[Industrialblog,
September 14, 2004]
Can't believe they're losing to these guys ...
Things I've disagreed with the Bush Administration:
1. Both sets of tax cuts. The federal budget was finally tamed and Bush managed to screw that up. By the way, these were important years for keeping the budget under control because of the impending retirement of the Baby Boomers. If we spend their money now, during their peak earning years, then we're going to have real trouble in another decade, when those incomes are gone and they start drawing from the system.
2. Sarbanes-Oxley. The Accountant Full Employment Act of 2002 is the biggest business regulation since the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. SOx is too expensive and was a political fig leaf. May be preventing a full economic recovery.
3. Not leveling Afghanistan. Our response was strong, but nowhere near strong enough. We needed to do to make an example out of Afghanistan. Without going nuclear, we needed to do to Afghanistan what we did to Germany and Japan -- total war designed to bring about complete capitulation. Bush's half-measures at Tora Bora, that is, using local troops to go in first, was unconscionable and allowed Bin Laden to escape. Getting Bin Laden's head on a pike should've been first priority -- even if that meant taking a systematic approach to finding him. [Think about it.]
4. Waiting too long to go into Iraq. Bush's one year of delays allowed the anti-war movement to build strength, emboldened the Bush Administration's critics, and bogged down the War on Terror. The Iraq thing needed to be done quickly -- go in, take Saddam out, and get ready for the next war. My understanding of the War on Terror was we were going to take out several regimes, including Iran.
5. Excessive nation building in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We are bogged down in both places, both of which because we lacked the political will to fight a vigorous enough war.
6. Speaking of which, Bush hasn't talked enough about what we are going to do about Iran. This entire campaign has been missing the elephant in the room, which is Iran. The next president has to decide if the world can live with a nuclear-armed Iran. Bush seemed like he understood the situation.
7. War on "Terror". At least Bush has finally agreed that it's a War on Radical Islamic Terrorists. Thanks. About time. Wars on abstractions don't end. War on poverty, crime and terror. A war on drugs is also silly. It's a War on Drug Dealers or Drug Users, and since it's never been more than a rhetorical war, it's devalued the word "war" itself.
This election would've been ideal to nominate a Democratic hawk with strong credentials in national security and fiscal responsibility. Bush is vulnerable on jobs, the economy, communication skills, and his conduct of the War on Terror.
The winning themes needed to be:
* On national security, more clear objectives in the War on Radical Islamic Terrorists. Who are we going after and how? How will we know we've won? The Bush Administration has committed the nation to an open-ended, potentially decades long war -- and this is a strategic mistake. The Democrats have an opening to fight a more limited, but short term more violent, war.
* On fiscal responsibility, a return to balanced budgets or at least reduced deficits, and government living within its means, as it did in the 1990s.
Instead, they picked one of the most liberal members of the Senate who was a leader of the anti-war movement. Yes, John Kerry served in Vietnam [and you know I haven't bashed his service here] but he had a lot of baggage from the anti-war movement. They should've found someone else. But who?
1. Both sets of tax cuts. The federal budget was finally tamed and Bush managed to screw that up. By the way, these were important years for keeping the budget under control because of the impending retirement of the Baby Boomers. If we spend their money now, during their peak earning years, then we're going to have real trouble in another decade, when those incomes are gone and they start drawing from the system.
2. Sarbanes-Oxley. The Accountant Full Employment Act of 2002 is the biggest business regulation since the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. SOx is too expensive and was a political fig leaf. May be preventing a full economic recovery.
3. Not leveling Afghanistan. Our response was strong, but nowhere near strong enough. We needed to do to make an example out of Afghanistan. Without going nuclear, we needed to do to Afghanistan what we did to Germany and Japan -- total war designed to bring about complete capitulation. Bush's half-measures at Tora Bora, that is, using local troops to go in first, was unconscionable and allowed Bin Laden to escape. Getting Bin Laden's head on a pike should've been first priority -- even if that meant taking a systematic approach to finding him. [Think about it.]
4. Waiting too long to go into Iraq. Bush's one year of delays allowed the anti-war movement to build strength, emboldened the Bush Administration's critics, and bogged down the War on Terror. The Iraq thing needed to be done quickly -- go in, take Saddam out, and get ready for the next war. My understanding of the War on Terror was we were going to take out several regimes, including Iran.
5. Excessive nation building in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We are bogged down in both places, both of which because we lacked the political will to fight a vigorous enough war.
6. Speaking of which, Bush hasn't talked enough about what we are going to do about Iran. This entire campaign has been missing the elephant in the room, which is Iran. The next president has to decide if the world can live with a nuclear-armed Iran. Bush seemed like he understood the situation.
7. War on "Terror". At least Bush has finally agreed that it's a War on Radical Islamic Terrorists. Thanks. About time. Wars on abstractions don't end. War on poverty, crime and terror. A war on drugs is also silly. It's a War on Drug Dealers or Drug Users, and since it's never been more than a rhetorical war, it's devalued the word "war" itself.
This election would've been ideal to nominate a Democratic hawk with strong credentials in national security and fiscal responsibility. Bush is vulnerable on jobs, the economy, communication skills, and his conduct of the War on Terror.
The winning themes needed to be:
* On national security, more clear objectives in the War on Radical Islamic Terrorists. Who are we going after and how? How will we know we've won? The Bush Administration has committed the nation to an open-ended, potentially decades long war -- and this is a strategic mistake. The Democrats have an opening to fight a more limited, but short term more violent, war.
* On fiscal responsibility, a return to balanced budgets or at least reduced deficits, and government living within its means, as it did in the 1990s.
Instead, they picked one of the most liberal members of the Senate who was a leader of the anti-war movement. Yes, John Kerry served in Vietnam [and you know I haven't bashed his service here] but he had a lot of baggage from the anti-war movement. They should've found someone else. But who?
You can guess I'd agree on your budget statements. To me, Bush is an abject failure on the budget/deficit. In terms of an election issue, I'm convinced the public doesn't give a crap if it thinks its going to get back a few hundred dollars in a tax break.
In Afghanistan we should have loaded the troops in and captured Bin Laden. We don't have to destroy the world to prove our point, but we needed to actually capture this guy. Minimally we needed to avoid the country returning to petty state ruled by warlords. But, Bush Iraq strategy, ?? Rumsfield assumptions ?? and ?? assessment of public opinion ??, meant we couldn't/didn't do that.
In Iraq, the Bush/Neocon/Rumsfield strategy risks becoming a complete debacle. We displayed a nasty guy, but the opportunity cost was/is immense when we have/had more much real threats to deal with. The trail of wrong assumptions about the war in Iraq is a sorry statement about Bush and the White House. The current copy of The Atlantic has a good article entitle "Bush's Lost Year."
I'm not sure about too much nation building - if we invade we it, we just can't turn around and leave - that might just spread chaos and help Bin Laden.
I'm unsure of the mechanics of invading Iran without any support. What resource would we use? If we can't stabilize Iraq, could we do it in Iran? etc. etc. (I don't want answers, I'm saying its not obvious to me that a series of these kinds of war would be successful in terms of our interests and would no doubt be terribly costly).
Can any Democrat beat Bush? I'm inclined to think that no Democrat can win so long as the deficit doesn't matter and we're at war. Bush can create huge expensive spending plans (drug benefits) and just run it up on his budget deficit card willy nilly to undercut Dems on social issues.
IMHO: Kerry's spending versus taxes are as whacked as Bush's in terms of deficit spending. I may come out about the same. I'd have to pay higher taxes, but then get a break on the insurance costs of my employees which is a meaningful part of my company's expenses.
I'm sure Pogo would say something like, "I've got choices and they're all bad."
I'm hoping for a split of the Presidency and the House/Senate, since deadlock has got to be better than this insanity.
SG
PS - I still don't like that I had to register just to make comments.
>They should've found someone else. But who?
Kerry is a terrible candidate - anyone who says different is deluding themselves.
Then again, Bush isn't that great a candidate either.
(time to revamp the primary process, eh?)
A better option? Clark is the only one that stands out. His service, at least, (supreme commander of NATO et al) is unassailable.
Your post brought to mind an editorial on Slate a few weeks back that voiced most of the concerns you've articulated here and went on to speculate that a 2nd Bush term might be the worst thing for the GOP.
Their reasons being:
1) the party would fracture as the fiscal conservatives rebelled against Bush's economic policies
2) It would make this war a wholly Republican affair in the public's eyes. Which is great if we're winning it decisively - but not so great if we're bogged down in the slow attrition of occupation/nation-building exercises with no endgame.
The author concluded by drawing a parallel between Bush and John Major and how Major's disastrous second term ushered in Tony Blair. Which begged the question of - if the parallel holds - who's the Democrat's Tony Blair in 2008? But even if there were a Blair in the wings, I'm sure the primary process would pass them by in favor of someone more appealing to the party faithful and much less electable.