Posted on 08/29/2002 1:00:30 PM PDT by feelin_poorly
Shortly after 9-11, TV talk-show host Sean Hannity said, "Thank God, we have an honest man in the White House!"
And when you think about it, a great deal of what you might believe about the so-called War on Terrorism is based on statements from George W. Bush. You have only his word, or that of someone in his administration:
Since America is endangered by the "you're either with me or against me" tactics of the Bush administration, it becomes vital to know whether we can trust the man in charge of our government.
The record
So does George Bush's record inspire confidence in his honesty?
Unfortunately, this is the same man who has referred to trillions of dollars in budget surpluses – even though the federal government hasn't had a budget surplus since 1956. (The appearance of any "surpluses" was created by taking excess receipts from Social Security and applying them to the general budget, even as the politicians swore they were protecting Social Security.)
Mr. Bush even has the chutzpah to refer with a straight face (well not exactly a straight face, he loves to smirk) to corporate executives "cooking the books." He neglects to mention that many of the corporate bookkeeping methods the politicians are so incensed about today were motivated by rules imposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
And George Bush is the same man who in 2000 said he believed in "limited government." Most people assumed he meant a government limited by the Constitution. In fact, he took an oath in which he swore to uphold the Constitution.
But he's violated virtually every one of the first 10 Amendments – especially the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which are meant to impose precise limits on his power.
So his belief in "limited government" apparently means government limited to what he wants to do.
George Bush is the same man who in one breath tries to ingratiate himself with you by saying, "It's your money, not the politicians' money" – but in the next breath, he says he's entitled to one third of "your money."
George Bush is the same man who said he has learned more about political philosophy from Jesus of Nazareth than from anyone else. But he's proven by his actions that he doesn't really believe such things as "Blessed are the peacemakers." And "the meek" who Jesus said would inherit the earth are in Mr. Bush's eyes really just "collateral damage" in his plans to tell the world how it must live.
Is honesty important?
In these and in so many other ways, George Bush has proven that he's not an honest man – and that we shouldn't trust him with the safety of America.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson understood that we shouldn't put our trust in any politician. He said we should bind them down from mischief "by the chains of the Constitution." And a truly honest man wouldn't even ask you to trust him.
Contrary to what you might have thought, this isn't an article about George Bush. It's an article about you. Are you going to demean yourself by putting your faith in a man who has done so much to demonstrate the folly of such faith?
Are you going to let politicians stampede you into throwing away the Bill of Rights, based on "evidence" you never see, reassured by politicians who have proven that the truth is secondary to their own ambitions?
Don't you have enough respect for your own mind to make your own decisions, refuse to accept conclusions without evidence, and be something better than a cheerleader for a politician or a political party?
She did catch you in a lie and it isnt my fault that you are a woman and mother...
...I'm sure your poor husband is happy you're back online.
I keep seeing this scene from the movie "Arthur" when he goes to see [Linda] Liza Minelli at her apartment and he knocks on a door that's answered by a screaming Woman...
...Arthur walks outside and says "Harry, you're a dead Man Harry."
LOL
And more to the point, wheter Browne is pulling sour grapes or not, the question is, does he make some valid observations and criticisms about the Bush administration? I'd say; yes. And my assertion has nothing to do with him being a Libertarian or member of any particular political party. It has to do with him being right.
When you loose the ability to critisize your own, you may as well throw in the towel. Its over. The Cult of Personality mindset will be in place, and nothing that the person in questions says or does will ever be questioned.
You know, I used to wonder how Germans could follow Hitler in 1932 and up through 1936. They were smart, educated, technical, worldly, and still they followed.
Now I know.
Anyway, it's called Crest Whitestrips and some people really need to use them. Alan Keyes obviously doesn't have a problem with crusty looking teeth--and I appreciate that.
As I'm sure so are Hill and Billery Krintoon, Fidel Castro, Sharpton, Jackson, Boxer, Daschale, Ted Kennedy, Hussein, etc., etc., ad naseum. My point was that we can't always discount the message just due to the messenger. What is YOUR point?
Tons of people do it and YOU need to relax.
Yeah, that's what humbletheFiend used to say. Or was it ned? Dunno, I get confused....
Are you referring to Jefferson's attacks on them without congressional authorization...
Jefferson's attacks on them with congressional authorization but without a general declaration of war...
Or Madison's attacks on them after a general declaration of war by congress?
The biggest reasons for McCain doing well were, IMHO, his war record and the amount of positive media coverage he received. Quite a few Independents also jumped into the GOP primaries to support him since he was considered an "outsider" (and to screw up the GOP primary by voting for the most liberal guy).
Once his real record was exposed, his support dropped.
Bush was always the front runner due to name recognition. As early as 1998, he was being pushed by the GOP elites solely due to his name recognition. I was fairly active in GOP politics (at the grassroots level) in 2000, and as such got to speak to quite a few Republicans. Many of them liked Keyes or Forbes better than Bush, but believed the lie anyone except for Bush was "unelectable". (As for this point, I'm thankful that Republicans in 1980 had enough backbone to support the "unelectable" Reagan)
As such, Bush took an early lead in the primaries. In a (successful) effort to get conservatives motivated behind him, he adopted a conservative platform of tax cuts, vouchers, and social security privatization.
In a nutshell, he won because he was the party's "annointed one", because he convinced people that he was a real conservative, and conservatives were so desperate to have the corrupt Clinton/Gore regime out of DC, that they voted for the guy that was presented to them as the most electable.
Try defending the article.
I don't know what "wether" means, its not in the dictionary.
Sorry about being the spelling police but sometimes my alter ego "the asshole" just jumps out.
You don't want to talk about OBL, I suggest you tell Harry the Rat to stop inserting him in his delusions. Otherwise it's not a red herring Alan, it's red meat.
I prefer the basic black and simple New York look.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.