Bush continues to work towards complete destruction of the GOP

Am I to read into this that you are doubting my post or should I look at this as a humorous throwaway line?

 

humorous/less throwaway. i guess you don't watch Lost.

sorry.

 

What's hilarious here are the arguments supporting Bush that try to appear grounded in logic and legitimate philosophical differences.

Where were the critiques when Bush was signing everything the Republican Congress threw at him? This is only his 4th veto folks. There's no argument for budgetary constraints, philosophy, or values that can justify the veto that haven't been jettisoned numerous times during this administration.

Now, you can say "I think," and express your personal view, but to say that the WH is acting according to higher principles is ridiculous on it's face, as their decisions and actions since January 2001 prove.

 

Let me be clear that I'm not defending Bush in anyway. His presidency is almost over and I could care less what anyone thinks of him on his way out. All I care about is whether the bill should have been vetoed or not. As for cleaning up the rest of his mess, someone else will get their crack at it soon enough.

 

No prob. But you should have realized that being a committed Marxist who actively roots for the downfall of my country, I only watch Countdown.

 

NFL Countdown?

yeah, being a committed Marxist takes real time and effort. and it's not nearly as fashionable. particularly with the drab olive green clothing and the mousey mustaches.

 

Not only GOP, but mankind.

 

Bush the Fiscal Conservative?

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, October 3, 2007; 12:52 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/10/03/BL2007100301071_pf.html

The three previous times President Bush vetoed a bill, he did so in public.

In July 2006 and this past June, he surrounded himself with supportive anti-abortion activists who welcomed his veto of stem-cell legislation. In May, when he vetoed legislation that would have established a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq, he did so in a televised address that rallied his fellow Republicans.

But this morning's veto of a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance came behind closed doors, with no fanfare or visuals.

Who, after all, would have cheered him this time?

Jennifer Loven writes for the Associated Press that the veto was "one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections."

A Washington Post/ABC News poll taken last week found that 72 percent of Americans supported the legislation.

Steven Thomma and Tony Pugh write for McClatchy Newspapers: "President Bush is putting his fellow Republicans on a collision course with the American people, forcing them to choose between guns and butter. . . .

"Bush's political motive is clear: He wants to restore his party's reputation as fiscally conservative after six years of letting domestic spending grow faster than it did under Democrat Bill Clinton.

"Thus, a president who didn't veto a single spending bill in his first six years in office now vows to veto not only more spending for children's health insurance but nine other spending bills as well."

Jay Newton-Small writes for Time: "Bush's fighting words aren't just about the current battle over spending -- they are as much about his efforts to shape his legacy as a committed fiscal conservative, all prior evidence to the contrary. . . .

"With Democrats eager to tar the White House as insensitive to children, many observers think the President couldn't have picked a worse fight with which to prove his credentials. But regardless of the immediate political cost over a possible veto of SCHIP, these are fights the President welcomes in his last 16 months in office. After the largest expansion of government since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society four decades ago, he is bending over backward to show committed budget hawks that he is really one of them. Earlier this week the White House went so far as to say that the President was making a stand on SCHIP because it was a 'philosophic issue.'

"For many conservatives, the near-deathbed conversion is all too unconvincing. 'We probably lost the 2006 elections because of his record on spending,' said Paul Weyrich, founder of the conservative Free Congress Foundation. . . .

Ironically, Newton-Small writes, "even dedicated fiscal conservatives think Bush's threatened veto of the bipartisan plan to increase SCHIP is misguided. 'I don't think I would do it if I were President,' Weyrich said. 'It's not worthwhile in terms of political gain.'"

Incidentally, when it comes to looking back at Bush's failure to address the growth of entitlements, Newton-Small writes: "A former White House official blames the loss on Social Security on congressional Republicans. 'Among our least courageous friends on this were our ostensible allies on the Hill who continually said: "Please don't take this on, please don't take this on," including the most conservative members of Congress,' the official said. 'I have to say that one of the things that shocked me was the lack of courage on entitlement reform.'"

'Stop the Madness'

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

Here's White House press secretary Dana Perino on Bush's expected veto yesterday: "In a time when [Democrats] think that they want to increase funding for children's health care, they're actually wanting to pay for it with a cigarette tax, which includes -- people who smoke are usually -- the majority are in the low-income bracket. And so they're raising taxes on something to pay for a middle-class entitlement. It's just completely irresponsible. Stop the madness on Capitol Hill."

 

The dems are playing politics. They need to try to build momentum for 2008, this is a good way to do it. BUt they must succeed or else it will back-fire.

Bush won't stop it from going through, but he's going to stand up to the dems. And you know, it's not a Bush thing, it's a republican thing. All of the repub presidential canidates support the veto. The repubs swinging are doing so because they are afraid of re-election issues.

 

"Demonizing" him? You have to be kidding. Bush doesn't veto squat the entire time the GOP is in control of Congress, except for the stem cell bill in the twilight of GOP-controlled Congressional stupidity, and now he vetoes a bill that will not only help millions of children who wouldn't otherwise get adequate care, but will save money in the long run. It has been proven that preventive care during a child's developmental years prevents far more expensive problems later in life. This bill would help children, save money, and is overwhelmingly approved by the American public. Bush goes for most of his presidency squandering money like a drunken sailor, and because the Democratic Party has finally regained control of Congress, has founds his balls... in ****ing over disadvantaged children.

Oh, what a man. A p***y is the truth. A greedy p***y, who will toss hundreds of billions at corporate interests and shaft millions of children without blinking an eye.


D&D. Impeach Bush.

 

"but will save money in the long run."

How so? If these children die as early as they can, wouldn't we save money?

It is also ok if they are disabled/chronically ill and uninsured because being disabled/chronically ill are not an emergency and therefore won't cost government a dime.

 

Huh? What you just described is Republicans playing politics. You have a bill that Dems believe in and voted for. In case you haven't noticed, expanding health care access has been a Dem thing for a long, long time. On the other hand, you have Bush "standing up to the dems" and repubs voting for it because "they are afraid of re-election issues." Who exactly the are ones thinking politics here?

 

fighting for freedom is illegal mc carthy?

 

Can you respond to ymc's post above? Can you find the slightest sense of outrage at blind, callused stupidity? Is there a heart somewhere in you basso?




D&D. Impeach Bush.

 

i have met more than a few who are waking up to that inconsistency. which is a good thing. it's sometimes just a matter of awareness.

 

This is utter crap. As an employer, I looked at health insurance rates last week. If you are making $80,000 a year, you can afford the payments on a health care plan, unless you have 7 or 8 kids...at which point I would tell you that you could use some serious family planning counseling.

 

mc mark: blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah, i am not listening to what you are saying, blah blah blah, republicans are evil, they want to eat little kids!

please. that's not what happened here. the bill wasn't vetoes to prevent poor families getting health care stop pushing that lie.

and you have the nerve to call me a liar? dude. stop fabricating a story.