[spacefreak]

An interesting article...from this source.

The Bush Haters
How the Left views the current president.

Did you know that the Democratic party in the U.S. relies more heavily upon large donations from millionaires for its finances than the Republicans? The Republican party takes in a much larger proportion of its funds from small and modest donations, because its backbone is formed by the small businessmen and "sole proprietors" (barbers, shopkeepers, plumbers, etc.) of the American heartland. The Democratic party gets its strength from the millionaires in the communications industry, Hollywood, and other new technological elites.

These underreported facts do not serve the mythology of the American Left. The Left imagines that it is the populist party. But most journalists, professors, and other commentators on public affairs are considerably to the left of the American people. And wealthier, and highly educated — in short, privileged. The "voice" of the Democratic party seems much more like the glitzy people "uptown" and in Hollywood than like the workers and middle class of Midland, Texas.

That is why, under the leadership of George W. Bush, the Republicans have gained control of not only the White House, but also the Senate, the House of Representatives, 28 of the 50 governorships (having won three out of four elections last month), and (for the first time in ages) a majority of the legislators in the 50 states.

So it is no wonder that a big story in the United States these days is "Bush-hating." The Democrats seem to be spinning crazily in pure fury at the president. Time magazine describes the president as a "polarizing figure." A small majority of Americans love him, Time says, but those on the leftmost side of the Democratic party positively hate him.

Why do they hate him? Some say he irritates them because he is a Yale elitist and a Connecticut plutocrat, others say because he is an unsophisticated lower-class Texas boob. Some say he is a clever schemer and liar, and others that he is a moron. Some say all these inconsistent things at once. The point is, they hate him and who cares exactly why?

Yet, I can see two reasons why leftists might really hate him.

Bush has stolen two things which the Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency, and the future.

Having finished on top in the Florida election by a small margin, the Bush team prevented the Democrats from stealing the election in the recount. But winning elections in a recount is a maneuver at which Democrats have been incomparably accomplished for generations. In most urban centers, the Democratic party controls the local workers who do the bulk of the counting and vote storage.

Therefore, Democrats felt the bitter loss in Florida with exquisite pain. The Republicans beat them on the streets, in the counting houses, and in the courts. That election belonged to them, Democrats think, and they have continued to cry out against a cosmic injustice.

After the election, each of the independent recounts of all the Florida votes showed that Bush had in fact won, with virtually the same margin as the election-night returns. But Democrats still feel they should have won, by a kind of cosmic right.

The second thing the Democrats think they own, by a kind of Hegelian dialectic, is the future. The Left has long believed that the Left defines the future, and points out the path of progress. In the past, moderate Republicans tended to respect this leftist claim, protesting only timidly, "Not so fast, not so much, not just yet." The Democrats got used to facing an essentially compliant, "me-too" opposition. They thought President Bush would be the same. He isn't.

That's why some Democrats call Bush "the most radical president in history," "the worst president [from their point of view] in a hundred years," a "disaster," and other such names.

It would take another column to show how Bush has cut off the future that the Democrats thought they owned, and how he dared to put the world (not just the U.S.) on an entirely new progressive path, both in domestic and in foreign policy. If he succeeds, the Democrats will be caught thinking in outmoded terms. In tax policy, in welfare policy, in medical care, and in support for democratic reforms rather than mere "stability"overseas, the very meaning of "progressive" will have been defined afresh. Failed Democratic programs will be revised, new directions will be set.

Of course, they hate him! He is the greatest threat to them in 100 years.

[eklipse]

It's not just Democrats - Bush has a large and growing international hate-club.

It takes a special kind of guy to generate 'hate' on that kind of scale.

[thunderous_funker]

The Rise of the 'Clinton Haters'

The following article appeared in Investor's Business Daily on May 15th, 1998

By Tim Graham

If the news media really cared about keeping up an appearance of objectivity - or even reporting in a moderate tone -they wouldn't use the term ''Clinton haters.''

The term is so presumptuous and emotional that it's better suited for a Sunday- morning talk show round table, not an ''objective'' news story. But journalists use it often.

And they haven't taken the easy way out by putting ''Clinton haters'' in quotes, or attributing the term to other people. Instead, they've put the full weight of their professionalism behind the certainty that Bill Clinton's foes are haters - often without asking the ''haters'' if the charge is true.

To quantify how often reporters used ''hater'' to describe the president's opponents, the Media Research Center searched the Nexis database from '92 forward to find all mentions of ''Clinton hater,'' as well as the variants ''Clinton basher'' and ''anti-Clinton,'' in Newsweek, Time, U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times and The Washington Post. We then compared that to use of the terms ''Reagan hater,'' ''Reagan basher'' and ''anti-Reagan'' in those same publications from '81 to '88.

The results were astonishing: 63 uses of ''Clinton hater,'' compared with one ''Reagan hater''; 106 references to ''Clinton bashers'' or ''Clinton-bashing,'' compared with 17 references to ''Reagan bashers'' or ''Reagan-bashing''; and 55 mentions of ''anti-Clinton'' efforts compared with just two mentions of an ''anti-Reagan'' movement.

By itself, ''anti-Clinton'' seems an inoffensive term. In several '92 stories, reporters refer to George Bush and Ross Perot splitting the ''anti-Clinton vote.'' But Time regularly applied modifiers such as ''fiercely,'' ''virulent,'' ''obsessive'' or ''right-wing'' to the term.

A story in the April 13, 1998, issue of Time referred to ''Richard Mellon Scaife, the rabidly anti-Clinton billionaire, and The American Spectator, the gleefully anti- Clinton magazine that Scaife has supported.''

Scaife was the most popular target for the ''hater'' label. Time identified him in a headline as ''King of the Clinton Haters.'' An earlier Time article called Scaife a ''super-Clinton hater.''

And in the April 27 issue of Newsweek, reporter Mark Hosenball wrote: ''The evidence linking Starr to conservative Clinton-haters traces back to a single figure: Richard Mellon Scaife. . . . Scaife is also a fervent Clinton-hater who has spent millions trying to undermine the president.'' But Scaife doesn't give interviews to the national media. How would they know he hates the president?

With this imbalance of alleged hatred in mind, we also checked these variants for Whitewater Independent Counsel Ken Starr - ''Starr hater,'' ''Starr basher'' or ''anti-Starr'' - since his appointment in '94. Time, U.S. News & World Report and The New York Times have never applied these terms to Starr's critics. Newsweek made one mention of Hillary Clinton as a ''veteran Starr-basher.'' The Washington Post carried two mentions of ''Starr-bashing.'' But no one - not even James Carville - was branded a ''Starr hater.''

This journalistic type-casting began with the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit in '94, and intensified again with the arrival of Monicagate in January. Time led the hate-labeling pack, with 28 designations of ''Clinton hater,'' almost half of them in just the last four months.

The origins of this amateur psychoanalysis go back to an April '94 story in Time, titled ''Clintonophobia! Just Who Are These Clinton Haters, and Why Do They Loathe Bill and Hillary Clinton With Such Passion?'' Reporter Nina Burleigh didn't seem to care whether her mind reading was accurate. After tagging conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and activist Floyd Brown as ''haters,'' Burleigh casually added: ''Both profess not to hate Clinton.'' She then referred to ''Clinton haters'' twice more.

''Reagan hater'' appeared only once, in '87, when Newsweek media writer Jonathan Alter explained that Sam Donaldson's dual role as an ABC reporter and commentator ''exposes him to critics who label him a Reagan-hater. . . . In truth, his politics don't interfere with his reportage.'' Politics creates passions that inflame the whole range of emotions - joy and sadness, inspiration and disillusionment, love and hate. Bill Clinton, like Ronald Reagan, fuels all of these. But reporters show their bias when they suggest, subtly or unsubtly, that only one president has been subjected to unrelenting attack by a group of obsessed ''haters.''

<edited to add emphasis>

[SimeyTheLimey]

Yup. Mirror images. Pretty sad.

[finboy]

Originally posted by eklipse:

It takes a special kind of guy to generate 'hate' on that kind of scale.

Not with the right media backing.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
Not with the right media backing.

so....its all the media's fault?



the media preemptively invaded iraq based on a lie? The media told the rest of the world to go hang? The media called the UN superfluous and then came begging for UN sanctions?
The media made an "axis of evil" list?
The media stovepiped intelligence?
The media had no viable exit strategy?
The media is wrapping razor wire around villages?
The media has incurred 7,000 civilian Iraqi deaths?
The media is holding prisoners without representation in Gitmo, even though Britain and Australia are fighting for extradition?
The media is awarding exclusive contracts to american corporations to rebuild Iraq?

WOW. I guess we should kill the journalists, then, because they're really botching world diplomacy on a grand scale.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Scaife was the most popular target for the ''hater'' label. Time identified him in a headline as ''King of the Clinton Haters.'' An earlier Time article called Scaife a ''super-Clinton hater.''

Wow, I'm impressed. I can see being a Clinton- or Bush-hater, but what exactly do you have to do to qualify as a SUPER-Clinton or Bush-hater"?

I'm not sure what the big deal is. I don't like it either but people have hated opposing politicians for as long as I can remember. The JFK assassination coverage reminded me of how, only a short time before, Adlai Stevenson visited Dallas and was hit in the head with a placard by an irate conservative. The atmosphere was so bad that Stevenson advised JFK to not go to Dallas. I mean, can you imagine such a thing now? If I had been Adlai, I would've socked her one. But he was a gentleman and I'm not.

As luck would have it, JFK ends up getting gunned down by a deranged Commie. It never ends.

I don't think Sean Hannity can start a sentence without the words "I am utterly outraged by the nasty anti-Bush rhetoric of the Democrats . . . ". This must really irritate his dates. Poor Sean, always losing sleep over those mean old Democrats. I admit, though - when he puts on that sad puppy-dog face, well, it makes me wanna cry.

Look at it this way: in England, they make the head guy debate the legislature every friggin' week, and when they don't like what he says, they get to boo and shout at him. I think we should adopt this. I would also allow spitballs.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by zigzag:

Look at it this way: in England, they make the head guy debate the legislature every friggin' week, and when they don't like what he says, they get to boo and shout at him. I think we should adopt this. I would also allow spitballs.

Maybe not spitballs. I think Silly-String would be good. Imagine your head of state walking out of a session in colored string.

I love the fact that the British PM has to defend his views in Parliament. Can you even imagine Bush being able to articulate his positions? It's funny, we rejected King George but we treat our elected representatives with kit gloves like royalty. How did that happen?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yup. Mirror images. Pretty sad.

exactly.

Both extremes are wrong in their putrid hatred of either President.

[gadster]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Maybe not spitballs. I think Silly-String would be good. Imagine your head of state walking out of a session in colored string.

I love the fact that the British PM has to defend his views in Parliament. Can you even imagine Bush being able to articulate his positions? It's funny, we rejected King George but we treat our elected representatives with kit gloves like royalty. How did that happen?

I may fall into the category of people accused of being a Bush hater. I don't hate Bush, he is just a guy doing his job. It's his employers I hate.

I do have a problem with the other, malign elements of his administration, the 'Wormtongues'. I reckon Bush has embraced the role of cheerleader and spokesman, and he does it pretty well. It's just that his core team stinks.

And, yeah, I'd like to see Silly-String in the House of Reps here, too. It'd make for much better TV during 'Question Time'.

And btw it's 'kid' gloves, not 'kit'.

[ebuddy]

Bush's core team stinks??? info please? Look at what this administration has been through this term and look where we are today. No President to date has had to deal with adversity the likes of which Bush has.

I did not appreciate the banter regarding Clinton. Clinton was hated for many of the same reasons Bush is hated and I believe pointed out well by NYCFarmboy's post. Clinton stole some key conservative ideals under the cloak of Liberalism (NAFTA and Welfare reform) and Bush has stolen some key liberal ideals under the cloak of Conservatism. ("compassionate conservatism", immigration policy, AID's policy, etc...) and the simple fact of the matter is that this enflames the opposition to no end.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Bush's core team stinks??? info please? Look at what this administration has been through this term and look where we are today. No President to date has had to deal with adversity the likes of which Bush has.

I'm curious what adversity you refer to? Is there anything he wished to do that he was prevented from?

I"m not clear here on your point. Can you please state the incidents of adversity?

[gadster]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
<snip>Bush's core team stinks??? info please?

Info here - google this: PNAC

You see, the thing is, ebuddy, ideas don't belong to one side or the other. You don't see Bush promoting 'Liberty©' for instance. No one owns these positions. Political parties all over the world run these policies. Over here we call them 'motherhood statements'. They are statements that can't be argued with.

A fairly recent political term we have here is 'wedge politics'. That's where a political leader takes a dormant, divisive issue, and lets his underlings take it into the public domain. All the while faintly condemning the debate. Coming to a town near you soon. Expect to see immigration, multiculturalism and environmentalists in the stocks, soon, in a a town near you! Enjoy!

[version]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

Many Americans are so oblivious to what a monkey of a president they have. they are fed the nonsense by CNN, and FOX news, and think that they are the most wonderful nation on earth.


The BBC did an article on why when Bush-tailed-monkey-gibbon-baboom-ass-boy, visited the UK, eh US media barely covered it, well if they they did, the little secure patriots would have seen the many many protests against Bush-whacked, and how in virtually every nation on earth, people showed their dislike for the manchild Bush.

Grow up, ain't no surprise that we most of us dislike him.

Just watched a documentary on the Bohemian Grove, man o man, you guys have this guy who worships a friggin wooden owl, and wears a cloak and does mock sacrifices. He is the leader of the 'Free(dom) fries world, and does this?

[Sven G]

Caesar... or Bush/Clinton/etc.?...

[theolein]

Originally posted by eklipse:
It's not just Democrats - Bush has a large and growing international hate-club.

It takes a special kind of guy to generate 'hate' on that kind of scale.

Well, it makes a change from all the ludicrous international teenage pop-star fan-clubs don't you think?


FWIW, I don't know what to make of Bush himself, really. I don't like him personally, as he sort of makes me feel sort of irritated when I watch his crazy speeches, but he isn't the guy who writes them, even if he reminds me of a clown when he opens his mouth. Whether he's good at his job or not I don't know. The US economy is starting to grow again, but the situation in Iraq is confusing at best and disasterous at worst.

I dunno. I wouldn't vote for him if I was American, but I wouldn't vote for a stiff, socially awkward Gore either. I would probably have voted for John McCain if I was American. He seems to have more integrity than most of the others.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
No President to date has had to deal with adversity the likes of which Bush has.

Yeah -- Lincoln, FDR, they had it easy.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by theolein:

I dunno. I wouldn't vote for him if I was American, but I wouldn't vote for a stiff, socially awkward Gore either. I would probably have voted for John McCain if I was American. He seems to have more integrity than most of the others.

That's something I hear all the time. It's been a real education for me just listening to people discuss why they're voting the way they do. I've heard it on talk radio, TV shows and by reading in political forums like this one. People focus more on personality than on policy. They may not admit it but that's the thing you hear most about. Not to pick on you personally Theolin but what does Gore's social awkwardness have to do with anything? It's not just you either. I've heard perfectly reasonable, articulate open-minded pundits dissect a policy stand and then say they won't vote for someone because they don't like them. As simple as that. I'm convinced the main reason Gore isn't president is because of his cold personality. As long as your stands aren't too extreme and you come off as likable you have a pretty good chance. Let's face it, Bush was more likable than Gore and he ran as, he claims, a compassionate conservative. We all know that's not true now but that's beside the point.

Next time you're listening to a show, mostly talk radio, and they're discussing the candidates, note how many times it comes down person-ability rather than policy. It's truly amazing.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
so....its all the media's fault?



the media preemptively invaded iraq based on a lie? The media told the rest of the world to go hang? The media called the UN superfluous and then came begging for UN sanctions?
The media made an "axis of evil" list?
The media stovepiped intelligence?
The media had no viable exit strategy?
The media is wrapping razor wire around villages?
The media has incurred 7,000 civilian Iraqi deaths?
The media is holding prisoners without representation in Gitmo, even though Britain and Australia are fighting for extradition?
The media is awarding exclusive contracts to american corporations to rebuild Iraq?

WOW. I guess we should kill the journalists, then, because they're really botching world diplomacy on a grand scale.

Most of that stuff, even his own father commented on. The reason why his father made the decisions he made in Iraq was in his own words - no exist strategy, among several of those other reasons.

Anyone whose so arrogant, they do something on that large of a scale... KNOWING it is a screw up... should be tried as a criminal. Treason against ones own nation.

Then again... sexual acts are the only crime you can punish a president for .

[el chupacabra]

Why didn't people elect Nader, a genius in science, law, physics, economics,and business, and most importantly philosophy and morality.

So why did anyone vote for Bush or Clinton? seems stupid to me that EVERYONE hates them yet they all voted for them. Why do people vote for corporate parties and not the president?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
That's something I hear all the time. It's been a real education for me just listening to people discuss why they're voting the way they do. I've heard it on talk radio, TV shows and by reading in political forums like this one. People focus more on personality than on policy. They may not admit it but that's the thing you hear most about. . . . Next time you're listening to a show, mostly talk radio, and they're discussing the candidates, note how many times it comes down person-ability rather than policy. It's truly amazing.

I used to fret about this as well but have come to terms with the fact that personality is a meaningful component of leadership. I agree that it shouldn't be the main determinant, but it's a meaningful component nonetheless, not to be disregarded. If people can't relate to you and vice versa, if you don't inspire confidence and positive emotions in them, it's that much harder to motivate them and get things done. Arnold Schwarzenegger is no smarter than Gray Davis, but it's conceivable that, by dint of personality and stature, he'll make more headway. I have no idea if this will actually happen but it can't hurt.

People want to be inspired, feel good about their leaders, have hope for the future. JFK was no genius but he inspired people. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least as long as the leaders in question aren't Hitler.

It's not always the decisive factor. Nixon managed to win two terms. He wasn't particularly likable but he managed to strike a chord with certain constituencies. It's just easier to strike those chords when you have a charismatic personality.

I could be wrong, of course, but even if I am, there's probably nothing we can do about it - people will focus on personality whether we like it or not.

[vmpaul]

I agree. I guess I never understood how much personality played into until I started listening to talk radio and hearing how voters would disregard political differences over their personal connection with a candidate.

For me, personally, I've never cared to have a leader over someone who would strictly represent my views. So, from that perspective, I always focused on policy and effectiveness over personality. I'm just surprised how many others have reversed those requirements. Again, I don't think most would admit to that either. You have to listen to how they express their concerns. Invariably it ends up being personal connection.

Schwarzenegger is a perfect example of that. He was so vanilla it was hard to justify him as a Democrat or Republican. Since he didn't offend anybody other than the extremists on each side, he garnered many cross-over votes.

[theolein]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
That's something I hear all the time. It's been a real education for me just listening to people discuss why they're voting the way they do. I've heard it on talk radio, TV shows and by reading in political forums like this one. People focus more on personality than on policy. They may not admit it but that's the thing you hear most about. Not to pick on you personally Theolin but what does Gore's social awkwardness have to do with anything? It's not just you either. I've heard perfectly reasonable, articulate open-minded pundits dissect a policy stand and then say they won't vote for someone because they don't like them. As simple as that. I'm convinced the main reason Gore isn't president is because of his cold personality. As long as your stands aren't too extreme and you come off as likable you have a pretty good chance. Let's face it, Bush was more likable than Gore and he ran as, he claims, a compassionate conservative. We all know that's not true now but that's beside the point.

Next time you're listening to a show, mostly talk radio, and they're discussing the candidates, note how many times it comes down person-ability rather than policy. It's truly amazing.

ZigZag said it very well. Almost everyone, not all but most, I think, uses simple human response, (would you choose a wife based on her paper achievements?) in choosing your country's President in the final decision. Policy is very often only a minor part of any choice.

I think the mix of intellectual and emotional response is true everywhere where people can vote. Not only this, but I think the circus that is the Presidential campaign is partly specifically designed around this knowledge, which is why one had the traditional thing of the candidate holding the baby, dancing, landing on aircraft carriers, debating on TV etc.

I think a lot of people vote simply based on instinct.

Apart from that, the job of President is also very much a human one, in that he will react to people's hopes and needs and show leadership in times of crisis. That is one point where I think Bush was personally better than Gore, but we will never know as Gore never got the chance to show himself around 9/11 for example.

What I truly miss in modern politics worldwide though, is true statesmen, like FDR who show wisdom, strength and integrity and act as a symbol to look up to. The only one in the current US administration who comes close to fitting that bill, IMO, is Powell, someone who avoids using invective and insults on the one hand, and sickly sweet brown noseing on the other.

[vmpaul]

Well said. I guess it's just personal preference. I don't want to be lead. Do you want to be lead? I'm perfectly willing to make decisions on issues, see them carried out by a politician and then live by the consequences. Right or wrong. From that perspective I don't care what personality type is before me as long as they seem competent and trustworthy. Maybe I'm in the minority in that regard.

BTW, the wife doesn't need papers but the dog does.

[ebuddy]

Gadster, I'd like to be clear that I completely understand your concern for the PNAC. I've heard it by many other names; Global Occupation, New World Order, etc...I happen to share your concerns. I also don't want my nation to appear Imperialistic, but there's a fundamental problem of ideals here and I'll get to those in a minute. I believe America will get lost in a one world government and believe our sovereignty is at risk long term. I don't mean to sound alarmist as no one is to say that it will happen in our lifetime or within the lifetime of our children. The fact remains;

A one world government will occur. Unfortunately, it is a natural progression. Bush Sr. talked about it openly, Clinton talked about it, others have hinted about it and aren't very clear ,and Bush Jr. no doubt would like to see this come. It's called a billion different things to hide it, It's not a new or strictly American ideal. Leadership as early as George Washington was aware of an agenda like this and warned against it along with many others throughout the course of history. I am fundamentally opposed to a one world government. I believe it leads to a "great watering down" of ideals, a Universal Church, loss of certain rights we take for granted, etc...

The main problem is the type of world we live in. If we didn't hate others and others didn't hate us and if greed weren't a major contributing factor to every single move that is made not only in America people, but everywhere, then there would be no need for war. People blame Christianity for much of this, but the fact of the matter is that man (the salesman) has bastardized and used religion to stir emotion in most cases to satisfy greed. More clearly put; man in power has proven time and again that he will use anything to satisfy greed.

If all involved (including America) were satisfied with what they have now, there would be no need to spread it or to have more. We could simply hate the other, but it wouldn't matter as we'd never come in contact with one another. Enter greed. A Democratic form of government has proven the most effective at squelching mass oppression. It does not generally lead by fear. It usually has to debate and vote on matters that may adversely affect others. Other systems of government have not proven as effective IMHO and create mass oppression and are extremely exclusionary. Oppression absolutely needs an enemy. It needs someone other than it's leadership to blame for thier oppression. They see the giant bags of grain and monetary support with the stenciled USA on them and will still look to us as the oppressor. Primarily because they lack the education to know otherwise. This is not a knock on them mind you. There are many, very intelligent people abroad willing to die bringing education to thier families because it opens minds, hearts, ideals, and possible opposition.

There will come a time when the two ideals clash. That time is drawing near. If you don't see it, I'm sorry. If you don't think a time to act is drawing near, it may be because you don't want to see it and therefore there is nothing I can say or do to prove it to you. Iraq was a place of fostering and festering hatred for the ideals of the West. It's okay to hate us, but the desire to grow is still within mankind and if allowed to grow will only become more difficult to overcome. Sometimes it's more difficult to bring yourself up than it is to bring someone else down. Economically, Spriitually, physically, etc... There are many who seek to bring us down. Hisorically, their efforts have been in vain because they couldn't muster the clout necessary to make it happen. Now, in the communications age this is no longer the case. It's much easier to choreograph efforts and many (Iraq) can have a significant yet invisible role to play. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." What to do? Which ideal is the lesser of the two evils? This may be too simplistic for many, but again this is all IMHO as an observer. Contrary to popular belief (as I sometimes get the impression I'm supposed to think here) the world would NOT be a much better place without America. What to do? Can we become severe isolationists? No. Too many opposed to that for it to be so. Do we ignore growing threats abroad then? No. Though many would like us to because they are opposed to military action (as am I as a rule of thumb), but you can't have one without the other. True peace cannot prevail among humankind. I hate to sound pessimistic, but even little threads like this prove it to me. This will not stop mankind from trying. US action in Iraq was not humanitarian, nor about oil or contracts profits. It is solely about the spread of our ideals and democracy abroad and "Changing the face of the Middle East". (i.e. a more West-friendly and democracy friendly Middle East.) Clinton's and NATO's actions (if you review speeches he gave in Germany just prior) in Yugoslavia were not strictly humanitarian, nor profit. 'Twas the spread of Democracy-friendly ideals. Period. I guess this does in fact make us Imperialistic. I would then challenge you to find a nation that isn't. Which ideal then to support? For me the choice is clear. I choose democracy and an attempt at freedom and peace. Utimitely it will fail, but I'm not in favor of sitting back and watching us fail and fall first. You call it preemptive. I call it precautionary, protectionary, and increasingly necessary. We didn't "jump" to war on any of this. We've tried diplomatic means, but they do not work with folks generally unwilling to uphold the results of negotiation.

Regarding what adversity this President has had to overcome; I'll start with 9/11 and the results spiritually, physically, and economically...Really, you don't see the last three years of obstacles? Bush was handed a declining economy, inclining terrorism, an attack on his nation the likes of which hasn't been seen since Pearl Harbor, the threats of N. Korea, a war on terrorism, and oh my gosh I can't go on...and yet, I bought a new car this year, a G5 computer, my kids are excelling in school, inclining nationalism, inclining economy...This guy and his administration are pure losers!!! wait a sec. This administration is not responsible for the above or is that only when we are failing?

[theolein]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
...

A one world government will occur. Unfortunately, it is a natural progression. ...

I'm not going to mock you about UN black helicopters and such things, but I'll point out that worrying about a unified world government should really be the last of your worries.

If such a thing were to actually happen, it would only happen by choice as no country on earth is strong enough to rule the world on it's own. Take a look at the EU, for example. I've seen a number of Americans making somewhat paranoid statements about a European superstate, but it's plainly obvious that they don't know much about the EU. The various governments that make up the EU are more often than not prone to fighting about just about everything right up the questions about who gets to sit in which chair at conferences. It's a mess basically, and there is very little actual unity.

Read the BBC online news service reports on EU matters now and again and you'll see it for yourself.

There's really nothing to worry about there.

[theolein]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Well said. I guess it's just personal preference. I don't want to be lead. Do you want to be lead? I'm perfectly willing to make decisions on issues, see them carried out by a politician and then live by the consequences. Right or wrong. From that perspective I don't care what personality type is before me as long as they seem competent and trustworthy. Maybe I'm in the minority in that regard.

BTW, the wife doesn't need papers but the dog does.

I happen to live in a country that is unique worldwide in that a single citizen can start a public initiative on any law and if it gets enough signatures, gets voted on nationally and then becomes law if the majority votes for it.

The government of this country includes ALL the major parties, according to their results at the polls.

I'll wager that a single citizen in this country has much more power than someone in your country has to actually change things.

But is it always good? I think it mostly is but the system suffers from huge delays in getting things done as everything gets debated and discussed to death before anything changes. The positive side is that the country is very stable, but the negative side is that the country often gets bogged down on controversial issues.

And no, I don't want anyone to make decisions for me, but I don't have the time or energy to devote to being a politician. That's when it's nice to have a politician like Nelson Mandela in power, somone who is the embodiment of integrity and statemanship.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
What I truly miss in modern politics worldwide though, is true statesmen, like FDR who show wisdom, strength and integrity and act as a symbol to look up to.

Whoah! FDR was a giant. But he also made some horrible mistakes. Trusting Stalin, for example. Eastern Europe paid for that for a long time. Then there was the decision to hand out a certain permanent seat in the UN security council . . .

Personally, I think Truman was the better president. Not as charismatic, but much smarter.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Whoah! FDR was a giant. But he also made some horrible mistakes. Trusting Stalin, for example. Eastern Europe paid for that for a long time. Then there was the decision to hand out a certain permanent seat in the UN security council . . .

Personally, I think Truman was the better president. Not as charismatic, but much smarter.

You're right about Truman, but you must remember that FDR died before the end of the war, and that the partitioning of Europe was decided at yalta. I don't know what FDR's alternatives were at the time. If he had refused Stalin any right in Eastern Europe he would have made it almost inevitable that the Soviet Union would have gone to war with the US and Britain very soon afterwards, and the Atomic bomb had not yet been tested, which was Truman's main trump card in kicking the Russians out of Iran after the war.

It might actually have been better for the US to go straight to war with the Soviet Union after WWII in order to prevent the mess that became the Iron Curtain, but can you imagine anyone really having much stomach for yet another huge war at that time? The Russian's alone had lost 20 million people in that war and every country had suffered huge losses. Not only that but during the war, Stalin was an ally. I don't think it was as cut and dried as the situation later was when Truman was in power when it became obvious what was going to happen.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
You're right about Truman, but you must remember that FDR died before the end of the war, and that the partitioning of Europe was decided at yalta. I don't know what FDR's alternatives were at the time. If he had refused Stalin any right in Eastern Europe he would have made it almost inevitable that the Soviet Union would have gone to war with the US and Britain very soon afterwards, and the Atomic bomb had not yet been tested, which was Truman's main trump card in kicking the Russians out of Iran after the war.

It might actually have been better for the US to go straight to war with the Soviet Union after WWII in order to prevent the mess that became the Iron Curtain, but can you imagine anyone really having much stomach for yet another huge war at that time? The Russian's alone had lost 20 million people in that war and every country had suffered huge losses. Not only that but during the war, Stalin was an ally. I don't think it was as cut and dried as the situation later was when Truman was in power when it became obvious what was going to happen.

Fair enough. Hindsight is 20/20. I just think that Truman's instincts were more sound.

At least Roosevelt was smart enough to slap down his Secretary of the Treasury's idea for the "pastoralization" of Germany. That would certainly had lead to World War III at some point.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by theolein:
I happen to live in a country that is unique worldwide in that a single citizen can start a public initiative on any law and if it gets enough signatures, gets voted on nationally and then becomes law if the majority votes for it.

That is unique for something on a national scale but we have something similar in the state of California. The proposition process has produced a major tax revolt and initiatives for medicinal marijuana. On the other hand it also gave us Arnold Schwarzenegger as a Governor. It was single right-wing congressman that paid for people to collect signatures to put the recall on the ballot. So it goes both ways. The problem with our process is that often gets passed by the voters and then winds up in court, sometimes to be overturned.

[ebuddy]

I'm glad you won't mock me Theolein. I understand your points about the difficulty in such an undertaking globally if the EU can't agree on who gets what chair. I would have to ask, how then is there even a EU with growing membership? It will be very messy indeed, hence my concern. The simple fact as I see it is people will still argue over who gets to sit where and it won't look like you may think, but a Global Government will be seen as necessary and I firmly believe it will occur. I agree, it won't necessarily be Blue Caps and Black Helicopters as you say with soldiers moving to and fro stomping out freedom, but a One World Government again is a very natural progression and will occur. It will happen very slowly and eventually we will be there bickering in a huge coliseum over who gets to sit where. That is unless, a large need arises and plans accelerate. I'm not asking anyone to believe me, I'm just asking to keep a critical eye open.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by theolein:
You're right about Truman, but you must remember that FDR died before the end of the war, and that the partitioning of Europe was decided at yalta. I don't know what FDR's alternatives were at the time. If he had refused Stalin any right in Eastern Europe he would have made it almost inevitable that the Soviet Union would have gone to war with the US and Britain very soon afterwards, and the Atomic bomb had not yet been tested, which was Truman's main trump card in kicking the Russians out of Iran after the war.

It might actually have been better for the US to go straight to war with the Soviet Union after WWII in order to prevent the mess that became the Iron Curtain, but can you imagine anyone really having much stomach for yet another huge war at that time? The Russian's alone had lost 20 million people in that war and every country had suffered huge losses. Not only that but during the war, Stalin was an ally. I don't think it was as cut and dried as the situation later was when Truman was in power when it became obvious what was going to happen.

If I recall right, in 1944 American generals wanted to sweep through Czechoslovakia and onto Berlin, liberating a large part of Eastern Europe, but were actually prevented from doing so by none other than Eisenhower. Roosevelt sided with Ike, and so Eastern Europe fell.

Also, it seems the nearly inevitable war between the Soviets and US almost happened in the Pacific theatre more so than the European. The Russians declared war on Japan 5 days before the surrender, and used it as an excuse to mobilize massive forces in Manchuria and North Korea- kick starting the later mess that followed. Had the US not demonstrated nuclear capability against Japan, it’s highly likely a direct confrontation between the Soviets, Chinese and US might have resulted kicking off WWIII in Asia.

[theolein]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
That is unique for something on a national scale but we have something similar in the state of California. The proposition process has produced a major tax revolt and initiatives for medicinal marijuana. On the other hand it also gave us Arnold Schwarzenegger as a Governor. It was single right-wing congressman that paid for people to collect signatures to put the recall on the ballot. So it goes both ways. The problem with our process is that often gets passed by the voters and then winds up in court, sometimes to be overturned.

I don't know if the Swiss process of initiatives and having a government that includes all parties is really the best idea. There are of course many downsides to it, one of the worst being that there are so many initiatives that voter turnout tends to be extremely low and interest in the political affairs of the country is almost zero amongst younger voters who simply find it boring.

But I think the upside is that the people really do have an opportunity to make a change in their country and the inclusion of all parties in the government (The ones that get enough votes to be above a certain minumum hurdle) makes the country very stable. It's boring but for your average working adult, its a godsend I think to not have to worry every 4 years or so about what kind of lunacy a new government will do.

[theolein]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I'm glad you won't mock me Theolein. I understand your points about the difficulty in such an undertaking globally if the EU can't agree on who gets what chair. I would have to ask, how then is there even a EU with growing membership? It will be very messy indeed, hence my concern. The simple fact as I see it is people will still argue over who gets to sit where and it won't look like you may think, but a Global Government will be seen as necessary and I firmly believe it will occur. I agree, it won't necessarily be Blue Caps and Black Helicopters as you say with soldiers moving to and fro stomping out freedom, but a One World Government again is a very natural progression and will occur. It will happen very slowly and eventually we will be there bickering in a huge coliseum over who gets to sit where. That is unless, a large need arises and plans accelerate. I'm not asking anyone to believe me, I'm just asking to keep a critical eye open.

The main motivation behind the EU has always been economic, not political, which is why so many eastern European countries are clamouring to get in. There are huge advantages to a common market and no trade barriers. That it is a beaurocratic nightmare is well known and that it will only get worse next year when there will be 10 new members is also known. That is why they are currently fighting like cats and dogs over the EU constitution, which was introduced to try to simplify the governing process. The smaller countries want more votes proportionally to their populations and are therefore trying to block the constitution and old members like Spain are bitching because they don't want to lose status to countries like Poland, but both receive large subsidies from Germany, and Germany in general is getting tired of not only bailing out their own ex-communist eastern half, but also subsidizing a good portion of the rest of the poorer EU and newer members as well, especially Spain and Poland.

You might be right about there eventually being a world government but I cannot for the life of me see it being any more unified or easier than the EU. The nice thing about the EU is that it makes the prospect of yet another major war within its boundaries almost unthinkable, as member states would lose all the things that they had worked for by starting a conflict with one another. Even ex-Yugoslav states like Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia are all being really well behaved with the prospect of eventually being able to join the EU (Slovenia will join next year and it's good behaviour is an example to places like Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia).

[theolein]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
If I recall right, in 1944 American generals wanted to sweep through Czechoslovakia and onto Berlin, liberating a large part of Eastern Europe, but were actually prevented from doing so by none other than Eisenhower. Roosevelt sided with Ike, and so Eastern Europe fell.

Also, it seems the nearly inevitable war between the Soviets and US almost happened in the Pacific theatre more so than the European. The Russians declared war on Japan 5 days before the surrender, and used it as an excuse to mobilize massive forces in Manchuria and North Korea- kick starting the later mess that followed. Had the US not demonstrated nuclear capability against Japan, it’s highly likely a direct confrontation between the Soviets, Chinese and US might have resulted kicking off WWIII in Asia.

I agree. There was an agreement between the allies that the US troops would stop at the Weser river (IIRC) and that the USSR would get to take Berlin. But if there had been no agreement, and if the US had not had the bomb it is very possible that the US and the USSR would have started fighting with one another. The consequences of that would allmost certainly been the atomic bombing of parts of eastern Europe, Russia and the far east as the US wouldn't have been able to cope with the USSR conventionally. In retrospect it might very well have been a good idea in that it would have ended the spectre of communism before it actually took off, but I truly shudder to think of the excess millions of souls that would have died in the bombing and the resultant large scale radiation poisoning and the large parts of the world that would have been laid to waste.

In any case. It's easy to talk now, in retrospect, but I think that after all those years of war then, many were simply tired of all the fighting and killing, even if many generals were still gung ho and Stalin didn't give a damn about how many of his people died in order to further his goals.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by theolein:
Germany in general is getting tired of not only bailing out their own ex-communist eastern half, but also subsidizing a good portion of the rest of the poorer EU and newer members as well, especially Spain and Poland.

"Getting tired" is probably less accurate than "going broke", IMO.

Buying up East Germany nearly broke our economic back.

-s*