Posted on 07/10/2002 11:27:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
This is an unofficial quick and dirty presidential poll. Apparently, there is a good sized contingent on Free Republic that believes that President Bush is:
Please list the numbers that best match the reasons you don't like Bush (or state other reasons if not on the list) and state whether you believe that President Bush should be defeated even if it means installing a Democrat in the Whitehouse.
Conversely, if you believe President Bush should be re-elected, please state why.
Please state who you would like to see win the Presidency in 2004 and whether or not you believe he/she has a chance of winning.
Thanks,
Jim
Be careful.
In other words, just reinvent the wheel.
Bush's policy barred the use of federal grants for research on stem cells taken from embryos after Aug. 9, 2001. Bush said the decision was based on his moral opposition to destroying additional embryos for research purposes. But that restriction does not apply to research on stem cells obtained from fetuses, according to officials at the National Institutes of Health. Such work falls under less-restrictive Clinton-era rules, which Bush never revised.
Here's a good one.
"Some opponents of abortion say Bush should have tried to stop all funding of work using embryos and fetuses. Bush signaled his position in 2000, responding to a candidate questionnaire from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "I oppose using federal funds to perform fetal tissue research from induced abortions," he wrote. Some conservatives expect him to honor that".
He could have banned funding, he didn't. He's a Harvard man he knew the research would not confine itself to existing lines when he ok'ed funding. As far as his being "unaware" here is more.
"In another rare step for a relatively small grant application, NIH officials notified the White House staff when Gearhart's proposal was approved, said administration spokesman Scott McClellan."
Have a nice day.=o)
When I think back to January of 2001 and remember the GAO having withheld the keys from the new administration, I knew President Bush would have an uphill battle to fight. With Jefford's defection and leadership ala Daschle (they did manage to vote themselves a raise), the hill has become a mountain. Top it off with terrorist attacks killing thousands of innocent Americans and an economy in a downward spiral (both of which are being blamed on our Republican administration), it appears to me to be unsurmountable. Jeezemennety, the man has got his hands full. Why can't we conservatives band together and stand behind this man, defeat the democratic majority in the Senate, and battle the press and the left that I consider responsible for most of this mess?
God bless President Bush.
1) Not conservative enough - But as far as I know, he never said he was a Conservative.
8) Is too soft on immigration - Especially too soft on "illegal immigration". I think the best was to approach this is economically. In other words; those who hire illegals should be heavily fined and pay all INS costs. That would stop more than half the flow in its tracks.
However, there maybe method to his madness. At the time he was proposing some pro-immigrant legislation, the Democrats were tripping over themselves to say he did not mean what he was saying and not to listen to him. Maybe they were right.
As of today, I'd vote for him again.
The track record of the republicans in congress and in the WH does little to even suggest any "agressive conservative agenda".
It has long been an poor excuse by "elected officials" that much could be accomplished if there were just more dollars to throw at the problem. Now it seems that we're told, "if we just hold our nose and elect republicans, no matter how "moderate" they are an aggressive conservative agenda will be launched.
I'd love to believe, but I don't.
For years I wrote in my own name for every office, because none of the canidates sufficiently represented my views. Buy you know what, I never won anything. Now I just pick the best guy available.
Bush is far and away the best guy available in the last go-round, and will almost certainly be the best guy available in the next go-round.
BUSH/CHENEY 2004
By people who should never be allowed within 4 miles of a voting booth.
That sums it all up very nicely. No matter who becomes the president, he will either attempt govern the country within the range of political realities or he will not govern at all. If we want to effect political change in this country, we just can't ignore the need to build public and political support for the change. There is no magical shortcut. If Ron Paul (or Pat Buchanan or Alan Keyes or anyone) were to somehow wake up tomorrow as president (and everything else was unchanged), he would either begin governing differently than he now speaks or he wouldn't begin governing at all.
So let's elect ourselves some better representatives this November!
RADICAL CONCEPT ALERT!!! :-)
Worth repeating.
The most laughable are the ones who proudly proclaim that they intend to waste their vote on "principal." Been there, done that. Learned from it--to vote for the person who has a chance of winning and who "most" represents my beliefs.
It's easy to live in a dream world and support presidential candidates who, if elected, couldn't do anything. At the same time, they can't influence a precinct meeting or elect a county commissioner.
g
There have been a few disappointments, but over all good.
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.