good post!iaafan wrote:Interesting thread. I thought longhorn22's response was priceless. I think his post tells a story in that no matter how wrong you think the other party is, there is someone on the other side that feels the same way about yours. He still likes Dubya and you have to admire his loyalty.
I think this is a good time for Americans to ask themselves what their country is and what they want it to be and what kind of condition is the world in and how can we effect it. It's like you just went into a bar in NYC and mouthed off about the Yankees with Bosox t-shirt on and got your ass handed to you. Now you're in the taxi and after you tell the driver what happened he (some guy from the middle east) doesn't even feel sorry for you. It's time to check ya-seff, befo ya reck ya-seff. We've all been there before.
We went to Iraq and got Saddam and most of his party outta there. The Bathe Party is still working with the insurgents, but they're considerable weakened. It's a civil war, which at some point was bound to happen. Hindsight being 20-20 maybe that's the best would could've hoped for. Of course, we couldn't just go there with the intent of starting a civil war, but is a civil war in Iraq better than a dictatorship in Iraq? If it was bound to happen, then maybe sooner is better than later. The catch is that now the history books will show the the U.S. started this civil war.
But back to the Bush being a bad president analyis. Certainly for every democrat that's a Bush hater, there's a republican (insert name of Dem. prez here) hater on the other side. For every republican that resembles a Nazi, there's probably a democrat that resembles a socialist.
I think Dubya is water under the bridge, much like Kerry and Gore losing (being cheated) to him is. Except with Bush we all just have to bide our time until he and his people leave DC or are run out.
Even though people seem very right wing in Montana, the historic pattern of what party holds a Senate seat, or Gov. seat, or Repr. seat in Montana, and most states for that matter, is pretty balanced. People consider Montana a 'red' state, but it looks pretty purple. Since 1972 we've had three Dem. Governors (Judge, Schwinden, and Schwietzer), 16 of 36 years. Baucus has been in there forever and then there's the great Mike Mansfield. On the R side people have a hard time imaging that Jeannette Rankin was a republican and I'd certainly give her my vote if she were around today, regardless of pary. California, which many consider a blue state, has a strong conservative past. Reagan came from there and Arnold is in charge right now. That doesn't look too left to me.
So it's pretty even. Imagine if it weren't. If the election is tomorrow and Dick Cheney is running do you vote for him?
my question is, why are we talking past tense about the bush presidancy? he is currently the president and has 2 years left.
now back on topic...
i can honestly say that i am not dissapointed in George Bush, but i will add the caviat that i have taken a look at the texas state goverment while he was govenor and realized that its size has actually doubled! so honestly no surprise with how he is handling budgeting and goverment waste.
about the only thing i can mention asides from what i have already mentioned is that right now with this war in iraq, no matter what you think about it, we need a gen. patton, not sombody trying to make nice with the dems all the time. now granted i doubt it is within w's personality to be a paton type of leader, which is mildly frusterating.
I will vote for him again, and again, and in the next election as a wright in candidate