George W. Bush--The First 30 Months

7-1-2003 | Justshe

[Scenic Sounds]

I guess he'll still do it even though his contention is that President Bush is many things other than a right wing conservative.

I must say, that is an impressive list.

What I've never seen, though, is any kind of affirmative description by TLB of his own political philosophy. I have real doubts about his being a "right wing conservative." He's done that wing of the party too much damage, IMO. ;-)

[justshe]

Thanks...yes, added some of those items. Hard to separate what are actual 'need to still do or address' from some items that have already been done, but have caused heartburn for some.

For example, Homeland Security, CFR, Farm Bill and Education bill were listed on the things GWB HAS done....and thus are not waiting to be done or addressed.

I supposed I could list all of those as 'need to rescind' under the second list.

[deport]

I'd say your list is too short.

---

LOL..... yep I'd guess it's a few floors short of the pent house kinda like his elevator...

[Cyber Liberty]

Was Neville your fault, toots?

[Scenic Sounds]

I love your tag line. ;-)

So, who do you anticipate you'll be voting for in November, 2004?

[ravingnutter]

he did not stop abortions on military bases

Actually, according to the info I have read, since 1979, "abortion is not provided by U.S. military hospitals except in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the woman". The Senate tried to add amendments to the 2003 Defense spending bill that would have allowed abortions on overseas bases. Sen. Patty Murray's (D-WA) amendment would have also repealed the ban on abortion in military hospitals in the United States. These amendments were eventually removed under a Bush veto threat. So while he did not ban it, he threatened to veto the repeals of these bans. All of his campaign literature stated that he supported the ban. Maybe we should revise the statement rather than eliminating it...such as "supporteed and upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals".

[NittanyLion]

I supposed I could list all of those as 'need to rescind' under the second list.

That might work, if you're planning to reference the list going forward.

You should probably add federalization of airport security screeners too. :-)

[Constantine XIII]

Don't you just want to take all of these single-issue people and smack 'em upside the head? ;p

[Cyber Liberty]

Yeah, I'd like to know that, too. These lovelies who refer to the party of Bush as "Republocrats" never seem to have a viable alternative candidate (Pat Buchanan: Please Stop Laughing).

It's easy to complain loudly when one has dealt oneself out of the loop by insisting on an extreme.

[justshe]

That makes sense. Will await OldHoosier's comments re: amending this item. THANKS!

[justshe]

You should probably add federalization of airport security screeners too.

Under which list...it is a done deal. So it could be listed twice...once as 'done' and once as 'rescind'. :-)

[wardaddy]

I'm with you. I like the way you've expressed yourself.

I'm neither a Bushbot who will not tolerate any dissent (we have a few of those). Nor, am I unaware of the only electable alternative which WOULD be much worse and is quite relevant.

I think I expected a bit more rightist action from W domestically but given the magnitude of the sudden cataclysm dumped in his lap, I'm willing to rationalize the domestic shortcomings in leiu of his foreign policy and warmaking efforts...for now.

The honour and dignity restoration is also something not to be dismissed lightly.

The problem many FReepers including my self had is simply this:

Anyone who say 80% shares our world view and cultural values cannot get elected today in America. The reasons for that are myriad and will have to be attacked for generations and we may (in fact probably) fail.

W's biggest failure in my view is his lack of action on illegal immigration. He obviously fears the Hispanic Gorilla in the Closet and thinks he can tame it. I'm very skpetical. Were they all Cubans or perhaps South American professionals, it would be easy but these are purely economic refugees and the numbers are staggering and the institutional trending for them to go into urban clusters and remain Democrat is already well noted. He seems to brim with confidence which is good but I think he is wrong on this one....quite wrong actually.

I give him an A on foreign policy (aside from the African AIDs nuttiness which is great PR but will be a huge waste)

I'd give him a C+/B- on domestic simply in comparison to the Dems who would naturally recieve Fs.

He deseves nods for his judiciary attempts.

[jmc813]

If you have individual ping lists.....please use them to facilitate the widest possible discussion.

As you wish. A ping for some loserdopians and JBT's.

[The Old Hoosier]

That is correct. However, the Murray amendment (and the Sanchez amdt in the House) was defeated on an up-or-down vote, not removed because of a veto threat. In any case, Bush did not stop abortions on military bases.

[Southack]

"Detention of US Citizens without charges or representation, suspected terrorists or not, if they are US citizens, they are protected by the constitution.
Jose Padilla "

That's actually not true in all circumstances.

For instance, prior to WW2 Adolph Hitler put out a call for all true Aryans worldwide to come defend the Fatherland. More than 1,000 American citizens answered his call by going to Germany and enlisting in the Wehrmacht (Army).

But then after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the U.S. There were now American citizens in Germany at war with America herself.

When our soldiers encountered these American citizens, they were shot on sight on the battlefield, or captured and imprisoned as prisoners of war.

But interestingly enough, the Surpreme Court ruled that those American citizens were **NOT** entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. So those "American" POWs were not given attorneys. They could not sue for bail. They could not call witnesses. They were not entitled to trials.

Later, a small group of those Aryan-Americans were brought to the U.S. mainland by a German U-boat to conduct sabatoge. They were dressed in civilian clothes, and they were captured by American police, not military forces.

Again the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such battlefield combatants, even though some were American citizens, had no civilian rights under the U.S. Constitution. They were given military trials/tribunals, and several (but not all) were executed.

So, can U.S. citizens be detained without trials and without attorneys? Well, the answer, historically at least, has been "yes" if they are battlefield cambatants.

One of the 9/11/01 terrorists was an American citizen, for instance. Certainly there would have been no crime if an innocent American on his hijacked aircraft had executed that particular person without trial, even though the perp in question was a U.S. Citizen.

Nor do we stop battles, either in America or in foreign lands, to give U.S. citizens like Taliban Johnny a trial or an attorney. Such battlefield combatants are dealt with at our convenience, under such rules and procedures as we deem necessary.

The moral to this story is that taking up arms **against** America is a good way to lose your Constitutional protections.

[TLBSHOW]

Democrat Dr. Ruth Campaigns for Bush

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/1/103428

[Southack]

I like your lists, but sadly the tone of half a dozen or so "permanent" Bush Bashers will refuse to acknowledge that Bush has done much good for Conservatives, no matter how many times you list his achievements for us.

It's very similar to how the Rats behave on DU and in the media, where Bush must always be portrayed from the worst possible angle.

In fact, it's eerily similar to how the Rats are always bashing Bush.

Hmmm...

[newgeezer]

So, who do you anticipate you'll be voting for in November, 2004?

What was true in 2000 is sure to be true in '04. ("The reality is, a vote for anyone other than [the Republican is] at least in effect a vote for even more socialism under President [Democrat].")

I've used use my vote to make a conservative statement only when I'm certain I'm not helping elect a liberal. The last two times were in the Iowa caucuses for Alan Keyes. If Keyes was a third-party candidate in the '00 General Election, I'd have voted for Bush to keep Gore from winning.

It's not particularly satisfying. But, it's a nod to reality.

[Sabertooth]

you could have shortened your list to one line...."Consider the alternative.."

It's SOP, after all.

[ken5050]

ya know, I was just trying to add a little humor, and you should see all the hate mail I got...