I see the economy stronger than ever.
For whom? You need to see that the economy doesn't affect everyone the same. Would you take a global economic statistic and then state how the US is doing based on it? Similarly, you need to look at how the 95% of Americans below the top 5% are doing seperately from groups in the top 5% - the answers are vastly different.
For the last 25 years, the bottom 90% are flat in income while the top few skyrocketed. The share of wealth has gone from the bottom half having half to having less than a fourth. That's a radical change not reflected in the national numbers, which show increases - but all the increases flowing only to the very top.
It's not based on a crazy bubble.
Yes, it is, in the sense that it's unsustainable. Like a person who has a nice new house and new car put on credit cards who is in real trouble when the credit runs out, Bush, like Reagan/Bush before him, have won elections by providing the illusion of prosperity by borrowing vast, irresponsible sums, giving a little to the public, a lot to their donors.
It's going to crash if continued; we're already going to have far less prosperity because of the money they've borrowed even if we fix things now.
And companies who have broke the law have are are in proceess of eing brough to justice.. Without witch hunts.
This is interesting logic - because a few companies are being charge, you assert that all the wrongdoers are being dealt with, you claim it's not the tip of an iceberg.
On what evidence?
For what it's worth, I see criminal activity as a secondary issue. The far bigger issue is the corporate dominance of the political system - the public taken out of power and replaced by the fox guarding the henhouse, industry lobbyists put in regulatory positions, the government told who it can't put in positions, the industries writing their own laws - if they pay.
Read up on "The K Street project" under Rick Santorum for the details on the corruption.
I see a level headed approach to border security... No, militarization on the border and no amnesty.
You see no resolution to the conflict between the corporate interests who want the cheap labor, and the public who thinks they want secure borders and fails to understand the economic impact if they got them.
This is among the very, very few issues I think the Bush administration is not way off base on.
"Our country is safe."
Not because of Bush. In fact, our nation's safety, while in prety good shape because of all kinds of reasons unrelated to Bush, has other problems, as it's becoming a superpower which has increasingly abandoned any 'good guy' role in the world for one which relies on military dominance.
We're not that far down the road yet, but we've guaranteed we'll go much further as we're spending vast fortunes on new weapons systems from new nukes to space-based aggressive systems, and we've abanodoned economic justice in our policies, choosing instead to exploit, whether labor or resources.
I haven't seen any foreign fighters attack us on our soil, can't be said about other countries who have tried to appease.
Oh, really? We've lost more soldiers in Iraq than people were killed in 9/11 - not on our soil, but we've given them much easier targets there. England did not 'appease' - and they were attacked, albeit not by a direct middle eastern group but a homegrown one. Spain was the most visible 'appeaser', and had no further attacks since.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that we 'appease' to use your loaded phrase, just pointing out the inaccuracy of your history. The democrats supported more strongly than the republicans doing something about the situation in Afghanistan with Al Queda.
That said I would not vote for Bush today if this was an election year. He has no "unity" skills at all. Not even with the people of his own party. He may be the most dedicated president in our history but he can't do anything alone. If only we could find a president with Clinton's people skills and Bush's dedication... Unfortunately those kinds of people are smart enough not to enter politics...
No offense, but I don't believe you. I think you would likely vote for Bush over any 'real' democrat today, with reservations and protest, but putting his policies ahead of your concerns.
I suspect you want the Bush policies more than you want the Clinton touch.
As for dedication, you are really using the wrong word. Look, Bush is a spokesman for a group who selected him. The man takes vacations well above the norm, spends inordinate amounts of his time exercising and other such activities while the government is run by others mostly. Bush is not a hands on president directing activity, he's a manipulated figurehead, isolated, approving the plans brought to him by some of the most experienced bureacrats we've ever had in government - Rumseld was Ford's Chief of Staff, with Cheney his close aide, and they were manipulating Ford even that long ago. Bush is more like an actor - he acts like he's determined, simplistically, but you are confusing that with real dedication. Real dedication was shown by Truman integrating the military, appointing the first black appellate judge over the furious objections of his party's southern members, firing the national hero MacArthur; dedication was FDR's aggressive programs and WWII efforts; it was LBJ's fighting for the civil rights bill. Bush's 'dedication' is for tax cuts for the most wealthy.
But on the things you give Bush credit for, come on - if there's one thing he should show dedication on regarding the entire 9/11 issue, you would think it'd be getting Osama bin Laden, but instead he let him escape, and later said he isn't very concerned with capturing him, and he slashed the forces in Afghanistan creating a coming disaster there now.
The man has 'flip flopped' on dozens of issues, far more than Kerry who he attacks on the topic. Take the example Kerry was most attacked for: 'for spending the $87 billion before voting against it'.
The truth: Kerry had one postion: he was for the spending and wanted it paid for, not borrowed. What happened was the first bill was to pay for the spending. Kerry supported it, and Bush strongly opposed the spending, threatening to veto the bill, because it wasn't borrowed. It failed. Then a second version that borrowed the funds was voted on; Bush flip flopped and supported that version, while Kerry voted no, explaining at the time that he would vote yes if the bill were in jeopardy, but if it were clearly going to pass, he was voting no as a protest vote against the borrowing. So, Bush was at least as much a 'flip flopper' as Kerry - and he was on the side of borrowing, not fiscal responsibility.
Facebook
Twitter