President Bush's Resume

[Rolls]

My father-in-law recieved two purple hearts in Vietnam. One for an enemy grenade that went off when he picked it up to throw it back. The other I believe was a gunshot wound. I haven't noticed any scars on him, and he certainly doesn't walk with a limp.

I'm not sure what was the timeline between the two injuries were, but Vietnam was a very nasty war. Especially considering that they would even put these guys back into action after being injured. I'm no epert, but I'm pretty sure it works differently today.

Rolls.

[grphiw]

Bravo and encore to those who created the Kerry and Clinton resumes. I'm getting sick and tired all this Bush bashing about his service reccord. Every government official, low as a mayor or congressman from Maine (No offense to Maine), or as high as the president or the Supreme Court has stuff they want to hide. Besides, if people are using the fact that Bush has little military experience and thus is incapable of handling Iraq, consider FDR. He had no military reccord, and some trouble with women. Yet he's considered one of the greatest presidents in history.

[Inquartata]

Sure. And of course the highest saint in the Democratic hagiography, Pres. Clinton, also had none. But that's clearly not the point. This is politics, and the rules are different in this game. I mean, you have only to look at the latest gambit concerning 9-11. The Kerry camp criticizes Bush for not doing enough to prevent the attacks and calls for investigations of the Administration for what it did or did not do in that regard...then complains that Bush oughtn't so much as mention them himself, because that's "politicizing tragedy" or "exploiting the dead"....

[darius]

consider FDR. He had no military reccord, and some trouble with women. Yet he's considered one of the greatest presidents in history.

Now that you mention it, perhaps having an extramarital affair should be a prerequisite for being president. So many of the great ones did. FDR, Jefferson, Washington, JFK. (If Rabin hadn't been shot, we might be putting Clinton in that list.)

darius

[Maeve_Mari]

Now that you mention it, perhaps having an extramarital affair should be a prerequisite for being president. So many of the great ones did. FDR, Jefferson, Washington, JFK. (If Rabin hadn't been shot, we might be putting Clinton in that list.)

darius

A common characteristic of country's great presidents is the ability to communicate with it's people. To be able to share a vision. Have the intellectual capacity to conceive and envision the impact of our actions and policy. To have an understanding of the complexity of both world and domestic issues and lead with a compassionate hand and mind.

That, dear sirs, is not a capability we can ascribe to Mr. Bush.

Womanizing, war service, business acumen are non-issues when it compares to basic ability to think.

[Tireur]

A common characteristic of country's great presidents is the ability to communicate with it's people. To be able to share a vision. Have the intellectual capacity to conceive and envision the impact of our actions and policy. To have an understanding of the complexity of both world and domestic issues and lead with a compassionate hand and mind.

That, dear sirs, is not a capability we can ascribe to Mr. Bush.

Womanizing, war service, business acumen are non-issues when it compares to basic ability to think.

Ok let's see. Great "thinker" Billy Clinton, he could sit and think all day and come up with some absolutley great ideas that had no hope of working.
Unfortunately, he had no "real world" experience. The only non-political job he had in his life was a year of teaching law (after he lost his first election attempt).

AND we all know how he "communicated" with the "people" and what he shared. Sadly, he couldn't conceive or envision he consequences of his actions. He only had faith in his ability to "get off the hook".

Yes, we need more "presidents" like that.

[darius]

blah blah blah.

Clinton was an excellent communicator, something even his critics (or at least the ones who can think rationally) will grudgingly admit. Bush is not.

Since Ronald Reagan is held in such high regard by the conservative establishment, let's use his standard: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

Let's see: the court of international opinion says "No." The environment says "No." Tech workers sans jobs? "No." Hell, even the CEOs should be saying "No."

darius

[Tireur]

blah blah blah.

Clinton was an excellent communicator, something even his critics (or at least the ones who can think rationally) will grudgingly admit. Bush is not.

Since Ronald Reagan is held in such high regard by the conservative establishment, let's use his standard: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

Let's see: the court of international opinion says "No." The environment says "No." Tech workers sans jobs? "No." Hell, even the CEOs should be saying "No."

darius

blah blah blah is right.

That's what I want, the "court of international opinion", whatever the hell that is......to tell me whether I'm better off now than before. How the hell do they know?

I believe tech jobs starting disappearing under Billy boy. Are you gonna blame that on Reagan, Bush I or Bush 2?

Hell, any tv talking head is a "communicator" doesn't make them fit to be president. And Bill Clinton wasn't. With him it was all about entitlement. For himself.

[jeff]

I'd be pretty damn happy with the economy we had under Clinton (speaking as a techie guy). Dubya's (if "Billy Boy" is acceptable, then so is Dubya) estimates on job creation are so excessively optimistic despite facts to the contrary as to be fraudulent. Sure, those zillions of new jobs are going to show up any day now. Every published estimate the Bush White House has produced has been scarily wrong, including the already-wrong February 2004.

Entitlement isn't personal in the Dubya case? Coasting through life until he winds up in the White House? Changing tax law and enforcement to predominantly benefit those earning over $300,00 per year? (Read "Perfectly Legal", new book, if you want to get upset about it.) With environmental legislation written by the polluters? Christine Whitman fruitlessly trying to not let the EPA get pillaged, while Hailey Barbour was making sure that it was? Cheney refusing to release his papers on how legislation was influenced by the energy companies, and then going duck-hunting with Scalia who is going to rule on whether he has to disclose it? Incredibly brazen, to an extent not seen since, well, Nixon.

[Tireur]

Well, I think Clinton was pretty brazen myself. BTW, Dubya is fine, I knew Clinton, I don't know Dubya.

Nothing you're saying is new. If I remember correctly, Billy's rosy claims about certain economic aspects were all based on "predictions" from within his administration. Hardly reality-based. Remember all those "jobs" he was creating? Same thing.

Bill came into office and immediatley took credit for an economic climate created by Reagan and Bush while at the same time blaming them for "bad" things that occurred during his time. Again, nothing new here, they all do this.

I hate to see all this worship of the "most ethical administration in history" being showered on a president who was probably the most corrupt since LBJ.

[Tireur]

I have no argument with people who dislike Bush, I see good and bad in him, but please, let's not get all misty-eyed for Clinton.

[jeff]

I don't carry water for Clinton, who's personal habits are distasteful, and commonplace (other adulterers in high places including his opponent in elections, Bob Dole, and in lawmaking, Newt Gingrich), but on his watch - and by all but the most partisan economic analysis - at least partially due to his policies (not Reagan's) - we had one of the best economies ever. That was pretty damn nice reality. We had a surplus and lowest unemployment. Nice.

GWB is embarked on a campaign of spending that has us with incredible deficits, and isn't even honest in its cost accounting. We'll halve the deficit in 5 years? Sure we will. Oh, here's another $190 billion we forgot in our original estimate. And the obvious corruption in his office (to which I refered to only a small fraction) makes Clinton look like an innocent by comparison.

Irony 1: Nixon said that if he were active in politics he'd be around the same place on the Left Right scale as Clinton, showing how far to the right the Republicans have moved. On economic matters it's still looney toons, except without Steve Forbes. They believe in the magic of Adam Smith and trickle down the way the communists believed in the withering of the state.

Irony 2: When Clinton (the adulterer) signed the Defense of Marriage Act (what, you thought Clinton was a liberal? Think again), that was sponsored by conservative Bill Barr (three times married or three times divorced? I forget). The two paragons of what marriage needs defense from...

[Tireur]

Well, you'll never know the depths of Clinton' corruption Because, for some reason, he has a legion of friends who are all willing to fall on their swords (sorry) to protect him.

All that fabulous employment was either make work (throw some money at people who aren't working and pretend they are), or non-reality based outlooks from Clinton yes men.

As far a trickle-down. Clinton did everything he could to tax and fee the small business owner out of business. He overlooked the fact that most people in the country are employed by small businesses and that if they go under, there goes your employment rate. So, let's just create an outlook........

[Tireur]

And yes, Clinton is a liberal. Not that there's anything wrong in that. I'm a classic middle of the roader. Liberal about some issues, conservative in others.

Clinton just disguised himself as a centrist to appeal to the right leaning faction of the democratic party, which he knew he would need to get elected.

[jeff]

Yup, the famous "triangulation" method. If only we could have different people in politics than politicians.

I'm with you: liberal on some things, conservative on others (one of which actually is fiscal policy, which is one of the things that frightens me about this administration. It used to be liberal policy to spend, now it's the conservatives (so called) that do.

However, we really *did* have lower unemployment then, and it wasn't government make-work. Re: small businesses: I guess we agree that the largest corporations and wealthiest individuals should pay their share of the tax burden, rather than shift it onto the ones unable to devise tax law to their benefit (the middle class, and the small business owner).

[Tireur]

Hooray! We agree.

Yes the conservatives spend tremendously, but, watch Kerry if he wins, you'll only think you've seen spending.

Of course a lot of people don't see it as spending. It all depends on what it's spent on.

And I've always thought taxation should be fair. However, I am NOT a wealth re-distibutor. Tax fairly, but don't put businesses out of business. Taxpayers will never be able to afford the unemployment benefits.

[Strytllr]

We did have a very low unemployment for the majority of Clinton's tenure... but I don't think any person looking at the numbers can truly attribute that to any one president or another. The unemployment rate had begun to rise in 00, well before Clinton left office. *shrug* economics tend to ride like a nice sine wave... I don't know how anyone can think that such a thing can keep on it's crest for more than 5 years at a time. I bet if you look back at the numbers, you'll see that the unemployment was slowly going down and the economy was slowly improving in 92 before Clinton took office. Sure, some of the things he did ensured that it lasted for as long as it did... but I'm not sure I would give him all the credit, nor would I give Bush all the blame for our current economic troubles...

I mean... com'n! It's Congress that makes the budget. Not the president... he only gives his idea/model. It's for them to decide what to do. And both Democrats and Republicans put so much stupid pork into each thing they pass, it's no wonder we're in a deficit. I wish I could do that with MY budget. I wouldn't ever have to worry about bills again if I could suddenly "find" money to fund this little pet project of mine in the garage.

Government economics gives me a headache.

[darius]

It used to be liberal policy to spend, now it's the conservatives (so called) that do.

Really, both parties spend, so the label of "conservative" vs. "liberal" only applies to social policy. Fiscally, they're both "liberal", and it's a question of whether you want your tax dollars going to educate children or pad defense contractors' wallets?

darius

[jeff]

Hooray! We agree.

Yes the conservatives spend tremendously, but, watch Kerry if he wins, you'll only think you've seen spending.

Of course a lot of people don't see it as spending. It all depends on what it's spent on.

And I've always thought taxation should be fair. However, I am NOT a wealth re-distibutor. Tax fairly, but don't put businesses out of business. Taxpayers will never be able to afford the unemployment benefits.

Who knows what Kerry really will spend. I mean, the tax rate of Taxachusetts is a feature of the State government policy, not the US Senators elected from that state.

I agree that we should not have confiscatory tax policy - but tax codes have implications about who pays the freight, hopefully in sync with what society wants. When taxes grabbed 90% of the taxable income of the wealthy, during the Eisenhower administration, then that has a strong implication of the tax code saying what "enough money is" and how much or little incentive there is to make more than that threshold. In current tax policy, when we start payroll taxes with the first dollar a poor worker makes, that says something equally strong about whether we want to make it possible for poor people to start saving money and accumulating wealth.

Please - let's be very clear on this. Current tax code is shifted - more than ever - to force the middle class to pay a disproportionate part of their income on taxes than wealthy individuals and corporations. I'm not kidding when I say "read 'Perfectly Legal'" - it'a an eye opener. When you factor in Social Securiity (now, there's a scandal - the money has been pillaged, and Greenspan is the one that rejected "pay as you go"), alternate minimum tax, and the legal methods to shield investment income (and the lower marginal rate) it should be very clear that the tax code as it exists today is designed to redistribute wealth towards the wealthiest. This is not an exaggeration... (and no, it's not all Bush's fault, though his tax policy have substantially worsened the situation)

[jeff]

Really, both parties spend, so the label of "conservative" vs. "liberal" only applies to social policy. Fiscally, they're both "liberal", and it's a question of whether you want your tax dollars going to educate children or pad defense contractors' wallets?

darius

Historically (original use of "liberal") you're quite right. Plus, the question of who gets to pay it. I don't have the luxury of reincorporating myself in Bermuda, and licensing intellectual property to the part of me living in the US, so I can zero out my US taxable income and shift it all to Bermuda instead (that's a corporate trick) or give my money to charitable trusts with accelerated payouts that give 4% to charity, 96% to myself, and 0% to tax (a wealthy individual's trick). All legal.