Democrats produce some effective rhetoric (for once)

[specious_reasons]

Found this from the PR Watch site:

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

It does a decent job of effective Bush criticism.

I'm not trying to argue the points it makes, I'm just pointing out that the Dems have been utterly incapable of effectively attacking Bush.

And it shouldn't be that hard. Looks like some House Democrats found their cojones.

[corplinx]

Go Bush! According to this document, he is cutting all sorts of federal programs by _huge_ amounts! I thought he was a spend-aholic after his state of the Union speech. What a great pro-Bush website you found. Oh..... wait..... I see..... this is actually an anti-Bush website. Hrm.....

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by corplinx
Go Bush! According to this document, he is cutting all sorts of federal programs by _huge_ amounts! I thought he was a spend-aholic after his state of the Union speech. What a great pro-Bush website you found. Oh..... wait..... I see..... this is actually an anti-Bush website. Hrm.....

I know some people enjoy the fact that Bush is cutting programs, the point of the site is: Which programs are he cutting back on, are they the right programs, and does it match with his stated philosophy?

Hence things like this:

Bush:
My job as the President is to submit a budget to the Congress and to set priorities, and one of the priorities that we've talked about is making sure the health care systems are funded.
Dems:

Bush’s first budget proposed cutting grants to children’s hospitals like the one he visited by 15% ($34 million). His 2004 budget additionally proposes to cut 30% ($86 million) out of grants to children’s hospitals.

Looks like pretty effective rhetoric to me. I'm just pointing out that other attempts at Democratic attcks on Bush have been highly ineffective.

All they need now is a coherent vision and competent leadership. Rod Blegojevich in 2008!

[corplinx]

I doubt these attacks will have much effect either. Most people understand we are running deficits. The democrats themselves are playing holier than thou and trying to compare Bush to Reagan deficit-wise. Mind you, they seem to be endorsing even more non-constitutional spending than Bush. Not only that, they don't make clear in their examples which of these are true cuts or reductions in growth.

Its the typical counter of rhetoric with rhetoric vs rhetoric with reality as they say.

It is hard for me to take them seriously while they continue to play both sides of the coin. Bashing Bush for decreasing spending while bashing him for higher deficits doesn't wash. This same thought is valid for Bush himself who while promoting less spending has proposed new programs.

I do think however that if Gore was in office right now, the deficits would be even larger. I don't think the "cuts" they show on that web site would be happening at all.


My biggest beef with congress has always been the budget. I wish Bush wouldn't even submit one. He should go on TV and explain that coming up with a budget is a waste of executive branch time and staff money. "If you want a better budget, elect a better congressman". Web sites like the one you showed continue to do the public a disservice by portraying the president as having more budget swing than just a veto vote. He is a president, not a king.

[specious_reasons]

You read the quote, right? Bush is being inconsistent between message and action. Why shouldn't they attack it?

[corplinx]

Because its the lamest sort of inconsistency? Almost as bad as some of the inconsitencies/lies the Clinton haters resorted to?