Rebecca observes two things. First, that "Bush violated security laws four times and the SEC chose to look the other way." Techincally correct, although Rebecca implies (or allows the reader to infer) that Bush got special favors that others didn't. That is false. The article she cites - from a "public interest" special interest group - notes that Bush's violations were that he was late filing required SEC disclosures; at the time, the SEC rarely prosecuted that kind of low-level infraction.
There is no allegation or even hint of one that Bush obtained any benefit from the delay in filing, and no suggestion of any quid-pro-quo. Contrast that with the recent case of Congressman Jim Moran obtaining a sweetheart loan from a credit card company with a serious stake in a "bankruptcy reform" bill Moran supports. (No word from the interest group on Moran's transgressions!)
Second, she notes the proposed creation of two new government agencies, and observes, "And I thought that throwing more goverment at problems was the hallmark of a Democrat administration. Just saying." Yes, that is typically true - although national defense has always been one area where Republicans make an exception. Bush's failure to adhere to conservative principles in his domestic policy - whether it be steel tariffs, the farm bill, his education package, or tomorrow's next Big Government Thing - has been noted by conservatives, who have objected strenuously. One wonders if Bush will cling more closely to his professed principles after his reelection is no longer at issue.Posted by wasylik at July 10, 2002 04:02 PM