushed--I don't know. Sellout or pushover--the results are the same either way.)

[Kaslin]

Well said

[gcruse]

" The expansion of government and it's powers are what worry me, not old hat that even the SEC admits isn't actionable."
Agreed. The stock market isn't the economy. The economy is strong but won't be for long if bloated government, and tax and spend, continue as a characteristic of both major parties. There was no excuse for the agriwelfare or continued funding of the NEA.

[RAT Patrol]

If Bush is such a Democrat, why are the Democrats attacking him? sink, I'd love nothing more than to rejoin your bushbot side, but I cannot deny what I see.

FYI, Democrats always attack when they don't have control. Bush is too trusting and believes his goodwill will purchase political capital--HA! RATS are rats! He's being playing for a fool by the masters of deception.

[PolishProud]

GW is "Son of Wimp."

[agrandis]

Bush a Democrat in Republican clothing?

Naw, he ain't quite that bad. That's a John McCain, or Liddy Dole. Bush is just a Bush, and the modern-day, mainstream Republican, which makes him too dang liberal in my book.

[section9]

But last week, as the accounting bill was in final debate, no less a supply-sider than Jude Wanniski sent a warning to House leaders that forcing firms to report stock options as a business expense, where the investors would see it, would have chilling effect on the entrepreneurs who built the boom of the dot.coms.

Okay, some might be quick out of the gate to criticized the President, but I don't see an alternative to his signature on the Sarbanes bill, and neither does he.

Face it; character is what we see when an individual does the right thing on his own. A group of folks gamed the system so they could enrich themselves at the expense of their shareholders. This is fraud. It is a crime. People like that should go to prison, for they have brought disrepute on to the tens of thousands of honest businessmen who trade in an honest dollar.

It does not matter that Bill Clinton took campaign money from these people to look the other way, or that Robert Rubin set up a sweetheart deal for Goldman Sachs and other investment banking houses after he left the Treasury. These men are Liberal Democrats. It is expected that they are sleazy from the getgo.

However, it does not follow from a condition in which the Chief Magistrate of the Republic lies to a federal judge that those in the business world have, therefore, a right to do the same.

We as Republicans must invest those who have great power and influence with great responsibility. Republicans must be the party that looks out for the common shareholder. We must be ready to act in their defense against those who would fleece the shareholder of his wealth by outright fraud and accounting manipulation. This manifestly does not mean that shareholders have a right to be stupid and maintain their entire portfolio in a single stock. People whose entire portfolio consisted of Enron shares were quite willing to ride the Tulip Market of 1998-2000, but are now unwilling to shoulder their part of the blame for their own loss because they failed to diversify.

We must recognize that just as the Liberal Democrat is ready to loot one's hard earned dollar at the point of the bayonet, the corrupt businessman needs only a pen and a sly accountant to accomplish something almost as sinister. Each individual, the corrupt businessman and the Liberal Democrat, seeks to line his pocket with the wealth of the producers, not to create new wealth.

Anyway, I say bravo to Bush for making this action, draconian as it is, his own. He will deprive the craven and hypocritical Liberal Democrats of an issue once this gets to his desk and will campaign on it. You'll start to see the political results when Worldcom execs start taking the Perp Walk. The wealth of a company belongs to those who are shareholders in that company; not to a few corrupt executives who fail in their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder. The Augean Stables must now be cleaned so that the vast majority of honest CEO's, men such as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, may reassert themselves and bring stature and direction to a confused and dispirited market place.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[WhiteKnuckles]

GW is "Son of Wimp."

Wrong. Typical liberal smear.

[maxwell]

Bwahaha! I know where you got this article, dude...

[Jhoffa_]

The economy is strong but won't be for long if bloated government, and tax and spend, continue as a characteristic of both major parties. There was no excuse for the agriwelfare or continued funding of the NEA.

Yes, I wonder if we gave up trying to win the Senate on Conservative principles and are now going to try to just flat buy it.

I hope that's the case, because that means we will see a policy shift after November. Otherwise Dubya is acting on "principle" and we can expect many, many more dissapointments in the years to come.

[TLBSHOW]

Have you had a bad day?

Lets add and bash the one WHO IS to blame Mr. Rubin and the Clinton Treasury. If Bush wants to let them go scott free, well, like YOUR opening line said.

They say there are only 100 days to the election so don't get fooled by the rats smear of Bush. This should be a good thread to catch rats on. Ready set go.........

[Jhoffa_]

Are you always this perky?

[TLBSHOW]

Clinton is a commie rat!

[Tauzero]

"I think allot of the criticizm leveled at the administration over Wall Street is completely undeserved. "

Agreed. But life ain't fair.

[admiralsn]

I cannot deny what I see.

What, exactly, is it that you see?

Is it that the President killed the International Criminal Court?
Is it that he repealed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off electricity production in California and causing electricity rates to spike?
Or maybe that he appointed, and backed, John Ashcroft and Ted Olsen, who just wrote to the Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment is an indivisual right, not the "collective right" that liberals have maintained for decades?
Or that he killed the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming & backed and got our National Missile Defense program funded?

I could go on and on. The point is that he didn't create the new Homeland Security Office just to create a bigger government. He realized, sadly, that in order to adequately protect the nations interests, in this case a bigger government is necessary. There is your difference between a democrat and a Republican on this issue. The rats create bigger govt. because they like it and it pleases them. Bush is doing it because he recognizes it as a necessity.Give him a Republican House and Senate and he can begin to cut much of the wasteful spending imposed by the rats.

[harpo11]

What a job American presidents have, approximately 270 million critics and that is just in the homeland.

[TLBSHOW]

I think I am leaning that way.

[Lazamataz]

If Bush is such a Democrat, why are the Democrats attacking him?

Because they want his job?

[thepitts]

Is it that the President killed the International Criminal Court? Is it that he repealed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off electricity production in California and causing electricity rates to spike? Or maybe that he appointed, and backed, John Ashcroft and Ted Olsen, who just wrote to the Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment is an indivisual right, not the "collective right" that liberals have maintained for decades? Or that he killed the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming & backed and got our National Missile Defense program funded? I could go on and on. The point is that he didn't create the new Homeland Security Office just to create a bigger government. He realized, sadly, that in order to adequately protect the nations interests, in this case a bigger government is necessary. There is your difference between a democrat and a Republican on this issue. The rats create bigger govt. because they like it and it pleases them. Bush is doing it because he recognizes it as a necessity.Give him a Republican House and Senate and he can begin to cut much of the wasteful spending imposed by the rats.

What a load, dubya did not kill the ICC, and they did us no favors with the 2nd amendmant move.

Just who are you trying to convince, yourself?

[Jhoffa_]

I need to perk up, this whole looming election thing is depressing me. Everything hinges on the judiciary and November.

We don't get it and Daschle will continue the patented foot dragging routine all the way to 2004.

Think I will mosey on over to the RLC forum and get high.

[astudent]

For the long-term I believe that Bush will be proven wrong on several major issues:

Steel Import Tariff ---- Big mistake. Shows fear of confidence in free trade

Farm Bill --- Another Big Mistake. Too much money going to support non competition

Refusal to Acknowledge Questionable Business dealings ---Bush should have acknowledge that he received favoritism because of his name and heritage, but that what he did, though questionable, was legal. He should apologize to the American public and get on with things. Hiding, denying, misleading the American public about his questionable business dealings of the past is a mistake that will continue to haunt him

Inability to reduce --or make an effort to reduce government spending --- Thhis is a tragic mistake that likely will end up costing him the election as the government reduires more funds and the deficit grows.

Besides these areas, he has acted conservatively and in the best interests of the American people. Let's give him a B plus and hope that he will concentrate on correcting the above errors

[Lazamataz]

Ok Laz, it there a single democrat in the house or senate or governorship that you would prefer to Bush ? If you can not name one and I sure can't, then I fail to see how Bush is a democrat.

Senator and former Governor Zell Miller, GA.

There are a whole slew of Conservative Democrats in Texas and other points south that would totally out-conservative President Bush.

[Gelato]

This article implies that advocating tax spending alone qualifies a person as a Democrat. But it's not the spending, per se, that makes a person in favor of Big Government. It's what the money is spent on that counts.

Spending tax money on defense is a legitimate action of government. In fact, protection is what government was invented for in the first place! It's when that spending is used outside of this function, and is wasted on social programs and other pork, that it is to be criticized.

From the article:

Though Bush bristles at the notion that this is the very big government he ran against, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 have forced him to major expansions from hiring 40,000 baggage screeners to increases in the Border Patrol, Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Immigration and Naturalization Service.

If this wasn't enough to give him membership in the tax and spend Democratic Club that conservatives all deplore, for the last 10 weeks Bush has been working on a major crackdown on the same big business that put up so much money to send him to Washington.

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Spending money for baggage handlers is not socialism.

The only problem that needs to be resolved is, of course, that there's not enough money to go around--so if we want large increases in the defense budget, we'll need to offset that by rolling back spending on the non-essentials in the social programs started by the Democrats.

[Lazamataz]

What a job American presidents have, approximately 270 million critics and that is just in the homeland.

Yet everyone clamors for the position....

[cynicom]

Laz....

Go back and check the platform that FDR ran on for his first term. He toured the country in 1931 railing AGAINST BIG GOVERNMENT, OVER REGULATION, all on a conservative program. He won in a landslide with his platform, then see what we got.

[TLBSHOW]

apologize

For what should he do that for?

[Jhoffa_]

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Spending money for baggage handlers is not socialism.

Unionizing them is.

Uncle Fed is now the largest union employer in the nation.

(And it's hard enough to fire a bad cop or teacher, can you imagine how tough it's going to be with screeners?)

[Lazamataz]

Quite a few people called Clinton the best president the Republicans could have had. Do you agree?

Heh. Actually, now that you mention it, without Clinton the great Rout of 1994 would not have happened, and Newt Gingrich would not have had his successful Contract with America.

But that aside, Clinton was an amoral self-centered narcisstic nihilist. When we voted for Bush we were de-electing sleaze, and therefore didn't look quite as closely at who we were voting FOR.

Therefore, Bush is now in office, veering too far to the left in too many areas for my comfort.