Bush did a pretty good job and *almost* made the case for war with Iraq. He failed to mention the idea of going to Congress first *or* working *with* a coalition. (He said “lead a coalition”. Georgie, we’re not the only nation in the world that thinks Iraq is a problem. Let’s learn to play on a team.) He talked about the need for new energy sources that are cleaner. He avoided using the O-word though (oil) — he talked about liberating ourselves from foreign energy sources. Ummm… name one foreign energy source that we export in large amounts other than oil. He talked about environmental regulations, yet he has rolled back quite a few of them. (To fight this, go to the NPCA website, click on “Take Action” and then click on “Action Alerts”. Do it now.)
Gary Locke, the governor of Washington state, was the Democratic rebuttal (so to speak) and he won as far as selling me on the Dem’s plans. The tax cuts aren’t as deep as Bush proposed but they reach *everyone* and not just the ultra-wealthy. He actually talked about liberation from foreign oil (which is pretty much the only reason we care about *anything* in the Middle East) and he has a decent track record on the environment. I have a serious amount of respect for him because he’s done some good things in Washington, is a second generation Chinese-American, attended Yale on scholarship (i.e. not an entitled person), is an Eagle scout, is the governor of a wastern state (which means that he understood the angst of the West when Bush told us to quit whining and conserve energy during the power crisis), and is really where I am on a lot of issues. Pity that he isn’t running for President…
I thought that Bush made some good points, but I’m waiting for action.
However, there have been news sources (I’ll try to find them) that prove that any family making $30,000 or more per year will do better under the Bush tax plan than under the Democrats’ plan. $30,000 per year is hardly wealthy. If these studies (or whatever you’d call them) are true, then the Bush plan is the way. I think that too often we forget that the rich pay much more in so if we are speaking in strict numbers of *course* any tax cut will benefit the rich more.
Anyway, I thought that was a point to think about. I’d like to find it laid out somewhere, so we can see clearly which is better.
The thing about the west…I don’t know how much Bush could have helped us since Gray Davis was hell-bent on screwing the state. When we had power he would sell it at a loss. What was up with that? I’m not sure what Bush could have done except force other states to sell us power at lower costs. The power crisis in California was clearly the fault of our political leaders.
Sorry…I just re-read that and thought of it.
s’ok crystal. basically, bush could have put a price limit on enron. however, enron bankrolled much of his campaign. (enron has also *admitted* screwing us over.)
the de-regulation was also passed while wilson was in power, so i don’t think it’s all on gray davis.
i have issues with the bush tax cuts since he seems to want a war and you can’t cut taxes and have a war at the same time without running up a huge deficit.
Actually, war generally stimulates an economy, so lower taxes on higher incomes can work out in the end.
yes, true, enron did screw us. and de-regulation was idiotic (but passed by the people of california – the same people who elected davis). also, i wouldn’t be surprised at ALL if bush didn’t do anything to enron because they bankrolled his campaign (just like any other damn politician).
davis did screw us though, it’s obvious. but he has screwed us more this year than in 2001 during the major power crisis.