Jump to navigation
W – Short for POTUS
POTUS, President of the United States, accepts, giving his statesman speech, speaking well of Kerry and his supporters, as he wishes to serve all American’s not just the few, the extreme.
drop. Markets roar
. America elects the first President since 1988 with a majority
, and provides the President with more (R)epublicans in the House
and more (R)epublicans in the Senate
. This is not the work of “zealots,” as some on the left
would like you to believe, but the efforts of the majority, who will hopefully respect the rights of the minority, and diminish the size and burden of the beast they wrangle.
Previous | Next
Once again I would have to strongly disagree with anyone who holds the perspective that "the majority of America voted Bush with the belief and faith of Bush's policies." I have argued it time and time again with friends, professors, and at times even random strangers, the fact of the matter is-- and I can't emphasize is more--that the presidency was not decided on merit of a candidate's policy but on a likeness of values between each candidate and the American people. We are in an age where it is not the most "fit," in terms of the strength of one’s ideas for reform of the country, who presides over America's highest office, however it is the best politician, the man the American people can relate to, a “Pied Piper” if you will--that is who we vote for.
Now I in light of the events such as the Iraq War, and the poor status our economy and education, I will never assert that Bush is an adequate president. What I will concede is that Bush and his administration are masterful politicians. The difference? I said in a previous article that Bush's tax policy will lead to economic problems that can be best described as catastrophic, it is unheard of for a country in our current state to continue such a tax cut, deep down everyone knows it whether or not they have the intestinal fortitude, "guts" if you will, to say it. However what Bush can do is gather a crowd, energize them and bring them to the polls. Now does his ability to bring citizens out to vote reflect his superior capability to mend America's wounds? no.
20% of voters said moral values were their highest concerns for the '04 elections, 18% said it was terrorism. Bush appealed to culturally conservative protestants and the simple, inattentive public because they could relate to him and they were known to come out to vote--and out they came...in hordes. The fact the policies ranked 19% of America's concerns for the presidency speaks volumes. A mere 19%...policy is what will shape America for the ensuing 4 years. What does that statistic show? It shows that the American presidency has become primarily based on cultural and moral issues, issues that have no bearing on the state of our country.
There is a great problem with this growing concern of cultural issues shaping presidency. What it does is it gives the then president authority to say that the country voted for him based on superior policies when we all know in fact it was not and more of a cultural issue. A few years ago I would have believed that the president would be entitled to make such a claim, however as it seems that will not be the case for a while. Cultural issues will dominate future presidencies!
Now if you follow this theory then you will see the amount of power this gives any future president and namely our current president, Bush. He can say that the majority of America agrees with his policy which is contrary to what the statistics say and he then puts greater pressure on the opposing party, the democrats, because with control of both House and Senate Bush will have no problem passing legislation, however if legislation does not pass then Bush will blame the Democrats for not being corporative. Bush will claim that America agrees with his policies so he is in the position to send legislation to Congress that he would reform America but in a way contrary to the ideals of Democrats, so if it does not pass he blames the Democrats for not wanting to "better" the country. It's simple politics. Bush is in a very strategic position to displace blame for the country's problems onto the democrats when blame rightfully rests with him. Obviously this will not promote unity and Bush I guarantee you has no intention to do so. His words at yesterday's conference were that the Dems will either work with Bush to better America or will be left behind as Bush "betters" America without their help. Does that sound like Bush is promoting unity? No. Its a clear statement to Democrats that you will either submit willingly or "GOP" will exercise its power to crush opposition to their will. It seems that Bush has to answer to no one these days. Bush is calling the hand of the democrats and in doing so is on verge of creating the biggest ideological civil war this country will ever see.
It is all politics and who can phrase the dialog to suit the goal of best persuading the electorate they have the best answer. Therefore, if we can help our fellow citizenry see through the rubbish lining the truth, see Clear Politics, the better we are all served.
The fundamental difference between the ideology of the parties is real--the size and role of the government. Because Bush is a Republican President does not mean he is completely in step with those goals, as his expanding government largess has proved, but there is still that fundamental difference in the parties, and his party represents less government.
Less government is more freedom. When you talk of how we cannot have tax cuts in our state, you are right, unless we cut spending. Cutting spending will reduce the size of government, and give us all more freedom.
However you view Bush, he seems to be one to accept responsibility, not blame. This was something not seen in Kerry, who even blamed someone else when he fell skiing.
Excuse me, cp2--
are you talking about the same president that wishes to BAN gay marriage?
Is the same president who wants to tell women what they can and cannot do to something that is growing inside of them?
When you talk about freedom, who are you talking about freedom for?
Perhaps you are talking about the increased freedom for terrorists and gun enthusiasts to buy arms in our country? Perhaps you are talking about the increased freedom to ignore the concerns of our environment? Perhaps you are talking about the freedom of the middle states--not at risk of terrorism--to decide foreign policy regarding terrorism for the states that are at risk? Are you talking about the freedom to NOT fund federal program designed to improve education?
Ask yourself, just WHO is the president serving? T-Ewool and the elections' exit polls tell you---the like-minded and NOT the country.
Esse, you fell for the trap, the semantics game. Bush is against gay “marriage” while supporting “civil unions.”
Marry a horse for all I care, but what the right is trying to do is codify the definition of a heterosexual relationship as “marriage,” protecting the term. Bush is fine with “civil unions,” which can be treated equally under the law, which means there will be nothing left to fight about—just kidding, there will be plenty of cping over semantics until hell/heaven/nirvana/ohm freezes over.
"Perhaps you are talking about the freedom of the middle states--not at risk of terrorism--to decide foreign policy regarding terrorism for the states that are at risk?"
I was under the impression that WE ALL suffered from the terrorist attack on September 11th. WE ALL certainly felt at risk. I know I sat in front of the TV scared to death of what would happen next. Then WE ALL risked our lives (if only feeling that way) by getting back up from our grief and moving on. WE ALL suffered the fear, shock, grief and later, the economic, cultural and spiritual effects. I think if a terrorist attacks ANY square inch of this country, WE ALL feel it and WE ALL suffer. Why shouldn't WE ALL decide the policies, WE ALL must abide by them.
Or if you want to get nasty... the middle states helped pay to clean up the mess, and make millionaires out of the victim's families, with our hard-earned money, so why can't we help decide how to retaliate?
Just some thoughts....