It would be facinating to watch if the wheels really came off the current US administration. This was slipped in the Toronto Star's article on Kerry's wins yesterday:
One national poll yesterday put Kerry seven percentage points ahead of Bush as the president continued to be battered by the failure to find banned weapons in Iraq and his secretary of state seemed to express second thoughts about the decision to go to war. Perhaps more ominous for the sitting president, his approval rating had dropped to 48 per cent, the lowest of his presidency, according to the CNN-USA Today poll.I would think that sending soldiers to a war which has had its primary ground - WMD - generally disproven is a biggie. [Apparently Colin Powell thinks so, too.] It feels like there was never a true buy-in to the Saddam-Osammy link. And the tighter security rules must discomfort - I don't think this is a big thing at the border and security agencies will be security agencies but when you are checking up on what my kids take out from the library it gets a bit weird. But the main thing is the messed up budget. I don't think you can have 20 years of being told that you must reduce government spending and reduce taxes only to have the shift to big spending and low taxes bought by the people. It used to be said of conservatives that they shifted the tax from rich to poor. This guy shifts it to no one...but money does not work that way. The loans from the Saudis and China mount. Who wants that dependency mounting?
The real question is, all in all, what has George Jr. done uniquely that another leader would not have done? I am not convinced the war on terror (remember that one?) would not have been taken on by anyone in the White House after 9/11. Others might have pursued it more diligently. Others soon might.
Comments
Arthur - February 4, 2004 10:32 AM
what has George Jr. done uniquely that another leader would not have done?
That's the easiest question to answer: government sponsored Faith-based initiatives and programmes.
Alan - February 4, 2004 10:38 AM
OK. That is one. What else? Without getting snarky or partisan, is it possible to actually list unique initiatives which justify the re-hiring?
Arthur - February 4, 2004 11:12 AM
unique initiatives which justify the re-hiring
<br>
<small><small><small>[thinking hard here]</small></small></small>
<br>
<small><small>[thinking really hard here]</small></small>
<br>
<small>[thinking really-really hard here]</small><br>
<br>
No.
Toby Rockwell - February 4, 2004 11:19 AM
Bush has certainly done uniquely things others would have not, but none that qualify for your second premise as being a reason to justify re-hiring.
His uniqueness includes:
1)gutting and disenfranchising the Environmental Protection Agency.
2)upping the ante in the shift of moving the tax burden to lower income levels. Bush's tax "cuts" give miniscule amounts of money to lower earners (<$50k) as one would expect, but he shows his true colours in shafting the upper-mid income levels ($50k - 500k) as well. The vast preponderance of his tax cuts go to income levels above $500k and to accumulated wealth. And this is not to even mention that the vast preponderance of his shift to benefiting the ultra-wealthy is being shifted to future generations. Credit card frenzy at its ultimate!
3)succeeding in getting middle income citizens to support the abolishment of inheritance taxes with scare stories of secarios that have never taken place (the loss of the family business, loss of the family farm), when in truth those taxes affect only a miniscule percentage of extremely large estates. The estate tax has encouraged philantropy, and raised significant tax dollars from a tiny segment of the population, and one that has benefited greatly from the stability and support of the government. As a digression I have to say that I really must admire the boogey man tactics of scaring the public with the "death taxes".
These are enough for the sake or arguement, I can only hope that the polling numbers show that Americans are realizing that the Emperor has no clothes.
Wayne - February 4, 2004 12:50 PM
I don't think the numbers are that bad for a sitting President, althought they do reflect a drop. However, any President seen as dealing with a threat to his people by striking back, (Not getting into my opinion here) would benefit from high ratings. Americans, as we know, live in a disposable society, very fickle. And they do forget easily. Hence, the drop in numbers. But, I think his numbers reflect those of registered, committed voters, not the undecided or those who avoid polls altogether. So, overall, his re-election is one you could(and I have) bet on, especially if they bag OBL in the next 6 months, which is what he is about to try and do with earnest.
Alan - February 4, 2004 1:04 PM
...so if Bush was running in a road race, would he give the other side a half hour start and then "try and do with earnest"?<p>The other thing I read he was "about to do" was invade Cuba. It would be nice to have a policy platform for guidance and not surprise "Mars" - suprise "steroids" - surprise "I'll cut the deficit I created by 50% in 5 years" - surprise "All my attention is back on Osammy". Crisis based thinking, expensive and unprincipled.<p>The really interesting point would be whether there is a silent pissed off non-voting group which shows up to give him the boot for screwing up the economy. Not strong Democrats or offended conservatives but just common folk saying "not good enough".
Wayne - February 4, 2004 1:41 PM
I thought Kennedy promised or signed that the US would not invade as long as nuclear weapons were kept out of Cuba? Bush would have a hard time explaining that move, which I don't believe was really ever on the table. I think the rumour was about killing Castro, not invasion. And Castro started those rumours.
P.S. I have learned the non-voting group in the U.S. couldn't give a damn about politics. They are too busy pursuing the American dream which is (Fill in the blank here)_________________!
Alan - February 4, 2004 1:49 PM
"...sitting at the Mall's foodcourt and talking about watching American Idol the night before"?