http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/pro...501&ID=5684197

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Except for my support for public financing, I agree 100% with that article. Of course, this administration has managed to find loopholes and ambiguities for its unethical level of power, and probably about half of Americans don't care because they are excessively afraid of terrorism. Warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act and- worst of all- torture would have been unthinkable before September 11th, but now there is an exaggerated view of the threat terrorism poses such that many Americans are willing to give up any basic right out of fear. Sometimes I think Bush believes God has given him some special power given to no other American President. The support he gets from certain ultra-Fundamentalists is disturbing. Whatever his reasons, his constant assertion of "executive authority" is against the spirit of the Constitution even if ambiguous wording in the Constitution (e.g. "unreasonable" searches and seizures) has managed, for the most part, to keep Bush out of legal trouble.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I think most wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it's been coming for a while now. Just slowly and surely instead of a tidal wave. I'm one who doesn't really like him as are many I know.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

has done an investigation and found that Bush has claimed the authority to disobey 750 laws passed by Congress. He has used the so-called signing statements to proclaim the power to set aside these statutes when they conflict with his personal interpretation of presidential power. One out of every 10 has received this treatment, so they say. Is it possible that such a huge number of laws have crossed his desk during his time in office?? ?

That's because you are a Conservative first and a Republican second.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

The real conservatives have been turning on Bush for years, or at least that is what the liberal press likes to say.

Well if you look at the president's handling of "real conservative" issues, you’ll see exactly why he isn’t one...

1. Federal spending. Bush has NEVER vetoed the spendthrift (Republicans) in Congress for continuing to further indebt our country. Let's not forget how important reducing the size and cost of government was to the GOP in the early 1990s...

2. Immigration. The president has no backbone when it comes down to it. Bush talks the talk but ultimately cops out, failing to turn his rhetoric into policy. He did the same thing with Social Security reform (something I supported him on immensely). Though I understand why, given Bush’s low ratings, Congress is reluctant to get behind him on these issues.

3. Executive power. Continuing with the whole “lacing a backbone” theme, Congress is reluctant to challenge Mr. Bush for expanding the scope and power of the executive branch. I don’t care that we’re waging a war: the president is not above the law unless. Bollocks with this extremely loose interpretation of the law.

4. Lack of accountability. Conservatives like to stereotype the far-left as being unaccountable, "blame everyone else for their problems" types. Ironically, Bush has become the very thing his party hates. This administration has a difficult time admitting errors in judgment and correcting courses of action to make up for said errors. This brings me to point five…

5. The president is elitist. Again, another irony. Conservatives stereotype the far-left as being elite, but the president takes the cake. For most of his presidency, he was always reluctant to give press conferences – even hostile to the idea. Even if Mr. Bush hates the press corps, he should understand the importance of dialoging with the public in this manner. (Staged public Q&A events don’t count.) Avoiding press conferences says to me at least that he can just hide behind the White House without talking to the people. Also, that Mr. Bush thinks he’s above the law is extraordinarily elitist. Lastly, let us not forget that neoconservatism is itself an avant-garde movement started by elite intellectuals. Not that this really matters, but it flies in the face of this whole “salt of the earth common man conservatism” image the president likes to portray.

I could go on, but I just hope conservatives see this man for who he is. I also hope conservatives avoid voting for Mr. Bush just because of his socially conservative positions. When it comes to policy battles, the right should first tackle the “hard” issues (spending, immigration, etc.) and then move onto social ones.

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

I'm not sure when the last "real" conservative was in office. Eisenhower perhaps??? This is the man that I admire the most out of all our presidents since WWII. He had a reason to spend vast amounts on military infrastructure--he faced a true enemy. Yet, he desired a balanced budget--this was made difficult by fellow conservatives, but he made great success nonetheless. On top of this, he cared a lot about the country's infrastructure. Sure, a lot of it (the national highway system) was also for a military purpose, but then again, you do not see Bush and these new republicans putting together fiber optic lines across the country, which would be enormously beneficial for the military and civilian sectors--primarily the civilian sector. And let us not forget--he was an accomplished military strategist, and an excellent public speaker.

Rest in peace Mr. President.

May we live to see a day where another shall emerge such as yourself.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address January 17, 1961 (source: Fortune program)

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter to his brother Edgar, November 8, 1954, Snopes page

You listening Bush???

Anyhow, let's get one thing straight. Eisenhower could have done more for civil rights (he still signed many bills), and he could have been a little bit less hypocrytical in fighting communism with dictatorships--but then again...the liberals were just as bad. Kennedy might have been better on civil rights, but he still escalated Vietnam under his watch. No one's perfect--eisenhower was simply the lesser of all evils...and let's not forget the time he was in and where he came from. Amazing individual.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)