Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I think we agree. See my earlier post re: Bush forever?
|
Apparently so.
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Here we diverge. I think the HOW is turning out to be more important than the WHAT. I would rather someone who was about to mess with us, or a friend or ally, be certain that, while they can't really predict WHAT we'll do, we'll damn well do SOMETHING bad to them. I think that's a good attitude to foster. I think Bush's HOW does just that.
|
We do diverge at this point. I'll fall back on my thought that there are other/better ways to foster the same desirable attitude.
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I remain convinced that, had Bush I won, 9/11 would never have happened, we'd be on top of the world in an intelligence sense, and the economy would have actually turned out better. Having said that, I think the temperament (if not the experience, and maybe raw intelligence) of Bush I is not as well suited to a post-9/11 world as is the cowboy. I like the cowboy to a great degree because he is a cowboy, and we need a cowboy right now.
|
No way to prove that, of course, but if so, you can lay those in part at the feet of two GOP excesses of the 1980s. In my view, the defeat of Bush I in 1992 was a hidden and unforeseen cost of: (a) the religious right fervor that helped sweep Reagan into office (i.e. "Pitchfork Pat" and his boys helped Clinton mobilize the Democratic base as it had not been mobilized since 1968. I remember watching his speech at the GOP convention and cringing.); and (b) the huge budget deficits which began under Reagan -- which led to Perot (and which forced Bush I to alienate much of his base when he did the only responsible thing he could do and raised taxes).
S_A_M
