SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (17935)5/2/2000 9:49:00 AM
From: Tom Clarke  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
At least Dubya won't be dangerous:



Monday, May 01, 2000

The candidate who can't be bothered

Mark Steyn
National Post

'What happened to that guy Dubya?" I asked my assistant. "Nice fellow. Running for president. Used to see him round these parts from time to time."

"Don't worry," said Melissa. "We're on his e-mail list. I got one only the other week."

Hey, that's good to know: He sent an e-mail only the other week. When Steve Forbes was running for president, your fax machine would be out of paper before breakfast. But Dubya's been off the radar screen since he sent John McCain packing and wrapped up the nomination. He emerged briefly on April 8th to thank Kansas Republicans for voting for him in their primary. In fact, the state cancelled its primary. Dubya didn't notice Kansas Republicans hadn't voted for him, and Kansas Republicans didn't notice he'd thanked them for their non-existent support: It's a perfect relationship.

He was back in the news this week after Al Gore attacked the governor over his tax cut, or, as Al calls it (usually three or four times in every sound bite), his "risky tax scheme." Dubya briefly interrupted a critical round of video golf to protest Gore's assault. "I would hope that this is a campaign of ideas," he said. "But I understand I'm running against a person who is so anxious to become president he will do whatever it takes." The Washington Post deplored this descent into "personal criticism" and wondered whether it was consistent with Governor Bush's "vow to stay above the partisan fray."

Hang on a minute. What kind of presidential candidate vows to "stay above the partisan fray?" And isn't a person running for president supposed to do "whatever it takes?" But that's not the Bush style. After Super Tuesday, he decided that the American people didn't want a presidential candidate who was "in your face" day after day offering opinions on every subject under the sun. Since then, the American people's collective face has not had Dubya in it, nearby it, or even within a day's drive from it. And some senior Republicans are beginning to wonder whether Mr. Bush, if not prepared to do "whatever it takes" to be president, might at least be willing to do one or two of the things it takes, like saying something pertinent on current events and getting in the news occasionally.

He does, of course, make speeches. But he has an amazingly uncanny instinct for the topic least likely to attract any coverage. Elian? The Microsoft break-up? Not a chance, buddy. The Vietnam anniversary? John McCain was all over last week's front pages with his return to the Hanoi Hilton. Meanwhile, somewhere down the bottom of page D29, you'd have found a brief reference to Dubya's big keynote address on ... civility.

Civility? Get real, jerk! But apparently winning the Republican nomination is like winning the lottery: Shy types can tick the "No publicity" box. And, as when Miss America turns out to have done a lesbian shoot for Penthouse, the runner-up has gamely stepped up to the plate. John McCain went back to South Carolina to announce that he now agrees with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People that the "racist" Confederate flag should no longer fly over the statehouse and that the only reason he didn't say so during the primary was because he thought it would hurt his chances of winning.

Wow. That's got to be the best Clinton impersonation of the year: What's more quintessentially Clintonian than taking the politically expedient position at the time and then saying you feel bad about it afterwards when it no longer matters? See Slick Willie on tax increases, welfare reform, the Defence of Marriage Act, Rwandan genocide, you name it. But the press loved it. With an understudy like this, who cares if the leading man's taken the summer off?

True, Dubya is governor of one of the biggest states in the Union. According to The New York Times, he gets to his office in Austin at 8:30 and stays till 5:30. According to Texas Monthly, he "takes private time from 11:40 to 1:30, when he runs three to five miles at the University of Texas track at a pace of seven-and-a-half minutes a mile, and afterward might play a little video golf or computer solitaire until three ...." A gruelling nine-hour day with two hours off for personal fitness and 90 minutes for computer games: Is there no end to the man's stamina? Dubya has the kind of daily routine that even a Canada Post union official might find insufficiently taxing.

But the governor's attitude these days is take it or leave it. Six months ago, he was still trying to make a good impression: Asked what books he was reading, he said a biography of Dean Acheson, former secretary of state. Appearing at a grade school the other day, he was asked what book he'd most enjoyed as a child: He said he couldn't remember any. John McCain was supposed to be the upfront, straightforward candidate, but in his own way he was as shameless a panderer as Clinton and Gore. "My friends, I will always tell you the truth," declared Senator Fruitcake on the campaign trail, though he forgot to add: "But if I don't, I will always tell you the truth about having not told you the truth within a few weeks." Dubya, on the other hand, is not just honest, he's almost insanely so: why couldn't he just pretend his favourite book was Huckleberry Finn or Treasure Island? Because he can't be bothered. But, if he doesn't have a favourite book, he does have a favourite movie. Citizen Kane? The Rules Of The Game? No, it's Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me.

Well, he gets my vote. A man who wants to play computer solitaire all afternoon and watch Austin Powers at night is about the least dangerous president you could imagine. Energy is much overrated in politicians: Ronald Reagan took naps every afternoon and brought down the Soviet Union. But, while a tendency to relax may be desirable in office, it's not usually helpful when you're running for it. Bob Dole spent most of the '96 presidential campaign flying back to his condo at Bal Harbor, Florida, to relax on the balcony and, although it got him a great tan, it didn't get him elected.

But once again Dubya's turned the conventional wisdom on its head. During the primary season, when he was on TV non-stop, his poll numbers plummeted. Since he disappeared, they've rebounded spectacularly. He's tied with Gore among female voters, and has a commanding 17-point lead among male voters -- 26% among white men. Gore has a solid lead over Bush in New York, Illinois, three small states and the District of Columbia. Bush has a solid lead in 20 states, leads Gore in another six, and in 14 toss-up states has a slight edge in nine.

On primary night in California, the pundits said Bush had no chance of taking the state in November. Now he leads Gore 37% to 36%. His fortunes have been amazingly restored by the cunning strategy of not bothering. When he was campaigning energetically in California, people thought he was whiney, smirkey, annoying, kinda dumb. Now he's gone away, they like him again. In California as elsewhere, the people have finally found a candidate as uninterested in politics as they are. If Dubya can keep up this zero-visibility part-time ineffectual campaign for another six months, he's a shoo-in.

nationalpost.com

The silence of the Bush brothers on this Gonzalez thing is deafening. Profiles in timidity?







To: Neocon who wrote (17935)5/2/2000 10:58:00 AM
From: PROLIFE  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Neo,

I believe I am fairly consistent. Issues even different than just abortion.

Take DWI or DUI. If I had the final say, I would make it a crime of murder, not vehicular manslaughter, if any one is killed in an alcohol related accident. Drinking and driving is one of the most senseless crimes in our country, IMO. I would also make it an automatic penalty that any car stopped with a driver that is DUI, automatically forfeits the car and anything in it, no matter who the owner is(exception being stolen cars), and automatic jail time.(but not sitting in a cell, out cleaning up trash on highway, or cleaning commodes in parks, something like that.)

There is a bigger issue even on the "morning after" pill, and early abortions. It is morality. Not just sexual morality, but also I believe any effort after the fact cheapens life just a little more. When that happens, you know the slope just gets steeper and steeper and the snowball picks up speed.

Now if I was a politician and the only bill before me was to ban abortion with the exception of rape/incest, then I believe I could sign it, knowing that it would stop 90% of legal abortions in the USA. (but I also believe that rape would need to be proved and not just a swinging rape door at the clinic. I imagine incest a little easier to prove.



To: Neocon who wrote (17935)5/2/2000 1:22:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769667
 
What distinguishes your "moderate" antichoice stance from a radical antichoice ("prolife") one?
Sure, you speak of "not prosecuting" certain kinds of abortions - while quickly adding that you don't want to legitimize them. Basically you want to retain shame as a cardinal tool to enforce keeping a pregnancy once it happened.
And what is this about "perhaps considering yielding (yielding what?) on the use of the "morning after" pill"? "Perhaps considering yielding" is a pejorative nothing. What would be wrong with the more dependable "guaranteeing access without punitive restrictions"?

The sperm is a human life, as is an ovum - as are some sorts of carcinoma. I suggest that the morality of this situation contains subtleties that your post isn't recognizing. Aborting a ten-week embryo should not be placed on the same level of consequence, medical or moral, as dismemberment-in-place of a viable seven-month fetus. Let's introduce a sense of gradation.