Republicans Not Evil and Other Astounding Facts!

» H2O - Better off than four years ago?

In 1980 Ronald Reagan ran with a stump speech in which he said, "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours." He'd conclude the speech by asking the listener if they were better off now than they were four years ago. Using Reagan's test, there's no way I can support the re-election of this President.

The times are certainly different than when Reagan ran against Carter in 1980. Then we had a sitting president who had no policy or plan to reign in inflation and had no grasp of foreign policy or what to do when, basically, the US was "attacked" (the Iran hostage crisis).

George W. Bush has had to deal with several events many presidents haven't had to deal with:

1) The internet "bubble" which created over-priced stocks mainly in the tech sector but also in other areas of Wall Street. Many were burned when that bubble "collapsed." This was the engine that drone the economy in the Clinton years.

2) The Enron, WorldComm, Adelphia, and other corporate scandals. Funny, the misdeeds were done under the Clinton administration but W. gets the blame. This also hurt Wall Street and had a psychological effect on the economy.

3) September 11. Need I say more? The airline industry is still trying to recover.

Has Bush been flawless in execution? No. He's had to deal with political realities, as have all presidents. But I would rather back a president who knows the enemy and pursues the enemy rather than "vote for the troops before he votes against them." Sometimes leadership means taking the road least popular. It is easy for Kerry to say, "Everything was done wrong; I'll do it right." It's easy for Kerry to say, "This was the wrong war at the wrong time" even after he voted for it (and he can justify his vote and what he "meant" by his vote, but in the end he voted to use force against Saddam Hussein).

A question I have: Do you approve of the Democrats' attempts to block Ralph Nader's name from appearing on ballots? And why is this large party so afraid of a candidate that, at best, has 3% of the popular support?

John

-- posted by H2O

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» plox - four more years of incompetence, greed, lies, and oil wars

I can't understand why anyone but a millionare or a fundamentalist Christian would think George W. Bush is fit for the office of president of America. They both think they will get just what they want.

Sure I've heard that coddling the wealthy with tax breaks leads to "trickle down" benefits for the working class...but only if the factories aren't moved to other countries.

I've heard that Bush is "a good Christian man" because he sobered up and talks about God a lot. The photos from Abu Ghraib prison, coupled with the lies he told to get our troops there, make it hard for me to think of Jesus and GeeDubya as having much in common.

I even heard that we must keep Bush in office to protect us from "terror". Who did they think was supposed to be protecting America from terrorism when it happened on Bush's watch?
He took a long vacation far from the danger zone of Washington and told his advisors not to use commercial planes before 9-11.
That was his idea of protecting America.

The most honest reason I got from someone who plans to vote for Bush again, and who is neither wealthy nor religious :
"The Democrats want to take my money away and give it to the blacks so they can have more and more neglected babies....and Kerry wants to take my guns away so I can't defend myself from them when the babies grow up to be criminals."

And that is why the state of Georgia is a shoo-in for the Republican Party.

-- posted by plox

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» kenrg - Cynicism and Democracy - a reply to John

Thanks, John (H20) for your post. First, I'll answer your direct question: No, I do not approve of the Democrat's efforts to block Nader's access to the ballot. A look at my other columns here will assure you that I believe in a vibrant multi-party democracy. And, for the record, I am not a Democrat, although in this race I am supporting Kerry.

The Democrat's anti-democratic moves in regard to Nader are just as repulsive to me as the Republican's cynical attempts to push Nader as means to split the opposition. Looking at your post here and other writings, I'm sure you're no Nader supporter, as I have been in the past. The Republicans are equally guilty of using Nader as a tool in this fight as the Democrats are.

As to the first part of your posting: I'm quite aware of the differences, and the similarities, between this campaign and that of 1980. Again, your double standards demonstrate both your cynicism and your desperation. Let me see if I get your point... Bush is not responsible for the economy because of outside factors (terrorism, dot-com bust), but Carter was responsible for the economy despite outside factors (oil embargoes, hostages). Yeah. That's fair and balanced. I stand by what I wrote - "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" I am certainly not.

Thanks, Plox, for your posting too. As shocking as that last quote is, I'm sure it's as you heard it, and shows the type of support that this President is rallying. Keep up the good work.

- Ken

-- posted by kenrg

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions