Palin in 2012
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
But I am also talking of philosophically JLM; I am not talking of party affiliations. There are a few (and decreasing number of) Republicans who are not conservative. Juiliani, for one. Or Senators Olympia Snow, Susan Collins etc. (incidentally, when these ladies retire, the Maine senate seats are sure to go Democratic; I don’t see another moderate Republican arising to take their place).
But the Bushes were conservative philosophically and by party affiliation.
But the Bushes were conservative philosophically and by party affiliation.
Not only that ironsides, but some people tend to underestimate his skills as a politician. In spite of his polite, civil demeanor, he a skilled, tough and consummate politician.
Indeed, I remember many republicans were rooting for him to win the primaries. Hillary was a seasoned politician, Obama was a neophyte. Republican thought they will be able to roll over Obama.
Even today, some republicans are under the impression that 2012 is as good as won for them, they may be in for a rude awakening. Unless economy is really in the tank come 2012, Obama will be a tough opponent to beat.
''I suppose they were but they were both up to their necks in wars.''
Wars create jobs for elites in the military industrial complex. Therefore, it would not normally create problems in the economy. Besides, both Bush's created the wars. Neither was necessary for our national interests.
Wars create jobs for elites in the military industrial complex. Therefore, it would not normally create problems in the economy. Besides, both Bush's created the wars. Neither was necessary for our national interests.
Wasn't the war under Dad George started by the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam the Insane? Actually I blame Dad George for most of Sonny's woes. HE should have finished the job with Saddam, when he had the chance- with the invasion of Kuwait he had more than a good excuse to literally level the bastard.
Yes, Bush the Elder did start that war. But why since it wasn't any of our business? If ending dictatorships is such a good idea in order to save lives, why not invade Congo or Sudan where many more people died?
I think there may be a good reason for that, I doubt if there is much chance of anyone from Sudan or the Congo showing up on our door step, whereas we know how nefarious the Muslims can be as proven by 9/11.
YouTube - Sarah Mania! Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits
My issue with Sarah Palin is not so much with her dogmatic ideology. Right or left, she'd be a terrible President. As for ideology, I don't think she has a clear ideology, let alone a dogmatic one. Her influence is clearly right wing, but of a provincial populist kind; she ain't no intellectual.
She is simply inarticulate. This is not an ideological trait, but rather a reflection of the clarity of her thought. There are left-wingers who are just as inarticulate, whose ideas are just as vague, ambiguous, contradictory and unclear as hers.
The worst part is this: though I'm more left-leaning overall (certain issues aside as many here are well aware), I'd still prefer a right-leaning candidate with a clear mind over Sarah Palin. A clear-thinking right winger, though I may disagree with his policies, would at least be able to come up with a well-thought out plan of action which, though I might disagree with them, and might even profoundly disagree with them, would be able to achieve something constructive to some degree. In fact, I might even prefer a clear-minded rightwinger over a muddy-minded left-winger in that such a left-winger's policies would be scatterbrained, all over the board, and would come to nothing.
So really, though I have issues with her ideology, I have even greater issues with her lack of clarity.
My issue with Sarah Palin is not so much with her dogmatic ideology. Right or left, she'd be a terrible President. As for ideology, I don't think she has a clear ideology, let alone a dogmatic one. Her influence is clearly right wing, but of a provincial populist kind; she ain't no intellectual.
She is simply inarticulate. This is not an ideological trait, but rather a reflection of the clarity of her thought. There are left-wingers who are just as inarticulate, whose ideas are just as vague, ambiguous, contradictory and unclear as hers.
The worst part is this: though I'm more left-leaning overall (certain issues aside as many here are well aware), I'd still prefer a right-leaning candidate with a clear mind over Sarah Palin. A clear-thinking right winger, though I may disagree with his policies, would at least be able to come up with a well-thought out plan of action which, though I might disagree with them, and might even profoundly disagree with them, would be able to achieve something constructive to some degree. In fact, I might even prefer a clear-minded rightwinger over a muddy-minded left-winger in that such a left-winger's policies would be scatterbrained, all over the board, and would come to nothing.
So really, though I have issues with her ideology, I have even greater issues with her lack of clarity.
And how does this pertain to Iraq, JLM? Saddam was not involved in terrorism, except perhaps in a marginal way. According to Osama Ben Laden, Saddam was not even a good Muslim. There was no love lost between Saddam and Osama.
When Bush invaded Iraq, he took his eye off the ball and let Afghanistan (which was the real hotbed of terrorism) fester. With his idiotic invasion of Iraq, he took valuable resources away from the fight against terrorism.
''I doubt if there is much chance of anyone from Sudan or the Congo showing up on our door step, whereas we know how nefarious the Muslims can be as proven by 9/11. ''
History shows that Iraq has never invaded the USA nor did it ever represent any threat to us here in Minnesota.
History shows that Iraq has never invaded the USA nor did it ever represent any threat to us here in Minnesota.