The Extremism of GW BUSH - Even Conservatives are PO'd

[picus9]

The 'Extremism' of George W. Bush
Human Events Online ^ | January 8, 2004 | Chris Field


Posted on 01/08/2004 8:51:50 AM PST by bigsky


Liberals love to speak of the "extremist right-wingers" and the "out-of-the-mainstream extremists" and the "extreme radicals" that constitute a huge majority of the GOP and are reflected in their standard-bearer, George W. Bush.

On what, exactly, do they base their claims of Bush's extremism and radical conservatism?

Perhaps they are thinking of all those spending cuts over the last three years. No, that can't be it: discretionary spending, according to the Heritage Foundation, for fiscal year 2004 is projected to be up nine percent. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003 discretionary spending was up 13 percent and 12 percent, respectively.

Maybe it was his strident opposition to the blatantly unconstitutional (though the Supreme Court would disagree here) McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill. Oh, wait, he signed that.

Then it must be his refusal to further subsidize American farming. But didn't he sign the $491-billion (Congressional Budget Office's scoring) Farm Bill?

Was it his determination to shrink Medicare down to nothing by signing the $400-billion Medicare Prescription Drug Entitlement program?

All those bills he has vetoed . . . all zero of them?

Does the Left see his amnesty-cloaked-as-an-immigrant-worker-program, which he announced this week, as extremist?

What about the fact that the role of the Federal government in education ballooned with the No Child Left Behind Act?

He did say he would sign an extension of the "assault weapons" ban, maybe that's the "extremism" to which they're referring.

How about his support for the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action?

What, exactly, do liberals find so "extreme" about George W. Bush?

Sure, he's pro-life, and he signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, but it passed with the support of 17 Democratic Senators and 63 Democratic Representatives.

Yes, he passed a major tax cut his first year in office. But as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product and of Federal revenues, it was significantly smaller than the tax cuts of Ronald Reagan and Democratic hero John F. Kennedy.

Many anti-Bush liberals will say they opposed the pre-emptive, "unilateral" (and, thereby, "extreme") war with Iraq. However, the approval for the use of force came with the vote of 29 Democrats in the Senate and 81 Democrats in the House of Representatives.

It seems to me that either Democrats need to change their rhetoric about President Bush, or more preferably, President Bush should try to live up to it.

Go ahead, Mr. President, be "extreme."

[xultar]

1. Need a link and can't post more than 4 paragraphs n/t

[BayCityProgressive]

2. People on the Left did this with Clinton as well

Clinton had to sign things like NAFTA and Welfare Reform or he would have lost re-election. Bush had to sign some of these laws. You can't be a far Right or Left winger and be re-elected.

[PATRICK]

3. said this long ago

The lower down on the food chain, the more you are being used. That especially needs to be said to the Libertarians who need to be reminded of the fate of the Bolsheviks and Trotskyites and the Nazi purges when Hitler took power.

It was never about them. Bush powered his way to be their "choice". They never had any. They are footstools. If that leaves them without a real party of choice too bad. The nature of their movements produces more Bushes inevitably- and worse. Nothing good comes from the right except a gilded legend. Eat that if you can.

[w4rma]

4. Read the fine print on all those bills. (n/t)

[Bandit]

5. "or more preferably, President Bush should try to live up to it."

My question to you is do you believe this tripe? "Human Events" gag me with a spoon. :puke:

[picus9]

6. It is an interesting perspective.

And the author is telling the truth (mixed with opinion and sarcasm, albeit). Many hardcore cons aren't a fan of the Dubya.

[Bandit]

7. Human Events telling the truth!

You have to be kidding. Just like Rush tells the truth. And you didn't answer my question. Do you believe this tripe?

[mojowork_n]

8. THESE conservatives really are pissed off...

For starters, how about Paul O'Neill?

If Bush is guilty of being 'extremely' anything, it's extremely stupid. There are limits to how much of that we should all be expected to endure.

"Blind man in a room full of deaf people," really sounds like a very accurate description of the nitwit Commander-In-Thief. He's obviously lacking the intelligence, focus and capacity to direct others. Bush has single-handedly transformed the Bully Pulpit into some sort of children's theater, becoming a sock-puppet tool of the corporate special interests who fund him, and the neo-imperialist war bureaucracy that keeps him center stage, to front for them. It's a one-two punch, state-sponsored corporate cronyism, and the threads are beginning to unravel on "that man behind the curtain", asking you to pay no attention to all the lever-pulling.

Consider this conservative soldier's experiences in the Pentagon:

http://www.amconmag.com/1_19_04/article1.html

And this from an old Goldwater-Republican right wing radio talk show host, from the same conservative source:

http://www.amconmag.com/1_19_04/article3.html

...You're not seriously trying to defend Bush, are you? This is the wrong forum for that, with something as lame as a blurb from "Human Events". Sheesh.

[Moderator]

9. Locking.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.

4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

---

Please also be aware that DU rules prohibit posting more than four paragraphs of a copyrighted article. Here is a link to the original article:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2777