Posted on 10/24/2004 1:21:15 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
http://www.caller.com/ccct/editorials/article/0,1641,CCCT_840_3278146,00.htm
October 24, 2004
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush faced a challenge unlike that any other president had ever faced before him. With the taking of 2,984 American lives in a coordinated terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the nation stood ready and united to follow its president. Members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to sing "God Bless America." There were no party labels that morning.
Three years later, the nation stands bitterly divided. This division is based on no mere difference of opinion. It is a deep and troubling division that is poisoning the ability to govern, to reason together.
Bush is not solely to blame for this discord. But the president and his policies have done much to feed this anger and bitterness. The president is responsible for setting the tone of his administration. The tone in Bush's presidency has been fractious, politically divisive, and aggressively partisan.
For Texans familiar with Gov. George W. Bush's bipartisan successes in Austin, this failure by the president to reach across party lines, this failure to capitalize on a national yearning for unity in the wake of 9/11, has been a huge disappointment.
As governor, Bush worked with Democrats. He worked with moderate Republicans in the Legislature. He shunned the extremists in his party and worked as closely as possible to the center right. He was embraced by the late Bob Bullock, lion of the Texas Democratic Party. As possibly no other Texas Republican before him, Bush worked to gain the confidence and respect of the historically Democratic Hispanic vote. By his reforms to the state educational system and the juvenile justice system, he was the compassionate conservative before the term was coined.
It has been a very different story in Washington. Bush as president squandered the great opportunity handed him to forge a national consensus on the conduct of the war on terrorism. The big failures of the Bush administration come down to the conduct of the war in Iraq, and the inability to rein in the federal deficit.
We are fighting a war in Iraq whose success will be measured by how we get out, not by defeat of the enemy. The president, however, offers no strategy to deal with the insurgency, only to "stay the course," as if resoluteness was the answer to all issues.
Deficit is out of control
Back at home, the deficit has continued to grow, creating a great mountain of debt for the next generation, just at the critical time before the baby boomers begin to retire. Both John Kerry and Bush are vague about how they would cut this deficit. But Bush for four years has had the ability to veto profligate spending bills sent over from Congress, yet he never once used that veto power.
It is no easy thing to endorse Sen. Kerry. Endorsing Kerry requires a leap of faith. It means believing that he will do all in his executive power to keep the country safe. That means believing that Kerry has the stature and the ability to command to lead this country in dangerous times.
We do know that Kerry stands closer to the mainstream thinking that has framed American foreign policy throughout history. Seeking, but not requiring, international cooperation to deal with world threats is an American tradition that extends back over many Republican and Democratic presidents. That international cooperation in a crisis makes American power in a crisis that much stronger. But America's position as a world leader stands weakened today precisely because of the Bush administration's arrogance in dealing with other nations.
Kerry has a long record of supporting fiscal discipline. He wants to return the nation to a pay-as-you-go policy that helped end decades of deficit-spending. But the pay-as-you-go policy was discarded by the administration and the Republicans in Congress.
Like Bush, Kerry is a free trader by natural inclination and by his record of votes. He voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has been a boon for South Texas.
But in the final reckoning, this endorsement is more about George W. Bush than it is about John F. Kerry. We feel far better about Kerry after seeing him perform capably in the presidential debates. He is not the weak-kneed flip-flopper portrayed in the Bush campaign ads. Yet the decision is a close and anguished one.
No change of course in Iraq
Endorsing Bush, however, would be tantamount to an endorsement of the administration's past and continued mistakes, not only at home, but in Iraq. We don't expect Bush to say, "I was wrong." But the abuses at Abu Ghraib signaled that things did go terribly off track in Iraq. Abu Ghraib was simply the exclamation point to the looting, to the over-extended troop numbers, to the failure to plan for a post-war Iraq, to the misplaced triumphalism that marked the first days after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Bush has indicated there would be no change, and that he has no reservations about the nation's course in Iraq.
Many find this resoluteness comforting. But a president who has his mind set, a president closed to change as situations change, may be a president locked into failure, if not folly. Just because tax cuts made sense when the nation had a surplus doesn't mean they make sense when we're wallowing in red ink. But Bush is wedded to more tax cuts as resolutely as he is wedded to no change of course in Iraq.
But the country needs a change of course. Sen. Kerry offers a change and a lifetime of service to the nation. We believe the voters ought to elect him president.
I think the number of representatives should be doubled or tripled. It is ridiculous to need almost 700,000 people to have one congressman. I'm not sure if what we need is more districts or some sort of minority representaion similar to the method used by the Illinois legislature.
The best the Left could do for this election was a Hanoi Jane???
"Has there ever been a Republican congressman from Corpus Christi?"
Probably during Reconstruction!
Probably during Reconstruction!
Gov. Edmund J. Davis was a Republican from Corpus Christi during the Reconstruction.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/DD/fda37.html
Thats a lot of money.
With smaller districts each congressman wouldn't need as many staff. Staff are actually doing much of the job that in the 19th century was actually done by congressmen. Also, I think their pay should be cut. The Congress should be limited by law in the number of days it can sit in session. They should actually have to live for several months a year back in their districts.
I am OK with all of that. How about making the sessions just a few months a year?
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.