[Orangedog]

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who must have little else to do, has recently urged state governments to pass "primary" seat-belt laws, which allow police to stop and cite motorists solely for failing to wear a seat belt. And the Bush administration has proposed a $400 million incentive to reward state governments that pass such laws.

I'd like to know how this can possibly be considered a conservative agenda.

All this does is give more of our tax money to the states as an incentive for police to write more tickets and have yet another reason to harrass the public.

[mvpel]

I am firmly convinced that if a seatbelt law were challenged in just the right way, framed in the context of health-care self-dtermination, the Supreme Court would overturn all of them. See Echazabal v. Chevron, for example.

Even a prisoner has a recognized right to refuse unwanted medical or health measures.

[FairOpinion]

Life is full of priorities. Bush put solid conservatives in important positions, like Rumsfeld, but tried to cater to the bipartisanship, as a "small" gesture and let Mineta stay on.

It was a mistake, in retrospect, but Bush was doing it as a good will gesture to the Dems, who of course bit his outstretched hand.

What some people need to learn, is that you can't have a 100% or NOTHING demand, because in that case you will consistently get nothing.

If you don't support Bush, who do you think you are going to get as next president, probably Dean. Do you consider him preferable to President Bush?

[templar]

All this does is give more of our tax money to the states as an incentive for police to write more tickets and have yet another reason to harrass the public.

Well, that is conservatism. At least as I understand conservatism as of late.