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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (30624)	10/31/2006 12:18:15 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 541747

If Bush had made a concerted effort to build bridges across the aisle instead of burning his opponents to win close elections, he might have built a permanent majority and defanged the Democrats for a generation. But he didn't.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (30624)	10/31/2006 4:13:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541747

I'm not sure I really understand your complaint. In a democracy (and often to a large extent even in non-democratic systems) politics is heavily and unavoidably tied in to how you run the country. You "play politics" on issues like Iraq or terrorism because they are legitimate political issues, two of the most important ones at this time. Bush saying the Democrats would do an awful job is no more or no less "playing politics" than when the Democrats say Bush and/or the Republicans have done an awful job. Its not only not treasonous, its just normal politics. It might not be appealing, but there is nothing really wrong about it. There are those who believe a major consideration in going to war was propping up the GOP and the president's political agenda. I find that argument plausible OK. I should have read more before I started to reply. (But I won't go back and remove the first part of my post because it serves as a useful response to some other claims, even if not to your specific claim.) You think that Bush went to war solely or primarily for partisan political advantage. "Wag the dog" writ large. If you think that's true that it goes beyond using the issue of the war as a political issue. OTOH I find that argument extremely implausible. Even before the Iraqi invasion started it was obviously a politically risky move.