It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Look for the Republicans to throw the 2004 election.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 02:06 AM
Hey freemason...I actually read that the primary elections were used by voters to select a slate of candidates for election at the Democratic Party's convention. This year, all of the major Democratic candidates dropped out making an unofficial declaration of John Kerry leading to an official. Please keep reading...

The Democratic candidate selection process is a little different than the Repubs. During the primaries, Kerry won a percentage of the delegates within each state. The Republicans have a winner-takes-all process in that whoever wins each primary takes all the delegates for that state. The Democrats also have un-pledged delegates whose vote isn't found until the convention and makes up roughly 20% of the total number of delegates. But Kerry has picked up a majority through the pledged and superdelegates and thus will still be the candidate.

Despite the fact that Bush is the incumbent, he still had to go through the nomination process, but he also has won the appropriate number of delegates to become nominated.

Just trying to clarify the election process. While the Republican's have lost power...the Democrats do still retain theirs.

All in all...the only way the election would be thrown for Bush is if he decided to drop out or somethin serious happened to him. Now the Republican Party may influence Bush's decision, but ultimately it will be up to Bush and/or fate.

Free Mason, in 1867 are you speaking of some precedent coming from Reconstruction (that still applies today)? formation of a federal government that can push the states around? I agree that what happened severely impacted the freedom of the South..., but what were the options seeing as they seceded? Should slavery be around still? I don't know too much about this period, so maybe you could explain that...

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Jamuhn]

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Jamuhn]

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 02:53 AM
There is no way Bush will step down from the race. Kerry's track record for one raises red flags and also the Nader factor will take away frm his votes. Kerry cannot take a stand on any of the issues and in effect, in an effort to gain voters, is continually moving towards the middle, if he is not there already. Ergo, we once again see liberal becoming less and less liberal in relations to some of he extreme leftists/progressives therefore dividing their as always.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 07:59 AM

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Geez gmc, you could have just said it was a theory of yours and left it at that.

Oddly though it does seem plausible.

I agree.
Entirely plausible. Look at history. A large portion of the party ran to Perot, not to make him President, but to teach the RNC a lesson about rasing taxes. Big money went Perot's way after Bush 41 was forced to raise taxes. That came predominantly from some power players.

And history is repeating itself. See GMC's other post from the New York Times: Republicans Seek to postpone Budget until after election to save tax cuts....

What do you think is happening here? A stall by some to not make Bush go back on his word until after the election? Definitely. Yet also, many more must realize that Bush WINNING and then having to raise taxes will effectively kill what's left of the Republican Party (formerly known as conservatives).

I'd bet good money some in the RNC want to keep their gigs in the House and Congress over keeping Bush in the White House. Then when Kerry has to fix the freaking mess of a budget...they get to blame him.

Then the RNC gets another shot at the White House by buying votes on tax issues in 2008.

It's "stratergy". It's a cycle. It's a game.

On the same line of thinking. Fiscally, many claim Clinton as the best Republican President we've ever had. Do you think anyone really thought DOLE could beat him? That was a joke run. Just going through the motions.

That election was THROWN on purpose in the finest of fashions. It happens more than some think.

Bush is being sacrificed for the good of the party IMO. If by some freak of circumstances he wins, there'll be more grumbling than rejoicing in some GOP back rooms. And when Kerry wins...secret sighs of relief.

Again, not saying they like Kerry. It's just forward thinking. I've been saying for a year that a Bush re-election would be the best thing to happen to the Dems in a decade. The reverse is true as well.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:34 AM
They are not the same, though they presumbly march under the same banner.
The simplest way to realize the difference?

Party = long term power - get it & then hold it
Administration = get elected & stay in power

It seems like the same thing, except that the administration's desires are equal to that boxer who has not landed a single power shot & it's the middle of the 12th round: they have to fight to the end.

The Party Machine is more like Don King: they want that long term HBO contract, & if Tyson has to be offered up to Lennox Lewis for and old school Bronx azz whuppin, so be it.

(* If I get out of hand with these boxing anologies, just let me know......I had to pull back from a Manos de Piedras vs. Bazooka Limon reference
* )

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:44 AM
So that would make Bush the "Great White Hype" right?

Everyone around him telling him and the media he's going to win, while placing side bets against him?

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 09:08 AM
And the proof in the pudding? I can not find anywhere a tally on resignation of admin. officials during a presidents term; Bush being at 52 & counting has to be some sort of record, while it also serves as a leading indicator that there is a fire in the galley, and that rats don't like to swim unless they have to.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 04:26 PM
I could not say it was a theory...................was my post so unclear that you missed what I was sharing was something being argued in the inner circles of the Republican power centers?

The folks who call the shots and whose name's we don't commonly men and power brokers

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 04:37 PM
Do you actually believe that the decision to run/not run is Bush's to make?

it's just not all that simple..............if the power's that be say go back to Crawford, GW will be "leaving office to spend more time with his family..."

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 04:39 PM
I saw that, and understand that...but am in no position to confirm or deny I just agreed with you and said it's plausible.

You wanna fight about it?

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 06:52 PM

Hell no. I'm a lover..............just attempting to clarify...........

Chill bro................I'm cool.

The question was an honest one.

Am I the standard of clarity? Is it the other's responsibility to understand me? Or for me to provide understanding for others?

I think it's the latter.

Smile God love ya,

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 10:13 PM

Originally posted by gmcnulty
I could not say it was a theory...................was my post so unclear that you missed what I was sharing was something being argued in the inner circles of the Republican power centers?

Wow, who would have thought McNutly is a member of the inner circle of the RNC? How else could he get this "insider" info? Is he a closet neo-con? Or maybe just making this stuff up?

I don't know. But I heard some whispering of my own, down at the local retirement home. The rumor there is that the sunny west coast of Florida has it's fair share of senile old fools. Again folks thats only a rumor. I haven't checked it out for myself.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 10:26 PM

Originally posted by RANT
the "Great White Hype" right?

very funny

posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 07:18 AM
The Picture says it all

Here we see Bush pulling a Clinton

This one f***ing cracked me up. LMFAO, like WTF??

posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 04:44 PM

Got a source to back this up, or did you just hear this on CNN.

Bush wants to rally support for the new Iraqi government that has been formed to assume sovereignty on June 30.

Yea sounds like a conquerer to me. And this was stated at his commencement speech at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Boulder, Colorado just the other day. Why would a conquerer give sovereignty back to a nation if he wanted to take total control of it, doesn't make any sense to me.
Here is one for ya, you should read more. The info is out there if you look.

Some sovereignty,ha

[Edited on 5-6-2004 by ashley]

posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 05:21 PM
The sources I have are personal............... I have many old friends and acquaintances from my days with the party. We stay in touch and gossip and the like……….. You’re getting the real “skinny” here hon……….

AS for the sovereignty thingie, I do not think his original “plans” ever envisioned us being a conqueror and as it applied to sovereignty, needed only to have the US military presents of 200,000 troops based in the area for the projection of power throughout the area.

The ultimate plan is to control the world’s remaining sources of oil but the political climate or stars for such an undertaking are not yet aligned.

Right now, as long as he can be left with troops based there he will accept anything the UN demands of the USA to internationalizing the problems from “his war” to protect his chances for election.

If elected, look for US policy to return to ‘staying the course’………….

[Edited on 5-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 09:52 PM

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I have always appreciated the interjections of FreeMason for comic relief.

Either Bush falls, or Bush falls, the option is very clear indeed.

External forces may work to prevent Republican kamikaze rushes.

I have no doubt you feel that way, but what you might want to do is take a serious look at what he is saying and why he is saying it.

The original posting of this thread declares that the present administration has created a mess in this nation. To type such sentences is to deny reality in such a manner that it concerns me because that person is actually walking around in public. I understand partisan politics, but I also understand honesty and having a firm grasp of reality.

Before the attacks on our countrymen in 2001, the political scene was shaping up to be fun. While liberal pundits were trying to paint Bush as a doofus and a dimwit, Bush was herding the Democrat doggies in a manner that would have warmed the heart of any old cow poke. After 9-11-01, everything changed, the nation was attacked in the worst way since the 3rd Jihad had declared war on us years ago, and the leader had to act as a decisive commander in chief and leader.

While Bush is certainly no Ronald Reagan, he has done far better than many of us thought he would on all facets of his job, and has done an admirable job and both aiding in repairing an economy that was sliding into despair and standing up and taking on those who wish our way of life to be destroyed, even without the asssistance of many nations who owe this nation a return-favor in that regard.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 09:52 AM
An empty suit who gets updated on issues & actions after they've already occurred. Neither man possed any interest in being president; just playing president.
Both are ineffectual leaders who never amounted to much, but were ideal figure heads for the time: one eloquent and a trained actor, the other willing to pimp religion to the mindless alcolytes. Both nothing more than sound bites. Both completely managed away from real world opinion. Both perfectly content to delegate the hard thinking....just as long as the script was on the podium so they could hit their lines.

Thomas, you mention a poster's "obvious" lack of attention to what great goods have been advanced in our economy &country overall due to Bush's "stewardship".
I'd love to hear & see a line by line comparison.....can you start with wage gain/employment figures/bankruptcies? Or anywhere you like , it's all interesting stuff!

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 12:05 PM
I must admit I was never a Reagan fan. But since there’s a discussion here of a comparison of the two Presidents – Reagan and Bush II taking place here; and because of the bizarre notion put forth by the current Administration’s Department of Spin and Legacy that Bush …………..“ has taken on the leadership and assumed the mantle of responsibility in carrying forth the principles of the Reagan Administration.” (LOL)

Let me observe………….there is no fair comparisons which can be drawn between the two men other then them being: male; Republican in name; conservative in name; and claiming a Western ways heritage…………in every other area and comparison is…….. as between apples and oranges. i.e. Reagan - the Great Communicator; Bush - ‘nuff said.

But in one area I must, in all fairness salute Mr. Reagan for uncommon courage and candor…………He never knowingly lied or misled the American people and knew more about responsibility other then knowing how to spell it. And I cite as follows this example:

Following the Marine barracks in Lebanon and the Iran Contra scandal, President Reagan took responsibility, saying, “this happened on my watch” and "If there is to be properly rests here in this office and with this president. And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good.”

Unlike our current excuse of a President who, will not take an oath to tell the truth and needs some to hold his hand while testifying before the 9/11 Commission. And, in answer to a reporter’s question, doesn’t recall making any mistakes or wishes he had done something differently in his term as President.

It is truly a great loss - this country, and his family - has suffered in the passing of Ronald Reagan, our 40th and past President of the United States.

[edit on 7-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time
An empty suit who gets updated on issues & actions after they've already occurred. Neither man possed any interest in being president; just playing president.
Both are ineffectual leaders who never amounted to much, but were ideal figure heads for the time: one eloquent and a trained actor, the other willing to pimp religion to the mindless alcolytes. Both nothing more than sound bites. Both completely managed away from real world opinion. Both perfectly content to delegate the hard thinking....just as long as the script was on the podium so they could hit their lines.

Thomas, you mention a poster's "obvious" lack of attention to what great goods have been advanced in our economy &country overall due to Bush's "stewardship".
I'd love to hear & see a line by line comparison.....can you start with wage gain/employment figures/bankruptcies? Or anywhere you like , it's all interesting stuff!

What seems to trouble you is the fact that both are leaders, not poll takers. The "real world" opinion; what is that? Who's opinion? What is the real wolrd? Your world?

Even as intelligent as you are, you can't help but to tow the liberal line and declare that Reagan was an empty suit, a dunce, and nothing more than a trained actor in spite of all evidence to the contrary. This has been the same case with Bush, even though he was stomping the Democrats politically until the terror attacks occured, and then he had more important things to do, although he still took the time to hog-tie the dems in every respect, except with the passing of judicial nominees, and the dems really allowed the nation to see what kind of unprincipled creatures they are.

Both Reagan and Bush are Christians, both have a deep faith in God, but Bush isn't one to keep it a secret (Neither was George Washington. As far as Christianity, John Jay said we had the duty to elect Christians as leaders. Remember him, the first Supreme Court Chief Justice?) You find his faith offensive, somehow. It disturbs you that a man of conviction, of principles and of a solid moral foundation is less preferred to one that does not have these qualities. That, sir, is great insight.

As far as the economy, Bush, like Reagan, like Kennedy, knew that taxes choke a nation. He knows that when one earns money one should be able to keep the majority. Bush knows that the tax payer does not exist to serve the federal government, but it is the federal government that exists to take care of governmental business for the citizen. Surely you remember that it was Bush that inherited a sagging economy from his predecessor, not some other president inheriting anything of the sort from Bush. Surely you know that the attack on 9-11-01 worsened the situation and made sure that the recovery would take longer. Employment is doing much better because the economy was given room to breathe. I don't know about you, but my wages are gaining. While you don't see it when you look at most of the alphabet agencies that despise reporting any good economic news during this administration, most everything is much better than it was. Yes, I credit Bush for that, for having the sense to cut taxes, stop stripping money from the earners and putting it in the hands of those who are more fiscally irresponsible than a kid with a dollar in a candy shop.

One last note, you called Reagan ineffectual That's all I wanted to say about that as those words attack themselves. Same with Bush.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 02:26 PM
From the beginning, Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. He said, unlike Clinton “he led from principle, not from polls.”

On 10/11/00, then Governor Bush said: "I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations."

But President Bush's record belies his words; as a serial flip-flopper raising serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says. Here ae some examples of “principled, ‘stay the course’ leadership” ala Bush 42:

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES..."What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
…....BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004..."We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
……BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 “I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops.” [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'...“Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference.” [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
……BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: “Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony.” [President Bush, 3/30/04]

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
…...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
…...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE"U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
…...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories…for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
…...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there are theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
…...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

9. OSAMA BIN FOGOTEN aka Osama bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
…...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA “I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him… I truly am not that concerned about him.” [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
…...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
…...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
…...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
…...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
…...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
…...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
…...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
…...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

18U.N. RESOLUTION ( First one)
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
…...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
…...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]


BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
…...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW “[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

………this is the SHORT list……….. there are so many more examples to cite…………but let’s leave it at this…………

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in