Why Wall Street Should Not Support Bush's Reelection

I don't know what is more predictable -- Rush Limbaugh's support of the right or the progressive and liberal media's criticism of George W. Bush.

I am slightly surprised at the growing number of fiscal professionals who are not just wary of President Bush, but totally convinced that he is a pretender to the Republican throne.

Take Seth Glickenhaus, the proprietor of Glickenhaus & Co., the $1 billion Manhattan money managment firm. "Bush has been worse than zero as a president," he said in a June 7, 2004 interview in Barron's. "He is bush-league. No 1, he got us into a war and spent billions of dollars, dollars unfortunaely which don't have any positive offset in better housing, schools and infrastructure."

While Glickenhaus considers Kerry "a mediocrity," he warns against the message reelecting Bush will send. "If Bush get re-elected, he will see it as a total affirmation of all his policies, and the eficits will grow."

The Son of a U.S. President vs. the Son of a U.S. President

Ronald Reagan had not even been put into his grave -- so he couldn't have been spinning in it yet -- when his son lambasted the current administration.

And you know what? I don't think President Reagan would have objected to his son, Ron Reagan, using his moment in the sun (and his father's twilight) to tell the world what the Reagans really think about George W. Bush.

Ron Reagan, the son of a U.S. President, calling another son of a U.S. President a blowhard Philistine -- oh, how rich!

"Dad was ... a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage," said Ron Reagan of his father in a remembrance just before the burial.

It's a great read -- if only to hear him point out the differences between a true conservative who has thought out his policy versus one who can't even speak in front of a committee without holding Dick Cheney's hand.

Americans Who Are Sick of Hearing About Prison Abuse Are Short-Sighted

Written May 29, 2004

Americans who are fed up with hearing their fellow Americans criticizing the Iraqi prison abuse situation are short-sighted.

I have heard their many retorts:

"This is war and war is ugly!"

"What about how they behead and kill and drag American bodies through the streets and hang them up on poles!!!"

They are letting their emotions get ahold of their thinking. This is understandable, because there is nothing more gut-wrenching and emotional than watching one human pummel and degrade another, no matter what the setting. In fact, it is news footage of southern blacks being gushed by water hoses and kicked by bigot sheriffs -- not articles but images -- that awakened many indifferent people's sensibilities to the justness of the American civil rights movement in the 1960s.

But those who dismiss criticism of American military personell and their leadership in this prisoner of war issue are missing the point: The Bush administration has not proven itself capable of managing this project they started. If you are ambivalent -- apathetic even! -- about the suffering of Iraqi prisoners, then you ought to be concerned about the planning and management skills of the Bush administration. If this is how "out of control" their staff gets -- then how can we hope that under the Bush administeration guidance we can shape the direction of those we invaded.

George Bush Is A Man of Faith. He Has To Be.

It is a survival technique. For any man who has that much responsibility -- without the benefit of much deep wisdom or knowledge from having historical or geopolitical or economic context -- would most certainly have to rely on pure, quicksilver faith in order to cope. Either that, or he'd go bonkers.

Support the Troops. Give Them A Commander in Chief Who Respects Them.

What's the most ridiculous phrase uttered in public in the past ten years?

"I support the troops."

It means absolutely nothing and it is a distraction that prevents U.S. citizens from discussing policy.

The Bush administration loves to use that argument -- that the free flow of ideas will somehow discourage our armed forces -- to squash our constitutional right to disagree or debate the administration's policies. Yes, George W. Bush leads an administration touting democratic freedom around the world while he would rather there be limited free speech at home. That would be akin to saying it is bad to discuss labor and trade issues because it might discourage ironworkers.

So..."I support the troops" becomes the tagline -- and a meaningless one. Given that these very same troops are ill equipped in battle, even our own Pentagon and White House do not, in various ways, support the troops.

The truth is: Nobody except a few nutcases will ever wish ill upon our soldiers. But plenty of smart people disagree with Bush's poorly planned policies that are fiscally and diplomatically destructive. Such illogical plans put American soldiers in harm's way.

So if you want to make that phrase truly meaningful, if you want to sincerely "support the troops", translate that support into being a proponent of an administration that values their sacrifices with careful planning and longterm vision.

That would not be the Bush White House. Senator John Kerry is certainly the better choice as one who understands diplomacy as it emanates from the top to the foxhole.

Kerry, the New Nixon. Bush, the old Fredo Corleone.

The Bush administration's inability to handle what they've taken on reminds me of the scene in The Godfather Part II in which Fredo Corleone's cheap blonde wife behaves embarrassingly at a family party. One of Michael's men whispers to Fredo, "Mike says if you can't handle her, I have to." Fredo, dejected and emasculated, says, "Go ahead." Michael's henchman hoists the screaming big mouth wife over his shoulders and takes her away.

The Bush administration is Fredo. They cannot handle what they've taken on -- diplomatically, fiscally and strategically.

They must be bailed out.

In 1968, with Vietnam raging out of control, Lyndon Johnson decided to not seek reelection. The Democratic Party was in disarray due to the splinter groups of disagreement over the war and civil rights. Add to this the chaos of the Robert Kennedy assassination and the anarchy of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. It was Nixon who stepped into the national arena and represented law and order. If you know the context of the times, Nixon was a has-been, a presidential loser of course as well as a gubernatorial loser AFTER he was defeated by John Kennedy. He was washed up.

He won.

Who better to play that Nixonian role this time around but former veteran and prosecutor John Kerry. In a world at the crossroads, Kerry provides the ability to think deeply and with longterm vision. That is in contrast to the demolition crew currently in office who is led by a man whose propensity for shallow thinking has gotten us into short term messes.

If you can't make long term planning, you're going to end up with the loud blonde bimbo. Just because that's what George W. Bush is capable of choosing doesn't mean we have to welcome her into the family.

Laura to George: "It's Me or the Jim Beam"

Once Laura Bush said to W, "It's Me or the Jim Beam."

He did what many drunks do -- turn to religion.

Brings to mind a statement I once heard from a radio sales exec. She described a friend who'd be a doper turned born again. "If you do drugs, you can certainly do Jesus," she said. Or, to paraphrase Baudelaire -- as channeled through O'Neill in his Long Days Journey into Night -- be drunk. Bush is drunk on his own ego and divine mission and he can't say no to just one more goblet of "The Holy Spirit" for the road.

Win One For the...Kipper?

I've been in community theater and so I know what it is like to feel the nausea of watching a colleague onstage blunder, forget his line and freeze up.

That same exact stomach-knot feeling is what I get watching Bush speak.

He speaks as if every word is being thrown to him like he is a Sea World seal and every word comes at him -- one at a time -- like a tossed kipper.

Kerry's Vote "For the War" Was a Vote For Trust. That Trust Was Betrayed.

He voted to give Bush the right to excercise HIS (Bush's) best judgment in using the military.

Time has shown that Bush abused that privelege.

Kerry, and every other legislator who voted to authorize Bush this right, was betrayed.

Every American was betrayed.