index

    Well, rats, I am going to have to give a disclaimer to this article. I will try to be as objective as possible. No doubt though, I will give a sardonic line or two. Please, don�t take it personal, it is not, it is just the inner Democratic child in me.
     Let me get this out of the way. Under no circumstances will I consider voting for George W Bush for President, even if it means I am a disloyal Texan. There, with that said, let me tell you why not.
     Last week we discussed three political parties and their candidates for President: Progressive (or Green), Reform, and Libertarian. Today, I hope to make some sense of the Republican platform, and their presidential candidate, George W. Bush.
     When you read any platform, you always have to be leery. The Republican platform capitalizes on partisan bickering, and stands as if it is America�s redemptive tool. Reading words like �bureaucracy� and �wasted government� we must include the Republican Party itself. After all, they are the congressional majority and have been for the last six years.
     On that note, there are some promising thoughts in the platform. On the other side of that coin, I thought, �Who were they trying to fool when they wrote that?�
Promising passage (directly quoted from the RNC platform):
�Target the most serious risks to health, safety, and the environment, then put regulatory resources where they best serve the public, not politics.�
My thought: Know why I like this? We do it already. It�s called OSHA, the Clean Air Act, and FDA to name a few.
Foolish Moment (directly quoted from the RNC platform):
�The current administration has repeatedly evaded the normal regulatory process through executive orders, some of dubious legality. Withdrawing these orders should be a priority of a new administration dedicated to the rule of law.�
Why do I question this? Reagan wrote 60 more executive orders than Clinton did. Executive orders are open to the public, and in fact, any American can sign up for e-mail sent by the White House, which gives information verbatim � speeches, press briefs, and text of letters, including executive orders. (To sign up, go to www.whitehouse.gov).
Promising passage (directly quoted from the RNC platform):
�Americans have the right to a judicial system they can trust. There is no question that the need for reform extends to the judicial branch of government. Many judges disregard the safety, values, and freedom of law-abiding citizens. At the expense of our children and families, they make up laws...�
My thought: The justice system is not equal for all Americans. It is proven fact that minorities and the poor are prosecuted more harshly than any other group in America. The American courts effectively practice a caste system. Is the GOP out to end racial profiling? Will the inequities in appointing lawyers be corrected? These are two problems currently alive and well in Bush�s Texas. Foolish Moment (As iit relates to this passage):
�We encourage all states to consider placing caps on non-economic and punitive damages in civil cases.�
Why do I question this? A.k.a. tort reform. Didn�t they previously say �that at the expense of children and families?� Tort reform is in direct conflict of that quote. Putting limits or penalties caps on litigation against corporations is ridiculous. Tort reform protects corporations over consumers in the name of free market. I have to say, I don�t care what corporation it is, but if it is bolstering profit through inferior product, close it!
     Remember the line � �Many judges disregard the safety, values, and freedom of law-abiding citizens.� So do corporations and they must be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and to the fullest extent of their pockets.
     Bush is a big advocate of Tort Reform, and that brings us directly to him. I make no qualms; I am not a big fan of Bush. The best thing about G.W. Bush is his mother. I mean that sincerely.
     An ironic story, in the 1994 gubernatorial race (or in this case goober-natorial race) Bush beat Ann Richards in a 53-47 vote. Some say Ann lost the race because she called Bush �some jerk.� His advisors, among them dirty tricks expert Karl Rove, made a huge, wedge issue of this. Will Bush get the same reaction for calling a longstanding reporter an �a-hole�?
     Bush is holding his own against Gore, stating that Gore is from �Washington.� There are many reasons for G.W.�s success in the campaign race, such as money, and legacy. A legacy originating in Washington.
     George did say "instead of arguing over Roe v. Wade, what we ought to do is promote policies that reduce abortions." I think that is a great stance for this issue. The best way to stop abortion is to prevent pregnancies. I would be curious how he would initiate this discussion in Washington. Fact is, prevention programs will cost money, is he willing to spend it?
     Bush favors voluntary toxic waste cleanup measures. Does he really believe the corporations will do it? If they don�t will tort reform block our opportunities of suing if by chance their garbage causes me breast cancer?
     George stated at one point that he will not give us tax cuts until we salvage Medicare. Well, as a democrat I say GREAT! Although Bush opposes any tax increase for Social Security, he will not strongly advocate for tax reductions until Social Security is saved. This I approve of, it sounds fair. So I wonder �Whose idea was this?�
      A sad irony of politics here: Bush, it is said, is trying to invoke a Reagan-like quality of �broad issues�, relying on advisors, and getting by on being more likeable. Why isn�t he trying to emulate his father, as in President Bush? A man essentially written off by his own party before his last election, but who was also seen as an intelligent man, who refused to pander to different fringe groups and who once called Reagan�s proposed economic policies �voodoo�.

Why isn�t George W. running on his daddy�s legacy, instead of just daddy�s name?