Originally posted by rbatson2
Quote:
|
Good to see you again, Jim. To quote you "they always find thier way back". I was waiting to see you post again, heeh.
|
Hey Rick! I've been around from time to time and I lurk a lot but I don't post much here these days.
The George W. Bush (he's
not a 'junior) back in the campaign of 2000 is a different man from the President you see now and I believe his actions have shown it. Bush has been able to mobilize the diminished U.S. military into a fighting force again and even if smaller, a lot more technically advanced than during the 1991 Gulf War He single-handedly shamed the U.N. into getting behind our invasion of Iraq and under Bushs' leadership we've managed to put a real crimp into the Al-Queida terrorist network. He got a much-needed tax cut through a Democrat Congress and helped win back the Senate and increase the Republican lead in the House. It wasn't luck, it was leadership. Bush is approved of by a good margin of Americans and admired by many world leaders who now know how to pronounce
HIS name.
It's ironic how the media treat Republicans. Back when Ronald Reagan was President, he was very glib and gave great, inspiring speeches. The liberal media said he was just a good actor, reading other people's lines convincingly and that Reagan was 'a puppet' of James Baker and other behind-the-scenes advisors who 'really' ran the White House. Meanwhile, Reagan got the biggest tax-cut in 20 years through the Democrat-led Congress and the economy boomed. The Cold War ended, based primarily on the fact that the Soviet Union couldn't compete with the U.S. when Reagan got the funds approved from Congress to start a space-based missle defense system (SDI) and the Russians had to cut their slave-states loose to keep up. Reagan won re-election in 1984 with a 49-state plurality but because he spoke well, he was a 'puppet'. Right.
Now, fast-forward 20 years: President Bush is slightly inarticulate and less than glib but acheives much in a short time, against all odds. What does the liberal media say now?
"He can't be too smart because he doesn't speak well". Right. Sadly, too many otherwise intelligent citizens buy it. Yup, yup, yup.
So, if a Republican President speaks well and is articulate, he's a phoney and just reading lines and if a Republican President
doesn't speak as smoothly and isn't articulate, he's dumb. That sum it up? See anything slightly ironic here? I hope so. Meanwhile, every Democrat presidential-wannabe that comes along is praised by the media for being a genius or near-genius, like that weirdo, Al Gore. Almost too smart to be President but willing to stoop down and do us all a favor by using their infinite wisdom to 'help' us. God save us from these 'brilliant' Democrat presidents, like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who screw up almost everything they touch, leaving people like the less-than-glib but very effective George W. Bush to clean up their mess.
Not a personal flame, Rick. I'm just using yoir comments as a platform to rant here. Thanks for reading it.