2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Au,

Cicero made a categorical statement that conditions were worse under Bush in two years than any other President serving a full four years. My remarks were intended to demonstrate that is not so.

Whenever any person who wants and needs employment is out of a job, the employment situation can be described as "bad". In this nation's history there have been many periods where the unemployment was higher than it is today. Even in recent memory unemployment figures have been higher. I don't want to quibble over a point or two, nor do I wish to imply that things are peachy-keen. I have grave doubts about the current administrations economic policies, and have no intent to defend them.

Deficit spending is a case in point. I totally agree that it is economic madness to spend more than your income, and the size of the National Debt has been a major concern for at least the last forty years. Pork barrel politics and lack of clear priorities have been a problem for years. Deficits can be justified in several sets of circumstances, but as a normal way of doing business deficits are counter-productive. A rapidly shrinking economy may be stimulated by increased government spending by creating jobs and adding currency to the economy. That can trigger dangerous rates of inflation, and must be done very carefully. Military spending also can justify large deficits. The SDI program was very costly, but played a significant role in bringing about the collapse of the USSR and ending the Cold War. There are many other examples.

No, no President is never elected to be a dictator, and no President can ever completely ignore public sentiment. Presidents are politicians, and as such almost always will avoid risking their political futures by pursuing unpopular policies. Sometimes the President's responsiblity to protect and defend the nation and the Constitution runs counter to what people want. A sizable number of Americans preferred to let the Southern States secede from the Union to avoid war, but Lincoln went against the popular mood and persevered the Union though it cost 600,000 lives. strong pacifist and isolationist movements demonstrated against American involvement in both WWI and WWII, but were wrong in both cases.

The Constitution puts the responsiblity for protecting the Constitution and Nation squarely on the Executives shoulders, and then constrains him with the Congress and Supreme Court. The Constitution says nothing about national policy being forged by mobs in the street, indeed the Constitution is designed to avoid that very sort of pressure. Congress was persuaded of the necessity of action, and there are no grounds to suppose that the President is acting in violation of the Constitution. This President has already been given authority to send American troops into action against Iraq. Our forces are concentrated and await the order to proceed. The conditions that have persuaded the Congress and the President to act have not changed. Though I dislike Bush, he may be demonstrating the sort of political courage that might have earned him a place in JFK's Profiles in Courage. It would be easy for Bush to back down citing public sentiment, but it appears he has the courage to go forward with what many of us consider a very necessary military action.

As to whether the Shrub is among the worst of Presidents, is a matter of opinion and the criteria for ranking Presidential "goodness". There have been some pretty poor, and incompetent Presidents. Nixon, Carter, and Clinton all spring to mind. Taft, Harding, and Coolidge were all incompetent or ineffective. The ratings vary considerably from person to person, and partisan politics is frequently the real criteria. In the end, only the historians in the late 21st century are likely to make really sound judgements about how "good" or "bad" the Shrub's administration is.

I see after that didactic dissertation, you couldn't resists throwing Clinton into the company of Taft, Nixon, Harding, Carter and Coolidge. Wishful thinking?

One thing is certain. Were Clinton the president we would not be the most hated nation in the world at the present time nor would we be in the economic straights we now find our self in. Bush is a national calamity. He is a cancer that has been visited upon our nation.

I see no evidence that we are hated more now than then, but plenty that we have more respect today than we did under Clinton.

If we were not hated under Clinton, why were there terrorist attacks?

How do you justify the notion that we would have a better economy under Clinton, when it was under Clinton that the economy turned sour? Or, perhaps a better question would be to ask you to detail for me the things you think Clinton did to promote a healthy economy.

TW
Have you read about and seen the demonstrations? We are now considered a rogue nation by a good many of the nations and people of the world. Thanks to the diplomatic skills of Cowboy George. He displays all the attributes of a bully and has turned our nation into one.

Asherman, You have very good skills at looking backward in history to make your point. However, my only question to you would be, "what's your point?" Any fool can find worse situations in our past on every issue addressed concerning GWBush. What does that prove? We are talking about one president, GWBush, during his first two years in office. To say you can find some historical information that it's been worse by listing presidents of the past to compare with GWBush is a no-brainer. At least, that's MHO. c.i.

That you are able to list eight presidents that's had a worse record tells us that the greatest majority of our past presidents had a "better" record than GWBush. Using the same tactic you would use to tell us there is 93 percent who are employed has a "false" ring even to me! c.i.

Couldn't stand Nixon, loved Carter, and think Clinton was pretty good -- but think all of them rank easily within the top third. But criteria differ. I'd be interested in hearing what the criteria are being used by Asherman and others who have strong opinions here, and whether it makes any sense whatsoever to compare presidents all of whom obviously served at different times and under different circumstances. If, for example, we took only the moral record according to our present-day morals, we'd come up with a list in which Carter was at or very close to the top and in which the great originals would look pretty bad! If we came up with an economic measurement... etc. etc.

Tartar, The three you list are about where they rank on my 'list.' c.i.

Taking part in demonstrations has become a social activity for a lot of people, which has unfortunately made demonstrations mean less and less. So, yes I was aware of them and no, they don't mean much to me. Most of these people are less interested in promoting peace than they are in battling Bush.


If true, this only shows how absurd some people can be in their use of terms.

Here are some good comments by Powell on the question of the US as rogue nation:


I know you will disagree with that, but I hope you are open-minded enough to realize that a lot of people around the world share that view of the US, not yours.

Also, on the issue of people calling the US a rogue nation, check this link which supports that notion, and consider how many of the rogue actions listed happened before Bush was President.

The US: Rogue Nation

Which means that your statement that "We are now considered a rogue nation..." pretends this is something new and ignores the fact that we have been considered one by many people since long before this administration.

All of this began with my comment re C.I.'s original quote at the top of this statement. My point relates to C.I.'s tendency to use opinion/emotion words to cover a topic. However, as with this situation, he often returns to present his case with reasoned details.

Although this discussion has merit, it does belong in another thread.

Mapleleaf, I have the bad habit of shooting from the hip on issues I feel pretty strongly about, and they can backfire on me. I'm fully aware of that. If asked to back up my opinion, I can always try my best. Sometimes it's a matter of providing other sources, but often times, it can only be a matter of personal opinion - garnered from readings and personal observations. All of us have those, you know! c.i.

Cicerone -- I don't think you have to defend your posts or your opinions. Your aim is excellent and if you can shoot from the hip THAT well, hope you will continue to do so!

True...thank-you for responding. Do we have any new candidates on the Democractic side other than those setting up committees?

Cicero,



Do you remember saying that "there has been more suffering during two years of the Bush administration than any other President serving a full term"? I've paraphrased you here, but the paraphrase accurately represents your remark. That was your statement, and it was wrong. If its a "no-brainer" to find as much, or greater suffering, under past Presidents, then why did you say otherwise? Either you didn't bother to think and check your facts before making an extravagant claim, or you intended to mislead. I expect that you let your passions override your brain once again.

My sole purpose and point was to demonstrate that your statement is not borne out by the facts. You made an inaccurate statement, and I corrected it. Period. You can dance around all night, but that will not change the facts. When you say things that aren't true, expect someone to catch you at it and correct the record. BTW, even if Tartan disagrees with me, I believe that you are obligated to defend extravagant claims and charges. If you can't back up a claim that the Moon is made of blue cheese, then don't say that it is.

Actually going back an looking at the post more carefully, I see nine Presidents listed by name and another five alluded to. Conditions under 14+ Presidents out of 43 (about 25%) were clearly much worse than conditions since Shrub took office. Conditions during another 24+ were probably about the same, as the conditions today. So that leave approximately six Presidents whose administrations presided over excellent conditions. Who might those Presidents be? Not Washington, or Eisenhower, or Truman. In fact, I don't think conditions have been much better in my lifetime. However, if you want to cite Clinton as one of the Nation's Happiest periods, that's one ... can you name five more?

This nation has suffered a lot in its history, but things really have gotten better as a general rule. There is less injustice today than there was even fifty years ago. There is less hunger in America than there was within the memory of some of our older citizens. The average person has more luxuries, works shorter hours and has more benefits than those available 50 years ago. More people own their own homes, and ownership of color television, stereo systems, and automobiles is common even among the "poor". Women and minorities have opportunities never effectively existed before the last quarter of the 20th century. A hundred years ago my speech was no more free than it is today, but now my words reach far more people than I could have reached then. My life may be less private today, but has anyone here ever lived in a small rural village where everyone knows everything about everybody else and where gossip is the main form of recreation? This is not to say the world is perfect today, its not. But for every step of progress toward solving any set of problems, other problems are generated -- sometimes unanticipated outcomes are worse than the problems they were meant to solve.

Tartan,

I think if you read my prior postings on this matter more closely you will see that I've already qualified any ranking of Presidents. Those that are mentioned, or alluded to, all clearly were in office during times when Americans suffered much greater hardships than any during this administration.

I think Howard Dean spoke today. Because of the holiday yesterday, and because I get my NYT's in the mail, I'm behind on the news. Did anyone hear him, read a speech, see him on TV?

Asherman, Your paragraph starting with "This nation....." has absolutely nothing to do with the shrub. You are only repeating things 99 percent of Americans already know and understand.

As for the shrub, he is the worst president that has served for two years! His ten year tax plan is going to a) worsen our economy, b) increase our national debt, c) endanger social security benefits for the baby-boomers, and d) benefit the rich. He has single-handedly destroyed our working relationship with our UN allies. He is now taking us on a road to a war with Iraq when they pose no threat to our security. This war's cost is still unknown, because we do not know how long we will need to occupy Iraq. Many analysts believe world terrorism will increase after our war with Iraq - not improve our security. Rummie's insult of our friends in Germany and France is not helpful to resolve future world problems. Having bigger and better military hardware does not make us right. In a shrinking world, we need to build a world community of nations that works toward peace. Yes, this nation has suffered alot in our past. It seems GWBush is going to make sure this world is going to suffer again. c.i.

I thought we had this nipped in the bud. Tar, I didn't see anything about Dean's speech. Of course, I skimmed the articles and didn't look for Dean material.

Something I've wondered about is the motivation of individuals who seek the Presidency. It might be revealing to review the Democratic candidates in light of an article/report which examines the motivation of Presidential candidates.

Mapleleaf -- I think that's a good idea. I've been turning over in the back of my mind an inquiry about alcohol and power -- quite seriously. There is some history there.

PS One has to remember (code for "I often forget"!) that candidates get into the race for their party's candidacy not always because they think they're going to win but because they represent -- on behalf of the party and the country -- points of view which need to be tested. That's one of the main reasons I'm interested in Dean. Dean, from the little I know of him...so far, is closest to my way of thinking and it seems quite a few people feel that way about him... so far.

The Democratic Party may be hungry for someone to verbalize a mission and purpose. Someone new might not have to bear the burdens of past misadventures. They would have the benefit of a cleaner canvas on which to paint their vision.

I suspect the outcome of the Iraq situation may define the kind of candidate the Democrats put forth.