tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7767671.post6595763278843039993..comments2024-03-14T05:51:12.959-05:00Comments on Stolen Thunder: A Better Man Than His DetractorsDJ Drummondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11583885371076583265noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7767671.post-73743045716719742042009-01-17T20:10:00.000-06:002009-01-17T20:10:00.000-06:00Interesting post. Mostly incorrect drivel...but i...Interesting post. Mostly incorrect drivel...but interesting:<BR/><BR/>• Proposed, worked for, and signed into law two income-tax cuts<BR/><BR/>- Great...now we're deeper in debt. How about CUTTING SPENDING BEFORE reducing your income.<BR/><BR/>• Worked to eliminate the Death Tax<BR/><BR/>- Fantastic, and I "worked" to create time travel...yay me!<BR/><BR/>• Worked to privatize Social Security<BR/><BR/>- See above<BR/><BR/>• Eliminated OSHA’s ‘ergonomic’ rules for home businesses<BR/><BR/>- OSHA never enacted any rules regulating ergonomics anywhere, much less in home businesses. Bush didn't eliminate anything.<BR/><BR/>• Removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq<BR/><BR/>- and got Al-Qaeda INTO Iraq!<BR/><BR/>• Eliminated Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan<BR/><BR/>- I know some military folks that may disagree with you...<BR/><BR/>• Eliminated Al Qaeda operational existence outside North African continent<BR/><BR/>- LOL<BR/><BR/>• Disarmed Libya of its WMDs<BR/><BR/>- Funny, I thought Qaddafi did that<BR/><BR/>• Best friend to Israel since 1948<BR/><BR/>- This is a good thing?<BR/><BR/>• Prohibited putting US forces under UN command<BR/><BR/>- Except that forces are under UN command in UNOMIG<BR/><BR/>• Ended participation in International Criminal Court<BR/><BR/>- Because he doesn't want to be tried in it<BR/><BR/>• Worked to reform Medicare<BR/><BR/>-See above<BR/><BR/>• Worked to address border security, created largest budget and roster for enforcement, internal fugitive capture, and employer penalty system in history<BR/><BR/>-See aboveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7767671.post-22372005126456149782009-01-16T09:51:00.000-06:002009-01-16T09:51:00.000-06:00Hawkins1701 included these statements:"Give the De...Hawkins1701 included these statements:<BR/><BR/>"Give the Democrats credit. Now that they're in total power, they're playing to win, playing like this is a war, and shutting the minority party out of a spot at the dinner table. <BR/><BR/>If only we had even come close to being so bold."<BR/><BR/>These statements are clearly wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7767671.post-13087207705493736032009-01-16T05:58:00.000-06:002009-01-16T05:58:00.000-06:00Well said, D. J. In balance I agree with you but l...Well said, D. J. In balance I agree with you but less so re: the Miers nomination. Alito has been a good addition to the court and I can't see how Miers could possibly have been confirmed; I concede your point, though.<BR/><BR/>Many conservatives assumed that President Bush's reelection provided a mandate for implementing their agenda. Couple that with a desire to be liked and you get our current discomfort (i.e., Obama).WC McGirthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16527664914646846721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7767671.post-73629611315490527822009-01-15T00:37:00.000-06:002009-01-15T00:37:00.000-06:00I agree, Bush has done far more good than bad. I a...I agree, Bush has done far more good than bad. <BR/><BR/>I agree too, that the Dubai Ports deal thing got out of hand. <BR/><BR/>I think you're overstating the Harriet Miers thing. Yes, conservatives didn't like it, and yes, it was wrong for any of us to say that she should not have had her day in court. <BR/><BR/>But I for one am very happy with Alito and Roberts, and the Miers thing, while a misstep, isn't something I'm inclined to harp on or hold against W. (Sorry if I'm wrong on the names of his two justice appointments.) I think it's painting with a broad brush to say that all conservatives never forgave Bush for that one. <BR/><BR/>On the immigration thing, the fact that Reagan granted amnesty, with the idea that the borders would be secure so that it would never need to be done again, made me and the rest of the "jackals" so dead set against it. Twenty years later, with the "amnesty to end all amnestys" in the history books, we're right back here again debating another one. (As an aside, for a so-called conservative to shut out all debate on this matter on his website is a travesty. And he is no different from the liberals in the dissent tolerant department.) <BR/><BR/>The fact of the matter was that over 20 million people who broke our laws would be rewarded with legalization, without a single guarantee of border enforcement. <BR/><BR/>It's far easier to legalize them than to secure the border, even if the legislation gets written. <BR/><BR/>Case in point: the border fence. <BR/><BR/>President Bush signed the legislation authorizing it. <BR/><BR/>Still hasn't been built, and probably never will be. <BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, illegal aliens continue to depress American wages, and far more important, cost Americans their lives. Through deliberate action, such as the gang member shooting a woman's entire family in San Francisco, or non-deliberate action, such as the Virginia Beach drunk driver killing two teenage girls....Illegal aliens continue to kill us, while the government looks the other way with "sanctuary" cities. If the government enforced the law, plain and simple, the victims there and in countless other cases would still be alive. <BR/><BR/>If calling Mr. Bush to task for a bill that would have condoned all this through legalization, without a single guarantee of plugging our porous borders, is being unreasonable, then sign me up with the "jackal" brigade. <BR/><BR/>Enforcement first. And no amnesty for people who broke our laws. When we hold companies who employ them to task, and the jobs go away, illegal aliens self-deport. At the very least, this should be done, along with the border fence, before ANY talk of an amnesty. Rewarding criminal behavior only begats more of it. <BR/><BR/>Bush protected this country, stood his ground on Iraq and Afghanistan, and all three nations are better because of it. <BR/><BR/>But the other flaw I see in his Presidency is that he did not stand up for fiscal conservatism. Far from it. He spent like a liberal. (More fairly phrased: He allowed Congress to do so.) And even more significant is that the IDEAS of small government went AWOL during his time in office. Reagan made them a central tenet of his presidency. Bush, if he ever mentioned small government, did so as an aside. <BR/><BR/>In his words, he abandoned free market principles in order to save the market. <BR/><BR/>Wrong. <BR/><BR/>He merely primed the pump for Obama, to run up an even steeper price tag on an overwrought and ill advised government reaction to an economic problem that was caused by the government. <BR/><BR/>Tax cuts: good. Trying to make them permanent, mentioning it in virtually all the State of the Unions: good. Trying to reform Social Security: good. <BR/><BR/>It's a failure of Congressional Republicans that we couldn't get any of those done while we were in the majority. What happened guys? <BR/><BR/>Give the Democrats credit. Now that they're in total power, they're playing to win, playing like this is a war, and shutting the minority party out of a spot at the dinner table. <BR/><BR/>If only we had even come close to being so bold. <BR/><BR/>Back to Bush. Better than Reagan in one respect: he didn't let 9/11 go unanswered, as Reagan let Lebanon go unanswered. (In fairness to the Gipper, he was very cautious with American troop lives. He didn't want to commit our forces to danger without a clear benefit to be derived from it. And he just didn't see one from us staying in Lebanon. Plus, the Soviets still presented bigger fish to fry. <I>Yes, yes, it's still awfully hard for me to criticize him. :-)</I>)<BR/><BR/>Should not have taken nearly so long for the strategy in Iraq to have changed, but I think history will be kind to Bush in that regard. <BR/><BR/>A good man, and a man I will miss. <BR/><BR/>But I do hope that the Republican party doesn't follow his advice, and embody this nebulous concept of reaching out to everybody. <BR/><BR/>Just what does that mean, and what then, do we stand for? <BR/><BR/>If the party doesn't start to stand up for conservatism in government again, and actually govern that way once we are in power, then fundamentally, we're not much different anymore than the Democrats. <BR/><BR/>Both parties want to wield the government to change things, albeit different agenda items. <BR/><BR/>Limiting the size of government. Pro-life, emphasizing federalism and the vote of the people. (Something I agreed with John McCain on.) Lower taxes. The people's will, not the will of judges. Strong national defense. Fighting for the presidential line-item veto. (Probably a pipe-dream, but a fight that should be carried on.) America is a great country. And man is not destroying the world, nor should we punish industry due to unsolved science (i.e. global warming). <BR/><BR/>I know putting things into practice is much harder than on paper, but c'mon, Republican Party. Shouldn't be rocket science.<BR/><BR/>As long as some in the party are still blaming Rush Limbaugh or Christians or talk radio or enforcement first immigration folks or pro-life folks, as long as this is going on, we get nowhere in solving the real problem. <BR/><BR/>We nominated the moderate Republican everyone wanted, and he lost for precisely that reason. Not enough differences from Obama.<BR/><BR/>If we keep not learning from that mistake, and our mistakes in governance while we had power, then we may never have it again. Or, if we do, it will simply be us practicing "big government" to the Democrats' "bigger government."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com