My mother is a Bush HATER, to the point of believing in all of the Michael Moore/kookisms kookisms (Bush is in bed with Saudi Arabia for his own financial benefit; Saudi Arabia was responsible for 9/11; Iraq was all about oil, for the personal benefit of Bush and other people in his Administration--my mother not QUITE endorsing the idea that Bush conspired with Bin Laden to bring about 9/11).
My mother (85 plus) grew up in the Great Depression. Her favorite thing is to say that Bush is driving us into another Gread Depression (which she was saying when the economy was GOOD--as it has been under Bush for more than 5 years, until the housing bubble burst and reated this recent slowdown). She calls President Bush the worst President since Herbert Hoover, and on a level with him (my mother can't think of anything worse to say about a person).
Like the leftists I discuss in this blog, my mother lets her HATRED of President Bush lead her into being a kook on the subject. We are nowhere close to a Great Depression, and the economy is still not that bad (not even yet in a recession, by all indications). But she has one good point.
Herbert Hoover was not responsible for the Great Depression. From all accounts, he was a vastly talented man overwhelmed by events beyond his control. HOWEVER. My mother is well aware that Herbert Hoover was not responsible for the Great Depression, and even that FDR did not really bring us out of the Great Depression (World War II did). But my mother's impression (living through it) was the Hoover showed more concern about people in other countries than he showed for sufferiing people in the U.S. Even if that was not true, a President can't afford to leave that impression. Roosevelt acted like he CARED. Herbert Hoover did not.
How does my mother think that President Bush is showing the same attitude as Hoover? Isn't President Bush promoting this "bipartisan" stimulus plan GIVING PEOPLE MONEY (FDR at least made people work for it)? Yes, but look at the State of the Union address and President Bush's strange catering to Mexico (a CORRUPT country).
This brings us to Michelle Malkin. She has examined (on her site) the amazing program that President Bush has proposed for Mexico. While President Bush has FAILED to secure our southern border, he is proposing to give more than a BIILION dollars to Mexico to help Mexico secure its southern border against illegal immigrants, AND to help Mexico's economy. This is just the latest in a long series of attempts by president Bush, during his Presidency, to cozy up to Mexico (instead of pressuring Mexico to do something aobut its own corruption). To a large extent, this has been a part of Bush's long standing attempt to court Hispanics. However, Mexico is a FOREIGN COUNTRY. And Bush is hardly in a position to be asking for money for Mexico, even if he thinks it will help us, when this ILLEGAL IMMIBRATION from Mexico is such a problem.
I have said in this blog that Bush has SABOTAGED the Republican Party with his policies on illegal immigration and Mexico (along with spending, big government, etc.). President Bush has pushed this "Mexican truck" program allowing Mexican trucks access to the entrie country. He has conintually acted like he is trying to accommodate whatever Mexican President is in power. Meanwhile, the illegal immigrants have continued to pour across the border. Then President Bush proposes to HELP MEXICO WITH MONEY (corrupt as it is).
Aren't both Michelle Malkin and my mother right. At a time of economic downturn, AND illegal immigration out of control, is this not TONE DEAFNESS worthy of Herber Hoover? I think it is. That is why I have asked whether President Bush is really a MOLE/saboteur undermining the Republican Party. Unfortunately, I don't even have any doubt that John McCain fits that description.
It gets worse. Did you listen to the State of the Union address CAREFULLY? President bush really did seem MORE concerned about AIDS in Africa and world hunger than about people here (okay, maybe not more concerned, but it was the wrong time to be talking that way). No mention of AIDS being a CONDUCT driven disease, or of the corruption in Africa; just talk of more money. Then their was that campaign against world hunger, including (so help me) a FARM SUBSIDY for FOREIGN FARMERS (He really did say we needed to address world hunger by encouraging foreign farmers by buying their crops).
Nope. Even if you are going to propose these things, you DON'T do it in the State of the Union address. President Bush really is tone deaf, and my mother is right: he has the instincts of Herbert Hoover in convincing people that he is really looking out for their intersts.
Too bad. And we have McCain or Hillary or Obama to look forward to.