New York Times breaks the News!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Bush is a lier! He lied in his campaign promises!

Single-Page View

March 26, 2001

IN AMERICA

The Mask Comes Off

By BOB HERBERT

Related Articles

Op-Ed Columns Archive
Readers' Opinions

Join a Discussion on Bob Herbert

Is this what the electorate wanted?

Did Americans really want a president who would smile in the faces of poor children even as he was scheming to cut their benefits? Did they want a man who would fight like crazy for enormous tax cuts for the wealthy while cutting funds for programs to help abused and neglected kids?

Is that who George W. Bush turned out to be?

An article by The Times's Robert Pear disclosed last week that President Bush will propose cuts in the already modest funding for child- care assistance for low-income families. And he will propose cuts in funding for programs designed to investigate and combat child abuse. And he wants cuts in an important new program to train pediatricians and other doctors at children's hospitals across the U.S.

The cuts are indefensible, unconscionable. If implemented, they will hurt many children.

The president also plans to cut off all of the money provided by Congress for an "early learning" trust fund, which is an effort to improve the quality of child care and education for children under 5.

What's going on?

That snickering you hear is the sound of Mr. Bush recalling the great fun he had playing his little joke on the public during the presidential campaign. He presented himself as a different kind of Republican, a friend to the downtrodden, especially children. He hijacked the copyrighted slogan of the liberal Children's Defense Fund, and then repeated the slogan like a mantra, telling anyone who would listen that his administration would "leave no child behind."

Mr. Bush has only been president two months and already he's leaving the children behind.

There are many important reasons to try to expand the accessibility of child care. One is that stable child care for low-income families has become a cornerstone of successful efforts to move people from welfare to work.

Members of Congress had that in mind when they allocated $2 billion last year for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. That was an increase of $817 million, enabling states to provide day care to 241,000 additional children.

Now comes Mr. Bush with a proposal to cut the program by $200 million.

Is that his idea of compassion?

The simple truth is that the oversized tax cuts and Mr. Bush's devotion to the ideologues and the well- heeled special interests that backed his campaign are playing havoc with the real-world interests not just of children, but of most ordinary Americans.

Mr. Bush is presiding over a right- wing juggernaut that has already reneged on his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions (an important step in the fight against global warming); that has repealed a set of workplace safety rules that were designed to protect tens of millions of Americans but were opposed as too onerous by business groups; that has withdrawn new regulations requiring a substantial reduction in the permissible levels of arsenic, a known carcinogen, in drinking water; and that has (to the loud cheers of the most conservative elements in the G.O.P.) ended the American Bar Association's half- century-old advisory role in the selection of federal judges, thus making it easier to appoint judges with extreme right-wing sensibilities.

The administration of George W. Bush, in the words of the delighted Edwin J. Feulner, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, is "more Reaganite than the Reagan administration."

Grover Norquist, a leading conservative strategist, said quite frankly, "There isn't an us and them with this administration. They is us. We is them."

Mr. Bush misled the public during his campaign. He eagerly donned the costume of the compassionate conservative and deliberately gave the impression that if elected he would lead a moderate administration that would govern, as much as possible, in a bipartisan manner.

Last October, in the second presidential debate, Mr. Bush declared, "I'm really strongly committed to clean water and clean air and cleaning up the new kinds of challenges, like global warming."

And he said, as usual, "No child should be left behind in America."

He said all the right things. He just didn't mean them.



-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), March 26, 2001

Answers

Yes, but at least he's not getting a blowjob in the White House. Thank God for that!!!

-- (AtLeast@Theres.That), March 26, 2001.

I'm not sure we can go that far. But... until such time as I see good, solid evidence to the contrary I will firmly believe that every time George Bush gets a blow job in the White House he gets it decently and properly - from his wife.

I do hear that lobbyists for the pharmeceutical, petrochemical and mining industires say George W. Bush gives "goooood access" in the White House, right in the Oval Office, too!

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), March 26, 2001.


Since when does "breaking news" come out of the editiorial pages! Good one Cherri. I guess it is a crisis when libs don't get the 24x7 daycare, so the poor can continue popping babies like rabbits without actually having to care for them without taxpayer funding.

And federally-funded doctor education, gee that sounds like another nice giveaway.

-- breaking news (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), March 26, 2001.


a crisis when libs don't get the 24x7 daycare, so the poor can continue popping babies like rabbits without actually having to care for them without taxpayer funding.

Gee where have you been? Liberals popping out babies? Prove it. 24/7 day care? Why do you find the need to exagerate? Is reality not "bad/liberal enough for you? Corperate welfare involving billions of dollars is ok but giving a teenager who has a baby daycare sho she can work and stay off of day welfare is criminal right? Add up the cost. Is your golden boy making it difficult to defend his actions? How about his LIES? Lying about a blow job that effects no one is enough to kick a man out of office, but lieing to the American people, purposly lying to get into office is ok huh? Face reality.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), March 26, 2001.


Cherri,

Preganancy should come when you are old enough, mature enough, and secure enough to take care of the child without subsidies to send the kid off to day care. I don't care a whit about Bush, but it bugs the crap out of me when some dreg believes that I should pay to have their kid raised by some government-funded kiddie mill. Maybe these babies having babies should have had a talk with Planned Parenthood. That's reality. Having someone else take care of their kids is society's nightmare since it means these people never have to take on that responsibility. If you truly believe these teenagers are going to take that time away from their kids to slave away at some job, you are delusional. As for corporate welfare, whack that too - I consider the 'doctor training' to be just that - welfare for the AMA.

-- the face of reality (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), March 26, 2001.



Man oh man I would just love it if someone could keep me from believing that ALL repuglicans are not cold hearted, unfeeling bastards! Leave it to thse unfeeling fucks to dictate their pious brand of morality on everyone else. God, what a bunch of thankless losers!

-- Mikel (mej023@earthlink.net), March 26, 2001.



-- (the devil is @t. hand), March 26, 2001.

so the poor can continue popping babies like rabbits without actually having to care for them without taxpayer funding.

Where've you been? The Dems put Welfare Reform in place so there was no incentive for the poor to "continue popping babies". You're beating a dead horse. Next.....

Preganancy should come when you are old enough, mature enough, and secure enough to take care of the child without subsidies to send the kid off to day care.

So the world isn't a perfect place. The kids shouldn't have to pay the price. Early supervision and education makes a big difference in the adults these children will become. We *better* intervene now or we may end up with a future generation of dysunctional adults. (Or should I say WORSE dysfunctional adults than we seem to have now.

But what about the woman who IS old enough mature enough and in a financially secure marriage only to have Real Life happen when the father walks out? Now she's the sole support of the family making less wages than a man in a comparable position. She needs and deserves whatever assistance she can get. When you level the salary playing field and women can make the same as men, then perhaps subsidized child care won't be such an issue. But with Dumbya in the pockets of Big Business don't expect him to put any energy into this concept of equality.

Maybe these babies having babies should have had a talk with Planned Parenthood.

Are you referring to the same Planned Parenthood that just got their funding cut by the illustrious Faker In Chief? The same guy who'd like nothing better than to repeal the existing abortion laws so even *more* babies would have to have babies if they got pregnant?

-- 1 (2@3.net), March 26, 2001.


Doesn't suprise me in the least, though I thought his Poppy might have showed him how to do a better job of concealing his trickery.

I've noticed that all the greedy gun-toting ignorant repugs have become very silent over the last few weeks. Guess it's beginning to sink in that all that crap about dignity was a motherfucking lie, and since most of them are not among the wealthiest 3% of the population, Dumbya will hardly be doing them any favors.

We heard for 8 years the endless ramblings about Clinton lying about something which was none of their fricking business in the first place, but when Dumbya lies about his "compassionate conservative" campaign promises, they fall strangely silent. Dumbya the filthy rotten scoundrel has betrayed the overwhelming majority of the public on matters which are most important to them, and this makes him the worst kind of liar.

-- (Dumbya @ the. Nazi Antichrist), March 26, 2001.


Bob Herbert is an ultra liberal African American that has been on GWB’s case from the get go. Like all of us, his right to express his opinion should be respected, laughable as it may be.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 26, 2001.


I suppose the fact that he is an African American has a lot to do with it, right So@crappies?

-- (So@crappy@.fuckin.racist), March 26, 2001.

??????

-- So (cr@t.es), March 26, 2001.

Oh, now you act like you don't even know what you wrote. Talk about laughable, you are so pathetic it's laughable.

-- (socrappy@bigot.repug), March 26, 2001.

I know exactly what I wrote. Do you have a problem with Bob being an African American or an ultra liberal? Are you offended by the terminology? If so, why?

-- So (cr@t.es), March 26, 2001.

Race does not have anything to do with the subject of this article dumbass. Since you are the one who brought it up, you are obviously the one who has a problem. As with most racists, you are not even aware of your own prejudice.

-- (So crappy @ is. a loser), March 26, 2001.


>>>Members of Congress had that in mind when they allocated $2 billion last year for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. That was an increase of $817 million, enabling states to provide day care to 241,000 additional children.

Pardon me, where in the Constitution does it say it's the responsibility of the Federal government to babysit?

-- sunny (sun@maj.com), March 27, 2001.


Pardon me, where in the Constitution does it say it's the responsibility of the Federal government to babysit?

Where in the Constitution does is say that all money spent by Congress has to be for something defined in the Constitution?

-- (moony@moon.man), March 27, 2001.


>>>Pardon me, where in the Constitution does it say it's the responsibility of the Federal government to babysit?

>>Where in the Constitution does is say that all money spent by Congress has to be for something defined in the Constitution?

What the Constitution does spell out is the fed gov's obligations, commitments, and limitations. If there's nothing there about caring for someone else's kids, there's no obligation for the gov to provide it. THerefore, do not claim that the gov give you something as a right when in reality it's a favor. The more strident the demand for a non-obligation, the more frequently simple questions are answered, not with logic, but with questions, the less real basis there seems for a claim.

-- abe (abr@cosmographica.com), March 27, 2001.


My wife decided to give up her career to raise her kids. This was at no little sacrifice to our income, and our quality of life. We felt it was worth it.

Now I'm being asked to give my hard-earned bucks to raise someone else's kids, whose parents have different priorities? Sorry, I paid my dues once, and I'm not asking for anything from anyone. So don't ask me for anything.

Funny how the L people speak so glowingly of JFK, and completely turn upside down his most enduring saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." What I see hear is lots and lots of people holding their hand out to their country, and offering nothing in return.

-- cal (Cal19@aol.com), March 27, 2001.


cal, well why don't we just deport the stay at home mothers if that is how you really feel. Just kick them out of the country because they vote differently than you. Just because they are not a bunch of David Duke supporting wrestling fans, we will just strip them of their American citizenship and send them to the gulags in the Saudi Arabian desert.

-- Gybb Abrams (letting@off.steam), March 27, 2001.

“David Duke supporting wrestling fans”

As you can see by these colorful words from the good Mr. Abrams, prejudice comes in many flavors.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 27, 2001.


What the Constitution does spell out is the fed gov's obligations, commitments, and limitations.

Okay, clue me in...where does the Constitution mention "pork"?

-- 1 (2@3.com), March 27, 2001.


>>>cal, well why don't we just deport the stay at home mothers if that is how you really feel. Just kick them out of the country because they vote differently than you.

Say, what? What are you talking about?

-- cal (cmj19@aol.com), March 28, 2001.


>>Okay, clue me in...where does the Constitution mention "pork"?

I see you agree exactly. No pet project has ever come under the banner of 'hollow yet expensive gesture to make me look good and distribute taxpayer money to businesses'. Instead, it always comes under the heading of a 'save the children/whales/environment/jobs/economy/science/certain approved racial or sexual interests/etc' banner.

Tell me why Block Grants, of all the notoriously endless black hole and corruption-rife pork projects, are any different? Especially one like this one designed to aid businesses and make voters 'feel good' about the politician.

-- abe (ajc@cosmografica.com), March 28, 2001.


"Are you referring to the same Planned Parenthood that just got their funding cut by the illustrious Faker In Chief? The same guy who'd like nothing better than to repeal the existing abortion laws so even *more* babies would have to have babies if they got pregnant?"

To the misinformed who wrote the above, Planned Parenthood's 'funding' cut related to OVERSEAS family planning clinics, and PP's direct or indirect involvement in such. Please get your facts straight.

Funding anyone's day care should certainly NOT be a responsibility of the federal government, as it makes it EASIER for the fathers to walk away, for the mothers to become more likely to see fewer negatives to having babies they cannot financially care for, and for the government to get involved in an activity that needs less politicization, not more.

-- pawning a kid off is not compassion (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), March 28, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ