George Bush told me McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform was unconstitutional. In George We Trusted. George Bush told me that "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building." In George We Trusted. George Bush told me that "Unrestrained government spending is a dangerous road to deficits," urging "a different path." In George We Trusted. George Bush told me he would take "a more market-driven approach" to farm policy. In George We Trusted. George Bush told me that "local people should control local schools." In George We Trusted. George Bush told me that he had "no doubt" that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. In George We Trusted. George Bush told me that he would model his Supreme Court nominees on Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. In George We Trust?
i've got my fingers crossed that John Roberts is the right man for the job, but in light of the fact that President Bush cared more about the extracurricular activites of the judges he interviewed than their legal philosophy, doesn't necessarily bode well for conservatives. also, i don't think President Bush should pride himself on being a good judge of character. he said he looked into Vladimir Putin's soul and found a kindred spirit...ha!
http://tinyurl.com/78o8d
Yea. Then you voted for him!!!
Who's the Fool?
Yes, I voted for Bush and I would do it again, because Kerry is far more dangerous.
Well... 'polemical muhammad ali', uncross your fingers, lean over with your head between your legs and kiss your own ass goodby, or something to that effect. Seems, from some of what I have read, that Bush's nominee is a corporate lawyer type, known for defending the rich and greedy from less fortunate people *and* his policy on Roe vs. Wade is clearly stated in one case where is came up, in which he stated his opinion that the ruling was not only wrong, but unconstitutional, so should have never gone in favor of allowing abortions. Guess what his ruling are likely to be on gays, seperation of church and state, corporate greed cases that demand the supreme court get involved or 'anything' that deal with people, instead of pocketbooks and religious rhetoric...
Nope, I was never dumb enough to cross my fingers. I fully expected Bush's appointee to be 'precisely' the kind if right wing lunitic he appears to be. :(
I hope you're right, Kahegi.
A good case could be made that Kerry would be a better President. A Republican Congress combined with a hostile talk radio audience would guarantee almost all of Kerry's proposals would be DOA. It was a Republican Congress with the assistance of a few renegade Democrats who thwarted Clinton's healthcare plan as well as his higher energy taxes.
However, since Republicans have complete control of government we get the largest single entitlement since Lyndon Johnson, as well as runaway domestic spending on discretionary items.
Partisan politics is the only thing that holds the government in check -- Republicans do not.
Just for the record, at no time did I trust in George Bush. When he was running in 2000 I knew he would be bad, I just had no idea he would be this bad.
Kagehi,
Yes!
So true Eric,
You can add more to that argument. For example, Kerry would have had significant portions of his base which hated the Iraq War and so despite the fact that he supported the war, and claimed to want to escalate it, it is much more likely that Kerry would have been able to face reality and bring the troops home. A reality that Bush refuses to face.
Also, depending on how this nominee turns out there wouldn't have been a whit of difference between a Kerry or Bush presidency as regards judicial tyranny. Both parties elites (since they have the exact same views on things) are abolutely committed to maintaining the status quo on the Court while pretending to be in opposition to each other.
There are some actual conservatives in Congress, folks responsive to majority American views on a number of issues which would get a hearing in a majority GOP Congress opposed to a kerry White House. But since the presidential party has fallen lock-step behind in Congress for the past several decades, and since we have a liberal republican president, conservative voices in Congress are silenced.
I think Conservatives have to, en masse, bolt the GOP for the political elite to be faced with any serious challenge.
Eric and Brian,
That's completely absurd. [Please read the following as if it were shouted].
(1) With a Kerry administration, every court vacancy (hundreds of district court seats) would be filled with extreme liberals. The district courts decide the vast majority of cases that, to a significant extent, determine how our daily lives are governed. As for the appelate courts, Bush has filled several vacancies with true convervatives (e.g., Brown, Pryor, Owen, et al.). Finally, though Roberts remains an unknown, he is significantly better than any possible Kerry appointment (the same holds for Rehnquist's future replacement).
(2) The thousands of political appointments (from secretaries on down) in the executive agencies (Justice, Commerce, Defense, Energy, HUD, Agriculture, EPA, Labor, etc.) control tons of public policy. In a Kerry administration, these would be extreme liberals. In a Bush administration, they are conservatives of some degree. Anyone who thinks the difference between the two is a wash is completely ignorant.
(3) While social spending might be less under a Kerry administration, taxes would certainly be higher. There would be no rate cuts, no increase in the child tax credit, no capital gains cuts, etc. I'm not convinced the federal government can reign in spending regardless of who's in power; and if they're going to deficit spend anyway, I'd just as soon keep my money. If you'd like to donate yours, go right ahead!
(4) Under a Kerry administration, embryonic stem-cell research would be paid for with my tax dollars, and partial birth abortion would be legal. While those are relatively small victories in the struggle against infanticide, they undoubtedly have saved lives. Anyone who claims that a Kerry administration might have been better than the Bush administration cannot coherently claim to be pro-life.
Kagehi, I wonder how Roberts would have sided on the private property rights case the Supreme court saw one month ago. With the majority who felt that corporations can take over an individuals property if it had just cause or the minority who disagreed. Would he side with the most powerful and influetial in society or the individual small property owner? How he would decide on that case would speak volumes on whether he supported the rich and greedy or the not as fortunate. However I guess we can only speculate.
Ralph,
You make some real good points but not all are on target. Partial birth abortion, for example, was already banned under GWB, although keeping it that way will be a chore given the judicial tyrrany. So, how could Kerry have changed that, with a Republican congress? The spending and tax issue isn't a good argument here, at least to me, since the diff btwn the 2 seems negligible and it is unlikely that Kerry could have rolled back some of the tax cuts (again GOP controlled congress is a HUGE factor in Eric and my claims).
But as for bureaucrats you make a good point although institutional turgidity and inertia makes any significant changes of course on that front unlikely.
The big one is of course judges, which provoked this whole train of thought on our part. I definitely concede that if we look beyond the SC to other appointments that yes, Bush's picks are definitely better than those Kerry would have made. However, the GOP controlled congress *should* negate this b/c they could simply vote down every liberal judge offered up. Of course, Repubs are wimps and spineless so they would never routinely block judicial appointments like Dems do. They let Clinton appoint whomever he wanted, even to the SC, with barely a whimper and certainly would never make use of the Dems tactics if they were the minority party.
That being the case what should we conclude? Me, in my glorious cynicism (or realism), believe that the GOP should be electorally punished by conservatives since they refuse to, on the one hand, grow up and play real politics in a democratic system, and on the other hand, in almost all important ways are functional democrats given Bush's liberalism.
Besides, the GOP is probably going to get their backsides handed to them in the mid-term elections since Bush is so clearly an abject failure for conservatives. Santorum, for example, is going to have a heck of a time keeping his senate seat. Then where are we? If they are routed it will be b/c of Bush's presidency. If they are routed then the only place conservatives have been able to realistically put their hope (a conservative congress) will be completely destroyed. Something that would have been much less likely to occur if Kerry had been elected. Obviously this is mostly rank speculation so I will just drop it at that.
No one is saying that a President Kerry is a good thing. The point is that the dynamic between a Kerry presidency and a Republican Congress would lead to outcomes more favorable to conservatives. In fact, there would be a conservative opposition to the runaway statist juggernaut that President Bush has inaugurated. A conservative opposition that controls Congress is better than one that rubber stamps Bush's liberalism.
The only case that can be made for Bush is that he would appoint a SC Justice who would vote to overturn Roe but I think the chances of this are miniscule. However, history, not hope, should inform our opinion and history suggests that Republican appointees are almost just as bad as Democratic ones. Hoping things will be different now isn't much of reason to vote for Bush.
There is no chance a Republican Congress would vote for higher taxes and there's a very good chance that they would try to hold the line on spending.
Are Cabinet appointees any better? I don't think so. Here is a quote from the No Child Left Behind Site that was supported by President Bush:
"Today, more than $7,000 on average is spent per pupil by local, state and federal taxpayers. States and local school districts are now receiving more federal funding than ever before for all programs under No Child Left Behind: $23.7 billion, most of which will be used during the 2003-04 school year. This represents an increase of 59.8 percent from 2000 to 2003."
So a "conservative" is taking credit for increasing federal spending on education by 60% more than it was under a "liberal" appointee. Bush appoints "conservatives" who believe in big government, federal control, national standards, more regulations, and so on.
A Kerry presidency would be more reluctant to fight another expensive and worthless war in another country and might be willing to hold back spending as much on this one.
Besides anyone who supports President Bush can't claim to be pro-life either because leading America into war over falsehoods and leaving 1700 Americans dead and over 10,000 wounded doesn't count as "pro-life" in my book.
What I love about reading these comments is that, with two notable exceptions, the discussion is simple, factual and without rancor. What a refreshing change from slurs and insults (Kahegi and RC's offerings notwithstanding!).
Most of the Bush tax cuts had to be extended in the second term or they would have reverted to the previous amounts.
Anyone who thinks Kerry and Bush appointments for the judiciary and bureaucracy would be a wash is simply wrong. It's not even worth arguing.
As tragic as the loss of life is in Iraq, it is relatively insignificant compared to the annual toll from abortion.
Your disdain for Bush has clouded your judgment.
Stem cell research and partial birth abortion and little to do with each other, except in the minds of the ignorant. One suggestion, shot down by the pro-life crowd is that un-implanted embryos be used. Apparently, flushing them down a sink is a more 'acceptable' to 'kill' what isn't conscious or technically human yet (genes don't count or cancer researchers would be in big trouble for constantly 'killing' the remnants of one women, whose cancer tissue has been replicating itself and living beyond her real death for almost 20 years, than using the cells for reasearch.
For anyone not aware of the women I mention:
http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/lookup.html?node=1860
Technically, the only thing differenciating such cells from an embryo is having the right genes active to promote full development (and the clone people have figured out how to make that happen) and a genetic glitch, which results in the cells replicating like single cell organisms, instead of developing into distinct tissues. So, is using these 'better' and why? And if not, then how is destroying unimplanted embyos 'better' than using them? See, the problem here is when people use labels like pro-life and pro-choice, they #$@#$ confuse the issue to the point were reasonable arguments and logic go out the window in favor of, "Everyone pro-choice is a baby killer, and so is anyone we 'assume' might profit from it.", or, "Everyone how is pro-life is a delusional fool or Christian fundimentalist." Sadly, the only thing claiming Bush did good with both partial birth and stem cells does is prove the other side right, especially when Bush would have, if he could have, banned even drinking teas that tend to promote spontanious abortion, never mind all birth control, including both pills and condoms (he already has for African aid with the later).
No, I don't care if some people see his actions as some sort of victory. He and his lunitic friends do to, and your support of him doing what he has already only emboldened them to try to do worse things that you *won't* approve of. Sometimes a victory is a defeat, if the long term consequence of it is to give credence to the actions of a fool or fanatic.
While tax cuts are always a great thing what matters more is the ever expanding size of the federal government. Cutting taxes, but falling to hold the line on spending, doesn't provide the economy with any extra stimulus. Plus we need to factor in higher gas prices, higher commodity prices, higher home prices, which negate the benefits of President Bush's tax cuts.
Look at this link:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31
Bill Clinton's first term was actually the most fiscally conservative term since LBJ -- even more than Reagan. Non-defense discretionary spending is growing more rapidly under Bush than it did under Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. Democrats believe in big government but Republicans believe in very big government.
It was a a Nixon (Republican) appointee who ruled the "under God," phrase in the pledge unconstitutional. So again, I don't see what good Republicans have done.
A Bush presidency has not stopped abortion. However, a non-Bush presidency would have stopped the slaughter in Iraq. On net, voting for Bush is bad deal.
Eric,
"Voting for Bush is a bad deal." I don't want to seem facetious Eric but you are keeping it straight that this argument is an "in hindsight" one right? I mean the guy isn't running for anything again.
Also, Ralph is making a very good point about judges under Bush being better as a group, since he took into account appointments at all levels. My skeptical response to that being a decisive argument for having voted for Bush over Kerry was that the GOP has not proven itself to be a reliable ally in this "judge's war" at all; since they have never been willing to routinely block judges the way the Dems have. Even if they wanted to be more decorous then the Dems who wanted to go "nuculer" w/ the filibuster the Republican majorities in the nineties could have still given bad judicial appointees a tough time and voted some down.
