Schwarzenegger
I have read two articles which compare Schwarzenegger to Reagan.
Both also compare the fact that Reagan was more effective at getting compromise legislation through than Bush has been. While I definitely agree that Bush is a more polarizing figure than either Reagan or Schwarzenegger, you'd think from reading these articles that the Left has gotten nothing out of Bush.
There are two huge things that Bush has produced that were gifts to the Left. The first one was the "No Child Left Behind" Act, which has send Billions to the Sates. The second is the new drug benefit that has been added to Medicare. This is guaranteed to balloon the deficit for years to come. Neither of these things is the product of a dogmatic conservative.
Another point not made in these articles is that Bush doesn't have to be as pragmatic as Reagan was and Schwarzenegger is. Bush has had a legislative majority in the Congress for most of his term. I'd imagine he would be more conciliatory if he had to work with hostile majorities.
That being said, I think it's a shame that Schwarzenegger can't run for president. He has a much greater presence as a speaker, and is simply much smarter than George. I think he is a solid fiscal conservative, while being socially liberal in most cases, giving him that warm "mushy-middle" feel that Clinton had before "diddle-gate". I could support an amendment to the Constitution to allow him to run, if he promises absolutely no "Terminator" references or quips during office.
Both also compare the fact that Reagan was more effective at getting compromise legislation through than Bush has been. While I definitely agree that Bush is a more polarizing figure than either Reagan or Schwarzenegger, you'd think from reading these articles that the Left has gotten nothing out of Bush.
There are two huge things that Bush has produced that were gifts to the Left. The first one was the "No Child Left Behind" Act, which has send Billions to the Sates. The second is the new drug benefit that has been added to Medicare. This is guaranteed to balloon the deficit for years to come. Neither of these things is the product of a dogmatic conservative.
Another point not made in these articles is that Bush doesn't have to be as pragmatic as Reagan was and Schwarzenegger is. Bush has had a legislative majority in the Congress for most of his term. I'd imagine he would be more conciliatory if he had to work with hostile majorities.
That being said, I think it's a shame that Schwarzenegger can't run for president. He has a much greater presence as a speaker, and is simply much smarter than George. I think he is a solid fiscal conservative, while being socially liberal in most cases, giving him that warm "mushy-middle" feel that Clinton had before "diddle-gate". I could support an amendment to the Constitution to allow him to run, if he promises absolutely no "Terminator" references or quips during office.
4 Comments:
The first one was the "No Child Left Behind" Act, which has send Billions to the Sates.
Not trying to be argumentative here, but have you ever heard an educator talk about "No Child Left Behind"? Check out this page from the NEA.
http://www.nea.org/esea/memberspeakout1.html
On your other topic, I am willing to bet $100* that you will have a chance to vote for Arnie in '08. I won't be voting for him (I like a little bit more experience, and a lot fewer explosions behind my presidents), but i'm sure a lot of people will. I imagine he will be hard to beat.
*you know, figuratively.
Fair enough. I read the link, and the sentiments are echoed at the bottom of this article as well. But I think my main point still holds well. Bush seems to have had more Democratic support for NCLB than Republican, since some of them wanted school choice to be added in. I will perhaps modify my statement the NCLB is a gift to the left and restate it as "his successful bipartisan legislation"
As far as Arnold is concerned, I'd probably take that bet*. Lot's of Republicans will despise him for not being a pure "Republican", and Democrats will fear him for being able to win. 2/3rd majorities are required in Congress and State legislatures. He will have to be "Reagan in '84" popular for these folks to change the Constitution for him.
BTW, I've officially decided to vote Libertarian this year, and the reasons for this deserve a post of their own.
Forgot to link the article. Oops.
The Politics of No Child Left Behind
I will perhaps modify my statement the NCLB is a gift to the left and restate it as "his successful bipartisan legislation"That's fair.
Here's my thoughts on Arnold being nominated.
I think that a Cheney presidency wouldn't happen unless they hypnotise the voters as they are entering the booth(and hey, I wouldn't rule that out). Arnold is popular, and Joe 6-pack across the country would probably vote for him. As for getting 2/3rds of the vote in both Congress and State Legislature, well, I don't think that would be a problem if it was clear that he was the most popular candidate. Republicans are currently running both (and it doesn't look to be changing anytime soon), and they will look out as to what is best for their party.
Besides, who else is going to run?
Post a Comment
<< Home