[skylark]

Okay, so a lot has happened on this thread since I left GC last night.. and I think most of the other posters have done a good job with the criticisms thrown at my post (which I certainly didn't intend to be so controversial).

A couple explanatory things about my post:

Of course its an overstatement. I was (albeit highly unsuccessfully) trying to be dramatic in a funny way, I guess. However, there is truth in every accusation in the post, including the ones you find nutty.

And of course there are other people to blame besides Bush. I honestly don't see why placing blame on one person alleviates blame on another, but if you read that into my post then I'm sorry. That was not my intent. I don't think anyone on here (besides maybe SECDomination) is naive enough to think that one person or one party is the sole source of our problems.

On to some specific issues you raised...

1. Yes, skylark is a she.

2. Governmental branches: I work for one of the branches of government and so yeah, I'm pretty sure I understand their separate functions, but I also understand their influence over each other and the way things (like $ or religion) that corrupt one branch have a tendency to corrupt the others. Also, we may all believe that there SHOULD be limits to executive power, but how much do you want to bet that Bush (and Cheney behind him) doesn't give a rats behind about it? It has pretty much been a blatant goal of Bush/Cheney since they took office to expand the power of the executive. For instance, one of the few checks on the executive is the requirement that treaties be approved by the Senate. So what has Bush done now that he wants to create a treaty with Iraq? He simply gives it a new name without "treaty" in it so he doesn't have to ask for approval. This is just an example, but you get the picture. Bush doesn't care about what boundaries the executive branch SHOULD have.

3. Hurricaine Katrina (this seems to be the one you have the biggest problem with): (A) I've heard several analyses by climate experts that show that there may be a link between increased intensity and frequency in hurricaines and global warming. Bush didn't cause global warming, of course, but how many opportunities has he passed up while in office to try to fix it (Kyoto was the first, I think). Hell, until a year or so ago he wouldn't even acknowledge it. (B) HE is primarily responsible for the slow disaster response because HE appointed the poorly qualified crony that was in charge of FEMA and neglected to monitor the situation enough to sweep in and fix the problem once things started going haywire. Go back to my original post and you'll see my main criticism focuses on the emergency services. These are well within the President's responsibility and power in the executive branch because executive power includes direct authority over all the federal government's agencies.

4. As to health care: did you pay attention at all when Bush shot down a bill because it included national health care for lower-income children which he decided looked too much like socialism?

5. I think the tax cuts have been mostly addressed, but I think it helps to remember that with our national debt, every cut is a loan we take out from our children and grandchildren. And the tax cuts themselves are illusory in some respects because it doesn't even take into account all of the income that the economic elite make on selling stocks. Did you know that Bush cut the taxes on stock-sale income to 15%?! That's a lower rate than I'm sure most of us are getting taxed on our own income. So if you don't think that tax cuts are highly geared toward corporate CEOs and other economically fortunate individuals, I don't know what else to tell you. And I specifically mentioned energy CEOs because energy-related businesses (especially the ones Cheney has ties to) are mysteriously the target of a large percentage of the corporate bail-outs and tax cuts we dole out every year.

Oh yeah, and we should all thank Bush for trying to "fix" social security by privatizing it with all of the "political capital" he had after his reelection. Just like with immigration, if he wasn't so hard-headed and closed to compromising with dems on national policy issues, maybe we'd have at least some limited improvement instead of dealing with the status quo.

Okay.. can we talk about the election again? I'm actually pretty optimistic that a new president could motivate the rest of the country into some meaningful change!