December 22, 2007

Saturday review

On that story about the Icelandic woman detained by HSA, Sully notes a response from a Republican:
As someone who is increasingly and unapologetically isolationist in my attitude towards trade, immigration and global policing, I feel no sympathy for her. Let's translate her pity party in every language so future potential visitors understand one thing loud & clear: Follow our laws, or go home in disgrace.

Sully doesn't exactly sigh, but you get that he is not impressed with the GOP response:
"One thing people like me have to understand: the core of today's GOP is not merely indifferent to this kind of abuse, it actively supports it. Just as it actively supports and endorses torture. It's one reason I feel so alienated by the Republican party I once felt some loyalty and affinity for."

*****

Even here in Oklahoma, we hear about the GWOC. Rumors circulated that our AG had advised state universities to not use the word "Christmas." Our AG, of course, denies that, and the story seems ridiculous on its face. But it helps the religious right complain about how Christianity is under assault.

Sigh. One more bit of stupidity like this and I swear I am enlisting in the War on Christmas. I will punch the next caroler in the face.

(No I won't.)

****

Ah, the Huck. First, from Tony's blog, news that he will speak at the odious John Hagee's church. Next even Peggy Noonan thinks he is a sham which can't be good news for the Huckster. She rightly points out that the cross image in the ad was absolutely on purpose and is part of Huckabee's attempt to preach to one crowd while then claiming to do no such thing. And further, she sees him as an intellectual light-weight (my words)
Mr. Huckabee is clever. He puts forth his policies, such as they are, based on a faith-based understanding of public policy, and if you disagree with his policies, or take a hard shot at them, or at him, he suggests the reason is that you look down on evangelicals. This creates a new fissure in a party already riven by fissures. He has been accused by some in the conservative press of tearing the party apart, but it was being torn apart before he got on the scene. His rise is not a cause of collapse but an expression of it.
But she also notes the main reason why I distrust him:
In an interview this week with David Brody of CBN, Mr. Huckabee said people everywhere were coming to him and saying, "We are claiming Isaiah 54 for you, that the weapons formed against you will not prosper."
If George Bush has not taught me anything, it is that I loathe people who claim that God is on their side. Huckabee does that while claiming he doesn't. He is not to be trusted, and like Bush, will further undermine evangelical credibility. If that is still even possible.

****

More on the military. One blogger noted that the story on the declining Army officer base has more behind it. Not only have they now allowed criminals to join, but they bizarrely refuse to admit men and women who's genitals are not perfect. Best example, undescended testicles is a reason to exclude. And of course, there are the gays.
I have nothing but contempt for a policy that permits convicted criminals to serve while asking people to leave simply because their sexuality or gender does not fit neatly into society's binary system. I cannot say whether I have ever served with any gay or lesbian soldiers; DADT became law about a year after I was commissioned, and while I'm sure that the law of averages means that some of the men and women I worked with over the years were gays or lesbians, I'm equally confident they would not feel comfortable volunteering that information under the threat of DADT. But I can say with complete confidence that I would greatly prefer going into combat with a gay man than with a criminal, and the notion that homosexuality is in any way worse than criminal conduct is abhorrent.


I am sure this is the fault of the liberals too. Probably Ted Kennedy or John Kerry and their shenanigans.

35 comments:

Tony said...

Huckabee is indeed becoming worrisome. He is certainly learned in something a lot of evangelicals do when their beliefs, credibility, or intelligence is challenged--playing the victim card.

At first, he defended Romney's Mormonism, that Mitt should not be scrutinized because of his faith. But when the heat started getting turned up on Huckabee, well, he started whining. No matter that Huckabee has invited scrutiny whereas Mitt has not. Huckabee has played that to his advantage. The "religion speech" Romney made was a gross capitulation.

Anyone that will criticize an opponent for his religion, preen about his MDiv, and then in a public forum when cornered about the core tenets of another religion brush it aside while gazing at his navel, "Well, I just don't know that much about other religions but I do know enough about mine," is not qualified to be POTUS.

Streak said...

But Tony, it is worse than that. He doesn't have an MDiv, but is instead a seminary dropout.

Tony said...

Bwwhhuh??!!

Good heavens. I am speechless. So much for principle.

(You know, he not only made that statement to Robertson, but he also said that at the last Repub debate and chided Rudy in that context.)

This really upsets me.

Rob said...

I'm really starting to -- well, not LIKE, really -- but maybe respect Sullivan for being something of a renegade. He's got the stones to not toe the party line even when party loyalty is the only thing the GOPs got left.

I mean, he's at least capable of recognizing the level of self-parody his party's descended to. That's a good thing, right? Isn't the first step in rehab admitting you've got a problem?

Rob said...

Re: Huck. Did you have a chance to hunt down that interview on CBN that Noonan references? He's throwing bricks and she completely sidesteps his most incendiary stuff.

Specifically, he says, "Huckabee: There is a level of elitism that has existed, the chattering class if you will who lives in that corridor between Washington and Wall Street and they sort of live in their protected world, and frankly for a number of years many of them thought of people like me - whether it was because we were evangelicals or because maybe we were out from the middle of America. They were polite to us. They were more than happy for us to come to the rallies and stand in lines for hours to cheer on the candidates, appreciated us putting up the yard signs, going out and putting out the cards on peoples doors and making phone calls to the phone banks and - really appreciated all of our votes. But when they got elected, behind closed doors, they would laugh at us and speak with scorn and derision that we were, as one article I think once said "the easily led." So there's been almost this sort of, it's okay if you guys get a seat on the bus, but don't ever think about telling us where the bus is going to go."

Right there you've got a huge fault line exposed, and it's still in the process of splitting. If he's the new voice of the religious right, that's about as close to a declaration of independence as you're gonna find.

Here's my thing with Huck, and I know how you two feel about him, but I have to say he's got some excellent political instincts so far. He knows when to throw his weight around. Of course, his past is what will kill him off, politically, but he's made impressive use, IMHO, of his newfound popularity.

And Streak, you haven't once yet told us who you like of all the primary contenders.

Wait. You're not a Ron Paul guy, are you?

Tony said...

Rob,

I was beginning to lean Huckabee at one time. However, these minor lapses in integrity that are being exposed are becoming more troublesome for someone like me. (I'm a conservative SB pastor, in case you hadn't figured that out yet.)

First, the misspent money as governor of Arkansas; defending Mitt's religion early on and then whining when his feet are held to the proverbial fire, even though Huck invited it; playing ignorant on foreign policy affairs so as to protect his own hindquarters; and now, maybe he didn't overtly lie about his theology degree, but a biblical studies degree is much different than an MDiv, and every Southern Baptist who regularly attends church knows that.

That isn't a lapse in integrity, that is manipulating "the easily led." He knows good and well what a "theology degree" means to the evangelical world.

Every politician is going to make mistakes and I understand that. But, Huckabee seems to be taking cues from the Rove/Bush playbook.

And I agree--he knows how to throw his newfound fame around and it has caused his ascendancy above Giuliani; but it does not make me like him anymore. I really am in a conundrum now. I remarked to Streak before, this term's GOP candidates make me want to vote Democrat.

And Streak--he's not a Ron Paul guy. Take my word for it. :)

Rob said...

Thanks for the clarification, Tony, on your position, and on our host's. No, I guess after I thought about it, Streak probably isn't a Paulite ;)

I can definitely understand the increasing sense of "ewww" at Huckabee as we get a fuller picture of him. Like I said, I don't see him as being able to go anywhere within the GOP caucus long term, but I'm certainly interested in what he means for the innards of the GOP, so to speak.

His position in that CBN interview I thought was pretty radical and pointed. He said it himself: evangelicals have been the most loyal and activist part of the Republican base (Bush in particular, I think, owes both of his terms to that activism) and yet it's the most disrespected wing of the Republican consensus, such as it is.

After 7 years of really stunning party discipline, I feel a little like I'm watching the wheels come off something huge. Like the GOP's about to fracture into a billion little warring factions.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts, as you seem to be a member of Huckabee's demographic (if not of his supporters). I know he doesn't speak for you, but is he voicing some of your concerns at all?

Streak said...

Yeah, this is an interesting twist, I must say. I sometimes forget how much the core GOP dislikes Huckabee because he reminds me of Bush in so many ways.

BTw, here is how I think I rank the candidates right now.

Obama--I think he is the smartest one in the bunch, and right now I would prefer smart to just about anything else.

Edwards--I like his stance on poverty and think he would stand up to corporations and the pharm companies better than anyone else in the field. But I am not completely sold on him yet.

Dodd--even though he is not really a credible contender, I appreciate him standing up to Bush and Reid to stop that stupid and evil retroactive immunity crap.

Clinton--I don't like her and don't trust her, but think that she would get the trains running on time. I fear, however, that she would look at Bush's signing statements and expansions of executive power (including the stupid "unitary executive" argument) and say, "hey, that isn't such a bad idea." I am not completely convinced she would go away from Bush's foreign policy stuff either.

Tony said...

Rob,

You could replace "GOP" with "SBC" and I think we would be having the same conversation. :)

Huckabee doesn't thrill me in so many ways. I have little respect for his playing to his own ignorance in regards to foreign affairs. I won't disagree that maybe we are fighting an ideological war with the Middle East, but that has been going on for millennia. For Hucakbee to arrogantly believe that the USA is "God's nation" is over the top for me, not to mention that I think it is inappropriate for him to bring his views on prophecy, which are some of the most disputed theologies in all the Bible, to bear on his policy decisions.

He has never really progressed beyond generalities with Iraq. If he has voiced a specific plan, then I have missed something. Neither have I heard him voice an opinion on torture.

His stance on abortion is troublesome. His view that Roe should be overturned is not the brightest idea. I'm not the sharpest knife in the box but I think more aggressive legislation, sex education, and less judicial activism would do more to reduce the number of abortions. (I am pro-life, but willing to talk, btw.)

His faith has helped him formulate a few decent positions, like on the environment and potentially energy independence. (Why don't we just go to ANWR? No, wait, don't answer that...)

However, his plan to eliminate all taxes is a bald-faced lie. Taxes aren't the evil thing he makes them out to be. I don't understand the motivation behind this and how it will help the government.

Looking back at my comment, I guess I really never was behind Huckabee to begin with. I think Streak and I may be in about the same place, huh?

My take on the others--

Rudy--He frightens me. Bush on steroids.

Mitt--Merciless and proud, vacillating whiner.

McCain--I probably am liking him the best now, though he is a long shot. He seems to be the only one with a clear plan on Iraq and he has condemned torture. (Besides, he's stumping with his mom. How cool is that?)

Thompson/Hunter--They still running?

Streak said...

Of all the candidates on the GOP side, I want to like McCain, but he has betrayed moderates and progressives so many times. He clearly loathes Bush personally, but has bent over backward to enable the man.

His "bomb Iran" comments got really annoying as well. But, I suspect that he would do more on global warming and other environmental issues. I don't think he would follow the same "neo-con" foreign policy, and he seems to be very clear on torture.

I like Ron Paul's reassertion of the constitution, but he wants to privatize everything. I find that unworkable--about as unworkable as Huckabee's ridiculous tax plan.

fightingpreacher said...

Tony, if a Satanist were to run for president would that not be problematic?


For the record I dont like Huckabee either.

fightingpreacher said...

To be honest I find none of the runners appealing.

religion obviously makes a difference. If it didnt then no one should have trouble accepting a Satanist running for office.

Streak said...

Sigh. I will bite. Who is the Satanist?

fightingpreacher said...

there isnt one, that I know of.

I am just saying religion makes a difference.

Tony said "Mitt should not be scrutnized because of his faith"

I disagree and I bet many including those on these boards would critize if someone was running that was a out and out Satanist.

Streak said...

I guess it depends on what that satanist did. Personally, I am not sure I would care as long as he/she did their job right.

fightingpreacher said...

At some point someone religious values must be a factor. For example, Satanism is not known for its moral or ethical outlook on life. There are things that have to transcend ones political outlook.

One day people will realize that you cant separate what you believe from the way you live your life

Streak said...

Well, we have had no Presidents who didn't assert belief in Christianity. That includes law breakers and womanizers. A) I am not really sure that Satanism is really that much of a force in this country, and B), perhaps you (and many people) assume that religious beliefs=morals.

Bootleg Blogger said...

Religious affiliation, or lack thereof, aside, there still isn't a standout for me in the race. I agree that of the major frontrunners, Obama is the only one that is new enough not to be completely entrenched in the system (I guess that's a maybe). Clinton is so deep in the machine I can't imagine her making any kinds of changes, as Streak points out. I hope I'm wrong because I think she's very likely getting her old address back.

As a small business person living in a medicaide town, I don't hear anything that resonates although I haven't heard every speech. Issues like healthcare reform, welfare reform, poverty issues, small business relief, etc... all come across in generalities or band-aide approaches. I think it's time for some serious reform in this country but I'm not hearing that from anyone with a coherent message. Regarding the war, the only ones that I know of that can really speak with any integrity are Obama and Paul who both voted against it. I get queasy every time I hear Clinton answer questions on that one.
Later- BB

Tony said...

religion obviously makes a difference.

Does it?

For the record, I don't think Mitt should be scrutinized (or any of the candidates, with the exception of Huckabee, because he has practically begged for scrutiny) because of his faith. I think policies and capability should be.

Bootleg Blogger said...

Streak: Regarding the immigration story, I actually agreee with the republican response regarding this story being translated into as many languages as possible and posted around the world. If this is going on, people need to be warned. Foreigners spend upwards of 86 billion bucks here each year. If we start looking hostile to minor infractions like this they'll take their money elsewhere. Sometimes the dollars can motivate where general decency fails.
Later
BB

Rob said...

At this point I'm an Obama leaner, but not because I think he'll be any less unbeholden to the corporatocracy (at this point, that's who's calling the shots, for better or for much worse).

What I like about Obama is how he's been playing some very effective generation-gap politics. He's the first Gen Xer to step up to the presidential scrum, and for my money it shows, especially in comparison with Hill, who's the quintessential Boomer striver.

Maybe it's just how he's approached his race and how it is (or is not) applicable to his campaign. His ease with it seems to be something other-than-Boomer. Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton would be more militant, and for them their race would be THE defining element of their campaign. Obama's attitude towards it is pretty novel, IMO.

I'm not sure if I can articulate what it is yet, so thanks for listening ;) But I know Obama's different from all the rest of them and at this point in the history of our venerable Republic, something fundamental has to change.

fightingpreacher said...

I agree Rob. I have much of the same problem. There is noone that stands out. I dont believe anyone on either side of the aisle can give us what this country needs.

We have a fundamental problem with our current government. Not the structure that was set up but the people that are in it.

We have the judical branch passing laws instead of interpreting laws.

The legislative branch no longer serves the will of the people. It is about them making money and special interest groups paying them. Then they vote the issues instead of the will of the people.

Then the Executive Branch which once again on both sides of the aisle is more concerned with everything that doesnt have do with them than enforcement of the law and the protection of the land.

Streak said...

Rob, several commenters have suggested that Obama brings a freshness and a lack of anger to the table. That allows him to skirt one of the stereotypes that so many whites want to dismiss him for. Sullivan, btw, says that he is constantly amazed at how Republicans around him respond to Obama. They show none of the hatred toward him that they do Hillary.

FP, I am as guilty of this as anyone, but we have a history of always assuming that our people in office are not acting the way the system should. In our case, I think we have some good arguments. Bush's signing statements and push for warrantless wiretapping are clearly not as designed by the founders. Neither is the Congress's lack of oversight.

I too would like to see a reduced role for lobbyists. That has always been a problem, made worse by Tom Delay's "K-Street" project, but undoubtedly one that will be hard to undo.

Every generation complains about the courts as well. I don't see the judicial activism you do--and in fact distrust the term. Steve can explain better than I, but it seems like a judicial activist is one who rules different than you want.

fightingpreacher said...

***This has the least amount of rancour in any response from you since I have been on your blog.


FP, I am as guilty of this as anyone, but we have a history of always assuming that our people in office are not acting the way the system should.

***I do it as well, with Bush too. Bottomline with all of us is we have not had to walk in these mens shoes. It must be extremely, and I mean extremely difficult for any of these men. I limit my critizism of even those who I politically disagree. Typically, I will talk about their morals and ethics and how that affects their decision making process. I.E. Clinton cheating on his wife shows us low moral character!

In our case, I think we have some good arguments. Bush's signing statements and push for warrantless wiretapping are clearly not as designed by the founders. Neither is the Congress's lack of oversight.

***Man, of course they are not clearly designed by the founders...cause their were no phones! Look, I have some issues with the wire tapping. But to be honest if you arent talking about terrorism or taking calls from terrorist you will be alright. Now I realize that their is no guarantee that they arent using this for something else...but if they take away the right to bear arms they can do anything they want and we will be powerless to stop it.

Every generation complains about the courts as well. I don't see the judicial activism you do--and in fact distrust the term. Steve can explain better than I, but it seems like a judicial activist is one who rules different than you want.

***Come on man. So the Judge in Vermont who ruled that child molestation shouldnt be punishable for more than 60 or 90 days isnt judical activitism?

fightingpreacher said...

Tony religion absolutely makes a difference and it should.

2 examples

1. What if Obama was educated and believe in the Radical Isalmic tradition that was falsely reported? Would you still think he is eligible then?

2. What if Michael Aquino who is the founder of the Temple of Set ran for president? Are you saying that really doesnt make a difference?

Streak said...

***This has the least amount of rancour in any response from you since I have been on your blog.

Perhaps you haven't read very closely.

***I do it as well, with Bush too. Bottomline with all of us is we have not had to walk in these mens shoes. It must be extremely, and I mean extremely difficult for any of these men. I limit my critizism of even those who I politically disagree. Typically, I will talk about their morals and ethics and how that affects their decision making process. I.E. Clinton cheating on his wife shows us low moral character!

Ok. Whatever. Obviously I don't agree with Clinton' s infidelity, but why do you somehow give Bush some room simply because his sins aren't sexual? The repeated lying to us--the saddling us with unbelievable incompetence (Rumsfeld, Gonzales, etc) the complete lack of response to Katrina, or the complete capitulation to oil companies on matters foreign policy or environmental. His insistence on keeping Rumsfeld in office when he knew it wasn't working caused more Americans and more Iraqis to die. And he refused to fire Rummy because why? Because his critics wanted him to.

Honestly, I will take a womanizer over a complete incompetent.

***Man, of course they are not clearly designed by the founders...cause their were no phones! Look, I have some issues with the wire tapping. But to be honest if you arent talking about terrorism or taking calls from terrorist you will be alright. Now I realize that their is no guarantee that they arent using this for something else...but if they take away the right to bear arms they can do anything they want and we will be powerless to stop it.

Yeah, the phones are the difference. The case law since then suggests that there are ways to adapt to new technology. Warrants really never went out of style--only dictators don't need warrants. And only dictators say "trust us, we will only use this on the bad guys." Oh, and btw, the key right is not the right to bear arms, it is the right to habeas corpus. Without that you can't appeal anything.

***Come on man. So the Judge in Vermont who ruled that child molestation shouldnt be punishable for more than 60 or 90 days isnt judical activitism?

No. I don't know that ruling, though it sounds like one of Bill O'Reilly's distortions, but it is not necessarily judicial activism. It might be a bad decision, but those happen a lot. I remember one in 2000, Bush v. Gore....

fightingpreacher said...

but why do you somehow give Bush some room simply because his sins aren't sexual?

***Who said I was giving him room because his junk wasnt sexual?

The repeated lying to us--the saddling us with unbelievable incompetence (Rumsfeld, Gonzales, etc)

***Clinton lied underoath, was completely overwhelmed with incompetence as well.

the complete lack of response to Katrina,

***
1. That is not the responsbility of the Federal Government
2. The Federal Government issues evacuation orders 2 days prior to the Hurricane
3. The Governor of that state (liberal btw) was completely worthless, and issued no order for evac


or the complete capitulation to oil companies on matters foreign policy or environmental

***Could you site examples of this please?

Finally could you stop using the liberal talk points.

Tony said...

Religion should not make a difference, and here's why. but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So the founders were geniuses until it interrupts your view of reality? No one here is saying you cannot evaluate a candidate and reject that candidate based on religion. That is your sole decision.

But if I subject Obama to sharp scrutiny based upon "Radical Islam" then I must allow the most conservative Christian candidate to be placed under that same scrutiny and also allow for his rejection and be humble enough to accept it if the American people so decide. That is the way our system works and the way it should work in an intentionally religiously plural society.

I will say, your use of hyperbole is stunning. While I am trying to be fair to those generally accepted religions, do you honestly think that an avowed satanist, such as Michael Aquino, would be nominated, much less elected, president? Satanism still carries with it a general odious quality that I think would make even the most liberal liberals bristle.

Streak said...

***Who said I was giving him room because his junk wasnt sexual?

You did, and you do every time you equate Clinton's missteps to Bush. You can accuse me of liberal talking points all day (as if you have an ounce of credibility here with your conservative points on Islam, Clinton, etc), but Clinton wasn't half as bad as Bush. And I was not that big of a fan of Clinton's while he was in office. I thought he failed to get a lot of things done. But in retrospect, his failings were hyped (Lewinsky, etc) and his successes were at least moderate. Hell, at this point, I think George H. W. Bush (daddy) was far superior to this one, and I voted against him in 92 as a failed president. But in retrospect, he was restrained in foreign policy, willing to raise taxes when it was necessary, and ultimately pragmatic.

As for Katrina, let's just say I disagree with your view on the role of government. I think it is, in fact, why we have government to be able to do things that either private corporations or individuals can't do for themselves. And conservatives used to believe in the "common good" as well. Herbert Hoover (noted conservative President) made his bones in the 1927 Mississippi flood by organizing the government response to the massive flooding. In 1927, with much less technology, he was able to get assistance to people living on levies much faster than Bush's people were able to get assistance to those in New Orleans. There are times when the federal government can do things--and it seems to me a massive natural disaster is one of those. But Bush did nothing. Yeah, Kathleen Blanco also failed her state, and Ray Nagin has shown himself to not be that competent. Yay. you point out liberal incompetence. Fine. But Bush's response was horrible. As has been his response since. For all his promises, the poorest in New Orleans are still displaced. And conservatives don't care.

You want examples of capitulating to oil companies. See Cheney's first energy proposal. Not one word about conservation or using less (in fact, Cheney dismissed conservation as unimportant) and everything about opening ANWR. Add to that KBR and Haliburton's no bid contracts in Iraq and you know they have done very well in this war.

fightingpreacher said...

Tony that is exactly the point! Religion does make a difference. Further the citation on religious test is for the government not for the people.

Streak said...

And just who is the government in a democratic republic?

fightingpreacher said...

Streak, ok I can see how you think that it is the responsibility of the federal government. Also making my point of small government! There are so many hoops for anyone to jump through nothing that needs to get done quickly can get done.

Further as a contracted employee of the US Government I have been subject to some of the shoddy good ole buddy system favors. It is unfortunate and ultimately has cost me personally over 400,000 dollars because I am not a big company with political connections. I have put in bids way LOWER than other competitors plus I am veteran so my bids are supposed to be given a little more preference if equally qualified.

You want to complain about ANWR but if those with enviromental agenda's wont let us do nuclear and wont let us drill our own reserves then what are we too do? Ethinal gives off the same amount of emissions and is everybit as expensive and isnt working as well in Brazil as was initially reported.

BTW I was in Japan and it is all nuclear based...no problems there.

Streak said...

I understand that government can work badly, and your examples are certainly valid. But under James Lee Witt, FEMA actually worked and was able to provide assistance to hurricane victims quickly and organize the recovery. That ended when Bush put it under Homeland Security and stocked it with his cronies. And that is an important point--this is the agency who is supposed to help us in the event of a terrorist attack. Do you want them responding to a major attack the way they responded to Katrina?

I think there are reasonable people who are ok with nuclear power. I am iffy on it. I don't necessarily fear leaks or Chernobyl (though that is a concern) but the big issue is dealing with the nuclear waste (sorry, nukular waste). Personally, I think nuclear power might be part of our solution.

However you frame it, however, ANWR won't solve anything except to spoil some of our few remaining wilderness areas. It certainly won't fix the energy crisis. And I agree, ethanol is not the answer either.

But Bush has worked against every reasonable response. I remember when he ran on "state's rights" in 2000. Evidently, he meant that in the racist way, because he certainly has not respected state sovereignty when it served his purpose. Our first hint was the 2000 use of the Supreme Court to overrule the Florida State Supreme Court. But since then, Bush has overridden states several times, including most recently California's attempt to reduce emissions.

fightingpreacher said...

I totally agree that the red tape involved with HSD is not worth it. Even more reason why we should continue to prosecute this war overseas. We have given the terrorist a viable threat overseas to worry about, thereby for the most part keeping our country safe.

To be clear in my mind ANWR is only a temporary solution to make us energy independent from the Middle East until we can develope profitable, safe and effictive alternate energy source.

As far as Bush and energy...hmmm...maybe you will remember in the State of the Union address where he put forth several plans and when brought before congress the democrats shut them down...

So it isnt just Bush. A vast majority of politicians conservative and liberal alike are crooked and the US is in need of a complete overhaul. When have gone from Men and Women who wanted to serve their country, to Men and Women who serve themselves and the people who pay them and their agenda.

Streak said...

Sorry, I am not convinced that Bush put forward any meaningful energy policy. Sawgrass? And like I said, every time a state like Vermont or California wants to change our policy on emissions, his people shut them down.

ANWR wouldn't even do that, btw, and is there no value in wilderness? Haven't we paved and drilled enough? Republicans are losing support in my old state of Colorado because they have essentially opened up drilling in every conceivable place--to hell with the landowners.

As for the crooks, the problem I have with this is that every generation thinks their politicians are crooks, and that people in the past were "statesmen." Read a little on the Gilded Age and you will find that their crookedness was open and unbelievable. I certainly agree that Bush is not the only problem. His willingness to abrogate the Constitution makes him particularly egregious, but there are many that are falling down on the job.

We do lack good leaders right now, but it isn't because they don't exist, we just haven't gotten the right people up there. Bush has been the anti-leader, Clinton was so-so as was GHWB.