Democrats & Liberals Archives

Standards and Expectations

The Republicans can do better than Bush. Here is a war president, who as yet, has won neither war we’re in, though technically we’ve lost none of the big battles. Here is a president who claims to be a fiscal conservative, but who runs the highest deficits in history. Even Bush and Reagan knew when it was time to drop tax cuts, Bush supporters have gotten so rabidly pro-tax cut, that they will not even let the taxes phase out to remove some of the crushing tax burden that will hurt taxpayers for years. The only reasons to keep it are political.

Bush should get no points for simply showing up. It is a powerful example of the double standard Republicans have created for Bush that this can even be a compliment. The man is rude and abrasive, unprepared and ignorant, and people consistently rate Kerry's performance as more presidential So why does Bush get a tie in the so-called "liberal" media?

Oh, it's that simple Jes' folks way of speaking, right? How many of you guys realize that Bush was educated mainly in the Northeast, that he went to similar schools as his supposedly elitist opponent. The difference is, Bush chose to affect an accent and a Texas manner, Kerry simply acts like the Boston Brahmin he is. In fact, Kerry's more middle class than Bush ever was. Kerry didn't grow up rich. He grew up on the fringes of the society that Bush occupied the center of, by virtue of his birth. He may have been better off and more connected than most people because he was a Forbes (The F. in John F. Kerry), but that is the great majority of what he inherited from his ancestry.

Kerry has balanced a Budget three times in his career. How many times has Bush done this? You can blame any number of factors, but did Bush ever really lead the charge to cut spending? No. Spending has gone up exponentially on his watch, and yet he still expects the numbers to add up magically. I don't like taxes myself, but damn it, I am realistic about what's being done. Your state taxes are being hiked, both to deal with the loss of revenues, and the unfunded mandates and other services that Bush has dumped on the states. Additionally, as Dire Straits would put it, you're not getting your money for nothing and your chicks for free with the tax cuts. Bush has borrowed money on your behalf to pay for the tax cuts. Borrowed, as in one day, we will have to pay this back. This isn't like the surplus, where the money would have been yours free and clear. You will have to pay this tax cut back, with interest. It's just that Bush will be too long gone from office to take the blame when his debt starts weighing down on this economy.

No other president in history has been so fiscally reckless in a time of war. He charges Kerry will be a tax and spend liberal, In the end, Bush is tax and spend. You just don't get it upfront. He's that way about a lot of things.

The president is so secretive about what he does, and why he does it, that even John Dean, former White House Counsel to Nixon,-the man who participated in, blew the whistle on, and went to prison for Nixon's secrecy- John Dean of all people is saying that Bush's administration is even more secretive.

I don't think any president has had an easy time of it with our allies. Bush is just the first president to quit on them. That's Bush's way of dealing with most problems. If he can't solve it, quit it.

If he can't balance the budget, why try? If he can't get the allies instantly on our side, why try? If he can't sweep up Osama Bin Laden, why continue to try? If he can't solve the problem of the insurgency with any simple and direct means, why try, why not just plug away at every other problem, despite the fact this insurgency causes so many other problems. If Elections in these supposed democracies we created won't be complete and uncontested any time soon, why try to remedy it? Let's just do them so we can say we did them.

Bush's answer to any complicated problem is "Why try any harder?" We have a slacker for president, Ironic enough given how many slackers in schools he'd like to hold to account. He wants to get credit for showing up to a debate. He's supposed to show up. He wants to get credit for being more engaged. He's supposed to be more engaged. He wants to get credit for being a leader. Well that's different. That's something he can't just bluff his way through. When history unravels the mess of his presidency, he will not be looked upon as a great leader, anymore than Johnson, Hoover Buchanan, or any other president who had their chance to make things right and blew it.

I might have followed this president had he truly led. Nobody would have dared blame a president going into war for letting the tax cuts fade out, or not seeking them. People are realistic. They can be called upon to sacrifice. Hell, every year we honor Americans who did more than showed up, who went out there and sacrificed their lives.

Nobody would have blamed this president for going to war with Iraq had the evidence shown the truth of his claims, and his actions to win the peace shown the wisdom of his governance. It would have been a proud day to accept Iraq as a brother nation once more, with the people free and happy. But I cannot look at the rampant and uncontrolled violence there and expect, as Bush does, that any vote (much less an incomplete vote) can discourage the terrorists and guerilla fighters who continue to take a toll of Iraqi and American lives alike.

Nobody would have blamed the president for reaching out in true bipartisan spirit and not using the War on Terror as a wedge issue, as he has done since the 2002 elections, and during this one. Nobody would have blamed Bush for coming out of his political adolescence, to engage the world on a more complex and refined level.

Instead our president went small, shrunk our alliances. He talks about Kerry not being able to ask French and Germans to help him by saying, "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place", but how about him asking that after calling those nations traitors, hypocrites, and collaborators? You're not exactly going to charm France into cooperation by calling them "cheese eating surrender monkeys". Kerry will at least get points for being honest about the situation.

Our president went small, and a party came under assault simply for not wanting to agree all the time with the president. The same political pressure was put on the people who were supposed to give Bush unfiltered unvarnished advice. Either agree with us, or find a new job. John O'Neill knows this kind of loyalty from Bush, because he didn't think three tax cuts during war, with no provision for cutting short the revenue drain, should surplus turn to deficit.

Our president went small and decided the American people do not need to be told the whole, unvarnished truth about why and how we go to war. And now that so many question that rationale, the president doesn't offer a substantive debate but simply name calls those who don't agree with him. We are not unpatriotic or disloyal, or disinterested in the security of this nation simply for asking the important questions.

I want a president who demonstrates intelligence, wisdom and honesty. Bush is not that president. He relies on our willingness to cut him one break after another, because hey, he's one of us. But he doesn't act like one of us.

He doesn't act as if he needs to answer to the American people, as if he needs, in his own words, to explain anything to anybody else. The truth is, Bush is an elitist, who conceals himself in populism. Bush is an authoritarian who pretends to Egalitarianism

We don't need a person who pretends to be good enough, pretends to tell it to us like it is, pretends to be a great leader. We need a true leader. We should not pass a person to the presidency merely by social promotion.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at October 10, 2004 11:33 AM