Remember Ronald Reagan’s, “Morning in America”? Ah, the good times. Now it seems we are living in the morning after, that uncomfortable moment when you roll over and look at the strange political fellow in bed with you and say to yourself what have I done?
That’s how I felt last night listening to Bush’s eighth rendition of the Neo-Con Job.
Obviously, the guy we got in bed with is no boy scout. He doesn’t know the rule about leaving things better than you found them. He doesn’t put life and limb above legacy. He doesn’t get democracy in which the views of about two thirds of the American people regarding the war in Iraq matter (Associated Press-Ipsos poll Sept. 10-12, 2007). He certainly doesn’t get or defend the constitution.
So what did we see in him? Yes, our vision was blurred from having drunk too much from the well of fear after 9/11, but ultimately, we have to take responsibility for our actions. It wasn’t “the drink” after all; it was our willingness to want to believe him when he said he would protect us, the political equivalent of “I love you”. Now we have awakened the morning after our six year long night only to find out he’d rather have an enduring relationship with Iraq! It’s an old story…
So now it’s the morning after and we’re left with our self-recriminations. We turn our sights to the next guy (or gal) who will make us feel whole again; one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Wow, that’s a lot of pressure! As we look to the candidates for’08, let’s hope we’ve learned our lessons because those rebound relationships can really spell trouble.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 7
Remember who the other choices were in 2000 and 2004?
It's not that Mr. Bush is the best President ever..............its just that the other choices were so awful. That's why we 'got into bed with him', as you put it.
I blame us, the Democratic party, for putting up such terrible opposition candidates.
I'm not sure anyone fit to be president wants to be one. I certainly don't think either party's nominating process produces candidates with the qualities I'm looking for in a leader. Just curious, do you think we'd be in Iraq if the opposition candidates had been elected?
Catherine S.
If Gore or Kerry were elected, I believe we'd have had 2 or 3 more 9/11-style attacks on our country. Both Gore and Kerry would have pushed the Left Wing FAR right to combat the evildoers. No one would be screaming "no blood for oil". We'd have already had at least one more impeachment though, maybe two.............for incompetence.
In addition, the economy would be in a shambles.
I've always said that we Democrats have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing Mr. Bush to be elected........twice! All we have to do is put up strong candidates. Maybe Dems should try a Conservative for once. He couldn't do worse than our last 2 clowns did.
You argue that if the Dems had won then we would have already faced another 9/11 style attack. I'm not sure how you figure that, but with the war in Iraq we are facing casualties far more extensive than 9/11 with almost 4,000 dead and over 25,000 wounded American soldiers. The terrorists don't need to attack America, because we have put our youths over in Iraq where they are so much more accessible and easier to attack.
I'm also not entirely sure how either opponent could have handled the economy any worse than Mr. Bush has done. We have gone from the biggest economic expansion that our country has ever seen with budget surpluses to racking up debt in unheard of amounts. Debt that our children will be paying for. I thought that at least Republicans were supposed to be financially prudent, but this guy spends our money like Paris Hilton spends daddy's.
I don't think that Kerry or Gore were particularly great candidates either, but I am certain that with either of them in place, things would at least be better than they are right now.