I don't need to listen to a no nothing blowhard. If I wanted biased and errant information I could watch Foxnews or MSNBC. I was speaking about the Republican party in general. Tom Delay said that he voted for NCLB to support GWB, even though he thought the program was awful. No principles. Its all a game.
the goal is security, not to be liked. and the rest of the world loves and respects us. i know this because i ask, all the time. i live in the most diverse place on earth, and i ask almost daily. i ask what people think of america, what they think of their leaders at home, what they think of bush, obama, what they think about our foreign policy. they often do not like it. but they love us and respect us anyways, and they are desperate to move their extended families here. resistance to terrorism does not cause terrorism. crazed religions and poverty and corruption cause terrorism.
it is amusing that you wont admit that you're post about Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck not being shrills for the right was terrible. Thats my entire point. and no you're a hypocrite because you're a hypocrite, I am as well about many of things, I can admit to it.
so why dont we invade all countries with that harbor terrorist and are bold about it, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.. You get my point, if we are to going to be aggressive. Which I agree we do have to be aggressive.
we need to pace ourselves. for now lets sort out afganistan, maybe put some serious pressure on pakistan, then start to threaten those guys. once people know we are damn serious and leaders realize we will capture and hang them, like george bush proved he would do, then maybe some of those places will reform without us needing to kill them very much. anyways, i think a s republican president is taken more seriously when he threatens anotherr nation. democrats cant get elected unless they court the peaceniks and cowards. but republicans do not risk losing their base when they play hardball or fight. and that is really important.
and because saudi arabia is not "bold" about harboring terrorists. yes, the 9/11 guys were saudi, but the governmetn of saudi is for the most part on our side regarding terrorism. and it really isnt about oil, it never really has been.
The President's poll numbers are explained very simply. Independents are dropping him at a prodigious rate. Bush's overspending benefited from a better economy. Obama does not have that luxury, and he and congress do indeed plan to spend more than Bush did. When the economy is under stress, the American public pays more attention to what D.C does, and what they spend $ on. If they feel a disconnect(and they do), then the incumbents are gonna be sent packing. If Obama manages to right the ship in the next year, he might get re-elected in '12. But there is not much in his policies that would seem to help bring that about so I wouldn't hold my breath. And all of this is taking place without any real cohesion in the republican party. If they actually find a viable candidate soon, Obama will get crushed. But I think Steele is a big part of the republican party problem. Or maybe just a reflection of it.
You should hear his name next year. I think he is laying low right now but I think he will run and win. Wanted him to run last election but I think it was a smart move that he didn't. Time will tell. Steele is there to raise money and that is it. I don't think he has much to do with anything else, he isn't really a power player IMO.
