The Bush Presidency: Ill-Conceived, Undisciplined, and Intrusive

The Seattle Times has had it with President Bush. Just in time for next week's Fascist Convention in New York, the Emerald City's daily paper has reversed its 2000 endorsement of Dubya and handed it to John Kerry...two and a half months before the election!
Four years ago, this page endorsed George W. Bush for president. We cannot do so again — because of an ill-conceived war and its aftermath, undisciplined spending, a shrinkage of constitutional rights and an intrusive social agenda.

The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind. Our endorsement of John Kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.

The election of Kerry would sweep away neoconservative war intellectuals who drive policy at the White House and Pentagon...It would also provide a chance to repair America's overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of Islam.

A less-belligerent, more-intelligent foreign policy should cause less anger to be directed at the United States.
New polls are showing Bush gaining on Sen. Kerry going into next week's convention. The Prez may even get a "bump" coming out of NYC.

Although the Bush/Rove team will try their hardest to keep issues out of the contest, the fall campaign and the presidential debates are going to shine a light on the administration's shortcomings and failures.

And George W. Bush will wake up November 3rd to an electoral map filled with pretty shades of blue.


The Mad Dog

Bill O'Reilly is still a whiny little bitch.


Be very afraid.

These days, Fox Jazeera's Managing Editor Brit Hume is signing off with "fair and balanced, and unafraid."

Ummm...but, really...not so balanced.




If media reports are the way to gauge what is on the minds and in the hearts of most Americans, then I guess you'd have to say that the war in Vietnam is the burning issue of our time. I just don't buy it. It's the war in Iraq.

George Bush and John Kerry have both got us talking about the wrong war. And for the wrong reasons.

John Kerry is trying to use Vietnam to show just how tough a guy he really is compared to the one in the White House who never went to war. Vietnam, for Kerry, is the antidote to any and all charges he's a soft, social liberal.

George Bush, meanwhile, is trying to turn Vietnam into the "Willie Horton'" of this presidential season and thereby deflect discussions of his own selective service.

Just as in 1988 when his dad's operatives skewered Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis as soft on crime because a convicted killer from that state named Willie Horton left prison on a pass and went on a killing spree, the current President Bush, through surrogates, has sought to skewer John Kerry on his service in Vietnam.

These are diversions that masquerade as discussions.

In a race in which whole states are written off with the political shorthand of Republican red or Democrat blue, the debate has already been dumbed down enough.

Revisiting whether Bush only got his teeth fixed in the National Guard or whether Kerry did enough to earn his medals is a waste of our time. Worse than that, it's a cynical diversion from critical issues.

And one of those critical issues is the war in Iraq.

For a lot of us, today trumps yesterday. What happened 40 years ago may play well in the attack ads that fuel the food fight that passes for a presidential campaign these days, but that's all.

But 6,000 miles away there's a war going on. It's cost about $135 billion so far. And the lives of nearly 1,000 Americans. And uncounted thousands of Iraqis.

Memo to George and John: Change the subject.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?