Oh my, where to start?
Paul and Ann, yes, Bush believes in a personal God who gives people things to do. So do I. And we know that human beings *never* do things exactly the way they should. But I do think people see this as a lot more scary than it ought to be. He's not hearing voices, here. He's in this job, and he's got choices to make, and he tries to make the best choices he can -- and in his case, figuring out the "best" choice involves considering what God might want. Millions of Americans do the same thing every day.
I don't agree with all his choices, of course. I think his heart's in the right place, but that's sometimes insufficient.
Even if one candidate's own brother was governor of the province where the decisive voting was taking place? Even if the ballots were oddly designed, so that they seemed to favor the candidate whose brother was the governor of that province? Even if the recount was stopped by a Supreme Court where seven of the nine jurors had been appointed by the party which fielded the candidate with the brother? Even if a previous President representing the other party had been badly smeared by media siding with the party with the brother, so that the previous President had almost been impeached over a sex scandal? So that the sex scandal made a lot of people disgusted with that President and distrustful of that party, so that they wanted a President from the party with the brother instead instead?
So that the election, because of all this, produced a President who was really hostile to the United States and who stopped all oil exports to it? And who sold oil at a reduced price to Cuba instead?
Yes, even if. The election went according to the rules. Those were the circumstances, that was the outcome. Can't change the circumstances, can't change the outcome. You don't like the rules, fine, you can try to get them changed for next time, but wanting to go back and change the rules *after* the votes were cast strikes me as deeply unfair. Not to mention whiny.
Okay, Pam. If you say so. If you really, really say so, and you would have been comfortable with such an election in another country producing such an "unfortunate" President, then I understand that you have no objections whatsoever to the U.S. election of 2000.
Glad we got that settled
Just one question about the American economy. If Bush Jr. really did manage the economy well, where did the huge budget deficit and the weak dollar come from? He sure didn't inherit them from the Clinton administration.
Can't speak to that, really, except that I don't think he's managed the economy very well at all. I never liked his economic approach, personally. I think he's added billions of entitlement spending that's just going to keep getting more expensive. Tax cuts are good, but if spending's not reigned in, the revenue's still going to be insufficient, hence a deficit.
Do I take this to mean that if the things that happened in the United States had happened in another country, a country that is generally hostile to you, and if it produced a President that was hostile to you, then it would probably have been fraud?
No.
But we're resigned to the fact that election fraud does occur, from time to time. In some countries a lot more than others. Like the last time Saddam Hussein was "elected" -- with an astonishing 100% of the vote! Oh, no, wait, he was hostile to the US. So it can't have been fraud.
Unless of course fraud and hostility of outcome aren't really correlated at all.
And to the very best of my knowledge, Great Britain, Canada, France and Japan have never had an election that was remotely like the US election of 2000. Or at least, none of them have had such an election after World War II.
Of course they haven't. They don't have our election system. The electoral college is fairly unique, I believe.
if the good times have really ended, they were never that good to begin with.
Really? The New York Times was negative about the state of the economy under a Republican president?
No relation, no relation! But I respect Bill Whittle a lot so I should have known better.
I can't speak for Ann but here is what I think: If he lied about something major that would change our country then of course I would mind. I would be furious! But like I said before I don't get why lying about who you slept with or not is such a big deal.
I think the theory is that a guy who blatantly lies in one area might just be much more likely to lie about other, more national-interest type things. If he doesn't honor his vow to his wife, I get nervous about him honoring other vows -- like the one to uphold the Constitution, protect the country, etc. But I understand how that would have looked weird to Europeans; it sometimes seems like *all* their politicians have mistresses. They don't lie about it, 'cause they don't need to.
besides, Nixon ended the Vietnam war. He didn't start it, but he did end it. Now wasn't that admirable?
As a matter of fact, no.
Nixon (and Congress) abandoned millions of people we'd said we would protect, leaving them to be slaughtered, and in the process showed that Americans would run away from a fight if enough grisly pictures showed up on the evening news. What exactly is admirable about that?
Ah, poor Carter. I really think that he was unlucky about the kidnappings of American diplomats in Khomeini's Iran.
Yeah, poor Jimmy. He was incompetent from the start. 5th graders were making fun of him.
how did Reagan deal with the world? Not by making war on it. Not by telling the other countries of the world that they were either for America or against it, and if they were against it, they would have to deal with the consequencies. Not on your life! Not Reagan! No, what Reagan said was this: "Please, Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall." And the wall fell, only a few years later. And the cold war ended. Those were the days.
That's how you remember Reagan?
And here I thought everyone was convinced he wanted to end all life on earth because he was so eager to nuke the Commies...
Well, Ann, of course I'm devastated that you don't like my country. But I'll try my best to soldier on -- no, wait, you probably don't like soldiers -- do my best to keep going anyway... somehow...
PJ
