The Ostroy Report

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the GOP/Tea Party. We support President Obama and the Democratic agenda and seek to preserve the Senate majority while taking back the House. But we're also not afraid to criticize the left when necessary.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Bush Critic Gets Fired


It appears that the mighty sword of the Bushies' attack squad has swung again against yet another political enemy. Bruce Bartlett, who's been a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy, a conservative think-tank, was summarily dismissed after ten years of service. Bartlett, a former domestic aide in the Reagan administration, has been very critical of President Bush lately. His new book, "The Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is due out shortly and expresses concern over Bush's reckless fiscal policy. Bartlett's also been critical of Bush's choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court.

Tomorrow Bartlett will publish his latest column in which he says conservatives are growing extremely frustrated and disenchanted with Bush, who they believe "is not one of them and has never been,". He cites the president's fiscal, education, immigration and regulation policies as examples.

According to the Center, Bartlett was dismissed because his book, which was approved as a policy assessment, ended up being a critique of politicians, which is something the organization did not want to be a part of.

Whether Bartlett's firing is directly related to any type of retribution from the Bush administration is uncertain, but his dismissal certainly follows a pattern of attacks on Bush's most vocal critics. Andy

19 Comments:

  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger karen gsteiger said…

    The Bush administration is so "Animal Farm."

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Andy, thanks for pointing out how far left Bush has brought the country compared to Reagan. In fact, the real reason liberals are so mad at him is that he has moved the country so far left that they have very little room left to differentiate themselves without appearing to be radicals.

     
  • At 10:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The Bush clan still thinks getting rid of detractors will change the history books. What they don't understand is that they're only breeding more "insurgents" who'll soon be blowing the whistles publicly, thus casting this as perhaps the most arrogant, inept, power-hungry and corupt administrations in history.

     
  • At 2:25 PM, Anonymous Johnny said…

    The real reason conservatives are so mad at Bush is because he has moved the country so far right that they have very little room left to differentiate themselves without appearing to be religious fanatics.

    Popeye had the words mixed up AGAIN!

     
  • At 3:56 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Johnny, no mix up. Bush is so far to the left of Reagan it is a disgrace. In fact Bush as I have said before is to the left of JFK. And Johnny, your anti-tolerant religious bigotry is showing again. You have the right to be a bigot, just don't claim like all the other liberal hypocrites that you are tolerant.

     
  • At 11:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I stand by Johnny. To go with the Bush agenda you cannot do any critical thinking - you cannot make informed decisions because it doesn't take long, if you do these mental gymnastics, to figure out that things don't add up. Religious conservatives still support Bush with Utah still at 61% You can't get a more theocracy driven state than that. Don't believe me - try living there. I have and the rumors are true - it sucks!!! People do not discuss issues because it would mean they would have to wake up and find out that maybe the GOP and the Church don't have good or all the answers. It's much easier to live in a bubble. An existence that doesn't require much thinking-period.

     
  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Sorry, can't speak for Utah. I can speak for Chicago near where I live where the Democrat machine is alive and well and the corruption stinks to the high heaven. I still can't understand why you folks are such religious bigots, though. Every time you write, you just drone on and on about religious fanatics. While I have met a lot of people committed to their faith, it is extremely rare that I ever meet a religious fanatic. Probably the ratio is 1 in 10,000 by my life experience. I am sure the concentration is higher in some spots (like Utah), but overall hardly a threat.

    As for Bush being a liberal here are some of the reasons I say that:

    - Huge defecit spending
    - Huge increase in spending for the education system rathole
    - Prescription drug social program
    - Immigration policies (don't let yesterday's announcement fool you)

     
  • At 3:51 PM, Anonymous Johnny said…

    My god where is Popeye coming from saying the things he says, such as :
    "As for Bush being a liberal here are some of the reasons I say that:

    - Huge defecit spending
    - Huge increase in spending for the education system rathole
    - Prescription drug social program
    - Immigration policies (don't let yesterday's announcement fool you)"

    A Liberal called Clinton had a surplus when he left office, one of the first to do that so it must be the conservatives that cause deficits NOT Progressive Liberals.

    Bush cut education spending not increase it, ask any teachers (my wife and my son both teachers).

    Prescription drug programs are the very programs we all enjoy and there should be national health care as well, like all the other nations in this world. That's another subject all together. Liberals make sure our elderly are taken care of.

    Immigration is wide open with Bush so his rich friends can have cheap (slave) labor and make even more profits.

    ALL and I mean ALL organized religion is a sham. That said, I still contend that religious fanatics come in different degrees and you don't have to be a bible thumper to be a fanatic either.

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You Go Johnny! You rock! I guess I didn't want to be the first one to say it...but I totally agree with you on the religion=sham comment. Backing down, a bit, religion works for alot of people who choose to let others dictate their connection with God or a higher power. IMHO, for those who choose to personalize their spiritual quest, organized religion becomes a hinderance. When you have a pResident using personal religious views to guide a country, there's going to be a deep, deep divide created. Won't it be great when the fervor over the religion card dies down and takes a back seat again...in other words, becomes a personal issue instead of a political one. Separation of church and state ain't such a bad idea, afterall.

     
  • At 7:22 PM, Blogger karen gsteiger said…

    Bush is neither liberal or conservative. He is just a corrupt moron. Idiocy has no religion or creed...

     
  • At 7:23 PM, Blogger karen gsteiger said…

    Whoops, that should have said "neither liberal nor conservative." I'm a bit of a stickler for grammar and make frequent typos.

     
  • At 11:12 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Responses to Johnny:

    "A Liberal called Clinton had a surplus when he left office, one of the first to do that so it must be the conservatives that cause deficits NOT Progressive Liberals."

    As I have said many times, Clinton's only contribution to economic policy was to raise taxes. Reagan's economy from his tax cuts set the stage taking a brief breather just before the 1992 election. Low interest and low inflation and the PC technology by IBM and Microsoft was a perfect environment for the once in a lifetime dot.com boom.

    "Bush cut education spending not increase it, ask any teachers (my wife and my son both teachers)."

    Every place I look shows increased spending on education in the last 5 years. Here is a link from Andy's home town:
    http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/newsfax/insidethebudget139.pdf

    It shows how in the 2003-2004 school year the per pupil expenditures in the New York City school system was $13,963. The same link shows the next school year trending upward over $14,000. That is not enough spending??? It takes that much to educate one kid one year. I don't think so and any objective mind would see that the problem is not lack of money. It is waste.

    "Prescription drug programs are the very programs we all enjoy and there should be national health care as well, like all the other nations in this world. That's another subject all together. Liberals make sure our elderly are taken care of."

    We see in Canada, Europe and other countries that socialized medicine does not work well and costs a ton. I grew up in a modest income family and had zero help from the government and near zero help from family for my schooling. I have health insurance because I worked hard to go to college and have a job that pays for it. And, oh, conservatives take care of their elderly. We take care of our parents and don't look to government to do it.

    "Immigration is wide open with Bush so his rich friends can have cheap (slave) labor and make even more profits."

    So let's close the border and end the slave labor.

    "ALL and I mean ALL organized religion is a sham. That said, I still contend that religious fanatics come in different degrees and you don't have to be a bible thumper to be a fanatic either."

    I guess anything other than an atheist is a religious fanatic to you. This country has become way less faithful to its religious principles than 50 years ago yet you liberals paint it as a theocracy. What a laugh.

     
  • At 12:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I like Stands comment about America becoming less faithful to its religious principles. It's great that we are "less faithful" because it means Americans are GROWING UP and USING THEIR INTELLECT instead of bowing to religious dogma. Congratulations America, Land of the Smart, educated, and independent people!!! Keep givin' the religious right hell!

     
  • At 12:48 AM, Blogger karen gsteiger said…

    Look, AICS/Popeye, I don't mean to be argumentative and rude, but I just don't buy right-wingers' claims of religious persecution. The way some of them go on, you would think the U.S. Army was burning down their churches every day of the week. What is really the problem--is your concept of worship that threatened or is it just that not everybody does it exactly like you? And I'm saying this as a card-carrying and practicing Episcopalian...the government or organized groups do not stop me from going to church, but I don't need a mandatory moment of prayer every time I buy stamps from the Post Office either, so I'm fine with the way things are.

     
  • At 9:04 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Karen, first I would not use the word persecution. I know enough about real persecution (christians fed to lionsm etc) to know that we are not being persecuted. We are hated and spoken against. All have the right to hate religion and speak against it. I jst point out that it is false and hyporcritical for the left to always be preaching tolerance when they are some of the most intolerant people I see.

    You speak of freedom of worship being threatened. The problem with liberals is that some rights are more equal than others. The freedom of speech, expression, the press, religion and to bear arms are all equal under the constitution. To liberals the pattern I see is that religion rights are considered a second class right and does not really have a place with the 'big boys' speech, expression, press.

    Also among the left some religions are more tolerated than others. Those of christian and jewish faith take a lot of flack from the left. Islam and eastern religions are often more tolerated even promoted on the left. (with the exception of those like some posting here that hate 'em all.

    I am not among those that want more religion forced on an unwilling body such as school prayer. Faith only has value if someone participates willingly. That said, there are traditions from the founding of the US until now that keep getting picked away by ACLU types such as 'under God' in the pledge, opening prayer of congress (been happening over 200 years why stop it now?), holiday scenes in public places, religious personal adornment such as wearing of crosses even by public employees (or even if they want religious items on their desk), judeo-christian themes in the federal and state buildings ( all over D.C.). With the exception of attack on these type of things I like you are happy the way things are. I don't want them to erode and I know they will if people like "keep givin' the religious right hell" anonymous have their way.

     
  • At 9:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You Christians crack me up! You represent 90% of the country, dominate every part of society and almost all of our leaders are christian and you claim to be persecuted?! You dont know what persecution is. Ask a Jew. Or a black. They'll tell you. They live in a country where they, not you, have experienced vile racism and acts of persecution.

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    It is hard to tell if you are the same anonymous or a different one, either way you obviously did not read my post. Here is what I said (type and all):

    "I know enough about real persecution (christians fed to lionsm etc) to know that we are not being persecuted."

    In slow motion:

    "I know ..."
    "...we are not"
    "being persecuted"

    Gee, no wonder you guys say I talk a lot and say nothing. You don't read what I say.

     
  • At 10:07 AM, Anonymous laurie said…

    bush is not far left, if by that one means very liberal. liberals support free speech (tho there are fringe whackos who oppose saying, for example, that day care is bad for children, they wouldn't ban speech, just try to shun the speaker :) .

    bush is not liberal because 1)he tortures. (not liberal) 2) he desecrates the environment 3) his prespcription bill is a gift to the pharmacueticals. in no way is it good for our seniors or america. 4)he isn't smart, he doesn't like to read, he doesn't like to think. to be a liberal, you must meet all three requirements. 5)he believes in bombing innocent people 6)he has cut the housing voucher program, a great program for the poor that not only helps house people, but breaks up slums and puts disadvantaged children into middle class neighborhoods, schools, and values. 7) he said there is such a thing as too much freedom. 8) he is against science. 9)he hates gays and foments hatred of gays. 10)he doesn't get religious liberty. 11) he wants cronies on the supreme court. I could go on and on.

    Liberals do not hate bush's policies because they squeeze ours. We despise his policies because they have hurt our country, the world community, and the planet. all he helps is his friends. he is nothing but a gangster.

     
  • At 5:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Under God" was added in the 1950's as a symbolic gesture to attempt to differentiate the "godly" Americans capitalists from the "godless" Soviet communists. Kind of ironic, considering that "money is the root of all evil".

    "In God We Trust" is a long-held tradition; "under God" is not. Myself, I wouldn't presume to know where we are relative to God. For all I know, maybe we're above God.

    Also, atheism itself can be considered a religion founded upon the faith that there is no God, and as such, atheists can also be religious fanatics. I think it takes an awful lot of faith to be absolutely sure there is no God.

    About the religion = sham stuff, while religion is ripe for abuse (esp. televangelists), it isn't necessarily a sham. It can provide a basic framework for identity, social relations and support. A person should always be free to change or lose their religion if it doesn't agree with them. Personally, I do not belong to any religios organization, but I know many who do.

    The "religious right" that people are referring to, I believe, are the those who think their religious morals should be imposed on everybody else. The government is not supposed to enforce religious morals except where other people's rights are infringed, i.e. stealing and murder. For example, a fetus is absolutely dependent upon the mother. If the mother decides to eliminate the fetus for whatever reason, God will judge whether she was right or not; nobody else's rights were infringed. Not leaving that judgement to God only leads to a woman being a slave to the fetus or to the father.

    The "religious right" should instead be called the "self-righteous" and should be "given Hell". As Jesus himself once said, "Judge not lest ye be judged."

    I believe the non-Christians are fighting to become more equal citizens and they want a chance to show that they support America, too. I read recently about a Wiccan priestess being flatly refused the opportunity to bless some council meeting or other. Unfortunately, when your religion tells you that all others are wrong, it's difficult to take their representatives seriously.
    This expectation of equal treatment and the resulting denial and negative publicity leads to this envisioned "persecution" or "flack".

    I really don't see what would be so bad about compromise. How about sending out a call for religious representatives to give a five-minute prayer at the opening ceremony and picking a few at random each year.

    However, I fully understand how the left has gone too far in being too intolerant of intolerance. This "political correctness" is garbage. No one has the right to not be offended. If the offense is deemed grave enough, there is the option of a civil law suit and a judge and/or jury can decide if the behavior is extreme enough.

    What a federal employee chooses to wear should not be deemed federal support for a religion unless it can be shown that it was used as basis for being hired or fired.
    Christians have an equal right to worship just like everybody else.
    While this is obviously not the same as being fed to the lions, denying someone this right is still persecution.

    Calling Bush an idiot or a moron is to underestimate him. Fiscally, he is neither left nor right; he is simply irresponsible like Reagan and his father, only more so. A true conservative would cut taxes on the rich and cut spending. A true liberal would raise taxes on the rich and spend it on "the public good".
    It is rather ironic that "liberal" Clinton balanced the budget much, much better than both his "conservative" predecessor and successor. I think he managed that feat by cutting waste and being forced to compromise with the Republican Congress. I still don't like him for his bowing down to the corporations and NAFTA, but he did achieve some fiscal success.

    Socially, Bush seems to tilt slightly to the right. He throws his social conservative base a bone every now and then, i.e. Terry Shiavo (sp?) and stem cells, but mostly he's all talk, no action. Somehow, he manages to fool them into thinking he's on their side when he's really not.
    Maybe he's a political genius?

    I can see how Bush may be perceived as a gangster; he's notorious for his grudge-holding, but he seems to trust very few people and he trusts like a child, and the cronyism follows. Definitely not apologizing for him, just explaining. A child-like person should not be President.

    A liberal does not have to be smart, or like to read or like to think. This feeds the "liberal elite" myth that the right always points to.

    A liberal merely has to respect the rights of others, be willing to defend them, and lend help when necessary. A conservative merely has to stop taking and spending more money than absolutely necessary and not attempt to understand anybody else's viewpoint.

    You, like many others, have let the right tell you what the left stands for. You see, the right have persuaded the common people, which the left traditionally stands for, that a liberal is simply too elitist to understand the common people. That's how someone like George W Bush gets elected, twice. Yeah, I know he didn't technically win the election in 2000, but it was close enough to be accepted.

    The Democrats desperately need to state simply and clearly what they stand for. They've been lazy in this regard for way too long.
    With some luck, they might manage to win some seats in 2006 due to Republican problems, but it won't stick unless they actually stand for something. Some personality wouldn't hurt either.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home