Sarah Palin’s abrupt decision to resign as Alaska’s governor—and her rambling explanation—underscore again how the Republican Party over the past dozen years has put up candidates for top national offices who are unqualified or ill-suited for those sensitive positions. Like Palin, George W. Bush was a charismatic underachiever who hadn’t accomplished much in life and showed little intellectual firepower but was… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (30)Page 1 of 1 pagesI don’t think Palin was ever a serious party candidate. Republicans knew they didn’t stand a chance and McCain-Palin was a filler team with the idea of gathering a few PC points adding a woman to the ticket.
The John McCain who defied the torturers in Viet Nam and who was so outspoken in the previous campaign was AWOL this time around.
His claims the economy wasn’t so bad, we will retrain people were repeated in the same manner as all of Bush’s cookie cuttter remarks.
The Democrats have caused more pain by holding fast to the bank protection Paulson set up and Obama now owns the economy and coming disasterous depression along with the Neocons.
This country remains in control of Goldman Sachs where it has been beginning with Greenspan and then Paulson, Rubin and a whole long list of GS grads,
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 7, 2009 at 8:08 PM Excellent article. It captures the psychology of the current Republican party masters to a tee. I am still amazed at how so many of our fellow citizens are enraptured by the likes of empty hulls such as Palin, Bush, Sanford, Mc Connell, Boehner, King, etc, etc.ad nauseum through the Senate. Not to mention the blowhards on cable, talk radio, and unfortunately, primetime news channels. It can only be a reflection of our intelligence as a nation. We have become so dumbed down nationally that it will take a huge transformation to ever get back to our prior self as a nation built on intellegent debate and fact-based decision making. The extreme right still has a strangle-hold on our timid Democratic politicians, and unfortunately, the so-called Bluedogs are the weak link in getting anything of substance accomplished. Instead we will be forced to settle for legislative medicracy and the country will continue to decline. The the GOP will kick into high gear again and point to all the “failures” of the democrats and gain the high office once again. New Zealand is looking better and better…
Posted by bootsrey on Jul 8, 2009 at 12:33 AM 9.5% Unemployment and shooting up like a rocket. More debt, printed money, and taxes than in the history of the world. A collapsing foreign policy of appeasement with a Sec of State who is apparently locked in a closet somewhere?. Yet Mr. Parry has nothing for us, but more Gov Palin attacks? She’s the resigning Gov of one of the least populated states in the Union. Who cares? What is this Palin obsession on the left? Its just too weird! And Al Gore, John Kerry and Joe Biden were eminently qualified? If they were so great why did they lose to a bunch of lightweights? And what were Obama’s qualifications? He can read a nifty speech from a teleprompter and he demonstrated good organizational skill during the campaign? You may hate George Bush, and I agree he couldn’t hold a candle to Obama when it came to reading from a Teleprompter, cut he did at least as well as Mr. “That’s above my pay grade” Obama answering questions without a Teleprompter, and he didn’t whip Al Gore and John Kerry because he had bad organizational skills. Oh yes…..the brilliant and experienced Al Gore and John Kerry lost because the American people were too stupid to realize they were being completely fooled by a man/party that is to irrational and stupid to tie their own shoes? More liberal logic at work! Democrats are in complete control of the Goverrment. Under the circumstances beating up on the poor hapless Republicans is really a waste of time isn’t it? 9.5% unemployment and still shooting up like a rocket! More debt, printed money, and taxes than in the history of the world! The question we should really be asking is: Have Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid become a clear and present danger to the security of the United States and to the future of the American Republic?
Posted by valwayne on Jul 8, 2009 at 7:49 PM “You’re going to see Obama increase those taxes on small businesses — whether he admits it today or not, he’s going to. One thing reporters aren’t asking the Administration is — it’s such a simple question and people around here in the real world, outside of Washington, D.C., want reporters to ask — President Obama, how are you going to pay for this $1 [trillion] or $2 [trillion] or $3 trillion health-care plan? How are you going to pay off the stimulus package, those borrowed dollars? How are you going to pay for so many things that you are proposing and you are implementing? “
-Sarah PalinYes, clearly Republicans like Ms. Palin are “A Threat To The Republic”.
Fortunately, we have Barack Obama to raise everyone’s taxes to the sky and run up trillions of dollars of deficits for our grandchildren to pay, while the Fed buys Treasury bonds with funny money to create hyperinflation after a couple of years.
Robert Parry is certainly a genius ... by Liberal standards of course.
Posted by Freedom Fan on Jul 8, 2009 at 8:31 PM Republicans: A Threat to the Republic?
Since a republic is “a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them” and Obama wants to nationalize every act of commerce and descisionmaking, I would say that the Republicians are the last ones anyone should worry about in terms of maintaining the “Republic”.
Posted by Betsy Jacoby on Jul 8, 2009 at 9:06 PM Good thing if they are. Obama and the liberal fascists have converted our republic into a totalitarian marxist state. As such, our political system and our government are no longer legitimate. With the confirmation of racist Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will no longer have legitimate authority over Americans. Revolution is the only way to restore the Constitution and liberty. The liberal fascists will be given their strongholds in the coastal urban areas, and Free Americans will establish a new nation, conceived in liberty, in the remaining 95% of the land area of the US. Free America will not be bound by the debts created by the liberal fascist regime of the dictator Obama.
Posted by doctorfixit on Jul 8, 2009 at 10:00 PM If the right wing responses to this article are an indication of the base of the Republican Party then you have proven your point Mr. Parry.
I commend your attention to what has become a real and scary issue in politics. I am comforted only by the current trend which shows the respondents above make up approximately 25-30% of the voting population.
Posted by lefterthanever on Jul 8, 2009 at 10:47 PM This is just more of the same misdirection rhetoric of the left.
“Not George Bush” expanded to “not Sarah Palin” and “not republicans” as a political strategy has run out of gas.
Democrats are in charge across the board. Mr. Parry should be addressing Obama’s various deficit ballooning spending proposals, and justifying the printing of train loads of money which we do not have to pay for these proposals, while assuring us that inflation and much higher taxes for all working Americans isn’t what we face in the near future.
Tax cuts for 95% of tax payers, doubling the cost of energy with Cap and Trade, and free health care and college for all comers - DOES NOT ADD UP.
How about some straight talk and honesty from the democrats who are now in charge.
Posted by Parker1227 on Jul 8, 2009 at 11:07 PM This article seems to be written for a teen age girl magazine. In Minnesota we have elected DFLers crying because they want to spend like California Democrats….....We have a pornographer elected to the US Senate in a very dubious election….....Perhaps it’s acceptable for a Democratic pornographer to be a US Senator because we’ve a had a Democratic sexual predator for a President….....Perhaps Mr Parry could write about the daily Joe Biden Gaffe or the millions made by Al Gore in his fight against global warming….....or John Kerry’s war stories…...or Barack Obama’s gifts to and protection of cronies…...or John Murtha’s kickbacks…...or Charlie Rangels various ethical issues…..whatever.
Posted by mnlaker on Jul 9, 2009 at 1:32 AM “Bush took the presidency for two terms—in two dubious elections—with disastrous consequences for the nation.”
You have to admire the hutzpah of the left. 2000 may have been dubious but where do you get “dubious” for 2004? Bush has a clear lead in both the popular vote and electoral college. Once again journalism based on “feelings” rather than facts!
Give me a break!
Posted by Jezter54 on Jul 9, 2009 at 1:52 AM Perry is the perfect example of why the REAL danger to the safetey and security of the USA is the DEMOCRAT Party and liberals who have taken that party over like a disease.
Miranda rigths for terrorists, 10% unemployment, govt run healthcare, FASCISM run rampant in Dc, Illegal use of “Czars” , the Cap And Tax plan to combat the fraud that they call Global Warming (Climate change) and the outrageous backing down from the Strategic Defense Intiative and total lack of support for free peoples in Iran and North Korea ALL leads us to see that this is the CARTER PART 2 administration.
When was the last time a liberal ever got up inthe morning and LOVED this country instead of hating it and thinking of ways to destroy it?
Hussein Obama has no clue, and people are starting to see that the Emperor has no clothes.
Who will they blame in 2010 when they get blasted at the polls??? Bush???
Let them try.Palin has played this perfectly, and will be be around for a long time to harrass and taunt the liberals….as they wonder why she just won’t go away.
She scares the HELL out of the liberals since she represents REAL America, not the Blue State loons who elected Bambo to the White House.
Now, back to the coming war with Iran
Posted by Mat Toenniessen on Jul 9, 2009 at 2:00 AM Talking points on debt:
It took 204 years for these United States of America to build up a $1 trillion debt (and that includes two World Wars!). In just 12 years of Reagan-Bush-o-nomics, it QUADRUPLED! That means, when Bush Senior left office, the Debt was $4 TRILLION! Clinton struggled to get that massive Debt under control and finally built up three years of SURPLUSSES! (which Bush, Cheney & Tom Delay quickly squandered on tax cuts for their rich friends). When Bush Junior left office, the DEBT was around $11 TRILLION! That means George W Bush heaped $5 TRILLION more onto the DEBT.
So, of the $11 TRILLION in DEBT since the founding of the nation, $8 TRILLION came to us courtesy of the Reagan-Bush-Bush administrations.
Isn’t it curious that the Neo-Cons and their acolytes of “Heritage Foundation” and “AEI” said nothing of value - absolutely nothing - when this mind boggling DEBT was being accumulated, but hyperventilate on cable TV now that we’re forced to spend a couple trillion more to clean up the mess they all made of the economy? One might be tempted to call their media show “The Hysterical Heritage of Hyperventilating Hypocrisy!”, or one might try to help them understand where they went wrong.
Let’s simplify this for them so even a 12 year old boy can grasp it. Say your 12 year old son pilfers the keys to the family car in Florida and goes on a joy ride with his friends through the countryside. He stomps on the debt accelerator, takes his hands off the regulatory wheel, and laughs to his friends Tom, Dick and Eric that this magnificent car is so good it doesn’t need regulation.
And he’s right - for eight long minutes.
When the car ends up in a huge “U” shaped ditch, the boy’s taxpaying parents call on Obama’s Garage to pull the car out and fix it. But the boy and his friends complain that the mechanics aren’t working fast enough, and it’s too expensive, and they should fix the paint job before straightening the frame so it won’t look so bad. “Never mind fixing the regulatory wheel,” they say, “It don’t need none!”
If you were one of their voting parents, and you had a wood shed, how would you help these boys understand what they’ve done?
Can history help guide us through a financial crisis that’s been 25 years in the making? Only if we learn from it.Gary AndrewS, author of “No Gods Before Me”
Posted by Gary Andrews on Jul 9, 2009 at 2:02 AM The point of the article is confirmed by the postings from members of the right. The small minority of voters who have taken over the Republican party have are in many ways responsible for the trouble the country is in currently. Beginning with the Reagan years when taxes were cut and spending ballooned, right on through the Bush (1&2) years, with only eight years of fiscally conservative spending practices during the Clinton Presidency.
The current right wing conservatives have completely forgotten about the huge increases in deficit spending during the Reagan and Bush (1&2) years. I would suspect the reason for the short term memory lapse is due to the fact that those deficits were created in order to pay for tax cuts for the top 2% of all US Taxpayers, during an ill conceived war no less.
Essentially it is the apparent short sightedness and feeble memory of the right wing of the country, the sliver of voters who call themselves “cultural warriors”, that has decided to put forward for high office the unfortunately simple minded half wits who have done such a delightful job of destroying what was once a wonderful country of “team players”.
At some point the country needs for the “culture warriors” to call a truce and get back to understanding that we are all on the same team, we are Americans.
Posted by lefterthanever on Jul 9, 2009 at 2:03 AM Andrews and Leftloon——
Nice try….you are ignoring the fact that Obama has spent more in the last 6 months than all previous 43 Presidents COMBINED!
THAT is the debt level you have given us.
Reagan won the cold war with his debt and Bush had 911 and a war to deal with.
What;‘s Obama’s excuse??? He has a crisis?
One he created out of thin air.If he had ever held a real job he would know that the economy fixes itself if left alone and prodded with TAX CUTS/...not Govt spending.
But since NO ONE in this pathetic administration has a clue about the real world thye will keep making the same mistakes Carter and all liberals do and tax and spend….and then wonder where the inflatiion came from.
The window has CLOSED on you loons and the American people are seeing you for who you really are.
When you cap and TAX plan and National healthcare fail….remember this post…..I will be laughing at you all.
Posted by Mat Toenniessen on Jul 9, 2009 at 2:08 AM Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –5.The number who strongly disapprove inched up another point to the highest level measured to date and the overall Approval Index is at the lowest level yet for Obama .
Posted by Mat Toenniessen on Jul 9, 2009 at 2:12 AM The whole premise of your article falls apart with a simple substitution:
John Edwards’ adultery—and his duplicitous excuse-making—underscore again how the Democratic Party over the past dozen years has put up candidates for top national offices who are unqualified or ill-suited for those sensitive positions.
Joe Biden’s gaffe about Israel being given a green light to attack Iran underscores again how the Democratic Party over the past dozen years has put up candidates for top national offices who are unqualified or ill-suited for those sensitive positions.
Barack Obama’s short, undistinguished senatorial career—and the way party members have swooned over him personally despite the lack of specific policy proposals—underscore again how the Democratic Party over the past dozen years has put up candidates for top national offices who are unqualified or ill-suited for those sensitive positions.
Of course, if you want experience at the top, the most qualified veep in a century was Dick Cheney…
Posted by Mgmax on Jul 9, 2009 at 4:38 AM Everything the author says about the Republicans is true, but, unfortunately, everything he says could have been said about the Democrats for the last 4 ot 5 decades. The kiddies are running the school, now, because politics, as it exists, puts off serious thinkers and serious people.
If you want to talk about denial of empirical evidence just look at New York Times coverage of human genetic differences in things such as intelligence, health and personality. Now we have two anti-science parties. Great!
Posted by Asher on Jul 9, 2009 at 5:50 AM There are so many faulty and simplistic statements in this article that it’s hard to figure out where to begin my response. I’ll start with the title, “Republicans, A Threat to the Republic?” I cannot underscore enough how scary it is that someone can even contemplate the point that the party in the extreme minority, the ONLY opposition to this administration, the only check on its power, can be contemplated as a threat to the Republic. That mentality is despotic and astonishing, especially coming from someone who was undoubtedly decrying the Bush Administration for being too authoritarian.
Say what you will about George W. Bush and his policies, but he accomplished his primary objective in keeping the American people safe from a terror attack after 9/11 and bringing the fight to the terrorists. Say what you will about our motivations for going into Iraq, but we now have a democracy there rather than a brutal, unstable tyrant, and the seeds of democracy are spreading throughout the region. He won election, and was re-elected by a comfortable margin in 2004. He is no lightweight, and history will be the judge of his presidency. Attacking Reagan as a lightweight, out of touch with reality, was much more popular when he was alive than it is now. While the left derided Reagan and feared a nuclear war, it was precisely those policies that brought the USSR to its knees. Reagan inherited an economy in shambles and by the end of his term, he had laid the groundwork for 20 years of prosperity. He is already remembered, and will always be considered as one of the greatest presidents in American history.
One thing that we agree on is that deficits are bad, but the deficits are created not by tax cuts, which have consistently spurred the economy forward, but on reckless spending policies. The argument for lowering taxes is that it will lead to economic growth, and ultimately more tax revenue. The Bush “tax cuts for the rich” led to growth and increased revenue for the government. From 2001-2006 tax revenues collected from the top 1% rose from $301B to $408B and the share of total tax payments paid by the top 10% went from 64.89% to 70.79%. Revenues did not fall off, spending just exceeded it.So, clearly the remedy to deficits is to increase government spending using a flawed Keynesian model, right? Obama’s response was to propose a budget which had a deficit higher than the combined deficits of all of the previous budgets in US history. That seems sane. He also wants to create massive new entitlements which will inevitably lead to health care rationing, as well as an experimental cap and trade system that puts environmental theory ahead of needs of struggling American companies. The intellectual response to Bush’s foreign policy that has kept us safe has been to run around apologizing to other countries, to offer to negotiate with a government in Iran while it is repressing its citizens after a sham election and to support the ousted President of Honduras who tried to trample over that country’s Constitution. I guess we can expect more of this enlightened leadership, especially when we demagogue the opposition by calling them a threat to the republic. Come on.
Posted by SMEngmann on Jul 9, 2009 at 6:04 AM I am very, very rarely impressed but that last comment was something special. Heh, the party in the superminority is an extreme threat. On the other hand, the Republican Party has, historically, been the party of adults, and now that the children have taken over there too we have two parties of yay-hoos.
I suppose the demise of adulthood in the adult party could be construed as a threat to the republic.
Posted by Asher on Jul 9, 2009 at 6:09 AM I agree that Republicans are a threat to the Republic. Their timidity in the face of a concerted effort by Democrats to overthow our republic and all it stands for is dispicable.
If and when the Republicans muster the moral stamina to hold Obama, Ried, Pelosi, etc., accountable for high treason and see to it that they are safely stashed in prison (or Guantanamo Bay, preferably—somewhere safely off the continent), then I’ll feel a lot better about entrusting the reins of government to them once again.
Posted by jmbreland on Jul 9, 2009 at 11:28 AM SMEngmann makes an excellent point—the article is predicated on the idea that George W. Bush was an underqualified and incompetent president, yet he proved entirely competent at what he saw as his objectives—begin the process of remaking the middle east by democratizing Iraq and removing one of the most troublesome strongmen, and make conservatism more palatable by making it as spendthrift as liberalism. Now, you can take issue with either one of those things as goals, and obviously In These Times strongly opposes the former while pretending the latter didn’t happen and “compassionate conservatism” was cruel and miserly, but to suggest that he was hapless at achieving them simply flies in the face of facts. If the opposite side’s policies can readily be defined as incompetence merely because they’re not your policies, then Democrats are a threat to democracy.
Posted by Mgmax on Jul 9, 2009 at 12:22 PM Mgmax ,jmbreland, Asher and SMEngman all of you individuals are in some odd or unrecognized state of denial….I believe the true clinical term would be ostentatious cripple…As individuals you are so hung up on this amerikanizationalism that it cripples you in any attempt to truthfully understanding what is really going down…You impose your fears about the truth of who you and your so-called leader george bush is; a war mongering,murdering thief ; onto others who have done nothing of the sort…Please in the name of your own sanity , GET HELP !!!
Posted by blackhorse on Sep 22, 2009 at 8:14 PM Hey blackhorse, I don’t really know what “amerikanizationalism” means, but your comment is borderline incoherent and if you’re trying to make an argument, it’s very shallow. What is “really going down?” I bet you’re one of those loons who actually believes 9/11 was an inside job, and if that’s the case then it is oddly poetic that you say that I’m in a state of denial.
Let’s restate the facts: America was attacked on 9/11, and George W. Bush made it the prime directive of his presidency to prevent another attack on US soil. Agree or disagree with his policies, he achieved that objective. In Iraq, Bush’s policy was to pursue regime change in Iraq and replace a brutal tyrant with a democracy. He succeeded. Calling President Bush a warmonger and a murderer is very misguided, especially considering he took a stand against one of the most brutal dictators in the 20th century and did more than any other American president in history to combat AIDS in Africa. Calling him a thief is unfounded.
The main premise of the article was that Bush was incompetent and that the GOP is bad for America. Clearly, Bush was not incompetent, and it is unbelievable that a journalist can state that the minority party is a threat to the Republic. The months that followed the article reiterate that point. While Barack Obama and those in power mock the tea party and town hall protesters as “Angry mobs” and consider them a threat to the republic (interesting theme), they should step back and look at how President Bush handled a brutal oppostion with dignity, to the point that they dominated the national conversation.
Posted by SMEngmann on Sep 23, 2009 at 7:08 AM Hey blackhorse, I don’t really know what “amerikanizationalism” means, but your comment is borderline incoherent and if you’re trying to make an argument, it’s very shallow. What is “really going down?” I bet you’re one of those loons who actually believes 9/11 was an inside job, and if that’s the case then it is oddly poetic that you say that I’m in a state of denial.
Let’s restate the facts: America was attacked on 9/11, and George W. Bush made it the prime directive of his presidency to prevent another attack on US soil. Agree or disagree with his policies, he achieved that objective. In Iraq, Bush’s policy was to pursue regime change in Iraq and replace a brutal tyrant with a democracy. He succeeded. Calling President Bush a warmonger and a murderer is very misguided, especially considering he took a stand against one of the most brutal dictators in the 20th century and did more than any other American president in history to combat AIDS in Africa. Calling him a thief is unfounded.
The main premise of the article was that Bush was incompetent and that the GOP is bad for America. Clearly, Bush was not incompetent, and it is unbelievable that a journalist can state that the minority party is a threat to the Republic. The months that followed the article reiterate that point. While Barack Obama and those in power mock the tea party and town hall protesters as “Angry mobs” and consider them a threat to the republic (interesting theme), they should step back and look at how President Bush handled a brutal oppostion with dignity, to the point that they dominated the national conversation.
Posted by SMEngmann on Sep 23, 2009 at 7:08 AM SMEngmann….......Again with the ostentatious cripple act…If by now you don’t understand that 9/11 was a false flag operation , you are not only in amerikanizationalism denial mode ; but you are also quite naive in your quackery ; pal…
Amerikanizationalism referrs to that foolish mentality of you so-called god fearing patriotic amerikan citizens who believe every lie your former president ; little georgie bush tells you…Again look up the word ” ostentatious ” add the word cripple , and you will have a fairly sound definition of the term…...
The fact that you and your buddies believe the nonsensical rhetoric of the extreme right- wing facists ,points to the fact that if it’s packaged in the proper manner, Blackhorse could get you guy’s to believe in Santa or the Cat in the Hat , the tooth fairy….The possiblities are endless, all one has to do is wrap it up in the amerikan flag ; scare the shit out of you, and the Blackhorse could have whatever his heart desires from the ah so naive and befuddled SME…..He believes everything little george tells him…
There where no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussiem was Rumsfeld business partner( Rumsfeld sold Hussiem all the weapons in his arsenal, got rich in the process), Iraq was invaded for the oil, not democracy, the so-called box cutter hijackers were from Saidi Arabia not Iraq the list can go on and on with all of the misrepresentations of fact alleged from the bush regime…Please remember SME , your common-sense and sanity are on the table….true ? ? ?
Posted by blackhorse on Sep 23, 2009 at 8:08 PM Oh and by the way SME; maybe you can explain how building 7 was ; using the term ” pulled ” in a manner of seconds….40 story buildings don’t just get pulled…And please don’t give me that pollyanna bullshit about damage from the twin towers….Explain how you ” pull ” a 40 story building..cowboy ? ? Just like that , with no prior knowledge that this building would have to come down….Way toooo many inconsistencies…bucko, Way toooo many inconsistencies…........
Can you spell…FALSE FLAG OPERATION….....fool…
And look two posting, and no rhetorial redundancy….
Posted by blackhorse on Sep 23, 2009 at 8:30 PM My first visit to this site, first article read, and I’m already awestruck by all the logical fallacies and incorrect representation and interpretation of information….
First of all, yes, I think most people are (or should be) willing to concede that Bush’s War on Terror was, in terms of providing some security for the U.S. homeland, a success. Is it safer, now, for someone from the U.S. to travel abroad? That’s debatable. Not to mention that, successful war or not, Bush’s war still did turn a budget surplus into a negative, which you all seem to be blaming Obama for entirely.
In ever other way, Bush was unquestionably incompetent: creation of an asset bubble due to economic policy that encouraged wreckless spending and careless risk-taking of those on Wall Street, allowing the growth in wealth inequality to continue unabated, removal of numerous environmental safeguards and a complete disregard for perception of the U.S. in other countries- these are but a few of a laundry list of issues begun, or continued, by the Bush administration.
Now, skipping above some of the latter posts, which are either off-kilter of have been addressed, I’d like to discuss Asher’s comments.
Point by point:
-EXTREME minority? I don’t know that I’d call a 6:4 D:R ratio in the Senate “extreme”. Not to mention that many of the Dems are far more spineless than they should be, and seem to kowtow to the GOP and the “moderate” Dems more than the reverse.
-If you believe that Reagan’s policies were what brought the Soviet Union to its knees, then you really ought to review the history of that period. The USSR was rife with interior structural, political, and economic issues that had been building up for decades, not to mention that the USSR didn’t officially collapse until Bush I’s presidency.
-The “20 years of prosperity” that you speak of has been more-than half way erased by this recession. The market is diminished to approximately what it was in the late ‘90’s. And again, there is the issue of the growing wealth inequality in this country that Reagan significantly worsened, a problem that cannot be ignored. I’ll pull up numbers if you’d like.
-You’re right about taxes not being enough to keep up with expenditures, which is funny because in doing so you undermine your clearly anti-tax stance . Again, I cannot stress the degree to which the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer; that and that alone is well more than enough to account for the increased “amount” of taxes paid by the rich (despite the fact that the taxes paid, as a percentage of income, were lower).
-And again, you’re right that Obama’s proposed budget is massive, but not much more so than Bush’s, and at least this one’s got its priorities right- which is more important, protecting America from a perceived potential threat, or treating the thousands who die every year with certainty?
-Hey, if you’re so free market-y, then why don’t you let the government take care of the externalities which your economic theory neglects, and let business move to more friendly locations, huh?
The Republicans have not only become a threat, but also an embarassment, to this country. I, for one, look forward to the day when the Republican party can reclaim any semblance of legitimacy.
Posted by aquaticko on Sep 25, 2009 at 3:35 AM At last a somewhat balanced perspective aquaticko , although Blackhorse does not agree with your opinion that the last administrations so-called war on terror was a success, in this humbled horses opinion the neo-cons policies have made amerika more vunerable than before…
Before this so-called 9/11 and the so-called war on terror, radical muslim clerics were preaching that amerika was going to invade a sovereign Arab nation. the word on the street in most Arab nations was that these ” radical clerics ” were nuts…
But what a minute ; here comes the neo-nazi whattabe cons , led by Bush or Cheney, most likely Cheney, and what do these fools do? ?
nvade a Arab nation, therefore instead of toning down the rhetoric of these so-called radical muslim clerics and making them seem uninformed, THE NEO-CONS POLICIES HAVE MADE THEM LOOK LIKE TRUTH SAYERS in the eyes of the rank and file Arab populations. This is not a good thing…....So like it or not the Arab world is pissed off, and those individuals that are foolish enough to try and strike back at amerika have grown in number and determination..
Bushs policies have made amerika more at risk for a so-called ” terrorist action “...On top of that, the man invaded a country that had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the alleged attacks on the world trade centers….
The whole operation was a fiasco of the highest order…So now this nation ” amerika ” is bogged down in a conflict that it cannot win, either in Iraq or Afganistan…Any belief that these conflicts can be won is foolishness or at best wishful thinking…
Obama unfortunalely is now stuck with this nonsense, and it will be a true test of his intellual skills as well as his diplomatic acument to free the nation from this ungodly mess that the so-called born-again christian Bush got this nation into…
A true case of the ostentatious cripple ; better known as excessive amerikanizationalism as referred to in earlier posts.
Posted by blackhorse on Sep 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM McCain-Palin team was a filler team with the idea of gathering a few PC points adding a woman to the ticket. Palin never acted like a serious candidate.
- Rees
Posted by Annabel Jules Reed on Oct 16, 2009 at 3:36 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Robert Parry
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2009 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
