Replies

“1) You accuse me of bashing the President. I’m not bashing him, I’m a citizen criticizing his policy decisions. I have, and put forth, substantive reasons for my discontent. I don’t just namecall.”

If I did accuse you of such when you did not, then I apolgize. My comments is directed more in general while addressing the points you raised. Like I said before, you may not be bashing him, but others are and I aim to address that. As you could see, I addressed other issues in addition to your comments because I believe that they are important and related, thus needing to be addressed.

“Why does my criticism of Bush bother you so that you would write a 34-paragraph response?”

It’s because I don’t write paragraphs, I write books. Been that way since college. Someone less verbose than me could probably nail it pretty short. When I comment to another person, I make sure that I address all of his/her points as clearly and concisely as possible and even at times, as you can see, bring in tangential issues that I deem are important and related.

“2) Is there ANYTHING Bush has done in the last 7 years that you don’t think is absolutely fanfreakin’tastic? So far you’ve applauded the Dubai Ports deal, Harriet Miers nomination, all aspects of handling of the WOT, and the immigration bill. I’m beginning to think you work in the WH basement.”

ROFL! I wish. I do need to get a job in politics and working for the President would be mondo awesome!

I guess I should explain the positions you mention a bit first.

1) Miers: From his record of appointing originalist justices (including a number on the lower appeal courts, not just Justice Alito and Roberts) I have confidence that shewouldhave been a good Justice. This is even more the case because she help the President vet everyone of these justices before he nominated them.

2) Dubai: Dubai is one of the freeest, most tolerant, and prosperous nation in the Middle East. Of course it’s not America but it’s much better than another Syria or Iran. It is also a good ally for the War on Terror, at least much more reliable than Saudi Arabia. The deal merely transferred port ownership (not security) form a British firm to the Dubai one. Then again, various nations own ports (again, not security, just ports) throughout America including China, European nations, Japan, etc.

3) Immigration: I neither support or oppose the bill, but I do agree with the plan the President outlined (this was in an address in 05 or 06) that I believe would address security, guest workers, and il/legal immigration. I’ll admit I don’t know if this bill is better or worse than what he outlined. So I’m still on the fence (heh).

One good thing about this issue though, I just left a job expo and the USBP booth is quite popular.

Now, on to the criticisms.

1) Big government - Like most Presidents after FDR, make that the MAJORITY of the American people, the President is beholden to the idea that a big government can be beneficial. He may not want government in most aspects of life, but he definitely wants them in the “core” areas, namely education, healthcare (not Hillarystyle though), and Social Security. Although his plans incorporate things that expand citizen autonomy (vouchers, private accounts etc), the best approach would still be to downsize these institutions.

2) New Tone - The President STILL hasn’t learned that Texas has Democrats. Washington has DEMONrats. I wish he would start treating them as they really are, not the loyal opposition but a fifth column.

Both his big government tendencies and new tone stance goes to his third flaw...

3) Spending - Congress sends him pork laden bills and the President either:

a) Signs it because he doesn’t want to upset Congress so that he would get their cooperation on more important issues. - New Tone

b) Signs it because he actually thinks some of the pork is good. - Big Gov’t.

c) Signs it because the lousy critters attach their malarky to defense spending bills, security bills, and other important appropriations legislation. - Not Speaking (more on this later).

I don’t know how much pork/spending he disapproves off but there is definitely a breaking point. In addition to the cut and run amendments, the massive DEM pork really teed him off. In any case, the least he could do is come out and tell the GOP critters to stop being so wasteful and stop attaching completely unrelated malarkey to important bills.

4) Not speaking more often - Clinton turned the White House into a personal war room and turned it into a partisan institution. This desire to clean the White House of its partisan taint combined with his NT creates a perfect cocktail of disaster where the Presidetn would not speak to the American people until it reaches a boiling point. We see this time and time again, “SPEAK DUBYA!” we scream when a crisis is brewing and just when the clock is about to run out, he finally steps forward and does so.

But then again, with all the garbage thrown at him, he might not even manage to get anything done if he has to address all of it. Still...

5) CFR - It’s great he acknowledges that CFR is bad. Not so great when he passes it to the Courts. Very bad when the courts didn’t resign it to the garbage bin it belonged. In any case, he should have vetoed it just to send a message to Congress that this is unacceptable even if it was a veto proof majority. This brings us to another flaw...

6) Veto Record - I wouldn’t mind his veto record so much if there isn’t anything lousy enough for a veto that came down his pike. But there were some doozies (including CFR) that came down and should have recieved a veto but didn’t. This is also connected to his other flaws such as NT, BG, Spending, etc.