Bush claims he is oblivious to media opinion?! That's weird, just this morning they said Bush was upset at the treatment of Rumsfeld after reading the headlines that he reads so frequently.

Bush made the comment a while back that he rarely reads the papers. A lot of media-types, liberals, and anti-Bush conservatives often use that to illustrate how unsmart he is.

Regarding "media analysis" of Bush... I'm always amazed at how nasty the media is to him, though I've mentioned before that it's somewhat because Bush (as opposed to Clinton before him) shut off most of the media access that they were so used to having on every little thing, and also definitely has some component simply because he's a member of the political party that mass media members generally aren't a member of.

And as far as media opinion... I don't know well enough to tell whether or not he pays any attention at all, though there's certainly a possible component of "my political opponents want me to do this, so I should do the opposite" in the matter.

Then again, I'm like this on most politicians. I'm no big fan of Bush these days, as the main difference between him and other politicians is that most politicians will tell you they're doing something for you while stabbing you in the back, while Bush just stabs you in the back and waits to see what happens.

The reasons for the media's animosity towards Bush are legion. The secretive nature of the administration is certainly one reason, as is party affiliation. I think there's also a sense of betrayal in that the media does not believe they were sufficiently skeptical of the Iraq War and of Bush in general post-9/11 and Bush betrayed them by being a Republican.

As far as stabbing people in the back, I'm not sure those that voted for him (particularly in 2004) really have much of an argument that they didn't know what they were getting. Nothing he has done in his second term (whether I agree with him or not) has particularly surprised me. I don't mean that in a good way or a bad way, just that he is what he is.

I can say that I am actually surprised to see the Bush Administration taking things as far as they do. Did I expect the direction they took? Yes, but again, not as far as they took it.

It's understandable that the Administration would wiretap Americans suspected of having dealings with Terrorists. This does not surprise me. Bypassing the court system (that automatically approves 95% plus of all the taps) is too far. It might be almost rubber stamped, but at least there is a process and a procedure in case something is too much. Bypassing that step is plain ridiculous. How would the Presidential Office feel if Congress simply bypassed the whole Veto power of the Presidency. Yes, they can override it now, but what if Veto just went away? I'm sure they feel they needed to do this to speed things up, but when is it too far?

Even with the War in Iraq, a war I supported, but not for the reasons given by the Bush Administration. I completely disagreed with them, and knew that they were using their reasoning as an excuse. One they hoped everyone could back. It backfired.

Government is taking too much power and taking away too much Freedom. I believe Americans should be looking to start limiting the Fedral government and return powers back to the States (closer to the people).

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison

RAW:

As far as Bush stabbing people in the back, I think it mostly comes down to what he's done and not done. He ran - in both campaigns - as a conservative and someone who could bring down the size of government. However, he doesn't do anything to stop the usual spending glut we've got, so no help there.

On illegal immigration, well... yeesh.

Kavey:

On the wiretap thing, as long as one end of the conversation is foreign (as is the case with this program) I have no problem with bypassing the court. Also, I've seen the amount of paperwork that has to be put together for any one of these, and when they say they don't have the time to do it AND maintain the wiretap, they're right - when the original court system was put in place, it was a couple pages they had to do, but now they're expected (thanks to increased regulations since then) to provide a freakin' novella in 72 hours to justify a wiretap, and until the judge signs off, the wiretap has to be halted, so instead of a steady stream, you get 72 hours, a gap, and then *maybe* it resumes. Gaps are something that we don't like when we're talking national security.

As far as states' rights... as much as I'd love to see it otherwise, that battle was fought and lost numerous times, and "states' rights" are now a trophy hanging on a wall somewhere in the white house rather than something we can count on.

As for the Iraq war... I don't think the reasoning was faulty. The intelligence on WMD might have been (though there's still plenty unaccounted for, as well as the porous Syrian border) but overall, every nation had the same intelligence. In fact, that was part of the reason certain European nations were giving for *not* going to war: "but what if Saddam uses his WMD's?"

Bush did talk about being a small-government Republican in the abstract. But looking back, anything and everything he gave in the way of specifics suggests what we got: faith-based and market-based initiatives. He never took the Gingrichian stance of abolishing the department of education, commerce, and so on. In fact, his ascendency was largely a repudiation of that unelectable strategy.

I would love to be able to say that I've been "betrayed" here, but I'm not sure we have much foundation to. There is a case to be made for 2000 (he did give every indication that he would mind the deficit, which he surely hasn't), but absolutely none for 2004. I had hoped for better, but we face an electorate that doesn't support small government.

As for immigration, that's no backstab at all. He's always been exceedingly warm to Hispanics and Mexico in general. Amnesty was first mentioned in the first couple of years of his first term. At no point did he suggest that he would crack down on immigration. If you ever got the impression that he would be tough on immigration or that he would be less than liberal on it, I'd be curious to know where. I know you believe he is very wrong on immigration, but even if true he has been quite transparently so.

On the other hand, Mike, I am in almost complete agreement on your response to Kavey.

On further reflection, I think I concede Mike's point regarding Bush's economic plan. I don't think there was a whole lot of reason to believe that he would shrink government, but the extent to which it has grown under his watch is more of an about-face than I had previously given it credit for. Particularly with a Republican congress.

RAW, on Illegal Immigration and Bush, one big thing to remember was his (2000) campaign promise to beef up border patrol by approximately 2000 border patrol agents per year.

Instead of that, he's let it languish, cut funding when it got rolled into the "Homeland Security" department, and we're worse off on it than when he got in.

Then again, I should worry. Houston's in violation of section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act: "Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local law, a Federal, State or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual."

Mike-
I was going to say "Are you insane" yesterday, but then I thought about it and I must say I agree with you in part. The wiretap thing doesn't concern me directly. It's not so much what they are doing that causes me concern, but rather HOW they went about doing it. I don't care that they want to run wiretaps on americans conversing with foreign entities that might be connected to terrorism. My thing is that they didn't ask permission to remove the court requirement. I mean if the government can publically accept the secret assassination attempt of a foreign leader, then they can publically tell people they are changing policy on monitoring Americans.

I'm sorry, but it being inconvenient is not an excuse. I understand their dilemma, but I can't condone the actions. The first question I have to ask myself is why are those procedures there to begin with? Why to prevent people from abusing their power of course. Checks and Balances. I don't care if they want to change policy, but to do so in secrecy and then be upset when someone breaks the silence is stupid. Even if the Bush Administrations reasons for it are legit (which I believe they are), that doesn't mean the next presidency will be as kind, or even 50 years from now.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to give up my privacy or freedom without a direct choice in the matter, even if it's "for my own good." I mean who are they to decide what is good for me?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin

Kavey,

Regarding asking permission, unfortunately, there's a major need to balance how much information should be given out, with how much information we want terrorists to have.

One of the reasons you don't hear a lot about when terror attacks are prevented, for instance, is that any release of how the government knew about it (or even that they did know about it) can compromise the intelligence sources that let us know it was coming.

So we run into similar issues with the wiretap bit there, too. If the terrorists assume that they have to get a warrant, they're more likely to screw up and get caught than if they are (as now) paranoid because they know they are likely to be wiretapped instantly.

Mike,

I was unaware of the promise that Bush made regarding border patrol. Googling it I did find this on the White House's website:

"Since President Bush took office, funding for border security has increased by 66 percent. The Border Patrol has been expanded to more than 12,000 agents, an increase of more than 2,700 agents, or nearly 30 percent. The President's FY07 budget funds another 1,500 new agents."

Granted, that's a far cry from 2,000 a year (which would have doubled the patrol)... but I'd say that's more "politics" than a "backstab." At the very least, there are two sides to the story. I find the notion questionable that this administration has actually cut funding for /anything/. That would, in fact, be my chief complaint about the administration as a whole.

I think that for all your cynicism, I actually have lower expectations than you do regarding the promises of politicians.

Mike-
Sounds like you a very end justifies the means type of guy. Well maybe not all the time. I seem to recall the article concerning arresting drunks in a bar to curb drunk driving? Now why is that a problem? I mean arresting people who are technically legally intoxicated so they don't drive might work. No more drunk drivers, hazzah! I don't see much difference between that and the presidency taken more power than they really have the right. It's just a different cause. Terrorists vs. drunken morotorists. Both actions potentially save lives. I agree with neither.