Here Today... Gone To Hell!

End of the Bush Era

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005; Page A27
The New York Times

The Bush Era is over. The sooner politicians in both parties realize that, the better for them -- and the country.

Recent months, and especially the past two weeks, have brought home to a steadily growing majority of Americans the truth that President Bush's government doesn't work. His policies are failing, his approach to leadership is detached and self-indulgent, his way of politics has produced a divided, angry and dysfunctional public square. We dare not go on like this.

The Bush Era did not begin when he took office, or even with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It began on Sept. 14, 2001, when Bush declared at the World Trade Center site: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." Bush was, indeed, skilled in identifying enemies and rallying a nation already disposed to action. He failed to realize after Sept. 11 that it was not we who were lucky to have him as a leader, but he who was lucky to be president of a great country that understood the importance of standing together in the face of a grave foreign threat. Very nearly all of us rallied behind him.

If Bush had understood that his central task was to forge national unity, as he seemed to shortly after Sept. 11, the country would never have become so polarized. Instead, Bush put patriotism to the service of narrowly ideological policies and an extreme partisanship. He pushed for more tax cuts for his wealthiest supporters and shamelessly used relatively modest details in the bill creating a Department of Homeland Security as partisan cudgels in the 2002 elections.

He invoked our national anger over terrorism to win support for a war in Iraq. But he failed to pay heed to those who warned that the United States would need many more troops and careful planning to see the job through. The president assumed things would turn out fine, on the basis of wildly optimistic assumptions. Careful policymaking and thinking through potential flaws in your approach are not his administration's strong suits.

And so the Bush Era ended definitively on Sept. 2, the day Bush first toured the Gulf Coast States after Hurricane Katrina. There was no magic moment with a bullhorn. The utter failure of federal relief efforts had by then penetrated the country's consciousness. Yesterday's resignation of FEMA Director Michael Brown put an exclamation point on the failure.

The source of Bush's political success was his claim that he could protect Americans. Leadership, strength and security were Bush's calling cards. Over the past two weeks, they were lost in the surging waters of New Orleans.

But the first intimations of the end of the Bush Era came months ago. The president's post-election fixation on privatizing part of Social Security showed how out of touch he was. The more Bush discussed this boutique idea cooked up in conservative think tanks and Wall Street imaginations, the less the public liked it. The situation in Iraq deteriorated. The glorious economy Bush kept touting turned out not to be glorious for many Americans. The Census Bureau's annual economic report, released in the midst of the Gulf disaster, found that an additional 4.1 million Americans had slipped into poverty between 2001 and 2004.

The breaking of the Bush spell opens the way for leaders of both parties to declare their independence from the recent past. It gives forces outside the White House the opportunity to shape a more appropriate national agenda -- for competence and innovation in rebuilding the Katrina region and for new approaches to the problems created over the past 4 1/2 years.

The federal budget, already a mess before Katrina, is now a laughable document. Those who call for yet more tax cuts risk sounding like robots droning automated talking points programmed inside them long ago. Katrina has forced the issue of deep poverty back onto the national agenda after a long absence. Finding a way forward in -- and eventually out of -- Iraq will require creativity from those not implicated in the administration's mistakes. And if ever the phrase "reinventing government" had relevance, it is now that we have observed the performance of a government that allows political hacks to push aside the professionals.

And what of Bush, who has more than three years left in his term? Paradoxically, his best hope lies in recognizing that the Bush Era, as he and we have known it, really is gone. He can decide to help us in the transition to what comes next. Or he can cling stubbornly to his past and thereby doom himself to frustrating irrelevance.

What a surprising editorial coming from the San Francisco Examiner  Wait, I mean NY Times.  Though I sympathize with many of the positions in the editorial, I am darn tired of the yellow journalism that comes from that rag.

Same liberal rhetoric. Bitch bitch bitch. Anything positive to add?

Only the source offends you.

Amazing really.

thank God that Bush's era is finally over  :)

Well, yah. ?As I stated, I agree with some of the positions in the article. ?However, I am sick of news outlets with agendas. ?Since you seem to despise Fox for their slanted point of view and one-sided rhetoric, I would think you would be the first to point out the same with the New York Times.

Anyway, what do you expect it us to write? ?There is a thread on probably everything mentioned in the article. ?I don't have anything else to add.

Oh, well, hell, if the New York Times declares it, then it must be true.

I mean, it really is the same old liberal rhetoric, and I have more doubts about Bush than I ever did, but .....? :hihi:

Edit:


Oh, the irony, hilarious.

well thank god the world didn't get Al gore originally with that crazy bitch in tow

Where are your facts to dispute the claims made in the article?

Take a second, and actually look at what is written, can you really dispute it any longer?

The dingy named bias can't keep you guys afloat for much longer, not at a 38% approval rating, and most of that is from a shift with REPUBLICANS.

Maybe the polls are all biased too?

Just like everybody who used to work for Bush and has since spoken against him is "nuts" as well.

i heard is gonna go back to high school .

Ummmm....wasn't this printed in the editorial section? I think it was, but can someone confirm?

If you've noticed, recently, it's remarkable how much the party is starting to try to distance itself from Bush.  They know the mid-terms are only a year away, and they've no desire to attach themselves to his currently atrocious numbers....

If you ask me it ended the day he declared war on a bunch of 3rd world countries for the actions of a tiny majority of extremists.

I think Bush father wasn't that bad. His only really big mistake is that he didn't finish his mission back in 1991, he should have ended with saddam hussein in 1991, and there wouldn't have been a second gulf war with Bush son. Bush son is definitely stupid. His father, whatever you agreed with him or not, wasn't.

remarkable? hardly. just as it wouldn't be remarkable to see them all up bush's ass if his approval ratings go up to 60%.

it's basic political strategy. it's really just common sense. 

No actually, YOU offend me

Oh, I understand it's political strategy (and say as much in the last line).

But for a party that was, as you phrased it, "up bush's ass" pretty far previously, I think it IS remarkable how quickly, and completely, they've turned in the other direction.  You don't think the change is worthy of discussion?

The diversity in the editorial section is about as diverse as the political affiliation of the people that write the articles for the actual paper.

People can't have it both ways.  You can't sit and harp on Fox News and not point out the same about the NYT.  Is the writer right about many things?  Perhaps.  However, why read something when you know what the viewpoint is going to be?

BIG SUPRISE! THE NY TIMES printed an anti-Bush letter.  SLC PUNK, when you do provide a source it's always from a liberal piece of shit news source or anything that can be deemed a source.  Your allegians to the leftist ideology is truly blinding.  I know you agree that for the most part American people are stupid.  If that is true, than why do you care what Bush's approval rating is?  When his Approval ratings were at an all time high you were still bashing Bush and calling the American people stupid.  Now that they're at an all time low, you're refraining from calling them stupid.  You can't have your cake and eat it to man.  The American people by and large are fuckin retarded.  They don't understand dickshit about politics and the economy - just like the majority of every other person in this world.  Europeans are no more patriotic or informed than Americans; they just have a better welfare state to take care of the really dumb ones to keep their mouths shut.
   Our economy is outstanding ans is running twice as fast as Europe.  Our unemployment rate is at 5% while France is aroud 8% and Germany is around 11%.  For someone who seems to have a hint of intelligence, you're really standing in the woods and only seeing a few trees.  How would John Kerry or any other presidential candidate handled this current situation better?  Kerry wouldn't have pulled us out of Iraq and any person with half a brain wouldn't either.  The huricane relief situation wasn't handled the best it could have been, but Bush isn't directly responsible for FEMA.  The American people like all people are easy to sway because they choose to be.  There is an overwhelming liberal bias in the media and every dipshit who wants to be mislead will be.  In two years when Bush's approval ratings are back above 50% will the American people have become dumber over that time span? The unfortunate reality for you and all other liberals is that your inane policies are only attractive to a small, vocal minority and when it's decision time the little amount of common sense left in the average American runs away like a frightened mouse. 
  Bush is a fuck up, but name me one American president that hasn't.  Fucking up comes with the job.  It's alot easier to point the blame and switch sides when there's no personal cost involved.  That's exactly what the American people are doing now.  They want immediate results with no care or consideration for the consequences or costs.

There's a big difference.  I expect opinion in the editorial section of the paper (varied or not)...that's what it's for.  And this article was properly placed there.

I don't expect (or respect) editorializing in the guise of reporting news.  That's what Fox does (though I agree, they're not the only ones), and what others have taken them to task for.  I could care less what opinion they express in their "editorial" shows (like the panel shows).

So much to cover...I'm gonna do what I hate to do and cut it up:


The Times is a legitamate, credible source.? And it WAS an editorial, so it's obviously going to have a "slant" to it.


Maybe his point is Bush has been so incompetant of late, even the supid can see it?? I kid...I kid....


I think that's a gross overgeneralization and an offensive one at that.? Many people might NOT understand the big picture, or the long term effects, but they understand what hits close to home.

Oh, and...I'd be a bit hesitant to bring up SLC's past forays into Bush Bashing...mostly because a good chunk of what he posted around and during the election has come to pass.? Not ALL of it, to be sure, but still....


Other economic indicators are not so rosey....We're certainly not in the recession, any more, but I'd hardly say the economy was "outstanding".? Most economists say the same sorts of things...outstanding would be much too strong a word.? And most economists also say that we've not reached "critical mass" on stability of the growth trends, either.


Au contraire, mon freire.? Bush IS directly responsible for FEMA.? His administration appointed the DOHS AND, consequently, the director of FEMA.? Even Bush admitted responsibility, recently.? Remember..."the buck stops here".? And it seems to me that, given the size and scope of the PROJECTED disaster, that maybe it warrented a bit of Bush's DIRECT attention, at the particular moment of crisis.


Did you not actually look at the results of the '04 election?? Seems the Dems got an awful lot of votes for a party with "inane policies that are only attractive to a small, vocal minority".? The country is pretty evenly split, with the "independants" and "middleists" actually being the deciding factor more than the staunch party supporters are.? The unfortunate reality, in truth, is that neither party is willing to try to find middle ground, and instead bicker like little school girls instead of using the energy to point fingers on solving problems.? And that the more militant supporters of "the party line" will do anything they can to minimize the opinions and thoughts of anyone not agreeing with them.? Sure seems like a great way to stifle the problem solving to me.

Bush has done ONE thing, during his administration, very well.  And that thing has been polorizing the country in furthering his rather narrow agenda.


In your opinion.? And THAT opinion IS held by a small minority of vocal supporters.? Even the members of Bush's own PARTY are criticizing him, now.? You can argue it's political strategy (and, I'm sure in large part it is), but the fact remains that there ARE THINGS TO CRITICIZE..big things.? If there weren't.....Bush's approval ratings WOULD be in the 50's.

not at all. that's par for the course. in fact, i think that anyone with intentions of running for any office in the next 1-3 years that DOES stay closely alligned with bush is more worthy of a discussion (santorum maybe.) cause that would be shocking.

even al gore distanced himself from clinton in 1999-2000. and clinton's ratings weren't even that low if i remember correctly. (which was a huge mistake on gore's part and showed how out of touch he was with the public.)

So?

Take a number.

This is false, most people here, even those who disagree with me would call this claim false.

I know what I posted, I just thought it was a good article.

The country is pretty much split?
What a joke.
half of kerrys votes came from people who cant even spell politics.
Its called scaring people. Scaring the havenots into thinking the conservatives are the boogie man.
Which is exactly what constant pessimism does. Its anti productive, but I do hope you liberals keep it up.
because, in 2008, we will win again, and in 2012, we win, 2016.....I think you get the picture.

You either change your mindset, speak some sort of vision instead of trying to bring the country down,
or we keep winning. Simple shit really.

Simple is as simple posts. ::)

Half of Kerry's votes came from people who can't spell? Please post your sources for this brillaint comment.

This country was founded on speaking out against your country, not doing so would be unpatriotic. You obviously do not support these basic principles.

Keep winning what?



You are obviously an angry right wing poster who has come back under a new user name. Almost all your posts are political. Why do you guys run away, only to return under a different name?

You win only because you get the redneck areas. If liberals can't even spell politics how come the liberal party claims all the big business states such as New York? Come on now I'm not even from the States and I know this. Almost every year liberals don't win the elections they get the majority of votes none the less. No wonder the republicans won't change the voting system, they'd be trampled on every election.

(http://home.egge.net/~savory/Votes-by-IQ.gif)

keep winning what?
Elections, thats what.
And that is about to lead to two conservative Supreme court appointees, which is more important than any Presidential election
 It turns the tide of the liberal degeneration of the constitution.
The degeneration from a party that says its ok for a thirteen year old girl to have an abortion without her parents consent, a party that says its ok to do nothing with your life, the government will take care of you, the party that says its ok to hire on the base of race alone. the party that has Ted kennedy for a spokesman and the likes of Jesse Jackson for a cheerleader.

These things will erode a society, nothing a slow president from Texas does will bring this country down. Its the new millinium, think!!!

(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/statemapredbluelarge.png)

you tell me who you think should run this country
Republicans are RED by the way for the foriegn contingent.
The Blues ARE 'corporate' America
the same Corporate America you whine about being in Bushs back pocket, well, which is it going to be?

Theres a pattern to the liberal nonsense.

vs. a party that thinks the entire Muslim race is evil, doesn't give a damn about their environment, thinks America is the only country that's worth a shit, thinks the Christian religion is the only true religion, and thinks "man and the fish can co-exist peacefully" ?:hihi:

What about a Republican party that wants to mix raw sewage with drinking water, ease lead based paint restrictions, destroy pristine forests for oil, lessens restrictions on mercury emissions. ?So if you guys keep on winning all we will have left is a toxic waste land but hey, your winning right? ?Wrong, with this Bush Cartel we are all losing.


The Red Area is also known as Dumbfuckistan.

You two make my argument so much easier.
Ill just sit back and watch.

So where is your defense for Bush's actions against the environment?  Don't have one?  You act like he has not made any mistakes, that kind of blind loyalty is dangerous. 

How are we possibly making your argument easier? You give a couple of things that are wrong about the Democratic parties policies and we give you about 4/5 examples each of the Republican parties flawed policies. You are full of shit. You say a couple of things, we reply with twice the amount of arguments and you post some bullshit about us making your argument easier because you can't think of a few more flaws in the Democratic policy. Your stumped, why don't you just admit it instead of trying to act all slick, thinking you know everything. If it's so easy, why don't you go ahead and humiliate us.

I'll say this again for you, since you're new:

I'm not a Democrat. ?Registered Independant and have voted both sides of the ticket. ?I actually suspect that, if McCain runs in '08...I might vote for him over Hillary.

And your baseless accusations about "the people who voted for Kerry can't even spell politics" are just that...baseless..and laughable. Check out the exit poll numbers from the election:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Seems the higher the education level, the LARGER the % of Kerry voters.

 And citing Kerry's use of "fear tactics" is even more laughable considering one of the prime points of the Repubs was "Security" and pushing the point that Kerry couldn't keep the country safe. ?Now THATS a scare tactic.

To be MUCH clearer:

TOTAL Vote % breakdowns (courtesy of CNN):

Bush: 51.22%
Kerry: 47.78%

Looks like a pretty close split to me....

Yeah, and most of them votes were probably "better the fool we know than the fool we don't"

Actually, if you look at the exit polls, it was that Bush was able to swing more of HIS party than Kerry was able to get Dem votes.

The dems favored Kerry, but Bush took 11% of the Dem votes to Kerry's 8% of Repub votes.  The Independant votes were almost dead even (48% to 49%).

With the dems that voted for Bush, from the exit polls I've seen, THEIR #1 issue was Security/Terrorism, followed by Economy/Jobs.

A liberal says do something about the oil situation but
claims the President sleeps with the oil execs AND drilling in Alaska will fuck the environment.
BUT has no answer

A liberal says the president should stop terrorism BUT
The war in iraq is wrong, AND thinks that capturing Bin Laden would have solved the problem....
homeland security tramples our civil rights, and taking a picture of a naked scumbag that would cut your head off and piss down your neck is violating his rights.

a liberal says that going after Muslims because MUSLIM fanatics are the ones behind the terrorist attacks is saying Christianity is the only religion.

A liberal says, well let me quote one...........
"What about a Republican party that wants to mix raw sewage with drinking water, ease lead based paint restrictions, destroy pristine forests for oil, lessens restrictions on mercury emissions. ?So if you guys keep on winning all we will have left is a toxic waste land ?"

Bush really wants all those things, he hates nature, wants us all to drink sewage, mercury? drink up people..

And A liberal thinks that agreeing with the decisions of a duly elected president means you are following blindly.
AND
most importantly, a liberal has no ideas of his own,
he was born to bitch and moan.

My grandfather always told me,
when you see a man working, you either
offer a better way, lend a hand, or shut the fuck up and stay out of his way.
Im a Republican that comes from a family of Slave owners but opened his home to two black familys after a hurricane wiped their lives out. ?He sees the past and learns from the errors of those before him, but he doesnt bash them.
God Bless America and those of us left with the good sense to remember what it was that made us the greatest country on earth in 200 short years.

That is the single greatest collection of straw men, in one place, I have ever seen.  Ditto on the blind, baseless generalizations and stereotypes.

Congratulations!

keep winning what?

You seem more interested in being a "winner" than actually looking at what has happened to America and the world (because of W) over the past five years.




These things will erode a society, nothing a slow president from Texas does will bring this country down. Its the new millinium, think!!!


If that is what you call thinking, I'll go along being stupid.

Im sure you will

(http://tinypic.com/dootg3.jpg)

Linky?

Republicans are pure evil & the democrats will take care of all our needs.  I can`t believe you fall for that shit! Both parties will take advantage of us, just in different ways.

I am not saying that the Dems don't do stuff when they are in power but this current Adm. seems to be setting the bar as far as how much damage they have done to this country.  Clinton fucked us with NAFTA and other free trade acts that sent all of our businesses overseas.  Yes, they all suck but some (Bush) more than others.

I've been critical of Clinton in the past, but you guys always ignore that.

Just like right wing hacks ignore Michael Moore calling Clinton on his bullshit.

guess we can blame the media for not making that more common knowledge

Personal responsibility is always best I think.

Checkout the new issue of Rolling Stone, it has an article about Bush's assault on the environment.  It's pretty astonishing and can in no way be defended.

Be careful, you don't want people to think you are complaining..... :P

how can reccomending an article be seen as complaining?

Rolling Stone has the most one sided political articles I`ve ever seen, totally irresponsible journalism. It is not reporting, its an editorial with an agenda.

Dude, you are a closet liberal just waiting to come out....admit it..... :hihi:

Well, is it not the president's JOB to come up with an answer?


And a Republican would take that Muslim, arrest him, keep him in custody indefinitely, and give him a criminal record without any prior evidence he is guilty of any crime against security. BECAUSE HE IS A MUSLIM. If a white Christian went in to a Muslim country, and was held at customs and arrested indefinitely without proof he is involved in any crime there would be hell to pay.


A Republican says, that the Muslim religion is evil and needs to be stopped, spreading fear of the Muslim race throughout the country, because of the ineducated, foolish acts of a minority, within a minority.


Don't even make me start quoting some of the Conservative bullshit I have heard both on here and within politics. And, if you REALLY want me to I will.


Well, it would seem that way, maybe your great president should prove me wrong.


Well, seeing as that president is one, George W Bush, they are probably right.


I'm sorry that is just a bullshit, prejudiced opinion that has no basis in fact. Seeing as liberalism is based on ideas of how the world should be, no how it is. Seems to me a liberal kind of has to come up with ideas or philosophies of their own, they don't just spring out of the ground.


Well, who am I to take pot shots at your family? That would be wrong. But what made America great was being liberal, correct me if I'm wrong but if it weren't for liberal ideas, you'd still be under the control of the British.

So Shades, are we supposed to congratulate you for not continueing to own slaves.  That's mighty white of you!

My point, unlike your point, (you can comb the hair to one side and hide it if it bothers you)
was that what was once considered mainstream is now considered wrong, rightfully so in the case of slavery.
And although I have ancestors that practiced slavery I understand those were different times and have nothing to do with the way I think now, but Im not going to bash my family for it.
    with you and your liberal thinking, a conservative could cure cancer and you would say he did it for the money, and had no intentions of the cure reaching minorities. Your thinking is so transparent and shallow its hard to take anything you say seriously.
AND
'Prejudice' is simply holding a preconceived judgement by the way.
We are all guilty of that.

The thread title is 'End of the Bush Era' and pretending racism will contribute to that is just ridiculous.

Shades, since we are making assumptions:  At this rate your grandchildren will finally accept gays as full citizens or that women who get abortions aren't horrible people.

Your scnario about cancer is flawed, science will cure cancer and science has no politics.

Why is it so unbelievable that racism will contribute to the end of the Bush era?  This era is more than one man, it's the House and Senate Republicans too.  Perceived racism by blacks may get them to the polls and oust some of these Bushites.

perceived being the key word I take it.

We accept gays as full citizens just as you do,
but you cant call it marriage, thats just fuckin ridiculous.

we support a womans right to abortion, we just dont think the government ie 'me' should pay for it.
OR that a 13 year old girl should be allowed to have one without geting her parents involved.

What you liberals do is 'spin' what we say to fit some sort of hate scare tactic for votes.
And its NOT WORKING.
you will continue to lose elections because 'foundation' America is not as stupid as you think, nor do they want to be told what 'we' said..they can hear just fine.

First off, pot/kettle/black.  You bash the liberals for being one minded about conservative motivation...and then do the same steeotyping you accuse the libs of.

Second, on the thread title....Note the title of the article we originally began discussing.

Why not call it marriage? It's just a fucking word.  Why must we call it a "civil union", if they can have all the benefits (they don't yet, fyi, through the federal govt) of a "marriage"? 

As for your statements on abortion and the party line on it...you're wrong.  Many of the high level Repub party members want Roe V Wade overturned.   They don't JUST want to end medicare/medicaid funding of it, or restrict it.  They want abortions made illegal, again.  If you'd like, I'll point you to the vast number of articles and comments on the subject from within the Repub party.

And we'll see what happens, if the current trend continues, at the mid-term elections coming up.

because two men or two women cant be 'married'

Do you allow anybody to just come in and change the entire meaning of a legal institution because they want to.
Something thats been that way since the beginning.
Why even get married in the first place, its 'just a word'?
Marriage vows, legal ramifications and everything it stands for is an established union.
You dont just change it because a squeaky wheel wants some grease. No pun intended.
Where does it end, boys want to join the girlscouts, girls want to join the boys club.

Two gay people can live together, rasie children, share benefits, leave estates to each other, whatever, but its not 'marriage'. 'If its just a word' then what IS the big deal.
Your asking to change a respected institution that people entered with the understanding that there was a defined meaning.

And no one is trying to overturn Roe Wade,
just clarify that there needs to be a law stating a young child needs to involve her parents with a decision that only an adult can understand the consequences vs options.

And you are overestimating your 'team' if you think the mid terms are going to speak your message across the board.

And why can't 2 men or 2 women be married?? Because you say so??

Marriage, as a legal concept, wouldn't change a WHIT if men were allowed to marry men, or women were allowed to marry women.? Only the "allowable participants" would be changed.? And so what if they were.? Explain to me, seriously, what the fucking difference would be?? Who, exactly, would be harmed by it??

You? Because it would somehow "cheapen" your marriage? How?? How would it make the love and commitment you show to your spouse any more or less meaningful?? How would the legal benefits that you get from your marriage be any different?

It would simply allow people who want to be in a long term, committed relationship to enjoy the same sort of FEDERAL (as in filing joint tax returns, sharing Social Security benefits, etc) benefits that you enjoy with your wife.? I just don't see what the big deal is...unless you turn it into a religeous argument.

As for boys being in the girlscouts and girls being in the boys club...it's a different ball of wax.? There exists (the boy scouts and the girls club) a DIFFERENT, yet EQUAL, opportunity for them.? ?It's almost like the Title 9 rulings in regards to sports that allow girls, who are so inclined, to play football or wrestle on what is traditionally an all guys team if there IS no girls football or girls wrestling team.? There IS no federal equivalent to "marriage".? And, given it's just a stinking word, of what benefit is it to invest the time, energy, and resources into recreating an exact duplicate of an existing institution, under a different name, just because "the squeaky wheel", as you so elequently put it, doesn't like the existing terminology to be applied to gay people? Sorta assinine, ain't it?? All stemming from the fact some people are, for some weird reason, offended when their relationship MIGHT share a term with a gay relationship.? ::)? And that, right there, is the crux of the matter, with all the bullshit stripped away.

And again, to add to your "education", two gay people can absolutely NOT enjoy, right now, the same rights, in the eyes of the federal government, as two married adults.? Can not.?

As for not wanting to overturn Roe v Wade....again, some education on the subject:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-24-abortion_x.htm

Listen closely to Bush's speech to the crowd (which is an included audio link)

http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3191

There's many, many, many more articles on the subject, from a variety of sources, and quotes abound from a variety of high ranking Repub party members, all saying they want RvW overturned, or that they disagree, greatly, with the RvW ruling.?? Use google...I'm getting sort of sick of having to "educate you" in thread after thread after thread.


Now, I'm not saying they want to make abortion illegal.? They want it returned to a states rights issue, which is different.? But would still necessitate RvW being overturned.?

And I don't surmise to know WHAT the midterms will bring.?

And, once again, for posterity, the Dems are not "my team".? However, if things progress as they are now, the Repubs are either going to distance themselves HUGELY from the president and his policies OR the Dems are going to walk all over them.? In either case, IF THE CURRENT CLIMATE CONTINUES, it's going to need to be a vastly different landscape come the midterms than it is now.? So it looks like there WILL be a very different message being sent than the one that was sent during the '04 elections...at least as things stand today.

Sgades, your queston was " do you allow anybody to just come in and change the entire meaning of a legal institution because they want to?"  Blacks sure wanted a change and they remade educational system and society as whole.  Were they out of line like the gays?
A few women changed our entire system.  You are full of crap.

Republican should know all baout using the scare tactic to get votes, it's been your meal ticket lately.

Good points!  Women's suffrage changed the entire system (as much as shades suggests marriage would change by allowing gay people to marry) in which we elect our leaders.

That's exactly the reasons I just don't get Conservative views. I mean if the whole world remained Conservative throughout history with absolutely no opposition or argument. The world would still be "flat", still be the "centre of the universe", Europe would never have discovered the Americas, as a result the world would be split into several seperate entities, we would still have public execution, children would still work in coal mines, every race except for white males would be "evil", women would still be "owned by their father at birth and their husband at marriage", still wouldn't be able to vote, wouldn't get an education. There would be no rights for black people, corporal punishment (which would only have boys) would still exist in schools, landlords would still have political control over their tenants, slavery would not have been abolished, I could just keep goin if I wanted to.