Considering the events of 9/11, and considering the bipartisan support for the bill, I probably wouldn't have been upset if Clinton had been the President to sign it.
• Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?
I'm not pleased about a perpetuation of federal control of education, but had it been a Democrat, it would have a $26 billion or more blank check. At least Bush is trying to reform education, and put some standards into education--something a Democrat would never do.
• Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?
No. He held his nose as he did so, and I believe it is the role of the judiciary to judge the constitutionality of legislation, not the President.
• What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?
It hasn't happened yet, so it's not a done deal. And Ronald Reagan did likewise.
• Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?
No, I would not have tolerated a Democrat proposal for faith-based initiatives because it would be too intrusive into the practice of religion. I believe that faith-based organizations should be able to compete for a piece of federal social service grants, rather than let secular humanist organizations have a monopoly on that money. As long as the federal government is in the business of supporting social programs, faith-based programs should be allowed to participate in those programs.
• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "No one should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government"?
I would have supported that Democrat. But this is fantasy: no Democrat would ever say such a thing.
• What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?
I'm inclinded to oppose it. But this issue doesn't make or break my support for Bush.
• What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?
Probably not much. It was a politically expedient position on Bush' part, and steals an issue from the Democrats in an election year. Gosh! The President playing politics. Horrors!
• How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?
Let's talk about the individual line items of that budget rather than the gross amount. For all I know, the nation needs a $2.13 trillion budget. What would you suggest? A budget of $125,000?
• Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?
Again, I disgree with Bush on this, but it isn't a support-buster, in my opinion.
• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?
This was reached by compromise. Republicans opposed it; Dems supported it. A compromise was reached. Don't lose sleep over it.
• Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?
Didn't Bush brush aside the EPA report on global warming yesterday? What's your problem with his position?
• What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?
Again, this is a volatile issue, or was. The public clammered for it. Bush's concept of "Patients' Rights" and the Democrats' are significantly different. Bush opposes frivolous lawsuits against HMOs. The lawsuits provision is the cornerstone of the Democrats' concept of patients' rights. I support Bush on this. If Gore had been President, there would have been a sell-out to the trial lawyers long before this.
• What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?
He's a decent person. I thank God every day that following eight years of Clinton/Gore, George W. Bush is President.
• It's been a year-and-a-half since Bush took office. When do we start to see a decrease in the size and scope of government? For that matter, when do we start to see even a remote indication that this administration will think about doing anything to try to limit the federal government?
We saw an effort to limit the growth in the federal budget when Bush proposed his first one: a limit on growth to 4%. It's been less than a year since the first Bush budget went into effect. If he controls the growth of government, I'm happy. The fact that he doesn't have a line-item veto like most governors do means he's not able to be as effective in cutting programs as he or we might like. But, realistically, when was the last time the budget actually decreased?
No. He held his nose as he did so, and I believe it is the role of the judiciary to judge the constitutionality of legislation, not the President.<<
Okay, so as long as the President "holds his nose," he can sign away the whole U.S. Constitution and hope he is overturned by SCOTUS. Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
Yes, I wonder at some of the go along to get along, but instead of a tide of the above, that it may be a tidal wave.
Let's see what happens if he gets a Republican (not rino) House and Senate, and then judge his peformance.
A splendid showing of backbone, wasn't it? He could have refused to sign the bill.