The Danger that is George W. Bush

A leader must be someone you can trust. You must believe his word means something to him. Bill Clinton ran on a middle class tax cut, but that was so transparent it was sick.

If Bush is willing to take the protection of this country with the seriousness he does, why would he want to destroy the foundation on which it stands. Why not just drop a few cruise missiles, turn our troops over to the UN, sign the Kyoto, agree to allow our troops to be tried by the international court, nominate judges who would look at international law to decide cases ( not the Constitution), raise taxes to make sure the economy doesn't grow so we fall into a deep depression, then we could basicly socialize the whole system. We KNOW thats the Democrat plan.

At least the Republicans stood for something when they were in the minority.

If your ultimate conclusion is that therefore we would be better off with a Democratic majority, then I couldn't disagree more. It isn't a matter of being "blind" or acting like "useful idiots." It is a matter of doing the realistic best you can under less than perfect circumstances, instead of hoping for some non-existent ideal politician (or political party) and then stamping your foot when reality doesn't cooperate with you.

"In the long run, what good is being secure if we are a socialist, totalitarian state?"

I guess the thinking, to the extent that there is any thinking, is that American ingenuity will make socialism work.

It is a matter of doing the realistic best you can under less than perfect circumstances, instead of hoping for some non-existent ideal politician (or political party) and then stamping your foot when reality doesn't cooperate with you.

Reality hasn't cooperated with me in my lifetime. Even under Reagan, government got bigger and bigger. This country has been headed in a socialist direction for my entire lifetime, to the point that I now accept socialism as a fact of life in America.

Personally, I've benefitted from it. That's the way socialism works. If you are already well off, you remain so. Upward mobiility for lower classes gets stifled by overregulation and taxation of productivity in order that people who are already rich can continue to live the lifestyles they have become accustomed to in places like Palm Beach, Myrtle Beach, Kiawa Island and Sun City. Hey, we're already there. And now Bush promises to give my generation even more of the same, including all the Viagra I can swallow.

You want to pay me and my generation to live in gated enclaves while the mass of younger people sweat their brains out in squalor-torn cities to pay back college loans and the ever-increasing public debt? All so that Bush and the Republican party can continue to hold power? Hey, be my guest.

But please don't say I didn't warn you where your blind trust was leading us.

I guess the thinking, to the extent that there is any thinking, is that American ingenuity will make socialism work.

Bingo! The thrust of the Republican platform these days is that Republicans are better managers of the socialist state than the Democrats. Thus, Republicans talk of "saving social security" and "leaving no child behind." It's Socialism Lite. The trouble is, when you actually look at the numbers, they are spending like drunken sailors. They are worse than the Demoncrats in terms of fiscal reponsibility.

Tax cuts are not really tax cuts if you end up paying less in taxes, but more for bread. But that's the game today, all perception in order to get through the election cycle, and no heart.

If Bush is willing to take the protection of this country with the seriousness he does, why would he want to destroy the foundation on which it stands.

This is the question I keep asking myself every day. The only thing I can come up with is that he is running scared, so he is taking BOTH the Keynesian and Laffer routes to fixing the economy in a gamble that he can orchestrate a decisive final blow to the Dems in '04.

Personally, I think it's short-sighted. But being a full-time speculator, I will profit from it as he is telegraphing his moves. This year, for example, I refinanced all of my real estate to shorter pay-out periods at lower interest rates, lowering my fixed costs in the process. I am bailing out of long-term bonds in favor of the stock market for the next six months at least, maybe for a year or more (until the next election). I am also buying gold and hard assets such as antiques and artwork.

Bush will make me rich, I'll give him that. His economic policy is transparent, unlike Clinton. But I fear for the culture and greater society as he panders for power. The masses do not give up the elixir easily, and he is not showing any leadership in ushering us out of the socialist hole we have dug for ourselves. Quite the opposite, in fact. Bush is leading us deeper into the cavern, and we are going willingly.

Reagan didn't have near the foreign policy challenges Bush does; in fact, in the only major confrontation with terrorism, Reagan pulled out troops out of Lebananon after 240 Marines were killed.

Yeah, right, Sink. Reagan had only little skirmishes like Grenada, Lebanon and the Iran-Iraq war to worry about -- in addition to keeping the Soviet Union at bay by deploying Pershing missiles to Europe over huge protests, dealing with a Congress unwilling to fund either military support for Nicaraguan guerrilla fighters or the initial R&D for a viable missile defense sytem.

And, after what's happened since, are you somehow suggesting that the withdrawal of our troops from Lebanon, along with the cessation of off-shore shelling after the Iowa turret explosion killed several sailors, was a mistake? Would you have preferred that the US had occupied Lebanon and maybe Syria with troops, as we have in Iraq? Troops which would still be there 20 years later? Troops that would have had to have been removed from support for NATO, thus delaying -- perhaps for decades -- the ultimate collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union?

All that to thwart what? A few militants with explosives and a fanatic desire to use them?

Bush is a far superior tactical foreign policy president than Reagan was, as he has mobilized against an amorphous enemy in Afghanistan, and eliminated one of the most oppressive regimes on the face of the earth in Iraq.

If tactical foreign policy, as you put it, means starting wars, you are incorrect that Bush II is "far superior."

Don't forget, Ronaldus Maximus launched a bombing attack on Libya in 1986 with the expressed intent of killing the Chief Raghead, in retaliation for a disco bombing in Berlin. Khadafi's involvement was not only suspected but confirmed by intelligence, which, when you think about it, is a far higher standard than the suppositions, rumors and "expert" opinion that has so far failed to connect the dots between Baghdad and the attacks of 9/11.

On the domestic front, he's jammed through two tax cuts, and is attempting to put a conservative face on things like prescription coverage for seniors.

A conservative face? Who cares? It's the body that matters, and the body of Mediocare is rotting.

As the US population ages, it is all the more important that new life-extending and life-enhancing treatments be developed and marketed to those who are willing to pay the price, not to everyone who "needs" it.

No matter how well-intention and compassionate the Bush drug plan may be, it will have unintended consequences. One is likely to be shortages of drugs which are plentiful in today's unregulated market. Another could easily be delays in getting new drugs into the bureaucratic system.

That's unacceptable.

The cost element bothers me least, actually. It's the control aspects that are most dangerous, literally.

It's not a question of what I want or don't want. If I could get my way, we would have virtually no government at all beyond the bare necessities of law enforcement, the military, and the courts. It is a question of what's realistically possible. In this regard, you still haven't told me what your realistic alternative solution is, if Bush and the Republicans are not the answer. It certainly isn't the Democrats, and last time I checked they are the only viable political party in this country besides the Republicans.

In this regard, you still haven't told me what your realistic alternative solution is...

I am not in charge, thankfully so for you I guess. I am making an enormous amount of money under Bush, so no complaints there. But I am doing so at the expense of the greater society as he leads us down the road to more and more socialism. Personally, status quo is great.

I thought the old 1994 Republican Contract For America was a good foundation to build on. Virtually none of it was ever enacted once they got elected. Power corrupted them, as it always does. Which is why we are supposed to have a federal government limited by the constitution.

Let me ask you this. If conservatives don't hold Republicans accountable, who will? Essentially, all you Bushbots are doing is cheerleading for victory without even considering what victory will mean. What good is victory if we become a co-dependent society, subject to the whims of the voting majority to trample on every right in pursuit of its self-interest? Does it even matter to you that in terms of what has been enacted, Bush is fiscally more irresponsible than Clinton ever dreamed of being? No, he looks better on television. That's all that matters.

To answer your question, I could support Steve Forbes or someone in that vein. I will support Toomey wholeheartedly against Specter here in PA. But I'll hang on to my vote for Bush until we get closer to the election and the political picture is not so fuzzy. I can tell you for certain if you are under 40 (I am not) he is selling out your future for his personal political gain. I'll benefit from it, but nonetheless I hate the taste it is leaving in my mouth.

If conservatives don't hold Republicans accountable, who will? Essentially, all you Bushbots are doing is cheerleading for victory without even considering what victory will mean.

First, I'm not a Bushbot. Second, I have no problem with constructive criticism of anyone, including Bush. Third, notwithstanding what I just said, not to mention my own many philosophical disagreements with Bush, I'm certainly rooting for Bush to win -- if the only realistic alternative is someone like Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, or any of the other Democrats who are or might be Presidential candidates. And right now that's the only choice we have, so let's make the best of it instead of wishing that things were better than they actually are.