Bush's "conservativism"

[mmmmmbeeer]

Bush hatas...what is so conservative about GWB? Seems to me liberals would love this guy.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Bush hatas...what is so conservative about GWB?  Seems to me liberals would love this guy.

As an environmentalist and, I don't need anything other (though there's lots more) than his environmental record to want him gone. Bush irreparably harmed the Texas environment with his policies as Governer, but that was just a warm up. Broad strokes only below in the interest of time.

 

The Administration has yet to make a decision in which big buisness has not won out over the environment. In addition to gutting Clean Air and Clean Water, they given the EPA lawyers their marching orders to basically take a dive in court so that buisness can roll over them. They have made it possible to now get really objectionable legislation through with barely any public comment period at all. They swore they would continue to pursue ongoing and pending litigation against polluting power plants even if they could get the retrofit upgrade requirements relaxed (which they did, motherf***em), then guess what? They decided they should drop all the pending cases since now that the standards are relaxed it's no biggie...

 

Not only limiting the liability of the sectors of the petroleum industry that produce carcinogenic compounds, but giving them a billion dollars to help transition them into other processes and products to boot.

 

Repeatedly targeting ANWR even though a majority of Americans think it is unnecessary. Repeatedly spending a token amount on R&D for renewable and alternative fuels even though a majority of Americans think it is necessary. Using the Western wildfires of past seasons as a smoke screen excuse to allow additional logging in National Forests under the guise of protecting property (if that were the case, wouldn't the bulk of the efforts be directed near homes?).

 

Clean Skies and Healthy Forests my ass.

 

Insufficient EPA budget, allowing the EPA Ombudsman to be bullied out of office, basically giving the SuperFund criminals a pass, and eventually getting too slimy for even Chief Christie Whitman who was no great shakes to begin with.

 

Gail Norton as Secretary of the Interior.

 

Bailing on Kyoto, as if Kyoto was anything more than the first baby steps needed to curb anthropogenic climate change.

 

Wrong calls on roadless rules, snowmobiles, fuel efficiency, drinking water standards, pine tree beetles. Underspending on the National Parks System. reduced funding Sea Grant, NSF environmental, and others.

 

Continuing to be part of the stonewall to keep the energy policy documents and meeting details out of the hands of independent council.

 

30 years of environmental protections have been rolled back in less than one term. What's not to like

 

I expect inane economic arguments supporting the Bush environmental policies, but that's not really what was asked. What was asked was why wouldn't Liberals be in love with Bush (my only assumption is this question came out of the proposed Immigration Policy changes or maybe the won't-really-happen recommittment to teh Space Program). I know several others will answer on other fronts so I stuck with the environmental record.

 

When they started the short-lived blog function on this site I planned to use my blog to post daily Bush vs. the Environment news pieces (and a daily guide to good beer). Maybe they'll add that function back.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

These are just a few of the stances he has that enrage most liberals:

 

He fully supports the "Star Wars" missile defense shield that has been shown by numerous Nobel physicists as a total impossibility. Yet we pour billions into it.

 

His advocation of creating mini nukes to be used in war is insane.

 

As of 2002, Bush exported approx. $14 million in torture equipment [shackles, electrical prods, etc.] to countries like Saudi Arabia and Thailand who have been known and condemned since 1990 for their torture of their citizens.

 

His support of the death penalty and execution of the mentally retarded as governor.

 

His complete underfunding of schools while allowing Halliburton to gouge $63 million from taxpayers.

[kapkomet]

These are just a few of the stances he has that enrage most liberals:

 

He fully supports the "Star Wars" missile defense shield that has been shown by numerous Nobel physicists as a total impossibility.  Yet we pour billions into it.

 

His advocation of creating mini nukes to be used in war is insane.

 

As of 2002, Bush exported approx. $14 million in torture equipment [shackles, electrical prods, etc.] to countries like Saudi Arabia and Thailand who have been known and condemned since 1990 for their torture of their citizens.

 

His support of the death penalty and execution of the mentally retarded as governor.

 

His complete underfunding of schools while allowing Halliburton to gouge $63 million from taxpayers.

First of all I certainly don't want this to turn into a BS thread. I seriously want to understand your point of view, and you're obviously more toward the left, so a debate should be fun.

 

>These are just a few of the stances he has that enrage most liberals:

 

>He fully supports the "Star Wars" missile defense shield that has been shown by >numerous Nobel physicists as a total impossibility. Yet we pour billions into it.

 

I don't disagree with this assessment. However how can anyone say that anything is "impossible"? Granted, not likely, especially in our lifetime, which is probably when we'd need something like "Star Wars". I can't argue with this one other then to say if we don't research it and at least make people think we'll do it, you lose strength in the face of the world. Even Clinton funded it some, but agreed, not nearly like this.

 

>His advocation of creating mini nukes to be used in war is insane.

 

Absolutely NO disagreements here. That is a pretty scary thought.

 

>As of 2002, Bush exported approx. $14 million in torture equipment [shackles, >electrical prods, etc.] to countries like Saudi Arabia and Thailand who have been >known and condemned since 1990 for their torture of their citizens.

 

Where did you find this?

 

>His support of the death penalty and execution of the mentally retarded as >governor.

 

I hate the death penalty discussion. But are you familiar with the Texas escapees a couple of years back? These guys broke out of jail, killed a cop (and others if memory serves me correctly although I might not be correct) and got put back in jail sentanced to death. What about serial killers (not insane)? I guess the only thing I can stand on is we shouldn't be that ultimate judge, God should. What about Timothy McVeigh? Just curious what your thoughts are on these examples before I comment.

 

>His complete underfunding of schools while allowing Halliburton to gouge $63 >million from taxpayers.

 

Schools. Holy s*** is this a bad move. So hell, I can't disagree with you on this either. The Halliburton thing. How much MORE was that contract worth then $63 million? And what did they do when they found the error? They paid it back to the government. 12 billion (roughly in annual revenue) / 63 million = 1/2 of 1 percent. It's nothing in the scheme of things. Oh by the way, the latest news on this is that the pentagon has found that the subcontractor who handled this contract was "fair in pricing" all along.

 

This is gonna be a fun year. I really look forward to bringing up things here - I like to get the "other sides" opinion so I am better edumacated, or something like that.

 

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

These are just a few of the stances he has that enrage most liberals:

 

He fully supports the "Star Wars" missile defense shield that has been shown by numerous Nobel physicists as a total impossibility.  Yet we pour billions into it.

 

His advocation of creating mini nukes to be used in war is insane.

 

As of 2002, Bush exported approx. $14 million in torture equipment [shackles, electrical prods, etc.] to countries like Saudi Arabia and Thailand who have been known and condemned since 1990 for their torture of their citizens.

 

His support of the death penalty and execution of the mentally retarded as governor.

 

His complete underfunding of schools while allowing Halliburton to gouge $63 million from taxpayers.

The national missile shield has been successful in its last few tests and is scheduled for limited fielding within the next few years. I dont care what a bunch of "Nobel prize winning physicists" say, the system is showing it can work. It does take some time to work the bugs out of something so complex.

 

I dont see how anyone can be against something like that anyway in this world we live in. This system is not capable of stopping a steel rain of ICBM's from a country like Russia or China but that's not the threat we face now is it? It is designed to stop a limited strike from a rogue state, where the principle of Mutually assured destruction does not work, such as North Korea ( which by the way is testing missiles that can hit the continental U.S.). When the missile shield technology improves then we will upgrade, but we need something in place now.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nuke, the tests only work when they put homing devices on the missiles. It can't work when dummy missiles are fired up and no homing devices are used. Being the collegiate book nerd that I am, I actually read a lot about it and the report results.

 

North Korea: Kim Jong Il may be crazy...but he's not stupid. He's got a posh setup for himself in N. Korea [note: not saying that I condone what he is doing at all there]...He would not jeopardize that by actually shooting a missile at the US cuz he'd get smashed in about .01 secs and he knows it. It's just a means for him to try to curry favors out of it showing his power; much like the US jockeyed for power in the world community after it first showed off the nukes in August 1945.

[DBAHO]

Here's another Bush Policy,

 

US President George W Bush is planning a permanent science base for astronauts on the moon and, in what would be an even greater leap for mankind, human voyages to Mars, according to senior administration officials.

 

The president wants to aggressively reinvigorate the space program, still reeling from the Columbia tragedy nearly one year ago, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.

 

White House press secretary Scott McClellan confirmed that Bush would deliver a speech on Wednesday describing his vision of the long-term direction of the space program, but he did not reveal what Bush would say.

 

"The president is strongly committed to the exploration of space," McClellan said today.

 

A major question is how to pay for an expensive space initiative while the country is struggling with record budget deficits and the high costs of the war against terrorism.

 

McClellan said that the White House budget office was involved in the administration's space review, and that Bush will "put forth a responsible budget that meets our highest priorities while working to hold the line of spending elsewhere in the budget".

 

A Nobel-winning physicist who investigated last year's crash of the Columbia space shuttle is among those who would rather see more affordable robots - rather than astronauts - exploring the lunar and Martian surfaces.

 

He points to NASA's Spirit rover newly arrived at Mars.

 

"The cost of a manned enclave on the moon, I think, is going to make the space station look cheap. That's the only good thing about it," said Stanford University's Douglas Osheroff.

 

In any event, "I think we're still 30 years from going to Mars and if there's any reason to do that, I don't know," Osheroff said.

 

Bush does not intend to propose sending Americans to Mars anytime soon, but instead envisions preparing for a Mars expedition more than a decade from now, one administration official said.

 

NASA's chief spokesman, Glenn Mahone, would not divulge any details.

 

"We're not going to pre-empt the president," he said. "But we're excited about the news of the announcement next week and what it means for the future direction of NASA."

 

He said the announcement will be made in Washington.

 

The White House has been looking for a new revitalising role for NASA for months, with Vice President Dick Cheney leading the interagency task force since summer. The speculation over a major space initiative began heating up early last month.

 

Representative Ralph Hall, a member of the House Science Committee, welcomed the news that Bush would be making an announcement about space.

 

Hall said he has long been trying to get the president more interested in space exploration. The president never went to Johnson Space Centre in Houston while serving as Texas governor; in fact, last February's memorial service for the seven Columbia astronauts was his first visit.

 

Bush's fresh interest in space coincides with an election year. A new bold space initiative, it is thought, could excite Americans.

 

"I had the feeling the last 2-1/2 years people would rather make a trip to the grocery store than a trip to the moon because of the economy," Hall said. "As things are turning around, we need to stay in touch with space" and the science spinoffs it provides.

 

It was the Columbia accident that helped force a discussion of where NASA should venture beyond the three remaining space shuttles and the international space station. The panel that investigated the disaster called for a clearly defined long-term mission - a national vision for space that has been missing for three decades.

 

Astronauts last walked on the moon in 1972; in all, 12 men trod the lunar surface over a 3-1/2-year period.

 

This time, the president favours a permanent station, administration officials said.

 

Bush's father, on the 20th anniversary of the first manned moon landing, made a similar call for lunar colonies and a Mars expedition. But the plan was prohibitively expensive - an estimated $US400 billion to $US500 billion - and went nowhere.

 

No one knows what the new venture might cost or how NASA would pay for it.

 

House Science Committee spokeswoman Heidi Tringe said lawmakers on the panel had yet to be briefed on the specifics.

 

Earlier this week, Bush put in a congratulatory call to officials in charge of NASA's latest Mars rover. He called the Spirit rover's successful landing a "reconfirmation of the American spirit of exploration". Another rover is due to arrive at the red planet in two weeks.

 

Many space buffs see the moon as a necessary place to test the equipment and techniques that would be needed by astronauts on Mars. It's closer, just three days away versus six months away for the red planet.

 

Visionaries say observatories could be built on the moon and mining camps could gather helium-3 for conversion into fuel for use back on Earth.

 

Others, however, contend that astronauts should make a beeline to Mars.

 

Still others, including John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth, believes the United States should complete and fully maximise the international space station before dashing anywhere else.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

First of all I certainly don't want this to turn into a BS thread.  I seriously want to understand your point of view, and you're obviously more toward the left, so a debate should be fun.

 

>These are just a few of the stances he has that enrage most liberals:

 

>He fully supports the "Star Wars" missile defense shield that has been shown by >numerous Nobel physicists as a total impossibility.  Yet we pour billions into it.

 

I don't disagree with this assessment.  However how can anyone say that anything is "impossible"?  Granted, not likely, especially in our lifetime, which is probably when we'd need something like "Star Wars".  I can't argue with this one other then to say if we don't research it and at least make people think we'll do it, you lose strength in the face of the world.  Even Clinton funded it some, but agreed, not nearly like this.

 

>His advocation of creating mini nukes to be used in war is insane.

 

Absolutely NO disagreements here.  That is a pretty scary thought.

 

>As of 2002, Bush exported approx. $14 million in torture equipment [shackles, >electrical prods, etc.] to countries like Saudi Arabia and Thailand who have been >known and condemned since 1990 for their torture of their citizens.

 

Where did you find this?

 

>His support of the death penalty and execution of the mentally retarded as >governor.

 

I hate the death penalty discussion.  But are you familiar with the Texas escapees a couple of years back?  These guys broke out of jail, killed a cop (and others if memory serves me correctly although I might not be correct) and got put back in jail sentanced to death.  What about serial killers (not insane)?  I guess the only thing I can stand on is we shouldn't be that ultimate judge, God should.  What about Timothy McVeigh?  Just curious what your thoughts are on these examples before I comment.

 

>His complete underfunding of schools while allowing Halliburton to gouge $63 >million from taxpayers.

 

Schools.  Holy s*** is this a bad move.  So hell, I can't disagree with you on this either.  The Halliburton thing.  How much MORE was that contract worth then $63 million?  And what did they do when they found the error?  They paid it back to the government.  12 billion (roughly in annual revenue) / 63 million  = 1/2 of 1 percent.  It's nothing in the scheme of things.  Oh by the way, the latest news on this is that the pentagon has found that the subcontractor who handled this contract was "fair in pricing" all along.

 

This is gonna be a fun year.  I really look forward to bringing up things here - I like to get the "other sides" opinion so I am better edumacated, or something like that.

 

Star Wars missile defense has shown the same amount of promise when Reagan started it. Quite slim. I don't condone Clinton's funding of it either when there are much more important things to spend said money on.

 

I am glad we concur on the mini nukes.

 

As for the torture equipment, the report comes from the Asia Times, Manila Times and Amnesty International http://www.punkvoter.com/home/home.php The links are on this page [i'd post them here but I have 56k at home and my pages load slower than molasses in an igloo in January haha]

 

As for capital punishment, it is not a deterrant to crime. In many cases, people are exonerated after convicted or unfortunately, after their death. Also IIRC, the execution and all it's costs [appeals and all that et al] actually costs more than life inprisonment. With the idea that the state can kill, it undercuts their authority by telling others that they cannot. I don't see any moral high ground saying "You murder and we the people will kill your ass" kinda statement. The unreliability of it plus I think many want to be martyrs or want to die are reasons I am against it. By making them live in maximum security, in my eyes, it can be a much harsher punishment than sticking a needle in their arm or other forms of execution that are out there.

 

With the Halliburton reference, it's not so much about the money amount but the principle of the matter.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke, the tests only work when they put homing devices on the missiles.  It can't work when dummy missiles are fired up and no homing devices are used.  Being the collegiate book nerd that I am, I actually read a lot about it and the report results.

 

North Korea: Kim Jong Il may be crazy...but he's not stupid.  He's got a posh setup for himself in N. Korea [note: not saying that I condone what he is doing at all there]...He would not jeopardize that by actually shooting a missile at the US cuz he'd get smashed in about .01 secs and he knows it.  It's just a means for him to try to curry favors out of it showing his power; much like the US jockeyed for power in the world community after it first showed off the nukes in August 1945.

Maybe you should read a little more cause only some of the successful tests had homing beacons on the missiles.

 

That's beside the point though. I know this system is not ready yet but should we just scrap it then? I should think you'd be in favor of something that would make nuclear tipped ICBM's obsolete and inneffective.

[1549]

Star Wars missile defense has shown the same amount of promise when Reagan started it.  Quite slim.  I don't condone Clinton's funding of it either when there are much more important things to spend said money on.

 

I am glad we concur on the mini nukes.

 

As for the torture equipment, the report comes from the Asia Times, Manila Times and Amnesty International http://www.punkvoter.com/home/home.php  The links are on this page [i'd post them here but I have 56k at home and my pages load slower than molasses in an igloo in January haha]

 

As for capital punishment, it is not a deterrant to crime.  In many cases, people are exonerated after convicted or unfortunately, after their death.  Also IIRC, the execution and all it's costs [appeals and all that et al] actually costs more than life inprisonment.  With the idea that the state can kill, it undercuts their authority by telling others that they cannot.  I don't see any moral high ground saying "You murder and we the people will kill your ass" kinda statement.  The unreliability of it plus I think many want to be martyrs or want to die are reasons I am against it.  By making them live in maximum security, in my eyes, it can be a much harsher punishment than sticking a needle in their arm or other  forms of execution that are out there.

 

With the Halliburton reference, it's not so much about the money amount but the principle of the matter.

I would be curious to see the exact figures on how many death row inmates are exonerated. And I believe for the analysis to be valid, the figures would have to be starting from 1975 at the earliest, that way false accusations of blacks in the south would not be considered in the figure.

 

I could be wrong but I think the number would be slim, and even if it isn't slim, I don't think it would be "many" as you said. I am not sure if the death penalty is a deterrant or not, but it does cut down the prison population.

 

What do you think of Bush saying that we should return to the moon and build a base?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

As for capital punishment, it is not a deterrant to crime.  In many cases, people are exonerated after convicted or unfortunately, after their death.  Also IIRC, the execution and all it's costs [appeals and all that et al] actually costs more than life inprisonment.  With the idea that the state can kill, it undercuts their authority by telling others that they cannot.  I don't see any moral high ground saying "You murder and we the people will kill your ass" kinda statement.  The unreliability of it plus I think many want to be martyrs or want to die are reasons I am against it.  By making them live in maximum security, in my eyes, it can be a much harsher punishment than sticking a needle in their arm or other  forms of execution that are out there.

 

With the Halliburton reference, it's not so much about the money amount but the principle of the matter.

We've had the capital punishment discussion before. Capital punishment is not a deterrent to anything because it is not imposed in a uniform manner ( an excellent point which your side often makes ) and it takes forever for the appeals process to work through.

 

 

BTW, Halliburton was fired from their contract.

[1549]

Apu, I added a classic statement you made to my signature. I disagree with what you were saying, but it is funny as hell

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Moon base: WTF? Bush, you underfund education and want to waste money going to Mars and putting a base on the Moon? Honestly, the first thing I thought when I heard that story was "How much cocaine did he do in what period of time to come up with this idea?"

 

As for death penalty research, 1549, I got some stuff but it's in my room at school [i'm at home until the 18th] PM me as a reminder and I'll give you the details when I get back.

 

And I concur with Nuke, capital punishment is nowhere near uniform in giving it out. I personally like the moratorium Ryan put on the death penalty as governor because it needs a massive overhaul.

 

And I heard Halliburton was fired, I was just getting on them for gouging, haha.

[baggio202]

at one point in time society thought it was crazy to work on sending men to the moon..eventually a star wars system will work....there will be some kind of a technological breakthrough that will make it all possible..unless of course we stop trying to find it...

 

the whole field of science from the day the very first scientist performed his first experiment was met with doubt and skepticism...why should it be any different now???

[DBAHO]

Apu, I added a classic statement you made to my signature.  I disagree with what you were saying, but it is funny as hell

I do agree with Apu's statement in the sense that I think the world would be a safer place if George Bush was not the American President. Most ppl down here heavily disapprove of him although our alliance with America has neva been stronger due to the war on Iraq. I just think that if Bush was re - elected, sumthin really bad like another September 11, or nuclear war in North Korea is more of a distnict possibility with him in office.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

at one point  in time society thought it was crazy to work on sending men to the moon..eventually a star wars system will work....there will be some kind of a technological breakthrough that will make it all possible..unless of course we stop trying to find it...

 

the whole field of science from the day the very first scientist performed his first experiment was met with doubt and skepticism...why should it be any different now???

Scientifically, it'd be a good experiment. But at the cost, especially with a deficit and underfunded schools etc. there are, at least in my eyes, better places to put the money.

[mmmmmbeeer]

I consider myself a fairly staunch conservative. I am disgusted by our government right now. We have Republican control of the congress and white house but government is growing at an accelerated rate. Here's just some examples of why I don't understand the left's dislike of GWB.

 

1) Discretionary domestic spending has increased by over 27% since Bush took office. In other words, he is spending way more on entitlements and programs in 3 yrs than Clinton did in 8 yrs.

 

2) To please labor unions, Bush passed the highest steel tariffs in American history. He recently reversed these due to a threatened trade war from the EU that would thrown us back into recession

 

3) He basically copied Ted Kennedy's education bill, renamed it "Leave No Child Behind," and INCREASED education spending by over 11%. Still, he gets criticized by liberals for "slashing" education.

 

4) He recently signed the "American Dream" act, which gives preferences & aid to minorities in buying a home. No poor whites need apply. He still gets criticized for being a racist bigotted Republican, of course.

 

5) He supported a Federal Court's approval ruling on an affirmative action case involving defacto use of racial quotas in admisions (minorities were given extra "points" in admissions applications based solely on their minority status). Of course, he's still a racist.

 

6) He signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill, which is an attack on free speech. Candidates cannot run ads discrediting an incumbent within 60 days of an election! Terrible.

 

7) The recent Medicare/Medicaid Drug Bill. Those programs now have even more entitlements and are larger than ever. Still he still gets criticized for "slashing" those programs, leaving seniors and the poor to die laying in the streets because they don't have medical care (though their entitlements are more now than ever).

 

8) While Arnold moves in CA to stop driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, Bush proposes basically an anmesty for illegal workers if they can prove they have work. This is more left than anything CA was doing beforehand. Still, Bush is a racist white bigot in the eyes of many liberals.

 

9.) He has YET to veto a single spending bill and NOT ONCE has he ever spoke of making government smaller in a speech.

 

I'm faced with quite a conundrum this November. I am NOT happy with Bush's idea of conservativism and am fearful of how large the government could get after another 4 years of his ridiculous spending tactics. This will make me very hesitant to cast my vote for him. On the other hand, unless Joe Lieberman wins the dem nomination (yeah right) there is not a single dem candidate worth a s***. Do I just not vote?

[israel4ever]

As an environmentalist and, I don't need anything other (though there's lots more) than his environmental record to want him gone.  Bush irreparably harmed the Texas environment with his policies as Governer, but that was just a warm up.  Broad strokes only below in the interest of time.

 

The Administration has yet to make a decision in which big buisness has not won out over the environment.  In addition to gutting Clean Air and Clean Water, they given the EPA lawyers their marching orders to basically take a dive in court so that buisness can roll over them.  They have made it possible to now get really objectionable legislation through with barely any public comment period at all.  They swore they would continue to pursue ongoing and pending litigation against polluting power plants even if they could get the retrofit upgrade requirements relaxed (which they did, motherf***em), then guess what? They decided they should drop all the pending cases since now that the standards are relaxed it's no biggie...

 

Not only limiting the liability of the sectors of the petroleum industry that produce carcinogenic compounds, but giving them a billion dollars to help transition them into other processes and products to boot.

 

Repeatedly targeting ANWR even though a majority of Americans think it is unnecessary.  Repeatedly spending a token amount on R&D for renewable and alternative fuels even though a majority of Americans think it is necessary.  Using the Western wildfires of past seasons as a smoke screen excuse to allow additional logging in National Forests under the guise of protecting property (if that were the case, wouldn't the bulk of the efforts be directed near homes?). 

 

Clean Skies and Healthy Forests my ass.

 

Insufficient EPA budget, allowing the EPA Ombudsman to be bullied out of office, basically giving the SuperFund criminals a pass, and eventually getting too slimy for even Chief Christie Whitman who was no great shakes to begin with.

 

Gail Norton as Secretary of the Interior.

 

Bailing on Kyoto, as if Kyoto was anything more than the first baby steps needed to curb anthropogenic climate change.

 

Wrong calls on roadless rules, snowmobiles, fuel efficiency, drinking water standards, pine tree beetles.  Underspending on the National Parks System.  reduced funding Sea Grant, NSF environmental, and others.

 

Continuing to be part of the stonewall to keep the energy policy documents and meeting details out of the hands of independent council.

 

30 years of environmental protections have been rolled back in less than one term.  What's not to like

 

I expect inane economic arguments supporting the Bush environmental policies, but that's not really what was asked.  What was asked was why wouldn't Liberals be in love with Bush (my only assumption is this question came out of the proposed Immigration Policy changes or maybe the won't-really-happen recommittment to teh Space Program).  I know several others will answer on other fronts so I stuck with the environmental record.

 

When they started the short-lived blog function on this site I planned to use my blog to post daily Bush vs. the Environment news pieces (and a daily guide to good beer).  Maybe they'll add that function back.

An excellant synopsis, and right on point!

 

I agree 100%!

 

 

:fyou GWB

[sox4lifeinPA]

An excellant synopsis, and right on point!

 

I agree 100%!

 

   

 

:fyou GWB

the damn jew hater!!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Scientifically, it'd be a good experiment.  But at the cost, especially with a deficit and underfunded schools etc. there are, at least in my eyes, better places to put the money.

If education is so underfunded then why is there nearly 6 BILLION dollars in unspent federal education funds sitting out there. If the states are so strung out then why is this money not being spent?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/09/sc...y.ap/index.html

[LowerCaseRepublican]

mmmmmbeer, you could always vote Libertarian. I don't know if they are running a candidate in IL, but it is worth looking into since you seem to agree with a lot of their ideas [smaller federal government etc]

 

As for the points you made, Bush is spending a lot of money and running us into a HUGE deficit while Rove is trying to label the Dems as the typical 'tax and spend' liberals. In the Michigan case of affirmative action, Bush was against it saying that they should get the position because of their work, GPA etc. not ethnicity [i'm sure the irony of how he got where he is eluded him]

 

About NCLB, he did increase funding but when you read the NCLB you find that his funding 'increase' is nowhere near the amount of money needed to fund the bill adequately for schools to meet the demands. I'm not even going to discuss the typical Republican idea of federalism saying that parents know how to best educate their kids and not the federal government. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0109-09.htm This article does a fairly good job at showing why so many states, teachers and parents are against NCLB. [being in a lot of Education classes since I am applying for my minor to be Education, I've heard a LOT on NCLB from both sides]

 

Campaign Finance bill actually gets rid of soft money, something Democrats rely heavily on in their campaigns as compared to the Republicans, especially Bush. That is why many Dems and liberals are enraged.

 

In regards to the recent Medicare bill, I looked up some information on it from SEIU, the largest health care union with over 755,000 health care professionals in it. http://www.fightforthefuture.org/medicarebill.cfm has the information on it with sources and in much more detail. But basically, the bill does nothing to stem the rising costs of drugs. There are still gaping holes in coverage and it steers seniors into HMOs. There was probably no bigger opportunity missed than the chance to use the purchasing power of 40 million Medicare patients to negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs. The government already uses this tactic for veterans, but legislators chose not to give seniors the same price break. Additionally, provisions to make it easier for seniors to purchase cheap (and safe) medications from Canada were taken out of the bill. Drug companies continue to make huge profits; seniors continue to pay high prices. Gaps in coverage abound. Low-income and disabled seniors actually come out worse off. They're given new copays for their medication that are still a burden for seniors below the poverty line. (Ten states currently let the poorest seniors get their prescription drugs for free.) There's also a gaping hole in the legislation that doesn't give any coverage for drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100. Read the link for more information on the Medicare bill.

 

In your point on immigration, I got this from the Concord Monitor whose article can be found here: http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/fron...t_21_2004.shtml

Labor advocates warned that the president's proposal to have workers sponsored by employers to obtain legal status would prevent them from complaining about job conditions out of fear that the employer would revoke the relationship and have them deported. Other experts cautioned that employers could use the threat of recruiting low-wage, legal immigrants to threaten existing U.S. employees and prevent them from seeking better working conditions.

Advocates for immigrants complained that Bush's proposal does not provide an automatic route for temporary workers to become citizens, and said it was designed instead as a path to deportation after the expiration of a worker's temporary legal status.

"We're going to be creating, under this type of legislation, a large number of basically indentured servants," said Susan Martin, an immigration expert at Georgetown University who was executive director of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, a government panel that examined the issue in the 1990s. She called Bush's plan "as troubling an immigration proposal as I've seen in the past 25 years."

 

I definitely concur on point 9. He is in a spending frenzy while cutting taxes drastically. It's going to lead us into a very difficult fiscal time.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

If education is so underfunded then why is there nearly 6 BILLION dollars in unspent federal education funds sitting out there.  If the states are so strung out then why is this money not being spent?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/09/sc...y.ap/index.html

NUKE, this is from the Common Dreams article link I posted in my response to mmmmbeer.

 

That fixing schools would ever be the signature achievement of a 21st century Republican president was a dubious proposition from the onset. Why's that? It's pretty simple: the federal government provides only about seven percent of the budgets for America's schools. How much is tinkering with that seven percent going to help? What chance is there that seven would turn into fourteen? None.

 

And that's what Republicans believe in, right? It's called federalism. Parents and communities know best how to educate their kids, or at least they should have the right to do it themselves. Bureaucrats in Washington can only hinder, not help. Thus runs the credo that led so many foot soldiers of the Reagan-Gingrich era to attempt to abolish the Department of Education.

 

Well, NCLB turned that philosophy of federalism on its head, and put a dunce cap on it.

 

The basic idea of the legislation wasn't to give school and towns more resources, but to force them to comply with detailed standards - standards set by the feds - or face a slew of penalties and consequences. Accountability was to come from those faceless bureaucrats in Washington, not parents.

 

It is certainly the most intrusive federal foray ever into public schools. And for Republicans, it was philosophically incoherent (that's why more Democrats voted for NCLB than Republicans).

 

It is, however, a philosophic incoherence schools from Key West to Nome must heed.

 

Their third-graders through eighth-graders, at least 95 per cent of them, must take federally mandated tests each year. And if all the sub-groups in the school - boys, girls, brown, white and green - don't show annual improvement, a chain of requirements launches, beginning with forced permission for kids to go to other schools in the district and ending with mandated dumping of school management.

 

It gets worse. These mandated changes cost money but the law doesn't give the schools more money. Systems would have to pay to transport those kids who chose to go to "higher performing" schools. The failing schools have to pay for more teacher training and tutoring for low-income kids. Where's that money supposed to come from? Republican fundraisers?

 

When NCLB passed, schools were told they would get some more federal dollars to help comply. But the program has not been close to fully funded, as the president essentially admitted on anniversary day when he said he fund boost his 2005 budget request by about $2.1 billion, which critics will say isn't nearly enough.

 

NCLB has become a dreaded "unfunded mandate" as they call it in political science seminars.

 

And increasingly, schools and states are looking for ways to tell the feds to take their unfunded mandates and stick them up their appropriations committees. A few schools and school districts in Vermont and Connecticut have already told the federal government to keep its money, they're not going to comply with NCLB. Some schools in Virginia are debating doing the same.

 

But these are schools in relatively prosperous spots. Under Title 1 of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, most federal education aid is directed to schools in poor areas. These are precisely the schools that cannot say "No thanks" to any federal aid; and they are the schools that will have the hardest time complying with NCLB. That's why the impoverished city of Reading, Pennsylvania, which is already on the NCLB probation list, is suing to protect itself from the clutches of that law.

 

And some Republican state legislators in Utah, where Republicans reign, are pushing legislation that would have the state opt out of NCLB and pass up all federal education bucks.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

NUKE, this is from the Common Dreams article link I posted in my response to mmmmbeer.

 

That fixing schools would ever be the signature achievement of a 21st century Republican president was a dubious proposition from the onset. Why's that? It's pretty simple: the federal government provides only about seven percent of the budgets for America's schools. How much is tinkering with that seven percent going to help? What chance is there that seven would turn into fourteen? None.

 

And that's what Republicans believe in, right? It's called federalism. Parents and communities know best how to educate their kids, or at least they should have the right to do it themselves. Bureaucrats in Washington can only hinder, not help. Thus runs the credo that led so many foot soldiers of the Reagan-Gingrich era to attempt to abolish the Department of Education.

 

Well, NCLB turned that philosophy of federalism on its head, and put a dunce cap on it.

 

The basic idea of the legislation wasn't to give school and towns more resources, but to force them to comply with detailed standards - standards set by the feds - or face a slew of penalties and consequences. Accountability was to come from those faceless bureaucrats in Washington, not parents.

 

It is certainly the most intrusive federal foray ever into public schools. And for Republicans, it was philosophically incoherent (that's why more Democrats voted for NCLB than Republicans).

 

It is, however, a philosophic incoherence schools from Key West to Nome must heed.

 

Their third-graders through eighth-graders, at least 95 per cent of them, must take federally mandated tests each year. And if all the sub-groups in the school - boys, girls, brown, white and green - don't show annual improvement, a chain of requirements launches, beginning with forced permission for kids to go to other schools in the district and ending with mandated dumping of school management.

 

It gets worse. These mandated changes cost money but the law doesn't give the schools more money. Systems would have to pay to transport those kids who chose to go to "higher performing" schools. The failing schools have to pay for more teacher training and tutoring for low-income kids. Where's that money supposed to come from? Republican fundraisers?

 

When NCLB passed, schools were told they would get some more federal dollars to help comply. But the program has not been close to fully funded, as the president essentially admitted on anniversary day when he said he fund boost his 2005 budget request by about $2.1 billion, which critics will say isn't nearly enough.

 

NCLB has become a dreaded "unfunded mandate" as they call it in political science seminars.

 

And increasingly, schools and states are looking for ways to tell the feds to take their unfunded mandates and stick them up their appropriations committees. A few schools and school districts in Vermont and Connecticut have already told the federal government to keep its money, they're not going to comply with NCLB. Some schools in Virginia are debating doing the same.

 

But these are schools in relatively prosperous spots. Under Title 1 of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, most federal education aid is directed to schools in poor areas. These are precisely the schools that cannot say "No thanks" to any federal aid; and they are the schools that will have the hardest time complying with NCLB. That's why the impoverished city of Reading, Pennsylvania, which is already on the NCLB probation list, is suing to protect itself from the clutches of that law.

 

And some Republican state legislators in Utah, where Republicans reign, are pushing legislation that would have the state opt out of NCLB and pass up all federal education bucks.

Thats all well and good but you still didnt answer my question. Why is all that money not being used? Also why now is your side suddenly so worried about unfunded mandates when Democratic administrations have been heaping them on us for years.

 

I dont think the federal government has any business in education anyway. Something about the 10th amendment hmmn what did it say, oh yeah

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

The whole ideal for a Department of Education is constitutionally flawed in the first place unless someone can find me something that authorizes it.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nuke, I did answer it. Read the article:

 

Under Title 1 of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, most federal education aid is directed to schools in poor areas. These are precisely the schools that cannot say "No thanks" to any federal aid; and they are the schools that will have the hardest time complying with NCLB. That's why the impoverished city of Reading, Pennsylvania, which is already on the NCLB probation list, is suing to protect itself from the clutches of that law.

 

Due to the underfunding of NCLB, many school districts cannot meet the demands set on them by NCLB, even if they get the federal funds. And actually, your showing of the author being from "my side" proves you didn't read the entire article that I linked in the post to mmmmbeer. The end of the article attacks many Democrats. It is possible to just see that NCLB is not good without being a staunch leftist.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I consider myself a fairly staunch conservative.  I am disgusted by our government right now.  We have Republican control of the congress and white house but government is growing at an accelerated rate.  Here's just some examples of why I don't understand the left's dislike of GWB.

 

1) Discretionary domestic spending has increased by over 27% since Bush took office. In other words, he is spending way more on entitlements and programs in 3 yrs than Clinton did in 8 yrs.

 

2) To please labor unions, Bush passed the highest steel tariffs in American history. He recently reversed these due to a threatened trade war from the EU that would thrown us back into recession

 

3) He basically copied Ted Kennedy's education bill, renamed it "Leave No Child Behind," and INCREASED education spending by over 11%. Still, he gets criticized by liberals for "slashing" education.

 

4) He recently signed the "American Dream" act, which gives preferences & aid to minorities in buying a home. No poor whites need apply. He still gets criticized for being a racist bigotted Republican, of course.

 

5) He supported a Federal Court's approval ruling on an affirmative action case involving defacto use of racial quotas in admisions (minorities were given extra "points" in admissions applications based solely on their minority status). Of course, he's still a racist.

 

6) He signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill, which is an attack on free speech. Candidates cannot run ads discrediting an incumbent within 60 days of an election!  Terrible. 

 

7) The recent Medicare/Medicaid Drug Bill. Those programs now have even more entitlements and are larger than ever. Still he still gets criticized for "slashing" those programs, leaving seniors and the poor to die laying in the streets because they don't have medical care (though their entitlements are more now than ever).

 

8) While Arnold moves in CA to stop driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, Bush proposes basically an anmesty for illegal workers if they can prove they have work. This is more left than anything CA was doing beforehand. Still, Bush is a racist white bigot in the eyes of many liberals.

 

9.) He has YET to veto a single spending bill and NOT ONCE has he ever spoke of making government smaller in a speech. 

 

I'm faced with quite a conundrum this November.  I am NOT happy with Bush's idea of conservativism and am fearful of how large the government could get after another 4 years of his ridiculous spending tactics.  This will make me very hesitant to cast my vote for him.  On the other hand, unless Joe Lieberman wins the dem nomination (yeah right) there is not a single dem candidate worth a s***.  Do I just not vote?

It doesn't matter what Bush does the left is going to hate this man until he dies and then they are going to try to desecrate his grave.

 

It doesn't matter who he tries to help, he's still a racist bigoted reactionary pig

 

It doesn't matter that he has increased education spending 11% he's still slashing and burning education

 

It doesn't matter that he drove the Taliban into the ground, bagged "The Butcher of Baghdad", now has Lybia renouncing WMD and paying restitution for previous acts of terrorism, has Iran agreeing to spot inspections of its nuke programs and North Korea ready to talk again after telling us to f*** off back in 1994.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...6-2004Jan8.html

 

It also doesn't matter to the left that after 2 years of war and terrorism the country is back on track and something like 60% of Americans agree with that sentiment according to various polls.

 

It also doesn't matter what the left thinks because the more shrill their criticism of this president gets the less meaning it has. Ideas and acomplishments win presidencies not bitter criticism.