From: 0005359961@mcimail.com (Van Tran)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese
Subject: [POL] George Bush, let's look at...
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:41:25 GMT
Reply-To: 0005359961@mcimail.com
Organization: SCV Relay
Originator: daemon@media-lab.media.mit.edu


     What are the three major accomplishments of the Bush
presidency? George Bush's own answers to David Foster, who asked
the question, are: education, environment, and anti-crime.
     Bush the anti-crime president? He gotta be kidding! A
statistics released this week shows that felony crimes have
increased since Bush took office in 1988. Rape, murder, and drug
related offenses all grow in double digit figures. 
     The environmental president? Bush forgot that it was he who
embarrassed America by failing to take the lead in the Earth Summit
earlier this summer! He failed to protect the America's wetland by
allowing logging activities in the protected areas, only to
withdraw his proposal after strong public protests.
     And education? What has he done for American kids? Yes, they
are in the first place, but from the bottom up, in the industrial
world! And what about all the run-down colleges and universities?
They stay, if not decline, at where they were years ago.
     No wonder why Bush does not have a vision for America. And no
wonder why he and his companies love to point out to the glorious
past of Ronald Reagan and to past flaws of his opponent. But what
is it?
     During the 60's, as a congressman from Texas, Bush opposed the
civil rights law. Of course, time has changed, the issue is no
longer relevant. Besides, Bush had transformed himself and been in
the mainstream of America's politics. But the point is, if a
mistake made by an established official thirty years ago doesn't
truly reflect the man today, how could it be that something a
college kid did in years past is still a part of his character at
the moment? And assume that if one is to judge the other guy
through his college activities, what about Bush's role in Iran-
contra affair. Was he "out of the loop" as he claimed he was or, as
former secretaries Shultz and Weinberger indicated, he was in it?
So, let's forget this thorny issue and look at others.
     The deregulation of industry, particularly of the airline,
have weakened, not strengthened, the competition. In some cases, it
has been a fatal mistake for both consumers and employees. Remember
Eastern Airline? And Pan Am? As a result, airline is very much a
monopolistic industry in America, especially true in the hub
cities. Who chaired the task force to study the deregulation?
George Bush, of course.
     Then there's a thing called S&L. Go ask Continental Savings
depositors! Billions and billions dollars have been wasted in order
to bail out those collapsed institutions. And all the crooks and
criminals are still out there, alive and rich. Who chaired the S&L
deregulation task force? George Bush, of course.
     No wonder why Bush and his companies erected a thing called
"traditional family value." What is it? Nobody knows for sure, but
it might very well be a code word.
     Remember the '88 campaign? Then, it was an ad, now become very
infamous, known as the Willie Horton ad. Bush, in retrospect, had
no vision to run on. It's why he used Willie Horton as a bait in
his campaign: vote for me, I'll be tough on criminals; vote for the
other guy he'll let 'em run loose. And "them", in his ad, were
black Americans!
     Then, if one has to synthesize the '88 campaign, Pat
Buchanan's key-note speech at the Republican convention, and Dan
Quayle's traditional family value, one must see the motive in it
all: In the grand scheme, or vision, of the Bush presidency the
picture contains nothing but white. Yes, the good old days were
those that dads working, moms staying home, no violent crimes, and
no colored peoples anywhere in the scene! It's scary, isn't it?
     Don't believe it? Here is the truth: for almost four years
Bush did appoint only two blacks to the bench, including the most
familiar name, Clarence Thomas. The majority of his appointed
judges are white, conservative, and rich. Together with Reagan's
appointees, they occupied about 75% of the federal bench. While
conservative, white, and rich are no sins in and of itself, his
appointees have consistently refused to take in racial
discrimination, sex discrimination, and sexual harassment cases.
They have often sided with big business and government. And don't
forget, EEOC, the enforcer of equal opportunity, has failed to
investigate over 40% of discrimination complaints filed by
employees. Go ask Dr. An Nguyen, a Vietnamese scientist at the
University of Georgia, about his feeling of being fired without any
reason!
     Back to the real world and the 1990's. Need not to say, Bush's
handling of the economy is very terrible. He has denied the R-word
for so long that one must have wondered in which world he lives in.
He blames it on everyone, except for his administration, from the
cyclic nature of capitalism to Saddam Hussein to the gridlock
congress. So, he asks the American people to replace another
congress so that he could work with. Yes, it's true that Congress
doesn't do well in public opinion, but this time is not unique
either. In deed, "divided we govern" is the norm, not the
exception, of American politics. Moreover, a leader's job is to
lead, not to be led. Nixon had to work with the other party's
congress, and he did just fine in his presidency up to the
Watergate affair. FDR did the same. So, why not Bush?
     Bush and his companies love to point out his success in
foreign policy. But look at what have happened. During the final
months of the evil empire, ignoring the call for a new policy move,
he still counted on Gorbachev, believing that M. Gorbachev would be
able to hold the Soviet Union together. Although things turned out
fine for Yelsin, Bush's judgement must be called into question. And
Tiananmen. What has he done for China's democracy? Naught! He still
counts on personal acquaintances of the Beijing's old guards. He
has granted MFN to China, not once but thrice, sent secret envoys
to Beijing. In short, it is safe to reiterate that although Bush
has tremendous experience in foreign affairs, experience alone
won't do the job. Or speaking differently, intelligent is not how
much one knows, it is how well one does when he/she doesn't know.
Bush failed this test.
     Lack of judgement can not be a good leader.
     Lack of compassion can not be a good leader.
     Lack of leadership can not be a good leader.
     Bush could not and will not be able to lead the congress. Bush
failed to recognize the danger of AIDS, the paint of being jobless,
the desperation of poverty. Bush couldn't formulate a sound post-
cold war foreign policy; instead, counting on personal diplomacy at
the expenses of historic developments in recent years. Bush is not
a good leader!
     It's time for him go fishing permanently and for good!