A Day in the Life of President Bush (photos) - 1.30.04

Yahoo, White House | 1/30/04

[MJY1288]

President Bush met with top economist to talk about the economy and afterwards he took a few questions from reporters. Later he met with the new NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

Enjoy your visit to Sanity Island

[ODC-GIRL]

I just hope that come election time, they'll put all their griping aside and vote for what's best for the country. The alternative is just too awful to contemplate.

[homemom]

Nice pictures! Thanks!

[DrDeb]

ANOTHER GREAT ARTICLE BY KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ:

Dubya for Secretary General
The human-rights champion in the White House.

After he's won reelection and after he's served his second term as leader of the free world, President George W. Bush could do a world of good as United Nations secretary general.

Yes, seriously.

Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy blasted President Bush earlier this month for his "arrogant disrespect for the United Nations." Presidential wannabe (and current Democratic frontrunner) John Kerry says, "I'm not going to turn my back" on the U.N., unlike, as he claims, President Bush has. At a Hampton, New Hampshire, campaign event earlier this week, Kerry pledged, as he does, to lead America to "rejoin the community of nations" if he is elected president.

Unfortunately for the Massachusetts senatorial duo, that critique doesn't stand up against the record. The reality is a testament to the president's consistent commitment to the dignity of human life and to being a beacon of hope for some 800,000-900,000 girls (some as young as ten), women, and men who are modern-day slaves, entrapped and sold for sex and labor worldwide.

The administration's repeated negotiations with the United Nations surrounding Iraq, of course, are well known (if not universally recognized). But there is a world beyond Iraq, and the Bush White House is engaging the United Nations on a whole host of issues — successfully.

Even the New York Times has praised the White House for its "tough stance" against sex trafficking. In his September 2003 speech before the United Nations, President Bush called the sex trade a "humanitarian crisis" largely "hidden from view." He challenged the U.N. and its member nations to "show new energy in fighting back an old evil. Nearly two centuries after the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, and more than a century after slavery was officially ended in its last strongholds, the trade in human beings for any purpose must not be allowed to thrive in our time."

And wouldn't you know it? Through the leadership of the United States, progress has been made in countries including Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Dominican Republic, Georgia, Greece, Turkey, and Uzbekistan, among others. The United States has brought attention to these international criminal networks and taken the lead in influencing change. When faced with the threat of penalties last year, some of the worst offenders started cracking down, breaking the backs of some of world's the trafficking menaces. As former congressman John R. Miller, who effectively heads the State Department's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, recently explained in the Washington Post,

Congress provided that countries rated by the State Department as having made no significant efforts be faced with the potential loss of U.S. military aid, educational and cultural assistance, and support from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

In the three months before the slavery report came out this past June, my office saw more progress in some countries than in the previous two years. Laws against trafficking in persons were passed in places from the Philippines to Haiti to Burkina Faso. Victims were rescued and massive arrests of traffickers were made in Cambodia and Serbia.

The U.S. law provided that for those countries poorly rated in this year's report, there would be a three-month period to make antislavery efforts. In 10 countries, including military allies of the United States, there was a flurry of activity.

And the results continue to come in; already this year, in fact, a brothel operator in Cambodia was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for trafficking children. Thirty-seven victims, many of them under the age of twelve, were rescued after an investigation by the International Justice Mission, a U.S.-based nonprofit recently awarded a USAID grant for its efforts.

There are also other human-rights accomplishments ushered in by the Bush administration's leadership — ones that the paper of record would not recognize as such, but Americans who consider the dignity of human life — at all stages — a high priority would. Again, as part of a multinational effort, the Bush administration won a victory on cloning just this December. While the U.S.'s own Congress is in a stalemate over the issue of human cloning, the Bush administration managed to help coordinate a 66-nation coalition in support of a complete ban on human cloning put forth by Costa Rica. (The prohibition will be voted on later this year.) Noted a representative from Lesotho, Lineo Khiba-Matekane, in a statement:

As co-sponsors of the draft resolution presented by Costa Rica, we wish to reiterate our confidence that a comprehensive, complete ban on human cloning is the right way to go. It is heartening to recognize that this belief is shared by nations from varied regions of the world — nations with diverse cultural and economic backgrounds, and different philosophical viewpoints, as is verified by the long list of co-sponsors. It is this broad support that will speak for the credibility of our cause and that should dispel the impression that this approach is inclined to suppress the opposing views of others.

As Wendy Wright, of Concerned Women for America, adds, "Two years ago, it appeared that a fake ban, which would allow cloning of human embryos for research, would sail through. Through admirable diplomacy, they were able to persuade other countries why a partial, or fake, ban would never work."

On a whole host of "pro-life" issues, the White House has been a leader — a stark divergence from the Clinton years, when the First Lady would be a star attraction at U.N. conferences, promoting abortion rights.

In fact, activists on the ground at the U.N. are overwhelmed by the sea change there, directly influenced by the United States under President Bush (in years past). Douglas Sylva, vice president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, notes that 2004 marks the ten-year anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). A normal, pre-Bush U.N., he suggests, would have automatically had a ten-year reunion, to do the work left undone. But, says Sylva, pro-abortion bureaucrats at the United Nations "are having no such conference, simply because they know that Bush would successfully oppose any nonsense. Some NGOs have admitted as much. Thus, the very absence of a major ICPD +10 conference is an accomplishment."

"I think that President Bush has exhibited consistent, ethical leadership on so many international issues, including seeking a ban on human cloning, giving real hope to AIDS victims throughout the world, and abolishing human trafficking," says Ann Corkery, who recently served a term as senior adviser for the United States to the United Nations. "There is consistency and clarity in his approach to many ethical issues, because he begins with profound respect for the human dignity of each individual. He seeks to defend the most vulnerable. He seeks to prevent human exploitation or the use of the human being as a mere 'commodity.'"

In speaking about Iraq before the general assembly in September 2002, President Bush asked, "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" In the administration's work on human-rights issues, the president has made the U.N. a better body, more responsive to today's crises of human dignity, and more relevant globally. That's not quite the record of an administration with "arrogant disrespect." And the world is a better place for it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200401300905.asp

[kitkat]

***I heard on a network radio newscast the day after the New Hampshire primary that Kerry went home to sleep in his own ROW HOME in Boston. just like Algore's Tennessee FARM. gag***

I wonder if Kerry has a tenant with an overflowing toilet and torn up vinyl flooring, etc. just as Gore did.

[homemom]

I'll be back after I put the bratBrandon to bed. Yeah! He's feeling better!

[homemom]

Did you hear how John Edwards slammed John Kerry today? :-) No--please tell me more--I could use a laugh!

[homemom]

He looks tired today. Prayers for our presidents.

Yes, he does. Did they go to Camp David this weekend?

[DrDeb]

The President is NOT in trouble with his base -- he continually (even in today's ARG poll) gets between 86% and 93% support from Republicans -- higher at this point than any contemporary Republican president (including Reagan)!

Stop allowing Libertarians, Buchanannites and DU infiltrators convince you that they are part of the President's base -- they never were and never will be!

[BTW: Rush may whine and complain, but he LIKES President Bush and will turn on the political charm as we get closer to the election!]

[CyberAnt]

And .. I'll double agree!

[homemom]

Just looking for a clutch right now, a herd would be great and a crowd would be even better :-)

How about a passel?

[Lady In Blue]

Thank you DrDeb! Got a question but I'd better FRmail you because I don't want to upset anybody else the way I was a few minutes ago.

[GOP-Pat]

Happens all the time when the opposing party is holding their Primaries, at one time Bob Dole had a 15 point lead of Clinton during the Republican Primaries in 1996. No Biggie, Dubya hasn't even started his campaign yet and they are already broke :-)

Also, President Bush can hardly BUY any time on TV except for little snippets. After seeing nothing but dems for months on end, earlier this week, FoxNews started showing a speech by President Bush. After his introductions and thanks to everyone, he started to get into the "meat" of his speech and Fox abruptly cut him off and went to Howard Dean. I have noticed them doing this a LOT and it's mostly since the dems' campaign has gotten going good.

Example: they show a dem debate (if that's why you want to call it. I call it a Bush bashing contest) which usually last for an hour or so. Then, it's followed by an hour of interviews with the candidates and pundits. When that ends, they immediately have reruns of the debate and interviews. Since I stay up very late, I've seen them show the same debate, 4 times in one night.

Next day, President Bush gives a speech and they show just the beginning and then cut away

WE MUST DO SOMETHING TO GET FOXNEWS' attention. I called them and they hung up on me. Called back 3 times and got hung up on 3 times. Seems they need to be reminded of what got them to be #1.

[homemom]

Hi Mystery--

Brandon in bed? Do you have a bye-bye planned for tomorrow?

[homemom]

Ms.B--did you read your FReepmail or should I make it bigger?

[Miss Marple]

I will call them tomorrow. I am a stockholder in Newscorp., their parent company.

[DrDeb]

"now a new thread on how Repub's wrote in Dems in New Hampshire...."


THE FACTS:


By Matthew Dowd
Chief Strategist

Anyone watching the media coverage and analysis of the New Hampshire
primary could draw several incorrect conclusions about primary
voters in New Hampshire and elsewhere.

The notion that so many Republicans voted in the Democratic primary
this year, that their enthusiasm on primary day showed how angry
they are at President Bush and that this will spell trouble in
November is flat wrong. The facts from Tuesday's exit polls provide
some objectivity: a higher percentage of Democrats voted in the
Republican primary in 2000 (4%), than Republicans voted in the
Democratic primary this year (3%). And in 2000, there was a
seriously contested Democratic primary between Gore and Bradley to
keep Democrats interested. More voters cast ballots in the
relatively uncontested Republican primary this year than cast
ballots in the uncontested Republican primary in 1984 when Reagan
ran for re-election.

President Bush received a higher percentage of the vote this time
(88%) than Reagan won in 1984 (86%). In fact, Bush received a higher
percentage than Clinton received in his uncontested Democratic
primary in 1996 (84%).

While the majority of Democratic voters on Election Day in New
Hampshire held unfavorable views of President Bush, they did not
consider themselves angry. Despite the Democratic candidates' best
efforts; only 49% of the voters described themselves as angry, while
a majority said they were not angry.

When you compare where public opinion polls had John Kerry last
April with where he was on election night, the numbers are nearly
identical. Kerry was polling at 35% or 36% last April. Then the Dean
outsider candidacy emerged, floundered, and recovered a bit, but
Kerry ended up exactly where he started. There was no expansion in
enthusiasm. The Democrats merely returned to the safe, old, standby.
Kerry fills the role of a traditional Democratic choice after the
thrill of the Dean candidacy wore off.

Finally, per my memos from last April and November, expect us to be
behind at some point in the coming weeks because of the closely
divided nature of the country. This is something we have long
expected, and when the nominee is nearly secure for the Democrats,
they will (as Kerry has already) get a tremendous amount of positive
press coverage nationally.

By Matthew Dowd


FYI: PRESIDENT BUSH RECEIVED TWICE AS MANY WRITE-IN VOTES AMONG NH DEMOCRAT VOTERS THAN HILLARY CLINTON!

ADDITIONAL FACTOID: Tancredo got ZERO write-in votes from Republicans [I thought he was the de facto 'protest vote' for the disaffected Libertarians and Buchananites among us?!]

Actually, as I understand it, in 2000 many Democrats had registered as Republicans so they could vote for McCain over Bush in the NH primary [Remember, Democrats wanted Bush to lose the nomination in 2000]. Many of these Democrats failed to change their registrations back to Democrat before the current primary season so they simply voted for their favorite Democrat candidate as a Republican vs a Democrat.

---

[Fawnn]

Dubya hasn't even started his campaign yet and they are already broke :-)

More proof that the Democs can't manage money. ;)

[homemom]

Thank you. I, too, am getting tired of missing all of Bush's speeches. Usually they aren't that long, anyway. I do want to know what's going on with him. Give 'em heck!

[CyberAnt]

He does it because he prays .. and when he prays, he gives the burden to GOD.

[onyx]

Oooooooh, you treated us to so many photos tonight! Thanks so much.