Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (35665)	8/1/2002 6:19:27 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Scott, I am afraid you might be right. This type of press does not help Bush at all. Bush won't be all play and no work White House: Time in Texas is not all vacation usatoday.com Here is an a comment from Bush that I found a little alarming: People who objected to his hiatus ''don't understand the definition of work,'' Bush said last summer. ''I'm getting a lot done. Secondly, you don't have to be in Washington to work; it's amazing what can happen with telephones and faxes.'' If I recall my history of the 1990's correctly, it was a period of great technological advance. You would thing he would lauch POTUSblog to keep connected with us while he is in Texas. The image of GB2.0 sending a fax reminds me of his father trying to figure how to pay for groceries. My frustration with GB2.0 is now at an extreme level. His lack of leadership on economic issues is starting to look like simple incompetence. His lack of political insight and instinct on the economy gives me little hope. Robert Nocack came out against Paul O'niell today. We will see more Republican backbiting soon. I think Bush lost the Brazilian vote. <GGG> Paul

To: stockman_scott who wrote (35665)	8/1/2002 6:51:14 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi stockman_scott; I suspect you're right, and that the Democrats will pick up the House and a few more seats in the Senate. The stuff I see is that: Pro Democrat 2002: (1) The public seems to have a natural preference for divided government. (2) The economy is down. Pro Republican 2002: (1) In the presence of active foreign enemies, the public prefers Republicans. Overall, I'm guessing it won't be much, but if the stock market declines further in its traditional month of October, the GOP could lose the House. The effect on US foreign policy would be to decrease the freedom that the executive branch has to choose policy on its own. -- Carl

To: stockman_scott who wrote (35665)	8/2/2002 8:43:34 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Scott, You are correct that Democrats have more organizational skills than Republicans. They also are less adverse to playing "dirty politics".. Republicans are generallly too "proper" to make up wild @ss accusations that have no basis (though there have been exceptions). And that's exactly what I opine is the case right now. Lord knows how badly off we would be if a "marshmallow man" like Gore were in office. He'd have NO CLUE as to how to restore consumer confidence, let alone how to deal with the aftermath of 9/11. Were Gore in office, I would be willing to bet that the Taliban would still be in office and Osama Bin Laden still alive (I believe he is dead) and thumbing his nose at the US. And this corporate greed we've seen was fostered under the Clinton administration. The foundation for the accounting scandals we're seeing began under the Clinton adminstration. Yet, democrats are willing to use it to lay blame at the doorstep of a president who has only been in office less than 2 years. A president who has taken the only course possible, the reduction of the tax burden. Lord knows that Gore is a better spoken man than Bush, but he is a man without substance or set values. He was the man who tried to bargain his vote for 20 minutes of speaking time, when this nation was voting to go to war with Iraq in 1990. So let's have no illusions about this. Were Gore in office right now, the market would likely be even lower, and he would be suffering the political fallout of the accounting scandals and economic consequences of 9/11. But that said, it's true that the Bush administration is vulnerable unless they get the message out that they are essentially being tasked with cleaning up the mess of the previous administration which was in charge for 8 years. But the truth may really be that neither the Clinton/Gore administration, nor Bush/Cheney really could have altered the inevitable. I personally don't believe that the US is "fumbling" our foreign policy. We've been attacked in a manner that was more devastating than Pearl Harbor. Yet the rest of the world's leaders seem to be paying "lip service" to that fact. We have a network of religious extremists willing to commit suicide in order to destroy western values and install their own Islamic theocracy. It is the same kind of theocracy that has economically devasted Iran and created chaos throughout the region (and world). This nation cannot be a follower, it must be a leader. But that said, it cannot be a leader if no one will follow. Thus, the challenge for the US is to create convincing enough arguments for its policy, AND PROVIDE THE ABSOLUTE COMMITMENT TO SEE THEM THROUGH, in order to qualm the fears of regional leaders who are frightened by a US history of "here today, gone tomorrow" foreign policy which generally leaves them holding the bag. Hawk