Four more years...To do what you didn't do the first time

[Epitome22]

http://www.slate.com/id/2106214/


Back to the Future
What Bush would do if he were president.
By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, Sept. 2, 2004, at 11:47 PM PT


NEW YORK—For $2.4 trillion, guess what word—other than "a," "and," and "the"—occurs most frequently in the acceptance speech George W. Bush delivered tonight.

The word is "will." It appears 76 times. This was a speech all about what Bush will do, and what will happen, if he becomes president.

Except he already is president. He already ran this campaign. He promised great things. They haven't happened. So, he's trying to go back in time. He wants you to see in him the potential you saw four years ago. He can't show you the things he promised, so he asks you to envision them. He asks you to be "optimistic." He asks you to have faith.

"Since 2001, Americans have been given hills to climb and found the strength to climb them," said Bush. "Now, because we have made the hard journey, we can see the valley below. Now, because we have faced challenges with resolve, we have historic goals within our reach and greatness in our future."

Recession. Unemployment. Corporate fraud. A war based on false premises that has cost us $200 billion and nearly a thousand American lives. They're all hills we've "been given to climb." It's as though Bush wasn't president. As though he didn't get the tax cuts he wanted. As though he didn't bring about postwar Iraq and authorize the planning for it. All this was "given," and now Bush can show up, three and a half years into his term, and start solving the problems some other president left behind.

It's all downhill from here, he assures us. The mountain precedes the valley. Because the results have been bad, they'll start to be good—but only if we keep doing the same thing. Everything that hasn't happened will happen. Bush "will" control spending, he pledged. He "will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy." He "will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code." "Soon every senior will be able to get prescription drug coverage." "More people will own their health plans."

Wonderful, unprecedented things will occur abroad. "Democracy is coming to the broader Middle East," Bush promised. We'll soon be "on the path of stability and democracy" in Iraq. "Our troops will return home." "As the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq seize the moment, their example will send a message of hope throughout a vital region. Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel." "As freedom advances—heart by heart, and nation by nation—America will be more secure and the world more peaceful."

Why will these things happen? Because resolve brings good things, and we've maintained our resolve through bad times. "Having come this far, our tested and confident nation can achieve anything," said Bush. The bad things that have happened while we've stayed resolved show that good things will happen if only we stay resolved.

"A presidential election is a contest for the future," Bush argued. "Tonight I will tell you where I stand, what I believe, and where I will lead this country in the next four years." So, Bush told us where he stood: "I stood where Americans died, in the ruins of the Twin Towers." And he told what he thought: "I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country." But standing and thinking are not doing. Beliefs and promises are what you talk about when you have no progress to report. Bush pointed to the wars he had launched and the bills he had signed, but he couldn't point to the benefits those laws and wars were supposed to deliver. The benefits haven't happened yet. They "will."

My favorite moment was when Bush touted the No Child Left Behind Act. No more social promotion, he promised. "We are transforming our schools by raising standards and focusing on results. We are insisting on accountability."

Wasn't this speech, full of unfulfilled promises and appeals to good character, basically a plea for social promotion? Isn't that the message of the entire Bush campaign? Shouldn't the president have to show results, too?

[Drbio]

It must suck having such a hatred for Bush and letting your blood pressure get so high.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Drbio
It must suck having such a hatred for Bush and letting your blood pressure get so high.

Especially when you have to resort to quoting such mentally challenged authors.

[Drbio]

My post was really a consolidation of all of his Bush hate threads over the last few days. I hope he seeks out zoloft or somesuch.

[MavKikiNYC]

"Four more years...To do what you didn't do the first time"

...as opposed to "What would you accomplish in four years as President, when you haven't done anything in twenty years as a Senator?"

[Mavdog]

other than normalizing relations with Vietnam I really can't say that kerry has accomplished that much in the Senate.

of course, that same criticism (albeit as a non-distinguished governor) could have accurately been applied to Dubya 4 years ago.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
other than normalizing relations with Vietnam I really can't say that kerry has accomplished that much in the Senate.

of course, that same criticism (albeit as a non-distinguished governor) could have accurately been applied to Dubya 4 years ago.

Anybody can apply any label they want, doesn't mean that it's a valid label. I would hardly call it accurate that say that George Bush didn't accomplish anything in 6 years as govenor of Texas.

[Mavdog]

so what did he accomplish?

[Evilmav2]

The Texas Concealed Handgun Law that Bush signed into law in 1995 was a great accomplishment.

[knowitall]

Now that's funny!

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
so what did he accomplish?

Leading the way for the 2 largest tax cuts in the state of Texas was a good start.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Leading the way for the 2 largest tax cuts in the state of Texas was a good start.

I guess you were out of the country when at the end of Bush's last budget as Governor (2002) the State had a $7.4 Billion deficit, and had to cut spending (including transportation) by $9.9 Billion from the 03-04 budget before the Comptroller would certify the budget balanced?

Don't look now, but his record as President shows the same accounting inbalance...

[dude1394]

Note that the AP didn't say "there were scattered boos" (there weren't) or even "one guy booed." The AP reported, falsely, that "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed." That isn't spin; it's a flat-out lie. And the AP writer added the malicious embellishment that Bush did nothing to stop the (nonexistent) booing.

Is this the most astonishing example of media bias I can remember? Offhand, yes. It is sheer, malicious fabrication and slander--of President Bush and of Republicans generally--in what purports to be a brief, factual account of Bush's speech.

What this shows, I guess, is that the establishment media are in a full panic mode over John Kerry's prospects. Any semblance of professionalism, or even basic honesty, in this instance, is gone.

Dems at this message board as well.

[Epitome22]

So what you are saying is that the AP report is a lie? What is your evidence to support this?

[reeds]

"I guess you were out of the country when at the end of Bush's last budget as Governor (2002) the State had a $7.4 Billion deficit, and had to cut spending (including transportation) by $9.9 Billion from the 03-04 budget before the Comptroller would certify the budget balanced?

Don't look now, but his record as President shows the same accounting inbalance... "

hmmm...silence from the right..they really never do comment on those deficits do they?

[dude1394]

I'll comment on it although it's hardly worth it, only somone who is either trying to spin a story or who was ignorant of what the economy went through after the tech bust and the terrorist attacks would throw this out as some sort of significant point to be made.

In 2002 a whole LOT of states had budget deficits. State revenue, just like the national revenue was way down and we had gotten pretty used to spending a lot of bucks. Just like companies had to downsize, lay off folks, cut costs because the economy wasn't growing as much as before. Texas makes their budget every two years as the legislature is only in session every two years. If you think you are smart enough to budget your household for two years with accelerating/decelerating budget items and not have a discrepancy at the end then you are some kind of genious and sure as heck shouldn't be wasting your time on this board.

And anyway what's exactly wrong with cutting 9.9 billion from the 03-04 budget when it didn't match? Again tell me what you would have done. Is the only answer for you to raise taxes?? I'm not even sure what the argument is.

[MavKikiNYC]

Bush's Second Term
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: September 4, 2004

White House aides like to say that George W. Bush is a transformational president. That's an exaggeration, but if he's elected to a second term and acts on the words he uttered on Thursday night, he just might be.

He's already gone a long way to transform the Republican Party. This was a party united by the idea that government is the problem, that it should be radically cut back. On Thursday night, Bush talked about government as a positive tool. "Government must take your side," he exclaimed.

He went on to propose a sprawling domestic agenda. Many of his proposals are small or medium-sized, and media rebutters have complained that not all of them are new (which is a ridiculous way to measure a policy idea). But cumulatively, they really do amount to something.

Bush proposes to build community health centers, expand AmeriCorps, increase the funds for Pell Grants, create job retraining accounts, offer tax credits for hybrid cars, help lower-income families get health savings accounts, dedicate $40 billion to wetlands preservation, and on and on and on.

This is an activist posture. As Karen Hughes said on PBS on Thursday evening, "This is not the grinchy old 'Let's abolish the Department of Education or shut down the government' conservatism of the past."

The biggest proposals, which could really make history, were only hinted at. But Bush understands the crucial reform challenge: "Many of our most fundamental systems - the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, worker training - were created for a world of yesterday, not tomorrow. We will transform these systems."

In his speech, he redefined compassionate conservatism. The faith-based initiatives are now only a part of a much bolder whole. Bush declared that government should move energetically to help people get skills and to open opportunities. "Government should help people improve their lives, not run their lives," he said. That is the essence of the party's new governing philosophy.

The Bush agenda has been greeted with a wave of skepticism from my buddies in the press corps. How's he going to pay for all this? Why didn't he do more of this in his first term? Why was he so vague about the big things? Won't he sacrifice it all on the altar of tax cuts?

But, of course, he's not going to tell us at the peak of the campaign season about painful spending decisions. He's not going to specify who is going to get gored by tax simplification. No competent candidate has ever done that, and none ever will. That doesn't make the policy ideas bogus.

The fact is, it would be bizarre if a re-elected Bush didn't have a magnified domestic agenda. Periods of war are usually periods of domestic reform because war changes the scale of people's thinking. It injects a sense of urgency. You can see this evolution in the president's own thinking.

When he ran in 2000, it sometimes seemed that he was running for governor in chief. But now he is thinking like a president, and his domestic notions are growing to match his foreign policy ones.

Obviously, the administration will have to make some tough decisions. First, it will figure out which of the many proposals it wants to do first. The obvious thing is to do tax simplification first because fixing up the tax code lets you eliminate distortions in health competition, saving patterns and a bunch of other areas.

Second, the White House will probably have to choose between reforming entitlements and making the tax cuts permanent because there isn't enough money to do both. This is an easy call. Sacrifice the tax cuts. If entitlement programs aren't reformed, we'll be looking at a lifetime of tax increases. Modernizing the welfare state is a much bigger deal than some three- or four-point cut in the top marginal tax rate.

It should be said that I do have a voice in my head that says this is all a mirage - that all the reform ideas will be tossed aside for the sake of favors for the K Street crowd. But one can sense a tide in the affairs of government.

Republicans who embrace this limited but energetic government philosophy are in the ascendant (look at the convention speakers). Many Republicans and Democrats are coalescing around these ideas (in truth, several of Bush's ideas are lifted from centrist Democrats). Besides, Bush may flesh out and promote this big agenda, if only to spite his media critics.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
I'll comment on it although it's hardly worth it, only somone who is either trying to spin a story or who was ignorant of what the economy went through after the tech bust and the terrorist attacks would throw this out as some sort of significant point to be made.

In 2002 a whole LOT of states had budget deficits. State revenue, just like the national revenue was way down and we had gotten pretty used to spending a lot of bucks. Just like companies had to downsize, lay off folks, cut costs because the economy wasn't growing as much as before. Texas makes their budget every two years as the legislature is only in session every two years. If you think you are smart enough to budget your household for two years with accelerating/decelerating budget items and not have a discrepancy at the end then you are some kind of genious and sure as heck shouldn't be wasting your time on this board.

And anyway what's exactly wrong with cutting 9.9 billion from the 03-04 budget when it didn't match? Again tell me what you would have done. Is the only answer for you to raise taxes?? I'm not even sure what the argument is.

It's very interesting to watch the selective responsibility Bushies employ. He's not reponsible for the fiscal mess? Heck, that's part of the job!

Bush the CEO can't run the company, the crisis in Texas finances can't be tossed aside as not a "signifigant point" when it was under his watch. Even more telling is how the same fiscal irresponsibility is happening while CEO of the federal government.

The question remains what was a signifigant accomplishment of Bush while governor of TX. a total of 2 have been even mentioned, and they're dubious at best.

[dude1394]

Of course he's "responsible" for the finances when he's the head dude. But only a blind partisan completly ignores the situations that that leader worked under. During trying times you can either have a leader that brings you out of it or have one who doesn't. Bush has.

As far as texas, my memory isn't that good as I was busy during that time. There are some things that I think he did and has transformed that to the national agenda.
- Education is obvious. He forced testing and accountability throughout texas. He has also forced that into the national education system. This is a big deal. With the union control of education, (as happens with most unions) our education system was stagnating as all it did was ask for more money.

Obviously i'm a big proponent of lower taxes as empowering the economy as well as entreapeners(sp) and individuals. Also a big supporter of increased prison funding and law enforcement.

But again, I don't see much reason in going back to his governor of texas except ot possibly compare his experience in running something bigger than an office staff with his opponent.

[sike]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

...as opposed to "What would you accomplish in four years as President, when you haven't done anything in twenty years as a Senator?"

nice.

[knowitall]

If he had made a logical decision to not invade Iraq instead of going in for personal reasons, that could have saved at least a couple of bucks.

[dude1394]

You have to prove that smear knowsalittle. Oh and since the AP has now joined the NYTimes as not a reputable news source, it will be tougher.

However WashingtonTimes, Wapo are still ok. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[knowitall]

I was just kidding....sort of a "Good morning gents".

[dude1394]

Still a smear...Maybe I should say good morning to you as well. Let's see.

Maybe if john kerry didn't accuse pows in the hanois hilton of war crimes while still wearing his uniform we could trust him as president.

Oh...wait a minute, that's not a smear.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I guess you were out of the country when at the end of Bush's last budget as Governor (2002) the State had a $7.4 Billion deficit, and had to cut spending (including transportation) by $9.9 Billion from the 03-04 budget before the Comptroller would certify the budget balanced?

Don't look now, but his record as President shows the same accounting inbalance...

Nope, I haven't left the country ever. But thanks for reminding me of a couple of more accomplishments of Bush as govenor: cutting spending and balancing budgets.

[dude1394]

Richard Brookheisers' take on kerry's "fitness" for office.

Mr. Kerry was sickened by his Vietnam experiences—if he really had them. He was a raging leftist—though he now runs as a warrior. He says he would see the struggle in Iraq—which he has, at different times, supported and opposed—through to the end, and we may believe him. No President comes in with a clean slate; half the job is serving the drinks your predecessor mixed.

Yet Iraq is only phase two of a war that will have many phases. If Mr. Kerry had some clear vision of its future, we could debate that. If he had some clear vision of his Vietnam past, we could debate that, too. The Terror War will have to be fought by Democrats as well as Republicans. Is John Kerry the way to begin that experiment?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Richard Brookheisers' take on kerry's "fitness" for office.

Mr. Kerry was sickened by his Vietnam experiences—if he really had them. He was a raging leftist—though he now runs as a warrior. He says he would see the struggle in Iraq—which he has, at different times, supported and opposed—through to the end, and we may believe him. No President comes in with a clean slate; half the job is serving the drinks your predecessor mixed.

Yet Iraq is only phase two of a war that will have many phases. If Mr. Kerry had some clear vision of its future, we could debate that. If he had some clear vision of his Vietnam past, we could debate that, too. The Terror War will have to be fought by Democrats as well as Republicans. Is John Kerry the way to begin that experiment?

Especially liked this part of the article:

This is a lot more serious than sailing into Cambodia. It raises similar truth problems, however. When Congress directed the military to investigate the allegations of the Winter Soldiers, many would not cooperate; others turned out to be frauds—spurious vets who had stolen the identity of real veterans. The main problem it raises for Mr. Kerry, however, is hypocrisy. Why does he now describe himself as "reporting for duty" if these were the duties his comrades carried out? Why does he claim brotherhood with ear slicers and genital fryers? Mr. Kerry could say now that he believed his charges in 1971, though he no longer does. Or he could say that, in order to rivet the nation’s attention, he had to paint a lurid picture. He could say both things and still say that the Vietnam War was misbegotten, and that he was right to oppose it. Instead, he has it both ways: It was a dance of death, and he is proud to have served.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Nope, I haven't left the country ever. But thanks for reminding me of a couple of more accomplishments of Bush as govenor: cutting spending and balancing budgets.

"a couple more accomplishments"??? like leaving the state with a shrinking revenue stream coupled with too much spending? and the federal deficit looks the same, a chapter 2 of the book of fiscal mismanagement?

The correct phrase would be dubious accomplishment.

The texas school reforms were originally the program that came out of Ross Perot's commission in the 80's, and testing was begun during Ann Richard's tenure.

so what again were Bush's accomplishments as texas governor?

[LRB]

Spin away all you want Mavdog, but the fact remains that Bush was the only governor in the state of Texas to be elected to consecutive 4 year terms and he was elected by a wide margin the 2nd time. You've been given several accomplishments which you've dismissed with your liberal spin, however the citizens of Texas did not. So I'll take the word of several million of my fellow voters for Bush over you mindless and partisan doctoring of the truth.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Spin away all you want Mavdog, but the fact remains that Bush was the only governor in the state of Texas to be elected to consecutive 4 year terms and he was elected by a wide margin the 2nd time. You've been given several accomplishments which you've dismissed with your liberal spin, however the citizens of Texas did not. So I'll take the word of several million of my fellow voters for Bush over you mindless and partisan doctoring of the truth.

well yeah it's pretty easy to be the "only" one to be elected to consecutive 4 year terms, it was a 2 year term until Ann Richards in 1990. Talk about spin!

those "several accomplishments" you said were given?? there was concealed guns (was that a joke?) and tax cuts that broke the texas budget.
2 things come to mind and that's it?
so what are those accomplishments again?