Politics bore me. Hours of men in suits on a stage rambling about the state of the nation and whatnot. What interests me is the reaction of the people to current political issues.

Thankfully, as we near the end of the first decade of the new millennium; people have learned to view politicians and their ramblings with a certain amount of humor.

One politician in particular has been ridiculed by the public, not only in his home country, America, but across the world.

George W. Bush was sworn in as the American president on January 20, 2001. At noon of the 21 January 2009, Bush will be stepping down as president of the USA. His replacement has yet to be determined.

How will the world remember George W. Bush? Did his time in office result in a positive impact on the American economy, on the lives of the American people?

Let's take a look at some photos from protest marches, in the US and around the world, to determine the public opinion of Bush.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses…” And Bush will leave them hungry and dying in the gulf coast states.

The famous phrase, engraved on the Statue of Liberty, is from Emma Lazarus's poem "The Colossus", written in 1883. These words greeted early immigrants, welcoming them to the Americas, promising hope, freedom and comfort. The wearer of this shirt obviously feels that George Bush does not live by these words.

The only Bush I trust is my own

“It'll be like "Blam Blam! Pow pow! Blam blam! YaBoooosh! AAAARRRGGHHH! You got me!" ”

This poster depicts Bush playing with children's soldier figurines; expressing that the president didn't fully think through the current war in the East, and that his decisions regarding the war may have been childish, immature and rash.

Empty warhead found in White House

Will somebody please give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him!

This protest poster uses a former president's infidelity to create a tongue-in-cheek opinion of the current president. Bill Clinton was impeached after having sexual relations with his secretary. Perhaps this woman feels the only way she'd see the back of Bush is if he were to follow suit.

Weapons of mass dysfunction

End Bush

Possibly a statement that many politicians will not understand, this sign cleverly uses HTML code to express the opinion that Bush's term in office must end.

I pee on bushes

Even dogs have a political opinion.

If you think that Congress is doing any better think again. With the Democratic and Republican congressional leaders disapproval rating at 64% and 71% respectively they aren't faring any better. No wonder they were more concerned about campaigning to save their jobs than solving the economic crisis. Here's a thought, maybe you guys should have been doing your jobs in the first place rather than staying in session just long enough to give yourselves a pay raise and then adjourning so you could go get in those rounds of golf with the your defense contractor buddies who are making a bundle off the war in Iraq.

It's no secret that the economy is the number one thing on American's minds right now. Of course the big news is the $700 billion dollar bailout plan and this is what some polls have to say about that brilliant piece of legislation. A CBS news poll on Oct 3-5, 2008 says that 51% disapprove the bill passed by congress. In the same poll, 52% disapprove of the government giving money to financial institutions. In a CNN poll, 76% oppose the government providing more money to financial institutions beyond the $700 billion should that measure fail.

As final food for thought I think it is high time we revive the Bayh-Celler Amendment. This amendment called for an end to the electoral college process for electing the president and a shift to a direct popular vote system (you know, the way a democracy is suppose to be). This amendment passed the Full House of representatives in 1969 with bi-partisan support with a vote of 339-70. Of course it died in a filibuster by some southern senators and some conservatives form small states whining about how they would lose their political power. I don't know about you, but if less people live in a certain state shouldn't they have less influence on politics? After all, isn't democracy about what the majority wants?

These are, of course, trillions with a “T.” Unimaginable amounts of money to us simple mortals, but to the gods inhabiting the White House and Congress and running Wall Street, evidently a trillion dollars with a “T” is something comfortably discussed – perhaps over golf or the obligatory three martini lunch.

Certainly it is something they feel safe discussing in a piece of legislation that will put each of us on the hook for $700 billion (with a “B”) to assist mismanaged firms and a ruined economy – and we each have the requisite $2000 apiece lying around the old estate to contribute to this bailout, don’t we? We’d better, as that will be the amount each of us is signed up to produce when and if this legislation is rammed through this week.

Unfortunately, I was not invited to the country club to share in the private discussions that led up to my elected representatives innocently trotting out these numbers with dollar bill signs, nor did the limo swing by to take me to the luncheon – no conviviality, no martinis, and no information for me. I wasn’t even allowed to read this masterwork, “The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,’’ prior to it being debated and voted on.

Of course, I wouldn’t have been able to make it to the party anyway had I been invited. As most of you are, I was busy working and paying the ridiculous taxes required to keep multimillionaires in business after they’ve shown their stunted talents for producing anything of value and that their capacity to take wild risks at my expense is evidently unlimited.

But an invitation would have been appreciated, nonetheless. Why didn’t I receive one, or you either? Nigh every elected official from the president down has lamented that rumors and misrepresentations have dogged this bill – as if it was the fault of the citizenry that its government failed to keep us completely and honestly informed of the allegedly dire situation with investment banks and Wall Street as that trouble developed. No, all we heard for months was that the market was “sound in its fundamentals” and that anyone who thought the economy was in a slump was “obviously” suffering some bizarre mental affliction since the Bush Administration’s economists chanted “All is well” repeatedly.

And it is pretended that it’s somehow the fault of the citizenry that we are provided with a copy of the legislation with no time to actually read and analyze it prior to the vote. Once again, on the way out the door, we hear Mr. Bush and his gang uttering their immortal motto: “Trust us!” while desperately pleading we are in a “crisis” that must be addressed “immediately” by “extreme measures” or all is lost. The only thing missing is the Homeland Security Code-Orange-Fast-Heading-To-Bright-Red Thermometer of Doom flashing across the television on every channel with graphics of dancing skeletal corpses rising from their graves to drag innocent families from their homes by the hair, courtesy of Hieronymus Bosch.

I am a bit incredulous at this point, with all the governmental abuses and mismanagement since 11 September 2001, that our elected representatives in the Bush Administration are surprised so many of us no longer “just trust them.” These are the same people who painted a false picture of atomic desolation in order to acquire the authority to go to war with a country that was not directly involved with 9/11. And then they wasted money and lives to help create a world in which the threat of terrorism has increased, not decreased, while the pockets of their corporate partners got fatter with tax money.

These are the same people who got their Patriot Act passed by scaring the citizens into believing their next door neighbors might be terrorists so the FBI needs to be able to check up on their reading habits at the public library.

These are the same people who simply broke the law outright and potentially bugged all of our e-mail and phone conversations with its domestic spying program – and then talked Congress repeatedly into making it OK after they were discovered.

The Bush Administration’s habitual performance is clear: Demand far more power than is actually necessary by inflating the threat or need, take the power once it is granted, and then abuse it. That has been the story of our government for the past 8 years.

Given this and given the utter vagueness of the 451 page Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, why would anyone be surprised many Americans are terribly suspicious of this move by Mr. Bush? Look at what one finds in this monster: The inclusion of all manner of oddities, from tax breaks involving wool to wooden arrows for children, and curious short passages with cryptic wording such as, under “TITLE IV—EXTENSION OF TAX ADMINISTRATION PROVISIONS, “ something called “SEC. 401. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS” and “SEC. 402. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION RELATING TO TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.”

Some of us simply become uncomfortable thinking about how badly our government has abused its power over the past 8 years while reading any legislation with words such as “permanent authority” stuck in, with no fanfare, around pages 296-297.

Yet you and I are simply supposed to trust these people to do the right thing if we hand them a blank check and give the Secretary of the Treasury free reign over the economy?

People, some clichés are telling because there is an element of truth in them, and one occurs to me now: “Past performance is a good predictor of future returns.” What you got in the past out of the Bush Administration is likely what you are about to receive again. These things are bets – there is no way to be absolutely certain, as there is no way to be certain when investing money, picking a career, or electing presidents and members of Congress. But what people have done in the past is a better than average sign of what they will continue to do. And we have to base our support for or opposition to bills such as this on something.

There is a chance that, in this case, Mr. Bush is the Boy Who Cried Wolf and now the wolf has arrived. The country may actually stand on that “brink of economic collapse.” But it just may be that this crisis is hardly severe enough to require us to hand such sweeping powers to the Secretary of the Treasury, an unelected official, as have been proposed. And it may be that we don’t need to begin by offering a $700 billion (with a “B”) bailout to multimillionaires who are supposed to know how to run businesses conservatively.

If we’re going to help anyone, perhaps it should be the middle class taxpayers who are having difficulty keeping jobs, making house payments, buying food and fuel, paying medical bills, sending their children to school – and investing and saving.

Perhaps it is time to, at long last, doubt Mr. Bush’s honesty and judgment. Perhaps it is time to call your elected officials and demand they do to this legislation what Nancy Reagan told us all those years ago in another context: “Just say no.” That, or remind them that you are more than capable of saying “No” to them come election day.

The failure of the Bush Bailout plan, as modified by Congress, to pass in the House of Representatives reflects a total absence of national leadership at all levels. Since its initial proposal the Bush Administration has mishandled all events surrounding the plan. Secretary of Treasury Paulson may be an exceptionally competent investment banker, but his arrogant approach to the Hill has undercut any positive influence he could have wielded to pass the legislation. Chairman Bernancke of the Federal Reserve exacerbated conditions by his supercilious attitude and patronizing manner. George W. Bush, did what he has done since assuming the Presidency, i.e. make speeches demanding that things be done “his way or the highway”. The House leaders on both sides of the aisle were not able to revise the Bush Bailout Plan in a manner that would solve the imminent financial liquidity crisis of not only America, but the world. Their inability to assess the underlying conditions and then to devise creative solutions that would solve the short and long term problems is deeply troubling. The Senate leaders seem to be ready to vote on any bill that comes out of the House without consideration to the failed policies that developed the financial challenges that now confront this country.

The absence of leadership extends to the presidential candidates as well. Senator John McCain suspended his campaign to return to Washington to push through a solution, yet when he got there he remained in his campaign headquarters and made periodic telephone calls instead of going to the Hill to make things happen. Then an hour before the vote was taken, he claimed that his participation in the process virtually guaranteed that it would pass; when, instead it was ignobly defeated. On Saturday evening attending the Black Caucus Gala, Senator Barack Obama executed his leadership by doing nothing with this critical voting block. He could have easily asked a number of the attendees to separate briefly from the event to participate in a strategic session with him where he could have encouraged them to support the plan; sadly, he maintained his aloof stance and opted to be a non-leader. The result was that the most of the Black Caucus voted against the bill: even though the overwhelming number of their seats are safe in the upcoming election.

The politicians have tried to justify their actions by proclaiming that they are exercising the will of the people, as if that has had any meaning to them for decades. However, if they were truly trying to help their constituencies, a plan would have been devised and passed that actually solved the difficulties, which the current one unequivocally does not. What we need now is action that will solve the dilemmas of both Main Street and Wall Street and not more of the tired partisan politics that serve the desires of the special interests that control this country.

Gary Hamby

09/30/08

McCain has stated that the U.S. is "beginning to succeed in Iraq". Considering the fact that the U.S. has been in Iraq for nearly five years "beginning to succeed" is not good enough. What is McCain's plan on Iraq and is it plausible? First off he thinks withdrawal of our troops is a sign of surrender and thereby defeat, to me that shows his flawed way of thinking.

Let Iraq rest, the U.S. not only ousted, but executed Saddam Hussein already. The Iraqi government is a fledgling democracy with billions in economic surplus. Let Iraq be a self sustaining government, and bring our troops home. McCain has said he wants to maintain a presence in the region, but it is quite evident that the Iraqis want us out.  So why stay where we're not wanted?

It is obvious to me that voting for McCain would be a vote for more of the same. Bush showed his incompetence as a leader early on, but people failed to acknowledge it til recently. It was said by a friend of mine that Bush was the "most unpopular president in history". While popularity is not the issue here, competence is, nonetheless we need a president that is capable of being president and not just wearing the title.

The devil is in the details and those are being secretively hidden from public view. Rumors are rampant that part of the furtiveness is because the program will include provisions that will enable international companies to prevail upon the American taxpayer to assume toxic assets from them. Other rumors are that everything is being kept hidden because the Bush Plan includes billions of taxpayer dollars for executives who created the financial disaster in the form of funding their Golden Parachutes.

The Secretary of Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve appear hell-bent to save the world's major financial institutions to the detriment of America. One has to ask why? Why would an American Administration want to further deepen the American debt load at a time when it is at the highest level in our 232 year history? In particular why would they wish to accomplish this when there are so many Americans in desperate need for help with their mortgages, a provision notably absent in the Bush Bailout Plan?

Is this yet another part of the Bush Administration's goal to socialize risk? Is it part of the neo-conservative hidden agenda? A multi-tiered agenda that includes leaving this country so mired in debt that future administrations will not be able to enact programs that would benefit taxpayers. With the trillions of debt the Bush Administration has burdened the country with is the possibility of health care reform dead for future decades? Are the desperately needed changes to the abysmally failed education system also dead for the foreseeable future? Has the same death bell knelled for rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure? The infrastructure that needs so badly to be rebuilt (remember the Minneapolis bridge?) Do the direly needed transformations in the energy industry that would reduce dependency on foreign oil stand any chance of being implemented on a timely basis?

The neo-conservatives will argue that the fiscal responsibility will need to be restored to make this country great again. Patriotism will be evoked at every possible opportunity to obfuscate the fact that nothing can be done to help the American people because of the massive debt level left by the Bush Administration. Pundits will propound the need to win the war on terrorism and denigrate any new program as one we can not afford due to the trillions of debt dollars. All of these spin practices will be used by the neo-conservatives in their attempt to further the interest of multinational companies.

The Bush Administration after 8 years of decrying the need to keep government (as it grew government larger than any other administration in our history) out of business, it now advocates that the government needs to assume strong relationship with business. Margaret Thatcher, the first woman British Prime Minister widely used her government to further U.K. commercial interests; even actively campaigning on a personal level in international competitions. Indeed there is a host of other allies who use a similar model. It is also a model widely used by countries who are not our allies and those who are our enemies. One could assert that this is the currently most widely used model in the world; and, also historically.

If this model is so widely promulgated and employed, then why should one oppose it in America? There is one highly significant reason - the approach envisioned and presently employed by the Bush Administration. While the rest of the world has developed government-business relationships that are bilateral and create mutual benefits; the neo-conservative version is highly unilateral with all of the benefits ceded to business and all of the disadvantages bestowed on the government, i.e. directly onto the back of the American taxpayer. The proposed bailout epitomizes this model - American Socialized Capitalism!

It would be difficult if not impossible to imagine a more hypocritical response to the greedy and morally reprehensible mismanagement of businesses, therefore, the trust and financial security of all Americans, than to be confronted with “free market” “non-interventionists” forwarding a plan that transfers the pain and financial losses of insanely poor business practices from the Firms , CEO's, Boards of Director and other managerial scam-artists onto the backs of the hard-working, already suffering, taxpayer.

Once again, the hollow, dishonest, “read my lips” bluster of the Bush-league Dynasty's anti-tax lie comes to the fore. No new taxes! This can only be interpreted to mean, a hostile transfer of debt, losses and responsibility from the now deregulated financial and insurance industries onto the individual citizen. The British Socialist Party defined Socialism as Government control of the commanding heights of the economy. The commanding heights of the U.S. economy reside in the financial and insurance communities. The people of America have now witnessed the co-opting of their way of life by those who would Socialize only the financial sector of America. Socialization of Capitalism is apparently not such anathema to the neo-con-artists as Social Security or single payer health care, both programs that Republicans have railed against as ”un-American” and anti “free market”.

Any conversation that lays claim to some notion that a Republican controlled government leads, by any version of a convoluted pathway, to lowered or even stable taxation of the American people, at least the bottom 95% of American people, must at this time be dismissed as outright lies. It cannot be said to be poor judgment or bad timing or globalization or any existing or perceived condition of world socio-political-economic factors, unless you consider the very leaders telling you such, to be so grossly incompetent and/or ill informed as to be completely lacking in a sufficient “big picture” understanding that would allow them to realize that the one and only significant revenue stream available to government is taxes. Barring some relatively small collections from leasing of resources such as oil, gas, timber, grazing livestock, etc., the singular cash crop of the U.S. government is the U.S. taxpayer. The facts, however irrelevant in political discourse, are undeniable. The current and previous Republican presidents, G.W. Bush and G.H.W. Bush have force-fed Socialism by means of corporate bailouts to America, repeatedly, and in the process have generated the largest tax increases in our history. Corporate subsidies, already gifted, combined with those now being proposed will burden Americans with more than one trillion dollars in new tax liability.

Is this a sign that there is some genetic predisposition to fiscally irresponsible radical Socialism or, is this simply the most revealing example, to date, of a very perverse family value?

Read my lips “No new Bush's”

And Obama? What's wrong with Obama? A little inexperienced, they say. If that's the biggest complaint, I'll take it. It seems like the largest problem facing politics these days comes from the most experienced politicians, men and women whose debts are astronomically large; one election campaign after another and one favor after another. A seasoned politician is a purchased politician. So maybe Obama isn't nearly as subject to those entrenching obligations by virtue of his lack of experience. Besides, as far as I can tell, the only experience one really needs to be president is the ability to act and convince others that everything is going to be allright. I think Obama or McCain would be fine for this. I'm just glad we don't have another G-dub in the running. So in this election season, I'm giving thanks for decent candidates.