Posted on 08/03/2006 7:03:40 AM PDT by Paul Ross
Less than a decade ago, Mr. Bush fought that exact part of the Voting Rights Act, with his appointed secretary of state, Antonio O. Garza Jr., calling the provisions a burdensome and unnecessary federal intrusion into Texas' affairs. "The Bush administration has really done a flip-flop on this," said Edward Blum, a senior fellow at the Center for Equal Opportunity who has studied Texas voting and the Voting Rights Act. "This is not where he was, and this is not the kind of philosophy that then-Governor Bush had when it comes to getting Texas out from under the thumb of the federal government." He said Mr. Bush has abandoned "the great color-blind ideals that conservatives believe in."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Ummm... does this mean he was against it before he was for it?
In all seriousness, the President focuses on the nation as a whole and will tend to impose the will of the Federal upon the states.
A governor focsuses on the state and will tend to defend state's rights over that of the federal.
I don't recall Bush campaigning very intensely for State's rights in 2000 and I doubt it even came out of his mouth in 2004.
Not surprising really.
I have come to the conclusion that GWB is suffering from a case of white guilt due to his elitest roots. He is from New England where upper class white guilt is the norm.
The Bushes are like the Kennedys; except with morals.
This will be part of his legacy. This kind of pandering for votes is tragic for America -- like the pandering for Mexican votes, our open borders, our ILLEGAL Mexican welfare state, etc. A tragic chapter for America and sad entry into a Presidential legacy.
>>>>He is from New England where upper class white guilt is the norm.
Funny. I've never noticed normal or abnormal white guilt.
Boy, who woulda thunk that one.
It became clear that this was going to be treated as a "sacred cow" so Republicans dropped it wisely.
The Bush today is not the Bush I voted for 3 times.
True, but this law does not treat all states and regions equally, and Bush supported renewing it without amendments that might have removed or lessened the unequal application of the law.
It was likely not practical to amend the law in a way that would make it better due to the nature of congress to try and distort such laws to the advantages of some politicians, but at least on the surface, Bush supported not attempting to amend the more discriminatory provisions of the law he once opposed as governor.
Seems like a fair criticism to me.
1. Rates of black voter registration and participation at the polls currently exceed the rates for white voters in the state of Georgia and the nation as a whole.What can we conclude from these data? To quote from a recent law review article, “Bull Connor is dead.” And so is every Jim Crow-era segregationist intent on keeping blacks from the polls.
2. Black and white candidates running as Democrats in Georgia draw comparable support from white voters irrespective of the candidate’s race.
3. In the three most recent elections for which comparisons are available, Georgia black registration is approximately five percentage points higher than for no n-southern blacks.
4. Estimates of racial voting patterns in Georgia congressional races held during the last fifteen years or so show African American candidates consistently polling thirty or more percent of the white vote and ninety or more percent of the black vote. Georgia has a total of 34 officials who are elected statewide. Nine of these officials are African American. All of these African-Americans have won statewide elections with substantial white support.
In 1965, Congress was able to easily make a factual finding of rampant racial discrimination in the election arena aimed at blacks throughout the Deep South. By today however, the data simply do not support a similar finding. Furthermore, applying the same methods of analysis that we used on the covered jurisdictions to non-covered states such as Tennessee, Arkansas, and New Mexico and to subjurisdictions such as Queens County, New York and Volusia County, Florida among others reveals no differences between them.
You're right about that. Just think, if we wouldn't have been so dupped we could be half way through the second term of the Gore administration right now or at least through half of the first term of Kerry. Oh, well...
Bush's is making his second term turn out to be sadly irrelevant. The problem, much like sitting through a movie that is too long, is that we actually have 2.5 more years of this crap.
"You're right about that. Just think, if we wouldn't have been so dupped we could be half way through the second term of the Gore administration right now or at least through half of the first term of Kerry. Oh, well..."
You've learned well. Oh by the way, of the two, do you prefer Tweedledee or Tweedledum.
I've voted for a Bush three times and can't say that I've been really proud of my choices. Oh yes, they were an obvious choice over Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, but still that doesn't make them good.
Yes, and also like them, without principles.
I disagree:
Dubya's second term has brought us two new Supreme Court justices - neither of whom is Harriet Meyers!
Shoulda lived here in Texas, where you could have voted for a Bush many more times, and the choices were even more obvious - and still not "good!"
Flip - Flop alert?
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.