Has the Bush administration gone too far?

[Dave Gray]

I would definitely vote for Jeb. I don't think he'll run or win though, because it smacks of an un-American dynasty. But then again, that's not stopping Hillary.

Dave, Bush didn't do anything in the Schiavo matter, or propose school vouchers, or do anything to fight gay marriage (Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, remember?). You also don't really know anything about how his judges will treat abortion rights -- no one does. Maybe the party in general is more influenced by Christianity, but it's unfair to paint Bush with that brush without more hard evidence.

I'm not talking about Bush specifically, I'm talking about "the Republican party".  I was careful to use that term each time.

Besides, Bush did have stuff to do with the Schiavo matter.  Jeb made a big stink of it, Bush spoke on it, and they had emengency court meeting and stuff.  While George W. wasn't the front man on the "save Terri" movement, we'd be lying if we said that he wasn't involved.

And again, I'm not trying to argue whether or not Alito is qualified or not, but his selection (for both sides) is highly about his opportunity to overturn Roe V. Wade...whether or not he does or not doesn't really matter.  He's shown in the past that he is for abortion-regulating law, and the church backs him.

...and regarding Gay Marriage, Bush ran on the platform that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and he even fronted a cause to have it put in the Constitution.

Now I'm not even talking about Bush, but even if I were, the argument would still pretty much hold up.  I'm talking about the Republican party, and he's their top dog.

[runtheball]

He supports the things that I believe in, so yes, I'd vote for him again and again. 

[Fau Teixeira]

kerry ran on the same man + woman = marriage platform .. he just didn't support an ammendment

so lets call a spade a spade and say that both major parties frown upon homosexuality

the republicans maybe more from a religio-conservative way and the democrats more from a hypocritical (we aren't really against it but noone would vote for us if we weren't) way

lp.org ! drugs and homosexuality for everyone !

(not for me though)

(not that there's anything wrong with that...)

[ADeadSmitty]

Besides, Bush did have stuff to do with the Schiavo matter.  Jeb made a big stink of it, Bush spoke on it, and they had emengency court meeting and stuff.  While George W. wasn't the front man on the "save Terri" movement, we'd be lying if we said that he wasn't involved.

The Bushes didn't somehow convene the courts. They don't have the power to do that. Maybe Bush spoke about it. That is hardly throwing the weight of his office around.

And again, I'm not trying to argue whether or not Alito is qualified or not, but his selection (for both sides) is highly about his opportunity to overturn Roe V. Wade...whether or not he does or not doesn't really matter.  He's shown in the past that he is for abortion-regulating law, and the church backs him.

Alito is about Roe for both sides? Bush has never said that he is nominating Alito so that he will overturn Roe. It is Alito's opponents who are panicking about Roe. But then they always do that. Check out the "Stop Souter or Women Will Die" picture I had in the other thread.

...and regarding Gay Marriage, Bush ran on the platform that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and he even fronted a cause to have it put in the Constitution.

He did run on that platform, but then he didn't actually do anything once elected. So if he's guilty of anything, it's breaking his campaign promises. But again, what does that have to do with Christianity? Nothing.

Now I'm not even talking about Bush, but even if I were, the argument would still pretty much hold up.  I'm talking about the Republican party, and he's their top dog.

In general I don't think it is fair to say that one person must share the characteristics of a group with dozens of millions of members because he is in some sense the head of the group. First of all the President is only the symbolic head of the party. The RNC Chairman is the actual head of the party. The President is the most powerful member of the party. It makes no sense to say that you can be your own man as a governor of a state running for President up until the day before the election, and then the day after the election you suddenly and magically acquire all the characteristics of the broader national party base.

Also, look: the head of any organization can have different interests from the group he leads. You seem to be saying that the CEO of GM must be very pro-union, since his workers are. The owner of the Vikings must love sex-boat parties, since his players do and hey, after all, he's the top dog.

[Dave Gray]

Jesus Smitty,

You're like the most close-minded person I've ever spoken to on here.

I'm not specifically talking about Bush and his actions.

Stop turning this into partisan politics.  I'm not saying that the Dems are right about any of this.  I'm not even talking about issues.  The fact is this: for the most part, the Republican platform of the last several years has been in line with that of the Christian right.  They have become more about social issues than they ever have before.  The old Repubs were more about fiscal responsibility and small government.  The new ones are about social conservatism.

Whether or not the current govenment has control to change these things (Roe v. Wade, Shiavo, gay marriage) or not is irrelevant.  They are running on a platform of moral values, and they got elected as such.  ...my whole point is that this isn't how Republicans used to be.

[ADeadSmitty]

Hey, I went from being laudably open-minded at the beginning of this thread to the most closed-minded person on here!

Dave you said: Now I'm not even talking about Bush, but even if I were, the argument would still pretty much hold up.

[Dave Gray]

Yes, I feel that it does.  I think that you're nitpicking Bush's involvement in specific cases, and I call bullshit.  Bush is backed by the Christian right and got elected because of his views on social issues in-line with Christian morality. 

He supports a constitutional ban of gay marriage.
He supported Schiavo's right to life argument.
He supports school vouchers.
He supported limits on stem cell research.
He is a pro-lifer.

He ran on this platform.  Whether or not he has had enough power to change any of these things doesn't matter.

[ADeadSmitty]

Fuck, Dave, if only you could decide whether you are saying Bush himself is a Christian moralist president or not, we could have an actual conversation about this. One minute you are blasting me in extra-large text, next post you are conceding the very thing you blasted me for.

I responded to all those points above. Unlike you, I think it is what a politician does, not what he says, that matters. Feel free to disagree.

[Sunstroke]

I am so hoping he will be the Republican candidate in the next election. He is a personal hero of mine.

Mine as well...and if he get's the party nod in 2008, I'll vote for a Republican president for the first time ever.

it's unfair to paint Bush with that brush without more hard evidence.

Is it fair to say we have enough evidence to paint him as a total goober by now? I've got a brush here that says he's the President with the worst command of the English language, possibly of all time (I can only remember back to Nixon...but I'd bet it's true all the way back to ol' wooden-teeth himself). 

[Dave Gray]

Fuck, Dave, if only you could decide whether you are saying Bush himself is a Christian moralist president or not, we could have an actual conversation about this. One minute you are blasting me in extra-large text, next post you are conceding the very thing you blasted me for.

Yes, I do think Bush is a Christian fundamentalist.  However, my view on that doesn't pertain to my initial point about the changeover of the Republican party.

I responded to all those points above. Unlike you, I think it is what a politician does, not what he says, that matters. Feel free to disagree.

I do disagree.  I think both what a politician does and says matter.  How any of this relates to the topic at hand, I don't know.


I've seen you argue politics on this board many times, and I often feel that you overlook the bigger discussion and focus in on the semantics in the choice of words of you're opposition, as if we were on a debate team.  ...discrediting the speaker, not the point.  ...fitting that you're studying to be a lawyer.

[Brian Fein]

[Phishfan]

Maybe Bush spoke about it. That is hardly throwing the weight of his office around.

I think you should check that a bit. Of course the President doesn't have the power to do some things himself, but his word carries a lot of weight and a lot of things happen behind doors. Don't kid yourself into thinking ole JEB and George W didn't have anything to do with this. Political pressure is very hard to overcome.

[ADeadSmitty]

I think you should check that a bit. Of course the President doesn't have the power to do some things himself, but his word carries a lot of weight and a lot of things happen behind doors. Don't kid yourself into thinking ole JEB and George W didn't have anything to do with this. Political pressure is very hard to overcome.

Well in fact they didn't seem to have too much trouble overcoming it, since they pulled the plug on Schiavo. Look, if you hate the Bush administration, is the speech on the Schiavo situation going to be your #1 problem with it? Not unless you have some kind of weird anti-Christian obsession. Most people are concerned with the war, preservation of civil liberties, gas prices, the deficit, etc., long before they worry about what he simply said about Schiavo.

This thread started with two conservative people going over their problems with Bush. Dave, you tried to sneak in a bonus point about Christian morality that I thought wasn't warranted by logic or facts. I called bullshit and you spent half of your next posts defending and the other half denying that you'd even said it. Now you say the fact that I even disputed it at all is "semantics." Fuck that. I call it sloppy reasoning on your part. You say the problems with the Bush Administration are mostly due to Bush's Christian morality and I say they're not. That's a material disagreement, not "semantics."

Whatever.

[Dave Gray]

Smitty,

Again, I'm not talking about Bush.  While I do think that he's a Christian fundamentalist, it doesn't relate to my point on the Republican party as whole.  I'm done repeating myself on this point, and won't speak on it again.  I hope you choose to do the same.

To start over:

The NEW Republican party, in my opinion, is seeded in Christian values around social politics.
While the old was based on conservative spending and small government.
I am glad that some republicans that previously followed their platform, simply to not piggyback over to these changes in the party.