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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (65310)	1/10/2003 4:26:53 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Lincoln was pretty complicated, and an awful lot of conservatives revere him. Thomas Jefferson was complicated, and even more revere him. I think Noonan has something, but that she cannot quite get it out. Conservatives are looking for people who inspire a visceral sense of trust, and that sometimes comes off as uncomplicated. We like people who seem down to earth, who worry about doing the right thing, who know how to decide when it is time, stand up to the plate, and so forth. We do not much care for showboats, or people who favor abstraction in concrete situations, or who do not feel the pressure of responsibility, who procrastinate or temporize endlessly, or who are continually blaming others for everything.......

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (65310)	1/10/2003 4:33:33 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We know Clinton was in control, we know he didn't always operate from the highest motives, and since he was smarter and more manipulative than his staff, I doubt they often, if ever, sent him off in directions he didn't intend to go. All those things are pretty well documented, I think. As for Bush, it's not that I find the dynamics of a simple man hard to understand--I'm actually a pretty simple guy myself, oddly enough--or that I "prefer" more complicated folk. It's that the day-to-day realities of modern presidential leadership are so complicated and complex that "simplicity," even if it's entirely authentic and heartfelt, just doesn't provide a comprehensive or useful guide to action. There are inevitably a vast range of subtle judgment calls that need to be made on a host of different issues, and lots of things can be rationalized under the same "simple" general framework depending on how stuff is spun, prioritized, etc. We're seeing that happen with Korean policy right in front of us at the moment, as "simplicity" runs head on into complex reality. So what you really have to know about Bush is not just that he's a simple guy with a few gut principles, but what kind of tack he generally takes when called upon to operationalize his principles in dealing with the world--and how much he himself is really in command of that process, as opposed to being led by his subordinates. I don't have the personal knowledge of Bush and his White House that I did of Clinton, and I don't trust much of what I hear in the press about the subject, since it's obviously spun hugely. So I don't feel it's appropriate for me to have a strong opinion on the subject yet. When we get a longer track record, more leaks, more memoirs and gossip, and so forth, then we'll be able to fit the pieces into a more reliable picture, I think. tb@Iwasbeingpartlyironic.duh