ShareThis Page
News

At the RNC: Grand theft country

| Thursday, Sept. 2, 2004

There usually are three factors present when the "ordinary election" becomes an "extraordinarily profound election," Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman told the Pennsylvania delegation here on Wednesday.

First is when the election coincides with new challenges, such as terrorism and economic globalization, he said. Second is when the country "has a bold leader who comes forward and says, 'I will provide a generational solution to those challenges.'" And third, "when the country faces a big choice" between presidential candidates.

The 2004 election indeed meets all of Mr. Mehlman's criteria. But as President Bush prepares to formally accept his party's renomination tonight and address the nation, we are forced to become contrarians and yet again urge this administration to get its fiscal act together.

For all the demonstrable good that has come from the president's tax cuts, this administration -- by keeping its veto pen capped -- only has aided and abetted a spendthrift Congress.

But "pork" no longer is an adequate characterization of what's going on. So let's start calling it what it is -- grand theft country. Both parties are guilty as charged. But it is especially hypocritical when the political party that's supposed to stand for "limited government" makes a mockery of that very precept.

It's time to take a stand, Mr. President. And doing so tonight will ensure that Nov. 2 really is one of Ken Mehlman's "extraordinarily profound elections."

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me