The journey from there to here
Published on June 20, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Bakerstreet wrote an excellent article about the direction we're headed as a country (Link ). It's a highly recommended read, and if the admins of this site haven't already read it, I recommend it, as I believe it's VERY feature-worthy. But I digress.

Reading his article caused me to contemplate what I really dislike about George W. Bush's policies as President. In theory, he and I should agree on much. In practice, though, is where it gets sticky.

Bush inherited the office no doubt wanting to learn from the lessons of his father, a man who seemed almost undefeatable less than a year prior to Bill Clinton's winning the office for the Democrats for the first time in 12 years. And so, Bush presented himself as a "uniter, not a divider".

And, to be fair, Bush has tried to be. He signed into law the "No Child Left Behind Act", the end result of nearly two decades of work by the more leftist elements of the Democratic Party. He introduced into his Social Security reform plan an almost unheard of clause among Republicans that would allow for lower income contributors to receive more benefits so that no American would have to go into retirement in poverty. He has modified his positions repeatedly to try to heal the "red/blue" divide in this country.

But it's not enough for the leftists that have hijacked the DNC. Anything that comes from Bush's mouth must be a lie. Forget that ten years ago, it was DEMOCRATIC leaders bemoaning the plight of Social Security; now that the Republicans are bearing the banner, apparently all of their apocalyptic figures were false. The saddest fact is, they won't even admit to this reversal, but smother it in doublespeak and innuendo.

I know a lot of people who will hate me saying this, but the fact is, Bush is a "Clinton Republican". He cares more about what people think of him and the legacy that he will leave than he does about acting consistent with his beliefs. The trouble is, the element he's dealing with. Clinton was dealing with a Republican Party composed of enough moderates to actually make running his presidency by the polls WORK. Bush, however, faces a Democratic Party to whom "compromise" and "bipartisan support" are poison, and to whom any legislation that has its genesis anywhere right of center must be destroyed. Bush, in short, is dealing with a party that REFUSES to unite, and no matter how "nice" he plays it, that's not going to change.

My suggestion? Since he can't be elected again, stop worrying about the whining, snivelling left. They are becoming increasingly repugnant to all but the most fervently leftist elements within the country, and Bush would be best served listening to his conscience rather than the latest Gallup poll.


Comments
on Jun 20, 2005
insightfull....
on Jun 20, 2005
The title of this post is kind of misleading and after reading it, it seems that if you did ponder what you dislike about Bush you convinced yourself that they were bad reasons. I think a more apt title would be "I Tried to Dislike Bush but I Couldn't". You do have issues that you don't agree with him on right? I mean I think he has a lot of room for improvement, imho. In fact it's really difficult for me to approve of everything a President does. Knowing how one has to be in today's political landscape really adds impetus to my realization that not all is good.

Professor Lucas, you actually spelled insightful incorrectly. Where do you teach?
on Jun 20, 2005

I think a more apt title would be "I Tried to Dislike Bush but I Couldn't".

Nah, because I still dislike Bush. In fact, if he were to be the president he should be, I would still take issue with many of his policies, but I would at least respect him more. The fact is, he, as with too many prominent Republicans, has sold out to Socialist elements, and it has cheapened us as a nation. We expect that of the left, but when it comes from the GOP, it's BEYOND out of place.

on Jun 20, 2005
Thanks Gid.

I don't think you are seeing it accurately, though. Bush hasn't sold out, because that would mean doing something FOR them. In reality, Republicans are now deciding to exploit the same socialist tools of control Democrats have abused for decades.

I wrote another blog a while back about how all these tasks we give the government always add up to more control they have over us. The power has been given, and now it isn't going to be given back. The Republican leadership has decided if ANYONE is going to exploit big government, it is going to be them.

It's like two people facing off with only one gun between them. The election gives you the gun, but if you drop it out of principle, your opponent will just pick it up and use it on you. Republicans have just decided that if we are going to have a huge, controlling government, they are going to design the controls and reap the benefits.

20 years of politics proved that holding fast to Libertarian ideals just left Democrats all the toys to abuse. There's no going back now. Those in power in Washington will not idealistically hand back the reigns to the people. We have to decide which abusers we prefer more, unfortunately, because if either side makes a moral stand not to abuse, the other will just take the advantage to do so.
on Jun 20, 2005
Insightful indeed.

You know, I haven't specified a political party yet.... Actually, the Libertarian stance seems more in tune with the beliefs that I have than the stance I've grown up with.

I don't have anything to else add, but wanted you to know I read the article.

Peace,

Beebes
on Jun 20, 2005
No Child Left Behind only added another layer of paperwork to an educational system already overburdened by such. Secondly, the funding process wasn't perfected and many school districts had to do without due to the law's imperfections. Like Bush, it was perhaps a good idea, but wasn't thought though to a logical conclusion. As a result teachers, students and administrators suffered due to added accountability without the funding necessary to hire another layer of personnel. Contrary to Republican philosphy indeed.

Bush, unfortunately, did sell out to corporate interests and it has made life more difficult for him as well. He is viewed as a betrayer to the radical right religious and has given mega corporations just about everything they desire to loot and pillage the masses. His desire to satisfy caused our troops in Iraq to suffer from lack of ammunition, water and other logistics since Halliburton was given a no bid contract and had nothing to lose. In spite of creative accounting, Halliburton has received massive bonuses and is far from achieving their goals in Iraq.

His lack of honesty is evident particularly in promulgating the Iraq war. Talks tough, but has to fix policy and intelligence before going in. Its pathetic and will signal his downfall eventually.

Though he talks a lot about sacrifice and honor, his treatment of active duty servicemembers and Veterans has been abysmal. Cutting back on active duty benefits such as housing, schools, combat pay, etc., didn't exactly equate a grateful country or President; and his attitude towards Veterans is even worse evidenced by arbitrary cutting of funding causing many hospitals to close down wards. Not exactly a a straight shooter as he talks out of both sides of his mouth.

His leadership is lacking and the desire is to talk a good show, but the performance is lacking. The Great Uniter has created a divided country and will not admit to any mistake prompting an assumption he is more concerned about reputation than the well being of this nation. Either way, he lacks the ability to effectively accomplish any type of leadership other than giving tax breaks to the rich and cozy up to corporations.

He failed in every business started and had to be bailed out by his father or his friends. Arbusto Oil was run into the ground by his antics and Prince Bandar of Saudia Arabia bailed the company out at a handsome profit for Bush Jr., but left him indebted to the Saudis.

All in all, he will be recognized as one of the worst presidents of this nation if not impeached prior to the end of his term.

on Jun 20, 2005
Professor Lucas, you actually spelled insightful incorrectly. Where do you teach?


--ehh, evryone has the days...I teach at U of Arizonia (I start the beginning of this next term...
on Jun 20, 2005
Professor Lucas, you actually spelled insightful incorrectly. Where do you teach?


--ehh, evryone has the days...I teach at U of Arizonia (I start the beginning of this next term...
on Jun 20, 2005
BakerStreet:
Those in power in Washington will not idealistically hand back the reigns to the people. We have to decide which abusers we prefer more, unfortunately, because if either side makes a moral stand not to abuse, the other will just take the advantage to do so.


Pretty dead on from my perspective as well, Mr. Street. When you say The People™, though, I have to turn my head. I haven't really noticed that The People™ want the reigns back. They seem much happier sitting on the sidelines yelling at the horses and the jockies. The People™ scream about being abused, but secretly they know it is FAR easier to be a victim than it is to think.
on Jun 21, 2005
OR: Couldn't have put it better myself, though I tried. Most of politics is a ploy to make people think there is some big political civil war going on, when in reality the parties are basically satisfied to live in a stalemate and reap the benefits of eternal war.
on Jun 21, 2005
Pretty dead on from my perspective as well, Mr. Street. When you say The People™, though, I have to turn my head. I haven't really noticed that The People™ want the reigns back. They seem much happier sitting on the sidelines yelling at the horses and the jockies. The People™ scream about being abused, but secretly they know it is FAR easier to be a victim than it is to think.


You guys are heading into Marxist territory with the proletariats and the bourgeois. It's apparent that the power in Washington and corporate America keeps condensing into less and less hands. It makes me wonder if poverty will ever be solved. How many of you could be politicians? I think a certain amount of one's innocence must be killed in order to win in politics.
on Jun 21, 2005
>All in all, he will be recognized as one of the worst presidents of this nation if not impeached prior to the end of his term.

AMEN!
I would make only one change: he would not be recognized as ONE of the worst but THE worst president in this nations
history.