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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug R who wrote (299551)	9/24/2002 10:10:59 AM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

What do you have a problem with protecting yourself with? I do not get it. Bush is a great leader. Gore is a great loser. SOME CALL IT LEADERSHIP How long has it been since America had a true leader? Bill Clinton? Yeah, right. A follower if ever there was one. The Clinton years were poll driven from the very start. He opposed welfare reform. The polls told him that the people favored welfare reform. He switched sides and embraced welfare reform as his own. Bill Clinton wasn’t a leader … he was a follower. A follower of polls. Was Ronald Reagan a leader? He declared the Soviet Union to be the “evil empire” and forced them into a military spending spree that led to their breakup. Leftists were so dismayed by Reagan’s successful leadership on this front that they seek to this day to credit the Soviet leader, not Reagan, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. George W. Bush? I believe that his determination to remove a homicidal maniac from power in Iraq is a true demonstration of leadership. He weighs the probable loss of innocent lives, including American soldiers, and the possibility of a strong negative reaction from the voters … and elects to proceed because he feels the action is necessary to save lives and preserve liberty. To me, that’s leadership. It’s been so long, though, that most Americans just don’t recognize it. boortz.com NOW WE KNOW I wonder what Al Gore's champions in the 2000 race who belong to the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic party must think now. Gore unveiled himself in the 2000 campaign as a left-liberal on domestic matters - favoring race-baiting, corporation-bashing and pseudo-populism. But his neo-liberal supporters still supported him. They argued that he was still a foreign policy hawk, that he favored strong American action in the Balkans, that he backed the first Gulf War, that he was pro-Israel to the core. Now we know he was faking that as well. His comments on the war do not surprise me. They don't make Gore an isolationist, or a reluctant warrior on terror, or any other kind of ideologue. They just show that he is a pure opportunist, with no consistency in his political views on foreign or domestic policy. He'll say whatever he thinks will get him power or attention or votes. How else to explain his sudden U-turn on Iraq? Two years ago, he was demanding that Saddam must go. Seven months ago, he was calling for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, a state that was a "virulent threat in a class by itself." Now, with Saddam far closer to weapons of mass destruction, Gore is happy to see Saddam stay in place. Even the New York Times, in a piece written to soften the hard edges of Gore's attack on Bush, conceded that "his appearance here suggested a shift in positioning by Mr. Gore, who has for 10 years portrayed himself as a moderate, particularly when it comes to issues of foreign policy." You can say that again. andrewsullivan.com