OMG! This was published in The Onion in January 2001

[Jeannie]

Who knew the Onion had ESP?

going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.
....


"Finally, the horrific misrule of the Democrats has been brought to a close," House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) told reporters. "Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend. Mercifully, we can now say goodbye to the awful nightmare that was Clinton's America."

...


"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784





What was that about hindsight being 20/20??

[Doe]

That is really eerie.

[SharonB]

Wow. That is really unbelievable.

[TristaFL]

And we wonder why we've lost all respect in this world when satirical pieces come true. Good lord. This is just sad, sad, sad. Is there any wonder that Obama is leading in the polls?

[Pleaky]

The only question is

why do average (i.e., not super wealthy) Americans keep falling for the same platform over and over? Reaganomics was long ago disproven but that's basically what GWB sold. I just don't get it.

Pleaky

[Tiger]

Yikes!

Those damn comedians!Why do they all the time got to be so smart?
T

[SueW]

and it's not even the average Americans who fall for it?

why do average (i.e., not super wealthy) Americans keep falling for the same platform over and over? Reaganomics was long ago disproven but that's basically what GWB sold. I just don't get it.

Pleaky

I am often amazed at the following of the Republican Party platform by those who I would consider lower middle class or under. This idea that lower taxes will save you personally is so shortsighted. the idea that Republicans stand for smaller government simply does not measure up. Government has expanded under Bush. While the nation goes deeper and deeper into debt, it's not like we can declare bankruptcy as a nation and then move on. Someone will be left with the bill, and it's likely to be our children who inherit this debt. When I look at the national debt tally I am astounded to hear that the wealthy corporations deserve even further tax breaks, but then again there is no logic in politics.

I used to characterize Republicans as being wealthy or at least upper middle class. Democrats were the working folk, and in the union workers,with a mixture of liberal educated, but under employed or underpaid, intellectuals. It's changed, and I don't know when that happened (Reaganomics?). How are Republicans and Democrats characterized now? or are we truly a nation of people who vote depending on issues, candidates, and platforms? I know I have voted for the candidate and not the party, though if I were ambivalent about a given race I would weigh in the party platform. There were also times when I voted based on gender, figuring that getting women into office was the first step, and then we could work on getting the right woman. Though for some races, the office is too important to apply my gender rule. there are some on this board who have accused me of being an ultraliberal liberal Democrat. That is truly not the case. I can be labeled liberal on some issues and conservative on others, I'm technically a registered Republican, though I often vote for Democrats, and sometimes for third-party candidates.

Just rambling here, with election day thoughts and anxiety. It's a day of reflection, of remembering when I lived in a country where the government was outrageously corrupt and citizens were not allowed to discuss it for fear of retribution. so please treasure your freedom of speech, your ability to choose those who govern us, and most of all, please vote!

[Pleaky]

Nixon

.

I used to characterize Republicans as being wealthy or at least upper middle class. Democrats were the working folk, and in the union workers,with a mixture of liberal educated, but under employed or underpaid, intellectuals. It's changed, and I don't know when that happened (Reaganomics?).

That's when the parties really changed. Nixon capitalized on White fear, and made a grab for the Southern Democrats that Johnson lost due to his push for Civil Rights legislation. I also think that Nixon introduced a level of dirty politics that created the Karl Roves of the world, and has also left a cynicism in American politics that has never really left. The cynicism manifested in GWB, who chose people that deep down are very negative about government (like Dick Cheney), who sneer at the intellectual "elite" that previous presidents relied on for advice and counsel. I watched "All the Presidents Men" the other night. I thought I would find it dated, but I was just as riveted as when it all happened. I thought to myself, this man did permanent damage to the office of President, and we are still seeing the effects today with smear tactics and cynicism running amok. I REALLY pray that Obama can have a permanent positive influence on the office.

And just to expand on your other points, I too would probably be branded an ultra left liberal, but that's not really accurate. I thought Clinton was dead on with welfare reform, and hey, I even voted for Reagan (ok, only the first time!). We need someone transforming now. I think Obama can be that person.

Pleaky