Results from Yesterday and Bush's Endorsement

Yesterday Clinton's victories in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island ended Obama's winning streak at 12 consecutive contests and rejuvenated Clinton's struggling candidacy. However, Clinton still lags behind in delegates with 1,457 compared to Obama's 1,566. According to Newsweek's Johnathan Alter, "No matter now you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February." If Hillary doesn't win a lot more landslide victories in the upcoming contests the only way she can win would be to garner the support of superdelegates who may be loyal to her or her husband for whatever political reasons. The next major primary the Clinton campaign is focusing on is Pennsylvania (April 22). Until a clear Democratic nominee turns up, McCain enjoys a head start in fundraising and uniting the Republican party. Furthermore, despite a rocky history between Bush and McCain, Bush has finally come forth to formally endorse McCain.

McCain debated whether or not to visit the White House the day after securing his GOP nomination because, although he needs Bush's help with the party's conservative base, any ties to Bush could alienate moderate Republicans and independent voters. Compared to the Democratic race, McCain has the luxury of time to raise money, unite the Republican party, and widen his support base. In 2004 McCain campaigned for Bush's reelection, however, two weeks after Bush won the reelection McCain criticized his stance on climate change as "terribly disappointing." Although McCain agrees with some of Bush's stances, on the issue of Iraq, McCain is strongly against the strategy of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In fact, in February 2007 McCain stated, "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."
McCain's weak points include key groups of religious and conservative voters who voted for Huckabee.

Do you think Bush's low approval ratings will actually harm McCain's support? How effective will Bush's endorsement be: will it unite Republicans or push moderates more towards the Democratic/liberal side?

As for the Clinton/Obama race do you think Clinton will be able to win more delegates to catch up to Obama, or will she need to depend on swinging some superdelegate votes?

Bushy on Vacation

Did Bush shoot himself in the foot vetoing a military policy? Bush vetoed the bill because "of an obscure provision that could expose the new Iraqi government to billions of dollars in legal claims dating to Saddam Hussein's rule." Bush is now being accused of supporting troops in the past, and now not. But, is it fair? We learned in class how little provisions sneak into bills. This veto does not reflect Bush vetoing the entire bill, he is just upset at congress for trying to slide in a certain provision and therefore was forced to veto the entire bill.

The main question: How often are politicians misrepresented for voting against a bill because of one little provision? And how badly does it effect their profile? From this, it seems pretty bad to upset not just your opposing party but members of your own party as well!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/30/africa/veto.php

"Major Crackdown on Terrorists", or fluke?

Bush's label as this case as a "major crackdown on terrorists" has been demolished again.

Yesterday, one of 7 men accused of trying to blow up a Sears tower in Chicago was acquitted. As for the other six, the jury was deadlocked and a mistrial was declared in the prosecution of them.
These people, known as the "Liberty City Seven," often gathered in a rundown warehouse in Miami, but never attained any weapons or threatening equipment. However, officials on the other hand wanted "pre-emptive terrorism precaution." They first became under suspicion in 2005 when a man contacted the FBI to report suspicious activity (he claimed they asked him for help in contacting Al Qaeda).

Was this charge justified? Does this hurt the Bush reputation any further? What can we learn from this? What will the verdict be?

So is this the crackdown on terrorism?

Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/us/nationalspecial3/14liberty.html?bl&ex=1197954000&en=2058e2ee314d1264&ei=5087%0A

Improved Relations with North Korea?

Today, North Korea's president Kim Jong-il agreed to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula as long as the US makes an effort to improve relations with them as well.

Bush told the press:

“I got his attention with a letter and he can get my attention by fully disclosing his programs, including any plutonium he may have processed and converted some of that into whatever he’s used it for. We just need to know.”

In October, the communist country had already agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons and publicize all nuclear programs in exchange for 950,000 tons of oil (or the same in money). Some are displeased with this resolution because it doesn't make N. Korea fork over all the warheads and plutonium they have secretly stored up. Others believe that this is one of the few successes Bush has achieved in this period of disappointing foreign diplomacy.

The White House celebrates its victory: a letter passed through N. Korea's representative to the United Nations, from Kim Jong-il, stating that N. Korea would keep its word as long as the US stuck to its side of the bargain.

Do you guys think that Mr. Kim will REALLY disclose all the programs and disassemble all the nuclear warheads so none of them are operational, just for a oil? Is this a victory of Mr. Bush and show his competence in foreign diplomacy?


Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/washington/15korea.html?ref=washington

President Bush Vetoes Child Health Bill

So President Bush has vetoed a Children's Heath Care Bill again!
His explanation?

“Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, I must veto this legislation, too.”

This is the 10th veto of Bush's presidency and exemplifies his continuing conflicts with the Democrat-led Congress.

What is the debate about? Money! Spending has been the issue of frustration and dispute!

The current plan of which more than 6.6 million children are enrolled in, called the S-Chip program, needs more funding if it is to continue. To continue, an estimated $5.8 billion is needed per year, which is $800 million more than the current annual budget. Democrats sent the bill allowing increased spending of $35 billion and allowed another 4 million children to join the program.

However, the White House responds by saying

“This Congress failed to send the president legislation that puts children first, and instead they sent for a second time one that would allow adults onto the program, expand to higher incomes, and raise taxes,” said Dana Perino, the White House press secretary.

What will become of this constant debate between White House and Congress?

Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/washington/12cnd-bush.html?hp

Layoffs in the Pentagon

President Bush plans to layoff workers in the Pentagon if he doesn't receive the funding he has requested for the war. He is demanding $196 billion extra funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush argues that this is hurting our chances of saving more American lives, while the democrats argue he should be supporting a plan to pull out the troops.

It seems to me this is an unfair and undemocratic way to accomplish his goals. He should not be threatening us to get what he wants, it should be supported by all with government power. Also, his plan so far hasn't been working, and I don't see how more money is going to help him succeed. If you want to read the full story, you can check it out here.

Bush Vetoes a $600 Billion Spending Bill

Today, President Bush vetoed a $600 billion spending bill. In this spending bill, around $150 billion was to be used to run departments such as departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. But in this $150 billion, around $10 billion would have funded projects such as a prison museum, a sailing school, and a program to teach Portuguese. The other $450 billion was to be used specifically for Medicare and Medicaid. If you guys didn't know, Medicare and Medicaid are federal health care programs for the elderly and poor.

So, why did President Bush veto this bill which would ultimately help the much needed health care programs in the United States?

President Bush blames the Democratic leaders in Congress for attempting to waste money and to increase taxes. Bush made an analogy comparing the Democratic Congress to "a teenager with a new credit card." President Bush also called the $10 billion that would funded projects such as a prison museum, a sailing school, and a program to teach Portuguese as "pork." He told the Congress to cut the "pork," and reduce the spending if it wants the bill to get signed.


Did the President do the right thing to veto this spending bill? Was the Congress really trying to waste money and to increase taxes by adding the "pork?" What do you guys think the President/the Congress should have done?

Overriding the Veto

President Bush vetoed the spending on some popular water projects. However, not only did the democrats vote to override his veto, but they were joined by 47 republicans. This may be the first time that Congress manages to override a veto by President Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/washington/07spend.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Is this an affirmation of the anti-Bush sentiment?
What would a concrete affirmation be?
Is it just that so many elected republicans are voting against him?