Richard Cohen in yesterday’s Washington Post:
(You can read the whole column by clicking on Cohen’s name above)
I beliieve I agree with him. What do y’all think?
The presidential race is not about choosing the “nice guy.” Besides, congress is so split that neither president will be that different from the other. (Had I been old enough to vote I would’ve voted for Harry Browne.)
I think it is about voting for the person who would make things better, not worse:)
I have to agree with Cohen, Al Gore is not the right person to unite our bitter government. Even people who voted for him probably did so not because he is so likeable but rather in spite of the fact that he isn’t. His public personae, at least is really pretty offputting.
I’ve read he’s much better in person, but still not as good as Bush. To the extent that our government is an old-boys network were connections and likeability count more than ideas Bush will have a MUCH better chance of having his way then Gore.
However I think the present election saga is proof positive that Bush’s claim to be a uniter is simply not true.
Bush has allowed his front man, James Baker III to be VERY nasty and devisive. That is not the behavior of a uniter. In fact it serves no useful purpose for him to attack the Florida Supreme Court rather than say “We respecfully disagree with the ruling of the court, etc”.
Tom Delay talks about ‘stealing’ the election. When in fact neither side has broken any laws. Now it may be that Bush doesn’t want this kind of talk from the Republican leaders, but so far he hasn’t said so. And if he’s trying to calm things down behind the scenes, then he’s been completely ineffective. Either way, the idea that Bush is capable of being a uniter is show to be not true. Either he can’t or he won’t do so. And Does it really matter which? the result is the same.
tj
If to steal something isint against the law its still stealing right?
Gore tried to bias the facts enough in his favor by recounting democratic countys and trying to deny military ballots. One would not deny that this is legal, but that this is not stealing.
Asmodean,
Give me a fucking break. There is just as much or more justification for saying that Bush is stealing the election. In reality, neither is “stealing it”…It was basically a tie and they are both fighting to try to get the somewhat arbitrary award of who gets to be President.
IMHO -
Please don’t be suckered by Dubya’s rhetoric…
He is and has been a tough partisan street fighter starting back on Dads campaign in 1988.
Remember Willie Horton? Bush Jr. was right there as a political aide working with Lee Atwater on that well known piece of racist hogwash.
Indeed in this ne’r-do-well’s life, tough politics is the only constant. (e.g. Dubya’s alleged AWOL while “assigned” to the Mississippi National Guard was actually to facilitate working with the MS GOP.)
Remember the slurs against John McCain - that McCain’s well known temper was “evidence” of McCain’s unfitness for the Presidency and indeed a sign of mental illness? Right out of Dubya’s camp, slickly run through Trent Lotts office (hmmm, that Ol’ Miss connection again.)
Remember the attacks on Al Gore (“liar”, “do anything to be elected”) supposedly sponsored by the Log Cabin Republicans (a pro gay GOP org.) Once more a cute attack strategy with a plausible denial.
Right now, slick Georgie is offering Senator Breaux of LA a cabinet post, calling it evidence of his bi-partisan nature. In reality, it breaks the Senate deadlock without having to use Dick Cheney on a daily basis. Would this offer be made if the GOP had a 52-48 Senate lead?
Admittedly, W’s bon vivant spirit is many times more appealing than Nixon (who despite his personality differed little in domestic policy from most Democrats) but Bush sees himself as the next Reagan and will push an ambitious radical agenda. Granted too, compared to the jackboot conservatives running the House and Senate, W will seem to be the “good” cop.
Look right now. Cheney and Bush are saying that we are on the cusp of a deep recession and thus need that big tax cut. (disregarding Chairman Greenspan) And already they are denouncing any opposition as being “the politics of envy”.
Oh yeah, quite a uniter.
Do I consider him my President? Frankly no - more like a four-year canker sore.
Yes, yes he won fair and square - under an unfair and unsquare system that must be changed. And he will do all he can to keep our 18th century system as unfair and unsquare as possible.
The gall he displays on this topic is mind-boggling. Last night, when asked about this directly, his answer was amazing:
First, Bush expresses his admiration for Greenspan and that he looks forward to working with him. Then:
Reporter: "If Alan Greenspan tells you that a big tax cut would be bad for the economy, would you listen?
Dubya: “Of course I’ll listen (then,without so much as half a beat being missed) but I reserve the right to disagree with him. I think that taxpayers should benefit…blah blah blah”
How a failed shmuck with no significant success at making money for anyone but himself can arrogantly announce, after making the same idiot mistake in Texas and driving up the deficit with it, that he knows better than Alan Greenspan, the man widely considered to be the single most important player in the current economy, blows me away. It just proves, as far as I’m concerned, that he is a pawn of the rich. Because it has been shown, in poll after poll, that the American public do not want him to give them a tax cut! They do not think it is a great idea, especially if it runs the risk of screwing up the surplus and the positive gains we’ve made in the economy. The money Joe Sixpack would get back isnt’ worth it to him. But it sure is to Joe Moneybags.
Argh!
<Thunderous applause>
stoid
I fail to see what Willie Horton has to do with this, but as long as he’s made mention don’t forget that his rise to prominence, while exploited by Bush Sr.'s movement, was initially via the efforts of the Gore campaign during their primary battles with Dukakis.