squinney wrote:Thank you, George. It sounds like you are "for him" only because the other side isn't offering up a better choice or presenting a unified platform. Is that correct? Are there any Bush policies, other than rejection of Kyoto, with which you have agreed?
Kyoto wasn't just Bush. During the Clinton Administration, the Senate voted 97-0 in a non-binding resolution condemning the treaty and expressing its intent to reject it if submitted for ratification. Clinton went ahead and signed it anyway - and then sat on it for almost a year without ever submitting it to the Senate. Bush merely presided over the funeral - though at least he had the balls to say why he did it. Same goes for the International Criminal Court - the U.S. had long-standing concerns about the potential misuse of jurisdiction and a violation of our Constitution in the treaty of Rome which created it, and our negotiations over the draft treaty were at an impasse.. In an odd, seemingly impulsive gesture Clinton signed the treaty in the last weeks of his presidency - perhaps to leave a time bomb for his successor. Again Bush dealt with it in a forthright manner. These were the two issues that inflamed European opinion against Bush. I suspect they resented the fact that the U.S. Gulliver finally recognized the Liliputians were trying to tie him down, and broke their strings.
I believe the tax cuts were a good thing and necessary to curtail the recession that started a few months before he took office. I fault Bush for not doing more to curtail discretionary Federal spending though. Our tax rates are now slightly MORE progressive than they were before the cuts - the Democrat rhetoric about cuts for the rich were the worst form of demagogary, however it plays well with a willing media.
The War on Terror and the Intervention in Afghanistan have been undeniable successes. We have also developed some important relationships with the Central Asian republics that escaped Soviet Rule. These may be important in the years ahead.
The Iraqi intervention was a bold move. Too early to tell if the long-term effects will be good or bad. Much is said and written about the potential bad side effects of the intervention. Too little is said about what would be the likely situation today in the Middle East if we hadn't intervened. Saddam would likely again be threatening both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and the overall situation would almost certainly have been much worse for us.
The disenchantment that has grown between Europe and the U.S. was an inevitable consequence of the removal from the world scene of a deadly enemy who threatened (and united) us both. Our relations with them have returned to their normal, pre WWI state. Meanwhile the Europeans are suffering from ageing populations and demographic decline, the loss of cultural identity to immigration (at only about 25% the levels we see here), economic stagnation, and the economic challenge from their new EU partners in the East. They are looking for someone to blame and we will do - no matter who is the President.
Bush isn't much of a communicator. His rhetorical deficiencies have protected him from the worst forms of demagogery, but they have also limited his effectiveness as President. He certainly isn't stupid - that canard speaks more about the character of his critics than it does of him.
I agree with you about the relatively poor crop of potential candidates among Democrats. Their problem is to free the party from the grip of the single issue loonies who are its most active and best organized members. Clinton did that rather brilliantly in 1992, but I don't see anyone capable of it now.
Interestingly the so-called religious right hasn't done all that well under Bush. He has thrown them a small bone or two, but otherwise given them only words. Oddly the Democrats rail loudly about the danger from the right. This only makes them even more captive to their own looniews and inflames their opposite numbers. Not very smart.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace