I want George Bush out of the White House. I think his "conservative" administration has been anything but fiscally conservative, and I'm sick of George Bush dodging responsibility for his actions.

A lot of Americans agree. Like John Eisenhower—Ike's son, who broke a 50-year GOP tradition to endorse John Kerry this year. We want a better steward of our economy and someone who cares for how America is viewed on a national stage. It's time to put a responsible leader in the White House.

Where do we start with W's bad decisions? I start with him trading Sammy Sosa—he'd made mistakes before that, but, as a life-long Texas Rangers fan, that was the first one that I found personally offensive.

Since then, however, the mistakes have been costlier and costlier.

As governor, Bush's most callous moments were the maximum of 15 minutes he would devote to every death penalty case he reviewed (compared to 60 minutes in the gym daily). I think that clemency review is a responsibility that most governors of strong personal faith take more seriously. Your power over the life of another person—even a violent criminal—shouldn't be something so easily laughed at, as Bush did when he mocked Karla Faye Tucker in an interview. That shows a lack of character.

But, you know, a jury had sentenced her. It just wasn't his responsibility.

We all know that Bush's campaigns in Texas and in 2000 were closely tied to corporate hacks like Ken Lay and that Bush did little to keep an eye on them. Thousands of people—Bush's constituents—were affected by that scandal and others in Texas, and yet he's done very little if anything to really address those issues. And let's not talk about pollution in Texas, again thanks in part to big oil and energy companies like Enron.

Business oversight? Not Bush's responsibility. They "self regulate." Bush winks.

I think the moment that stands head-and-shoulders above the others for me, however, isn't a moment at all. It's the seven utterly inexplicable minutes that Bush sat in that classroom in Florida after the second tower of the World Trade Center was hit by terrorists. I don't understand why he didn't leap up, excuse himself graciously and get to a phone or car or plane or television camera to start doing his job.

Why did he just sit there? Did Bush think it wasn't his responsibility to lead?

We've learned that the Bush administration had planned for the Iraq war since its earliest Cabinet meetings, and that soon after 9-11 it was decided that Iraq would be front and center in the "war on terror." Yes, it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is out of power, but the Bush administration clearly failed to plan for the long term.

Knight-Ridder reported last week that war planners met at Shaw Air Force Base days before the war started in 2003 to discuss their plan for invading Iraq. Toward the end of the presentation by a lieutenant colonel, who was briefing leaders on the post-war strategy, the slide he used to discuss the post-war plan had all of three words: "To be provided."

"A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order...," the article said.

Bush's response? Not his responsibility—he met with "the generals," and they didn't ask for more troops, he says.

But the reports are all in—no WMD, poor planning and bad logistical support. And "the generals" did ask for more troops.

The buck's gotta stop somewhere. But Bush can't seem to think of anything he's done wrong this term, except appoint some people to his administration who ended up disagreeing with him.

In The New York Times Magazine this past week the idea was encapsulated this way—the Bush administration is not a "reality-based" organization; it's a "faith-based" one. That doesn't refer to religious faith, but rather that it's a completely ideological administration that doesn't process evidence well. On the issues:

• Ideologically, cutting taxes helps the economy. But in reality, there is much more a president should do for the economy such as reining in the deficit during wartime, closing corporate tax loopholes that encourage jobs outsourcing and promoting programs that help small businesses to hire.

And, no, Mr. Bush, No Child Left Behind is not a "jobs program."

• Ideologically, cutting taxes for the investor class could spur growth. Realistically, Bush messed up when he opted to cut taxes largely on wealth, not income, which would have better spurred consumer spending. Consumer spending encourages quicker response from markets—including new jobs—than does more money in the hands of investors trading blue-chip stocks.

• Ideologically, testing schools and threatening them with closure should make them better. But when you don't provide the funding for those tests—putting the burden on states that already can't afford materials and salaries that are supposed to be used to teach those children—then, realistically, you are leaving children behind.

• Ideologically, you can rely on federal funding for "faith-based" organizations to fill the poverty gap in America. Realistically, you need to raise the minimum wage, help people gain trade skills, make child care and health care more affordable so that those who work hard can leave poverty behind.

John Kerry has shown his presidential timber during the campaign, particularly in the face of a withering negative attacks mounted by an administration that knows its record is too weak to run on.

I believe Kerry is, realistically, our best chance to solve the problems that Bush and his administration have created for the American people and the world. I know he'll better represent the interests of all Americans both domestically and abroad.

It's time for realism and responsibility in the White House. Whether I live in a swing state or not, my vote will count.

I'm voting for John Kerry for president.

Editor's note: The second paragraph of this story in the print edition mentions David Eisenhower, rather than John Eisenshower, which is correct. This error happened in editing. We apologize.

Previous Comments

ID

69425

Comment

I don't know who wrote this article, but they were obviously pretty ignorant (aka liberal). If you had any sense at all you would have investigated the FACTS instead of just going off of what you see in the New York Times or on tv or some other media source. Do some investigation beforehand and see what the facts are so you don't look like an idiot. For example here's a FACT...John Kerry and George Bush looked at the exact same intelligence report and they both came to the SAME conclusion that based on the report aggression in Iraq was necessary, and also based on that report weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. In hindsight your case against the war in Iraq looks like a slam dunk, but lets go back to this intelligence report which BOTH candidates agreed contained enough evidence to justify aggression in Iraq. We have since learned that Iraq was housing terrorists and all along this war has been raged against terrorists. So where's the problem? I also want to address what you describe as the worst moment in Bush's Presidency. Those seven minutes that he sat in that classroom showed astounding calmness and composure that I have never seen anyone else exhibit. George Bush could have panicked and made a spur of the moment decision, but instead he took a moment to get over the initial shock of it all and made a wise decision.

Author

Lane

Date

2004-10-21T11:03:40-06:00

ID

69426

Comment

I don't know who wrote this article, but they were obviously pretty ignorant (aka liberal). If you had any sense at all Lane, you apparently are new to the JFP site. Ad hominem attacks violate our user agreement, so please refrain from such personal insults if you want to continue posting here. You are welcome to state your opinion or facts you believe might dispute points made here, but you are not welcome to call other people "ignorant." This site is about civil discussion.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-21T11:14:10-06:00

ID

69427

Comment

There wasn't room in the Pub Note to include this quote, but I think it's important for anyone who wants to say that John Kerry has "flip-flopped" on the issue of the war. During the Democratic Primary, I also bought into the notion that he changed his position. But I've since come to realize that he's been pretty consistent on the issue -- considerably moreso than Bush. Read what Kerry said on October 9, 2002, the day he voted for the Iraq resolution: "As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means "America speaks with one voice.'' Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs." That's the same criticism Kerry has of Bush today. The honest observer will note that it's Bush who has changed his justification for the war; Kerry's position has been consistent. He doesn't always articulate it well (see this Slate story which discusses some of that) but he's a helluva lot better at it than Bush, and he has the advantage of not having to live down the blunders that Bush has made throughout. The truth is, Kerry had the foresight to see where this thing could go and clearly would have handled it differently. It's another reason he gets my vote.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2004-10-21T11:30:02-06:00

ID

69428

Comment

"The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters" from PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland argues that the Bush administration is promoting a culture of ignorance. Salon reports: [i">Analyzing data from a series of nationwide polls, the report finds that a majority of Bush supporters believe things about the world that are objectively untrue, while the majority of Kerry supporters dwell in the reality-based community. For example, Bush backers largely think that the president and his policies are popular internationally. Seventy-five percent believe that Iraq was providing "substantial" aid to al-Qaida, and 63 percent say clear evidence of this has been found. That, of course, would be news even to Donald Rumsfeld, who earlier this month told the Council On Foreign Relations, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two." Though its language is dispassionate, the report lays responsibility for this epidemic of ignorance at the White House's door. "So why are Bush supporters clinging so tightly to these beliefs in the face of repeated disconfirmations?" it asks. "Apparently one key reason is that they continue to hear the Bush administration confirming these beliefs." Indeed, it says, "an overwhelming 82% [of Bush supporters] perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or a major WMD program (19%). Only 16% of Bush supporters perceive the administration as saying that Iraq had some limited activities, but not an active program (15%) or had nothing (1%). The pattern on al Qaeda is similar. Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters think the Bush administration is currently saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (56%) or even that it was directly involved in 9/11 (19%). Further, 55% of Bush supporters say it is their impression the Bush administration is currently saying the US has found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda (not saying clear evidence found: 37%)." Full report here

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-21T14:24:44-06:00

ID

69429

Comment

More from the report itself: This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves. Among Kerry supporters, 74% assume that the majority of the world is opposed. Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred. A recent poll by GlobeScan and PIPA of 35 of the major countries around the world found that in 30, a majority or plurality favored Kerry, while in just 3 Bush was favored. On average, Kerry was preferred more than two to one. Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues. "The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-21T14:29:17-06:00

ID

69430

Comment

This report leaves me, as they say, bumsquizzled. It explains alot about why people are voting for Bush - it's because they don't really know what he does and what he believes in.

Author

kate

Date

2004-10-21T17:54:26-06:00

ID

69431

Comment

So much of that is a result of the GOP's attack on the so-called liberal media -- i.e. any media that reports anything that doesn't fit the corporate Republican agenda. It can't be true if they don't want it to be. But, oh, it is. Oops.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-21T17:56:53-06:00

ID

69432

Comment

Lane, your perception of the 7 minutes is a bit different from mine: Those seven minutes that he sat in that classroom showed astounding calmness and composure that I have never seen anyone else exhibit. George Bush could have panicked and made a spur of the moment decision, but instead he took a moment to get over the initial shock of it all and made a wise decision. The plane that crashed in PA took off 20 minutes after the first plane crashed into the WTC. I really wish Bush had "panicked", assumed the worst, and grounded all flights. Or, at least *tried.* Gathered info, maybe? Done something. Reading to school children is not a leadership move, in my book.

Author

kate

Date

2004-10-21T17:57:13-06:00

ID

69433

Comment

"The 100 Facts and 1 Opinion": The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration PDF form for hand-outs

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-22T13:14:58-06:00

ID

69434

Comment

Soul-searching from former Bush supporter Andrew Sullivan: "Conservatives profess to care deeply about the outcome in Iraq, but they sat silently for the last year as the situation there steadily deteriorated. Then they participated in a shameful effort to refocus the country's attention on what John Kerry did on the rivers of Vietnam 30 years ago, not on what George Bush and his team are doing on the rivers of Babylon today, where some 140,000 American lives are on the line. Is this what it means to be a conservative today? Had conservatives spoken up loudly a year ago and said what both of Mr. Bush's senior Iraq envoys, Jay Garner and Paul Bremer, have now said (and what many of us who believed in the importance of Iraq were saying) - that we never had enough troops to control Iraq's borders, keep the terrorists out, prevent looting and establish authority - the president might have changed course. Instead, they served as a Greek chorus, applauding Mr. Bush's missteps and mocking anyone who challenged them. Conservatives have failed their own test of patriotism. In the end, it has been more important for them to defeat liberals than to get Iraq right. Had Democrats been running this war with the incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld & Friends, conservatives would have demanded their heads a year ago - and gotten them." - Tom Friedman, telling it like it is. I'm guilty as well. I was so intent on winning this war and so keen to see the administration succeed against our enemy that I gave them too many benefits of the doubt. Well, I have tried to reassess. I may be proven wrong. I hope I am. But ignoring reality in a situation as vital as this is not an option.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-22T13:47:44-06:00

ID

69435

Comment

What I found most interesting about this editorial is that in--how many words?--Todd spends four (maybe five) sentences on why Kerry is the better candidate, and those sentences couched in the kind of weasel-words better suited for bumper-stickers and banners. We could start with the Sosa bit. I don't know if that's a joke, or not. Sosa spent the early part of his career bouncing in and out of the minor leagues for years. He was not performing with the Rangers. And he's done the Cubs so much good, hasn't he? I'm not even a baseball fan, and I know that much. Sure, he was good publicity, but the Cubs still haven't won the Big Prize, have they? (As long as you're counting, the White Sox also traded Sosa away, and closer to the time of his maturation as a big-hitter. If trading Sosa was so detrimental to the Rangers, then it follows that the Sox should have been the beneficiary of this mistake. But, no, Sosa was still under-performing in Chicago.) This was a huge stretch, and if it was a joke, it's not very funny. More interesting is the comparisons between Bush and Kerry made in the editorial. A good, informative editorial would compare Bush's decisions with Kerry's decisions, but that doesn't work well. Where Kerry doesn't agree with Bush (such as the decision to go to war with Iraq), he's fantastically mistaken, from voting for intelligence cuts after the World Trade Center to voting against the first Gulf War to opposing everything Ronald Reagen ever said, did, or insinuated. Or, another option would be to point to Kerry's 20 year Senate record as evidence. Except there's a problem with that as well. Where Kerry's record isn't anorexically slim--since he didn't show up for a lot of his committee meetings--it's astonishingly liberal, which is the kiss of death for a politician in America. The "third way" is to say, again and again, that Kerry will "do it better"; a gratuitous assertion that is founded on vapor and backed by a barrage of hand-waving. Realistically, to use Todd's word, John Kerry wouldn't be elected to City Water Inspector; you'd be afraid that he wouldn't show up to work half the time, and the other half of the time he'd be too busy saving the snail darter than checking for heavy metals before they get into your kid's Kool-Aid. The key word that Todd uses is "abroad". There's the Kerry selling point--foreigners love him. Or so the claim goes. I haven't noticed it myself. France has already said that they're not going to do bupkis in Iraq; Putin has said that Bush understands terrorism better; and the Australians voted John Howard back into office to the amazement of Leftists worldwide. Let's not forget that as Americans, our primary concern is not whether the cool kids like us--well, anybody over the age (physical and mental) of 14, anyway--but whether we're doing the right things to make America safe. You'll notice that nobody's flown another plane into a New York City skyscraper, even though we've been assured that the Bush Wars have been the greatest recruiting tool for Al Queda since Osama started offering Eternal Virgin bennies.

Author

rho

Date

2004-10-26T15:06:44-06:00

ID

69436

Comment

"Or, another option would be to point to Kerry's 20 year Senate record as evidence. Except there's a problem with that as well. Where Kerry's record isn't anorexically slim--since he didn't show up for a lot of his committee meetings--it's astonishingly liberal, which is the kiss of death for a politician in America." What's wrong with being liberal? RHO, have you bothered to look up the definition for the word you are using as an insult? Princeton defines it as "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties." Liberty and liberal are tied by the Latin word liber which translates to free. Calling Kerry a liberal might work for a few village idiots that aren't sure of the definition but I'd rather a person be liberal any day over the other options that exist. "The "third way" is to say, again and again, that Kerry will "do it better"; a gratuitous assertion that is founded on vapor and backed by a barrage of hand-waving. Realistically, to use Todd's word, John Kerry wouldn't be elected to City Water Inspector; you'd be afraid that he wouldn't show up to work half the time, and the other half of the time he'd be too busy saving the snail darter than checking for heavy metals before they get into your kid's Kool-Aid." Bad point here... Do I need to remind you where Bush has spent much of his presidency? Crawford comes to mind as being the White House at the moment. "You'll notice that nobody's flown another plane into a New York City skyscraper, even though we've been assured that the Bush Wars have been the greatest recruiting tool for Al Queda since Osama started offering Eternal Virgin bennies." Do you think this is because of Bush? How many other planes were flown into skyscrapers before? NONE. That's not a good argument and is pulled straight from the exact vapor you're complaining about above... You have no scientific data (only assumptions) to back why no further terrorist attacks have been made now or before/after 9/11. Moot argument. I will say that Anthrax mailings have not been mentioned once in recent memory... We had someone internally terrorizing us after 9/11 and no one is bringing this up. No one has been caught? No new leads... Shhhh! Don't remind anyone that there's still a terrorist in our ranks. Are we safer? Hell, no! Will we be with either Bush or Kerry? I don't think either can make a difference in what a handful of crazies want to do... If the CIA, FBI, and other law-enforcement groups couldn't do it before, I doubt they can now. Besides all that, I don't want Bush's puppet masters selecting ANYONE for Supreme Court... That's why he won't get my vote. The other issues are non-issues since the president has little to do with any of it from my vantage point.

Author

kaust

Date

2004-10-26T16:00:05-06:00

ID

69437

Comment

I think it's funny how it's supposed to be a bad thing that there's so much negative to say about Bush. I can be for Kerry AND against Bush, all at the same time. I'd be much happier if Kerry were SO INCREDIBLY AWESOME and Bush SO NOT INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS that we could spend more time on a positive campaign. But, that's not the case. Also, by arguing that Bush is a worse candidate, it infers that Kerry is the 'better candidate.' In case that's not clear. And, rho, if you want a discussion of the issues, well, you might want to look at the issues articles the JFP has been running. And the politicsblog. Not look to an editorial that's clearly about Bush as idealogue.

Author

kate

Date

2004-10-26T18:08:22-06:00