Replies

Trust me, I can compromise on a lot of things. I have given Bush a pass on most of the things on my list, but he is crossing the line when he first says that he will veto CFR, then passes it knowing that it contains unConstitutional provisions. He took an oath not to do that.

He will take a giant leap over the line if he succeeds with the "immigration reform" plan he is pushing to, essentially, legalize the current crop of illegals in the US. These people came to the US by breaking our laws and, to punish them, they will be GIVEN American citizenship, therby undermining the rule of law in this nation. Line up all those who stood in line for years to emigrate here legally and tattoo "SUCKER" across their forehead. Well, IMO, if ignoring the rule of law is good for one segment of our country, imagine what ignoring the rule of law will do for all of us!! Yippee, anarchy here we come!!!

The point is we are either a nation of laws or we aren't. We can't say that ignoring our laws is ok for some of us but the rest of us are expected to toe the line. It doesn't work that way. Bush ignored the law when he signed CFR knowing it was illegal; he even commented on it. He will repeat that feat by ignoring the rule of law again to legalize millions of people to whom our laws have no meaning anyway. They violated them to come here.

Either the laws apply equally to all, or they apply to none. Bush, et al, don't seem to comprehend that simple, but essential, concept.

My vote not count? I live in FloriDUH. You do the math.

Dusty:

Just to be clear, you do realize that there are really only two choices in a Presidential election, right? As to CFR, I agree that Bush should have vetoed it and I wish he would have but I think he made a conscious decision not to "die on that hill". Instead, he has chosen the hills of the war in Iraq (and the greater war on terror) and the taxcuts to put the majority of his political capital. From my perspective, his gamble that the Supreme Court would strike down the poor provisions in the law was a bad one but consider the possibilities if he had vetoed the legislation.

Other than just the Iraq war, the Dems would have had another campaign issue. They could have painted him as a tool of the big money corporations (they will try to anyway but it would have seemed more accurate to the lay voter). If the Iraq war goes bad, that coupled with the "fact" that he is nothing but a shill for the corporations (in the eyes of many on the left) would have doomed us to four years of President Dean. On the other hand, ask yourself where we would be if Dean took over in these particular issues and where the President stands:

He's cut taxes twice and seems to be moving toward scrapping the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax!

He is in favor of drilling in Anwar and increasing the number of power generators (including nuclear plants)
He is the first President in over 80 years to re-affirm the second amendment to the constitution as a personal, rather than a group right!

He favors sensible clearing of forests by logging interests rather than the burned down houses favored by environmental wackos.

He unsigned the irrelevant ABM treaty that prohibited the United States from building a missle defense system.
He favors moving towards the partial privatization of Social Security.

He favors faith based initiatives to deal with the poverty problem.

His Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has been relentless in hunting down terrorists in this nation.

He favors the outsourcing of government jobs to private contractor organizations.

He has taken the tactic of hunting down terrorists and killing them in Afghanistan and Iraq rather than trying to understand the terrorists.

He has also kept us out of both the ICC and the Kyoto Treaty.

On almost all of these issues above, he has been Reagan-esque to no small degree. You have some points of disagreement with him but ask yourself, would the alternative (Howard Dean) necessarily have done things differently than George W. Bush on these issues or not? Would Dean have vetoed CFR? Not in a million years and having Dean ensures that we will have more judges on the Supreme Court that will make laws like CFR more palapable. Not voting for Bush is the eqivalent of voting AGAINST yourself and is akin to shooting yourself in the foot because it doesn't smell right.

If PravdABDNC says it it must be true. Here is a list of things that won't happen again when you vote against W.

A tax cut of any kind.

Signing of the Partial Birth Abortion Bill

The invasion of Aftrashcan.

The invasion of Iraq

The mentioning of Christ as the moral leader of this country

The open support of our military

The open support of Isreal

A majority in the Senate (for what it's worth)

The bullypulpit of the White House

Maybe he is not Conservative enough, but there are realities that have to be addressed. Until the Republicans have control of the Senate we cannot afford to trash our votes. Later we can vote for a Conservative Party, but now it is not a realistic option.

Pray for W and The Truth