Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Does George W. Bush really say what he means and do what he says?

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Yeah....Bush is "strong", alright....but does he "mean what he says" ?

Starting with your first source:

Quote:

Photo/AP Photo/AP
President-elect George W. Bush addresses the nation from the chambers of the Texas House of Representatives in Austin, Texas on Wednesday. Bush promised that he and Al Gore, who gave his concession speech earlier, would do their best to heal the nation.

Saying the nation has been through a "long and trying period," Bush promised that he and Gore would "do our best to heal our country after this hard-fought contest."

His brief, prime-time speech, from the chamber of the Texas House of Representatives, repeatedly stressed reconciliation and unity.

Bush voiced the hope that rather than divide the country, the adversarial endgame to the election would "heighten a desire to move beyond the bitterness and partisanship of the recent past."

Bush's comments came one hour after Gore addressed the nation, flatly conceding the race and vowing to "do everything possible to help (Bush) bring Americans together."

"I personally will be at his disposal," said Gore, flanked by family members and running mate Sen. Joseph Lieberman. "And I call on all Americans - I particularly urge all who stood with us - to unite behind our next president."

Taken together, the back-to-back speeches from these bitter rivals were as amicable and upbeat as any of their supporters might have expected.

So ended the 2000 election, almost 36 days late, the murkiest in modern times, a contest that resisted clarity and consensus to the bitter end..

Bush had bi-partisan support on No Child Left Behind legislation, and as I recall worked very cloely with Sen. Kennedy.

Here is an interesting point of view:

Quote:

Two months after the Supreme Court stepped in to halt the counting of votes and Democratic candidate Al Gore conceded the presidency to George W. Bush, official Washington is moving towards a coalition government in all but name, with the Democrats playing the role of junior partners. The most bitterly contested election in more than a century has been followed by the Democrats' acceptance, without protest, of an illegitimate government and its program of social and political reaction.

On a daily basis, Democratic congressmen and senators troop through the doors of the White House to fawn over the Republican president whom at least some Democratic leaders were denouncing only a few weeks ago. Bush was invited to address the closed-door caucuses of House and Senate Democrats—a gesture that congressional Republicans never made to Clinton—and he received a friendly reception.

Democratic Party spokesmen have generally welcomed the Bush administration's initiatives on federal funding for social services provided by religious groups, on privatization of public education, in the guise of “reform,” and on national missile defense. Democratic Senator Zell Miller of Georgia agreed to co-sponsor the Bush tax cut plan, whose benefits go mainly to the wealthy, and many congressional Democrats have joined in the feeding frenzy on Capitol Hill, as corporate lobbyists seek to add provisions to reward their particular industries.

Even those Democratic Party loyalists who proclaimed the greatest hostility to Bush during the election campaign have sought a rapprochement with the new administration. Most of the Congressional Black Caucus accepted a Bush invitation to meet with him in the White House, an office that he only occupies thanks to the widespread disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney praised Bush's second choice for secretary of labor, Elaine Chao, who was nominated after the withdrawal of right-wing ideologue Linda Chavez. At a press conference last week, Sweeney pledged to work with the new administration and specifically praised Bush's proposal for “faith-based” social service programs.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/fe...dems-f13.shtml

Perhaps I was wrong about the Democrats after the election.