From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Giving Old George an Inch
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:46:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.


In article <osbt9j@twilight.wpd.sgi.com>,
coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
>Well, George is at it again. He tried to make a big deal
>in his speech about his lack of a line-item veto, claiming
>he needs it to fight the dastardly Democratic Congress. His
>constant carping on this subject is exceeded only by his
>endless whining about a capital gains tax cut. 

Which is exceeded only by the sheer effrontery of his pretending
to be Harry Truman.  In contrast to the famous sign on Truman's
desk, Bush has a note from his mother asking us to grant her son
plausible deniability.  To even compare the two men is ridiculous.
One knew that moral courage does not come free; whereas the other,
who would have us believe he is Gary Cooper, is actually no more
than a blustering opportunist.


>Unfortunately, this one's a lot more serious than simply
>cutting another tax on the rich. The line-item veto was
>specifically excluded by our Founding Fathers in order to
>establish and maintain a system of checks and balances between
>the President and Congress. With a line-item veto, Congress
>is powerless - the President simply gets everything he wants
>without ever having to give anything back. Without the line-
>item veto, there must be either compromise or stalemate between
>the two branches. Stalemate's not very good, but it beats the
>hell out af an imperial Presidency. If the Congress is to remain 
>a co-equal branch of government, the line-item veto must never 
>come to pass.

A few thoughts:

 1. Whenever the "Founding Fathers" are mentioned these days, I can
    barely suppress an unmanly giggle.  In four years as alleged
    President, old George has called for, supported, hinted at, and
    whined about not getting more constitutional amendments than any
    single "Liberal" politician I know.  If there is any meaning left
    in the word "Conservative," we shall certainly not discover it by
    pondering old George's views on the Constitution.

 2. You speak of a powerless Congress and an imperial Presidency
    as if they are bad things.  Which, of course, they are.  But by
    demonizing the institution of the Congress -- itself a treasonable
    act, by the way -- old George makes a powerless Congress sound like
    a Mighty Good Thing.  Until, of course, voters realize that the
    Congress, no matter *how* imperfect, is the only voice they've got.

 3. I will join with anyone in criticizing individual acts of
    individual Senators or Representatives.  When people start
    criticizing "Congress," however, I take it as a sign that
    they are happy with their own representation but do not wish
    to let other people be heard and compromises be struck.  None
    of which should surprise anyone in a me-first society, where
    "compromise" itself is so often a dirty word.

 4. You say stalemate is not very good.  I agree.  Bush's solution
    to stalemate is "Let me have my way because I'm President."
    The man is actually the little boy, the bully in the schoolyard.
    If he can't vaporize you with his bombs, if he can't bury you
    in the sand with his bulldozers, if he can't damn you to Hell
    with his genuflecting Security Council, if he can't send in the
    hapless Marines -- in short, if he cannot *force* you to do
    what he wants -- all he knows how to do instead is veto and whine.
    Just veto and whine.  Loudly.  Repeatedly.  Incoherently.

But to say that I am disgusted with George Herbert Walker Bush -- while
true -- is to miss the point.  I am even more disgusted that people still
call him President of the United States of America after he and his hired
guns have spent four years "leading" half the country in an undeclared
civil war against the other half.


>C'mon, you Liberal Media! Get on his ass about this!

It *may* happen.  Bush told a number of outright lies in his acceptance
speech.  To my pleasant surprise, I found people actually questioning
his imagined honesty on the network news/commentary segments.  Even the
Wall Street Journal practically called him a liar yesterday.

More generally, in the Washington Post last week, Marjorie Williams traces
old George's roller-coaster ride through the polls, and compares him
to the stereotypical dead-beat husband:

        At the altar George Bush told us, like Reagan before him,
        that he could give us everything we wanted: that we deserved
        to pay low taxes and get a constant flow of goodies from
        the government.  And we have shown, again and again, that
        we would rather marry that sweet lie than act on a true
        understanding of the situation.  [...]

        In reality, George Bush is the same old husband today
        that he was a year ago: He'd rather watch a ballgame
        than clean out the gutters; and he's fabulous at parties,
        but he's not much good with the kids.

Rightly, I think, Williams blames us (that means you and me, Don) for allowing
the bastard to present himself as anything but an uninspired and utterly
uninspiring failure.  If people in the mass media have suddenly found the
guts to expose George and his pretty lies, then there *may* still be hope.
As for me, I hope but I am not optimistic.


>And what in the world was he thinking about when he said, 
>"Heck, back then we didn't even have hair dryers!" ? Now,
>I assume it was a reference to Clinton, but talk about
>off the wall! Is *this* the guy who we really want to trust
>to answer the phone late at night during a crisis, as his
>ads ask us?

Old George may be President, but he has no idea why.  This is a man who
lusts after power purely for its own sake, who thinks that government's
most important function is to whine about government.  I don't want him
answering the telephone at a Ramada Inn, let alone in the White House.


>Sorry this is so serious a posting, but this is serious business...

I'm glad you put this line in, Don.  Now if anyone thinks my response is
humorless -- which it is -- they can blame you for getting me started.

In effect, a vote for George Bush is a vote against our form of government.
But because democracy offers no guarantees, the American people are free to
leave King George on his tax-paid throne.  Similarly, dissenters are free
to quietly pack their bags and leave.  One thing I know for sure: there will
be no drama, there will be no Revolution.  After twelve years of Republican
looting and pillaging, even we Bostonians don't have any more tea to throw
away in chase of a dream.


Dhanesh

Impeach the bastards.  Now.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2009 alt.politics.elections:10832 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2609