Something becomes "ancient history" rather quickly in America these days. I've been stewing lately on how it could be George Bush is president of the United States. I've had to remind myself, so I'm putting them in a Top 10 formant (not in order of importance, but the real obvious ones do tend to come early on).
I'd like to know what your top ten is, of course.
1) Name recognition. Some inattentive voters actually thought they were voting for George Bush Sr. I recall a quote from someone being interviewed during the 2000 election: "Because I think he did a good job in the Gulf War."
2) Because Al Gore didn't answer the question posed to him by a citizen during the debate. I don't remember the question, and I don't remember what Al Gore talked about instead of answering it. I only remember that Bush played the situation perfectly, by answering the question.
3) Americans thought $2.00 was an outrageous amount to pay for a gallon of gas, and George Bush Jr. promised to do something about it.
4) Because George Bush Jr. promised not to go "nation building", as Clinton had done in Yugoslavia.
5) Because in the Vice Presidential debate, Joe Lieberman sounded a lot like Dick Cheney's running mate.
6) Because Bill Clinton lied about having an affair with an intern.
7) Because George Bush Jr. sounds like the guy on the bar stool next to you, and a lot of people wanted a common man in the White House.
8) Because a Bush was governor of Florida.
9) Because the stock market went down.
10) Because Dick Cheney had experience, and people thought he would be well qualified to advise the inexperienced Bush.
------
I've tried not to sound too partisan in that, but I think it's pretty transparent where I stand. Do you have a Top 10?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 89
Thank you Sarina.
Also, #3 was sadly amusing. We would rejoice at $2/gallon now, wouldn't we? He fixed that just fine.
Danielle, yes. Voter apathy allows a fringe to constitute a "majority". Bush also expressed distain that our nation didn't have an energy policy. Do we have an energy policy now, besides "give tax breaks to businesses willing to burn fuel at a greater rate than they were before"?
I worked four polling stations in southern (Republican) ohio and no one waited longer than 15 minutes to vote. In northern (Progressive) Ohio the wait was up to 7 hours.
Our voting system is corrupt and electronic voting by Diebold is a giant step in the wrong direction.
I recall hearing that Stalin said something to the effect that it's not the people who vote who make the decisions, but rather it's the people who count the votes.
They were both perfectly dismal candidates.
I think my top item would be voter fraud in Ohio and Florida in 2000. That election was clearly stolen from Gore...but it shouldn't have been anywhere near that close if Gore hadn't been such an ass. Your No. 2 says it all. Gore's approach to the debates was NOT to treat them as debates, but to treat them as campaign speech opportunities. Now that is perfectly sound strategy, but if it is obvious to the listener that he is doing that, it turns them off. Bush obviously knew the same thing, but he got better advice...or had better judgment. (God, I can't believe I am saying that!) Gore should have flattened him in the debates and the rest of the campaign would have been just going through the motions. Instead, he came across as a pompous, posturing know-it-all, and it was all Bush needed. He just needed to be close on election night. His goons took care of the rest.
(besides, God wanted him to be president, and you all know this!!!!!!!)
Don, do you mean to say George Bush Sr and Bob Dole were not worthy of God's nod, and that's why God chose Clinton?
God knew there would be few hardships during Clinton's terms, so he put in j**k off... and boy did he get his money's worth ;)
Can you keep on topic long enough to give us ten reasons why George Bush Jr was elected president? Something we can interpret as thoughtful?
If you're looking for other reasons, you should have considered in your list the fact that Gore lost his own state. That was significant.
Another reason is that he was very good at running a campaign.
We elected a serious man and Ohio stole the election for the clown prince.
Just like 2000.
mommy.
Too corrupt even for Ohio.
After what he did for numb nuts , he didn't even get a cushy federal job.
Oh wait he is African American and we all know how the idiot in chief feels about them. (see New Orleans)
Sour grapes, eh DonnySBoy?
Don S, it seems like you and Don H have a history of swapping insults.
Trudie, hard work and self-reliance are indeed good things. To what extent would you say George Bush embodies these virtues?
I don't know enough about how Bush's campaign was run to give you any factual info -- rather, he and Karl Rove have a well deserved reputation for running very strong campaigns. Bush grew up in a political family, so I don't doubt it.
Don S is an ass.... he never adds anything to the conversation short of insulting me.
"hard work and self-reliance...what extent would you say George Bush embodies these virtues"
To start, he did not choose to be born in a rich family. Obviously he had many advantages, but if you look at his history and put away your bias, George W. Bush was a good kid... he graduated from Harvard and Yale and served as a pilot in the National Guard. Any parent would be proud of those achievements. As an adult he help his father run political campaigns, and went on to win two terms as gov of Texas and two terms as President. Any of you care to put your resume up against that? I doubt it. You know, he could have easily been a Billy Carter or Roger Clinton....
He was NOT elected!
This will never happen, though, because the small states gain a disproportionate representation through the Electoral College.
There is a move afoot to sidestep it, though. Several states have signed a pact wherein they will commit all their Electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally. California and New York have already signed on, and once a simple majority of the Electoral votes are committed to this, it doesn't matter what the rest of the states do. It will be interesting to watch how this turns out.
LINK
Randall and Bert: I've been petitioning to get rid of the electoral college since I was in high school!
Don H.: I'll go toe to toe with Bush on any issue. I may not have had the money or influence to get into an ivy league school, but I am definitely WAY more intelligent than he is!
Trudie: Those big companies make their headquarters out of the country to avoid paying taxes. They also are buying up the media and providing non-news to us to placate us to their fancies. I would be more than willing to "share the fruits of my labor" with my employees. What you give them they can spend on your product and other American products. What goes around, comes around. Basic economic foundations. You're also proving my point that the name calling usually begins with the "conservative" Bushies.
Ron H.: Interesting points, well put, with little animosity. Too bad I can't say that about some of the comments!
As Governor of Texas... As "businessman" ... etc. ....
As Governor of Texas... He kept Rich folks happy and the Economy Going and Growing: by Letting the Foxes into the Henhouses... By being about "image" rather than substance... By being at the Right Place at the Right time in History...
I'm not sure most Folks know that The Governor Post in Texas is one of the Weakest in the Nation (It Generally is a 'Lead by Personality and Connections' Rather than Constitutional Powers/Authority type of State... Amazingly reflective of Bushes Style of Leadership in the Presidency and lack of Respect for the Federal Type of Leadership found in his Presidency) ... His team pulled emotional strings and slurs in Beating a truly Intelligent Governor and Courageous Leader in Then Governor Ann Richards...
The Same Cast of Characters involved in the Texas years appear in Washington now along with a cast from the Nixon years who instead of being happy to be looking at that era in Hindsight and as history with an opportunity for Lessons Learned for the Nation see it as opportunity lost for those in power and unfortunate that things went down the way they did... Hoping for a chance to try it again... and reshape the outcome (another recurring theme we see today... Wanting a 'Do over' for things gone wrong for them.)
But is that getting too deep into 'Ancient History' to be included in the Conscience of Americans wondering how we Ended up in this Sorry leadership Situation???
How many people actually watched the debates? and really wondered who the fellow was???
I think you are right on in your list and the other comments adding to your list...
I think it really came right down to not knowing Who He really was or how he got there... along with having a supporting cast doing their best to distract people from finding out and drawing their attention elsewhere
But Ultimately, the voting public, the electorate, and the media failed in not wanting to find out enough and being skeptical and curious... (but the system had been growing in that direction for some time to begin with so Chicken or Egg... We, this Nation, are in a Sad Pickle now...)
You said it, so it must be true.
Number of Children: 3
Income: $15,001-$25,000
Companies I've Worked For: Taco Bell, Clare-Gladwin Rural Educational School District, Wally-World (Wal-Mart), and a small law office, of Victor Borowsky, Esq.
And you want to go toe to toe with someone who flew jets, was twice elected as Governor and twice as President? Where do you get your pants with balls that big?
Very Sad...
Don't try to label me because I am a fiscal conservative and there is nothing conservative about this administration.
2. Al Gore was perceived as a Clinton puppet. The people just had enough.
3. Good point -- and GWB failed on this one.
4. That was not an issue for the vast majority of voters.
5. Now we can add Joe Lieberman to the list of Gore's excuses.
6. People were disgusted with Clinton, ot only because he had sex with an intern ...
- he had several affairs before (and at least one during) his presidency
- he would have destroyed Lewinsky as a lying whore if she hadn't save the dress for which she was so ridiculed.
- he and his wife got rich while others got poor in a real estate scam.
7. Yes, GWB knows how to talk to the people, not at or over them.
8. If this comment is supposed to mean that Jeb helped seal GWB's victory, it's off base. It didn't matter what happened along the way because the Supreme Court was the final hurdle, which sat in Bush's favor. By the way, he won Florida and it's time to stop whining about it.
9. Not THAT the stock market went down, but WHY it went down. Paper tigers of corporations and "dot coms" with no foundation saw their stocks inflate like a balloon until reality sat in like a pin.
10. Possibly true, but most of us believed he would use his father for this type of resource.
Nice try.
I may believe in a women's right to choose and gay rights but I also think the income must meet the expenditure.
BTW he was AWOL during his 'national guard' time.
Really? Didn't Dan Rather leave CBS in shame because he reported that bogus story? Was he ever charged with being AWOL? I'm sure he was honorably discharged... are you here to tell me otherwise?
"Bush conservative?"
The debt was there before he came to office. The deficit spending was under Bush, but factor in the following Clinton hand-off: dot.com bubble burst, market crashed, Enron/WorldCom corp scandals, 911.... then two wars, four hurricanes in Florida, then katrina.... compare all issues Bush has had to deal to ANY PRESIDENT in your lifetime. You people need to wake up to reality.
Yes he was. It wouldn't have even went to the court if Al Gore hadn't made a mockery of the process.
Get over it fatso!
There are enough psychos who actually believe God put GW in the White House, like Rudy "drag queen" G.
If anyone else said God told them to kill, they would wind up in a rubber room.
He simply doesn't entertain stupid questions.
"George Bush also said that God told him to invade Iraq"
More absurdity from the looney left. This was flattly denied by the Whitehouse Press Sec. I've read what he was supposed to have said and it doesn't sound like Bush at all, and the fact that he says he never said it... good enough for me.
But that was pretty funny. I hope you can keep laughing if through this kind of arrogance and superiority you go from a sure Democratic sweep to another Republican in the White House.
There are misunderstandings and stereotypes on both sides of the aisle. Democrats think Republicans would come around if they just had more information, and yet a great many Republicans are highly educated and none of it will change their views because - as you point out - they are not inherently stupid. Similarly, Democrats are branded immoral, even if opposition to war is a matter of moral conscience. What is branded "bleeding heart" also goes by the name "caring", and it springs from *love*, another thing in our world that is too often sneered at.
I have another element that feeds into what you would call Democrat-itis. Democrats are very demanding of their candidates. If the candidate doesn't match the person's exact idea of what they should be, that Democratic voter will be merciless in criticism and stay away from the polls. The Republicans (as a more cohesive group) are much more pragmatic. Their candidate does not have to be perfect by any means. I travel in both circles, and Republicans are much more "tolerant", even if they may not wish to acknowledge that tendency.
I think there's enough condescension out there to sully both sides of this discussion. I don't think a person can think critically without falling at least a bit into that trap.
And, Don H., regarding Bush being AWOL for 1971 - 1972. Well then, if he doesn't have anything to hide, why not just come out and TELL the American people where he was. All I know is that his Daddy pulled many strings to get him into the National Guard at a time when my uncles and cousins were being drafted and sent to Vietnam. During 1971 - 1972, my cousin had a nervous breakdown after watching his 2 comrades get shot (one on either side of him) and killed. My cousin got through without a scratch and he couldn't bear the guilt. Now, 36 years later, he is still a mess while Bush (who was unaccounted for during that time) is finishing his 2nd term as President.
Again, I say, if there is nothing to hide, then come out and TELL THE TRUTH. Oops! Forgot that I was talking about Bush - he doesn't tell the truth.
*rant off*
> What is branded "bleeding heart" also goes by the name
> "caring", and it springs from *love*, another thing in our
> world that is too often sneered at.
It is also true that "appropriate" business decisions which
help hundreds of millions of people are called cold and
heartless and the people sometimes benefit are called
greedy when they are performing a service to the country
or the community.
And sometimes both are right ... bleeding hearts can sometimes
make very grave mistakes by being too sensitive or not smart
in their actions.
That is why at least in my opinion it is more productive to
concentrate on specifics than to ridicule all of some group
based on the illogical actions of a few of them.
http://www.awolbush.com/
Ron, you are much too generous in characterizing the blind party loyalty of Republicans...particularly in Congress...as "pragmatic."
As I recall the Lord of the Admiralty in Pirates of Penzance described Congressional Republicans pretty well:
Republicans have been very successful in politics for a long time because of this "pragmatism." Democrats, on the other hand, tend to be more fractious and argumentative. I guess they actually think before they vote. What dummies!
2. Because Ralph Nader was running thrid party. Too many people decided that their one vote wouldn't make a difference in their state so they wanted to "send a message" by voting for a third party. Truth is that in the state of Texas if every registered Democrat had voted Democrat Gore would have taken the state.
3. Because during his father's time inside the belt, he was acting as a liason with the religous right. This is one of the big ways he ousted a wonderful governor and became President.
4. Because Carville did not run Gore's campaign.
5. Because Rove took control and limited his public appearances and knew the importance of not letting him talk off the cuff.
6. Because Jeb was governor.
7. Because Renquist was Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.
8. Because ballots were misaligned and confusing.
9 . Because he sits aside letting other "interest groups" smear his opponent, including John McCain (a real hero) while being able to say I didn't have anything to do with that.
10. Because he talks the talk but does not walk the walk. I.e. Tough on Crime my hind quarters! Try tough on the poor. As of 1999 - still governor - he had done drugs, he had had a drinking problem and had been caught Driving Under the Influence, but yet he "learned from his mistakes". Guess when you have money and family connnections that is acceptable. As opposed to a lady who was found in possession of less than a 10th of a gram of cocain, who had no other record whatsoever and was given 99 years. Or take into account that he changed the rules of how someone who cannot afford their own lawyer will be appointed one.....of course in Texas they have 20 days to do so, other states max out at 72 hours. Or if you have an incompetent counsel who refuses to enter into evidence that you were in another county in jail at the time of the murder, or your counsel falls asleep during the trial itself, well that doesn't warrant a new hearing???
11. People actually thought of him as a self made Texas business man!?!?!?!?!? He wasn't born in Texas. He didn't spend many formative years in Texas. Oh he did join the Texas National Guard. Wait he did get accepted to a select unit of the Guard that was full of sons of famous and powerful men. A unit that there was no way in hades was going to be sent to Vietnam. And he did get accepted in a matter of a few days into a program with the minimal score allowed, where as men who aced the tests were having to wait on average of 18 months. Here is a kicker. He was their poster boy for not using drugs! So there is his Texas connection I guess. Well then he started several businesses, that failed miserably. Oh and then he was asked to investigate what would happen to the average stock holder if this one company folded, and he sold his stock for a big ole profit, then the company went belly up. Oh and it seems there is this little rule that when you are at a certain level in a company and sell of a larg chunk of it's stock you are supposed to file a report with the SEC, and well they didn't get it. He said they must of lost it and then filed way late. They still never found that first report. Even opened an investigation on him. It wasn't settled, or even closed. Just ceased.
12. Uninformed voters. The same people who believed that McCain was a racist, believed the Swift Boat campaigns. The same people who felt that he was one of them and that that would make a good president. Probably the same people who think an affair is worse to the country than violation of their own civil rights.
13. Voter Apathy.
14. His daddy!
15. Big bidness (that would be Texan for business) I mean what oilman wouldn't vote for W. As governor, when it came to light that over 800 oil refineries had never taken steps to come up to code with some regulations (passed in the early 70's - they had been grandfathered to give them a few years to find the most cost effective way to do so...the idea being about 4 years they should have been done) and told them to draw up their own plan rather than let the state legislature do it, they did and it was completely voluntary. In 1999 only three had done anything about it. Texas had the worst air and water pollution. He had done away with the closest thing Texas had to an EPA. He said the air was cleaner than it was when he took office...a clear lie.
Here is the BIGGEST wonder of all.
On the night of the 2000 election when it was looking as if he was going to win but just before Florida came into question...he did not realize a camera was still rolling and he said it himself....."The economy is good, we are at peace, I shouldn't have won."
16. He had a cousin at Fox who wouldn't let them call Florida for Gore. The other stations had but cousin stepped in and then everything went downhill from there for many years to come.
And the NUMBER ONE reason why he remains the President. FEAR.
Not fear of his political opponent. But fear mongering on his behalf. "Dont change horses midstream" If your horse is bucking wildly, going down in that stream and if you stay with it death awaits you might want to consider getting off that horse.
They made people very afraid. Some people were told if they voted for Kerry it was a sin. What like 11 states suddenly had same sex marriage proposals on their ballots. You know this brought out a LOT of people who otherwise would not vote and they voted straight Republican tickets.
They made people afraid that only they knew where the terrorists were and how to deal with them.
They actually used the question "Do you feel safer since 9/11?" and people fell for that. Look at the question! I felt much safer on 9-10-2001 than I have since then!
As for not being able to be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative it is too possible! Most people don't fit into such little boxes. Most people can comprehend this. Most people are intelligent enough to handle life, yet this administration doesn't think ...........................so. I meant to add so to the end of that.
As for comparing what this administration has had to contend with versus any other administration..in my lifetime....Well there was Vietnam, Watergate, energy crisis, cold war, Iran Hostage crisis, AIDS, Explosion of the Space Shuttle, Shut down of the Government by a Republican controlled Congress, Iran Contra, and on and on. But why limit it to my lifetime? History isn't made in only my lifetime.
Well Lincoln had to deal witha CIVIL WAR. Had the Confederacy won this, theirs, our country would have most likely crumbled all together.
Let's see FDR came in during THE GREAT DEPRESSION, and still had to deal with World War II
So yeah I would say he hasn't had it easy, it isn't supposed to be easy. But he hasn't had it the hardest either, by a long shot. And let's also look at how he handled those crisis, economy crashes and he says they have created jobs....truth the "jobs created" paid a tiny fraction of what people had been making, if they were lucky enough to get them. 9-11 he told us to go shopping, and has since used it to monger up fear, violate rights, justify torture, ruin careers of people who had served our government for decades in order to get the US in Iraq, Katrina well heckuvajob Bushie, and the list goes on.
The question:
1) is it wiser to focus on getting your party's candidate in office on the assumption that anyone from your party would have to be better than the alternative, or
2) hold the fire to the feet of all your party's candidates, at the risk of helping the other party make them look bad
. . . this is a pretty good example of why it's so hard to tell which side of an issue is actually correct. For me, both sides of that proposition seem very easy to support or pan. I could go either way, and today my example is this: Al Gore's running mate was too conservative for some of his constituents, and so they stayed away from the poles and they got Dick Cheney. Kerry had poor public speaking skills, and so they continue to have to listen to George Bush. Barak Obama says things we don't like to hear, and so if we don't have a Democratic president in office, they'll get to listen to _____. My favorite I've heard a lot, and that is that the speaker doesn't vote because the Democrats are "losers". Maybe Democrats are doing due diligence in selecting their presidential candidate, but a lot of it sounds to me like they're holding out for heaven when the candidate is only offering them America.
1) My feeling is that Gore hurt himself by trying to distance himself from Clinton. They had a very successful administation. I won't get into why I believe that, only that for me it's obvious. There was nothing to apologize for - nothing work-realted anyway.
2) I completely forgot Nader and no one else mentioned that - can you believed it? I've heard opinions that Nader actually energized the disaffected voters to a degree that actually offset any votes he took away from Gore. I'm not sure I buy that, but it's an interesting theory.
3) Bush did suck up to the faithful, and I believe a great many of them are feeling burned. We're not talking though about how they feel now, but rather did they accept the idea that Bush is a person with morals. They did.
4, 5, 7 I have nothing to add.
6 and 8 - I do believe the way voting was set up in Florida was meant to enhance the chances of the Republican candidate, for example all of those elderly Jews who inadvertently voted for that fringe right-winger guy (I forget his name); the ballot was pretty clearly designed to heighten the opportutity for that mistake to happen.
9) Agreed. I think both sides speak through shadow groups, but the whole Swift Boat Veterans for Truth thing disgusted me. Kerry went to war and Bush did not, so this means Kerry is a coward. How they sold that to the American people I just do not understand.
10-12 - no comment.
13) Yes, the more people stay away from the polls, the better it is for the Republican candidate, because they have the more loyal core constituency.
14 on - no comment.
That has to be one of the silliest comments I have ever read. There are a LOT of people int his country who believe that the current administration is hell-bent on bankrupting the nation, and think that programs that help the poor and disadvantaged are also desirable. So, speak for yourself, Don H. Call us the "looney left" but in fact I think our numbers are growing...and yours are not.
Number one reason the Bushies won -- they had a better propaganda machine and a greater tendency to do "push polls," etc.
Speaking of Nader, I know a whole lot of 'folks' who voted "green" [in the local elections] and deliberately voted for Nader -- to send a message. We see how that worked but, if you stop to think about it, how many people these days believe [especially in light of the most recent election] that there really is a bipartisan fairy who has our best interests at heart?
Maybe a new plan. One president to handle health care. One for housing. One for education. One for the militray. One for the economy. Once for foreing relations, etc. Yeah I know we have cabinet members for that. But what if instead of one "man behind the curtain" appointing people they could each get elected individually. Each year they would have to write a budget and proposal for said budget to be approved by congress. With a certain amount being an automatic gimme to ensure that certain things are maintained. Extras for improvement would have to be approved and stuck to except for emergent matters.
I still want a job with this admin. Seriously I am underqualified and just as bound to screw up as the rest of them and I really want a Medal of Freedom, they are so shiney!
> Bush won Florida in 2000 by 537 votes.
I'd have to differ with you on that.
There was an original count that was found to have problems.
There were attempts to have a bipartisan recount.
Bush had that stopped in the supreme court even though elections are state's issues and it is not the SC jurisdiction.
Florida went on with the count.
James Baker and Republican big shots stormed the precincts and using violence stopped the count.
There were several sources of inaccuracy.
One was the ballot was designed screwy, backed up by even Patrick Buchannon who said he knows that the votes in South Florida for him were meant for Gore.
The other was the failure of the chads to detach.
The other was some people did not follow instructions and did things like write the names down on the ballot - Florida law says voter intent if it can be determined must be taken into account.
This was a very fine tuned effort that was halted by a 5-4 margin in the SC, 2 justices of which had conflicts of interests because of relatives promised jobs in a Bush administration and should have recused themselves.
The whole thing stunk to high heaven.
The 2004 election was probably bad too when you look at the pathological problems with voting machines that all seemed to malfunction in favor of Bush, and then looking at the exit polls wrong for the first time ever ... somehow exit polls are not unrelated to voter outcome.
I too feel the electoral college is wrong. It's nice for small states to have a say, but it's unjust for the majority to be told their candidate did not win. There has to be a better way to safeguard the rights of smaller states.
Gore may have called it quits at the right time. The rancor was incredible, and who knows how far into spring it could have gone before the shooting started. His country didn't need that, and I believe that's why he didn't keep going. Not that our country needs what's going on now, but at least we can maybe learn from our experiences. I believe we can learn, and that we will. I still have that conservative faith in America, if not our leaders.
I especially remember that there would no nation building in a GWB presidency. That is probably the most serious broken promise. We are indebted to China (of all countries) because of the nation building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pitiful!
> Gore may have called it quits at the right time. The rancor
> was incredible, and who knows how far into spring it could
> have gone before the shooting started.
That sad statement is ripe with implications ... most of
which I might agree with.
On the other hand though, the counting of the ballots
and their classification was not too far from being
done and Gore would have been the winner in FL and
looking back I think it is safe to say it is not the no
brainer that many thought it was that Gore would not
have handled 911 correctly, at least with respect to
pursuing the right threat.
One of the implication of what you say Ron is that the
choice in America is not one of Democracy versus Fascism
like I am getting so tired of hearing repeated so often,
but more of a brand of isolationist uncontrolled democracy
that igores our history for the last 50-100 years and what
is happening in the world, and a continuation of that
loose Republican democracy, which while not perfect is in
fact what we are and has been more successful that any
other country or system.
Bruce,
I have heard everything from 9/11 would not have happened if Gore had been president to what you said about his not handling it correctly, at least with respect to pursuing the right threat.
1 - I think what if's maybe be creative but not productive in this case. I dont know that it would or would not have happened. I do think a Gore Administration would have continued the weekly briefings that Clinton had on this very topic. I do think it would have had more attention paid to the threat. I do not know if it would have happened as it did or not and none of us will ever know.
2 - I dont know how he would have handled it. And for that matter neither does anyone else or how it would have turned out. When we went into Afghanistan I felt it was right. Everything after that was a clustered mess up IMO. I dont think Al Gore would have told Americans to go out and shop.
Biden was on NPR last week and he said that if Bush or any sitting president had gone on the air on 9-12 and told everyone I know it is tough but I am introducing two bills. One is to utilize the military and go after these terrorists. The other is not going to be easy but if enacted will reduce our dependency on foreign oil and take our money out of countries that support and allow these terrorists to exist in their borders. He said and I agree that it would have been right, wise and even though people would not be happy with the new energy bill I think the president could have gotten the majority of the people behind him on it. That would have been real leadership. I miss good leadership!
And I must not be very patriotic because I did not go to the mall and shop. Do I get my free trip to Cuba yet?
One reason I do not think that we have had any plans to reduce dependence on foreign oil is because no one knows how to do it. There is lots of talk, and looking in one dimension sometimes it seems like a good idea. Go nuclear, go biomass, hydrogen, solar, combination ... it is not at all clear how that affects the economic stability of the US and the world, particularly until the threat gets almost too hot to handle .. then we will make a move in desperation.
Apparently the conversation just sails over most people's head who have to vote on it, and I just feel like we will make a huge mistake if we run an energy policy by feel-good popularity vote ... who has the snazziest or cleverest bumper sticker.
I mentioned Gore because the common wisdom was gladness that Bush, the strong militaristic level-headed Republican was handling the war, and it turns out that again as usual the common wisdom of the people was probably not right. This was brought up earlier - these stereotypes seem to be stronger than people's ability to reason. That scares me a lot.
Deborah, even with all the things we can't really know, I think that's a very safe statement. Kudos.
He probably wouldn't have instituted a tax break for businesses to buy Hummers either : )
Bruce, I just don't know if the mob situation in Florida would have permited the count to continue. It was very much a Machiavellian situation, and I don't think riots or bombings would have been too unreasonable for people who were hellbent on getting what they want at any cost. I'm still concerned about the institution of marshall law in order to prevent whatever might come to light if a Democratic president starts looking around him in 2009.
My bumper sticker says, "Machiavelli was not a founding father", at least not in the civics classes I took.
I think you're going down the wrong track on this one:
"One reason I do not think that we have had any plans to reduce dependence on foreign oil is because no one knows how to do it."
I don't thinks it's a matter of "nobody knowing how to do it" ... I think Biden was quite right (and quite sharp and prescient) in saying what he did on NPR as Deborah Relayed (a President having said on Sept 12th: "The other [legislation] is not going to be easy but if enacted will reduce our dependency on...")... Especially if we Note and Highlight the part about: "I think the president could have gotten the majority of the people behind him on it [reducing dependence on foreign oil] ...
Regardless of "knowing exactly How to Do It" ... the desire to go in that direction was there and a good leader with a spine and inclination could have taken that Opportunity...
Who Knew Exactly how to establish a new government in the Colonies circ. 1770's??? but the Desire was there and the folks got together and did it...
The Point is... That the desire and opportunity was there...
In Fact... George Bush (and his administration) was Exactly the Wrong President at that time go in that direction. It would be difficult for any President to face down the industries (powers) that be on that issue... The Bush Administration did not even consider it... They saw it as an Opportunity to go in a completely different Direction... That is: set up more direct control and connections directly to the source of Oil in an Industry Lucrative Sort of way. (Iraq has been a Gleam in the Eyes of Energy dealers and Planners since WWI and WWII). It seems that the pounding sounds of the Heart of their Desires Drowned out Good Sense and their ability or inclination to Realistically think the whole thing through... and really think about what might happen...
No... I truly don't think that the Opportunity that Biden was speaking of was disregarded because "no one really knows how to do it..." The opportunity Biden was Talking about was in direct opposition to the Desires of the Administration AT THAT TIME...
The Thing that "no one really knows how to do..." (or have the desire or ability to tackle) is how to deal with the Industries Involved.... But even given that difficulty of any President to act ... The Bush Administration was an One that had no Interest in considering it...
been doing a lot to mitigate possible deleterious effects of our dependence
on foreign oil. This has to be an incremental long term process, throwing
short term money money at alternative energy sources or subsidizing
sources does not work in the long term. (I don't think you are suggesting
this either) That's what I mean about no one knowing how to do this, that
is to make money on a large scale providing alternative energy that
people will buy.
I also do not disagree with you that the current administration is oil-
centric, no matter what they say or how many photo-ops the have
where they drive around a hydrogen car they just are and it has had
a negative effect.
The industries involved have a life of their own ... you know, corporations
have a personhood of their own ... maybe we all created a monster.
Here is my speculation, and it is that if we can either get Iraq online, or
if we can get Iraq online and get the main concessions for Iraqi oil there
are many things that work out and many problems that go away.
First, oil flows in sufficient amount to break the back of OPEC, that is
prices will fall to a reasonable point ... much cheaper than moving into
alternative energies just for the sake of it - on an economic basis.
Since we are in Iraq, it means we have a method to defend the flow
of oil, another thing that will add more security to the supply, and
take away risk from consumers - prices fall a little more.
We use up old weapons, that is we get value from them, we build newer
updated weapons, we get value from that, we get an experienced
military more value, sadly at a price.
These are what I think the war in Iraq is probably about, not to mention
a battle on the war on terror removing Saddam Hussein.
I am sure I'll get hammered for this one, but it makes logical sense to
me. Not saying it is what I would have done if I was President, just
trying to make sense of what is going on.
Lol, a special trip to Cuba [for shopping] with a special body guard, AND, you get a free one night stay at GITMO where you can get your freedom medal shined up, for free by discreet, but service oriented, in-house staff.
It won't happen if there isn't an effort to Start. Initial Investments and Activity builds the basis on which Long Term Growth and Stability is Set. I don't see your economic assessment as sound or really making sense. (I'm not sure what assumption you were or were not making about what I was suggesting...)
The Point again is Awareness of Need and taking Opportunities to act. It won't happen if It doesn't get Started.
Ron, sorry to get off track on the Oil Dependence and Iraq thing but I think that Big Oil and Industry are a big reason that the Fellow and his Administration got elected.
Bruce, I don't think there is a need for any hammering going on, I'd just say that you are very far off from getting a cigar on any of those comments. I really don't see much accuracy or worth in any them and see no basis in reality.
They look like more "after-the-fact fanciful story telling about what Iraq is about" to me.... Like Terrorist fighting or Democracy Spreading...
Also, there is some very exciting things going on in technology. Bacteria that are more efficient than solar panels, or new solar panels that are more efficient. New forms of batteries or capacitors makes it very difficult for anyone to decide to invest and take the risk. who wants to lose everything, and having the government subsiidze it is not the answer either.
Since we do not know about Iraq, since Bush and his group is not talking but they have had remarkable support, and continue to have all I can do is to say what it looks like to me. I also don't smoke cigars.
You (bruce k.) said: "...throwing
short term money money at alternative energy sources or subsidizing
sources does not work in the long term. (I don't think you are suggesting
this either) ... "
I was asking you what you thought or didn't think I was suggesting there... I hadn't realized that I had really implied to suggest anything either way... The Point I had made was that Bush jr. missed the opportunity (by lack of courage or by inclination or both) to get things started in the 'weening from foreign oil' direction And... I said that things won't Get anywhere until They get Started (a journey of 1000 steps begins with One... and all that...).
(Again, I'm not interested at this point in actually resolving that question I posed to you about what it was I was supposed to have or not have been suggesting anymore... I'm merely clarifying that I never indicated that "I did not see the relevance to the economy" ...)
Best of Luck there...
DJE
> The Point I had made was that Bush jr. missed the opportunity
> (by lack of courage or by inclination or both) to get things
> started in the 'weening from foreign oil' direction
Things have started and stopped lots of times, and it is not
necessarily by government fiat that we can adopt a new
energy infrastructure. Bush and his group feel, and most
economists, that trying to do this by fiat is not a useful
exercise.
To me your ideas did indicate unconcern for the economics
of the problem.
I think the biggest reason that we as a country have not done more to reduce our depependency on foreign oil is LOBBYIST. I think that on one hand the idea behind a lobbyist is that they get a chance to get their message and point across to as many politicians as possible. On the other hand there is way too much corruption involved. This is the same reason that Clinton's health care reform couldn't pass. LOBBYIST! They are the ones who get into the politicians ears. They are professional one sidednessers ( I dont think that is actually a word). For instance if BIG OIL pulled out their lobbyists and invested into scientific research how to produce alternative energy themselves then alternative energy would already be much more readily available and used than it it now and they (BIG OIL) would be pulling it in from multiple sides. I truly believe that if people would quit fighting this issue that everyone could benefit. Maybe not 10 billion a quarter but....cant they deal with 9 billion a quarter?
Let's look at another economical aspect. Let's say it would cost 2,000 to install solar panels on a house. Now these solar panels could not only provide enough energy for the house but are known to actually create a surplus that can inturn be sold back to the electric company. Now there are also tax breaks for doing this. Now let's also pretend that instead of a "bridge to nowhere" that the government comes up with some grant money...let's low ball it at 2 million. That is 1000 houses. Now if each of those house is able to forego selling back energy for actual cash but in turn sells back to the grant then let's say it takes 2 years to pay back the grant which in turn funds another 1000 houses. Well at this point you have twice as many houses doing this. Then it only take one year to refi the grant. Then another 1000 houses and in 8 months it is refunded again. You see where this is going? Now in order not to mess up the economy let's say Big Oil get's involved and they put their developers on the research of finding the best way to develop and produce these panels.
So then let's see (and yes I am being very idealistic but the world needs idealists) big oil or whomever can produce these panels, creates jobs, gets some tax break, gets good PR, and pulls in some profit. The individuals benefit by lowering/eleminating their electric bills. The utility companies could still benefit by developing the system that hook these up to their own grid and maintaining them. The environment benefits by more people using a clean energy system. Shoot even the sun would get good PR which with premature aging, freckling, sunburns, and skin cancer that sun wants some good PR!
Bruce - it scares me to that people dont look at the big picture too, and other than keeping myself informed, discussing it when need be and voting I dont know what to do. When I first started voting (don't ask) you read the newspapers, and listened to reports and speeches and did your best to make an informed decision. But I dont know what to do with the two polar opposites. One side wants to sling mud most of which is not true, and I swear they are adding shrapnel to that mud these days. The other side wants to, for lack of a better description, go through life asleep.
Missy = Glad you appreciated my references! Sometimes when all else fails you laugh. BTW the contract to replace the Hummers ( I hate that name for a vehicle) we all know where the contract goes say it with me ...............HALIBURTON
David - As always I appreciate your passion, your insight, your knowledge, your education and your humanity!
In the words of Alton Brown (Food Network - Good Eats) Give Peas a Chance
I find that entirely disingenuous. I find that to be ideologically self serving and far from reality of the current system. I find your understanding lacking in how you see action taken in the economy affecting the future. You are free to feel that way of course... but you have not basis for it and it does not reflect the current reality nor future possibility... As I said... It is Ideologically self serving...It sounds good as far as the certain 'image' is concerned... But it is not what is going on nor is it the boogy monster you cast it as...
You make quite a stretch as well 'reading' my concern or lack of concern for the economy... a bit out of left field on that...
That 'detector' is pinging again... ;)
So again...best of luck there.... ;)
DJE