|
Republicratic
Crap
July 16, 2001
by
achildleftbehind
This
article is a response to They're
Both Republicrats, by Norbert Radtke
Much like Mr. Radtke, I also embrace all things left-leaning,
especially the DU. However, I must disagree with his perspective
on our two party system. He suggests that the two parties
are really a "two faced one party" Considering the views and
actions of our politicians, the differences should be as obvious
as those between the last ice age and the current global warming.
Though our past president presided over such blunders as
the creation of NAFTA and the WTO. We must put things in a
better and more realistic perspective. Could anyone tell me
which president presided over the greatest prosperity since
the '70s? Or which president worked his ass off attempting
to maintain peace across the globe? Or how about the president
that signed myriad executive orders protecting our precious
environmental treasures, before the Shrubbery was selected?
I'll tell you who it was: CLINTON Whatever the media said
is not his fault and has no place in a case against him. If
you want to talk about someone who suppressed public opinion,
if you want to discuss someone who REALLY has the media yelling
Orwellian drivel, look no farther than the current No-Brainer
in Chief.
As far as I can tell, the rest of the piece was an anti-corporation
rant with little relevance to what was supposed to be the
point. But while on the subject of corporations and their
influence on the political system, allow me to make another
distinction between the two parties. The Democratic Party
is currently the party of campaign finance reform. Though
the bill was cosponsored by a Democrat and a moderate Republican,
the majority of it's support is from the Democrats. Let's
take this time to examine the policies of two of the nations
most prominent politicians: Al Gore and George Bush.
On the environment, Gore has advocated the Kyoto treaty
and other measures to reduce global warming. Bush has done
nothing but undermine these measures and thus the planet's
well being.
Gore and Bush supported a tax cut, can't be all that different
right? WRONG. Gore wanted to lower the taxes on the middle
and lower class tax brackets, thus helping the majority of
people and stimulating the economy. (A consumer driven economy
is improved when those who could significantly increase their
spending on common products, are better able to do so.) Bush
advocated and managed to pass an abomination of a tax cut,
which will only serve to help his high-donating constituents
and Poppy's oil buds.
Gore wanted to build more schools, hire more teachers, and
increase accountability without the excessive use of standardized
tests. Bush wishes to turn the children "left behind" by the
system away with a miniscule voucher that would only fuel
the private and religious sector of education.
I need not even make mention of the countless differences
between the two on reproductive rights. I could write a book
on the damage Bush has done and will continue to do to those
freedoms.
The list goes on: missile defense, patients rights, gay-rights,
women's rights, death-penalty, faith-based funding, energy,
civil rights etc. The disparity between the two is overwhelming.
I can appreciate the strong ideals of those who wish to no
longer vote "republicrat". But I ask, is it worth the election
of a dunce with an oil complex just to make a point so few
will herald? I would say not. Better a moderate Democrat than
a Republican.
View
All Articles
|
