Posted on 05/07/2002 9:01:55 PM PDT by Archfiend
In the last hundred years, only FDR and JFK have enjoyed the type of overwhelming support that George Bush has received since Sept. 11th. The majority of the American public seems not only to trust him, but to genuinely like him. That's a very rare thing for a politician, which is why it's unconscionable that Bush has largely squandered the American public's affection.
Now I know many of you think I'm crazy right now. After all, look how popular GWB is. Doesn't it look like the Republican Party is going to hold Congress and perhaps even take back the Senate? The War on Terrorism has been wildly successful so far as well hasn't it? Those are all certainly valid points to bring up but let's talk about the rest of the story...
While George Bush has delivered a tax cut, he's also helped push forward a large part of Democrat's domestic agenda...
* Bush abandoned vouchers while signing a bloated education bill that's based on the thoroughly disproved premise that the problem with public education in America is a lack of funds.
* GWB broke a campaign pledge and signed an unconstitutional campaign finance reform bill.
* The Bush administration abandoned Republican principles on free trade by slapping tariffs on steel and Canadian lumber. Not only will these tariffs force American consumers to pay higher prices, but they'll also goad other nations into slapping retaliatory tariffs on American goods.
* Furthermore, we have the Bush team inexplicably pushing to reward illegal aliens with American citizenship for flouting our laws.
* With the blessings of the Bush administration, all pretenses of budgetary restraint have been abandoned as the Republican party is supporting a gargantuan farm bill and even more odious prescription drug legislation.
Now I know what the rational behind supporting these proposals is; Taking back the Senate in 2002 and four more years for Bush. However, there are some problems with that line of thinking even if we achieve those goals.
Anyone who's voting Republican because they're in favor of tariffs, more government spending, and giving illegal aliens citizenship is being misled. So what happens after the elections when they figure out that most Republicans don't believe in those things? Worse yet, what if we continue supporting things that are bad for America and that the majority of the party is against in order to win elections? I thought we were in a battle to win the hearts and minds of other Americans so we could help keep this country on the right track? However, the Bush administration apparently looks at the political process like a Pro-football game where the only important thing is that the team you're rooting for wins. Had Bush looked at things as I do, he could of used the incredible faith and trust the American people have in him to convince them that we need vouchers, a smaller government, free trade, and that the campaign finance reform bill was unconstitutional. But, those opportunities have been forever lost in an effort to win in November.
Bush has shown the same lack of courage lately in prosecuting the "War on Terrorism" that he's shown on the domestic front. The "Bush Doctrine" produced a stunning amount of success early on. The Taliban no longer rule Afghanistan and al-Queda has been damaged to the point where they have yet to mount another terrorist attack against the US (the anthrax letters could be the exception to that). Pakistan started going after terrorists on their soil and we've seen progress in the fight against terrorism in Cuba, Sudan, Libya, Georgia, The Philippines, and Somalia. Then on the heels of all that success we tossed the "Bush Doctrine" out the window when it came to Israel. We've refused to call Yasser Arafat a terrorist and have insisted that the Israelis "engage" Arafat in a dialogue despite the fact that they've been trying without success to do exactly that for nearly a decade.
Furthermore, the latest leaks from the Pentagon seem to indicate the attack on Iraq has been moved back at least until 2003. Iran and Syria seem to have both largely dropped off the radar screen and we're continuing to kowtow to Saudi Arabia despite the fact that they're openly encouraging terrorism by giving payments to the families of suicide bombers. What happened to the man who said the following on September 20th...
"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime..."
"...I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."
Right now, we seem to be yielding in Israel and it looks as if we’re planning to take a long, long, rest in-between the real fighting in Afghanistan (which ended for the most part in December of 2001) and our next truly significant fight.
It pains me to write this article because I think that the President is a decent, honest man with a strong sense of right and wrong. But something is terribly out of kilter in his administration right now. The Democrats are winning on the domestic side and our commitment to doing what it takes to win the "War on Terrorism" seems to be an open question. Can the president still get things back on track? Absolutely, he can. But, the longer he waffles on the domestic front and falters in the "War on Terrorism", the harder it's going to be to do the right thing down the road. I'm certain that I'm in the minority right now, but I feel obligated to say that I'm starting to have serious doubts about whether the President has the courage to stand up for his convictions. For once, I sincerely hope that I'm wrong.
I don't think I ever had any big hopes for Bush II, so I can't really be disappointed, either. But for somebody to rush to the defense of Bush, Jr., with a "well, at least he's better than the prior officeholder", that's what I would call damning with faint praise.
Clinton turned the country left in small steps over several years. He did some things that the left totally dispised but they went along for the cause because they knew the overall plan would work - and it did!
Bush is doing just the opposite !
This is all rather amazing to me. Apparently, our Presidents these days are all either plaster saints or cartoon devils, with no room for anything in between.
"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" - the perfect is the enemy of the good. Voltaire had it pegged three hundred years ago. We have a cast of characters who get nothing because they consistently pass up the good solutions in favor of some quixotic quest for the "perfect" solution. Well, just excuse the sh*t out of me for thinking that half-a-loaf is better than starving to death.
Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life
Which is absolutely, positively the correct way to 'look at the political process.'
The alternative would be what? To fail to win, in order to make some philosophical point? I think not, for your philosophical point will be forgotten, even ignored, while the victor exercizes the power.
Unfortunately, a shallow, simple analysis of the Bush Administrations' actions of late, leads to the undeniable truth that his ship is missing a rudder.
You may think it Bush "bashing," but the observant ones in this crowd will recognize it for the truth... Nice try...
Is the government bigger or smaller since Bush took office?
Do you think that the government, by January of 2005, is going to be bigger or smaller than it is now?
Dumbass.
That's only one measure - I'm not a single-issue kind of guy. ;)
It was much bigger under Reagan after 8 years so does this mean he was a failure?
It has also gotten bigger under all 43 Presidents so who's gonna be your White Knight ?
You really think that federalized luggage screeners are going to do any better a job than if these same people had simply remained on the payrolls of the airlines doing the same exact thing? I sure don't.
... seal the borders,...
When does that happen? When did it happen?
... round up illegal immigrants,...
Last I heard, he wanted to grant them amnesty, not round them up.
... and kill terrorists, did you?
Anybody know what the body count on dead terrorists is? I sure don't. Don't think it's being advertised for some strange reason...
Thou hast said.
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.