Democrats renege on first 100 hours promises

[Rightlane]

Andrew L. Jaffee

The Democrats promised to restore bipartisanship and openness, tighten ethics rules for lawmakers, and reign in pork barrel spending in their “first 100 hours” pledge made for the November 2006 elections. They haven’t kept their promises. In fact, they have actually moved in the opposite direction. Is this what voters really wanted last November? I doubt it. The Democrats have sought to exclude Republicans from decision-making (there goes bipartisanship), failed to enact meaningful lobbying reforms (there goes ethics), and have gone full-steam ahead on hiding pet pork spending in legislation (there goes pork reform).

Regarding Democratic promises of “bipartisanship,” the Washington Post wrote:

…But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories. …

http://netwmd.com/blog/2007/06/03/1741 (http://netwmd.com/blog/2007/06/03/1741)


http://oldbluejacket.com/images/CongressFromHell.jpg


Is this story supposed to surprise anyone? Come on, we all knew what the Dems would do if they got power. All the more reason to take their power away in 2008.

[DoctorDoom]

It's not what the voters wanted, but the voters will never hear or see it analyzed, because they are liplocked on the arses of the RAT spinmeisters of the DBM, to whom truth is what they say it is at any given moment. The voters will remain clueless as the treasonous RATs destroy America.

[Proud American]

So the democrats are nearly as corrupt as the repubs they replaced.

Color me unsurprised.

[DesertFox]

So the democrats are nearly as corrupt as the repubs they replaced. That's in their next act: The Second Hundred Hours, coming to theaters near you. By Act III they surpass the 'Pubs and set new lows in Congressional ethics, something not easy to do if you recall recent history.

[Maggie_T]

Is anyone listening to the democrat "debate"? *Y A W N*

Hubby's got the TV on in our hotel room. It's giving me a headache. Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do as I'm already in my jammies.

Ah, the confinements of a hotel room. :rolleyes:

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Proud American:
So the democrats are nearly as corrupt as the repubs they replaced.

Color me unsurprised.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/Longhorn_Platinum/semi-serious.gif "Nearly as"?

[DeclinetoState]

By the end of the year, they'll have the Republicans soundly beat.

[Beowulf]

By the end of the year, they'll have the Republicans soundly beat.
I hate to admit it but I have to agree. People automatically assume that if you are a Republican, you love W and will support anything and everything he does. I get it alot. I'm quick them, "No, I don't." Some actually listen to my repies and ideas and many think I'm spot on with some of my ideas.

Sadly, as with the 2006 elections, people will vote against the GOP because of their hatred of George Bush.

[noncom]

Sadly, as with the 2006 elections, people will vote against the GOP because of their hatred of George Bush.
Easier said than done. At some point (while the Presidential campaign is in full swing mind you) Democrats are going to have to pull off this bait-and-switch transfer of George Bush's stink onto whoever is the new Republican leading man.

They won't be able to pull that off without our help. There is a very real reason the liberal media pimped McCain and Giuliani as our "front runnners", and people like Romney as our fallback position, more than a year before the first primary. Any of those men can easily be portrayed as "another George Bush."

But Fred Thompson cuts a very distinctive, and much larger, figure. Do you remember how much George Bush, Sr. stood out when Ronald Reagan was on the stage? Well, don't feel too bad - neither does anyone else.

Assuming we nominate Thompson - which I'm estimating at around 70% likely right now - then by November, 2008, no one will even remember who the Hell George Bush is, let alone why he used to be living proof that all Republicans are evil.

[DesertFox]

What the noncom said. Thompson hasn't been tainted in any way with the Bush brush.

[Jester21]

Assuming Thompson gets the nomination, no I don't think he'll be hurt over Bush at all. But Bush is an albatross around the necks of all members of congress who have done nothing but cheer him on. They're up for reelection too.

[DesertFox]

Disagree. Bush has done a whole lot that was right, such as going into Afghanistan and then Iraq, and lowering taxes. His management of the economy has been nothing short of outstanding. For all the gnashing of teeth about NCLB -- and it didn't have to cost anything like what it has -- the education establishment has been forced, kicking and screaming, to actually do something to improve the public schools, the first positive change in that area in about 50 years. I've worked in two schools since NCLB went into effect and the change is immediately noticeable.

He has since veered completely off course with this idiotic stance on immigration.

[noncom]

He has since veered completely off course with this idiotic stance on immigration.
When was the last time there was any kind of "course" involved with America's immigration policy? And when, exactly, was it that Bush's stance on that issue "veered" from what it is right now? 'Cause I don't remember either one of those things taking place.

[Rhino]

Disagree. Bush has done a whole lot that was right......Shame on you! :shame: You know that detractors never acknowledge that stuff!!!

[DesertFox]

When was the last time there was any kind of "course" involved with America's immigration policy? And when, exactly, was it that Bush's stance on that issue "veered" from what it is right now? 'Cause I don't remember either one of those things taking place.Never and never. But immigration policy alone is not the sense in which I meant he had veered off course. I meant it in the sense of his two administrations in general. He was on course with tax cuts. He was on course by going into Afghanistan and Iraq. He was on course with his two SCOTUS appointments. He was partly on course with NCLB. He veered off course with immigration.

[Maggie_T]

Shame on you! :shame: You know that detractors never acknowledge that stuff!!!

Oh, stop it. :flame: When this country collapses under the invasion of illiterate, uneducated, useless, America-hating aliens, what good will all the things Bush did right be?

When Hillary (or any other demunist) wins the elections, and reverses tax cuts, cuts&runs from Iraq, socializes healthcare, etc., then what bloody good will all the things Bush did right be?

I'm tired of hearing about all the things Bush did right while he's doing his very best to undo them.

[Rhino]

Oh, stop it. :flame::evilgrin:

[DoctorDoom]

Remember that one aw-shitter cancels a hundred attaboys, and Dubya has a few of 'em.

[Jester21]

Bush has done a whole lot that was right
He isn't wrong on EVERYTHING. Lowering taxes--good. Management of the economy--good. Trying to fix education--good (don't know whether it's good or bad, but I'll give him points for the attempt). But you don't get consistent 30% approval ratings without some severe ****ups. I'd say the managment of Iraq and Afghanistan counts, as does immigration. And when he digs in his heels like he's doing, he's angering people. And they'll remember their anger over these issues more than they'll remember the fact that the economy's going well, taxes are lower, etc. And they'll remember politicians who voted however the Bush White House told them to. He's an anchor, and politicians who don't start to separate themselves from him now are going to pay for it in 2008.

[DoctorDoom]

But you don't get consistent 30% approval ratings without some severe ****ups.More to the point, you don't get ratings like that without a seven-year, 24/7/365 campaign of hatred and lies by the libeRATs and their DBM lackeys.

Remember this: they are absolutely convinced that Bush was not elected legitimately, either in 2000 or 2004. AlBore fought the Florida results until the SCOTUS told him that the bullshit was no longer tolerable. And the sKerry gang was so certain that the traitor/war criminal was unbeatable that they cited exit polls to "prove" that the election was fraudulent.

The RATs and their media ass-kissers have been on a crusade to destroy Bush since the 2000 campaigns. Remember Rather's fraudulent documents? Remember dredging up a DUI from many years earlier? Remember the constant efforts to build a scandal around his daughters?

And look at their insane, treasonous efforts to force America to lose in Iraq as they did in Vietnam.

Do you think you could have survived the incessant, unrelenting, venomous attacks that Bush has undergone since he ran in 2000?

30% approval is amazing when one considers the politics-of-destruction campaign that he has experienced for seven years.

And BTW, the Congress' approval numbers are no higher than his, despite all the RAT chest-beating and braggadocio following their hardly-landslide-proportion victory in 2006.

[noncom]

Bush did some good things, and Bush did some bad things. But there is no point in going back and trying to add up the "naughty" points and "nice" points. In the end, none of that really matters.

The bottom line is that George Bush committed the only truly unforgivable sin in politics: trying to please everyone. And now he's paying the wages of that sin.

The liberal rage-o-meter was pegged back during the Goldwater campaign, and it has stayed there ever since. Every leading Republican since then has faced the exact same thing from that side of the aisle. The problem is not that liberals hate Bush more than Reagan; they don't. The problem is that Bush didn't do enough to deserve undying loyalty from conservatives.

Bush did enough so that we had to support him in office, but only as a marriage of convenience, and that's over now. So now he's left with the fruits of his "triangulation" plan. In the end, Bush will see how much good will compromising with the liberals has bought him. Sure, he understood that Muslim fanatics can't be bargained with. But he never figured out something just as important: we have fanatics right here in America too, and trying to appease them doesn't get you anything either.

Reagan made some mistakes; everyone does. Reagan made a few (a very few) compromises, but he did so only when he had to and never because he expected to become friends with snakes.

Reagan was never foolish enough to expect any leeway from fanatics - at home or abroad. He smiled a whole Hell of a lot - because that was free. But that was the beginning and the end of his "compassion" toward Socialists.

[DoctorDoom]

GW Bush still has an apportunity to justify himself with the people in "flyover country", by openly admitting that he was dead wrong about catering to the invaders from south of the border, and by publicly demanding that the influx of the criminals and the nonproducers be permanently stopped BEFORE any other considerations will be addressed.

Will he? Who knows, but I doubt it.