Bush has finally done something I don't agree with!!!!!!!!!!!

I don’t agree with human cloning ban at all. All the things we could learn and he bans it right off the bat… Other countries will do it and will have a corner on the market and here we will be behind b/c of our president and his “god centered” ideas.

Just had to say something

Yep. He’s dead wrong about cloning. But this isn’t the first thing he’s been wrong about. The Steel Tariff decision was atrocious. Made me wish Clinton was back in power, at least long enough to defend free trade.

Theres a lot of crap Bush has done that I don’t agree with, but pushing amnesty for illegal aliens was the final straw for me. I’ve since changed my registration from Republican to Independent, and I wrote the RNC a handwritten letter telling them why I switched.

ya know, this is damn near identical to december’s thread in this forum - wherein he, too comments that he agrees w/the dem position etc.

The sad thing is that all three of the above criticisms towards Bush were things that he is doing for one sole reason, to get votes. The only thing he has seemed really focused on is the republicans getting control of the senate in 2002 and getting re-elected in 2004. I shudder to think of how many more bad decisions he is going to make before that time comes.

Granted I’ve been away from the States for awhile, but would an amnesty for illegal aliens really be likely to win Bush a lot of votes, musicguy? I would think many potential Republican voters would react the same way Barking Spider did.

Well, Ruadh, the Republicans have been picking up the latino vote in the last few years-- conservative social values and all that-- perhaps one of the fastest growing voting brackets. I think lieniency with aliens might go very well with that group. Might be the thing that breaks CA’s democratic streak, for instance.

If Bush is doing this to win votes, then obviously he and his advisors think that many potential voters agree with him that human cloning should not be allowed.

He probably thinks you and those who agree with you wouldn’t vote for him anyway so why not try to sway the undecided his way?

One trouble with the democratic process is that there isn’t anything to prevent the majority from being wrong. But, of course, that is a difficulty with any governmental method.

There are a lot of (Republican) businessmen who employ illegal aliens, or at least workers with poorly-documented residency. For these employers, an amnesty means fewer lost employees to deportation and fewer lost hours to INS inspections. It really hurts when you lose two days’ production because half your work force has just been detained by the INS.

I know the farm lobby has been pushing for an amnesty. I would not be surprised if the independent businessmens’ lobby was as well.

I know that, Kelly. It seems self-evident to me that the Republicans have accepted the amnesty because their corporate donors want it. What I’m questioning is the suggestion that the average Joe Voter would approve. I’m not convince by capybara’s reply (would Republicans really court Latino voters at such a great risk of alienating the rest of their base?), but as I said, I have been away for awhile.

While I think he’s wrong about these things, the only one I’d say was politically motivated was the steel tariff decision, which goes against his own free trade principles.

But the cloning issue and the amnesty for immigrants comes from his own personal convictions. He’s long been an advocate of more open borders with Mexico.

Point taken, Sam

All I was saying is that he is advocating amnesty for illegal aliens because he wants them to become citizens and vote for him, hopefully increasing his chances in California. He also wants to make sure he doesn’t alienate the religious right, hence a ban on cloning and all but extremely limiting stem cell research. But is allowing amnesty for a bunch of illegal immigrants who broke the law to get here really a good message that is in everyones best interest? I think not. Is denying the ability to conduct research that could find a cure for a variety of diseases really in our best interest? Again, I thing not. Granted, these are all worthy of their own debates and there are threads that are already exploring these points.

I don’t doubt that these are based on personal conviction but I also think one of his “personal convictions” is to get re-elected and gain more control through getting the senate back on his side. Hell, he doesn’t even deny this. Considering he has been to at least 15 republican fundraisers this year, its pretty obvious where his priorities lie. Personally, I would rather he focused on doing what is right while he is in office for 4 years, rather than just make it a stepping stone to the next four, which I admit, I hope never happens.

Musicguy - First of all, EVERY president spends a lot of time campaigning and fund raising for mid-term elections. It’s part of the job, and if they don’t do it they take a lot of heat. Clinton was so good at it that he was affectionately called the “Fund Raiser In Chief”. I’ve got no problems with that, as long as it doesn’t interefere with the job, and if anything, Bush has been doing less of it than most presidents. I follow the conservative press, and there has been a lot of criticism against Bush for not doing more fund-raising and party support stuff.

As for the illegal immigrants - you’re wrong about Bush wanting their support. Those people vote Democratic, and that’s one reason why the Republicans are fighting Bush over this. The religious right and the Pat Buchanan conservatives are also dead-set against it. So it’s pretty hard to make the claim that this is a politically-motivated decision.

In truth, it probably one of the least politically-motivated positions he’s taken. The Bushes like Mexico and Mexicans, and I think his position is just a desire to take a lot of hard-working, responsible people and make them part of legal society rather than making them criminals. He sees them as being a net benefit on society, and wants bring them into the fold. That’s about it.

The cloning decision is more complex. To be honest, I think Laura Bush is a big part of that one. She’s the one who comes from the conservative religious background, and she’s the one who took the wild fratboy an heavy drinker and made him fly right. I think she’s opposed to it, and he’s deferring to her judgement on this. But that’s just a guess.

The cloning issue alone would be enough to make me vote for a pro-research democrat if I were American. It’s a hugely important issue, and Bush is on the wrong side of it, in a big way.

I’m also furious at him for stacking his Bioethics council. It’s headed by Leon Kass, who is as close to a luddite as you’re going to find in a major public figure, and it’s loaded with like-minded individuals. You’ll NEVER see a decision from that group that is at all progressive when it comes to some of the most important scientific questions facing us today. Bush’s attitude in this area is a huge disappointment.

Not to belabor the point, but I believe the amnesty proposals would grant the aliens legal residency, not citizenship - and by the time they became eligible for citizenship (and therefore able to vote for president), Bush would be ineligible to run again anyway.

One of the proposals I’ve seen (dunno if it went anywhere) included accelerated citizenship for at least some classes of people.

The point is that those people tend to vote Democratic, and some Conservatives have suggested that Bush’s proposal could result in Texas going Democratic when all those people vote.

Therefore, Bush is taking a position that works directly against his political interests. I’ll give him credit for having convictions and sticking to them. As to whether his position on immigrants is right or not, I have no opinion, and it strikes me that this is one of those areas where Canadians like me really shouldn’t care. It’s an internal American issue.

But his attitude towards many kinds of scientific research bothers me greatly, and it WILL have an effect on me. If the U.S. outlaws cloning, Canada will probably follow shortly thereafter. And we could set back progress in some very important fields by decades.

In the long run, it will also cause a brain drain as bio-engeineers and medical researchers and genetic research companies move to more hospitable climes. So it’s not good for the U.S. in any way, shape or form.

In the very long run, it won’t matter. You can’t legislate science out of existence. Just like the Catholic Church was unable to prevent us from studying the universe, the Religious Right will be unable to stop us from research into cloning and genetics.

I wondered about that one too…remember it being in the Pit once. I later found out that Dad Bush was a steelworker (and union member, I believe) in his early days in Midland TX. I’m sure that had at least some bearing on his decision.

I’m undecided about the human cloning bit.