Jump to navigation
Done with Bush... and possibly the entire Republican Party
Mike Ahlf
Ok, for those who are on the Dem side (or those straddling the fence), here's your chance.
I'm done with Bush.
What is Bush's record as it stands today?
#1 - in the 2000 elections, he promised to add 3,000 border patrol agents. He never did so. The later goal was increased to a new 6,000, the gap of which was supposed to be filled with National Guard troops while the training happened. This has not happened either.
#2 - Under his watch, the federal prosecutors have established a
de facto lower limit on drug smuggling cases of
500 pounds of Marijuana. Anything less, they are simply "not interested."
#3 - Under his watch, Johnny Sutton's office in Texas has been ignoring cases of real drug smuggling, allowing "stash houses" to exist for over a year and a half even after multiple raids. At the same time, they have been ruthlessly persecuting the Border Patrol, going after agents using bogus trumped-up charges, lies, and deception.
Friends of the Border Patrol have a lot on this; Sutton's office has also been caught
lying to Congressmen about various cases. The phrase "prosecutorial misconduct" describes this office in much the same way "a tall building" describes the Sears Tower, but Bush's administration doesn't care, it seems.
#4 - It is apparently the policy of this administration that when armed commandoes violate the border of the US, National Guard troops are supposed to
retreat before them.
#5 - The Katrina debacle still goes on. I do not blame Bush for what went on in the first few days, up to about a month or two. That was the fault of Louisiana's corrupt system, the fact that money that was supposed to go to Levee maintenance got funneled away into the corrupt hands of "committees", and Louisiana's general disarray. However, it's now far longer.
Stuff like this is inexcusable, and even as the crime problem in New Orleans is returning to pre-Katrina levels, the crime NO exported to other areas in the evacuation is making problems there as well.
#6 - The lower class in America is being assaulted; wage deflation/suppression due to "under the table" workers and corporate avarice are at an all time high.
#7 - As RAW mentions below, the middle class is also under attack from all sides: corporations are slashing healthcare, raiding pensions, and making work lives worse every day. Wages are being depressed there too as workers try to compete with "outsourcing" to nations where workers' rights laws and environmental laws mean precisely Jack.
#8 - While I agreed with invading Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm now convinced Bush knows so little about the region, and so little about how to manage a proper war, that he's a bumbling moron. He's screwed up Afghanistan by letting the pressure off too early, when he turned around to go into Iraq. He's screwed up Iraq by having no idea of what was around the area, or the underlying pressures (such as the tribalist Sunni/Shia/Kurd internecine warfare that was bound to happen and the Iranian goal of taking the area over) that were going to create chaos after Saddam was removed.
#9 - Worst of all, he's done absolutely nothing good for the economy. In the first few years, there was a crash happening. It actually started under Clinton's watch, so I don't consider Bush responsible for starting it. I do, however, consider him responsible for about the year 2002 onward. What has happened in this time? The housing market is in the process of tanking. Even as wage depression hits the middle and lower classes, the price of goods and gas at the pump are working their way quickly upwards. Gas is almost $3/gallon again. This is the President who stood by his Saudi friends in the early days of his Presidency, and they made an announcement that oil over $30/barrel wasn't good for the Saudis, or America, or the world. At over $70/barrel now, the Saudis are laughing, and Bush has done absolutely nothing to work on getting the prices down.
There you have it. I'm done with Bush. Completely.
So here's the challenge to Democrats, or Democrat-boosters, reading out there: show me a REAL candidate. Show me someone I can trust to do the right thing at least 70% of the time. Show me someone who means what they say and seems to have at least a modicum of common sense.
Do that, and I'll vote Democrat in 2008.
Observations
/As RAW mentions below, the middle class is also under attack from all sides/
It's worth mentioning that I disagree strongly with this assessment. I was just echoing a sentiment that is out there that is part of Gore's appeal.
Speaking of Gore and border issues, I was a bit surprised to learn that Gore got an A- from Americans for Better Immigration, an immigration-critical group.
Interesting; I'd never heard of ABI, to be honest. Their report-card system is interesting, though it lacks the detail necessary to say why someone got a particular grade.
It really doesn't matter whether you vote Republican or Democrat as long as we refuse to admit that it costs money to run for office. The single greatest flaw in American democracy is that candidates MUST raise money from the private sector to stand a serious chance of getting election. This allows large corporations, who do not even get to vote, to contribute large sums of money to all major candidates. Public financing of campaigns would go a long way toward restoring the balance of power between individual voters and big business. Campaign finance reform is a joke at best and an unconstitutional infringement on free speech at worst.
This will probably not happen in my lifetime for two reasons. First, many Americans think that taxes are too high. Second, many people think that politicians spend too much money running their campaigns, money that could be better used elsewhere.
I'm as libertarian as the next well-educated middle-class white male, but this is one area where I think government money would make a world of difference. Yes, I know it's not perfect; yes, I know the devil is in the details; and yes, I know that there is some public financing available (I always check the box on my 1040 to contribute $3.00 to the presidential election campaign fund), but it's simply not enough to combat big business.
I'm not ideologically opposed to public financing the same way I am against CFR, though I do have my doubts as to how effective it will be.
My doubts are as follows:
I think it will ultimately be "in addition to" rather than "instead of", at least as it pertains to presidential campaigns. No amount of money is ever enough since it's mostly about comparative advantage. If each campaign is given 500M in federal funds, they'll continue to raise the addition 500M to have an advantage over the other guy. Plop down a billion, they'll raise another. And so on. And to a degree they'll need to. TV airtime prices will skyrocket. TV stations will want to limit the number of campaign ads they show, so the increased demand without a corresponding increase in supply will result in candidates paying 5x market value for each spot.
One place I could see it doing good, however, is for congressional races. There are a lot of candidates for congress that never get any campaigning dollars. On the other hand, once you start financing underdogs the overdogs will take their coffers to the usual suspects. Of course, an underdog campaign that claims to be completely free of the special interests may be able to make some headway, but with election season advertising becoming that much more expensive will they still be able to afford to get their message out?
It might still be worth a shot, though, for the lesser races.
One other interesting wrinkle on the one-man, one-vote premise would be to allow votes for multiple candidates. For example, a Democrat who really likes Obama and Hillary could vote for both. Or an independent could vote for John Edwards and Fred Thompson. This would really help dark-horse candidates who lose support because those likely to vote for them are concerned about throwing their votes away.
Kevin,
I get the feeling that most Democrats would simply vote for every Democrat on the ticket each time...
Kevin,
There are a number of automatic-runoff systems that could have the same effect. I'd be interested to see where it's been tried (if anywhere), how it's been tried, and what unforseen side-effects (other than strengthening darkhorses) may have occurred as a result.
I'm not convinced, however, that the dark horses would have had much chance. It seems that the frontrunners are such because they appeal (or are deemed acceptible) by the widest swath of the population. I don't think Ross Perot, for instance, would have won even if there hadn't been the fear of "throwing away your vote". I'm struggling to think of someone that might have save for a McCain independent candidacy in 2000 or maybe a Colin Powell in 1996. I have my doubts in each case, though I could be wrong. Anyone come to your mind as a potential beneficiary?
Mike,
There's an equal chance that Republicans would to the same thing in roughly the same numbers much of the time. I think it would probably depend as much on how desperate a party is to win the White House. Right now the Democrats want it more. Republicans, on the other hand, have recently been reminded of the pains of compromise.
RAW,
you're right - Kevin used the example of a Democrat, so I went with it, but the hard-core Republicans would probably do just the same.
As for the pains of compromise... that will be an interesting test in 2008. Arguably, the Republicans lost in 2006 at least in part because people were tired of a Congress that was just a bunch of yes-men for Bush, so it'll be interesting to see what happens when the Congress has to campaign on their own a bit more.
Congress stood by Bush from 2000-2004, roughly, when they were winning. Between 2004 and 2006 they bucked him on a number of issues, most prominantly (in my mind) the spiking of illegal immigrant amnesty and the Dubai contract. I agree that they went down in 2006 in significant part because of Bush's unpopularity, but it wasn't because they were steadfastly loyal to him. Bush hasn't been able to rely on congress's help since Katrina. In the 2006 election they did what they could to go it alone. I'm not sure how thrilled I am at the prospect of them doing that again in 2008, electorally speaking. Though honestly they won't be since they'll be under a Republican presidential candidate.
I agree with most of your criticisms of Bush, but I think these are either weak or baseless:
#5 - Problems with the Road Home Program are in no way attributable to Bush. It's a state-managed program, and it's the state that's botched it. Bush can appropriate money, but the state has to spend the funds. They haven't even shown an ability to do that.
As for the crime problem in NO, Bush has done about all he can. Federal law enforcement is assisting the NOPD by loaning investigators, and the US attorney's office here is actually making quite a bit of progress (there was a major bust of a drug ring by the feds just yesterday).
#6 - The lower class does suffer from illegal labor, but let's not forget that the lower classes pay little in taxes yet are eligible for all kinds of benefits. The poorer today, as always, are better off than ever before.
#7 - The middle class is doing fine. Healthcare benefits are generally stable, in those cases where they're cut, it's due to rising costs, not nefarious corporate greed. Outsourcing isn't really a problem as that's just the free market in action, and newer jobs arise to replace the old ones. The economy is dynamic; it doesn't close a door without opening a window, provided we choose efficient strategies.
#9 - This one I disagree with the most strongly. The economy now is going like gangbusters. Let us review: 1) DOW just broke 13,000 for the first time, 2) unemployment near all-time lows, 3) real wages increasing considerably. Even the housing market is showing signs of stabilizing. As for the price of gas, Bush has little affect over that, and in any event, it has little to do with whether the economy is good or bad.
kevinp,
You say:
"The single greatest flaw in American democracy is that candidates MUST raise money from the private sector to stand a serious chance of getting election. This allows large corporations, who do not even get to vote, to contribute large sums of money to all major candidates."
1) I don't see how this is a "flaw" in American democracy. Democracy means that I can use all the resources at my disposal to get votes. If I have a bullhorn and the other guy doesn't, it shouldn't mean the government has to buy the other guy a bullhorn to create parity. Moreover, the ability of a candidate to raise money demonstrates he is viable since people are actually willing to dedicate money to him.
In any event, I think that talking of the evils of money paying for advertising actually undermines democracy, since it presupposes that the electorate is full of morons that are swayed by whoever has the most advertising. If we had equal public financing, what would be the outcome? The guy with the best ads wins? The guy who the media loves best wins? Would this be better?
2) Don't the campaign fundraising limits ($2,000 per person now, I believe) negate your arguments? Corporations can't give significant amounts of money directly to campaigns. They can fund 527 groups that in turn attack or support candidates, but that's pretty indirect. You claim to dislike campaign finance reform, but the laws we have now are quite strict. Soft money -- i.e. money funding issue ads -- is already banned entirely.
Are you suggesting that public financing be offered in lieu of the ability of outside persons to mention the candidates? That's about the only way you could get around these cynical claims of improper influence.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
