Posted on 01/11/2003 5:35:42 PM PST by ohioWfan
By Richard Reeves
WASHINGTON -- When he was still a governor in 1999, George W. Bush came to Los Angeles to speak to a polite but skeptical crowd of movie executives. Suspicions that the man from Texas was dim and uncertain seemed confirmed when he could not remember the name of a Californian he said he had worked with closely.
Bush snapped the tension with a crack: "Hey, I'm a big-picture guy."
Who knew he wasn't kidding? I have told that story before, but it seems appropriate right now. This president has knocked the wind out of Washington with his ambitions to change the rules of the world and the tax code of the United States. "Big" and "bold" are the words of the day, as in this headline over a Washington Post analysis: "Bush Goes With the Bold Stroke."
"Call it boldness, audacity or even chutzpah ..." begins the piece by Dana Milbank, which continues, "President Bush twice stunned the capital with proposals far beyond what was considered workable."
The heavy breathing began last Tuesday, when the president called for tax cuts that doubled even what many of the most anti-government Republicans expected -- and they were cuts that proudly favored the so-called "investing class." Rich people, families with incomes above $375,000 a year, the top 1 percent of earners, would get more than 30 percent of the new tax breaks.
Then a few hours later, the president followed with another right cross to the town's solar plexus. The conventional wisdom was that after the racial flap over Sen. Trent Lott's praise of segregationists past, Bush would look for more moderate conservatives to nominate for federal judgeships in the South. Wrong again! Bush once again nominated federal District Court Judge Charles Pickering to fill an appeals court vacancy. Pickering, a Lott protege from Mississippi, was rejected last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) because of his record on racial matters. That was when Democrats controlled the Senate. Now Republicans are in control, so Bush stuck it to the new minority.
In case the Democrats did not get the message, he also renominated Texas Supreme Court Justice Patricia Owens for the same appeals court. She had been rejected in committee because Democrats believed she was determined to push a personal anti-abortion agenda on the bench.
Our president is a very tough guy, an in-your-face politician far tougher than people on both sides thought. "In for a penny, in for a pound," was the comment by one Republican in Congress. The idea, which surprised most people around here, was that if Bush is going to lose on some of his programs, particularly tax cuts, why not lose big?
Many in his own party, some of them uncomfortable with this boldness -- thinking it irresponsible -- believe that the president is haunted by his father's easygoing reputation. The conventional wisdom is that George H.W. Bush lost re-election in 1992 because he did not cash in the political capital (his own high standing in polls) after the first Gulf War (news - web sites) against Iraq. The political cliche on that one is, "Not like father, like son."
All of this happened, of course, while the president was threatening war in a couple of venues, old and new, and as the federal budget (and the budgets of state and local governments) were plunging once more into deficit because of relatively lower tax revenues. We've been there, done that, haven't we? The fact is that younger Bush is not like his father. He is like his father's old boss, Ronald Reagan (news - web sites). Borrow and borrow, spend and spend -- and ignore criticism.
He is, right or wrong -- and he certainly is convinced he's right -- a true big-picture guy. He may be riding for a fall, but he is trying to change the world and the country. Bush, right now, is moving to remake the world in an American image -- institutionalizing an American empire -- and remake the country in a conservative image with government power reduced by cutting its funding. And if people don't like it, they can go to court and appeal to the judges he picked.
What exactly is your question to me about the borders? If you ask it directly, I'll answer it.
btw, the border situation is one area where I strongly disagree with the President.......not that the actual truth about that matters to you. It doesn't fit your if-you-don't-agree-with-ME-you're-a-blind-follower theory.
You couldn't wait for my reply before you came back at me with a meaningless insult.
You ARE afraid. You said so. You're afraid that some bogey man President is going to take away your freedom to break the law. You said so.
Law abiding citizens do not need to be AFRAID of the Patriot Act.
And I didn't say you HATED him. I said you COULDN'T STAND HIM. There's a difference, perhaps too subtle a nuance for you to grasp.
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.