1
   

Is "compassionate conservatism" a slogan and nothing more?

 
 
PDiddie
 
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 06:22 pm
(This is an excerpt from Joe Conason's Journal, which can be found in its entirety here:)

http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/conason.asp

"...despite personal and professional disappointments, (Mr. John) DiIulio has never doubted the President's "character and heart," describing him as "a highly admirable person of enormous personal decency … a godly man and a moral leader …. In many ways, he is all heart."

Mr. Bush must be heartsick, then, to realize how little progress he has made toward transforming either his party or his country. Current evidence suggests that whatever his fine intentions, his policies are moving America's poor and working families backward. The benefits of his administration's policies have flowed almost exclusively to the wealthiest citizens, as if he were the heartless plutocrat of Democratic caricature. The same week he and his wife visited that food bank, he neglected again to take an aggressive position on extending unemployment benefits to nearly a million families victimized by the stubbornness of the Republican Congressional leadership. The result will be more Americans who must seek charitable assistance to feed themselves and their children.

He must also be heartsick when he realizes that his party and his own administration are also moving backward. Having extended so much budgetary largesse to the richest taxpayers that the nation can only anticipate enormous deficits, his supporters and advisers are now suggesting that taxes on poor and middle-class families should be raised.

Both the Treasury Department and the Council of Economic Advisers are drafting papers that "are expected to highlight what administration officials see as a rising tax burden on the rich and a declining burden on the poor," as The Washington Post reported on Dec. 16. The next step, as The Wall Street Journal's editorial page indicated not long ago, will be to raise taxes on those "lucky duckies" at the lower end of the economic ladder."

==============================================

What evidence exists that George Bush is truly compassionate to those less fortunate? That he has 'changed the tone in Washington'? That he is a 'uniter, not a divider'?

Please show me what I seem to be missing....
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 13,211 • Replies: 207
No top replies

 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 06:27 pm
PDiddie- Honestly, I can't tell you. I am so ambivalent about this man that I don't even think that I could have an intelligent discussion about him, without feeling utterly confused.

I still haven't figured out what his "game" is, because I perceive so many contradictions.So I think that I will sit this one out, and just listen, until I hear something which makes sense to me!
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 06:30 pm
. Current evidence suggests that whatever his fine intentions, his policies are moving America's poor and working families backward. The benefits of his administration's policies have flowed almost exclusively to the wealthiest citizens, as if he were the heartless plutocrat of Democratic caricature.

Perhaps we can have an acceptable debate. Beg pardon, PDiddie, would you mind citing links to support your "current evidence", asserted above.

Many kind thanks.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 06:37 pm
It's Joe Conason's evidence, Lash, and there appears to me to be a good bit of it cited in both the excerpt and the link to Joe's column, but since you need more, let me go look for some.

Address my request for some verification on compassionate conservatism while I do so, if you please.
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 06:42 pm
As I await links about how Bush's policies have sent poor Americans backward, I think I can address why the term "Compassionate Conservative" is being bandied about.

mamajuana would get this, as we had a previous discussion about 'perception' leading to spin.

Both major political parties have 'perception' issues. Since you are talking about the GOP, I'll stay with that one. You well know the stereotype. They are for the rich. After so much of this, the stereotype is gospel to some people.

The term CC is meant to publicly refute the stereotype. We have alot of new people, due to coming of age and 911, who are looking at our party to see if it better reflects their political positions. It is a good time to enunciate our platform and discredit old stereotypes.

At least, this is my opinion.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 06:47 pm
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Boston Globe:

"White House hushed up asbestos peril affecting millions":

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/363/nation/White_House_hushed_up_asbestos_peril_affecting_millions+.shtml
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 06:55 pm
Bush administration wants appointees who believe that current childhood lead poisoning standards are too strict:


http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021223&s=cohn122302
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 06:57 pm
"...The Youngs are among the 41.2 million people in America who have no health insurance. New figures from the Census Bureau show that the numbers, up by 1.4 million between 2000 and 2001, are rising again after a brief dip at the end of the economically fat and sassy 1990s. And while the bulk of those without insurance are the working poor, more than 13 million uninsured people live in a household with income of at least $50,000 a year."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/021014/health/14uninsured.htm
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 07:04 pm
PDiddie wrote:
It's Joe Conason's evidence, Lash, and there appears to me to be a good bit of it cited in both the excerpt and the link to Joe's column, but since you need more, let me go look for some.

PDiddie-- I read the article. The guy doesn't cite any evidence, whatsoever. Just his opinion. To be perfectly honest, I only asked for cited evidence, because I'm concerned of running afoul (or considered to be running afoul) of acceptable debate. I thought if we discussed verifiable data, we couldn't go wrong.

I feel like I am walking on eggshells.
In private messages, I have been told so many things are suspect, I honestly don't know how to proceed.
If you feel comfortable discussing our opinions, not verified by links, I'd prefer that as well, because it is easier.

Tell me how you want to proceed.

Address my request for some verification on compassionate conservatism while I do so, if you please.

Off the top of my head, Lott's departure without a prop up by Bush is a move in the right direction.


And, PDiddie--I have a thick skin. You have to when you wade into Politics pages. I bear no ill will toward you, nor any other poster of different beliefs. I DO LOVE debating. My onus is saved for my debating boards where it is acceptable. I'll be glad to follow rules, as long as I know what they are.

*I refreshed after this writing and see you have gotten some links. I will address them, but I wanted you to see this post as well.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 07:06 pm
"For the first time in eight years, the number of Americans living below the poverty line rose last year. According to 2001 Census Bureau data, poverty rates are higher than they were in the 1970s."

http://www.reporter-news.com/1998/
2002/texas/texas_State_edi1022.html

(link above has expired; you must locate article in ARN archives)
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 07:10 pm
You have to admire the nerve of G.W. Bush. It takes a kind of goofy audacity to claim that Jesus' teachings and the CIA-derived ideas of the right-wing Manhattan Institute are your twin sources of inspiration. Bush publicly credits the Manhattan Institute with inventing his entire "compassionate conservative" platform and persona.

NY Times June 12, 2000
Bush Culls Campaign Theme
From Conservative Thinkers
"Gov. George W. Bush has said his political views have been shaped by the work of Myron Magnet of the Manhattan Institute."

The Dallas Morning Star 4/16/2000
The Godfathers of 'Compassionate Conservatism
"In Austin that day in 1997, Mr. Bush told Mr. Magnet that his 1993 book The Dream and The Nightmare, had changed his life..."
While Jesus' teachings are well-known even to most non-Christians the ideas of the MI are much less familiar to the public. MI was started in 1978 by Ronald Reagan's CIA director, William Casey, and has become the nation's most influential, though not best known-as befits a CIA operation-right wing think tank. While I personally have great respect for the traditions of the world's religions, including Christianity, the CIA promoting religion may not exactly be what Jesus had in mind.
While the public expression of the ideas of the MI are couched in politically-correct terminology, the ideas themselves are closer to those of late 19th and early 20th century Eugenics than any other source. Eugenics is the application of science to the task of improving the human race by selective breeding (positive Eugenics) and sterilization or elimination of undesirable members of society (negative Eugenics).

Village Voice 2/29/2000

NY Times Monday May 12, 1997
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 07:10 pm
States' budget woes fuel Medicaid cuts; poor lose coverage and services

"Such cost-cutting would have been unthinkable a few years ago, but now it is part of a contraction of the nation's largest public health insurance program. All but nine states have taken -- or are planning -- steps to rein in Medicaid expenditures this year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&
node=&contentId=A9653-2002Oct10&notFound=true

(this link is also expired; find it in WP archives for 10/11/2002)
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 07:18 pm
Well, I read your links, and not one of them addressed any evidence that Bush's economic policies have hurt anyone.

Two were about environmentalist issues, and the other a working couple with no insurance.

And the environmentalist issues were dubious.

Still looking for the harm Bush has done to the poor.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 07:23 pm
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 07:24 pm
"There are none so blind as those that will not see."

And not a peep from you yet on the topic, Lash.

Just a request for proof, which I provided, which you disputed.

Again, please:

Is there any verification that "compassionate conservatism" is anything other than another of Bush's empty promises?

It's your turn to link.
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 07:36 pm
CBO found that without assuming any new spending, such as homeland security and prescription drug coverage for Medicare, the Social Security Trust Fund
would be
raided every year through FY 2009. After including Bush's spending proposals, CBO
predicted
a trust fund raid every year through

PDiddie--This proves nothing. It is more opinion and from Democrats. org
of all places.
This is akin to me citing Rush Limbaugh as a news source.And I would NEVER do that!

The most telling part of your 'evidence' is where they say 'Trust Fund would be raided" and CBO predicted a trust fund raid...

This is propaganda. They are trying to say 'hey, where's Bush getting all this money to fight terrorism and develop Homeland Security?" It is not coming from Social Security. Social Security IS a disaster, and something will have to change in the coming years. You may hear Bush bring back up privatization, amid catcalls from all sides, but it will not be raided. Trust me, Bush would commit HariKari on himself before he would make a mistake similar to Bush 1's No New Taxes.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 07:44 pm
Denigrating the source, now. *sigh*

Bush DIDN'T say that? Those AREN'T the numbers? I suppose if Limbaugh.com specifically refuted either of those items then I would either have to accept it or denigrate your source, now wouldn't I?

Last request, Lash, or be gone from my thread:

Where's the proof Bush is a compassionate conservative, PLEASE?
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 07:45 pm
Off in search of links.

And, PDiddie--
I took the time to read and research before responding. I don't think we're on a clock.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 07:46 pm
From The Nation - the rich get happier and poor get sadder:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030106&c=1&s=dreier
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2003 07:48 pm
No timeclock but you're WAAAAAAAY behind on the scoreboard. Cool
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is "compassionate conservatism" a slogan and nothing more?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/10/2024 at 06:11:59