Posted on 03/30/2005 6:25:24 AM PST by steve-b
President Bush's ratings are at a new low. That really is a shame. The news coming out of Iraq is very positive right now. The Iraqis are just about to seat their first popularly elected government in about fifteen camel generations. The news in Afghanistan is also good, and the idea of freedom and allowing people to participate in the selection of those who will rule them is gaining traction virtually throughout the Middle East. So... Bush is trying to bolster his falling approval ratings by sending Laura to Afghanistan and by touting his successes in Iraq.
May I make some suggestions here? May I suggest that the principal reason for the precipitous drop in Bush's popularity ratings might be due to the fact that Americans .. not all, but many... are just a little bit upset that Bush so eagerly injected the federal government into what should be a private family matter? Right now we have the staffs of two United States Senators, Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, and Martinez, a Republican from Florida, working to put together a law that would require federal court review of any family dispute about a patient without a living will. Why a federal court review? Why can't this be handled in the state courts? Why do we have to expand the scope and power of the Imperial Federal Government to the point that the tentacles of government reach into the very heart of intra-family relations? What can the federal courts do here that the state courts cannot? Estate matters, wills and such, have always been adjudicated by local courts. What is the role of the federal government here?
We all know the answer here, don't we... and the answer points us to one of the principal reasons for the decline in Bush's approval ratings. There is one reason that the Congress got involved in this unpleasantness in Florida. One reason that Bush rushed back to Washington to sign legislation injecting the federal government into that situation, and one reason Harkin and Martinez are working on their legislation to expand the powers of the federal government. That reason is pressure from anti-abortion advocates and religious extremists.
Definition needed: Just how do you define a religious extremist? I define a religious extremist as anyone who wants to use the power of law -- and that means deadly force -- to force their religious principals on someone else. Someone who openly calls for a theocracy in America, as Randall Terry has done, is an extremist. Randall Terry is at the center of the Florida controversy. Bush's actions were seen by some as pandering to Randall Terry. These Florida hospice protestors who wandered down the street about 10 days ago to harass an auto shop owner for daring to work on a Sunday would be examples of religious extremists. Bush's actions were seen as pandering to these zealots. This frightens people. Many Americans become a little concerned when they see their president going out of the way to meet the demands of people who openly call for a theocracy and who hammer someone who is working on Sunday to make ends meet while raising his two sons alone.
Now... I can assure you that what I have written thus far here in Nealz Nuze will bring more hate mail with more of those childish "I'm never going to listen to you again" closes. To many it is absolutely forbidden to say anything that can be construed as negative about anyone who expresses a strong Christian belief. To do so means that you don't love Jesus. If you say that you don't want to live under Randall Terry's idea of a Christian theocracy, you don't love Jesus. If you say that a man working hard to support his family shouldn't be harassed because he works on Sunday, you don't love Jesus. If you say that while you admire the religious devotion shown by some devout Christians, but that you don't want them telling you how to live your life, you don't love Jesus.
If George Bush wants to calm people down, and send his approval ratings back up again, perhaps he could assure the Americans that he believes that America is not going to become a theocracy under his watch, and that the rule of law does, and will continue to hold sway over the wishes of those who want to order the lives of others along strictly defined religious lines. But the, that would mean that he doesn't love Jesus.
Neal Boortz, political cross-dresser.
Boortz hasn't been on my reading list for the past six months.
he's a bit of a whiner
I read another article this morning saying the Laura didn't tell GW she was going until right before she left..... so which is it?
There's no satisfying the "believers".
The rest of us are just going to rot in hell.
I prefer to drive a vehicle
You know, somehow that statement seems to pinpoint my perception of Boortz as well.
Boortz continues to reinforce my impression of his as a near-do-well.
If Boortz honestly believes that poll numbers released mere days ago are why Laura Bush went to Afghanistan he is beyond stupid.
These trips aren't cobbled together overnight.
I think the drop in approval is due to gas prices and news media whining about Social Security.
Plus Boortz needs to get a clue...the approval ratings don't matter all that much since the President is not running for reelection.
Funny how people on either side of this issue tend to attribute base motives to those on the other side. It isn't very attractive and does nothing to convince people to change their minds.
I am glad to see you and I made exactly the same point.
They are long in planning but kept quiet for security purposes. Obvious to us, not to Neal.
Did I miss something, is President Bush running for re-election?
1. The writer is really ignorant of government procedures and isn't fit to do commentary.
OR,
2. The writer is deliberately twisting information for his own purposes, and is inherently dishonest.
Ok, someone help me with the logic here. The Presidents support is at an all time low, even though he got re-elected 5 months ago? HUH????
I'm going with your number 2.
Buttinskis.
Only someone who has an irrational dislike of conservative Christianity could make such a facile comparison.
If it's too much to ask that the federal government defend the right to life of its most vulnerable citizens, then there is no satisfying the out-of-control agenda of you and your fellow secularists.
The Bill of Rights does not authorize the judiciary of any state to legalize murder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.