# G.W. Bush the Ultimate Threat to Our Nation. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2000, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018 "2000-08-28T10:03:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/21 "2000-08-30T14:57:56Z")
**Zenster** : What hyperbole! What nonsense! Hell, I’ll vote for Shrub only after going to church and buying an SUV, but do you really think that the best way to convince others not to vote for him is to post such as you have? > [@](#): > > G.W. Bush represents a final consummation in the unholy alliance of the Republican party with the right wing fundamentalist “Christians”. This bloc envisions what is tantamount to a state religion, and all other creeds are out in the cold by any measure. Strange bedfellows indeed are this lot. Except that this doesn’t do a thing for our own **cmkeller** , and I would be willing to bet that he’ll be casting his vote in Bush’s direction. > [@](#): > > As a devout agnostic, all of the religious posturing is just so much transparent pandering to the voters. And as an atheist, I agree wholeheartedly. What in hell did you expect it to be? > [@](#): > > The Latino population currently backing Bush based solely on his anti-choice stance is in for a rude awakening after the election is over. They will be cast off like a pair of ill fitting shoes and forgotten in the mad orgy of special interest whoring that will follow a victory by Bush. I dunno, I imagine that the Latino population won’t wind up any more screwed than they are at present. Unless, that is, you have some hard proof of this. If not, then I’ll continue to think of it as reactioninst rhetoric. And in using it, you’re not helping either side. Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/22 "2000-08-30T15:10:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > However, keep in mind that to do that, Bush would have to get that past the Democrats in the Senate. And even if the Democrats don’t control the Senate, they can fillibuster the candidate (it takes 60 votes to break a fillibuster; it’s unlikely that the Repubs will have more than 54) until Bush gives up and brings someone else in. Remember, checks and balances. > > \*\* Its been a while since my government class but I thought a fillibuster was a person, or persons, who simply held the floor and continued to speak for long periods of time. How can you vote to break a fillibuster? Marc ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/23 "2000-08-30T15:27:56Z")
Marc- By current procedural rules in the Senate. I’m really not up on them (and don’t have the time to do an on-line search); but I’ve read many times that one party “doesn’t have the 60 votes necessary to stop the opponent’s fillibuster”. It’s quite possible that it’s the vote taken to end debate, done before the fillibuster starts; it’s also quite possible that it’s a procedural vote taken to pry the floor away from the fillibusterer. ---
**Author:** ![jcgmoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@jcgmoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jcgmoi)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/24 "2000-08-30T15:53:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wilbo523 \* > \*\* > Tell me how any President’s action’s has directly impacted you personally, and don’t include “gettin’ your panties in a wad”. > \*\* Nixon’s efforts to extend the Vietnam war got me drafted and got some friends of mine killed. I’d say that impacted me personally. Carter ignored any efforts to work effectively with Congress and refused to pressure the Fed to deal with inflation and high interest rates. Eroding my purchasing power and pricing me out of the capital market impacted me personally. Reagan gave the Pentagon the key to the candy store and after he took a round Congress lacked the guts to deal with his excesses and the huge deficits that resulted. That cost me a job in 1974. Impacted me personally too. Bush the Elder named Dan Quayle to head a quasi-governmental board that effectively let polluters write the regs governing their actions. That action accelerated the decline of the southern Smokies and everytime I drive thru there and have to see the dying forests I’m impacted personally. Clinton squandered a large part of his enormous gifts by an inability to keep his dick in his pants, thereby contributing to the virulent partisanship of the last decade. Having the president fight like hell to stay in office rather than doing the job he was elected to do impacts me very personally. Whether Gore or Bush is elected all of us will be impacted personally by what they do. To pretend otherwise is to say the president of the greatest country on earth is not in fact the most powerful person on earth. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/25 "2000-08-30T15:55:01Z")
RE: Senate procedural rules. . . As for the actual Senate floor, I’m quite certain that a Senator cannot be forced to yield the floor. Senate subcommitties, however, can set their own rules. In any case, 60 votes sounds awfully out of place and arbitrary. I could believe 2/3 or 3/4 or some such, but 6/10? I’ve never seen or heard of that. What does it take to confirm SC Justices? I thought a simple majority, but I could very well be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Grendel69](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7bcc69/32.png) [@Grendel69](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grendel69)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/26 "2000-08-30T16:59:35Z")
Thanks you jcgmoi. You said all that needs to be said. divemaster: Appointees are almost always judges and scholars w/established views and opinions. It is rare to find an appointee who has changed his standards after being appointed to the court. In other words, it is relatively easy nowadays to predict how most judicial appointees will vote in the future. Rumors have floated around for the past year that up to 4 justices could be replaced during the next presidential term. Other rumors have certain justices agreeing to step down during AND after the next term so as to not completely unbalance the Court. With the democrats taking such a centrist stance nowadays it won’t be hard for Bush to appoint whomever he desires if he plays his cards correctly. For the best info on the Supreme Court read Closed Chambers: The Rise and Fall and Future of the Modern Supreme Court. by Edward Lazarus. There are also at least two dozen web sites that meticulously document the Court. PS It takes a senate majority to confirm the president’s choice for SC. ---
**Author:** ![SouthernStyle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@SouthernStyle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SouthernStyle)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/27 "2000-08-30T17:03:32Z")
The U.S. Senate operates by rules that are quite different from other agencies. [ul] [li]There is NO time limit on debate unless a time limit is unanimously approved prior to debate.[/li][li]Unless a time limit has been imposed on a particular debate, a Senator has the floor until he chooses to relinquish it.[/li][li]The one exception to the no time limit rule is that a vote can be taken to cut off debate. It requires a 3/5 majority (60) to pass.[/li][/ul] Hope this clears it up. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/28 "2000-08-30T18:00:33Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by cmkeller \* > \*\* > Ooohh…shiver, shiver. For crying out loud, we’re talking about a political disagreement, not someone walking into your shower with a butcher knife. Get a grip._\* But how can you be certain cmkeller? hmmmm? I mean this is Bush we’re talking about. Personally if I had to choose a presidental canidate to attack me with a knife, I’d choose Nader. He’d probably be the easiest to fight off. But anyway. This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes. “The politics of lesser evilism will end up with the Democrats in hell, stumping for Satan, because Bealzebub would be even worse” I’m frankly a little worried that the best reason people can come up with to vote for Gore is the slight possibllity of Supreme Court nominees. Don’t you think that maybe you should be reevaluating your choices? ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/29 "2000-08-30T20:11:25Z")
Cripes, did I actually say that “6/10 . . . sounds awfully out of place and arbitrary” and “I’ve never heard of that.” Back to school to learn fractions, and the rounding down of said. 3/5 sounds better. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by oldscratch_ > > I’m frankly a little worried that the best reason people can come up with to vote for Gore is the slight possibllity of Supreme Court nominees. Don’t you think that maybe you should be reevaluating your choices? Not especially. Unless Gore comes out w/ a plan to kill every first-born male child, the issue of SC Justices is by far the most important in this election. On matters of any importance, neither Gore nor Bush will have the support (or the balls) to push the most radical ideas attributed to them, and they don’t differ that much to begin with (they both support, to varying degrees, a missile defense system. Unbe-fucking-lievable). The overall, utilitarian difference between the two would be very small, I think (barring some international crisis, in which case I wouldn’t trust Bush Jr. nearly as much as I would Gore) – _except_ as regards appointees to the Supreme Court. Take, for example, _Roe vs. Wade_. Even if we accept that only Stevens, O’Connor, and Rehnquist are leaving (though Ginsburg may also leave due to health problems), The vote to overturn _Roe_ would likely be 5-4 after Bush. Scalia and Thomas vote to overturn it every time a germane abortion case goes to the court, plus 3 predictably conservative justices appointed by Bush makes 5, a majority. Of course, it isn’t a sure thing that Bush would be able to get 3 pro-life justices confirmed, or that his appointees would be entirely predictable, but I see no reason why he would be unable to do it (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas got on, didn’t they?). Of course, if you’re pro-life, then it’s all gravy, ain’t it? I’m a Libertarian, so I’m not crazy about either candidate, but at least the Democrats (and their SC appointees) have been shown to have a consistent interest in maintaining civil liberties. * * * ## **oldscratch:** Did you ever see my reply to you on that thread in the Pit (regarding narcotics decriminalization)? ---
**Author:** ![SouthernStyle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@SouthernStyle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SouthernStyle)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/30 "2000-08-30T20:20:56Z")
**VarlosZ** , I’m much more concerned about Gore’s fiscal policy than what GWB _might_ do IFF he can appoint three friends to the SC. According to everything that I’ve read, Gore is proposing “targetted” tax cuts in a non-specific manner that makes most people think that it “could be them” and increasing federal spending to eat up the rest of the surplus. These are the GOOD times. His stance will result in immediate tax hikes, immediate deficit spending, or both the first time the economy slows. That’s much scarier than the long-shot chance of Bush stacking the Supreme Court to overturn RvsW. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/31 "2000-08-30T20:47:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by VarlosZ \* > \*\ ***oldscratch:** Did you ever see my reply to you on that thread in the Pit (regarding narcotics decriminalization)? \*\* I just did. Sorry about themisunderstanding. You can see where I got it from though. My apologies. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Not especially. Unless Gore comes out w/ a plan to kill every first-born male child, the issue of SC Justices is by far the most important in this election. \*\* Again, it’s a minor issue. That’s like saying that the issue of capital gains tax is the most important of this election. If that’s what you’re basing your descision on, well… I can’t believe we have all of these people agonizing over who might or might not retire, who might do what, this that and the other. The entire supreme court could die in a car accident at any moment. Do you guys really loose that much sleep over it? Did republicans spend the last 8 years holding silent vigil for the supreme court, oraying that no accidents befell them? Bush is unlikely to get that many SC nominees, if he does, they will be pretty moderate, and even then the likelyhood of an abortion law coming up is pretty slim. Even if gore gets in, who’s to say he doesn’t apoint someone who rules against abortion. Clinton was the “great liberal hope” and look at the shit he pulled. Look at some of the stuff Nixon did. Presidents do what they can get away with. In an active involved climate they will lean to the left (nixon), in a passive climate they will lean to the right (Reagan, Clinton). Also I submit this to you. If Gore loses because the liberals desert him for Nader he will start leaning to the left right quick. If he wins, he’ll just start getting more and more conservative to appeal to more and more republicans. This is the man that justifyed his lousy environmental record in the senate by saying that it’s hard to be one in tennessee. He’s an oportunist plain and simple. If he though he could win by killing mentally retarded people he probably would. (Oh wait, Clinton already did that) > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’m a Libertarian, so I’m not crazy about either candidate, but at least the Democrats (and their SC appointees) have been shown to have a consistent interest in maintaining civil liberties. \*\* So vote Browne. At least he supports Gay Rights. ---
**Author:** ![Jello](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@Jello](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jello)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/32 "2000-08-30T20:59:40Z")
Lemur866 said a long time ago: > [@](#): > > Jello, what makes you think that GW can’t pick his own cabinet or justices? Sure, he gets support from those groups, but why does that mean that they dictate what he does? > > If he agrees with their program, does that make him their slave, or just someone who argrees with their program? It’s always been my impression that he is run by his advisors. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA said that if Bush was elected the NRA would have an office in the West Wing.That’s what prompted me to write that. On not Bush not respecting the first amendment: After seeing [gwbush.com](http://gwbush.com), which has been mentioned several times in this thread, he wanted legal action against it and said “There ought to be limits to freedom.” A person who doesn’t agree with him…him trying to shut that person down…seems like a violation of the first amendement to me. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/33 "2000-08-30T21:10:05Z")
This is what the Senate says it’s rules on filibustering and cloture are: [http://www.senate.gov/learning/learn\_process\_filibuster.html](http://www.senate.gov/learning/learn_process_filibuster.html) 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/34 "2000-08-30T22:18:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SouthernStyle \* > According to everything that I’ve read, Gore is proposing “targetted” tax cuts in a non-specific manner that makes most people think that it “could be them” and increasing federal spending to eat up the rest of the surplus. According to an analysis in the most recent issue of Time Magazine, George W. Bush’s plan would benefit mostly the more affluent members of the american population. Al Gore’s budget would benefit mostly middle-class and low-income families. The additional expenses in the Gore proposal would go towards items such as prescription drug benefits for seniors, increased military salaries, increasing the number of teachers, health insurance for children, promoting cleaner energy sources and protecting wilderness areas, etc… The article also mentions that both candidates are relying on budget surplus projections that may or may not materialize. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/35 "2000-08-30T22:38:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MysterEcks \* > But as someone who is sick of the corruption from Clinton, Gore, and the whole lot of unindicted co-conspirators, there’s no way I’m voting for Gore. That leaves me with Bush, and that’s how I’m voting. Just as a comparison, here’s what I’ve read at the [Real Change website on George W. Bush Jr.](http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm): University of Texas’ Investment Management Company (UTIMCO) invests 1.7 billion US$ of state money. Nearly a third of that money has been received by investment funds controlled by the friends of G. W. Bush who dominate UTIMCO. The state teacher retirement fund sold real estate to a company owned by Richard Rainwater (a former business partner of Bush Jr.) at “bargain prices” and without bids in two cases. In another case where a state commission was investigating practices at SCI (a large funeral home company that was eventually fined $450,000), the owner of the company (who had contributed to Bush’s campaign) allegedly told the chairman of the funeral commission “I’m going to take this to the governor.” A lawyer/lobbyist for SCI claims that Bush dropped in on a conversation when the topic of stopping the government investigation was discussed. (Subsequently George W. Bush Jr. denied under oath having had any conversations with SCI officials. In the latest development George W. Bush Jr. claims that he did speak with SCI officials but denies that it was anything substantial.) In any case, the investigator for the funeral services commission claims that after this visit she received several phone calls from aides to the governor and encourage to close the investigation quickly. The investigator was subsequently fired. There are other issues mentioned at the website. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/36 "2000-08-30T22:42:41Z")
> [@](#): > > “. That’s like saying that the issue of capital gains tax is the most important of this election. If that’s what you’re basing your descision on, well…” You make it sound as if my classification of the SC being the most important issue is predicated upon my basing my vote on that issue. It’s the other way around, though, of course. > [@](#): > > Did republicans spend the last 8 years holding silent vigil for the supreme court, praying that no accidents befell them? Not quite, but I’m sure they’re glad that Rehnquist didn’t retire during Clinton’s term. While we’re on the subject, I wouldn’t put it past Rehnquist to stay on the bench out of spite, so that the Democrats don’t get to appoint his replacement; that sucker is _evil_. Of course, I also think that Rehnquist’s hostility comes from his being a latent homosexual, so I’ve got a bunch of theories about him. > [@](#): > > Bush is unlikely to get that many SC nominees. . ." I’d contest that. It’s surprising that Clinton hasn’t gotten more given that the court is, ahem, infirm. If I were a betting man (and I am), I would give Bush Jr. 2:3 odds of getting 3 appointments, and 2:1 odds of getting 4, _in his first term._ You seem to think otherwise, so I guess we’ll just have to disagree. > [@](#): > > . . . if he does, they will be pretty moderate . . . even if Gore gets in, who’s to say he doesn’t apoint someone who rules against abortion? I see no reason to assume that they would be moderate. The country is in a fairly conservative mood, and Bush (who could only be called a “moderate” by Texas standards) would have a mandate to appoint a Clarence Thomas-type justice if he so decided. And of course Gore _could_ appoint a pro-lifer to the court, but it’s very unlikely, especially when compared to the chance that Bush would do the same. > [@](#): > > . . . and even then the likelyhood of an abortion law coming up is pretty slim. Not so. Major abortion cases come up to the court every couple of years. The last one I can remember by name was _Webster v. Reproductive Health Services of Missouri_, in '89, but their have been others since. Just about any case regarding any kind of abortion law gives the court an opportunity to overturn _Roe_ should they choose, and Scalia and Thomas have already written into decisions authored by them that _Roe_ **should** be overturned. > [@](#): > > [Gore is] an oportunist plain and simple. If he thought he could win by killing mentally retarded people he probably would. I’v no illusions about Gore’s scruples (or lack thereof); I merely prefer the constituency that he answers to as opposed to the constituency that Bush answers to. > [@](#): > > So vote Browne. I fully intend to . . . but I could vote Gore and not have to fall on my sword afterwards. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/37 "2000-08-30T22:54:20Z")
VarlosZ: > [@](#): > > Bush (who could only be called a “moderate” by Texas standards) What, exactly, makes you think that Texas is so darned conservative? Prior to Bush, the people of Texas had a Democratic Governor (Ann Richards) for two terms, Jim Wright, the Democratic Speaker of the House for a while, was a Texan, as was Lyndon Johnson, who is the architect of almost everything hated by today’s conservatives. The Legislature of Texas is completely dominated by Democrats, and Bush’s ability to cooperate with them on a bipartisan basis and accomplish things is one of the major things Bush has going for him. With the exception of the gun issue and the death penalty issue, I don’t think Texas is farther to the right than most of America. Or is it just the fact that you’ve bought into this “Bush is a tool of the radical right wing” bit and therefore assumed that since Bush was elected in Texas that Texas must be an overwhelmingly conservative state? Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![Grendel69](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7bcc69/32.png) [@Grendel69](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grendel69)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2000, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/38 "2000-08-30T23:53:27Z")
Southern…I hope that you are pulling down some serious coin because if you aren’t then the Bush tax plan won’t help you. As for the tax cuts, even if you were to benefit from the tax cuts, are several percentage points more important to you than decisions that affect your constitutional rights? If so, then it’s your opinion that’s scaring me. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/39 "2000-08-31T00:15:53Z")
Jello: Merely because the NRA _said_ they’d run the oval office doesn’t make it so. It is clear to me that he was merely gloating that after 8 years of presidential hostility to his organisation he’d finally have someone who was sympathetic. Face facts. GW is _not_ controlled by the radical right. He is not a Pat Robertson in sheep’s clothing. He may be an empty suit, but he is pretty much an apolitical person. He’s similar to Clinton. Neither want to be president because they have policy issues that they feel _must_ be acheived. Bush couldn’t give a rat’s ass about prayer in schools. He panders to the religious right, sure. That makes them his puppet, not him their puppet. Think about it. His dad is _George Bush_. He is not a radical, he is a get-along, grease-the-wheels, kind of guy. Maybe he’ll give away the store to his corporate buddies, if you’re afraid of that then we’ll talk. Worrying about bibles in the oval offices is ridiculous. And why so upset that he wants a parody website taken down? I mean, if someone mocked me, I would want it taken down. Doesn’t mean that I’d use extra-constitutional means to get it taken down, though. The supreme court. Well, how many conservatives did Bush Sr. appoint? The only really really conservative was Thomas. And you know why? Cause he was black. It was decided that since Thurgood Marshall was retiring that they needed to find a black guy to replace him. But of course, not just any black. Of course, decided to find the most conservative black guy they could find. Bush’s other supreme court nominations were pretty mainstream. Don’t you people get it? Roe v. Wade is a dead issue. Sure, it could be reversed. But so what? What would happen then? Would abortion suddenly be illegal? No. What would happen is that states could start passing anti-abortion laws. And those laws would still be subject to review, by the _State Courts_. And appealed, etc. But it is ludicrous to think that the only reason abortion is legal in this country is that 2 or 3 people haven’t retired from the supreme court. No, abortion is legal because 2/3 or more of America supports the status quo. Of course 2/3 of America also say they are against abortion, but they still support the status quo. Abortion will stay legal in most of the country as long as most people support it. If most people decide abortion must be banned the supreme court won’t protect you, we’ll just get that handy constitutional amendment passed, all it takes is 2/3 of the house and senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures. If America is truly chomping at the bit for criminalizing abortion there is nothing you can do to stop it. But of course, only the extreme pro-choice and extreme pro-life people think, or pretend to think, there is a chance that the status quo will change. And Grendel…what about my 2nd Amendment rights? Maybe I find your interference with _them_ scary? ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/40 "2000-08-31T00:33:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Prior to Bush, the people of Texas had a Democratic Governor (Ann Richards) for two terms, Jim Wright, the Democratic Speaker of the House for a while, was a Texan, as was Lyndon Johnson, who is the architect of almost everything hated by today’s conservatives. As my H.S. Social Studies teacher used to say, “Southern Democrats don’t count.” Simple, but about as safe a political generalization as one can make. I’ll give you LBJ, but that was over 30 years ago. > [@](#): > > With the exception of the gun issue and the death penalty issue, I don’t think Texas is farther to the right than most of America. Yeah, and the abortion issue, and the tax issue, and the immigration issue, and the gay rights issue . . . at what point does it cease to be just a few issues, and not a general conservative bent? > [@](#): > > Or is it just the fact that you’ve bought into this “Bush is a tool of the radical right wing” bit and therefore assumed that since Bush was elected in Texas that Texas must be an overwhelmingly conservative state? If anything, it would be the other way around (i.e. “Texas is a very conservative state, therefore its Republican Governor is probably very right wing”). By all accounts, Bush Jr. is a nice enough guy, but that doesn’t mean I don’t disagree w/ his stance on a majority of issues (or at least the few issues for which he has any specific plans), nor does it mean that I don’t think he’s just _dim_. George Will characterized him as an “amiable fraternity boy.” I haven’t “bought into” anything; I just wouldn’t trust Bush Jr. to run a softball league, let alone a military-industrial-technological superpower. As an aside, why would anyone be an enthusiastic Bush supporter? Even if I don’t agree with it, I could understand how people could view him as the lesser of two evils, or if they just voted for Bush while thinking, “Boy, I sure wish the Republicans had found someone better.” Those are not exactly ringing endorsements of Little Bush, however. Can anyone explain it to me? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018.md?page=3)