"Why would anyone propose to expand a policy that has failed to work for over 12 years?" your quote.

- beats me. why??!

Only Bush could answer that question.

So, other than protectionist policies that do nothing but hurt consumers, what would have him do? Also, since the Constitution tasks Congress (not the president) with international trade and treaties, why aren't you asking your state's Senators and Representatives this question? Activism and dissent are great, but let's at least target it at those with the primary responsibility of taking care of the issue.

First, the Free trade extension to China was at the insistance of Bush which the Congress passed. Bush is now pushing for Central America. Under the law , Bush has the responsibility to administer its provisions including provisions when countries like China fail to follow the requirements. The issue is that these agreements are NOT FREE TRADE and are not producing a level playing field. The size of the deficit and the loss of jobs is destroying entire industries. When something harming the people of the United States, why would our President not take action to adopt a policy that helped the U S? To further expand a failed policy does not help Americans?

You know, I read a brief article about this in the Business section of my local rag this morning and said to myself, "Betcha Gene'll be all over it at JU when I log on." I love it when I don't disappoint myself.

Cheers,
Daiwa

You know, I read a brief article about this on Col Gene's blog and said to myself "Betcha Daiwa adds nothing but pithy, snotty little comments, because this is like the 50th example Col. Gene has given of how bad a president Bush is, yet Daiwa and his fellow FoxZombies have not once provided a compelling, reality-based argument in favour of Bush. It must really suck being a Bush supporter, getting pwned on a daily basis in the blogsphere, armed with nothing but vitriol, obfuscation, and a six dollar mullet haircut." I love it when I don't disappoint myself

David St. Hubbins

Bush has the responsibility to administer its provisions including provisions when countries like China fail to follow the requirements.

In other words, no you don't intend on doing anything more than Bush Bashing over this (or any other topic). Just a guess though.

I'm starting to wonder if the anti Bush side thinks anything is Congress' responsibility. Basically all you expect from them is to sit around waiting for word from the White House.

Too often Congress just follows along with Bush. I do not make up these issues, thay are the results of the policies we are following. If you Bushies think what I am saying is anti Bush it may be because the Bush policies are anti U S interests. How the trade deficit or national deficit and job loss are good things for Americans beats me.

Too often Congress just follows along with Bush. I do not make up these issues, thay are the results of the policies we are following.

Members of Congress do not have to just sit and wait for policies from the White House. Each and every member has the ability to write bills for whatever they feel is important. If you feel that sealing our borders is so important, why are you not leaning on your state's Senators and House members about it?

If you Bushies think what I am saying is anti Bush it may be because the Bush policies are anti U S interests.

Believe it or not, I disagree with Prs. Bush's policy on immigration also, but I also see that members of Congress (who have more contitutional authority to create legislation concerning it) are the ones we should be calling on the carpet.

Seperation of powers is really important, and too often I see people who seem to want to heap everything on the President, simply because his butt is the one filling the big chair in the oval office.

no...if Bush started writing laws and passing them....then the dems (oh, wait, sorry...moderate republicans...sorry Col...) would be throwing a tantrum about Bush overstepping his bounds....

Face it....no matter what Bush does or doesn't do, the dems (damn...there i go again....moderate republicans...sorry again, Col) will hate it, and bash it, and him.

When Congress has not acted on Bush proposals in the past he then tries to go arround Congress and take it to the people. Social Security is a good example. Whenever anyone does not support Bush you are a Bush basher. The Republicans almost always vote 100% with the general ideas ob Bush. I agree we need separation of power and I believe that no one party should control Congress and the White House. Moderate Republicans, independents and Democrats do not agree with many of the Bush/GOP policies. Bush got 51% of the vote not because of his policies but because of and gay marriage and abortion. If George Bush had taken his stand on the budget cuts and Social Security before the November election, he would never have been reelected. If the Democrats had selected a better candidate, Bush would retired at the ranch in Texas today.

When Congress has not acted on Bush proposals in the past he then tries to go arround Congress and take it to the people.

That is merely a tactic of the seperation of powers, it has nothing to do with whether or not Congress acts independently, or sits around waiting for word from the White House.

Whenever anyone does not support Bush you are a Bush basher.

I already said I don't support Prs. Bush in a few things, so now you're trying to call me a Bush Basher? Spare me!! You keep saying you're not a Bush Basher, but your entire broken record schick is "Bush Truth", which basically means "Bush is a liar". Well sir, since you call me a Bush Basher, and I'm not one, does that make you a liar?

Sorry, but your rhetoric speaks for itself.

I do mean to call you or anyone else a Bush basher. The facts are what they are. If you believe a the Bush outcome is not good , that does not mean you hate Bush you are just pointing out the results of his policies.

I don't think you hate Bush, but you do fit any fair description of a "Bush Basher". I mean, the main gist of my blog is to satire "Personally Tragedy, Disaster, War and Other Things that Just Plain Suck", but anyone who reads my articles can see that I don't feel compelled to limit myself to just satire. On the other hand, your blog IS a series of articles on a variety of issues, but all with one goal in mind. If that goal is not to "Bash Bush" I am definitely missing something.

I thought Prs. Clinton was a liar, an embarrassment, an abuser of women and a hypocrite for all the military officers that were dishonorably discharged for doing exactly what Clinton did. Where were their names when he was burning the midnight oil signing pardons. That being said, he did start Americorps, some of his bombing missions actually did accomplish something, and the guy was a Rhoads Scholar. In other words, as reprehensible as I think he is, there are things he did I support, and can respect.

Somehow, I doubt you could do the same for Prs. Bush. Even if you could within yourself, I doubt you would include words of support in your blog. That's cool though (to paraphrase myself from Terpfan's rant against you), Sure, you are pretty much a 'one trick pony' (credit to Gideon), and 'sound like a broken record', but hey, being your blog; it's your pony to ride."

Too often Congress just follows along with Bush

Gene, come on. There is simply no basis for this comment, other than your subjective opinion. The Congress has only been populated heavily in his favor since January and it's hardly a runaway train - his own party seems lukewarm to more than a couple of his proprosals. I'm not sure who you are insulting, Bush or Congress, but you're insulting.

Cheers,
Daiwa