[fable]

Darzog, you really should stop seeing Dubya in traditional Republican terms, and this piece as an attack on Republicans. It isn't, and he isn't. Dubya is a neo-con whose views are diametrically opposed to those of many conservative Republicans, in Congress and elsewhere. He's only had them on his side because 1) he controls the pursestrings of the White House, and 2) he was a vote getter. Now that's he not, their rebelling. And the "best speech" is aimed at Bush's White House, not Republican values.

Originally Posted by Darzog

1. Has Africa just started to be neglected and subject to poverty and hunger in the last 6 years? No it has been this way for a long time, through MANY administrations (I will conceed that this administration has done less than most though).

If you'll reread the op-edit piece, you'll see that the writer isn't chastising Bush for ignoring Africa, but for dumping billiions of dollars into controlling the MidEast while ignoring Africa. Very different thing. Bush has thrown more money at the MidEast in the last 4 years than all the previous presidents, combined.

2. Has the health care system just started to suck? No, again this is a legacy from generations of making things worse by spending more money to get less done.

No, most of the health safety net put into place by previous administrations has been all but eliminated by Bush. Don't trust me: go check the figures in the annual US budget that Bush has gotten through since 2001. Remember, a great deal of the money is sent onto state bureaus, as well. And if you want personal anecdotes, ask Chanak, who knows the state govenrment welfare system intimately, how badly the Bush cuts to social/health care have affected it. Nor was it a case earlier before of "spending more money to get less done." This kind of rhetoric certainly applied to the system when it was put into place under the Johnson administration, but it was refined to the point where there are no more doctors living the high life on golf courses with the aid of federal health support, and no more industries making fantastic sums of money. It was repeatedly praised by Reagan and Bush's daddy.

3. If Bush put forth a bill on energy savings that would cut oil use, increase alternative energy sources, and so on, would Congress pass it? No, because there are enough Representatives and Senators in the pockets of oil/automotive/developers to kill any plan (both Red and Blue).

Of course they would pass it. The Congressional Budget Office publishes each year not merely a list of all lobbying organizations in Washington, but also the amounts spent by them on Federal officials. The car industry is way, waaaaay back in line and has minor clout compared to the big players: remember Bush stating recently when GM had problems, that there would be no federal buyout support, as with Chrysler, back in the 1980s? (It's all about defense contracts, these days.) What's more, the car industry stands to *gain* from alternative fuels that can run in cars--new ones, that you and I would then have to buy.

4. Do Democrats appoint conservative Republicans to Staff or Judicial positions? No, they put their own extremists in place.

No, they don't. Remember Clinton, large guy, problems with his pants zipper? Though a liberal himself, he appointed a moderate-to-conservative to the bench, who already a had reputation for moderate-to-conservative views: Sandra Day O'Connor. She was passed on a bipartisan vote of both Democrats and Republicans, with hardly a dissent. Nor is this a Democrat/Republican issue, so don't make it one: do you know that Nixon not only appointed Renquist, but also Blackmun, one of the Supreme Court liberals (none of whom are any longer on the bench)? In other words, this is a matter of Bush, not Republicans, playing politics to please a portion of his electorate with far-right religious views.