Why Conservatives Don't Trust Bush

[CARLHAYDEN]

Bush has been trying to persuade conservatives to support the nomination of his crony to the Supreme Court on the basis of, 'trust me.'

Well, conservatives by and large aren't buying it, in large part because Bush has failed to provide sound leadership this year on the two key issues of (a) illegal immigration, and (b) energy production.

Since his inauguration, Bush has been King Log.

When the hard work on these matters should have been done, Bush was AWOL.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Bush has been trying to persuade conservatives to support the nomination of his crony to the Supreme Court on the basis of, 'trust me.'

Well, conservatives by and large aren't buying it, in large part because Bush has failed to provide sound leadership this year on the two key issues of (a) illegal immigration, and (b) energy production.

What?  That's is NOT the reason why conservatives aren't buying the "Trust me" line!

The reason why they're not buying is because "Trust" should never have become an issue, all he had to do was nominate someone with a PROVEN conservative record.

We "trusted" Bush to pick proven entities, we didn't trust Bush to pick a 60 year old sheet of paper written in invisible ink and then STILL have to trust  how the invisible ink would develop.

For all we know, Miers could be a liberal mole within the Bush administration.

Trust was something we did when we elected Bush - the trust phase was suppose to end when he selected a KNOWN, as opposed to an UNknown, entity.

This was suppose to be our SuperBowl, now we're leaderless and back to the rebuilding stage.

[Democratic Hawk]

When the hard work on these matters should have been done, Bush was AWOL.

AWOL. That's the hallmark of his presidency, isn't it?

Dave

[The Vorlon]

$180 Billion Farm Bill = Huge bloated pork filled cluster f^&k of a bill
$400 Billion (++++) Seniors drug bill = Bloated give away to drug companies.
$250 Billion highway bill = ...where do you begin?  <aaaagh>>>
McCain/Feingold
No bureacrat/teacher child left behind....
Illegal immigration = MIA/AWOL
Iraq = badly run war, poorly thought out.

I hate to say it, but I miss Bill Clinton.

[angus]

Whoa.  Republicans are acting conservative now?!  Imagine that. 

"The RSC launched a public crusade for spending cuts last month, with its leaders using news conferences, television appearances and media interviews to all but accuse the GOP leadership of profligacy. House leaders at first tried to crush the RSC, or at least push its efforts back behind closed doors.  But a Texas grand jury's Sept. 28 indictment of DeLay changed the balance of power, forcing the leadership to shore up its conservative base and raising the prospect of a new leadership election that would further undermine GOP unity entering an uncertain election season."

Read all about it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101601055.html

[MODU]

Yet some of those things listed are the fault of Congress, not Bush, Vorlon.  Things would be a lot better with limited line-item veto powers to ensure Congressional pork doesn't get wedged into the large spending bills. 

[dazzleman]

Yet some of those things listed are the fault of Congress, not Bush, Vorlon.  Things would be a lot better with limited line-item veto powers to ensure Congressional pork doesn't get wedged into the large spending bills. 

I think the Republican leadership in congress is a disaster when it comes to spending.  But Bush has to accept some responsibility for not imposing any discipline through use of the veto.

A Republican can never win by trying to outspend Democrats.  Bush has doubled federal education spending, and Democrats still condemn him for not "fully funding" (whatever that means) education.

No matter how much a Republican proposes spending on something, the Democrats will say it isn't enough.  Bush might as well have proposed major cuts the way Reagan did; the Democrats couldn't possibly condemn him more.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yet some of those things listed are the fault of Congress, not Bush, Vorlon.  Things would be a lot better with limited line-item veto powers to ensure Congressional pork doesn't get wedged into the large spending bills. 

I think the Republican leadership in congress is a disaster when it comes to spending.  But Bush has to accept some responsibility for not imposing any discipline through use of the veto.

How about a Democrat controlled House with a large and powerful Blue Dog contingent? A bit of fiscal responsibility would not go a miss

Dave

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Yet some of those things listed are the fault of Congress, not Bush, Vorlon.  Things would be a lot better with limited line-item veto powers to ensure Congressional pork doesn't get wedged into the large spending bills. 

I think the Republican leadership in congress is a disaster when it comes to spending.  But Bush has to accept some responsibility for not imposing any discipline through use of the veto.

A Republican can never win by trying to outspend Democrats.  Bush has doubled federal education spending, and Democrats still condemn him for not "fully funding" (whatever that means) education.

No matter how much a Republican proposes spending on something, the Democrats will say it isn't enough.  Bush might as well have proposed major cuts the way Reagan did; the Democrats couldn't possibly condemn him more.

I hate to say it, but we kinda did the same to Bill Clinton.

[Bono]

Yet some of those things listed are the fault of Congress, not Bush, Vorlon.  Things would be a lot better with limited line-item veto powers to ensure Congressional pork doesn't get wedged into the large spending bills. 

Bush didn't veto anything.
What makes you think line item veto would change that?

[MODU]

Yet some of those things listed are the fault of Congress, not Bush, Vorlon.  Things would be a lot better with limited line-item veto powers to ensure Congressional pork doesn't get wedged into the large spending bills. 

I think the Republican leadership in congress is a disaster when it comes to spending.  But Bush has to accept some responsibility for not imposing any discipline through use of the veto.

How about a Democrat controlled House with a large and powerful Blue Dog contingent? A bit of fiscal responsibility would not go a miss

Dave

This is why I go back to what I said over a year ago about having one party dominate the two branches of government (doesn't matter which party it is).  It's hard to tell your own folks no (top down), and it's hard to practice restraint (bottom up).