Talking the talk and walking the walk
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Mary Bell
Published: October 4, 2008
I remember some nine years ago, then governor Bush ran on a platform of bipartisanship and touted the fact that both he and the Democrats had worked together to make the government of Texas
successful. It was, in part, why he was elected to the presidency. I believe, however, the Democrats in Congress were filled with such bitterness and rage at his victory over Al Gore that they vowed to
never work with him on anything, ever. They kept that promise and we have seen it time and time again for the past eight years. Democrats deride President Bush’s failed policies, ignoring the fact that
they are the reason.
In 2003, the president proposed reform for the banking industry but was rebuffed by the Democratic Congress. Again in 2005, sensing impending disaster, Republicans attempted to draft a reform bill but
again were rebuffed by the Democrats. There was no bipartisanship and now our economy sits in disarray. This is no thanks to this Congress and the likes of Senator Dodd of Connecticut and
Republican Frank of Massachusetts who sit on the Senate Banking and Finance Committee and who have benefitted from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse.
The No Child Left Behind Act has shown marked improvement in the scores of minority children. There has been increased aid to African nations and increased medical care to victims of AIDS, all done
quietly by this administration with no fanfare, no grandstanding. That seems to be the difference between these two political parties — one just talks the talk, the other walks the talk.
MARY BELL
Dumfries
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on October 07, 2008 at 6:30 am
“That seems to be the difference between these two political parties — one just talks the talk, the other walks the talk.“
Well, actually, John McCain is running as fast as he can from being associated with the very same Bush Administration he supports 95% of the time. McCain campaigned as a Bush Republican during the primaries but now does not even want to be seen with his buddy President Bush.
Yet, as McCain runs from Bush, he continues to campaign on the same Bush tax cuts for the rich, which place additional hardships on the middle class, and giving MORE Bush tax breaks to Big Oil.
Yes, while one campaign walks the talk, the other runs from his own shadow while still talking the talk.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( rain3fly ) on October 05, 2008 at 7:53 am
I don’t mind discussing politics with someone I disagree with, someone who honestly argues in good faith, but I do mind having to answer BIG LIES told by people who want to WIN AT ANY COST. This economic meltdown happened on the watch of the Bush Administration with the help of a Republican House and Republican Senate, and partially as a result of a “voodoo economics” (by Reagan) that deregulation will allow Wall Street the freedom to act honestly in the public interest while pocketing billions in salaries and “golden parachutes” and “trickling down” their crumbs to the rest of us. This is all a FACT that we all know, that is all too evident to the honest eye, and that affects us all NOW. Yet this writer repeats a LIE designed to cast doubt on the facts in hopes of fooling those remaining voters who don’t know any better. We need to get rid of the Republicans who had the power to do something and did nothing, who helped the process along, and who have done tremendous harm to our country. And then we need to stay alert and keep a sharp eye on the Obama Administration and the Democratic Majority in Congress. The Republicans should be ashamed to ask for our votes.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on October 05, 2008 at 7:04 am
You might recall that in 2004, flush with his 2% mandate, President Bush announced he was going to privatize Social Security. His plan, solidly back by the Republican-controlled congress and solidly opposed by the Democratic minority, was to turn over management of our Social Security funds to the same geniuses who ran Enron, WorldCom, Auther Anderson, and all the many brokerage houses who are now lining up for our tax dollars to bail them out.
Considering that my personal IRA has lost 20% face value over the last nine months but my Social Security fund is still stable; I’m rather glad the Democrats opposed Bush.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( rafaelva ) on October 05, 2008 at 2:54 am
There is no Senator Frank of Mass. There is a Congressman Frank of Mass, however, he is a Democrat, not a Republican. Agreed, Mr. Frank sits on a Banking Committee, but not in the Senate. In 2003, Mr. Frank voted with the REPUBLICAN majority on the Committee to not lessen Treasury’s Role in regulating Fannie and Freddie.
The Congress, particularly the House was under Republican Control from
1999 to 2007. Regulatory Reform is a coat that has two colors, it can be either Regulatory or DeRegulatory.
A lot of the regulatory measures needed had already once existed, and they were gradually shaved off.
FDR gave us the “New Deal”, later administrations gave us lots of deals,
each a bit successful, unfortunately the current administration will leave office, and history will call it’s tenure the Raw Deal.
Report Inappropriate Comment