Issues 2000 dot org

[ninjalooter1701]

I have a few questions about:
http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm
...About this characterization of George W. Bush.

Examples:Favors topic 2:
Require companies to hire more women & minorities
(2 points on Economic scale)
This is the rationale that they use to say that George W. Bush is in favor of this:
Affirmative access: end soft bigotry of low expectations: Opposes topic 2
For affirmative action, but not quotas or preferences: Favors topic 2
Reach out to minorities, but without quotas: Favors topic 2
The term "Require" to me implies "mandatoriness," How are they saying that he is in FAVOR of this? This actually dovetails into the next issue:
No opinion on topic 17:
Seek UN approval for military action
NO opinion??????
America will never seek a permission slip for self-defense: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Africa: Rally world to help AIDS, but not with US funds: Opposes topic 17
Help poor countries around the world: Strongly Favors topic 17
Reform UN & IMF; strengthen NATO: Opposes topic 17
Russia funding: replace IMF loans with $ to people: Neutral on topic 17
Focus on Big Three: Russia, China, & India: Strongly Favors topic 17
How can Issues2000.org claim that GWB FAVORS minirity hiring yet has "NO OPINION" on "Seek UN approval for military action?"

Do you believe in the Constitution?
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Allow churches to provide welfare services
(0 points on Social scale)
Unleash the passion of religious charity: Strongly Favors topic 20
Calls for 4,000 hours of national service for every citizen: Favors topic 20
One of first acts was establishing faith-based initiatives: Strongly Favors topic 20
Establish federal & state "offices of faith-based action": Strongly Favors topic 20
Fund faith-based private programs that promote independence: Strongly Favors topic 20
Church-based solutions for drugs, daycare, & crime: Strongly Favors topic 20
"No-strings" vouchers for religious groups to do charity: Strongly Favors topic 20
Church-based charity assures nobody is left behind: Strongly Favors topic 20
George W. Bush seems to disagree with certain aspects of it.

what administration has more minorities in high level cabinet posts? I am curious how this Bush aministration stacks up.

[ninjalooter1701]

what administration has more minorities in high level cabinet posts? I am curious how this Bush aministration stacks up.
This is an off-topic comment. Please stick to the issue.

[thaanatos]

How can Issues2000.org claim that GWB FAVORS minirity hiring?

what administration has more minorities in high level cabinet posts? I am curious how this Bush aministration stacks up.

not sure how you could get more 'on topic' than that.....

[ninjalooter1701]

How can Issues2000.org claim that GWB FAVORS minirity hiring?

what administration has more minorities in high level cabinet posts? I am curious how this Bush aministration stacks up.

not sure how you could get more 'on topic' than that.....
One minority in a high place does not stack up to "Minority hiring."

One? seems like alot more then one to me.

[ninjalooter1701]

One? seems like alot more then one to me.
At least twice as many!

keep going ninja its more then two ...

Ok I will do the job for you.

Secretary of State - Colin L. Powell,
National Security - Adviser Condoleezza Rice
Education Secretary - Rod Paige
Department of HUD - Alphonso Jackson

Just curious if that is more then the "first black president" had in 8 years combined.

[Anonymous Idiot Savant]

Colin Powell is white.

[tolivr]

Colin Powell is white.

...as Dick Chaney is black? Are we working on analogies?

[jpn of Seattle]

what administration has more minorities in high level cabinet posts? I am curious how this Bush aministration stacks up.

President Clinton, hands down. 44% of of the administration appointees were women. Seven cabinet secretaries were black. The first openly gay appointees in any White House.

[jpn of Seattle]

By the way, the National Security Advisor is not a cabinet official.

You people are pathetic really you are.

Your hatred for bush will not allow you to even recognice the good he does.
:eyes

[Fredfredson]

Your hatred for bush will not allow you to even recognice the good he does.

I would be interested in seeing a list of the "good" that he has done.

I'm not suggesting there isn't any just that I can't remember any that come close to outweighing the "bad" or even the "neutral".

F
:pooter

1. Tax cuts for every person that pays taxes.

2. No child left behind.

3. Freedom for over 70 million from tyranical regimes.

Ok theres three go ahead and hack away.

As a matter fo fact I will throw in the usual liberal answers to these good things.

The tax cuts for only for the wealthy!

No child left beind is bad because it forces children to learn in school and holds the schools and teachers accountable.

There were no WMD, and saddam was not that bad.

[Fredfredson]

These seem to be the only ones anyone can come up with.

1. Tax cuts for every person that pays taxes.

2. No child left behind.

3. Freedom for over 70 million from tyranical regimes

The first two of these I consider "neutral" and the last I consider to be on the "Remains to be seen if Good or Bad" list.

Any others?

F
:pooter

[ThaBigCheese]

It doesn't appear that the NEA is totally satisfied with the "No Child Left Behind" Act....

http://www.nea.org/esea/chorus1.html

Hopefully, you can get to the article from the NEA....

Created New Health Savings Accounts. The President signed legislation that makes HSAs available to millions of Americans.


Created a Prescription Drug Benefit under Medicare. In December 2003, President Bush signed legislation that will make prescription drug coverage available to 40 million seniors and people with disabilities through Medicare.


Opened or Expanded Community Health Centers. Access to health care has been extended to 3 million additional Americans -- part of the President's five-year plan to fund 1,200 new or expanded sites to serve an additional 6.1 million people.


Strengthened Medicaid and SCHIP. HHS helped states develop new approaches to expanding coverage and avoiding reductions in their Medicaid and SCHIP programs.


Provided a Health Insurance Tax Credit. The trade bill provides a tax credit to help workers who lose their jobs due to international trade obtain health insurance coverage.


Medical Liability Reform. The President proposes to address the skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums through national adoption of proven minimum standards to make the medical liability system more fair, predictable, and timely

High Standards and Accountability - Since President Bush signed NCLB into law, all states have developed a plan to ensure that every student becomes proficient at reading and math and that achievement gaps are closed between students of different socio-economic backgrounds.


Historic Levels of Funding - President Bush's overall Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget represents a 49% increase for elementary and secondary education since FY 2001.


Reading First and Early Reading First - President Bush proposed and signed into law the Reading First and Early Reading First initiatives as part of his unequivocal commitment to ensuring that every child can read by the third grade.


Options Available for Parents - Using tutoring money provided under NCLB, low-income parents of children in schools that have been identified as needing improvement can select from the over 1,600 supplemental service providers approved by the states.


Providing Parents with School Choice - President Bush worked with Congress to include a school choice program in the FY 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill for approximately 1,700 low-income children in the District of Columbia to attend the school of their choice.

Improving Our Nation’s Air Quality - President Bush’s Clear Skies legislation would dramatically improve air quality by reducing power plants’ emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and mercury by approximately 70 percent over the next 15 years, more than any other clean air initiative.


Improving The Quality of Our Waters and Wetlands, and Resolving Water Crises - On Earth Day 2004, the President announced an aggressive new national goal to create, improve, and protect at least three million wetland acres over the next five years in order to increase overall wetland acres and quality.


Cleaning and Redeveloping Hazardous Waste Sites - Fulfilling a commitment he made when he ran for President, President Bush signed historic bipartisan brownfields legislation in 2002, accelerating the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites, or brownfields, to better protect public health, create jobs, and revitalize communities.


Promoting Land Conservation and Stewardship - In December 2003, President Bush signed legislation implementing key provisions of his Healthy Forests Initiative. The President’s initiative is helping restore the health and vitality of forests and rangelands, and helping reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires.


A Realistic, Growth-Oriented Approach to Global Climate Change - President Bush has committed America to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output, or greenhouse gas intensity, by 18 percent by 2012 compared to 2002.


Start Hacking!

[Fredfredson]

Good list.

Thanks

Do you have any support for why many of these are "good" other than the fact that the Republican Administration thinks they are?

I'll use one example, the misnamed Healthy Forests Initiatives.

Here is a letter from retired forresters concerning it:


Ms. Ann Veneman
Secretary, Department of Agriculture
14th & Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20250

Ms. Gale Norton
Secretary, Department of Interior
1849 "C" Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20240

August 28, 2002


Dear Ms. Veneman and Ms. Norton,

Firefighters are motivated by pride in profession, commitment to public service, and a sense of duty to protect the natural environment. We oppose all attempts to politically justify further environmental degradation in the name of firefighter safety. As current and former firefighters, we do not wish to see the reputation of firefighters sullied by association with policies that condone irresponsible, unethical, or illegal behavior on the part of private companies or government agencies.

Before Congress and the Administration institute new fire policies such as the "Healthy Forests Initiative," they need to hear directly from ground-level professional, volunteer, municipal, and wildland firefighters in whose name much of these administrative and legislative proposals are being made, and who, after all, will be the ones putting their bodies on the line to implement those policies.

The Administration's proposal to increase commercial logging of large, fire-resistant trees in the backcountry in order to pay for hazardous fuels reduction, and to exempt such projects from informed citizen input and environmental safeguards, does not serve the best interests of firefighters, rural communities, or the Nation in facilitating scientifically sound, socially acceptable, safe and effective fire and fuels management.

First, we dispute the claim that simply increasing commercial logging across 191 million acres of public lands will facilitate safer, more efficient fire suppression or more effective protection for homeowners and communities. Often, once timber sales are completed, it takes years for the logging debris to be treated, and in many cases the "slash" is never treated; moreover, logged units are rarely maintained to control the prolific growth of flammable small trees, brush, and invasive weeds. This greatly increases the fire risks and fuel hazards. Also, logging large shade-producing trees tends to make the ground surface hotter, drier, and windier. These microclimatic effects of extracting mature and old-growth trees causes a reduction of surface fuel moisture, extended periods of high fire danger, and when ignitions do occur, wildfires burning with higher fireline intensity and rapid rates of spread. This puts firefighter safety at much greater risk. Statistically, most firefighter entrapments have occurred in flashy fuel types characteristic of previously logged or grazed sites; rarely do entrapments occur in closed-canopy mature or old-growth stands.

In regards to community fire protection, the best available science from the U.S. Forest Service's fire sciences lab reveals that the principal threat of wildfire to homes results from the use of flammable building materials (e.g. cedar shake roofs) and the presence of fire-prone vegetation within the home ignition zone approximately 200 feet around structures. Creating defensible space for firefighters depends on prudent thinning of small trees and underbrush for a maximum of 1/3 mile radius from structures. Commercial logging in the backcountry is neither an effective nor efficient means of protecting homes or providing defensible space for firefighters.

Since most of the land surrounding homes and communities is privately owned, federal resources should be targeted to assisting homeowners, local municipalities, State and Tribal governments to fund FIREWISE educational campaigns, comprehensive fire management plans, firefighter training programs and equipment purchases for municipal and rural volunteer fire departments who are often the first line of defense for wildfires threatening communities.

Secondly, we feel it is wrong for the Bush Administration to propose cuts in funding for the National Fire Plan, and then argue for the need to increase timber sales in order to pay for hazardous fuels reduction. Since the majority of needed hazardous fuels reduction work centers on small-diameter surface and understory fuels that have little or no commodity value, it is unrealistic to expect that this work will be able to pay for itself. As well, it is counterproductive to base funding for restoration work on activities that further degrade the natural environment and results in increased fire risks and fuel hazards.

The National Fire Plan represents a bipartisan agreement to address degraded forest conditions by investing in fuels reduction and ecosystem restoration. The success of the National Fire Plan depends on a commitment by Congress and the Administration to provide adequate long-term funding. If the Administration is serious about protecting communities and restoring forests, then it should work with Congress to fully fund the National Fire Plan.

We believe that, while hazardous fuels reduction projects may not provide much commodity resource outputs, this work is labor-intensive and could provide year-round employment for rural communities. According to the best available science, fire reintroduction is an essential component of hazard reduction and forest restoration, and the skills of wildland firefighters will be a tremendous asset in this endeavor. Consequently, Congress and the Administration should provide clear direction to federal agencies to invest National Fire Plan money in fire management planning and firefighter training in order to facilitate increased prescribed burning and wildland fire use. Proactive prescribed burning is far safer for firefighters and the public than reactive wildfire suppression, and most firefighters desire to wisely manage wildland fires for social and ecological benefits, not simply extinguish them at all costs.

Finally, we are concerned by recent calls by the Bush Administration and members of Congress to exempt timber sales and fuels reduction projects from informed citizen involvement and environmental safeguards. In an era of burgeoning corporate scandals resulting from deregulation of energy and financial markets, and in light of past land abuses and lack of accountability by government agencies, we do not support similar efforts to deregulate public lands management.

Sincerely,

David Atkins, Former Forest Service smokejumper, Cave Junction, OR

David Calahan, Retired municipal firefighter, Medford, OR

Joseph W. Fox, Former Forest Service smokejumper, McCall, ID

Timothy Ingalsbee, Former National Park Service fire pro technician, Eugene, OR

Patrick Withen, Current Forest Service smokejumper and volunteer municipal firefighter, Wise, VA


From: http://www.fire-ecology.org/citizen/firefighter_letter.html

Lots of other critiques at this site:
http://www.ems.org/wildfires/healthy_forests.html

The "Prescription Drug Benefit" debacle has beeen pretty thoroughly thrashed on this board and by Conservatives no less.

A quick check across the web finds good critiques of many of these programs which leads to a, at best, "neutral" rating, IMHO.

F
:pooter

[thaanatos]

Do you have any support for why many of these are "good" other than the fact that the Republican Administration thinks they are?
shucks, Fred, you should have been more explicit.....you mean you want a list of things Bush did that 'librulls' think are good?

[Fredfredson]

Of course not, I'm just curious if YOU have any support for the idea that ALL of these are "Good".

F
:pooter

[jpn of Seattle]

Promoting Land Conservation and Stewardship - In December 2003, President Bush signed legislation implementing key provisions of his Healthy Forests Initiative. The President’s initiative is helping restore the health and vitality of forests and rangelands, and helping reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires.

I was running my eyes quickly over the list, most of which are highly arguable, and this one really popped out.
I mean, come on. This legislation is such a naked sell-out to the timber industry that the only place you'd see it trumpeted as an unequivocal "good" would be on Bush's own web site.

[jpn of Seattle]

I do admire Boobie's spirit though. So Bobbie, is there any one of these items you want to seriously hang your hat on? If you had to pick one as an unequivocal, untouchable "good act" that Bush has brought to us lucky citizens, which would it be?

[ninjalooter1701]

I do admire Boobie's spirit though. So Bobbie, is there any one of these items you want to seriously hang your hat on? If you had to pick one as an unequivocal, untouchable "good act" that Bush has brought to us lucky citizens, which would it be?
NO FOREST LEFT BEHIND!

Hang my hat on them all, but especially the tax cuts.

[ninjalooter1701]

Hang my hat on them all, but especially the tax cuts.Have you read *any* critiques of any of these proposals?, or are you taking them at their word?

[thaanatos]

I'm just curious if YOU have any support for the idea that ALL of these are "Good"
and therein is the problem.....many of the things that conservatives believe are 'good' for the country, liberals think are 'bad' and vice-versa...