I'd say the aspect that makes him stand out so very much is that he actually has the courage to cut through the bs that has plagued present-day thinking for a long time, that he won't let idiotic notions prevent the country from leading the world in making itself a better place, that he and the country will stand up for freedom and virtue.
Would this "bs" be bs like civil liberties and international law? Because, if so, I can't argue that he's had plenty of courage and success cutting right through them. Would these "idiotic notions" be notions like proper bureaucratic channels, a progressive tax, and a voting public? Because, if so, I can't argue that he's done a great job of keeping those idiotic notions from standing in the way of his ambitions.
He's extremely radical when it comes to international politics, I know; even a Socialist should be shocked, if not pleased, by the destruction of the status quo that he has begun.
Shocked? Yes. Pleased? Far from it. I'll refer you to an earlier post I made in which I make the argument that our republic of checks and balances is designed to uphold the status quo, and that the status quo isn't all that bad. Disagree if you like, but I stand by it.
The response of terror threatening the civilized world: the War on Terrorism, everywhere in the world. It makes sense.
And it's working so well, just like the war on drugs.
But yes, he, slowly, led us to war with Iraq, and then very quickly brought us out of it, far on top, better than we were before,
Indeed! Except for the growing deficit, high unemployment rate, and international scrutiny. But we don't need to be a bunch of Negative Nancies and focus on all that. We'll ignore it, just like all good, patriotic, god-fearing Americans should.
the world, and especially the Mideast, a much safer place. It's hard to deny that.
And yet, deny I do. It's hard to say whether the Mid-East is better or worse off, but it's pretty easy to say that it's no safer. Perhaps not less safe either, but all we managed to do was replace an Iraqi dictator with Iraqi chaos. Given time it may be a safer place, we'll have to wait and see.
Look at the economic history of the country. When taxes are too high, the economy will definitely suffer. More than that, you should note how, when taxes have been cut and the deficit spending increased, the economy improves. The Bush Adminstration is using empircal evidence.
I would really love to see this empirical evidence, but seeing as this republican party-line myth has been spouted off for decades with virtually no statistical data to back it up, I won't hold my breath for it's sudden production. First of all, we need to decide on what economic indicator we're using. Unemployment rate? Per-capita income? GDP? Strength of the dollar? Inflation rate? My personal favorite is the unemployment rate, and for that, the numbers don't lie. Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy (Reaganomics, trickle-down economics) and spent money like it was going out of style, and the unemployment rate rose sharply leading to the recession of the late-eighties and early-nineties. Bush the Elder raised taxes and spent even more money, driving us further in to deficit, and the unemployment rate began to come down. Clinton more-or-less maintained the tax rate and returned the country to profitability (ironic that only a democrat could balance the budget) and the economy soared. Now Junior has slashed taxes three times and begun digging us a new hole, and unemployment hasn't been higher in decades, and is on the rise. The moral of the story? Taxes and deficit spending are minor factors in the overall health of the economy.
Not really. He's actually giving the nation integrity, that it indeed will stand up firmly to its core beliefs in justice, freedom, and liberty.
Integrity in whose eyes? Europe? Africa? Asia? Our neighbors to the North and South? But you're right in that the president is firmly standing up to to the nations beliefs in justice, freedom, and liberty, and firmly putting them in their place by curtailing as many of them as he can get away with. Thank you Patriot-Act.
Zah? You call this warmongering? Heavens, you don't read history much, I suppose. Spanish-American War was more warmongering than this.
It's interesting that you bring up the Spanish-American war, as it's an interesting analogy. Never have two American wars more resembled each other insofar as they were both mostly media inventions designed to fire up political support. "You provide the pictures, I'll provide the war," --Hurst, or was it Murdoch? I can never remember.
As for Osama bin Laden, I don't recall that the symbol of al-Qaeda was more important than al-Qaeda itself.
More important? Perhaps not. But as spiritual leader and primary bankroll, still pretty important I'd say.
Indeed, an enormous quantity of the intrastructure has been dismantled by the United States' and the Coalition's efforts.
What little infrastructure the poverty-stricken Afghanis already had. Say, how's that rebuilding effort going? ...Anybody? ...Hello?
But, as was said from the very beginning, the War on Terror would not end in a day.
Or in a lifetime for that matter. The fact is, a free society will always have cracks, which most of us call civil liberties, and stuff will always fall through. As we are slowly learning with the War on Drugs, so will we learn someday that the War on Terror cannot be won with bullets and bombs.
Well, Capitalism works.
No argument here. John Keynes was a brilliant man. Bush would do well to give his books a quick once over. Perhaps we all would.
I like Europe's socialism well enough, but I like America's Socio-Captailist mix the best.
Well, enjoy it while it lasts. With the push to reduce or remove the EITC, privatization of Social Security, stripping of Medicare, selling off of the public air waves to the highest bidder, and institution of school voucher programs, "America's Socio-Capitalism" may be something for the history books sooner than you think.
I think his bold proposals to improve the environment, and I hope dearly they go through, are even greater in scope than anything Clinton did. I don't recall Clinton pushing for hydrogen cars.
Thank you. I really needed a good laugh on a dreary Monday morning. And believe me, my laughter was uproarious and shook the windows. But then I realized that you were serious and my whole disposition changed. This is the same Bush who stole the title of "Most Polluted City in America" from my beloved Los Angeles, and gave it to his native Texas town of Houston. (Don't worry Angelinos, under future governor Schwarzenegger we're bound to return to our former high-pollutin' glory.) This is the same Bush that put former New Jersey Governor Catherine Todd Whitman in charge of the EPA. Bush's funding for fuel cell technology not only comes to little, to late, but also primarily benefits heavy campaign contributors the "Big 3" automakers. Not more responsible automakers that already have hybrid and fuel cell vehicles on the market. But you don't have to take my word for it. As for Clinton's environmental record, I'll let it speak for itself.
-Phil.
