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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (223787)	3/13/2005 8:57:25 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572681

But it appears, to me at least, that Bush won (despite disapproval for his policy) primarily because he really does believe in his (misguided) policy. He came off as real, and that means a lot to a lot of folks as they step into the voting booth. IMO, Bush on his own would not have won anything. A lot of people compromised their beliefs and suspended their beliefs in order for him to win. Do the neocons really believe in any of the evangelical stuff? Does Bush really believe in the evangelical stuff? Do the people in the military who voted for Bush believe that Bush served in the Alabama National Guards? Do the Conservatives in the academic and intellectual community (eg, Willaim F Buckley, George Wills, Bill Kristol, eg) really respect George W. Bush's intellect. Do the people in the temperance league really beleive that there is no reason why George W. Bush's Texas driving record is sealed. I don't really mean to be picking on George W. Bush. What I want to point out is that politics is not an exact science. If you try to practise politics on a too fine a level, you are not going to get very far. Perhaps, that is George W. Bush's greatest asset. He is not diligient enough to be very exact. He does not go into any subject very deeply. He is willing to turn a blind eye to things he does not want to deal with. By turning a blind eye, he really is encouraging policies he can't come out and favor. The prison abuse situation could perhaps fit into that category. Jimmy Carter is just the opposite. The man wanted to know everything. He wanted to be in control. I like what he believes in, but by wanting to be in control he gets kicked out of office and just the opposite of what he stands for goes into practise. Jimmy Carter was not a good President. He couldn't net anything done. Was he genuine? Does he come off as being honest? It all depends on whether you just want to feel good about what you beleive in, or you want the greater good to occur.