Well, I am confounded as I ponder the developing presidential landscape.
George Dubya, now just how is he qualified to be President or even governor?
Mostly, he happens to be named for his father. But, when his father was pulling who knows what strings inside the CIA for who knows however long before and after he was CIA Director, Dubya was running
amok in bars across Texas it seems. (Come on out of the woodwork now whoever you are, that picture of the nude dancing on the table is rapidly approaching top value!)
Great civic minded individual we have here. Overcome with his obligation for public service, but only after a short lifetime of partying it seems. Civic mindedness would be a good reason to run. A
heartfelt obligation of service to a country which had provided one's self and family with tremendous opportunity would be good. Wanting the best for one's country and children would be good.
Dubya says he is running because he wants his country to be prosperous. That's nice too. But, what does it mean? Dubya says he is a "compassionate conservative." But, what does that mean? Is
that the same as a "hardhearted Democrat" or a "compassionless liberal"?
As a "compassionate conservative" he favors aiding the "Kosovarians." The who? Did anyone tell him where Greece is yet?
My, my would somebody please define compassion for the Dubya Shrub?
Now about George W. Bush's acts of compassion�
Working to pass a sales tax increase on the citizens of Arlington, TX, to finance the building of The Ballpark in Arlington. This is turn greatly increased the value of the Texas Rangers franchise in
which Dubya was an investor. This tax increase and accompanying financing deal obligates the city of Arlington for many years to come. Dubya sold his interest and pocketed $14 million. Great civic pride
there! Make a million or 14 and run. Leave the city with the debt. This is capitalism at its worst. Not that you could expect Bush to know this. He expects this kind of thing. It has always gone this way
for him, right?
What was that about Slovakia, again?
Then, of course, there was that little welfare reform thing from 1996. (Obviously, Dubya has no problem accepting welfare himself. This is exactly what the above is: welfare for the rich!) Anyway, the
welfare reform Act of 1996 gave more authority to the states to determine how welfare dollars would be spent.
Now, I personally have spent a small amount of time with welfare recipients, and many of them remained on welfare because it was the only way they could qualify for Medicaid and thus have insurance
coverage for their children.
But, as the welfare time limit approached, Dubya made sure Texas would be quite stingy with who was able to receive insurance assistance for their children. Dubya's Message of compassion: get a job and
PAY those sales taxes, we need to use them for some more welfare to the rich! And, don't worry, kids don't get sick much anyway.
Why do I not get a good feeling listening to Dubya speaking on education: "We need to be sure that no one is left behind"? What does that mean? It would seem to mean, "We will not leave you
behind, but we WILL run over you!" This is exactly what vouchers would do: vault a few into the best schools with government money and bury the rest in public schools which have been stripped of
adequate funding by the lucky few with vouchers in their hands!
For those of you familiar with Texas justice, you know it is a sort of "lock 'em up and ask questions later" mentality. And, more than a few of those locked up and/or sentenced to execution have
been found to be innocent.
Most of those so locked up are poor and have no attorneys. Texas leads the nation in incarcerations and in executions. Little effort is made to get representation for the indigent accused of crimes. Hey,
they might not be found guilty then, and that would mess those ratios of "solved crimes." Let them sit in jail for a few months. They have no life anyway.
Some, literally, are in jail months before being assigned representation and the first time they see their attorney is the day of their trial. What if the unlikely happens and the accused is found
innocent? Tough luck.
Dubya recently vetoed legislation that would have required the appointment of counsel in 20 days. Yes, 20, twenty. Meaning that an innocent person, potentially, could be in jail 20 days before even seeing
a lawyer. But, Dubya vetoed this so they can go on being held without an attorney for months!
Sounds like some story from south of the Rio Grande! But, no this is Texas.
What does compassion mean, Dubya?