He was the governor who seemed to have done good things in Texas and claimed a “bipartisan” approach to governing. He looked genial and good-humored—the folksy candidate most voters preferred to have a beer with.

Now that we have experienced the Bush Presidency, it’s interesting to reexamine what the Republican candidate said during an October 2000 debate with Democrat Al Gore:

“Spending money is one thing, but spending money without a strategic plan can often times be wasted…”

“I want to rebuild the military to keep the peace. I want to make sure the public school system in America fulfills its promise so that no child, not one child, is left behind. And after setting priorities, I want to give some of the — some of your money back. See, I don’t think the surplus is the government’s money. I think it’s the people’s money. I don’t think the surplus exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the federal government. I think it exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the American people, and you ought to have some of the surplus so you can save and dream and build.”

The contrast between Bush’s words and his actual “leadership” is painful—

Lives lost and many irreversibly damaged as a result of a reckless “war on terror.” Extreme mismanagement of the Defense Department. Soldiers sent off without adequate equipment while military contractors making millions were inadequately supervised. The budget surplus left behind by Democrat Bill Clinton squandered, leaving our next President with a deficit as far as the eye can see. Enormous tax cuts for the richest. Millions of children left behind. Many more Americans without adequate health care. Transportation systems crumbling. Tainted food supplies. “Home ownership” replaced with home foreclosure.

An even more colossal deficit than was anticipated just a month ago.

Now we see the results of out-of-control deregulation and the consequences of fixating on private-sector solutions to public services, as well as the Republican Party’s perennial hostility to the United Nations.

But make no mistake. The conditions our country is suffering from now are not the result of one misguided, reckless, and incompetent leader.

For most of Bush’s Presidency, Republicans held all the reins of power, since they also had a majority in both houses of Congress. They appointed thousands of people sharing their ideology, including judges who will rule on the bench for years to come.

It has taken time for the gross mismanagement, suppression of scientific knowledge, and myriad falsehoods to come to light.

It was only when Democrats gained a slim majority in Congress that many basic questions could be raised there. At best the questions are now being partially answered (Republicans can still filibuster in the Senate).

This fall, as in every election, the essential choice is not between the candidates’ personalities or styles. It’s a choice between the Republican and Democratic political philosophy.

A President and his party may occasionally be at odds, but that is the exception to the rule.

Republicans stick together. Remember—after McCain lost the Republican primary in 2000, he campaigned for the Republican nominee, saying Bush was ”fully prepared to restore integrity and respect to the White House.”

But when Bush entered the White House, he brought back to Washington shiploads of former Republican officials, including Dick Cheney, and newcomers like the Republican lawyer for the International Arabian Horse Association who did a “heck of a job” in New Orleans.

If McCain should win the Presidency, expect more of the same.

Consider a candidate who would select as the person next-in-line to lead our country someone as inexperienced as Palin.

What does that show about the kind of appointments McCain would make to the Supreme Court, Environmental Protection Agency, FEMA, heads of Social Security and Medicare, IRS, Food and Drug Administration, Secretaries of State and Defense, Ambassador to the United Nations…the list goes on.

The Republican philosophy in a nutshell is “You’re on your own” — unless you’re rich and powerful and suddenly feel a need for government’s helping hand.

The Democratic philosophy is to work for the common good, and Democrats have a record of concrete steps toward economic fairness and prosperity for all.

Be sure to review the actual accomplishments of each party before you vote on November 4.

Diarrhea and intestinal cramps are not the only effects of unsafe food.

The Center for Disease Control estimates that 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths result from food-borne diseases every year: “The most severe cases tend to occur in the very old, the very young, those who have an illness already that reduces their immune system function, and in healthy people exposed to a very high dose of an organism.”

According to an inside expert on the current food safety system:

“For most of the FDA’s 100-year history, presidents and congresses have recognized its importance to public health by giving it the resources and authority to respond to the rapid evolution in risks from the thousands of products it regulates.

“But for some years now, the agency’s budget has remained essentially flat while major new responsibilities have been piled on.

“The results of this weakening of the agency are easy to document: Food inspections have dropped from a robust 50,000 in 1972 to about 5,000 today, meaning that U.S. food processors are inspected on average about every 10 years.”

That is documentation from William Hubbard, who retired as associate commissioner in 2005 after a career at the Food and Drug Administration and expressed his deep concern in a Washington Post column recently.
The FDA is responsible for monitoring 80 percent of the food supply.

This spring the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office designated federal oversight of food safety as a high-risk area for the first time.

The GAO advised Congress to “enact comprehensive, uniform, and risk-based safety legislation.”
It may take awhile for such comprehensive legislation to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, signed by FDR, was enacted only after five years of legislative activity and inactivity. (Crucial popular support came in 1937, when an untested wonder drug with an ingredient similar to antifreeze caused a hundred deaths.)

Democratic efforts are under way to improve food safety.

Last month, a Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro, introduced the Human and Pet Food Safety Act. This bill would give the FDA the power to order food recalls, establish processing and ingredient standards, require more inspections of food processing plants, and create a warning system to identify contaminants early on. (Isn’t it surprising that the FDA doesn’t currently have the authority to issue recalls?) Current cosponsors of the bill include our own Democratic congressman, John Tierney. 
She has also submitted a bill to establish a Food Safety Administration, so that the responsibility for ensuring a safe food supply would be centralized under one cabinet office. A similar bill, introduced in the Senate by Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois, has been referred to the Senate agriculture committee, now chaired by Democrat Tom Harkin of Illinois.

Harkin has requested an audit of our food safety system. In a letter to the inspectors general of the two agencies responsible, he wrote: “Taken together, all of the recent recalls of human and pet food raise serious questions about protocols in place now at FDA that are supposed to prevent and respond to contamination of our nation’s food and feed supply.”

Harkin’s letter asks for detailed responses to questions such as “How often are facilities that produce meat, poultry and food products inspected or audited? How does the frequency compare to 10 years ago? Are the number of inspections and audits that facilities receive adequate to ensure a safe food and feed supply? Do FDA and USDA have adequate funding required to improve the frequency of inspections?”

Our food supply is far more challenging to regulate than it was a generation ago, given the rapid rise in imported food, especially food from less developed countries. But rather than rising to the challenge, the U.S. has fallen behind in food safety, as in so much else that requires government oversight and adequate public investment.

Eventually, bipartisan legislation will emerge. It will still be up to the executive branch to administer food safety effectively and therefore we will need an administration in Washington that manages government agencies in the public interest.

You will hear both Republicans and Democrats urging improvements in food safety, especially after more frightening food scares.

But the next time Republicans invite you to a feast of “smaller government” and self-regulation by the private sector, you might want to chew extremely carefully.