Back to Index

US Politics: (No) beating (about the) Bush

As expected, the other shoe has fallen. Rusty Bentley replies to Hank Greely: "I trust that this will not go on ad nauseam however, I feel compelled to reply to Little Greely's ramblings. Unless we want to overturn the 1803 precedent of Marbury v Madison, we are bound to accept all rulings on the Supreme Court as binding and final. That said, George W. Bush is the legally elected president of the United States. As such he and his administration have been forced to face challenges to our couniry and our way of life that are more severe than any since 1941 and, in my opinion, perhaps even more severe than then. Will he and his team do everything wisely and right? Probably not. Am I satisfied that he and his team are good, honest people who will try to do what is wise and right to protect our country? My answer is yes.

Will politics raise its ugly head in other areas of governing? My answer is regrettably yes. Without intending to reflect poorly on any one party or group, I would suggest that the foes of GWB review his accomplishments as governor of Texas and particularly his ability to compromise and build support among both parties for issues. Perhaps the dastardly interjection of "pure hard ball partisan politics" in Washington should not be laid entirely and singularly at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

There were very few if any programs or actions taken by the previous president and his administration that I agreed with. My disagreement on what I considered the merits was never enhanced by referring to President Clinton as "Slick Willie" or Monica's main squeeze. If my criticism was valid, it didn't need denigration of the man. If it was not valid, denigration would not make it valid. After about the 3rd grade I tried to restrict my criticisms to facts and reason rather than name calling".

Ronald Hilton - 9/7/02