Our Tigger Of A President

President Bush reminds me of Tigger, the bouncy, high-energy pal of Winnie-the-Pooh. The president's own doctors have recently pronounced him to be in superb condition. Let us all rejoice in that. Unfortunately, the president seems to possess Tigger's mindless optimism and self-confidence.

When Congress recently forfeited its constitutional duty to set trade policy by passing fast-track legislation (the new Orwellian euphemism is "trade promotion authority"), Mr. Bush announced that he would accomplish magic with this authority. He will increase the number of American jobs, increase American exports and raise the living standards of all American families.

I don't accuse our Tigger of a president of lying. I just accuse him of being ignorant. After all, the effects of free-trade policy are not a mystery. Mr. Bush should have asked for a report that answered these questions:

1. How many good American jobs have been lost due to (a) American firms moving their manufacturing jobs to cheap-labor countries; and to (b) cheap foreign imports?

3. How many viable farms did we have before the era of so-called free trade, and how many have survived?

4. How do you explain the enormous and continuing record trade deficits if, in fact, free trade results in more American jobs?

The answers to all of these questions present an argument against free-trade agreements, not one in favor. Of course, free trade is a false banner. What has been the policy since the John F. Kennedy administration has been managed trade, falsely labeled as free trade.

Free-trade agreements would be simple to write. We would only have to say: Our tariffs on all imports are, say, 6 percent. Sell you what you can to any American who wishes to buy.

When the so-called trade agreement, however, runs to 20,000 pages of fine print or more, then you know that what has been negotiated is a series of trade deals, usually favoring those segments of the American economy with the most political clout. And we all know that in our times, political clout is spelled m-o-n-e-y. More than the devil resides in the details these days; so, too, does political corruption.

I believe in old-fashioned free trade, in which a small tariff is imposed for revenue purposes. I don't believe, as a rule, in protective tariffs — tariffs so high as to prevent other manufacturers or farmers from competing with Americans. But there must be exceptions. Some industries necessary to national security — and certainly agriculture is one of those — should be protected. Any nation that allows its agricultural base to be destroyed by cheap imports is committing suicide in the long run. So, too, with stuff needed for the strategic forces of the country.

I also believe that there should be a third category of tariffs — punitive tariffs. Any American company that dumps its American workers into the unemployment lines and moves its manufacturing facility to a cheap-labor country should be assessed a punitive tariff of at least 100 percent when it tries to export into the United States.

It's simply another example of corporate corruption for an American firm to pay foreigners $3 or $4 to cut and sew a pair of blue jeans it will sell to Americans for $50. Such "imports" should be slapped with a tariff high enough to double their retail price in the United States.

Trade policy, of course, is more than tariffs. It should be the goal of the U.S. government to encourage Americans to make and buy everything possible here in the United States and to import only what cannot be feasibly made here. That, of course, is not on the radar screen of either President Tigger or his cohorts in Congress.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush is a moron, and probably won't win a second term. Though, I guess I'll begrudgingly vote for him if the only other viable choice is some fruit cake leftist like Gore or, God forbid, Hitlery.

Why would you ever vote for someone you consider a 'moron' as President of the United States?

Why are you so confident that Bush will not win a second term?

Who would meet your approval as a Presidential candidate or do you just dislike everyone and everything in politics?

Inquiring minds want to know from one who calls a man with an MBA from Yale, a jet pilot, a two-term Governor and a popular President 'a moron'. Dazzle us with your insight and knowledge. Please.

Jim, I voted for President Bush because I thought he was a principled Conservative leader. He isn't. He's a centrist, a compromiser, and a flip flopping, wishy washy, directionless boob. You're free to disagree, but any real Conservative would be very disappointed in President Bush. Can you honestly tell me that you're happy with the fact that the Government has grown more in Bush's two years than it did in all eight years of Bill Clinton? Do you actually approve of steel tarrifs, the god awful education bill, or his willfully signing a campaign finance reform bill that he himself said was unconstitutional? Sorry bub, if that's your idea of Conservatism you'd do well to vote for Gore should he run again. The only thing Bush has done right is his tax cut, and it was too small, and is spread out over ten years when it is needed NOW. I support Dubya in only the most general terms in that he's a President leading a nation during war time. On substantive matters of policy he's a fraud, a whimp, and a centrist PANSY.

I voted for President Bush because I thought he was a principled Conservative leader.

Well, that was your first mistake.

George W. Bush had a clear record in Texas of compromising with the Democrats to get some of his agenda passed. He called himself "A uniter, not a divider" and used the term 'Compassionate Conservative' that (we all hated but) rang true with the middle. What ever made you determine that he was a 'conservative leader'? He never claimed that.

Bush does holds some conservative principles (right to life, tax cuts) but stopping the growth of government - if that's even possible for a President to accomplish any more - is not one of them. The War on Terror is guaranteed to expand the government so that's a no-brainer at this point.

Yes, CFR stinks, the education bill was a waste of money and the tariff bill was poorly advised. Flash: President Bush isn't Pat Buchanan, which is how and why he was elected. He's not a conservative leader, he's a compromiser but he's the best we're going to be able to do in the beginning years of the 21st century.

This is now a nation of people - many millions of them recent immigrants - who expect 'government' to 'do something' about everything. The liberals still control the media (although that control is slipping more with each passing year) and the Democrats control the Senate. The Senate stalling of his conservative judicial nominees is a good example of the fact that Bush isn't a dictator, he can't simply decree things, he has to compromise.

George W. Bush isn't 'a pansy' because he doesn't throw his presidency away by attempting to do the impossible; turn the country around from years of entrenched liberal policy and programs with a hostile media and no real mandate.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines, pick the Presidential political act that isn't 'conservative', make a list and then call the man silly schoolyard names. Many here do just that and feel pretty good about themselves in the process. Accomplishes nothing.

I take President Bush as I find him. He's a good man, politically about 10 times smarter than Clinton and 100 times more so than his father. He was elected by a whisker, he knows that half the county is not 'conservative' and he does a balancing act; he doesn't give the Democrats all they want but he doesn't cave on every issue, either.

I believe his goal is to appear fair and reasonable to the mushy middle voters that actually elect people. That President Bush doesn't do everything I would like him to do doesn't make him a 'pansy', but like me, you're entitled to that opinion, for whatever good it does you.

I see Bush as a good man with a terrorist war on his hands - and he needs our support. You apparently see him as some White Knight of conservativism that fell off his horse. I think that's a very skewed view of Bush, the politician.

So, you may call him names like 'moron' and 'boob' if it makes you feel better (the Democrats do exactly the same - they love it when 'Bush voters' like you gleefully join them) but I'll bet you couldn't do much better in his shoes. Hey, we can all fantasize about how we would fix everything immediately if we were President. So what? We aren't, George W. Bush is and he's doing fine under the conditions he has to work in and with.

I believe Bush's huge, sustained popularity will help Republicans to gain seats in Congress this November and that will be a big help to conservatives, and President Bush.

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.