PDA

View Full Version : Republicans attack Bush



dirt mcgirt
01-24-2007, 09:03 AM
State of Disunion: Republicans Beat Up on Bush After Speech
Prominent Republican Congressmen Take Shots At the President on Iraq, Energy, Health Care

State of Disunion: Republicans Beat Up on Bush After Speech

By MARCUS BARAM

Jan. 24, 2007 — Dozens of Republican leaders joined Democrats in taking aim at President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday night.

Facing a split within his own party and sagging approval ratings over Iraq, the president faced a major challenge: to win over the American public and to win back the support of prominent Republicans, who oppose his strategy for Iraq.

In Bush's 50-minute speech, he implored Congress to back his plan to send more troops: "Give it a chance to work."

But over the next two hours, a bipartisan group assailed his policies. Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter both attacked the president's plan for a troop buildup.

"To put more American personnel in harm's way without a realistic chance for success is something I'm not in favor of," said Specter. And Snowe, who has signed on with Sens.Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in a resolution opposing the surge, said, "I continue to believe that adding additional troops does not address the root causes of violence in Iraq."

The speech didn't sway Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who said that he remains opposed to the troop increase. "It hasn't changed by mind," Brownback said. "I think we have to have a bipartisan buy-in on the war in Iraq."

And Virginia Republican John Warner, a powerful member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who opposes the surge but is against Hagel's nonbinding resolution, was more complimentary of Democratic Sen. Jim Webb's response than he was of Bush's speech.

After praising Bush for his "gracious" introduction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Warned added that Webb's "heartfelt" message "earned the respect of military families across America.

In his speech, Bush made an impassioned effort to revive his presidency by offering proposals to extend health insurance coverage and to cut gasoline consumption.

And he pushed his immigration program, which failed in the face of Republican opposition last year.

But even those proposals were criticized by numerous Republicans.

On health care, Larry Craig (R-Idaho) said Bush's plan "moves us in the right direction." But he worries about how the plan would treat employers' contributions toward health insurance as taxable income.

"Unfortunately, the accompanying tax increase will be impossible to swallow," he said.

As for energy, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called it a "a good start" but said "much more can be done," adding that he wants Bush to tap Utah's geothermal energy sources.

And New Mexico Republican Sen. Pete Domenici was disappointed in the president's plan, saying, "I have been troubled by the administration's tepid commitment to loan guarantee programs that will provide the support needed to deploy biomass, solar, clean coal and nuclear energy."

And regarding the troop surge in Iraq, some of the president's supporters —
such as Republican Sen. Pat Roberts — were concerned that these domestic proposals would not survive the bipartisan skepticism of Bush's policies.

"What remains to be seen is whether any of the president's domestic agenda, no matter how worthy, can get off the ground without greater public and congressional support," said Roberts.

Among the president's supporters were Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has become one of Bush's biggest cheerleaders since their vicious battled during the 2000 presidential primary.

In language that almost mirrored Bush's speech, McCain told ABC News' Charles Gibson that the president's strategy "ought to be given a chance." Another ally was independent Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who challenged Congress to respond to Bush's domestic ideas. "Whether the issue is energy independence, immigration, health care, education, global warming or the war in Iraq, I would hope that this Congress would put progress before partisanship," he said.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2818145&page=2

avatar4321
01-24-2007, 09:21 AM
Are Republicans saying its a good start but not enough really attacking the President?

dirt mcgirt
01-24-2007, 09:33 AM
Are Republicans saying its a good start but not enough really attacking the President?
No. Orrin Hatch said that Bush's energy proposal in the SOTU was:

"a good start" but said "much more can be done," adding that he wants Bush to tap Utah's geothermal energy sources.

avatar4321
01-24-2007, 12:39 PM
No. Orrin Hatch said that Bush's energy proposal in the SOTU was:

"a good start" but said "much more can be done," adding that he wants Bush to tap Utah's geothermal energy sources.

I know what he said. I can read. But I hardly see that as an attack.

Bubbalicious
01-24-2007, 02:42 PM
Orrin Hatch wasn't the only one criticising him. And Republicans in Congress almost never criticised him before - at least not without being accused of treason

avatar4321
01-24-2007, 02:43 PM
Orrin Hatch wasn't the only one criticising him. And Republicans in Congress almost never criticised him before - at least not without being accused of treason

Since when exactly? Republicans have always criticized the President when they disagree.

Bubbalicious
01-24-2007, 02:50 PM
Since when exactly? Republicans have always criticized the President when they disagree.

Name one time until now a Republican's disagreed with the President and hasn't gotten shot down in flames by the party at large and every conservative pundit in the media for it.

Abbey Marie
01-24-2020, 11:49 AM
Isn't this interesting, in light of what is going on these days with President Trump?

I had to necromance it...

:coffee:

Kathianne
01-24-2020, 12:07 PM
Isn't this interesting, in light of what is going on these days with President Trump?

I had to necromance it...

:coffee:

Criticizing the president of 'your party' now is just wrong for both major parties. No differences. As for opposing members of both parties, no holds barred.

FakeNewsSux
01-24-2020, 12:50 PM
Criticizing the president of 'your party' now is just wrong for both major parties. No differences. As for opposing members of both parties, no holds barred.

I'm not sure Sens. Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Sasse, Portman, Alexander, Gardner and McSally would necessarily agree with your assessment of the Republican Party.

Kathianne
01-24-2020, 12:57 PM
I'm not sure Sens. Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Sasse, Portman, Alexander, Gardner and McSally would necessarily agree with your assessment of the Republican Party.
and their standing in the party? No differences anymore. Those that disagree with their party tend to go to the other side, as neither party will tolerate dissension.

FakeNewsSux
01-24-2020, 01:13 PM
and their standing in the party? No differences anymore. Those that disagree with their party tend to go to the other side, as neither party will tolerate dissension.
I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Could you please elaborate?

Kathianne
01-24-2020, 01:18 PM
I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Could you please elaborate?
The Democrat who disagreed found himself better off moving to R party, though he'll still likely lose and will not be wholly accepted by Rs if he is reelected. Same has happened several times, from each party since Obama's election. The start of true loss of any middle ground.

FakeNewsSux
01-24-2020, 01:27 PM
The Democrat who disagreed found himself better off moving to R party, though he'll still likely lose and will not be wholly accepted by Rs if he is reelected. Same has happened several times, from each party since Obama's election. The start of true loss of any middle ground.
But the Senators that I mentioned have not received the same type of sanction the Democrats have suffered. One was the Presidential candidate of the Party and most of the others have been happily voting against their Party's interests for a few terms now, quite often receiving concessions in exchange for their votes.

Kathianne
01-24-2020, 01:28 PM
But the Senators that I mentioned have not received the same type of sanction the Democrats have suffered. One was the Presidential candidate of the Party and most of the others have been happily voting against their Party's interests for a few terms now, quite often receiving concessions in exchange for their votes.
Yeah, before Obama was elected.

FakeNewsSux
01-24-2020, 01:59 PM
Yeah, before Obama was elected.
Again, I'm not quite sure I get your point. A bit slow on the uptake today, sorry.

Kathianne
01-24-2020, 02:08 PM
Again, I'm not quite sure I get your point. A bit slow on the uptake today, sorry.
What you were implying about Romney and others and criticism is pre-Obama double terms. Current president has not improved self-reflection of members. Collins, Murkowski are mostly about their districts and needing help for coming tough elections. Romney is about revenge is my guess and even he is being kept in check by McConnell and others.

FakeNewsSux
01-24-2020, 02:24 PM
What you were implying about Romney and others and criticism is pre-Obama double terms. Current president has not improved self-reflection of members. Collins, Murkowski are mostly about their districts and needing help for coming tough elections. Romney is about revenge is my guess and even he is being kept in check by McConnell and others.
I'll grant you Collins but all the others are from strong red states that Trump took in 2016. As for the others, they have been voting against Republican interest for as long as they have been in office, even during the Obama years. One Senator not mentioned, since decreased, was the deciding vote to save Obamacare! And he was given a State funeral as punishment for his vote by the "Dictator In Chief".

STTAB
01-24-2020, 02:26 PM
If my Kath decoder ring is working right, I see

"Obama was fuck up of epic proportions who turned Washington DC into even more of a partisan shit hole than it was before and Trump certainly hasn't done anything to reverse that trend"

Kathianne
01-24-2020, 04:35 PM
If my Kath decoder ring is working right, I see

"Obama was fuck up of epic proportions who turned Washington DC into even more of a partisan shit hole than it was before and Trump certainly hasn't done anything to reverse that trend"

Yep, and the person that was arguing with me, I'm pretty sure, would likely be on any train that could railroad any 'traitors' to those who disagree with his party.

NightTrain
01-24-2020, 04:52 PM
Collins, Murkowski are mostly about their districts and needing help for coming tough elections. Romney is about revenge is my guess and even he is being kept in check by McConnell and others.

Agree about the others, but that's not Murkowski's position.

We're heavily red, and yet she pulls this crap after being bullied by Feinstein & Crew and votes directly against the only base that's going to get you elected in AK. It's very weird, all I can say is she actually is willing to toss her job away for voting for what she thinks is right - as infuriating as that is when it's directly against our wishes. She's screwed us a few times, not just with the Kavanaugh thing.

There's a tremendous amount of pressure statewide right now to make sure she knows we're all watching her closely.

She's gone in '22, because we just can't trust her and she caves too easily to liberals. But she's still deluded enough in her electoral chances to still pay attention to what Alaskans want.... it's going to suck when she figures out that she's a Lame Duck.