OT - So Michael...

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>> I know Super Tuesday has yet to arrive, but after the bru-ha-ha
>> down
>>>>>> here, it looks like it'll be McCain and Clinton. What say you?
>>>>> I agree that is is going to be McCain on the Republican side and
>> think
>>>>> the odds are currently with Clinton but don't count out Obama just
>>>>> yet. The last Gallop Poll Obama gained something like 11 points in ONE
>>>>> week and it stands at 43% to 39% for Hillary. That is a huge jump
>>>>> in
>> just
>>>>> a few days. It also looks like the elite liberal wing of the
>>>>> Democratic Party is starting to line up behind Obama. Also, Obama
>>>>> collected an amazing $32 million this January. That is more money
>>>>> than any candidate collected for an entire quarter last year. That
>>>>> can of money is serious and can make a huge difference. Hillary
>> can't
>>>>> come close to those numbers and I think she is running out of money
>>>>> fast.
>>>>> Old Billy Boy is killing her right now. I said a long time ago that
>>>>> Hillary will throw the black vote over board to get the Hispanic and
>>>>> racist white vote. Yes, the Democrats have white racists too. The
>>>>> racism between blacks and Hispanics is huge and the Clintons are
>>>>> whipping up into a frenzy to prevent Obama from getting a decent
>> chunk
>>>>> of the Hispanic vote. Hillary will do anything to win, including
>>>>> destroying the long standing ties that party has to the black
>>>>> community. Everything the conservatives have said about her and Bill
>>>>> is being showcased by them right now. The Democrats are seeing it too
>>>>> and I think many are saying they don't want another Clinton in the
>>>>> White
>>>>> House.
>>>>> As for McCain, He has truly been in the right place at the right
>> time.
>>>>> if the Republicans had a truly conservative candidate with some name
>>>>> recognition that person would have won hands down. The fact is
>> Romney
>>>>> is just as liberal as McCain and being from Mass. is just too much
>> for
>>>>> many Republicans to swallow. He strikes me as a pretty boy that
>> will
>>>>> say anything to get elected. He isn't a conservative. No one can
>> be
>>>>> and also be governor of Mass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huckabee is a joke. He is this years Pat Buchanan. The proverbial
>>>>> "our jobs are going overseas" candidate just like John Edwards is on
>>>>> the left. I mean can anyone elect a president that doesn't think
>>>>> dinosaurs were real? I can't. Thompson had the best credentials
>> but
>>>>> he just didn't seem to want the job that bad. Giuliani had a chance
>>>>> but made one of the biggest campaign strategy blunders in recent
>>>>> history. I actually liked him better than anyone running on either
>>>>> side.
>>>>> All the above being said, there is one thing that will motivate the
>>>>> Republicans to get behind McCain en mass. That is for Hillary to
>> win
>>>>> the Democratic nomination. I would vote for Satan himself before
>>>>> Hillary and I am far from alone in that sentiment. I firmly believe
>>>>> Obama has a better chance in the national election and even he is
>> far
>>>>> from a lock. McCain will get most independents, many Hispanics
>>>>> (thanks to the McCain-Kennedy bill) and, IMO, a big portion of the
>>>>> black vote (if he runs against Hillary). Even against Obama I think
>>>>> he is the odds on favorite for several reasons. The biggest is that
>>>>> Obama is the most liberal Senator in Congress. He makes McCain look
>>>>> like Ronald Reagan and that is a good thing overall. McCain greatly
>>>>> increases the odds the next president will be republican and also
>>>>> increases the odds of the Senate and/or House reverting back to the
>>>>> Republicans.
>>>>> So to summarize, I think McCain is a lock and it is too close to
>> call
>>>>> between Hillary and Obama. Especially, considering Obama has
>>>>> tremendous momentum right now and is collecting money faster than he
>>>>> can spend it.
>>>> Excellent post! Thanks very much for your honesty. You never
>>>> disappoint.
>>> If you couldn't tell I'm not real thrilled with anyone this election.
>> I
>>> am somewhat excited about Obama though but not in regard to his
>>> political views. I wouldn't vote for him because he is very liberal
>> but
>>> the fact a black man can be a serious contender for President shows
>>> just how far this country has come regarding race relations. I also
>>> believe that the same would have happened on the right if someone like
>>> Colin Powell had run this year. Powell could have walked away with
>> the
>>> Republican nomination this election cycle.
>>
>> Agreed. Then again, the same holds true regarding women with Clinton.
>
> I think that a black man trumps a woman in which shows more maturity. Half
> the population are women and they don't have the racism component. I think
> Obama is breaking more ground than Hillary. Also, if she wasn't Billy's
> ho bag she wouldn't stand a chance. At least now we know why she stayed
> married to him after all those affairs.
>
>>>> That said, I'm waiting for Bloomberg to stir things up.
>>> I don't think he will run if McCain gets the nomination. McCain will
>>> suck all the votes from the moderates and that is the very voters
>>> Bloomberg desperately needs if he stands any chance of winning.
>>
>> Again, agreed, although it would've been great to see Bloomberg thick in
>> the fray of things. IMO the next thing will be to see who the VP
>> candidates will be.
>
> If Obama is smart he should try and get Evan Bayh as his running mate. He
> is a moderate, white male and is young with plenty of experience. It
> would make a formidable ticket, IMO. McCain has less to chose from, IMO.
> He definitely needs someone who is conservative, somewhat young and has
> good experience. I don't know who that person would be off the top of my
> head.

I'm not doing anything, and I have the added plus of not being beholdin' to
anyone.

But instead of constantly courting the fringe elements on both sides of the
spectrum, I'd rather see candidates address the vast centrist population in
this country. Why do the 5% liberal left and 5% radical right always get the
attention?

The huge bulk of America just wants to go to work, keep as much as we can of
our paychecks, watch the telly, and be able to order pizza once in a while.

And we wish that both moveon.org and Rush Limbaugh would shut the *#%& up.

dwight

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>> I know Super Tuesday has yet to arrive, but after the bru-ha-ha
>>> down
>>>>>>> here, it looks like it'll be McCain and Clinton. What say you?
>>>>>> I agree that is is going to be McCain on the Republican side and
>>> think
>>>>>> the odds are currently with Clinton but don't count out Obama just
>>>>>> yet. The last Gallop Poll Obama gained something like 11 points in ONE
>>>>>> week and it stands at 43% to 39% for Hillary. That is a huge jump
>>>>>> in
>>> just
>>>>>> a few days. It also looks like the elite liberal wing of the
>>>>>> Democratic Party is starting to line up behind Obama. Also, Obama
>>>>>> collected an amazing $32 million this January. That is more money
>>>>>> than any candidate collected for an entire quarter last year. That
>>>>>> can of money is serious and can make a huge difference. Hillary
>>> can't
>>>>>> come close to those numbers and I think she is running out of money
>>>>>> fast.
>>>>>> Old Billy Boy is killing her right now. I said a long time ago that
>>>>>> Hillary will throw the black vote over board to get the Hispanic and
>>>>>> racist white vote. Yes, the Democrats have white racists too. The
>>>>>> racism between blacks and Hispanics is huge and the Clintons are
>>>>>> whipping up into a frenzy to prevent Obama from getting a decent
>>> chunk
>>>>>> of the Hispanic vote. Hillary will do anything to win, including
>>>>>> destroying the long standing ties that party has to the black
>>>>>> community. Everything the conservatives have said about her and Bill
>>>>>> is being showcased by them right now. The Democrats are seeing it too
>>>>>> and I think many are saying they don't want another Clinton in the
>>>>>> White
>>>>>> House.
>>>>>> As for McCain, He has truly been in the right place at the right
>>> time.
>>>>>> if the Republicans had a truly conservative candidate with some name
>>>>>> recognition that person would have won hands down. The fact is
>>> Romney
>>>>>> is just as liberal as McCain and being from Mass. is just too much
>>> for
>>>>>> many Republicans to swallow. He strikes me as a pretty boy that
>>> will
>>>>>> say anything to get elected. He isn't a conservative. No one can
>>> be
>>>>>> and also be governor of Mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huckabee is a joke. He is this years Pat Buchanan. The proverbial
>>>>>> "our jobs are going overseas" candidate just like John Edwards is on
>>>>>> the left. I mean can anyone elect a president that doesn't think
>>>>>> dinosaurs were real? I can't. Thompson had the best credentials
>>> but
>>>>>> he just didn't seem to want the job that bad. Giuliani had a chance
>>>>>> but made one of the biggest campaign strategy blunders in recent
>>>>>> history. I actually liked him better than anyone running on either
>>>>>> side.
>>>>>> All the above being said, there is one thing that will motivate the
>>>>>> Republicans to get behind McCain en mass. That is for Hillary to
>>> win
>>>>>> the Democratic nomination. I would vote for Satan himself before
>>>>>> Hillary and I am far from alone in that sentiment. I firmly believe
>>>>>> Obama has a better chance in the national election and even he is
>>> far
>>>>>> from a lock. McCain will get most independents, many Hispanics
>>>>>> (thanks to the McCain-Kennedy bill) and, IMO, a big portion of the
>>>>>> black vote (if he runs against Hillary). Even against Obama I think
>>>>>> he is the odds on favorite for several reasons. The biggest is that
>>>>>> Obama is the most liberal Senator in Congress. He makes McCain look
>>>>>> like Ronald Reagan and that is a good thing overall. McCain greatly
>>>>>> increases the odds the next president will be republican and also
>>>>>> increases the odds of the Senate and/or House reverting back to the
>>>>>> Republicans.
>>>>>> So to summarize, I think McCain is a lock and it is too close to
>>> call
>>>>>> between Hillary and Obama. Especially, considering Obama has
>>>>>> tremendous momentum right now and is collecting money faster than he
>>>>>> can spend it.
>>>>> Excellent post! Thanks very much for your honesty. You never
>>>>> disappoint.
>>>> If you couldn't tell I'm not real thrilled with anyone this election.
>>> I
>>>> am somewhat excited about Obama though but not in regard to his
>>>> political views. I wouldn't vote for him because he is very liberal
>>> but
>>>> the fact a black man can be a serious contender for President shows
>>>> just how far this country has come regarding race relations. I also
>>>> believe that the same would have happened on the right if someone like
>>>> Colin Powell had run this year. Powell could have walked away with
>>> the
>>>> Republican nomination this election cycle.
>>> Agreed. Then again, the same holds true regarding women with Clinton.
>> I think that a black man trumps a woman in which shows more maturity. Half
>> the population are women and they don't have the racism component. I think
>> Obama is breaking more ground than Hillary. Also, if she wasn't Billy's
>> ho bag she wouldn't stand a chance. At least now we know why she stayed
>> married to him after all those affairs.
>>
>>>>> That said, I'm waiting for Bloomberg to stir things up.
>>>> I don't think he will run if McCain gets the nomination. McCain will
>>>> suck all the votes from the moderates and that is the very voters
>>>> Bloomberg desperately needs if he stands any chance of winning.
>>> Again, agreed, although it would've been great to see Bloomberg thick in
>>> the fray of things. IMO the next thing will be to see who the VP
>>> candidates will be.
>> If Obama is smart he should try and get Evan Bayh as his running mate. He
>> is a moderate, white male and is young with plenty of experience. It
>> would make a formidable ticket, IMO. McCain has less to chose from, IMO.
>> He definitely needs someone who is conservative, somewhat young and has
>> good experience. I don't know who that person would be off the top of my
>> head.
>
> I'm not doing anything, and I have the added plus of not being beholdin' to
> anyone.
>
> But instead of constantly courting the fringe elements on both sides of the
> spectrum, I'd rather see candidates address the vast centrist population in
> this country. Why do the 5% liberal left and 5% radical right always get the
> attention?

The primary system is run by the two parties and they make it almost
impossible for an outsider to break in. McCain is actually one of the
first moderates in many, many years to actually get a good chance of
being the nominee on either side and this was a fluke. He was in the
right place at the right time. On the Democrat side both Clinton and
Obama are very far left and are far from moderate. So this election,
the vast centrist population you speak of has their candidate and that
is McCain.

> The huge bulk of America just wants to go to work, keep as much as we can of
> our paychecks, watch the telly, and be able to order pizza once in a while.

.... and, IMO, this is why the majority of the country is just right of
center.

> And we wish that both moveon.org and Rush Limbaugh would shut the *#%& up.

That won't happen anytime soon. At least Air America went belly up.
That is a start.

Michael Johnson > wrote in news:IPqdnaB-
:

> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> dwight wrote:
>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> You have a point. It took the Democrats running the proverbial
car
>>>>> over a cliff with Jimmie Carter to pave the way for Reagan in
1980.
>>>>> Carter makes George Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.
>>>> Carter was brilliant. Bush can't form a sentence.
>>> Carter would have been brilliant if being president was like being
an
>>> engineer on a nuclear submarine. He was one of the worst Presidents
>>> this country has ever had to endure. Thank God he only had one
term.
>>> Two terms of of his stupidity would have been more than this country
>>> could bare.
>>>
>>>> I'm not quite sure how you meant this.
>>> The original intent was to indicate that letting liberals have
enough
>>> political rope will result in them hanging themselves. The one of
the
>>> most recent examples of this was Jimmie Carter followed by Clinton
in
>>> his first two years in office. I threw in the last sentence as an
>>> embellishment.
>>>
>>> As for old Jimmie, the older he gets the stranger he becomes. I
can't
>>> think of one decent thing that resulted from his time in office. I
>>> can name several disasters though.
>>
>> Actually, the same thing can be said for Dubya.
>
> There have been some good. We haven't had another terrorist attack
> within our borders since 9-11. I give him a lot of the credit for
this.

I don't. We are just as vulnerable now as we were then.

> He did get some decent tax cuts through.

Sure. And the payback is that your kids' grandkids will be paying for
them.

> We haven't had to hear about
> his personal sex life and there have been no impeachment hearings
(even
> though Congress has tried their best to find something the past two
> years).

We've listened to his past drinking escapades and his daughters' romps
instead. As for Congress, they are a bunch of wimps.

> I would say the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is much cooler
> now than and there is a real chance for peace between them. Women in
> Afghanistan can actually go to school now and not live in fear for
their
> lives every day as is the case with many people in Iraq.

Don't even start with foreign policy.

> Also, the jury is still out on whether Iraq was a good or bad action.
> We won't know the score on that for another 10-20 years. If it does
> turn out that Iraq leads the Middle East to be more democratic then
> history will judge Bush much more kindly than some people are judging
> him today. Remember all the uproar when Reagan called the Soviet
Union
> and evil empire? The press said he was going to cause WWIII and the
> protesters were out en mass against him. Reagan was demonized while
he
> was in office. Now look at how he is seen. Even the Democrats don't
> criticize him anymore. The same could very well happen to Bush.

And what color is the sky in your world?

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I know Super Tuesday has yet to arrive, but after the
>>>>>>>>> bru-ha-ha
>>>> down
>>>>>>>>> here, it looks like it'll be McCain and Clinton. What say
>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>> If that happens, I won't bother getting out that day. McCain
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Clinton are interchangeable IMO. Probably wear the same
>>>>>>>> underwear
>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>> I'll leave it to everyones imagination which type the two wear.
>>>>>>> Do I need to come over to your house and slap some sense into
>>>> you?!?!?
>>>>>>> Do you really want to hear Hillary's screeching and see Billy
>>>>>>> Boy's
>>>>>> face
>>>>>>> day after day? I would crawl over broken glass naked to vote
>>>> against
>>>>>>> her. Billary needs to go away and this is our chance to make it
>>>>>> happen
>>>>>>> once and for all.
>>>>>> Gee, Michael, tell us how you _really_ feel...
>>>>> I can't stand the Clintons. They are more responsible for the
>>>>> dumbing down of politics in this country than any other two
>>>>> people. I don't care about him getting blow jobs in the White
>>>>> House from someone other than his wife. Hell, that has happened
>>>>> plenty of times in the past. The fact he got caught just shows the
>>>>> depth of his stupidity. He took advantage of a young intern that
>>>>> was unstable to begin with and that
>>>> is
>>>>> just ignorant on an inconceivable level. His whole career has
>>>>> been
>>>> like
>>>>> this. They need to just go away. If the Democrats elect Obama as
>>>> their
>>>>> candidate it will go a long way in restoring my respect for that
>>>>> political party.
>>>> Let's face it - both parties are scum. Whatever examples one
>>>> points out from either party, there are examples from the other
>>>> side to counter. This is but one of the reasons why I'm a
>>>> registered Independent.
>>> Both sides have their morons for sure. With Clinton's political
>>> skills he could have done so much more than he did. His problem is
>>> that he is personally weak and can't control himself or his urges.
>>> Just look at all the women that have accused him of everything from
>>> affairs to rape.
>>> The woman that accused him of raping her isn't a floozy. She has
>>> a
>>> very respectable career and a solid family life. A person can't get
>>> that many accusations without there being a basis for them in his
>>> personal behavior. The very fact he would take advantage of a young
>>> intern in his charge shows just how little control he has over
>>> himself.
>>>
>>> He drug the presidency into the gutter and cheapened the office in a
>>> way no one else has done in recent memory. He lied under oath, he
>>> lied to everyone of us on camera and he still lies to this day. He
>>> still can't control himself and it is killing his wife's chances to
>>> become the nominee. Not that I am sad about it.
>>>
>>> At least Bush has kept his personal life out of the public's
>>> business. This is something Clinton could never do. Even while
>>> Governor he run a muck and tried to screw anything that and had a
>>> pulse. Just look at their tactics in this election. It tells you
>>> everything you need to know about their morals and that is they have
>>> none. Like I said, they just need to go away.
>>
>> IMO, Clinton did nothing worse than what tons of other men did and
>> still do. His problem was that he got caught and it was splattered
>> all over the world. I didn't/don't care who he's screwed, as long as
>> it didn't affect me personally, which it really didn't.
>
> Which is why I say he is weak in his personal life. I don't care that
> he got a blow job but I do care that he was so reckless about it.
> Look at JFK for God's sake. He knew how to cut a piece of strange off
> and not get caught. You think Clinton would have known better.
> Thanks to his inability to control himself he drug the country through
> the gutter for four years over nothing more than a blow job.
>
> I disagree about Clinton's escapades not affecting us personally.
> While he was fighting off impeachment Osama was planning to commit
> mass murder on 9-11. That set up a series of events that lead us to
> where we are today. Had he taken out Osama when he had the chance,
> and he did have the chance, life as we know it today would be much
> different. We had a taste of what the Islamic extremists wanted to
> accomplish in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. They wanted those
> building to fall then and Clinton didn't get the extent of the threat
> they posed and basically did nothing to fight it aggressively. Had he
> done so I doubt 9-11 would have occurred. You can bet that Bush would
> have taken it seriously had he been president then.

Playing cowboys and indians hardly qualifies as taking things serously.

> Say what you want about Bush but he didn't sit around and wait for
> them to drop the other shoe on us after 9-11. He went for their
> jugular vein and, IMO, is one of the main reasons we haven't had
> another domestic attack from them the past seven years.

In no particular order, Bush simply used it as an excuse to:
a) Get revenge for Daddy Bush
b) Go after oil
c) Play cowboys and indians

> If he was
> going to err, I want to to err on the side of going too far rather
> than not going far enough and we have 100,000 dead Americans as a
> result.

Shoot first, ask questions later?

>> OTOH, Bush's shenannigans have greatly affected me and the rest of
>> the country. He's done more damage than anyone in recent memory.
>
> Whether it is damage is yet to be determined, IMO.

You're not serious, are you?

> If Clinton did the
> same thing in Iraq the press would be spinning us a whole different
> story line.

We care about what pundits say because...?

> Much of the negatives against Bush are for making
> political hay and putting a Democrat in the White House this fall.
> The biggest problem that elected Republicans face is that they have
> forgotten what makes a conservative a conservative. The people that
> make up the party haven't forgotten though and this is why they aren't
> going to the poles to vote.

Bush's fiscal policy is bankrupting America, his foreign policy has
instigated war and escalated global terrorism, his energy policy has
ensured our continued dependence on foriegn oil, his blatant disregard
for the Constitution and Americans' rights has shown his complete
disrespect for Americans.

And it as yet to be determined if America's been damaged??

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:IPqdnaB-
> :
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> You have a point. It took the Democrats running the proverbial
> car
>>>>>> over a cliff with Jimmie Carter to pave the way for Reagan in
> 1980.
>>>>>> Carter makes George Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.
>>>>> Carter was brilliant. Bush can't form a sentence.
>>>> Carter would have been brilliant if being president was like being
> an
>>>> engineer on a nuclear submarine. He was one of the worst Presidents
>>>> this country has ever had to endure. Thank God he only had one
> term.
>>>> Two terms of of his stupidity would have been more than this country
>>>> could bare.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not quite sure how you meant this.
>>>> The original intent was to indicate that letting liberals have
> enough
>>>> political rope will result in them hanging themselves. The one of
> the
>>>> most recent examples of this was Jimmie Carter followed by Clinton
> in
>>>> his first two years in office. I threw in the last sentence as an
>>>> embellishment.
>>>>
>>>> As for old Jimmie, the older he gets the stranger he becomes. I
> can't
>>>> think of one decent thing that resulted from his time in office. I
>>>> can name several disasters though.
>>> Actually, the same thing can be said for Dubya.
>> There have been some good. We haven't had another terrorist attack
>> within our borders since 9-11. I give him a lot of the credit for
> this.
>
> I don't. We are just as vulnerable now as we were then.
>
>> He did get some decent tax cuts through.
>
> Sure. And the payback is that your kids' grandkids will be paying for
> them.

The rub to this is that if we didn't get the tax cuts they would have
spent even more. They don't keep that money to pay down the debt they
just spend that much more. At least we got the money in OUR hands and
not in theirs to spend on some worthless government program.

>> We haven't had to hear about
>> his personal sex life and there have been no impeachment hearings
> (even
>> though Congress has tried their best to find something the past two
>> years).
>
> We've listened to his past drinking escapades and his daughters' romps
> instead. As for Congress, they are a bunch of wimps.

George Bush's personal life while in office has been milk toast compared
to Bill Clinton. Even his daughters didn't do any more than most teens
in this country. I know I did a hell of a lot worse when I was their
age. I just never had the press looking at me through a microscope when
I did it.

>> I would say the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is much cooler
>> now than and there is a real chance for peace between them. Women in
>> Afghanistan can actually go to school now and not live in fear for
> their
>> lives every day as is the case with many people in Iraq.
>
> Don't even start with foreign policy.

I'm not say he has been the great statesman but he has had his successes.

>> Also, the jury is still out on whether Iraq was a good or bad action.
>> We won't know the score on that for another 10-20 years. If it does
>> turn out that Iraq leads the Middle East to be more democratic then
>> history will judge Bush much more kindly than some people are judging
>> him today. Remember all the uproar when Reagan called the Soviet
> Union
>> and evil empire? The press said he was going to cause WWIII and the
>> protesters were out en mass against him. Reagan was demonized while
> he
>> was in office. Now look at how he is seen. Even the Democrats don't
>> criticize him anymore. The same could very well happen to Bush.
>
> And what color is the sky in your world?

Some days it is blue and others it is gray but most days it is a
combination of both.

Even Clinton had his successes and they should be acknowledged.
Historians have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight which we don't have at the
moment. I used Reagan as an example because it is something that
happened in our lifetime. I can see the beginnings of this very thing
happening to Bush with just the limited success of the surge.

If Iraq settles into being a truly democratic country over time then
Bush will be seen as a visionary (even more so if it spreads to other
countries in the Middle East) just like Reagan is seen as one today for
contributing to the demise of the Soviet Union. We should all hope this
is the case because it will mean good things for the USA and the world,
in general. It will mean that the Middle East is joining the rest of
the world by moving from the 15th to the 21st century, politically speaking.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:IPqdnaB-
>> :
>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> You have a point. It took the Democrats running the proverbial
>> car
>>>>>>> over a cliff with Jimmie Carter to pave the way for Reagan in
>> 1980.
>>>>>>> Carter makes George Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.
>>>>>> Carter was brilliant. Bush can't form a sentence.
>>>>> Carter would have been brilliant if being president was like being
>> an
>>>>> engineer on a nuclear submarine. He was one of the worst
>>>>> Presidents this country has ever had to endure. Thank God he only
>>>>> had one
>> term.
>>>>> Two terms of of his stupidity would have been more than this
>>>>> country could bare.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not quite sure how you meant this.
>>>>> The original intent was to indicate that letting liberals have
>> enough
>>>>> political rope will result in them hanging themselves. The one of
>> the
>>>>> most recent examples of this was Jimmie Carter followed by Clinton
>> in
>>>>> his first two years in office. I threw in the last sentence as an
>>>>> embellishment.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for old Jimmie, the older he gets the stranger he becomes. I
>> can't
>>>>> think of one decent thing that resulted from his time in office.
>>>>> I can name several disasters though.
>>>> Actually, the same thing can be said for Dubya.
>>> There have been some good. We haven't had another terrorist attack
>>> within our borders since 9-11. I give him a lot of the credit for
>> this.
>>
>> I don't. We are just as vulnerable now as we were then.
>>
>>> He did get some decent tax cuts through.
>>
>> Sure. And the payback is that your kids' grandkids will be paying
>> for them.
>
> The rub to this is that if we didn't get the tax cuts they would have
> spent even more. They don't keep that money to pay down the debt they
> just spend that much more. At least we got the money in OUR hands and
> not in theirs to spend on some worthless government program.

IMO, the bottom line is that Bush's tax cuts didn't do squat for the
middle class, and they were fiscally irresponsible. YMMV.

>>> We haven't had to hear about
>>> his personal sex life and there have been no impeachment hearings
>> (even
>>> though Congress has tried their best to find something the past two
>>> years).
>>
>> We've listened to his past drinking escapades and his daughters'
>> romps instead. As for Congress, they are a bunch of wimps.
>
> George Bush's personal life while in office has been milk toast
> compared to Bill Clinton. Even his daughters didn't do any more than
> most teens in this country. I know I did a hell of a lot worse when I
> was their age. I just never had the press looking at me through a
> microscope when I did it.

Everybody's got skeletons, and as long as it doesn't affect the country
(or me personally), I don't really care about politicians' personal
lives. This includes religion.

>>> I would say the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is much cooler
>>> now than and there is a real chance for peace between them. Women
>>> in Afghanistan can actually go to school now and not live in fear
>>> for
>> their
>>> lives every day as is the case with many people in Iraq.
>>
>> Don't even start with foreign policy.
>
> I'm not say he has been the great statesman but he has had his
> successes.

Bush has one of the most dismal records in history.

>>> Also, the jury is still out on whether Iraq was a good or bad
>>> action. We won't know the score on that for another 10-20 years. If
>>> it does turn out that Iraq leads the Middle East to be more
>>> democratic then history will judge Bush much more kindly than some
>>> people are judging him today. Remember all the uproar when Reagan
>>> called the Soviet
>> Union
>>> and evil empire? The press said he was going to cause WWIII and the
>>> protesters were out en mass against him. Reagan was demonized while
>> he
>>> was in office. Now look at how he is seen. Even the Democrats
>>> don't criticize him anymore. The same could very well happen to
>>> Bush.
>>
>> And what color is the sky in your world?
>
> Some days it is blue and others it is gray but most days it is a
> combination of both.

True. Just don't wear those rose-colored glasses too much...

> Even Clinton had his successes and they should be acknowledged.

Didn't he leave the country with a balanced budget and a surplus that
the next president totally squandered?

> Historians have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight which we don't have at
> the moment. I used Reagan as an example because it is something that
> happened in our lifetime. I can see the beginnings of this very thing
> happening to Bush with just the limited success of the surge.

Michael, take off those glasses!

> If Iraq settles into being a truly democratic country over time

It'll never happen in our lifetime IMO.

> then
> Bush will be seen as a visionary (even more so if it spreads to other
> countries in the Middle East) just like Reagan is seen as one today
> for contributing to the demise of the Soviet Union. We should all
> hope this is the case because it will mean good things for the USA and
> the world, in general. It will mean that the Middle East is joining
> the rest of the world by moving from the 15th to the 21st century,
> politically speaking.

Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly hoping for that as well, but I'm also
hoping to win the lottery this week. By and large, the Middle East is
simply not ready for USA-style democracy IMO.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I know Super Tuesday has yet to arrive, but after the
>>>>>>>>>> bru-ha-ha
>>>>> down
>>>>>>>>>> here, it looks like it'll be McCain and Clinton. What say
>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>> If that happens, I won't bother getting out that day. McCain
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> Clinton are interchangeable IMO. Probably wear the same
>>>>>>>>> underwear
>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>> I'll leave it to everyones imagination which type the two wear.
>>>>>>>> Do I need to come over to your house and slap some sense into
>>>>> you?!?!?
>>>>>>>> Do you really want to hear Hillary's screeching and see Billy
>>>>>>>> Boy's
>>>>>>> face
>>>>>>>> day after day? I would crawl over broken glass naked to vote
>>>>> against
>>>>>>>> her. Billary needs to go away and this is our chance to make it
>>>>>>> happen
>>>>>>>> once and for all.
>>>>>>> Gee, Michael, tell us how you _really_ feel...
>>>>>> I can't stand the Clintons. They are more responsible for the
>>>>>> dumbing down of politics in this country than any other two
>>>>>> people. I don't care about him getting blow jobs in the White
>>>>>> House from someone other than his wife. Hell, that has happened
>>>>>> plenty of times in the past. The fact he got caught just shows the
>>>>>> depth of his stupidity. He took advantage of a young intern that
>>>>>> was unstable to begin with and that
>>>>> is
>>>>>> just ignorant on an inconceivable level. His whole career has
>>>>>> been
>>>>> like
>>>>>> this. They need to just go away. If the Democrats elect Obama as
>>>>> their
>>>>>> candidate it will go a long way in restoring my respect for that
>>>>>> political party.
>>>>> Let's face it - both parties are scum. Whatever examples one
>>>>> points out from either party, there are examples from the other
>>>>> side to counter. This is but one of the reasons why I'm a
>>>>> registered Independent.
>>>> Both sides have their morons for sure. With Clinton's political
>>>> skills he could have done so much more than he did. His problem is
>>>> that he is personally weak and can't control himself or his urges.
>>>> Just look at all the women that have accused him of everything from
>>>> affairs to rape.
>>>> The woman that accused him of raping her isn't a floozy. She has
>>>> a
>>>> very respectable career and a solid family life. A person can't get
>>>> that many accusations without there being a basis for them in his
>>>> personal behavior. The very fact he would take advantage of a young
>>>> intern in his charge shows just how little control he has over
>>>> himself.
>>>>
>>>> He drug the presidency into the gutter and cheapened the office in a
>>>> way no one else has done in recent memory. He lied under oath, he
>>>> lied to everyone of us on camera and he still lies to this day. He
>>>> still can't control himself and it is killing his wife's chances to
>>>> become the nominee. Not that I am sad about it.
>>>>
>>>> At least Bush has kept his personal life out of the public's
>>>> business. This is something Clinton could never do. Even while
>>>> Governor he run a muck and tried to screw anything that and had a
>>>> pulse. Just look at their tactics in this election. It tells you
>>>> everything you need to know about their morals and that is they have
>>>> none. Like I said, they just need to go away.
>>> IMO, Clinton did nothing worse than what tons of other men did and
>>> still do. His problem was that he got caught and it was splattered
>>> all over the world. I didn't/don't care who he's screwed, as long as
>>> it didn't affect me personally, which it really didn't.
>> Which is why I say he is weak in his personal life. I don't care that
>> he got a blow job but I do care that he was so reckless about it.
>> Look at JFK for God's sake. He knew how to cut a piece of strange off
>> and not get caught. You think Clinton would have known better.
>> Thanks to his inability to control himself he drug the country through
>> the gutter for four years over nothing more than a blow job.
>>
>> I disagree about Clinton's escapades not affecting us personally.
>> While he was fighting off impeachment Osama was planning to commit
>> mass murder on 9-11. That set up a series of events that lead us to
>> where we are today. Had he taken out Osama when he had the chance,
>> and he did have the chance, life as we know it today would be much
>> different. We had a taste of what the Islamic extremists wanted to
>> accomplish in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. They wanted those
>> building to fall then and Clinton didn't get the extent of the threat
>> they posed and basically did nothing to fight it aggressively. Had he
>> done so I doubt 9-11 would have occurred. You can bet that Bush would
>> have taken it seriously had he been president then.
>
> Playing cowboys and indians hardly qualifies as taking things serously.

I think Bush would have run a full blown covert war on the terrorists.
There wouldn't be trials. Justice would have been dispensed out of the
barrel of a sniper rifle, from a smart bomb attached to a Predator Drone
or a well placed high explosive. I doubt Osama would had lived to
9-11-2001. This would have probably prevented the invasions of Iraq and
Afghanistan.

>> Say what you want about Bush but he didn't sit around and wait for
>> them to drop the other shoe on us after 9-11. He went for their
>> jugular vein and, IMO, is one of the main reasons we haven't had
>> another domestic attack from them the past seven years.
>
> In no particular order, Bush simply used it as an excuse to:
> a) Get revenge for Daddy Bush

Possibly, but I don't think this was the main reason.

> b) Go after oil

Iraq still isn't producing more oil than before the war.

> c) Play cowboys and indians

..... or he is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East and get rid
of a mass murdering dictator claiming he had WMDs.

>> If he was
>> going to err, I want to to err on the side of going too far rather
>> than not going far enough and we have 100,000 dead Americans as a
>> result.
>
> Shoot first, ask questions later?

Depending on the circumstances, yes. Had they managed to kill 100,000
Americans and Bush hadn't acted to prevent it we would be calling for
his head on a platter.

>>> OTOH, Bush's shenannigans have greatly affected me and the rest of
>>> the country. He's done more damage than anyone in recent memory.
>> Whether it is damage is yet to be determined, IMO.
>
> You're not serious, are you?

Absolutely. Whether Iraq is a success or failure is yet to be determined.

>> If Clinton did the
>> same thing in Iraq the press would be spinning us a whole different
>> story line.
>
> We care about what pundits say because...?

It isn't just the pundits. It is the whole slant to the news. When
things weren't going well Iraq was all over the news. Look at it now,
we hardly hear anything. They refuse to run the good news as hard as
they do the bad news from there.

My nephew, a Marine, returned from a tour in Iraq this fall and he is
disgusted with the media coverage of the war. His experience is not
what they report daily. There is a lot of good being done over there
and we never hear about it. His time was spent in the Sunni triangle
near the Syrian border so he was in the middle of the worst areas. We
are being fed a steady diet of left wing propaganda regarding the war
and it shows.

>> Much of the negatives against Bush are for making
>> political hay and putting a Democrat in the White House this fall.
>> The biggest problem that elected Republicans face is that they have
>> forgotten what makes a conservative a conservative. The people that
>> make up the party haven't forgotten though and this is why they aren't
>> going to the poles to vote.
>
> Bush's fiscal policy is bankrupting America, his foreign policy has
> instigated war and escalated global terrorism, his energy policy has
> ensured our continued dependence on foriegn oil, his blatant disregard
> for the Constitution and Americans' rights has shown his complete
> disrespect for Americans.
>
> And it as yet to be determined if America's been damaged??

Believe me, I have my issues with him too. Keep in mind that he can't
do all those things on his own. Congress has been in lockstep with him
most of the way and I mean the current one too. From voting to
authorize the use of force to the Patriot Act, Congress has been just as
responsible. Also, the American public was not against the war in Iraq
initially. Go back and look at the poles. It is why Hillary and many
democrats voted yes on the authorization of force. Bush wasn't running
a muck on this. He received majority support from across the board for
the invasion, including from the United Nations. Everyone had their
chance to speak up and most chose not to do it.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:IPqdnaB-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> You have a point. It took the Democrats running the proverbial
>>> car
>>>>>>>> over a cliff with Jimmie Carter to pave the way for Reagan in
>>> 1980.
>>>>>>>> Carter makes George Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.
>>>>>>> Carter was brilliant. Bush can't form a sentence.
>>>>>> Carter would have been brilliant if being president was like being
>>> an
>>>>>> engineer on a nuclear submarine. He was one of the worst
>>>>>> Presidents this country has ever had to endure. Thank God he only
>>>>>> had one
>>> term.
>>>>>> Two terms of of his stupidity would have been more than this
>>>>>> country could bare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not quite sure how you meant this.
>>>>>> The original intent was to indicate that letting liberals have
>>> enough
>>>>>> political rope will result in them hanging themselves. The one of
>>> the
>>>>>> most recent examples of this was Jimmie Carter followed by Clinton
>>> in
>>>>>> his first two years in office. I threw in the last sentence as an
>>>>>> embellishment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for old Jimmie, the older he gets the stranger he becomes. I
>>> can't
>>>>>> think of one decent thing that resulted from his time in office.
>>>>>> I can name several disasters though.
>>>>> Actually, the same thing can be said for Dubya.
>>>> There have been some good. We haven't had another terrorist attack
>>>> within our borders since 9-11. I give him a lot of the credit for
>>> this.
>>>
>>> I don't. We are just as vulnerable now as we were then.
>>>
>>>> He did get some decent tax cuts through.
>>> Sure. And the payback is that your kids' grandkids will be paying
>>> for them.
>> The rub to this is that if we didn't get the tax cuts they would have
>> spent even more. They don't keep that money to pay down the debt they
>> just spend that much more. At least we got the money in OUR hands and
>> not in theirs to spend on some worthless government program.
>
> IMO, the bottom line is that Bush's tax cuts didn't do squat for the
> middle class, and they were fiscally irresponsible. YMMV.

IMO, there are too many people that no longer pay any federal tax. How
many people can we take off the tax rolls? How much of a burden can the
upper income people take regarding taxes? Taxing the rich into oblivion
will only lead to economic disaster and this is where we are headed by
taking more and more people of the tax rolls. Look at the old Soviet
Union if you want to see the results of income leveling. It makes
people lethargic and stifles innovation and economic growth. The middle
class somehow thinks they need to get breaks at the expense of the
wealthy. They need to realize that it is the wealthy that provides the
jobs that make them middle class. Take out the wealthy and they will be
in a poverty class.

>>>> We haven't had to hear about
>>>> his personal sex life and there have been no impeachment hearings
>>> (even
>>>> though Congress has tried their best to find something the past two
>>>> years).
>>> We've listened to his past drinking escapades and his daughters'
>>> romps instead. As for Congress, they are a bunch of wimps.
>> George Bush's personal life while in office has been milk toast
>> compared to Bill Clinton. Even his daughters didn't do any more than
>> most teens in this country. I know I did a hell of a lot worse when I
>> was their age. I just never had the press looking at me through a
>> microscope when I did it.
>
> Everybody's got skeletons, and as long as it doesn't affect the country
> (or me personally), I don't really care about politicians' personal
> lives. This includes religion.
>
>>>> I would say the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is much cooler
>>>> now than and there is a real chance for peace between them. Women
>>>> in Afghanistan can actually go to school now and not live in fear
>>>> for
>>> their
>>>> lives every day as is the case with many people in Iraq.
>>> Don't even start with foreign policy.
>> I'm not say he has been the great statesman but he has had his
>> successes.
>
> Bush has one of the most dismal records in history.

Aside from the liberal elite in Europe/Canada trashing him what is so
dismal? Even there France and Germany have elected very pro American
governments so I don't see the great damage. We have good relations
with many countries throughout the world.

>>>> Also, the jury is still out on whether Iraq was a good or bad
>>>> action. We won't know the score on that for another 10-20 years. If
>>>> it does turn out that Iraq leads the Middle East to be more
>>>> democratic then history will judge Bush much more kindly than some
>>>> people are judging him today. Remember all the uproar when Reagan
>>>> called the Soviet
>>> Union
>>>> and evil empire? The press said he was going to cause WWIII and the
>>>> protesters were out en mass against him. Reagan was demonized while
>>> he
>>>> was in office. Now look at how he is seen. Even the Democrats
>>>> don't criticize him anymore. The same could very well happen to
>>>> Bush.
>>> And what color is the sky in your world?
>> Some days it is blue and others it is gray but most days it is a
>> combination of both.
>
> True. Just don't wear those rose-colored glasses too much...
>
>> Even Clinton had his successes and they should be acknowledged.
>
> Didn't he leave the country with a balanced budget and a surplus that
> the next president totally squandered?
>
>> Historians have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight which we don't have at
>> the moment. I used Reagan as an example because it is something that
>> happened in our lifetime. I can see the beginnings of this very thing
>> happening to Bush with just the limited success of the surge.
>
> Michael, take off those glasses!
>
>> If Iraq settles into being a truly democratic country over time
>
> It'll never happen in our lifetime IMO.
>
>> then
>> Bush will be seen as a visionary (even more so if it spreads to other
>> countries in the Middle East) just like Reagan is seen as one today
>> for contributing to the demise of the Soviet Union. We should all
>> hope this is the case because it will mean good things for the USA and
>> the world, in general. It will mean that the Middle East is joining
>> the rest of the world by moving from the 15th to the 21st century,
>> politically speaking.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly hoping for that as well, but I'm also
> hoping to win the lottery this week. By and large, the Middle East is
> simply not ready for USA-style democracy IMO.

I hit send before I finishing responding.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:IPqdnaB-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> You have a point. It took the Democrats running the proverbial
>>> car
>>>>>>>> over a cliff with Jimmie Carter to pave the way for Reagan in
>>> 1980.
>>>>>>>> Carter makes George Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.
>>>>>>> Carter was brilliant. Bush can't form a sentence.
>>>>>> Carter would have been brilliant if being president was like being
>>> an
>>>>>> engineer on a nuclear submarine. He was one of the worst
>>>>>> Presidents this country has ever had to endure. Thank God he only
>>>>>> had one
>>> term.
>>>>>> Two terms of of his stupidity would have been more than this
>>>>>> country could bare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not quite sure how you meant this.
>>>>>> The original intent was to indicate that letting liberals have
>>> enough
>>>>>> political rope will result in them hanging themselves. The one of
>>> the
>>>>>> most recent examples of this was Jimmie Carter followed by Clinton
>>> in
>>>>>> his first two years in office. I threw in the last sentence as an
>>>>>> embellishment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for old Jimmie, the older he gets the stranger he becomes. I
>>> can't
>>>>>> think of one decent thing that resulted from his time in office.
>>>>>> I can name several disasters though.
>>>>> Actually, the same thing can be said for Dubya.
>>>> There have been some good. We haven't had another terrorist attack
>>>> within our borders since 9-11. I give him a lot of the credit for
>>> this.
>>>
>>> I don't. We are just as vulnerable now as we were then.
>>>
>>>> He did get some decent tax cuts through.
>>> Sure. And the payback is that your kids' grandkids will be paying
>>> for them.
>> The rub to this is that if we didn't get the tax cuts they would have
>> spent even more. They don't keep that money to pay down the debt they
>> just spend that much more. At least we got the money in OUR hands and
>> not in theirs to spend on some worthless government program.
>
> IMO, the bottom line is that Bush's tax cuts didn't do squat for the
> middle class, and they were fiscally irresponsible. YMMV.
>
>>>> We haven't had to hear about
>>>> his personal sex life and there have been no impeachment hearings
>>> (even
>>>> though Congress has tried their best to find something the past two
>>>> years).
>>> We've listened to his past drinking escapades and his daughters'
>>> romps instead. As for Congress, they are a bunch of wimps.
>> George Bush's personal life while in office has been milk toast
>> compared to Bill Clinton. Even his daughters didn't do any more than
>> most teens in this country. I know I did a hell of a lot worse when I
>> was their age. I just never had the press looking at me through a
>> microscope when I did it.
>
> Everybody's got skeletons, and as long as it doesn't affect the country
> (or me personally), I don't really care about politicians' personal
> lives. This includes religion.
>
>>>> I would say the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is much cooler
>>>> now than and there is a real chance for peace between them. Women
>>>> in Afghanistan can actually go to school now and not live in fear
>>>> for
>>> their
>>>> lives every day as is the case with many people in Iraq.
>>> Don't even start with foreign policy.
>> I'm not say he has been the great statesman but he has had his
>> successes.
>
> Bush has one of the most dismal records in history.
>
>>>> Also, the jury is still out on whether Iraq was a good or bad
>>>> action. We won't know the score on that for another 10-20 years. If
>>>> it does turn out that Iraq leads the Middle East to be more
>>>> democratic then history will judge Bush much more kindly than some
>>>> people are judging him today. Remember all the uproar when Reagan
>>>> called the Soviet
>>> Union
>>>> and evil empire? The press said he was going to cause WWIII and the
>>>> protesters were out en mass against him. Reagan was demonized while
>>> he
>>>> was in office. Now look at how he is seen. Even the Democrats
>>>> don't criticize him anymore. The same could very well happen to
>>>> Bush.
>>> And what color is the sky in your world?
>> Some days it is blue and others it is gray but most days it is a
>> combination of both.
>
> True. Just don't wear those rose-colored glasses too much...
>
>> Even Clinton had his successes and they should be acknowledged.
>
> Didn't he leave the country with a balanced budget and a surplus that
> the next president totally squandered?

He also left us vulnerable to what occurred on 9-11. Much of the
balanced budget was forced on him by the Republicans in Congress. He
went along because he wanted to get re-elected. Also, much of the
economic success was initiated by the first Bush and was taking effect
when he come into office. He basically road the wave that was generated
by others.

>> Historians have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight which we don't have at
>> the moment. I used Reagan as an example because it is something that
>> happened in our lifetime. I can see the beginnings of this very thing
>> happening to Bush with just the limited success of the surge.
>
> Michael, take off those glasses!

I'm free glasses. Can you say the surge has worked so far? what if it
continues to work and Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy that spreads to
other countries in the area? Will you change you opinion?

>> If Iraq settles into being a truly democratic country over time
>
> It'll never happen in our lifetime IMO.

Never say never.

>> then
>> Bush will be seen as a visionary (even more so if it spreads to other
>> countries in the Middle East) just like Reagan is seen as one today
>> for contributing to the demise of the Soviet Union. We should all
>> hope this is the case because it will mean good things for the USA and
>> the world, in general. It will mean that the Middle East is joining
>> the rest of the world by moving from the 15th to the 21st century,
>> politically speaking.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly hoping for that as well, but I'm also
> hoping to win the lottery this week. By and large, the Middle East is
> simply not ready for USA-style democracy IMO.

Maybe not USA style democracy but something better than they have today
which is nothing. Those people need hope that their lives can be better
tomorrow than they are today. If they get that hope then I think it
spells the end of the extremist Islamic movement.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
>
>> c) Play cowboys and indians
>
> .... or he is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East and get rid of
> a mass murdering dictator claiming he had WMDs.

Uh... No offense, but the invasion came first. Then, while we were there, it
was HEY, let's establish democracy! Yeah, that's the ticket. Revisionist
history.

Establishing a democracy had nothing to do with the original invasion and
came up as a reason for the invasion long after we were already in there.
About the time that the whole WMD thing was proven wrong, as I recall.

But all that aside, I'm still confused about the whole conservative thing.
I'm a lifelong Republican, but I seem to become more liberal as the party
becomes more conservative. There are a couple of things about the
conservatives that I just don't understand.

Smaller federal government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, less
government intrusion in our personal lives. I thought that's what it was
about.

But then we come to the "social issues," for which conservatives seem to BEG
for federal involvement. How does that mesh with conservative political
beliefs?

Do I have to continue to believe that the American family is a mom and dad,
2.3 kids, and a cat and/or dog? No matter what the numbers tell me?

And do I have to profess Jesus is my personal savior to be a Republican, or
can I continue in my agnostic ways?

Who was it that said I haven't left the party, the party's left me?

dwight