The Republicans Had Their Chance
When George Bush took over the presidency in 2001, he inherited a large surplus of cash as well as a deficit that was lower than when his father had left office 8 years earlier. He rode into Washington on promises of downsizing government, keeping us fiscally healthy, and being a uniter to get things done. He failed miserably on all of his promises. And he failed with the help of a republican congress. For years the conservative voices of the news and entertainment media tried to defend his policies....until it became embarrassing to do so. Now only the staunches and most hard headed republicans would say that George Bush has been good for our country.
The reign of George Bush and the republican congress have shown what conservative policies lead to when left unchecked. Spending spirals out of control, government becomes bigger than ever imagined, uninstigated wars are started, and constitutional rights begin to erode. It has been a grand era for Haliburton, Exxon Mobile, and Bechtel.
The republican party is now doing a mea culpa song and dance as they loudly wail that this is not really who they are, it's all a big misunderstanding! In a desperate attempt to salvage their reputation of being the "responsible" party, they have invoked the name and legacy of Ronald Reagan. "We've got to get back to the Reagan era", has become their new battle cry in a desperate attempt to say they want to change who they have become. Ronald Reagan....talk about being desperate for a hero! He's about one step above Richard Nixon and in many ways he's worse. But I do have to say that Reagan is a perfect symbol of the new republican party. During his presidency, he tripled the national debt, expanded the federal government by 90%, families living in poverty increased by 1/3, over 138 administration officials were either indicted, convicted, or had been the subject of official investigations, he deregulated the savings and loan industry which cost half a trillion dollars to bail out, he said ketchup was a good way for poor people to get their vegetables, he started the ridiculous "just say no" campaign, and as governor of California, he created the largest tax increase in it's history, a tax that would be lowered by the next governor....Jerry Brown.
Is that really what our country needs right now, to get back to Ronald Reagan type politics? The republicans had their chance and they screwed things up badly. It's time to try a different road. After all of the irreparable damage George Bush has done to this country, to put another republican in the white house would be like trying to save a drowning child by putting more water in the swimming pool. Here's the irony of the whole situation. I believe in old fashioned republican ideas....like fiscal spending, smaller government, government staying out of peoples personal lives, and staying out of unnecessary wars, it's too bad that they don't....that's why I'm voting democrat.
Comments
Joe,
These arguments are well and good, but they are guilt by association. In November the public will not so much be voting for republican or democrat as they will be for (likely) Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
What are the real differences between McCain and Clinton? This is what voters will have to ponder. Sure, McCain shares the same philosophical party as the president, but he has also stood up to the president on a number of occasions.
It's true that Clinton is of the other party from the president, but she was a member of the US Senate while all of this deficit spending was going on and, therefore, should share in some of the blame. Unless of course she can show detailed votes of hers against pork-barrel spending, which I doubt.
If you oppose the war, which candidate really appeals to you? I would say that Clinton and McCain's votes in the Senate on the war in Iraq, and subsequent funding, are probably identical.
It might also be a useful argument to blame deficit spending on the Republicans. It's true, they did a lot of that. But what have we got since the democrats took over? Answer: even more deficit spending and absolutely none of their promises have come to fruition.
So when voters are faced with the ultimate choice, Hillarly Clinton or John McCain, what choice do you really suggest that they have? Similar voting records, similar promises, and both are establishment politicians. What then is the difference?
John McCain is a war hero. He was being tortured at the Hanoi Hilton while Hillary was rebelling at Woodstock. McCain has also ran an honorable campaign, with little or no dirty tricks against his opponents. The same CANNOT be said for Clinton.
Voters will have a choice come November, but I'm not sure they'll be choosing along party lines. Current wisdom suggests that voters want to get as far from party-line voting as they can. Voting for the person, not the party, may be the name of the game this year.
Joe's reply....I don't think Hillary was at Woodstock. I believe she was in college or law school at that time. McCain is a war hero and runs a clean campaign but he also will keep us mired in Iraq thru out his presidency. Hillary has vowed to get us out....Still, I'm thinking Obama is our best bet since Edwards is gone.
Posted by: dane langston | January 30, 2008 03:15 PM
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely
Joe's reply....absolutely
Posted by: Don runkle | January 30, 2008 03:31 PM
I don't want another Clinton in the White House!
I am voting for McCain - he is Republican but he also sides with Dems at times and what we need is a President who can reach across the aisle.
Obama would be my second choice. He seems naive at times but certainly is smart and a fast learner.
I am not taking any bets.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2008 06:25 PM