Go to Here's A Thought: One Thing A Penny Still Buys
- Add a comment
- Go to There's Reid Denial And Then There's Bush Denial
Hard to say, Gramsci. I'm holding out for Hagel. McCain has been a
disappointment, but I like him. There's something about Giuliani that just smells like a politician, and that ain't good. Hillary would make a good president, but she won't be elected. The same goes for Obama. Edwards has some good ideas and I'm leaning toward him to take the Democratic nomination. Everybody else, well, unless something drastic happens and we have another Carter or Clinton (extreme dark horse finishing first), no one else at the moment is viable, including Romney.
posted by
saul_relative
on April 27, 2007 at 12:17 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul
Who do you think will get the nomination?
posted by
Antipodean
on April 26, 2007 at 11:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Bush's ignorance of foreign matters, Nautikos, has really hurt us
diplomatically. His arrogant swagger has made us no allies. And you're absolutely right about exporting democracy. It's something I've said time and again: you cannot remake the United States somewhere else. This takes completely ignoring another people's customs, traditions, culture, laws, religions, etc.
As for Hillary and Obama -- it's not going to happen. Too many conservatives out there who will make sure they vote to keep a woman and/or a black man out of office, regardless of their qualifications or whether or not they're better suited to run the country. People pay lip service to equality in this country. Few accept it, sad to say.
posted by
saul_relative
on April 26, 2007 at 12:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Which is one of the reasons I have suggested (several times) that the
Democrats "allow" the Republicans to win again in 2008. Somebody is going to have to pay for Bush's fiscal irresponsibilities and the terrible waste of the War. Add these things to a credit crunch buildup, a housing market that will probably slump for years, the social security problems, the immigration standoff or nonmovement, and various other things -- and you have hell to pay in the next decade. If the Democrats win, they'll get saddled with most of the blame, if not all of it. And if that happens, watch and see a Republican president and Congress for the next couple decades following. And you think Bush was too authoritarian? Wait until these guys have solidify their power...
posted by
saul_relative
on April 26, 2007 at 12:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul
The whole thing is a total mess. Everyone, not just Bush, went into Iraq without the slightest clue what the country and its political and religious divisions were about...And 'exporting' Democracy is an idiocy as well. Most people in the world today are not ready for a true democracy, and who knows if they will ever be. I doubt it!
And the anarchistbanjo also has an interesting observation, when he says 'I feel sorry for Obama and Hilary when they take office.' So some Americans are planning for a kind of 'dual presidency'? Bush may know little about Iraq, but they know possibly less about their own country...
posted by
Nautikos
on April 25, 2007 at 7:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Bush's war
In my opinion Bush is deliberately spending the United States into a financial crisis. We have no business in Iraq. We came so close to having a balanced budget.
I feel sorry for Obama and Hilary when they take office. They are going to take the hits for this mess just when the baby boomer social security crisis and medicare crisis hit.
If you don't think this has been carefully planned....
posted by
anarchistbanjo
on April 25, 2007 at 4:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Damn. He is? How the hell did I miss that? Seriously, hazel, tell your
mother not to worry, Bush is far too loathed, not to mention stupid, to be the anti-Christ. Remember, the anti-Christ will be much loved and a great diplomat. Tell her it's probably Oprah or Bill Clinton. Everybody loves those guys...
posted by
saul_relative
on April 24, 2007 at 10:50 PM
| link to this | reply
hello, Saul...my mother thinks Bush is the anti-Christ
posted by
hazel_st_cricket
on April 24, 2007 at 10:34 PM
| link to this | reply
When your own father (Bush I) has to send in his Middle East expert to
tutor the new president (Bush II) on the Middle East and the difference between a Shia and a Sunni, that president should not be making sweeping decisions about anything in the Middle East. Besides, wars are economic engines. And, as with most engines, you need a little oil... But you are absolutely correct about the time and money spent in a region that in no way identifies with any Western ideology, so...
posted by
saul_relative
on April 24, 2007 at 9:34 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, afzal.
posted by
saul_relative
on April 24, 2007 at 9:28 AM
| link to this | reply
Hi Saul - the trouble is, he and his ilk neither know nor care about Iraq.
They just see it as somewhere they'd like to impose democracy that is pro-America. Do they not see that even if they stayed there twenty years, and left only when there was a functioning democracy, the elections might within a very short time produce an anti-American and anti-democratic government thru legitimate democratic means? If that happens, what will they do to justify the billion spsent and devastation and loss of life caused to allow those democratic elections in the first place? I don't somehow think Bush and co have thought that one through. They presumably think they can scare Iraq (which isn't even a viable country, like Yugoslavia wasn't) into being friendly and peaceful. Our leaders should take a look at Wikipedia - saves them sending a lackey to the bookstore - and read for five minutes about Iraq's history. Then they'd see the futility of it all.
posted by
Antonionioni
on April 24, 2007 at 7:52 AM
| link to this | reply
Good quote.
posted by
afzal50
on April 23, 2007 at 11:52 PM
| link to this | reply