I posted two facts. You draw your own conclusions.
[color=blue]“Appearing before a business group in Lancaster, Pa., Bush accused his congressional opponents of trying to ‘federalize health care.’”[/color]
For anyone who still labors under the illusion that sitting presidents or ex-presidents are looking out for anybody other than themselves:
[color=blue]“U.S. taxpayers provide pensions, health care, and various staff and office expenses for presidents after they leave office. The total budgeted for 2006 was almost $2.9 million for former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clintion. That does not include the estimated $24 million a year the country spends on security. Here’s a breakdown of the non-security costs of carign for fomer presidents . . . .”[/color]
Bush Sr. never forgave Greenspan for not lowering interest rates sooner. Had Greenspan lowered interest rates earlier, Bush Sr. wouldn’t have taken the blame for the mild recession. The recovery was already starting to occur during the '92 election year.
Bush Sr’s tax increase and spending cuts (especially defense spending) may have helped restore fiscal discipline in the 90’s by lowering deficit levels, which contributed to lower long term interest rates. The markets certainly responded positively to that. Bush Sr. took the fall, while his successor inherited the results of those actions.
A noble sacrifice of his own political future for the sake of the nation’s fiscal well-being.
Lots of defense companies in California went out of business due to Bush Sr’s defense cuts. Of course he had a good reason for making those cuts since the Cold War was ending. It probably helped the domestic economy in the long run by helping transition into the New Economy.
So doing his job rather than feathering his own nest is a “noble sacrifice?”
It escapes me why anybody puts these opportunistic mediocrities on any sort of pedestal. These are ordinary men who have made, at best, ordinary decisions.
The problem is the political process in the U.S. long ago became a filter which selects out character and ability and allows only rank opportunists who are willing to sell their soul for power and prestige to pass through. Our next president, either Hillary Clinton or Rudy Guiliani, being a case in point. Are they really the best in character and ability the U.S. has to offer or rather unrivaled in some other key characteristic?
I do not dispute Hillary or Giuliani falling into the category you described. I wish there was a better candidate than Hillary for the Democratic nomination. Having her as president is very freaky, but the Democrats don’t have much of a choice.
And Giuliani is just capitalizing on the fame he got on 9/11, and using that fame as a cover to illustrate his foreign policy experience, which is close to none. No doubt he is an opportunist.
I do not even like Romney, who is a flip-flopper willing to change his positions just to get elected. Not to mention him wanting to double the size of Guantanamo Bay.
You might disagree with me, but I think Truman, Ike, and Kennedy were men of core inner character who stuck to their inner gut and embodied truly patriotic values. I for one think the GOP should return to the tradition represented by Eisenhower, who was characterized by virtues that have been completely forgotten by the current administration. He was tough, but also prudent as well.
Bush Sr may or may not fall in that category, but at least he had the courage to go against the conservative base of his party by raising taxes and cutting defense spending. Many presidents are too willing to appease the hardline faction of their party at the expense of the future best interests of the nation as a whole. Bush Sr did not do that, and paid the price for not doing so. That’s noble in itself.
I do not dispute Hillary or Giuliani falling into the category you described. I wish there was a better candidate than Hillary for the Democratic nomination. Having her as president is very freaky, but the Democrats don’t have much of a choice.
And Giuliani is just capitalizing on the fame he got on 9/11, and using that fame as a cover to illustrate his foreign policy experience, which is close to none. No doubt he is an opportunist.
I do not even like Romney, who is a flip-flopper willing to change his positions just to get elected. Not to mention him wanting to double the size of Guantanamo Bay.
You might disagree with me, but I think Truman, Ike, and Kennedy were men of core inner character who stuck to their inner gut and embodied truly patriotic values. I for one think the GOP should return to the tradition represented by Eisenhower, who was characterized by virtues that have been completely forgotten by the current administration. He was tough, but also prudent as well.
Bush Sr may or may not fall in that category, but at least he had the courage to go against the conservative base of his party by raising taxes and cutting defense spending. Many presidents are too willing to appease the hardline faction of their party at the expense of the future best interests of the nation as a whole. Bush Sr did not do that, and paid the price for not doing so. That’s noble in itself.[/quote]
I may be wrong but I think somewhere around Ike the bottom fell out of the American character. I wouldn’t include Kennedy as a man of character. My view is if you cheat and lie to the person closest to you in life you’ve already failed one of the key tests of character.
I recall the line on Bush Sr when he was president being that he was he a moral weakling with no core values. Promising 'no new taxes" to get elected and then raising taxes wasn’t a mark of character in my book. After all, it wasn’t as if any fundamentally new facts had emerged post election, as I recall. I saw raising taxes after he got elected as just more pandering to the pressure he was under then from a Democratic congress and, in my view, a predominantly liberal news media.
Carter lusted in his heart and Clinton lusted all over Lewinsky’s dress.
Carter (though this is Republican thread) was cool in a home-folksy way, plus we got to partake in the great taste of Billy Beer. Unfortunately, he’s crossing the line now into criticizing the current President as has Clinton - something that retired Presidents honorably and normally refrain from (okay… usually)
As for Republicans, Reagan was the great cowboy, Bush, Sr. his loyal sidekick.
Candidate A- Had two mistresses, cheated on his wife, chain smoked, drank 8 to 10 martinis a day, consulted with astrologers.
Candidate B - Also chain smoked, loved a cigar here and there, slept until noon with a scotch in his bed, consumed a bottle of champagne for lunch followed by several double brandies, drank beer in the afternoon, sipped Johnny Walker Red during the evening while he wrote his prayers, and gambled beyond his means
Candidate C - never cheated on his wife, never smoked, banned smoking and tobacco advertising, is a decorated war hero, and drinks an occassional beer
Who is your candidate? I think we know who these real life candidates are
You can judge a book by the cover, but there’s a greater package that lies underneath.
Nixon never cheated on his wife. A puritanical Quaker he is. But he cheated the country.
Kennedy and Reagan made Americans proud. Kennedy boosted defense spending, landed a man on the moon, and defeated the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
What Clinton did was shameful, and he couldn’t match his predecessors in style or variety. JFK was discreet in his sinning, and avoided flaunting it. As the Chinese would put it, JFK was 风流 while Clinton was 下流. At least do it in the style of Steve McQueen or James Bond.
