As a Conservative, I blame my President, and here's why...

[EdmundDantes]

Contrary to what we are being told, THIS WAS NOT A REFERENDUM ON THE WAR!!! It was a referendum on the relentless, daily pounding of the war by the MSM. 2115 days of endless bad news stories about our President, his policies, 911, the Chinese capture of our spy plane, the War on terror including BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan, GWB's handling of the war, his handling of PRK, his handling of the economy, worst economy in 50 years, no jobs, steel tariffs, foreign trade policy, foreign policy, minority treatment, environment, endless calls for impeachment, endless witch hunts into how decisions were made, 2115 days of BAD NEWS!!!

The MSM has had 31,657 unfavorable stories about the war on terror and GWB's handling of it.

These same bastions of objective news have written only 231 stories of any positive slant at all. and most of those had a BUT Monkey in them!

I Blame President BUSH!!!

He had the bully pulpit, had I been in his position, I would have gone to war as well, but the difference is I would have been out there in front of microphones daily if necesary telling the american people that their media was LYING to them, and doing it with clear visual evidence to prove it! Stats of the number of the enemy killed, and where they came from(most are not iraqis contrary to what the MSM would have you believe.; pictures of the people engaging the troops, inviting them into homes, photos of operation "Teddy Drop"; Photos of the troops helping people rebuild their homes, stats on number of hospitals, clinics, and schools US troops have helped open, and how many women are attending for the first time. Interviews with troops on the ground, and Iraqis who are gratefu to the troops, a multi-part expose on the viciousness of Saddam, a multi-part expose on the virute of the American Military, especially in the aftermath of WWII, I would have had funding obtained for a Docudrama on the positive aspects and results of the Iraq invasion.

We allowed them to frame the debate!!!!

THAT was the crucial mistake!!! Once that was done we lost!!!

Ok my rant is done!, let me know what you think.

[DoctorDoom]

We allowed them to frame the debate!!!!I question whether it was allowed. If a conservative makes a speech and no one covers it, does he still say something?

The problem, good sir, is that a bully pulpit is useless if the church is empty, or is full of heathens. We have in the last few decades watched the news media abandon every trace of objectivity and journalistic integrity. Since the Reagan era, they have become a second DNC.

Granted that in the 21st century the "alternative media" (Fox News, talk radio, the Internet, blogs) have weakened the MSM death grip on news dissemination, but it is still small compared to the power of the alphabet nets, the urban fish-wrappers, the national magazine, et al. And the large majority of the sheeple get all their "news" from the talking hairdos and hyperleftist press.

Conservative/Republican activism is meaningless if it occurs in a vacuum, or is counteracted by the spinmeisters of the left. When a Pub makes a speech and the MSM twist it and lie about it, what good is it? Aside from the NYT, what MSM outlets carry the text of the president's speeches and news conferences? What they do is to select out-of-context clips from them and distort them to make them say what they don't. How can a Conservative/Republican influence the public when the liars dominate the only significant means of reaching them? The Bush presidency has been under a 24/7 assault by the RATs and the MSM since the 2000 campaigns. Their pathological hatred of him has demonstrated that they are literally insane.

They went mad in 2000 when AlBore lost despite the unconcionable travesty in Florida. They have had a consuming antipathy toward him since then, and their berserker frenzy has been unremitting. And the sheeple blindly trust the bastards.

Try to go for six years when you are under relentless attack by traitors and assholes who want to destroy you if not kill you. Try to hold sway against a party of elitists that is obsessed with power at any price. Try to compete against scumbags who would sell out America to its enemies in order to get to you, and who are supported by the barbarians who are murdering our fighting forces.

Bush may holds some culpability for Nov. 7, but after six years of exposure to the consummate hatred of the RATs and their MSM ass-kissers, I'm astounded that he survived.

America would be well served if it declared an official state of war and executed every one of those treasonous SOBs.

[Lubbock]

Try to go for six years when you are under relentless attack by traitors and assholes who want to destroy you if not kill you. Try to hold sway against a party of elitists that is obsessed with power at any price. Try to compete against scumbags who would sell out America to its enemies in order to get to you, and who are supported by the barbarians who are murdering our fighting forces.

And that says it all.

I am so sick and tired of the Bush Bashing from nearly everyone in this forum that I think I'll just take a vacation from it until some of the more virulent bashers calm down.

The fact of the matter is, the President had no chance of "framing the debate." Every word he's uttered has been parsed and twisted by the LeftStreamMedia with the giant megaphone.

The Left had but one goal from the day GWB took the oath of office: bring him down, and no terrorist threat or terrorist attack was going to stop them. The Left never cared a whit about the lives that were lost on September 11, 2001. The Left never saw anything but a political opprotunity in a terrorism threat to this nation.

Terrorism is just one of the many issues that the Left has found to Bash Bush over.

Not only has he been under constant attack from the Left, but the elected Republican representatives inside the Beltway have never taken his back either.

I'm sick of the Bush Bashing, and from now own, anyone who engages in it, I consider an enemy.

That's what I think of your screed, Mr. ED.

I am beyond sick to death of it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

John McCain, more than any single individual, is responsible for the Democrat takeover of both houses of Congress.

[Jester21]

Bush had plenty of opportunities to set the agenda, he just did a lousy job of it. The reason there were so many negative stories about him is he's doing a bad job. The reason the republicans lost the election is because they were too close to Bush. If they'd in any way acted as a check or balance on him they'd still be in power.

And like it or not, the Liberal side is all complaining the same thing you guys are-the media is biased.

[DesertFox]

Baloney. Bush has done a lousy job on illegals and domestic spending. He hasn't done badly on anything else -- EXCEPT perhaps the most important thing of all: communicating with America. He has so few press conferences that you wonder if he isn't hiding a heart attack or something. Lefty lies go unchallenged, leaving the sheeple to assume that they're true.

Bush has real political talent. He also has real political flaws, and we're going to pay for the flaws.

[Maggie_T]

Granted that in the 21st century the "alternative media" (Fox News, talk radio, the Internet, blogs) have weakened the MSM death grip on news dissemination, but it is still small compared to the power of the alphabet nets, the urban fish-wrappers, the national magazine, et al. And the large majority of the sheeple get all their "news" from the talking hairdos and hyperleftist press.


Just "weakened." That must be it. Otherwise, if it's true that most Americans have stopped believing the drive-by media, if it's true that most pinko garbage-wrappers are so down on sales because the people don't read them anymore, if it's true that Fox has kicked the drive-by media ass, then we should have bagged this election, regardless of what our spineless representatives did or failed to do.

Still, I was given to believe that only liberals paid any attention to the lies of the drive-by media and the pinko garbage-wrappers.

SIGH! :(

[Naturalized-Texan]

Re: Domestic spending:

How can the federal government rebuild the military after 8 years of BJ Clinton's decimation and fight the War on Terror without huge increases in spending?

As you can plainly see from the chart and the tables below taken from the mid-session reviews of the past 3 budget years, the rate of spending growth for non-DoD/non-Homeland Security discretionary spending has declined every year that President Bush has been in office and such spending is actually projected to decline slightly between 2006 and 2007. During the same period there have been huge increases in discretionary spending for DoD and Homeland Security.

Consequently, unless you object to increased spending to rebuild the military and to fight the War on Terror, your complaints about spending under President Bush just don't hold water.

http://tex.connectingzone.com/BudgetChart.jpg
(Source:FY2005 Budget Mid-Session Review)

http://tex.connectingzone.com/FY2006_msr.jpg
(Source: FY2006 Budget Mid-Session Review)

http://tex.connectingzone.com/FY2007_msr.jpg
(Source: FY2007 Budget Mid-Session Review)

(Note: At least the FY2007 Budget Mid-Session Review can be found in pdf form at the Government Printing Office (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/).)

[DesertFox]

George W. Bush is the president who pushed the prescription drug benefit. THAT is domestic spending, it's completely unwarranted, it's an FDR-type expansion of govt into places it doesn't belong, and it's a bank buster.

George W. Bush is the president who let Ted *hic* Kennedy write the NCLB law, which jacked up educational spending into the stratosphere. Something needed to be done about education, but throwing more money at it wasn't it.

N-T, there's no excuse for what Bush has done in domestic spending. There were many other ways to do what he wanted done far more cheaply than the routes he chose.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

EdmundDantes:
He had the bully pulpit, had I been in his position, I would have gone to war as well, but the difference is I would have been out there in front of microphones daily if necesary telling the american people that their media was LYING to them, and doing it with clear visual evidence to prove it!

:question: What medium would allow access to somebody that's accusing it of lying?

[Naturalized-Texan]

George W. Bush is the president who pushed the prescription drug benefit. THAT is domestic spending, it's completely unwarranted, it's an FDR-type expansion of govt into places it doesn't belong, and it's a bank buster.

George W. Bush is the president who let Ted *hic* Kennedy write the NCLB law, which jacked up educational spending into the stratosphere. Something needed to be done about education, but throwing more money at it wasn't it.

N-T, there's no excuse for what Bush has done in domestic spending. There were many other ways to do what he wanted done far more cheaply than the routes he chose.
However, he did exactly what he promised to do in the 2000 campaign. We all knew that he would implement both of those programs, yet we voted for him anyway. We all knew what we were getting when we voted for him in 2000 and 2004.

However, it is still an unarguable fact that the rate of growth of non-DoD/non-Homeland-Security discretionary spending declined every year of the Bush presidency.

[DesertFox]

N-T, you're too intelligent to be defending Bush on issues where Bush is indefensible. Bush is a big govt Republican. There was absolutely no pressure for a prescription drug entitlement; and even if he felt it necessary to implement one, it didn't need to be the one he did push. That could have been done much more cheaply any number of ways and you know it. Similarly, there was no need whatsoever to deliver education into the hands of Ted Kennedy.

It is an unarguable fact that one of these days Bush's economy is going to slow down. But the increased entitlements he pushed will never slow down. They will drag on whatever economy we then have, and will never stop.

[maxparrish]

...Bush, MSM, etc..

For as much anger as I have towards George Bush, I find it hard to agree that its his fault that he could not counter the massive propoganda campaign of the MSM. A few more press conferences and addresses to the nation would have had only a little help...although his handlers often misread the mood of the nation and often chose to be nice to his enemies and the likes of Murtha and let conservatives carry the water on attacking the scum bag.

Doc is quite right - how can one over come the the DNC propoganda and disinformation machine: ABC, NBC, CBS, AP, PBS, BBC, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.?

This concerns me now, more than ever before. Conservatives and Republicans have long complained about media bias (the only time I have seen the media turn against the left was in the closing two years of Jimmie Carter's debacle..even they puked) BUT the degree of bias is now overwhelming - stunning in outright lies and fabrications.

And let's face it, making a major address to the people is no longer so easy. Bush's attempt to get several keynote speechs were ignored by 80% of the broadcast network. Ironically, while FOX and the alternative Internet media helped conservatives, the liberal press counter attacked by losing all sense of objectivity and plunging head long into "Macaca" nonsense.

I've been a political viewer since the 1968 elections and I used to do content analysis on media bias as a research hobby in college. I've seen nothing like it - MSM is more effective than any party machine..its scary.

And what does one do when you can't get distribution. Take the documentary "Obsession" - a wonderful movie letting the Muslim terror leaders and supporters speak for themselves...a thousand more times honest and educational than crap like 9/11 or Gore's Inconvient Truth. The problem is the producers could get any distributers to support them so it went totally unseen by the general public...as did a recent major film on illegal immigration of similar impact. Conservative film producers don't get Canne Awards or Oscars...they get blacklisted.

Yes, Conservatives are blacklisted, and its time for the GOP to point it out. It's time for guys like Bush to say it...at least Nixon had the balls to point it out and Spiro Agnew made a living out of speaking against the "naggering nabobs of negativism"...they were not as afraid of the Press as the GOP is today.

I agree Bush bears partial blame for the debacle. Several things in his second term contributed to our destruction at the polls, some of it his fault. His social security reform was badly timed and unsold, his Miers nomination broke our hearts and required us to go after our President, his Katrina PR and miscues killed us, his failure to exoriate the Democrats at Press conferences (e.g. on held up judicial nominations) demoralized us, his blunder with the ports once again raised a conservative revolt, and finally his open break with our border security and support of massive repopulation of the US (legal and illegal) burned us to the ground.

But I don't blame Bush for our terminal cancer called McCain who destroyed our Senate hold. He was a snake and a termite that ate us from within, hollowed out our core because of his out of control ego. And I can't blame him for the MSM fungus that sapped the Republic's strength.

Bush has a large share of the blame, as do our elected representatives. When campaigning our Congressman could not claim accomplishments, nor could they constrast themselves with moderate democrats - how could anyone claim we were opposed to large government or illegal immigraiton, all we could do his warn people that the Democrats were evil and might raise taxes.

Not enough. Too little, too late.

And worst of all, we did make a mistake in Iraq and could not admit it...and even f'up firing Rumsfeld by not doing it much earlier (or not doing it at all).

Go to a circus, don't bother to find any GOP elephants. Visit the clown car.

[2nd_Amendment]

Baloney. Bush has done a lousy job on illegals and domestic spending. He hasn't done badly on anything else --


There are two groups that decide whether conservatives win or lose. I say this every election and people keep trying to deny it, bouncing around other issues(though two are gaining quickly now). Gun owners and abortion opponents decide the fate of conservative candidates. You can cite specific cases where some local issue renders this moot, but not on a state or national basis.

For both of these groups Bush failed. For gun owners even the end of the AWB was a failure, since Bush passed on a chance to make a firm position statement and the members of his CONgress passed on picking up the ball themselves. They let it die, yes, but nobody actively sought to kill it. That tactic applied to the entire gun issue since 2000. "Do no harm". That's good...it's not how to WIN, nor gain friends/votes.

Same sort of thing with abortion. Nothing moved forward, little moved back. Stasis. Good in the short term, bad for when the Dems return and find everything pretty much right where they left it...

No motivation to get out and vote. No motivation, no numbers and elections now are ALL about motivation, not "swing voters". The most motivated party wins, period. The Repubs, with Bush leading the shuffle, motivated nobody. Certainly not the two keys to their base.

If the Repubs are going to win in '08 they have GOT to hit these two issues, along with immigration and excessive spending, head on. Those four things, the two historically important ones and the two up-and-comers, have to be the four corners of a Repub rebirth in two years. If they lack the spine to hit those points hard, they will lose. Again. Period.

[DesertFox]

Well said, 2A, though I'd add illegal immigration to the two you stated.

[Pennville_Bill]

What Desert Fox said.............

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v481/Pennville_Bill/Other%20Stuff/Smilies/agree.gif

[EdmundDantes]

I question whether it was allowed. If a conservative makes a speech and no one covers it, does he still say something?

The Press ALWAYS covers a Presidential Press conference!!! People would hear what he had to say, if he only said it!!!

The problem, good sir, is that a bully pulpit is useless if the church is empty, or is full of heathens. We have in the last few decades watched the news media abandon every trace of objectivity and journalistic integrity. Since the Reagan era, they have become a second DNC.

This is true, although if you read Dem blogs they believe the press is Repub. controlled!!!


Granted that in the 21st century the "alternative media" (Fox News, talk radio, the Internet, blogs) have weakened the MSM death grip on news dissemination, but it is still small compared to the power of the alphabet nets, the urban fish-wrappers, the national magazine, et al. And the large majority of the sheeple get all their "news" from the talking hairdos and hyperleftist press.

Conservative/Republican activism is meaningless if it occurs in a vacuum, or is counteracted by the spinmeisters of the left. When a Pub makes a speech and the MSM twist it and lie about it, what good is it? Aside from the NYT, what MSM outlets carry the text of the president's speeches and news conferences? What they do is to select out-of-context clips from them and distort them to make them say what they don't. How can a Conservative/Republican influence the public when the liars dominate the only significant means of reaching them? The Bush presidency has been under a 24/7 assault by the RATs and the MSM since the 2000 campaigns. Their pathological hatred of him has demonstrated that they are literally insane.

Very simple, you do the same as I do with my selectmen, I plainly state, on camera, in a public selectmen's meeting that I am sorry that this is necesary, but I can not trust my selectmen to do the right thing, therefore I need to raise this issue publicly.

The President can do essentially the same thing with the media.

They went mad in 2000 when AlBore lost despite the unconcionable travesty in Florida. They have had a consuming antipathy toward him since then, and their berserker frenzy has been unremitting. And the sheeple blindly trust the bastards.

Try to go for six years when you are under relentless attack by traitors and assholes who want to destroy you if not kill you. Try to hold sway against a party of elitists that is obsessed with power at any price. Try to compete against scumbags who would sell out America to its enemies in order to get to you, and who are supported by the barbarians who are murdering our fighting forces.

Bush may holds some culpability for Nov. 7, but after six years of exposure to the consummate hatred of the RATs and their MSM ass-kissers, I'm astounded that he survived.

America would be well served if it declared an official state of war and executed every one of those treasonous SOBs.

I fully believe that reason charges could effectively be brought against; John Kerry, Jim McDermott, Cynthia McKinney, Chales Rangle, The other two idiots with McDermott in Iran, cant remember who it was., Ted Kennedy, Barbara lee, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the idiot rep from upstaTE Ny.

[EdmundDantes]

And that says it all.

I am so sick and tired of the Bush Bashing from nearly everyone in this forum that I think I'll just take a vacation from it until some of the more virulent bashers calm down.

The fact of the matter is, the President had no chance of "framing the debate." Every word he's uttered has been parsed and twisted by the LeftStreamMedia with the giant megaphone.

The Left had but one goal from the day GWB took the oath of office: bring him down, and no terrorist threat or terrorist attack was going to stop them. The Left never cared a whit about the lives that were lost on September 11, 2001. The Left never saw anything but a political opprotunity in a terrorism threat to this nation.

Terrorism is just one of the many issues that the Left has found to Bash Bush over.

Not only has he been under constant attack from the Left, but the elected Republican representatives inside the Beltway have never taken his back either.

I'm sick of the Bush Bashing, and from now own, anyone who engages in it, I consider an enemy.

That's what I think of your screed, Mr. ED.

I am beyond sick to death of it.


Lubbock, I think you misunderstand me, I was not Bush Bashing.

I blame the media for its relentless attacks, but what I criticize my President for is not turning the attack back on them from day one!

For not countering the press's lies with the facts calmly and in public. For not framing the message before the press could frame it.

For not telling the people all of the great accomplishmants of our troops that I hear from people I know that have been on the ground there.

[EdmundDantes]

John McCain, more than any single individual, is responsible for the Democrat takeover of both houses of Congress.


Why McCain?

[EdmundDantes]

Baloney. Bush has done a lousy job on illegals and domestic spending. He hasn't done badly on anything else -- EXCEPT perhaps the most important thing of all: communicating with America. He has so few press conferences that you wonder if he isn't hiding a heart attack or something. Lefty lies go unchallenged, leaving the sheeple to assume that they're true.

Bush has real political talent. He also has real political flaws, and we're going to pay for the flaws.


Finally someone eches my original comments in this thread.

[EdmundDantes]

:question: What medium would allow access to somebody that's accusing it of lying?

Since when has the MSM refsed to carry a Presidential press conference?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

EdmundDantes:
Since when has the MSM refsed to carry a Presidential press conference?

:unsmile: If a president openly called them liars, they'd start ignoring him. The press has power. It wouldn't be in a president's best interests to insult them.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

He had the bully pulpit, had I been in his position, I would have gone to war as well, but the difference is I would have been out there in front of microphones daily if necesary telling the american people that their media was LYING to them, and doing it with clear visual evidence to prove it! Stats of the number of the enemy killed, and where they came from(most are not iraqis contrary to what the MSM would have you believe.; pictures of the people engaging the troops, inviting them into homes, photos of operation "Teddy Drop"; Photos of the troops helping people rebuild their homes, stats on number of hospitals, clinics, and schools US troops have helped open, and how many women are attending for the first time. Interviews with troops on the ground, and Iraqis who are gratefu to the troops, a multi-part expose on the viciousness of Saddam, a multi-part expose on the virute of the American Military, especially in the aftermath of WWII, I would have had funding obtained for a Docudrama on the positive aspects and results of the Iraq invasion.
I agree. This is something I've rather been saying myself for quite some time. One thing that always bugged the hell outta me about him is that he was far too reclusive, and once in a blue moon when he did speak, it was just more of that damned "new tone" crap as opposed to setting the record straight. While his enemies ceaselessly demonized him he was nowhere to be found. The man would never come out and defend himself. By the time he started it was far too late, and he found out the hard way that the masses are gullible stooges who believe what they're told over and over. Even now after the elections, still, the very people who villanized him and called him every despicable name under the sun, he's making nice with on the news practicing the same asinine "if I be the more noble person people will see that and choose me" strategy that's landed the conservative party where it is today.

Newsflash Senor Bush, the masses are tools. They believe whatever they're told over and over (they smeared him as a liar and a murderer relentlessly, and he just left them for the most part unopposed to do so). This is illustrated by the fact that millions of Americans believe 911 was orchestrated by our own government, just because it was repeated ad nauseam by pinko f*cking lunatics! I seriously end up arguing these loons all the time. My favorite is the chick who told me 911 was staged because "planes don't explode when they crash." :huh:


I'm just in awe of how we've become a nation of senselessness. I mean we have two choices being presented us here. 911 was the result of:

1. Secret government conspiracy of massive and unparralelled proportions to murder thousands of Americans and facilitate the creation of a global American empire. All masterminded and perpetrated flawlessly by... the person universally considered by the left to be the dumbest man alive.

2. Muslims who've been hijacking planes and blowing themselves up for decades, claiming credit for the attack, and dancing in the streets in the middle east.

Seriously, what kind of f*cking nutjob thinks #1 is the more plausible?

What I enjoy most probably is pointing out to them halfway through one of their conspiracy rants how lacking in imagination they are. Obviously 911 was perpetrated by Bill Clinton (I always loved how 911 is Bush, but the bombings back in 93 are not a Clinton conspiracy). After failing to destroy the towers the first time in 93 in order to rob American interns of their innocence and secure for himself a legacy, he worked in collusion with Alquaeda brilliantly positioning Bush as the fall guy for his second attempt. I think I'll make an indie film about it, 911 - Wrath of Clinton. I would like to get William Shatner to play Bush, and after the towers fall he'd yell Clllinnnttooonnn!!!! (http://khan2.ytmnd.com/)

[Naturalized-Texan]

Why McCain?
John McCain and his colleagues in the Gang of 14 cost the GOP its Senate majority (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/08/the_road_not_taken__forfeiting_a_majority)

Because McCain is the leader of the RINO faction that blocked every conservative initiative and helped advance the liberal agenda.

[Patrick Henry]

McInsane... life member of the 'Keating Five'

[2nd_Amendment]

John McCain and his colleagues in the Gang of 14 cost the GOP its Senate majority (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/08/the_road_not_taken__forfeiting_a_majority)

Because McCain is the leader of the RINO faction that blocked every conservative initiative and helped advance the liberal agenda.

I suppose it's simpler to make excuses and Spin than deal with reality.

[MrSanity]

Because McCain is the leader of the RINO faction that blocked every conservative initiative and helped advance the liberal agenda.I can't blame you for blaming McCain to a degree. His "day at the beach" comment about Iraq, his "nobody would pick lettuce for $50/hour" proclaimation, and his more recent comment about the bridge to nowhere just days before the election all shouted down the conservative movement, and made liberals look reasonable by comparisan.

While it wasn't pretty losing Allen and Santorum, at least Jim Webb is tough on illegal immigration and pro-gun, and Bob Casey is pro-life, or so they say. The election was NOT a mandate victory for the left-wing agenda, seeing that Webb refused to cut funding for the Navy when he was in the Reagan administration, and has criticized Kerry for opposing the Vietnam War. We may have lost a lot of seats, but I hope we can count on the DINO faction to block some bad initiatives.

[Naturalized-Texan]

N-T, you're too intelligent to be defending Bush on issues where Bush is indefensible. Bush is a big govt Republican. There was absolutely no pressure for a prescription drug entitlement; and even if he felt it necessary to implement one, it didn't need to be the one he did push. That could have been done much more cheaply any number of ways and you know it. Similarly, there was no need whatsoever to deliver education into the hands of Ted Kennedy.

It is an unarguable fact that one of these days Bush's economy is going to slow down. But the increased entitlements he pushed will never slow down. They will drag on whatever economy we then have, and will never stop.
N-T, those are rather fatuous arguments you're proffering. It is an unarguable fact that there were any number of ways to go about fulfilling those campaign promises, and Bush unarguably chose among the most expensive, making no apparent effort to limit them in any way. It is also an unarguable fact that one of these days the Bush economy will slow down, but the Bush entitlements will keep on keeping on. You know it.
I did a little more research into the spending on NCLB and the prescription drug program using the FY2007 Budget Mid-Session Review as my source. Here are the results of that research:

NCLB: Spending on education, including NCLB, went up $15.5 billion between FY 2001 and FY 2006 and is projected to decline by $2.1 billion between FY2006 and FY 2007. More importantly, spending for education, including NCLB, is included in the non-DoD/non-Homeland-Security discretionary for which the rate of spending growth has declined every year of the Bush presidency. In fact, such spending is projected to decline by $1.6 billion between FY 2006 and FY2007.

Prescription Drug Program: When enacted, spending for this program was projected to be $500 billion over 10 years, i.e., $50 billion per year, starting in FY2006. Overall Medicare spending was projected to increase by $36 billion for FY2006 and by $52 billion for FY2007.

Admittedly, $15 billion and $50 billion are both lots of money, but not compared to increases of about $140 billion for DoD and Homeland Security and only a drop in the bucket in a $2.8 trillion budget.

Here are some more interesting figures for FY2007:

Total Discretionary Spending: $1.068 trillion

Total Mandatory Spending: $1.482 trillion

Interest: $248 billion

Also, President Bush beat his promise to cut the deficit in half by FY2009 by 3 years, thanks to his pro-growth tax rate cuts. If the Dims don't rescind the Bush tax rate cuts, there is no reason that the current economic boom can't continue for many years into the future.

[DoctorDoom]

If the Dims don't rescind the Bush tax rate cuts ...It would be politically dangerous to rescind them. However, they can refuse to renew them when they expire. Same effect, a bit less fallout.

... there is no reason that the current economic boom can't continue for many years into the future.The RATs cannot win on good news. Everything they rely on for political gain is negative. Their campaigns are exclusively, unrelenting gloom & doom.

Iraq is a disaster. The economy is tanking. Big Oil is raping the consumers. Unemployment is rampant. Queers are being persecuted. Terrorists are being denied Constitutional rights. America is hated worldwide. Etcetera, etcetera. In each and every case they're bald-faced lies, but perception is what counts, not truth.

A challenge to freecers: who remembers the last time a RAT ran on a platform of good news in the US? I can't recall one. They run on hatred for the GOP, NOT on their party's values and aspirations (since, of course, they have none).

This would be a truthful RAT speech.

"Once we are in control, we will work diligently:

• to implement the demands of George Soros, MoveOn, ANSWER, PAW, the ACLU, and others;
• to weaken America's ability to defend itself and to combat terrorism;
• to abandon the people of Iraq to the tender mercies of al Qaeda;
• to withdraw our troops from the middle east while keeping them in Europe;
• to continue to fight against Israel's right to survive;
• to allow American citizens to be subject to international courts;
• to provide legal protection for terrorists;
• to legalize millions of Mexican criminals who entered America illegally;
• to continue to advocate talking as the solution to every problem;
• to rape you with new taxes that we will use to buy votes;
• to impose Hollywood and San Francisco values on America;
• to preserve the right to murder your children in the womb;
• to redefine marriage to include any combination of men, women and farmyard animals;
• to make pornography accessible while outlawing the Bible;
• to indoctrinate your children in sex without morality;
• to purge God from America and persecute Christians while catering to Islam;
• to make America subservient to the United Nations;
• to base US law, and to interpret US law, in terms of foreign laws;
• to disarm the law-abiding citizens of America;
• to destroy free political speech by resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine;
• and to continue to demoralize conservatives so that they will withdraw and present no danger to our plans."

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
-- Edmund Burke

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
-- Edmund Burke

[Nutrider99]

...How can a Conservative/Republican influence the public when the liars dominate the only significant means of reaching them? The Bush presidency has been under a 24/7 assault by the RATs and the MSM since the 2000 campaigns. Their pathological hatred of him has demonstrated that they are literally insane....

....Bush may holds some culpability for Nov. 7, but after six years of exposure to the consummate hatred of the RATs and their MSM ass-kissers, I'm astounded that he survived.
Let's address the issue candidly and be done with it. The Republicans refused to stand up for their conservative beliefs, instead hiding behind a center-right moderate and letting him take all the heat. Bush is not and never will be a Reagan conservative. He's center-right. We knew that when we elected him. The democreeps WOULD NOT ALLOW him to chose the cabinet he wanted because some of his choices were too conservative, and the Republicans allowed them to violate the Constitution and filibuster nominations which could not be filibustered without even carrying out a filibuster. With the conservatives blocked from cabinet positions, who did he have in Congress behind him? Bush had NO experience and was thrown to the wolves. Instead of having a Newt Gingrich figure in Congress championing conservatism, the Republicans let Bush take the point and consequently all the fire. Bush should have been TO THE LEFT of the GOP, not leading them! As such, his voice of moderation would have resulted in more positive treatment by the hostile media, because they would be after the true conservatives.

As president, Bush had to work with the Congress to get things which were important to him; military funding, tax cuts etc; and to do this he had to placate the left. He had to offer them more because he was supported less by his own team. As a previous poster noted, discretionary spending actually went down under Bush, but you'd never know it because truth is a casualty of partisan ideology.

As for the prescription drug issue, I think it's a good idea. Why? 1. We INTENTIONALLY conditioned our senior citizens to rely on the government. We can't yank the rug out from under them. We have to grow out of this dependency through our succeeding generations. 2. Proper use of prescription drugs lessens the far greater expense of hospitalization. 3. We owe it to our seniors to live up to the promises we made them. The sacrifices they made during the Second World War would never be made by today's weaker video game generation.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Nutrider: You made the same point I made using different words: McCain, as the leader of the RINOs, was responsible for the Democrat takeover of both houses of Congress. He and his fellow RINOs blocked the advancement of the conservative agenda and helped advance the liberal agenda. He and his fellow RINOs allowed the Dims to illegally and unconstitutionally filibuster judicial nominees who believe in the Constitution.

As a senior citizen, I resent your comments about the prescription drug program. I opposed that program and we have not signed up for it and don't plan to unless we are forced to do so. Fortunately, the company from which I retired offers its own prescription drug program that is essentially equivalent to the government program at about the same cost to us.

[maxparrish]

I can't blame you for blaming McCain to a degree. His "day at the beach" comment about Iraq, his "nobody would pick lettuce for $50/hour" proclamation, and his more recent comment about the bridge to nowhere just days before the election all shouted down the conservative movement, and made liberals look reasonable by comparison.

I am not sure why you offered the LEAST egregious examples of McCain's cancerous behavior as contributing to our election defeat. McCain is an imperious, thoughtless, and ego driven fool - entirely incapable of self-reflection or anything other than vapid god-like pronouncements of wisdom.

THESE are the reasons that McCain must he held accountable to a huge degree, he:

1) Not only announced his unwillingness to vote for removing the filibuster when it came to judge appointments, he decided to destroy the party position and leadership on the issue. Rather than just voting his conscious he recruited his lapdog Graham, DeWine, and the other four "gang of GOP 7) to represent the 'moral' position and derail the party. His cheery "band of brothers" bragged about how wonderful it was AND for their efforts most of the appointments REMAIN unvoted on - thus the Demorats and McCain froze the process and destroyed Republican morale. IN THE GREAT BATTLE, we were sold out - that's called being a traitor and saboteur.

2) He sponsored with TED KENNEDY the most insidious piece of immigration reform seen in American history. His bill(s) provided the following: NO BORDER SECURITY OR FENCES; NO RETURN OF ILLEGALS OR INCREASE IN DETENTION FACILITIES, AN INCREASE OF LEGAL IMMIGRATION FROM 1.1 Million a year to 3 MILLION a year, full AMNESTY, and FULL CITIZENSHIP; SOCIAL SECURITY CREDITS. The public outcry stopped the insanity and treason of McCain.

3) He sponsored the Campaign Finance Reform which created the Moveon.org and Soros groups while restricting the free speech of independent Republicans. And it has also failed to make a single substantive "improvements" in politics, except in the weakening of partys to hold their members accountable.

4) He fanatically fought for full civil rights for terrorists, and tried to block trials of our enemy with bogus claims regarding the Geneva Accords.


5) He also opposed Republicans voting on ANWAR on a budget bill (when Senate democrats were essentially filibustering it) because "its not right" per his view of the world. He also is for Global Warming Regulations.

John McCain undermined, opposed, destroyed, and corrupted every Republican and Bush political position and policy he could. Without John McCain congressional republicans could have pointed out real accomplishments in immigration and border control, judgeships, free speech protection, and the prosecution of murderous terrorists.

Is it any wonder he once said "I have been blessed with a gift and a curse, I know what is right". Is it any wonder he crippled us?

[Nutrider99]

As a senior citizen, I resent your comments about the prescription drug program. I opposed that program and we have not signed up for it and don't plan to unless we are forced to do so.
And if so forced, the program is there. Sorry. I'd rather pay for prescriptions than hospital stays. Let's get some true torte reform and stem the flow of billions of dollars from the health care system to trial lawyers, and then we won't need a prescription drug policy.

[Naturalized-Texan]

And if so forced, the program is there. Sorry. I'd rather pay for prescriptions than hospital stays. Let's get some true torte reform and stem the flow of billions of dollars from the health care system to trial lawyers, and then we won't need a prescription drug policy.
I would much rather go back to the old free market system of health care where everyone paid for health care out of pocket. The high cost of health care and drugs is being caused by the fact that as the cost to the consumer approaches zero because of the government and health insurance, the demand for health care and drugs approach infinity. The law of supply and demand kicks in and the costs go through the roof.

You may be intersted in the following excerpt from an essay I wrote and had published in a now-defunct conservative magazine about 10 or 12 years ago:

Introduction:

The main problem with American health care is not the availability of health care, for care is available for those who need it whether they are insured or not. The real problem is the spiraling cost of health care. As usual, the increased cost of medical care is the result of the most basic law of economics: the law of supply and demand. When there is a massive increase in the demand for health care coupled with a constant or declining supply, costs are bound to increase. In order to solve the health care cost problem, both the demand side and the supply side of the cost equation must be attacked. Relief for the demand side of the equation is relatively simple, but the supply side is far more complex.


The Demand Side:

The federal government and the insurance companies are the primary causes of the spiraling increases in the demand for health care. Since much of the health care is "free" to the consumer, it generates an artificial demand for medical services. Moreover, since health care is "free" to the consumer, there is no incentive for the consumer to shop around for the best deal in medical services. Consequently there is no competition to keep health care costs down.

Because there are little or no out of pocket expenses, people often go to the doctor for minor medical needs such as a common cold or a splinter or a headache that could easily be treated at home. In addition, many people go to the hospital for treatment that could easily be done in a doctor's office because it is "free" to them. Often, people go into the hospital for minor surgery that could be performed in a doctor's office or on an outpatient basis. For example, I know people who get themselves admitted to a hospital for a tooth extraction because their insurance will cover everything, but if the extraction took place in the dentist's office, the patient would have to pay part of the cost. Many people go to an emergency room for treatment that could easily be performed in a doctor's office because more of the costs would be covered by insurance. All of this artificially created increase in demand for more expensive medical services puts tremendous pressure on an already overloaded medical care system.

There has been a lot written about how to solve the demand side of the supply and demand equation and nearly all of it states that the consumer must be involved in paying for health care. The best way to do this is to provide health care vouchers to each person not covered by an employer's medical plan. The vouchers would be issued in an amount equal to the average per-person cost of health care in the person's state. The vouchers would be distributed each year by the state or local governments using state funds with little or no federal government involvement. These health care vouchers could then be used to pay for needed health care directly or to purchase health insurance. Either way the consumer would be aware of the true cost of health care and would have the incentive to shop for the most cost effective provider. Any unused portion of the voucher could be accumulated in a Medical Savings IRA for future catastrophic illnesses. Those who are covered by an employer’s plan could also contribute to a Medical Savings IRA.

For those who are covered by an employer's plan or who use the voucher to purchase insurance, the benefit structure for insurance payments must be revised to discourage the abuses described earlier. If a person goes to a doctor for treatment of minor medical problems that could be treated at home, he or she must pay for 100% of the costs for the doctor's fees and any medicines. If a person is admitted to a hospital for treatment or surgery that could be performed in a doctor's office or on an outpatient basis, he or she will only be reimbursed for the costs that would have been incurred in the doctor's office or as an outpatient. The patient would be responsible for the balance. Such a rate structure would significantly reduce the demand for medical care and help bring down the costs.

[EdmundDantes]

:unsmile: If a president openly called them liars, they'd start ignoring him. The press has power. It wouldn't be in a president's best interests to insult them.

It doesn't have to be done confrontationally. it would be more along the lines of "this was printed yesterday, here are the facts"

[EdmundDantes]

John McCain and his colleagues in the Gang of 14 cost the GOP its Senate majority (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/08/the_road_not_taken__forfeiting_a_majority)

Because McCain is the leader of the RINO faction that blocked every conservative initiative and helped advance the liberal agenda.

While I agree with your assessment of his culpability, I dont see how that cost the GOP the election. I think the MSM is far more culpable.

[Nutrider99]

I would much rather go back to the old free market system of health care where everyone paid for health care out of pocket.
I'd like to go back to a time when you COULD pay such charges. Health insurance is insanely high and overage shrinks every year as premiums increase. Why? Malpractice claims. People like John Edwards who made MILLIONS off the pain and suffering of others and the insurance premiums of his constituents.

The high cost of health care and drugs is being caused by the fact that as the cost to the consumer approaches zero because of the government and health insurance, the demand for health care and drugs approach infinity.
Respectfully, no. The fact is people are sent to emergency rooms by their doctors many times for things they should be able to do. A doctor in Kentucky can't even give a tetanus shot. You have to go to the emergency room, regardless of whether there is any emergency. Go sit in an ER sometimes. In almost every case the malady can be handled out-patient, but out-patient med centers can't survive in a world where a simple mistake will make an instant millionaire of a trial lawyer.

The law of supply and demand kicks in and the costs go through the roof.
Supply and demand is only a part of it. The system is skewed to drive people to the ER. In many cases, a doctor's office visit carries a co-pay and an ER visit does not. What incentive is there to opt for the less costly treatment when that treatment costs the patient more?

It was a well written article and I support vouchers. I support anything that reduces the cost of health care. However, the biggest expense comes from the frivolous lawsuits. Limit them, institute vouchers and increase competition among insurers, and you'll go a long way toward fixing the problem.

[DesertFox]

N-T, you're using Democrat "rate of spending" rather than hard bucks. I don't buy that hogwash from liberals and won't buy it off you.

George W. Bush thought he could make liberals happy with entitlement spending. They hate him worse than ever, and his domestic woes will ultimately undercut the war, which we can't afford to lose. That is Bush's fault and no pretense is going to change it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

N-T, you're using Democrat "rate of spending" rather than hard bucks. I don't buy that hogwash from liberals and won't buy it off you.

George W. Bush thought he could make liberals happy with entitlement spending. They hate him worse than ever, and his domestic woes will ultimately undercut the war, which we can't afford to lose. That is Bush's fault and no pretense is going to change it.
Once again, you are ignoring the facts that I posted. Actual non-DoD/non-Homeland-Security discretionary spending will decline by $1.6 billion between FY2006 and FY2007, the culmination of a 6 year downward trend. Please quit ignoring the facts.

[DesertFox]

I'm not. Bush has increased spending dramatically and you want to pretend he hasn't. So please quit ignoring the facts.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm not. Bush has increased spending dramatically and you want to pretend he hasn't. So please quit ignoring the facts.
Sorry, but the facts don't support your claims. Bush had nothing to do with the vast majority of the increased spending because that spending was mandatory.

Mandatory: containing or constituting a command;
syn: compulsatory, compulsory, imperative, imperious, obligatory, required.

The only spending that President Bush could control was discretionary spending, nearly all of the increase of which was for DoD and Homeland Security as I have proven.