Raging Right Wing Republican

For those of us who are politically informed, and therefore Republican.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

John Howard blasts Australian leftists for churning anti-American hate

Why can't Bush drop the "uniter, not a divider" nonsense and go after them like this?

It's because he lets himself get handicapped with this sense that the Office of the President is above political parties. It's noble that he tries to stay above the fray of partisan politics, and speaks to his character and integrity. But it's no good when the opposing political party can't get past their hatred to work together. Any attempt to even consider a Bush proposal is derided as going "Republican-lite." Whenever Bush reaches a hand across the aisle, it almost gets bitten off. If he extends the Democrats an olive branch, they rip it away and start whipping him with it.

What happened when Bush allowed Ted Kennedy, of all people, to write the NCLB act? All he ended up doing was angering Republicans and made Democrats thirst for more. Trying to "outspend" a Democrat is impossible. They'll always call for more. Now the same people who helped write it are calling it a failure and laying the blame at Bush's feet.

Bush even does it in his speeches, trying to avoid the typical Republican / Democrat divide. Whenever he talks about "certain folks" obstructing efforts to pass legislation in the interests of national security, he never mentions the Democrats by name, as if to give them a chance to change their minds and save face. But they never do.

All this softballing just gets used against him.

They say every prosecutor has to point the literal finger of guilt at the accused and state his guilt without equivocation. The jury won't convict a man unless the prosecutor seems wholly convinced of his own case. (That's not all it takes, of course, but it's a prerequisite.)

If Bush wants the jury of the American people to convict the Democrats of negligence and dangerous naivete on the war on terror, he too has to rise up and point the finger of guilt and state in no ambiguous terms that they're guilty as charged.

If he's hesitant to do that, who's going to believe it?


Post a Comment

<< Home