Is "compassionate conservatism" a slogan and nothing more?

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!

. 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.

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.

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.

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

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

"...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

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.

"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)

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

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)

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.

Bush's Broken Promises: Social Security

Bush repeatedly promised that Social Security payroll taxes would not be tapped for general government spending. During the campaign Bush promised, "In my economic plan, more than $2 trillion of the federal surplus is locked away for Social Security. For years, politicians in both parties have dipped into the Trust Fund to pay for more spending. And I will stop it." In March 2001 he said, "Another priority is retirement systems of Americans. And so the budget I set up says that payroll taxes are only going to be spent on one thing, and that's Social Security. But the Congress won't be using the payroll taxes for other programs. Lockbox, I think, is the terminology they like to use up here." [Bush Speech, Rancho Cucamongo Senior Center, "A Defining American Promise," 5/15/00; Bush Remarks at National Newspaper Association 40th Annual Government Affairs Conference, 3/22/01]

Whoops:

"Bush Budget Will Spend the Entire Social Security Trust Fund Over Next Two Years. The Wall Street Journal reported that Bush uses 'all the Social Security surpluses ... to fund the government for the next two years, and to spend well over $100 billion of Social Security funds in each of the following three years.'[Wall Street Journal, 2/5/02]"

A House Budget Committee analysis of the Bush budget proposal found that over the next ten years $1.6 trillion of the Social Security Trust Fund is spent on other government operations. 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 2012 and an on-budget deficit of $1.8 trillion. [House Budget Committee, Democratic Staff, "Return to Red Ink: Back to Budget Deficits," 2/8/02; CBO, Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2003-2012, 1/31/02, Summary Table 2; CBO, An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for 2003, Table 1, 3/6/02]

Contrary to Bush rhetoric that the terrorist attacks of September 11 forced the raid of the Social Security Trust Fund, CBO reported as early as August 2001 that Bush was due to tap the Trust Fund. CBO also said the Bush administration would raid the Trust Fund again in FY 2003 and 2004. USA Today reported, "The White House is backing away from its pledge to protect every cent of Social Security reserves in the face of a report today that the government is tapping Social Security taxes for other programs." [Associated Press, 4/7/02; CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, August 2001; USA Today, 8/28/01]



http://www.democrats.org/brokenpromises/social_security.html

"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.

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.

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?

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.

From The Nation - the rich get happier and poor get sadder:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030106&c=1&s=dreier

No timeclock but you're WAAAAAAAY behind on the scoreboard.