Maybe somebody, especially on the Democratic side, will suggest not only that he or she will repair the damage done by Bush and Cheney--restore civil liberties, stop the war, fix the tax cuts, reclaim our place as a benevolent nation, etc.
Why shouldn't Clinton or Obama call on Bush to refrain from doing any more harm? It's purely a rhetorical point, but it's a good campaign issue against McCain and the implicit general election theme that a vote for McCain is a vote for a third term for Bush and a vote to continue the war--with no end in sight and no clear long-term goal.
One has the sense that most Americans would love to see Bush and Cheney gone NOW. So why not call for Bush and Cheney to pledge to do no more harm? We have a start on that by Congress's supposedly trying to stop Bush from making committments to Iraq that would bind his successor (though exactly how any agreement could do so is unclear to me).
John McCain is a U.S. Senator. The Democratic candidates can call on McCain to help them NOW to prevent further damage. If McCain opposes torture and truly wants to close Gitmo, why hasn't he called on Bush to stop torture and to close Gitmo? Why hasn't he helped us on global warming, the war on science, and SCHIPS? And just what is the long-term goal in Iraq?
Today, Bush commented that he still has much to do. Well, since almost everything he has done has been damaging to our nation, why can't he stop and just concentrate on something constructive and that might truly help national security, like enact ALL the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission?
In recent debates, both candidates rightly took some shots at McCain and also at the Bush record, and Clinton repeated her concerns about the Bush attempt to circumvent the Constitution yet again with his planned committment to Iraq. Now Bush and Rice are claiming that they are not trying to commit us to doing that, but even the Democratic candidates are agreeing that we have to protect our embassy. Get real: if you have to protect your "embassy" with tens of thousands of soldiers, it's not much of an "embassy".
There's a lot more damage Bush and Cheney can do, and given the record of Bush's administration, he seems determined to continue with the "Texas chainsaw massacre". His environmental policies are disastrous, and may result in several Western states going blue. His bizarre insistence on immunity for the telecommunications industry in connection with the FISA law should be another opportunity to bait McCain and to challenge these so-called "conservatives" who supposedly oppose "big government".
One of the candidates should suggest that McCain take the pledge to the "freedom agenda" advocated by conservatives like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Bruce Fein. And Obama might consider attacking HRC's "commander in chief" business by challenging the notion that a President is a dictator.
I mean, what is the implication of that "3:a.m." ad? It's that the President has to make a split second decision without consulting anyone.
Why would any President make such a decision?
Something we Texas Democrats tried to warn the public about back in 2000, Bush's appointing foxes to patrol the henhouses here, has become an ugly reality in Washington, in virtually every federal agency.
The new Attorney General is beginning to look like another Gonzales.
Some pundits are predicting that Antonin Scalia, sensing the likelihood of a Democratic victory in November, will resign soon, and that Bush will appoint Texas Senator Cornyn to the Supreme Court. I think we could run out the clock on that, but given the record of this Congress, I cannot be sure. They have caved in on so many things.
As I have mentioned here before, U.S. taxpayers recently provided the funds to Pakistan for buying F-16 fighter jets, the worst kind of corporate welfare. It's not like these are going to be used to track
down "terrorists". They're more likely to be used to threaten India, which ought to be one of our strongest allies. Why are we arming Islamic states at U.S. taxpayer expense?
Yet Bush vetoes expanded health insurance for kids saying that we cannot afford it; what happened to the alleged "compassionate conservative"?
And the torture/Gitmo issues are golden opportunities. McCain supposedly opposes torture, recognizes "waterboarding" as torture, wants to close Gitmo, etc. Believe it or not, much of the right wing "talk radio" crowd (and GOP candidate Romney, who early on said he wanted to double the size of Gitmo, begging the question the MSM has not asked)are complaining that McCain wants to end torture. Well, why not start now?
The Hippocratic oath that doctors take and have taken since antiquity starts with "First, do no harm". Bush and Cheney have done so much harm; at least they should pledge to do no more. Of course they are not going to do that--they would not admit that they are doing any harm.
But I think the Iraq business is going to come up again. Just how likely is it that we can establish a U.S. ally in Iraq? Would even a 5 year committment be a good bet to do that, let alone a 50 year committment?
Hillary maybe has a head start on this kind of "pledge". I view it as an opportunity to challenge McCain and especially to test his appeal to independents. Challenge him to alienate the GOP base further and to lose his appeal to independent voters.
Finally, shouldn't some candidate challenge McCain or Bush to explain to the American people just what the long-term goal is in Iraq? Is it a pro-American secular state? How realistic is that? Was it ever a realistic goal? If that is the goal, isn't it something that we will have to "police" constantly with a huge presence in a hostile country for perhaps decades, at the expense of not only lives but money and resources that could be used to improve the lives of Americans?