I am a bit confused by a lot of the rhetoric here, blaming Bush for not controlling the borders, accusing Bush of planning to grant amnesty to illegals (even though that has been categorically denied by the Bush administration), and now the assault weapons ban...
Kindly keep in mind that the only way the ban will be renewed is if Congress passes an extension. If that happens, will you vote against your representative and senator as well? And exactly what would you have Bush do differently with regard to border control, keeping in mind the budget restrictions he has to work with? And don't tell me to put the military on the border - they are kinda busy overseas right now.
I am not happy with everything that Bush has done, but I am happy with most of the things he has done. Even if your ideal candidate, whoever that might be, were to be magically elected president, you would not be happy with everything he/she did after three years - it is just the nature of our system of government. We do not live in a monarchy or dictatorship, so anything Bush wants to accomplish has to move through Congress. That means compromise at times.
And with regard to the fiscal conservatives, keep in mind that non-defense spending increases have been kept to 4%... not great, but a lot better than under any Democrat would have been. Add that to the tax cuts, PBA ban, dumping Kyoto and ABM treaties, his willingness to ignore the UN and defend the USA interests first - I am more than willing to give him another 4 years.
And just what will he call the deal he makes with Vincente Fox who comes on January 12, 2004...just two weeks away???
Whatever it is called, it will be Amnesty Lite, and Savage has 6+ MILLION unique poll responses that indicate it will *NOT* go down well.
Are you assuring us that Congress will NOT extend the ban? Hmm? If not, what is your point?
If that happens, will you vote against your representative and senator as well?
Yes.
And exactly what would you have Bush do differently with regard to border control...
I don't believe I have ever commented on that issue. Perhaps you should address your post to someone else...
;>)
Gee, where have we heard THAT before? Campaign Finanace Reform? Looks like that plan failed there. Why on earth would you support that strategy once again?!?
If that happens, will you vote against your representative and senator as well?
Hell yes!
And exactly what would you have Bush do differently with regard to border control, keeping in mind the budget restrictions he has to work with?
Oh, gee, I don't know, how about enforcing the laws already in place with the officers who are paid to do so? Is that so difficult?
We do not live in a monarchy or dictatorship, so anything Bush wants to accomplish has to move through Congress. That means compromise at times.
Maybe so, but one does NOT conpromise on the [expletive deleted] Constitution or the Oath of Office!!!
And with regard to the fiscal conservatives, keep in mind that non-defense spending increases have been kept to 4%... not great, but a lot better than under any Democrat would have been.
CLINTON was better than that!!!
Add that to the tax cuts, PBA ban, dumping Kyoto and ABM treaties, his willingness to ignore the UN and defend the USA interests first - I am more than willing to give him another 4 years.
And weigh that against CFR (thereby allowing Sandy O to gut the first Amendment!!!), the biggest entitlement giveaway increase in 40 years (perscription drugs), a runaway budget (Teddy's Education bill?!?!?), Patriot Act (imagine how this potential expansion of powers can be wielded the first liberal Presidency), open borders (during a War on Terror, the best and easiest of all excuses, of all things!), etc. (On foreign policy, he's been great. It is domestically that he has been a huge headache.)
And by the way, PBA was NOT his doing. Mr. Never-Veto had nothing to do with the first 3 PBA bills that went to Clinton to get vetoed. That was in the works for years. He does not get extra credit simply for not vetoing it a foutrh time.