Socko Wiethe Wrote:2. Bush the candidate ran as a moderate, with that same "compassionate conservative" crap he's trying to roll back out there and get people to buy into again now. He promised to be a uniter, not a divider. He promised fiscal responsibility. He promised a tax cut that would be fair and most positively impact lower-income Americans. He promised education reform (I guess we missed the fine print where he never promised he would find a way to pay for it). He ran claiming to be environmentally responsible. He said he would make government more accountable (should have noticed that asterisk that added, "Executive branch exempted.") He said he would restore honor and dignity to the White House. I would support any of these statements from a candidate. In my opinion, however, he's fallen far short on each count.
No one in 2000 saw 9/11 coming or could have guessed how central that would turn out to be in his term. I thought he was strong and setting the right tone (even if the "evil-doers" language was a little goofy) for a number of weeks after that event. But when the obvious things that had to be done were exhausted from the list and he had to set policy on how we would proceed, he began making poor choices. When it became clear that these were bad choices, he would never admit to the obvious.
The biggest problem, in a word, is trust. I don't trust this president. In fact, I fear him. He's got no sense for managing the budget. With another four years to put in place his fiscal decisions, I shudder to think about the legacy that will be left for my kids. As someone once proposed, the easiest way to defeat America wouldn't be militarily, it would merely be to wreck the financial system. If a major financial crisis erupts, do you think Bush is going to be listening to those who are trying to protect average Americans, or his corporate boosters who are trying to keep from getting their fortunes blown out of the water?
On foreign policy, are we supposed to trust a man who made such incredibly shallow decisions on launching a war of choice against Iraq to now manage true potential nuclear crises with North Korea or Iran? What if Pakistan's leadership falls, or if Iraq starts to deteroriate?
I think your recollection of history is a bit fuzzy:
Bush was doing a fantastic job of uniting things (think No Child Left Behind) despite a hostile introduction due to the Florida fiasco. Remember, Gore filed suit first re: the election. Not that I blame him, but keep that in mind. Next, despite Moore's lies to the contrary, Bush won all the re-counts. Yet, this event is still being played as some sort of scam or even a
coup d'etat. So who's being divisive?
Bush also did some incredible politicking to get the START(I think it was that one) treaty undone. More than one political opponent was displeased at how well this "chimp" operated the system.
Much of this came undone at 9/11. That was a divisive event. Plenty of people blamed Bush immediately, and wrongly. Many were the same folks who were blaming Bush for the economic downturn in Summer of 2000. That was PRE-ELECTION. So the "divisive" element was just waiting to happen. Bush didn't promote it; his opponents just wanted an excuse.
Have you listened to Tommy Franks lately (he has a new book)? I heard him on NPR, and he was emphatic that he would have favored the war w/ Iraq, and wasn't concerned about the "lack" of international support. He knows it is easier to manage non-coallition troops. This was
critical given the speed at which the attack required. It also, in all probability, prevented Hussein from sabotaging his own oil and water infrastructures. A blessing for the Iraqis and the environment.
We also know that many of Iraq's weapons were from France and Russia, who clearly violated treaties in selling these arms to Hussein. Not exactly the upstanding folks we want to be allied with.
Moreover you bring up N. Korea... It was Rumsfeld and Bush who knew about N. Korea! Clinton's policies helped spur the event. And how are you criticizing their handling of it?! No event has occurred...despite a heated situation.
Are you really interested in facts, or are you just blowing smoke like other ABB folks?
Finally, you offer no other answers. What would Gore have done differently? What evidence is there that Kerry could do better? He's milquetoast. A lapdog who would try to make peace w/ so-called allies, by giving concessions.
Bush's policies can come under criticism. I agree some are lacking. But, he inherited events that few others have dealt with (recession, terrorist attacks, war, homeland security). And frankly, the country is better off than 4 years ago.
/
Is the GOP headed towards major tax reform?
