Knappster: The buck stops with Bush

By George Knapp

If there's one thing I regret about the intense partisanship that has characterized this election season, it's the fact that regular people can't have a civil discussion about politics anymore. There are Republican friends of mine with whom I dare not raise the subject of Bush vs. Kerry because there is a damned good chance a friendly disagreement about the differences between the two could quickly degenerate into a verbal slugfest that would likely leave lasting scars. My pal Matt is an example. We talk about politics all the time, but it's a limited range of issues or news stories. Either of us might bring up a point but mostly we gravitate toward those few subjects or issues where there might be some common ground. There's no talking about the big issues and glaring differences, because I want Matt to still be my friend when this election is over.

I suspect there's a lot of this out there in America these days. In your own home or workplace, chances are you've decided there is less wear and tear on personal relationships if you just keep your opinions to yourself rather than try to convince someone else of your arguments. How did we get so divided? Who drew such a deep line in the dirt? I think back to the spirit that enveloped our country right after the tragic events of 9/11 and remember how united our country was. We were all on the same page. What's more, we had the whole world with us. Now, the United States is more divided domestically than at any point in my lifetime. And we are more despised in the world than at any time in our country's history. How did this happen in such a short period?

There is certainly no shortage of finger pointing. Democrats blame the Republicans, and vice versa. Everyone blames the terrorists. The French are a favorite whipping boy, along with the U.N., the CIA, the liberal media, Fox News, Halliburton, Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, the Hollywood elite and especially Bill Clinton. There are few things going on in the country today that haven't been blamed on Bill Clinton. But no matter how someone might stretch things, I don't think we can lay today's bitter political divisions on Clinton's doorstep. Not this time.

George W. Bush was elected, in part, because of his boast that he is a uniter, not a divider. He vowed the reach out to Democrats as he had supposedly done in Texas. Three years after the near-total unity of 9/11, we are not united. We are more divided today than at any time since the Vietnam War, maybe more so. This is a fact. You can blame it on whomever you want, but I say the buck stops with George Bush. He's the top guy. He's the CEO. He's always telling us that he's the person in charge. If so, then I'd say he's the one who should take responsibility for the really terrible divisions that are so evident in our country, divisions that are growing deeper by the day.

It goes beyond that. I say he should take the responsibility for other things going on in our country. I heard Rudy Guliani say the other day that he and the rest of the country sure don't want to return to the days of pre-9/11. Lordy no, we wouldn't want to do that. I am reminded, however, of just who was in charge prior to the attacks of 9-11. As I recall, that was George Bush. There have been all sorts of excuses offered. The CIA screwed up. The FBI screwed up. No one saw it coming (despite numerous graphic warnings that were placed on the president's desk.) Mostly, though, the attacks were Bill Clinton's fault. See, Clinton wasn't tough enough on terrorism. There is probably an element of blame that could fall on all of the above, but Bill Clinton wasn't the president when the terrorists struck on 9/11. George Bush was. The attacks happened on his watch. Sure, there were problems with our intelligence agencies, but those are agencies who work for Bush. Why didn't he fix them? What did he do to make them stronger before the attacks? The buck stops with him, regardless of who else might shoulder part of the blame.

The same is true for the economy. We all know the economy was slowing down toward the end of the Clinton years, but slowing down after being on an absolute tear that left the country with a trillion-dollar surplus. Over the past few weeks, I've been hearing the story change a bit. The Bush adminstration is now saying we were in a recession when W. took office. A recession? Really? Because I don't remember that happening until well into Bush's term. And if what Clinton accomplished can be considered a recession, then please, let's have more of them, especially that rarest of recession dividends--a trillion-dollar surplus, which, by the way, vanished into thin air within a year after Clinton left office. The bottom line again is that the buck stops with Bush. The economy went into the tank during his watch. Whether it was his fault or not, he sure as hell didn't stop it from happening. Whether he deserves the blame or not, he certainly deserves the responsibility, especially for a multitrillion-dollar deficit that we are handing off to future generations. I don't think of Bush as a bad or evil man. Not at all. I would respect him a lot more if he had a bit more of Harry Truman in him and was willing to take the heat that comes with the job.

A lot of people are predicting some pretty terrible things are in store for Election Day. Armies of lawyers and poll watchers will be in the field. A lot of people are likely to show up to vote, only to find out they aren't registered because of games played by party operatives paid to collect signatures. We can cross our fingers and hope it doesn't get too ugly, or that the legitimacy of the eleciton results might be called into legal question. Of course, if such a dispute ends up in the Supreme Court, we all know the outcome, no matter what legal issue is raised or how legitimate it might be. The law won't have much to do with that pre-ordained decision.

The future makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court is something a lot of people don't want to think about. Those Democrats and moderate Republicans who will vote for Bush for perceived security reasons are going to look back on their decision one of these days when a future court headed by Chief Justice Scalia strikes down some constitutional protection regarding illegal searches, or abortion rights, or civil rights, or environmental laws, or Freedom of Information statutes. When that day comes, those voters should not point a finger of blame at George Bush. Nope. On that day, the bucks will stop at their own doors.

Voter fraud update

Nathan Sproul, who heads up Sproul and Associates, hired by the Republican National Committee to run voter registration efforts in several battleground states, including Nevada, says he makes no apologies for all the complaints that have been generated around the country. In Nevada, Sproul's operations have drawn the scrutiny of the FBI, Nevada Division of Investigations, secretary of state and Clark County Election Department. There are allegations of torn-up forms, disenfranchised voters and all-around sneaky behavior by Sproul's employees. Similar allegations have been leveled in Oregon, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

So what does Sproul think about all the negative press? He told the Arizona Republic his campiangs are "legal, ethical, and extremely productive." He further said that every one of his clients had called him to congratulate him for the fine job he has done. That would mean some Republicans from Nevada must have been on the phone to Sproul, even though he is still under investigation here. (Say, you don't suppose those GOP office-holders up in Carson City are dragging their feet on this until AFTER the election, do you?)