Text 12857, 93 rader
Skriven 2007-03-03 23:05:57 av Josh Hill (16300.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Cath0licism and Creati=nism
=======================================
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:24:51 GMT, "Vorlonagent"
<nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:9kqct25bl3he1lf1fga064g94qupiv0t12@4ax.com...
>
>>>If you are looking for a leader, what has he created that works?  It
>>>could be a charity or a state or possibly a (small) department in the
>>>state/federal bureaucracy.  The Oval Office is not a good place to learn
>>>how to be an assistant manager.
>>
>> Hard to judge, even then, though Bush's business failures were I think
>> predictive of his failures as president. About the only pol I can
>> point to who has produced dramatic positive real-world changes is
>> Giuliani, and he did it in /both/ of his jobs -- prosecutor and mayor.
>
>Bush's successes are as underreported as his failures over-emphasized.  (I 
>personally believe this is done intentionally and with malice but that 
>argument is for another day).

I half agree --  which is to say that while I personally think Bush is
the combined reincarnation of Honorius and Ethelred the Unready, I
agree that the more extreme accusations against him are malicious.
(Know that sounds sardonic, but it wasn't intended that way.) Chalk
some of that up to partisanship, some to unconscious payback: Clinton
got much worse, as did so many of Bush's smeared opponents.

>That said, Obama does nothing for me.  He looks way too airburshed to be 
>true and way too inexperienced for the presidency.  I like Dick Morris' 
>analysis of Obama, whihc amounts to: He's the flavor of the month for a 
>press corps looking for "horse race" stories to add drama to the Prez 
>election.  Drama sells papers and brings in viewers.

I share your concerns about the airbrushing. In point of fact, though,
he has plenty of experience. We have I think to watch for unconscious
racism here.

>Giuliani, different story.  I like him.  I am conscious of the fact that I 
>don't entirely see him clearly.  His performance after 9/11 made a big 
>impression however.  If Ms Rodham gets the Demopcrat nod, then the entire 
>nation will get a chance to weigh in on the original 2000 New York Senate 
>race which was Rodham vs Giuliani.

Upsides, remembered from his time as mayor and prosecutor: amazingly
effective. A Republican in the old style -- law and order, fiscal
discipline, personal initiative, Church and Country, but accepting of
social changes such as gay rights and abortion. Whip smart. Tough as
nails and then some. Most of all, does what he regards as right,
whatever the consequences -- John Sheridan. Downside: poor civil
liberties record, can be arrogant and confrontational.

He seems to be doing well in the Republican field, too. Which leaves
me in a strange position, because I think -- regardless of party --
he's probably the best person in the field, but I don't think he's the
best choice right now: it's just not the right time.

>That McCain is trailing Giuliani leaves me dry-eyed.  McCain is a bona fide 
>war hero and and some moments of his military career have been gunuinely 
>harrowing.  Serious respect due for the man and his life.  But that doesn't 
>mean I want him as Prez.

There's something off-putting about him, isn't there? I fear it has
more to do with the fact that he isn't telegenic than anything else.
An anti-Obama: Gore redux. OTOH, while I disagree with his
conservative views, I give him great credit for among other things
attacking the corruption of the political process. He has integrity up
the wazoo, and I think that's something we sorely need right now.

>Newt?  Feh.  As if.  He's unelectable damaged goods and he ought to know it. 
>Leftists in the studio audience should cheer Newt on.  He's the best change 
>you have for seriously fracturing the Republican party.  But then there's 
>Nader providing the same service on the left, though he says he's not 
>running.  Both threaten to peel off the true-believers off the 
>front-runners.  John Edwards would like to be that guy but he doesn't have 
>the chops for it.  Nader does.

Didn't Newt say that he'd run only if necessary, or some such? Given
his general unpopularity, and his role as a poster boy for the
Democrats, I doubt he thinks he'd be a viable candidate.

An interesting man -- morally flawed, but one of the smartest and best
informed people in Washington.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)