So what's new about that? Congress is working for their constitutants, not for the President. The people didn't want it and their representatives did their job by not supporting it. The citizens want more security in retirement, not more risk, especially if it costs more to implement than leaving social security alone. I have to agree with Tiger Wins. If Bush didn't consider that the republicans could not vote for his plan, then he wasted his time and credibility with the failed SS privitization campaign. If Bush believed that the republicans would go against their constituencies to follow his radical agenda, he was foolish.
I don't care if they didn't pass Bush's plan as it was presented. What they could have done is taken the opportunity to address the issue. Take what Bush offered, study it, improve it, pass it, and make a difference. Instead, they sweep the issue under the rug and settle for the status quo. I give Bush credit for at least having a plan and offering it. More than I can say for the guy you voted for. He (and Teddy Ballgame) can't even plan a good filibuster.:rofl:
Oh my gosh, look at what I started!:hihi: :lol: Suppose I agree with you and think you are correct. Why is it that the Democrats can't take advantage of the situation?:grin:
fair point, but i think it is a good thing when a leader is willing to favor things he believes in and not be tightly tied to the party line. do we want a leader who is a puppet of his party and will only propose plans they approve of? it is not a failure by a politician when his party doesnt agree with him. why dont we judge plans on whether the plan itself is good or bad? for example, if bush decided to favor legal drugs, i would love him for it, even though it would be political suicide with his voting base.
Now that is the million-dollar question. I think its because the northeastern liberal wing of the party has been dominant for 3 decades, ever since the old Southern Democrats became Republicans. Only when moderate Bill Clinton was president did the party swing to the middle and have its greatest success since Truman. Perhaps it has begun to sink in that Massachusetts senators like Dukakis, Kennedy, and Kerry cannot even swing the entire Democratic party, much less the moderate independents who will be a key swing vote in 2008. The same thing is happening in the republican party. The extreme neo-conservative right has control of the party right now and is blundering badly enough to put a Democrat into office in 2008. The traditional Reagan republicans are moderate conservatives and many have lost faith in Neo-con economic "cut tax and spend more" policies. The Republicans may have lost the independent moderates who got Bush elected in the last two elections because they have blindly marched in lock-step with unpopular Bush foreign, domestic, and economic policies. The brightest of the republican and democrat 2008 hopefuls are plotting paths independently of the party leaderships and are distinctly center-leaning moderates. McCain, the leading GOP candidate, has credibility with the traditional republicans and with the moderates including many democrats because of his bipartisan approach to politics and his arms-length distance from the Bush administration. Hillary Clinton has established a moderate senate record and is not a member of the Kennedy and Howard Dean ultra-liberal camps. The southern democrats like Edwards and Gore are also more moderate than the party leadership. There will be a fight in both parties and I think the moderates will win over extemists in both cases. The republicans know that more Bush-style policies just will not fly and the democrats realize that Bill Clinton won twice by leaning to the center and Gore and Kerry lost twice by leaning to the left.
Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm You want more proof? They not only eavesdropped on US citizens, they broke into to Ame's house without a warrant and planted bugs.
Challenge taken and met. It's what I asked you to do. I'll even accept that evidence and concede that other presidents have claimed the right to spy without warrants. But it is still an divisive issue that hasn't gone away . . . and Bush is the one it is hurting currently. And I made eight points earlier that you have not yet refuted, other than to call me a fraud. So don't start imagining any defeats before you are done.
With this one challenge so easily met, IMO, it calls into question all of your other points. No need to pick on you....
