So you think George W. Bush is not a conservative?

SOTU transcript ^ | 1/22/04

[ohioWfan]

The only other candidates who can WIN will be Kerry/Dean/Clark/Edwards.

As I've said before, if you vote for a Constitution or Libertarian candidate, do so honestly, realizing that you are in essence casting your vote for the Dem.

IF you feel you need to do that, so be it. But do it with your eyes open as to what it really means.

[Blzbba]

"Exactly right. If Bill Clinton had done the things you named and many others you didn't, the people here praising Bush would have been absolutely HOWLING with indignation. In my world we call that hypocrisy."


Total agreement.

[new cruelty]

Given the length of time it will take to change the mindset of terrorist countries, Bush won't be around to see the end of it, if it ever does actually end.

Ah. He may as well give up now. < /sarcasm>

[thoughtomator]

Sorry, I must have missed that part of the speech. Where in the SOTU did he mention the PBA ban? I must have been so agitated about his defense of the $400 billion pharmaceutical industry subsidy (aka "prescription drugs for seniors") that I missed it.

[carton253]

You aren't being bullied. So, spare us your histrionics.

Go and vote your conscience. Do you need a ride to the polling place?

[Keith]

...yes, and the president said it might take decades on his speech to the Joint Session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001.

Meanwhile, I thought the posting of Stratfor's latest analysis, on this site, last night, was particularly insightful. I don't know how to link, but it's worth looking at.

It's likely the problem will go on for many years, but D-Day may come up next year...if Dubya is still in the White House...otherwise, the White House, in Dem hands, will be running up the White Flag...esp. if John F-ing VVAW Kerry is in there...

[Ophiucus]

And where in the Constitution does it say that education is a Federal concern?

Nowhere - and it would be better for education if the Dept. of Education was dismantled.

Most of these lawsuits take place in state courts.

Many do take place in state courts but most of the ones that are most damaging to small business are Federal and it is the Federal regulations and requirements that screw up a business' overhead. (Been there, done that - once you go over 15 employees, the Fed regulations are destructive.)

The Constitution does not mention paying you doctor bills

Nope, it doesn't. The key part I picked up on was "can choose and afford private health care coverage." As opposed to Hillary Care and hopefully in support of small businesses, or even individuals, being able to buy insurance as a group so they can actually afford it.

Not only is this not mentioned in the Constitution, but for the first 150 years of our Republic there were no laws against drug possession.

I don't know - drug trade could easily come under the auspices of regulating commerce. And point of correction, the earliest anti-drug laws I'm aware of at a Federal level were in the mid-1870's. Opium was regulated at the state level first and then made illegal for personal consumption at the Federal level. Earlier than that, a drug standards act was passed ostensibly to monitor what substances were being shipped in but also to block them.

This seems clearly contrary to clear statements in the Constitution. An amendment would probably be required.

I'm not so sure. I've had problems buying the full faith and credit clause forces other states to recognize gay marriage if one state does.

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Now, full faith and credit means that states have to recognize other states court judgements. If Vermont has a law that says gays can legally be married, other states do not have to recognize that marriage if it violate 'public policy' of said state or existing legislation ( "[The Full Faith and Credit clause does not] compel a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate," under Pacific Employers v. Industrial Accident Comm., 306 U.S. 493, 501) and Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408 held that one state does not have to recognize laws that reflect "policy of hostility to the public Acts" to that state. It will be interesting to watch the fallout, supporters of marriage as a union between a man and a woman have a shot at winning.

If not, the little "and the effect thereof." clause should give Congress the basis it needs to pass the marriage stature, like the controversial Defense of Marriage Act passed under Bubba.

Ultimately, a marriage amendment is a bad idea. Dangerous to amend the Constitution to regulate moral ideas. That firmly belongs in the private sector.

[putupon]

[bray]

First, we are against illegals. You can still have Mexican migrant workers, they just need to come into the country legally. Also, what about putting people on unemployment to work for the time being? Ever hear of machinery, they can help reduce the dependance on migrant workers.

You just repeated GW's worker program since he is trying to bring them in the country "legally." Machinery will not pick many of the crops and is far too expensive to run. You going to go off unemployment to work in the fields, what planet??? How do you really have agriculture w/o migrant Mexicans?? Nice try, thanks for playing.

Pray for W and The Truth

[BlackbirdSST]

Where were you when he signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban — the most significant reversal of abortion-on-demand since Roe v. Wade? Asleep?

Stopping not one abortion, keep trying though. Blackbird.

[rintense]

Bush acts like a conservative most of the time.

That is 100% correct. But it should also be pointed out that President Bush will never, NEVER espouse, endorse, propose, 100% of the 'conservative' doctrine- whatever that is. He will never satisfy anyone's (especially the infighting among conservatives as to who is 'really' conservative) beliefs, platforms, etc. 100%- no politician ever will. And if anyone believes that any candidate will support 100% of their *individual* agenda, you need to wake up to reality, because it will never happen.

[George W. Bush]

Where were you when he signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban — the most significant reversal of abortion-on-demand since Roe v. Wade? Asleep?

I think you're gullible on this. The so-called PBA ban is a how-to manual for late-term abortion. It certainly did not ban all late-term abortions as some uninformed people believe. It merely regulated how they were to be performed. The 'PBA ban' actually cemented the legal status of late-term abortions into federal law while prohibiting the scissors-in-the-skull method.

I think the meaningless PBA will be widely recognized as meaningless by serious pro-lifers before the election. It is not a great point in the GOP's favor after the number of years and the amount of money they have extracted from pro-lifers over the years.

We need the judges. Recess-appoint Estrada and the others now. That's how we can see if Bush is serious about abortion.

[carton253]

Then don't vote for him... see how simple that is.

But, if the President doesn't change and come to your side... I think I'm going to respect him even more.

[Capt. Tom]

I did a thread on FR awhile back on the 5 political groups

Democrats, Bushies, Republicans, Socialists and Clintonistas. I will pull out excerpts that apply to this thread.

You can only get to the Presidency through the Republican and Democrat parties and no other way. The other 3 parties the Socialists, Clintonistas and Bushies have infiltrated these two established parties to get elected. They have obviously been successful in doing this.

The good news for the gutless inept Republicans is the Clinton haters, the pro Bushies and ex-democrats (like myself) have been united against the Socialists and Clintonistas because of their anti- Americanism and shenanigans. The Republicans are presently in charge of the House, Senate and Governorships - no thanks to the political acumen of the Republicans. The Bushies have the Presidency.

The Bushies didn’t repeat Ross Perots very expensive mistake. They used the Republican Party ladder to get to the top. Actually fooling Republicans isn’t very difficult.

The Bushies push their agenda, which leaves the Republicans confused. For example: Some Republicans are totally bewildered by Bush’s not securing our border with Mexico, and allowing thousands of illegals to cross every day. And the President making stupid statements like “Islam is a religion of peace” or ‘’we worship the same God.’’ A major example is the Bushies incredible socialistic Medicare spending bill just passed, that robs the young to pay for the olds medical bills. Well if you think the Bushies are Republicans you are bound to be confused.

,p. The Bushies defend this country and kill our enemies. They don't kow tow to the UN. That’s good.

So in this presidential election cycle of 2004, it’s the Bushies vs. the Socialists with the Democrats,Republicans and Clintonistas looking on.

If the Bushies are out of the picture I am afraid in 2008 it will be the politically inept Republicans vs. the Clintonistas. And we know how that works out.

Meanwhile, if only we can get the Bushies to secure our border with Mexico, stop outspending the Socialists on domestic programs, and stop making asinine religious statements; - - Tom

[Pern]

And we're called nuts because we're tired of the BS spewing from DC, from both political parties. It's past time ALL of these bums were thrown out (I also wouldn't object to them being tared and feathered, either).

It's a shame, I had high hopes for GW when I voted for him in 2000. I absolutely wouldn't call him a miserable failure, but he's definitely been a big disappointment.

[rintense]

I'd rather the American people decide the issue of gay marriage (as President Bush stated) than to leave that decision to a bunch of renegade, activist judges who impose their will over the people's.

[Blzbba]

"please quit being a hypocrite "

Actually, the Bush supporters who refuse to hold Bush to the same standards we held Clinton do are the complete hypocrites.



"Have you bothered to take a look at how much additional funding has been necessary since 9/11 or how much funding has been necessary to fund our military from all the cuts they took during the Clinton years?"


Irrelevant. In only 3 years, Bush has DOMESTICALLY outspent Clinton's 8 years. This does NOT include the (necessary) military funding that you mention. All Bush has to do is veto ANY spending bill for the first time in his Administration. He just needs to do something to show that he cares about the fiscal future of our children, who are going to be saddled with the massive debts caused by his insidious domestic spending programs. Bush has done more to make more people reliant on government handouts than Clinton did and for that reason, I'm looking to cast my vote elsewhere.

Why should I cast a vote for a "Republican" when I'm only getting a fiscal Democrat in return?

[dwd1]

I think you might want to divide your assessment based on fiscal, foreign policy, and social....

On social policy, very conservative
On fiscal policy, with the exception of tax cuts, very not conservative...

On foreign policy, where national interests are involved, very hawkish... Where nukes are involved, very uninvolved... Where terror is concerned, a little too proud to ask for help and very isolationists... But effective... Hope the price (and it is coming) is not too high...

[woodyinscc]

What are you going to reform, when you join the reform party. How can you reform something, when you cannot get elected. Just go over to the dims, that is where you can really accomplish something........NOT

[MEG33]

You are still looking forward to coming back on Free Republic and rubbing our noses in it on Nov.3rd,I assume.