Just a Plain and Simple RantHave you seen the new commercials for McCain's candidacy yet? Looks like the Republican Party is throwing the Bush Administration under the bus. Of course, at the end of the Clinton Administration, the Democrats weren't exactly looking to connect the sitting president to Al Gore - it was more a matter, however, of "don't ask, don't tell." But with the new ads, it is clear that the Republicans are stating, "The President isn't our guy." And they are right: it's been a long time since Bush has enacted any policies that even coincidentally bear some resemblance to the Republican platform. In other ads, they deeply criticize Obama for hewing to the Democratic party line 97 percent of the time in his voting record. 97 percent? Really? That's being faithful to the platform above and beyond the call of duty; that's really a super stellar voting record. Are they suggesting McCain will be better becuase he will not enact Republican policies as often? That he will be the same as the sitting President in that respect?
Of course not. What they are suggesting is that you do not like Democratic policies, and will not vote for them. I have no idea how the American people are supposed to know what the Democratic policies are, as they haven't seen a good workout since the Carter Adminstration. That's right; Clinton caved into the Republibutts more often than not, and essentially we have lived in a Republican led society since Reagan was elected. Gee, that must be why my whole adult life has been so f#cked up.
Bush will be out, and if the Republibutts get their voting machine - and tactics at the polls - and McCain is elected, he will be in. I think the American people realize that their empty wallets, the prices at the pump, rampant home foreclosures, corporations running away with the nation and endless war indcates a need for change. Any kind of change is liable to better than what we've got. McCain, in his ads, says that he represents change. That may be, and I do regard him as an honorable man, but his party is the one that brought Bush on because they felt he was electible, and expected him to complete their final triad of world domination, only to watch him spiral out of anyone's control.
Do you really trust the party that made this possible? Personally, although I know that the Republicans will throw everything they have behind McCain - and that's a considerable amount of support, so much so that any "underdog" status in regard to McCain is irrelevant - and that they will do their best to get out the vote and get him elected. Whether he is or not, I think Republicans would be better off to take at least four years off and regroup; try to figure out just what the hell happened.
The current Republican Party is not the one that supported Alf Landon or Wendell Willkie; they began to evolve in the years following the Second World War and the long eclipse of their party in the top spot under FDR, emerging anew with a hatred of Communism, Liberalism and crying for "traditional values" in a way they never did before. A Republican like Theodore Roosevelt or William McKinley would have found them wimpy and over-concerned with irrelevant issues and self-interest. If there is to be real change in the Republican Party, it is going to need to come from a deep examination of what it really stands for, what its legacy means.
Since Trumen, there's been Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the two Bushes. Ford wasn't in office long enough to really develop much in the way of policy; I liked him though. Eisenhower was effective, but invisible and tended to break away from the party on key issues. Reagan - their most successful entry, though largely through good publicity - came from the other side. That's not insignificant - he was with the other side a long time. George H.W. Bush tried to be invisible, but ultimately was ineffective. Nixon - their brightest and most promising prospect - tried to overthrow the country from within, and was hopelessly paranoid - his personality problems sank him. George W. Bush - throughly incompetent, incoherent, divisive. He did sort of overthrow the country from within - at least parts of it. He's also achieved Nixon's dreams of shadow government and widespread wiretapping.
Dems since FDR include Truman, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Carter and Clinton.
Can anyone see a pattern here?
Uncle Dave Lewis
Ann Arbor, MI