Patters

There's nothing about Bush that's liberal. You just no longer find much to like about his brand of conservativism, so you're trying to claim it's something it is not. This is a matter for conservatives to sort out. You have to decide for yourselves what it means to be a conservatives in 2007.

Real World

I was venting. Although I would love to see them all leave.

BTW, how was your vacation? Where'd ya go, and welcome back! It was a little dull in here without you.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Patters

They did not violate the deal until after Bush was elected. Until that point, they were abiding by it. When Bush included them in the axis of evil and announced his premptive strike policy, they took it personally. Obviously, that was at least partly opportunistic on their part, but the failure happened during Bush's administration and the only way he got things back on track was by acquiescing to relatively mild demands by them. Too bad it took him so long to realize the value of diplomacy.

I absolutely support negotiation, but I think Bush does not, and I think the fact that he is negotiating shows how weak our position is. Bush should have negotiated more with Saddam, he should have negotiated with NK far earlier, he should have negotiated with Syria, and he should have negotiated with Iran, but he's only going to the table now because his military policies have largely failed.

Patters

Thanks RW. Went to Buenos Aires, Argentina. Terrific vacation. The city reminded me of Manhattan. Very alive until all hours. (Also very cheap for food and entertainment.) I'll post a thread on it later this week. Politically it's an interesting place. Their politics and political system is very, very much like ours.

DarrylS

Welcome back, we have been inundated with religious posts disguised as political in this forum, have confidence things will get back on the straight and narrow soon.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

BelichickFan

When my tax dollars are now going to someone else that weren't in the past, that's a liberal program regardless of whether insurance and health care companies also benefited.

Real World

Funny that you guys were discussing this earlier, and now I come accross the very subject at RCP.

May 29, 2007

Bush the Neoliberal

By Richard Cohen

Years ago, someone coined the term "neoliberal." I was never sure what it meant, and it has since fallen into disuse, but whatever the case, I'd like to revive (and mangle) the term and apply it -- brace yourself -- to George W. Bush. He's more liberal than you might think.

You recoil, I know. After all, the conventional wisdom is that Bush is the most conservative of all presidents, an advocate of limited government, minimal taxes and, when it comes to the quintessentially liberal concern with civil liberties, the man who gave us the twin black eyes of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. It's an appalling record.

But consider this: An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government. Nowhere is this truer than in education. For instance, there was a time when no group of Republicans could convene without passing a resolution calling for the abolition of the Department of Education and turning the building -- I am extrapolating here -- into a museum of creationism.

Now, though, not only are such calls no longer heard, but Bush has extended the department's reach in a manner that Democrats could not have envisaged. I am referring, of course, to the 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as No Child Left Behind. I will spare you the act's details, but it pretty much tells the states to shape up or face a loss of federal funds. It is precisely the sort of law that conservatives predicted Washington would someday seek -- and it did.

Similarly, let's take a look at the much-mocked notion of diversity. Bill Clinton was widely berated for his effort to have an administration that looked like America -- women, African-Americans, Hispanics, you name it. Whether by design or not, Bush has also managed that feat. A female education secretary is one thing, but a national security adviser -- the uber macho post -- is something else, and that went first to Condi Rice. And over at Justice, Bush chose Alberto Gonzales, the son of Hispanic migrant workers and, incidentally, a lawyer with the singular gift of forgetting meetings he attended. (In private practice, did he forget to bill?)


Enjoy the rest here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...eoliberal.html

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Real World

More revisionist drivel. You're so partisan it's sad. We stopped sending them the fuel because they were enriching uranium in violation of the Agree Framework deal. Call a spade a spade. If you don't have a clue as to what the facts were, then do your homework. Blame America first, do the research second.

N. Korea to reactivate nuke plants

Thursday, December 12, 2002
Posted: 11:50 AM EST (1650 GMT)

The White House says diplomacy is the best way of dealing with N. Korea


PYONGYANG, North Korea (CNN) -- North Korea announced Thursday it will immediately reactivate nuclear facilities shut down under a joint agreement with the United States, Japan and South Korea that Pyongyang regards as defunct, according to the state news agency.

The announcement comes two months after North Korea admitted it has a secret and active nuclear weapons program begun years after it promised to never again pursue such a course.

One U.S. official told CNN that the decision to reactive the nuclear facilities is "regrettable and a step in the wrong direction," and a formal response from the Bush administration is being prepared. But this official said the U.S. message was being closely coordinated with South Korea and Japan and would track statements already issued by those key allies in Asia.

Another source, a senior administration official, told CNN the United States has been expecting this for the past six weeks and does "not believe it is a crisis." But at the same time, this official noted, the situation could "get out of hand." (Full story)


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/a...kes/index.html


There is some clear validity to what you say. However, he stated from Day 1 that he wanted a peaceful solution to the NK issue, and since has proved that to be the case. With repsect to Iran, we've had a 20+ year history of diplomatic limitations, and much like you, I feel that dialogue should always exist regardless of the circumstances. The fact that he is talking to them now, should not be criticized and pissed on, as it will only ensure that the next time someone has to alter course, they won't. Furthermore, if you've been paying attention, this falls in line with some of the ISG recomendations from last year. I said there'd be an olive branch extended a couple of months ago, and it was recently with the Rice meeting, and now they are talking again. This is a good thing. Iraq is a separate animal for which some in here will argue a number of ways. Just as you will point to negotiating with Saddam, others will point to the countless resolution violations, and his failed compliance with 1441.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Harry Boy

Bush's LIBERALISM is turning me against him, especially (Illegal Aliens).

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

Patters

RW, like I said, the agreement fell apart after Bush came into office. The article you cite is from 2002. Like I said, the NK's took advantage of Bush's missteps to step away from the agreement they made with Clinton; Bush, most likely because of pressure from the right-wing that condemned Clinton's agreement, antagonized and refused to negotiate with them on their terms. They held out and eventually prevailed and now we're roughly back to the Clinton agreement, but unfortunately NK had a few years to continue its nuclear program. Obviously, they are a difficult adversary. Clinton got the best deal he could; Bush thought he could do better, but 6 years later, he's come to agree with the Clinton approach.