[CanadianJeff]

Sorry but I just had to say flat out that I was really really hoping for Ron Paul. I truly think he was the only non radical idiot in the entire lot running for republican nomination.

[Arctic_Menace]

JJ wrote:

Arctic_Menace wrote:

Man, I love that video...I'm sorry to all my American friends out there, but it's people like that who make me feel ashamed to be part American.

I know that they are supposedly a minority, but jeez, even up here this stuff is almost entirely unheard of...

I bet I could make a video just as shockingly hateful and ignorant in this country. I'd just have to film a bunch of leftist-nationalist types talking about Americans.

I'm actually quite curious to not only see if you're right, but also to see what kind of silly comments they would come up with?

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

"Party" and "ideological foundation" are not synonyms in US politics, or even close to it. Ron Paul is in that same party; do you imagine he shares an ideological foundation with George W. Bush? They disagree on three times as many issues as they agree on.

Then perhaps McCain should have run as an independent. It may be, as you say, that teh REpublcian party "brand" is completely all over the map right now, as you imply. If that's the case, that's almost worse than people thinking MCCain is another Bush. It means nobody knows what the "Republican" after MCCain's name refers to.

Zipperfish wrote:

The party apparatus or the bureaucracy in Washington? As I understand it, the entrenched bureaucracy in Washington is quite left-wing.

I mean the party apparatus and the senior appointees (like Bush's ol' college buddy, Brown, who ran FEMA so well).

Quote:

They ought to rethink this false compromise fetish they've been harboring and go full bore towards the pluralistic democratic freedoms and spending cuts. That's what made them popular in the 80s.

Well at the very least, try ot put forth some kind of consistent message. They talk of small government, but increase its size. They talk of freedoms and restrict them. They talk of peace and court war. I think some navel gazing will do the party good.

Quote:

Have you ever noticed the 30-year repeating pattern in US politics? The country goes conservative or right-wing for about a decade, liberalism takes over for about a decade, an ugly hodgepodge corrupt mixture rules for about a decade, then it repeats.

Conservative decades: 1920s (I love Coolidge), 1950s (the Red Scare), 1980s (Reagan and my birth =)
Liberal decades: 1930s (Great Depression), 1960s (The Hippy Trippy Decade), 1990s (The Clintonian Era)
Moderate decades: 1940s (okay, WW2 was a pretty good decade for moderate politics), 1970s (Nixon), this decade (Bush).

For this schedule to continue, whoever gets elected this time around will be a 1-term President, followed by a real conservative administration. That suggests Obama will win; why would the Republicans not run the incumbent?

It's slightly ridiculous to assume the pattern means something when you don't know why it's occurring, but it's a fun little superstition of mine. With Election '08 sucking as it is, it gives me some hope for 2012. It also reinforces my belief that a bad compromise is worse than a well-considered partisan position, even if I disagree with that particular partisan view.

A natural oscillation I think. I think what was peculiar about Bush Jr. was the degree from centre that the pendulum swung--probably the most far right leader in recent history in the developed world. According to some, Obama will counteract that with a hard swing left. I don't think that's true, but if it is, it will have a destabilizing influence.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

Then perhaps McCain should have run as an independent. It may be, as you say, that teh REpublcian party "brand" is completely all over the map right now, as you imply. If that's the case, that's almost worse than people thinking MCCain is another Bush. It means nobody knows what the "Republican" after MCCain's name refers to.

You're view of US politics is being mixed with facts from your local politics. Very loose party loyalty is a US tradition, dating back to George Washington who refused to even join a party. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan were all Republican Presidents in the past century. Can you name a single issue they shared in common? Expecting one's political party to express one's precise ideology is almost entirely foreign to American politics, both historically and today.

You're projecting your expectations of what a political party should be to a nation that has different expectations. We *want* to vote for the individual rather than the party. That's the primary reason the Republicans are pushing forward someone with a Maverick reputation; McCain's not the party ideal, he's the man the party is willing to concede to.

Zipperfish wrote:

I mean the party apparatus and the senior appointees (like Bush's ol' college buddy, Brown, who ran FEMA so well).

The senior appointees of one President tend to be almost universally discarded upon the election of a new President. Upon taking office in 2001, Bush appointed Joe Allbaugh to replace Clinton appointee James Lee Witt, who was appointed when Clinton took office in 1993. How far back do you have to go to find a President that didn't appoint a new FEMA director the year they first took office?

Other senior appointees fare the same: a new President means a new head of virtually everything.

Zipperfish wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Have you ever noticed the 30-year repeating pattern in US politics?

I think what was peculiar about Bush Jr. was the degree from centre that the pendulum swung--probably the most far right leader in recent history in the developed world.

You and I clearly have different definitions of 'right-wing', then. If No Child Left Behind, the immigration bill Bush supported, and his false compromises on environmental issues (trying to be moderate and managing to fail both sides at once) are not radical right-wing stances.

It was his preference for compromise over well-considered positions that led to his worst failures, not his hard-line positions on Iraq, gay marriage, and the maybe two other hard-line right-wing positions over which he didn't bend over backwards to compromise with the left. The only way one can consider him the most right-wing leader in the free world is to selectively discard his frequent and ill-considered compromises.

[Zipperfish]

Quote:

Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan were all Republican Presidents in the past century. Can you name a single issue they shared in common?

...

Other senior appointees fare the same: a new President means a new head of virtually everything.

Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. all had Ronald Rumsfled in common. There's a common theme!

Psudo wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Then perhaps McCain should have run as an independent. It may be, as you say, that teh REpublcian party "brand" is completely all over the map right now, as you imply. If that's the case, that's almost worse than people thinking MCCain is another Bush. It means nobody knows what the "Republican" after MCCain's name refers to.

You're view of US politics is being mixed with facts from your local politics. Very loose party loyalty is a US tradition, dating back to George Washington who refused to even join a party. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan were all Republican Presidents in the past century. Can you name a single issue they shared in common? Expecting one's political party to express one's precise ideology is almost entirely foreign to American politics, both historically and today.

You're projecting your expectations of what a political party should be to a nation that has different expectations. We *want* to vote for the individual rather than the party. That's the primary reason the Republicans are pushing forward someone with a Maverick reputation; McCain's not the party ideal, he's the man the party is willing to concede to.

Zipperfish wrote:

I mean the party apparatus and the senior appointees (like Bush's ol' college buddy, Brown, who ran FEMA so well).

The senior appointees of one President tend to be almost universally discarded upon the election of a new President. Upon taking office in 2001, Bush appointed Joe Allbaugh to replace Clinton appointee James Lee Witt, who was appointed when Clinton took office in 1993. How far back do you have to go to find a President that didn't appoint a new FEMA director the year they first took office?

Other senior appointees fare the same: a new President means a new head of virtually everything.

You and I clearly have different definitions of 'right-wing', then. If No Child Left Behind, the immigration bill Bush supported, and his false compromises on environmental issues (trying to be moderate and managing to fail both sides at once) are not radical right-wing stances.

It was his preference for compromise over well-considered positions that led to his worst failures, not his hard-line positions on Iraq, gay marriage, and the maybe two other hard-line right-wing positions over which he didn't bend over backwards to compromise with the left. The only way one can consider him the most right-wing leader in the free world is to selectively discard his frequent and ill-considered compromises.

National Review's Jonah Goldberg--I hope I'm not going out on too much of a limb by declaring him somewhat right of centre?--says:

Quote:

Richard Cohen discovers something some of us on the right have been saying for a while: if you hold your head just so and look at Bush from the right angle, he looks an awful lot like a liberal.

To tell you the truth, I didn't really think the fact that George W Bush was quite right-wing was really that controversial of a statement. But looking around, I see it now: the desperate attempt by conservatives to wash their hands of the ugly stain that was George W Bush.

Indeed the hallways are clamoring with Republicans passionately expressing that Bush was never really a conservative. This is a man once hailed as just the man the conservatives were looking for.

As Glenn Greenwald at Salon puts it:

Quote:

Such sudden "recognition" that Bush is not a true conservative is transparently prompted by the collapse of the Bush presidency, by the collective realization that he has been an epic failure, and the consequent desire to shield conservatism from the toxic fallout.

Well you certainly are an able debater, Psudo, but trying to cast George W Bush as a "compromiser" is beyond even your skills. Indeed he was called teh Lone Ranger for tearing up just about every treaty and international obligation he could get his hands on. Which reminds me of an old joke:

The Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by 500 Indians:
Lone Ranger (Dubya): Well, Tonto, looks like this is it.
Tonto (John McCain): Speak for yourself, white man.

[Pseudonym]

Scape wrote:

Pseudonym wrote:

So are you challenging me to produce some sort of attack along the lines of "McCain is a terrorist Marxist Muslim" from the Obama supporters?

As long as you link it directly to what the Obama campaign leadership is currently espousing. We are not talking about a few loose screws, we are talking about an concerted effort being put forth intentionally which has unequivocally been demonstrated on the McCain side. I have yet to see anything even remotely of that caliber being telegraphed from the Obama campaign either passively or directly.

So what am I supposed to argue if McCain has no ties/relationships/eye contact with domestic terrorists?

[Scape]

John McCain's Ties to Domestic Terrorists

Plenty of source material there without having to shoot someone in both arms.

Oh and while your at it for the bonus question see if you can find an Obama story to match this one:

Dozens Of Call Center Workers Walk Off Job In Protest Rather Than Read McCain Script Attacking Obama

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. all had Ronald Rumsfled in common. There's a common theme!

Incidentally, Donald Rumsfield and I share a birthday.

Zipperfish wrote:

I didn't really think the fact that George W Bush was quite right-wing was really that controversial of a statement. But looking around, I see it now: the desperate attempt by conservatives to wash their hands of the ugly stain that was George W Bush.

It's not a new thing. Even back in the 2000 election, I remember Rush Limbaugh criticizing Bush's "Compassionate Conservative" talking point as apologizing for an ideology instead of adhering to it.

A similar 2000 campaign criticism from the right, also from Salon.

Salon.com Feb 3, 2000 wrote:

"It's one thing to lurch to the right. It's another thing to lurch back 60 years," said Bill Kristol, editor and publisher of the conservative Weekly Standard. "You could make the case that 'compassionate conservatism' died Feb. 2 when Bush appeared at Bob Jones U."

Other headlines of conservatives criticizing Bush:
Some conservatives criticize Bush's handling of spy plane incident. Apr 11, 2001
ON EDUCATION; A Failure of Logic And Logistics (Re: No Child Left Behind) Oct 1, 2003 which I found via an Oct 6, 2003 right-wing blog
Conservatives Criticize Bush on Spending Dec 6, 2003
The Harriet Miers syndrome: A falling away from conservative principles? Oct 20, 2005

Zipperfish wrote:

[Bush] was called teh Lone Ranger for tearing up just about every treaty and international obligation he could get his hands on.

What does foreign policy have to do with the domestic compromises I mentioned, like education and immigration?

His foreign policy was admittedly (and, in my opinion, respectably) right-wing. It couldn't have been improved by an added push to the right, but it could from better planning and more reasoned execution. A push to the left would have made it worse.

Also, there is a fine but perhaps significant distinction between 'compromise' and 'false compromise'. I'm arguing that Bush's views often take two distinct views and splits the difference, even if the resulting solution is worse than either part. It's a logical failure formally called a 'false compromise'. That doesn't inherently mean he's conceding his views in difference to another person, but that his ideology is a consolidation of two other views and not necessarily for the better.

There's a lot more conservative mention of Bush's liberal positions these days. Why is that? Perhaps because of statements like:

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

[Bush] has been an epic failure

The opponents of our ideology want to claim that the ideology itself has failed because it makes them look right. I admit I don't want it to be an ideological failure because it makes what I believe is right look wrong. But more important than either of these urges is whether it actually is an ideological failure.

I don't think the Bush Administration "has been an epic failure". I think Bush's been a mixed bag, with some dramatic domestic failures and the unlikely, clumsy, hard-fought success in Iraq. (You know, 2/3rds of the country is no longer dependent on Coalition troops to keep the peace. Another third and we can start the victory parties.) But when I look back at his administration, I largely see conservative victories and liberal (or generically authoritarian) failures.

When people attack the man and the ideology together, I feel the urge to defend them both together. When they attack the man on positions where he differs from the ideology, I feel no such loyalty. As for attacks on the person without any implied criticism toward the ideology, why would I care? He's not up for re-election. (If he were, I'd be more inclined to vote for him than for McCain.)

But more important than all that is the ridiculously false claim that the Bush Administration was a miserable failure or the President himself is a dramatic, over-the-top villain. These claims are wildly popular. Defying them gives the same feeling as hearing the same bubble-gum pop song everywhere for months and trying to explain to the 14-year-old girls who love it that hearing it over and over does not make me "like, totally love it".

If these inclinations of mine are common among conservatives (which I think they are), they explain the reasons why we've both defended and criticized Bush at once, and why now we're abandoning both. The big distinction between me and most Republicans, I think, is that I see McCain as an increase of Bush's faults combined with a decrease of Bush's virtues.

--------
A minor side note: when you say I'm a good debater, you're wrong. I would be horrible at defending views I didn't solidly believe. I have no faith in my ability to debate. I only have faith that what is true will win the debate, if diverse people debate diverse views with full passionate resolve.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

It's not a new thing. Even back in the 2000 election, I remember Rush Limbaugh criticizing Bush's "Compassionate Conservative" talking point as apologizing for an ideology instead of adhering to it.

Sure some conservatives would criticized Bush at one time or another, but they always saw George Bush as a capital-C Conservative, as one of them. You can go back and cherry pick out individual criticisms now, but the conservative base was overjoyed when Bush got in 2000. (And, after all, the conservatives could have picked McCain over Bush in 2000.) He was strongly Christian, pro-life, pro-military, anti-tax, etc. He had all the credentials. Behind him, he had Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle--a veritable "Who's Who" of neoconservative heavyweights. It was the neocon dream ticket.

The conservatives stood up for him--apart from the odd snipes that you've pointed out, and apart from the objections of the so-called paleo-conservatives who saw the neoconservatives for the socialists they were--as spending went off the deep end and the government grew in size in power. They sniped, murmurred misgivings, but stood by him.

What neoconservatives showed was an appalling lack of judgment--in both their rash policies and their choice of administration to carry out their policies--followed now by this recent and convenient excommunication of Bush, as if to amuptate the infected limb.

The conservatives accuse George W Bush of betraying them, but it was the neoconservatives in general who did that, who turned the government into a massive social reengineering project--a concept anathema to "true" conservatives. And the rank and file conservatives were behind them all the way, and are only now waking up to that ugly fact.

Quote:

What does foreign policy have to do with the domestic compromises I mentioned, like education and immigration?

His foreign policy was admittedly (and, in my opinion, respectably) right-wing. It couldn't have been improved by an added push to the right, but it could from better planning and more reasoned execution. A push to the left would have made it worse.

Well, as a Canadian, most of the impact George Bush has had on me was through his foreign policy. If George W Bush had have contained his exercise in Christian conservatism to the US, I probably wouldn't have much bad to say about him. I don't really know that much about education or immigration in the US. I do know that whenever the word torture came up, George W Bush was right there. I admit to a personal bias here--I really dislike torture.

He embarked on a new imperialism, deciding that any country that wasn't democratic enough for his tastes would be subject to pre-emptive conquering as a matter of policy. He decided that multilateralism made the US weaker, and walked from a number of treaties and international agreements. He needlessly aggravated allies, such as France and Russia. And of course he presided over the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians invading and occupying a nation in a war based on, at best, horribly irresponsible intelligence and at worst, lies. And Rush, and Jonah, and Bill Kristol and the whole gaggle of them were behind them 100% all the way.

This is why the world is so overwhelmingly behind Obama--by a factor of 4 to 1 in a recent Economist poll. Because most of us have been sitting around utterly horrified for the last eight years at the damage the US has done.

Quote:

There's a lot more conservative mention of Bush's liberal positions these days. Why is that? Perhaps because of statements like:

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

[Bush] has been an epic failure

The opponents of our ideology want to claim that the ideology itself has failed because it makes them look right. I admit I don't want it to be an ideological failure because it makes what I believe is right look wrong. But more important than either of these urges is whether it actually is an ideological failure.

I don't think the Bush Administration "has been an epic failure". I think Bush's been a mixed bag, with some dramatic domestic failures and the unlikely, clumsy, hard-fought success in Iraq. (You know, 2/3rds of the country is no longer dependent on Coalition troops to keep the peace. Another third and we can start the victory parties.) But when I look back at his administration, I largely see conservative victories and liberal (or generically authoritarian) failures.

When people attack the man and the ideology together, I feel the urge to defend them both together. When they attack the man on positions where he differs from the ideology, I feel no such loyalty. As for attacks on the person without any implied criticism toward the ideology, why would I care? He's not up for re-election. (If he were, I'd be more inclined to vote for him than for McCain.)

But more important than all that is the ridiculously false claim that the Bush Administration was a miserable failure or the President himself is a dramatic, over-the-top villain. These claims are wildly popular. Defying them gives the same feeling as hearing the same bubble-gum pop song everywhere for months and trying to explain to the 14-year-old girls who love it that hearing it over and over does not make me "like, totally love it".

If these inclinations of mine are common among conservatives (which I think they are), they explain the reasons why we've both defended and criticized Bush at once, and why now we're abandoning both. The big distinction between me and most Republicans, I think, is that I see McCain as an increase of Bush's faults combined with a decrease of Bush's virtues.

What ideology is that? The neoconservative ideology, where the US government has an active military aimed at world-wide social reengineering to the US ethos? Or the much humbler vision they are espousing now, with small government, lower taxes?

You may see Iraq as a victory, but most people outside the US do not, and not even most Americans see it that way. I think that the ideology of George W Bush was a failure and as evidence to that, I point to the fact McCain has made it the most important point of his campaign to distance himself from his fellow Republican.

Basically Bill Clinton ruled for eight years of peace and prosperity virtually unparalleled in US history, and George W Bush for eight years of war, economic turmoil and deficit spending. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: Are you better off now than you were then?

I'm only a Canadian looking outside in, but my impression is you were a better country then than you are now. And I'm hoping you'll get back to that spirit of optimism and enthusiasm under President Barack Obama.

Quote:

A minor side note: when you say I'm a good debater, you're wrong. I would be horrible at defending views I didn't solidly believe. I have no faith in my ability to debate. I only have faith that what is true will win the debate, if diverse people debate diverse views with full passionate resolve.

Me too. However, passionate though I may be, I've been horribly wrong in the past--supporting the Kyoto Protocol initially, backing Stephane Dion is leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. But on other aspects I'm arguing my character, my moral make-up so I know I'll never change my mind--because it isn't my mind I'd be changing but my moral integrity. And I just don't think that changes. Donald Trump is a man I have a lot of respect for and I'll never forget the advice he gave in an interview years ago. It was three words: "People don't change."

That might seem rather pessimistic, but on the optimistic side, I've been told that most disagreements arise out of a misunderstanding of facts, not out of differing worldviews.

That took way to long. I should be writing. Always a pleasure, Psudo.

[Scape]

Likewise. Psudo and Pseudonym kudos to you both. Its been an enjoyable thread.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

Sure some conservatives would criticized Bush at one time or another, but they always saw George Bush as a capital-C Conservative, as one of them.

Technically, there's no such thing as a capital-C Conservative in US national politics in the sense of a capital letter referring to a proper noun. New York has a Conservative Party, and I think there are one or two other state parties, but no such national party.

And of course we considered Bush to be preferable to Bill Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry, and we even chose him over McCain in the Primaries. We were glad to have someone finally get elected, and loved his early tax cuts. His initial response to 9/11 was popular on both sides of the aisle. It was looking good.

But those are largely practical concerns rather than ideological. I doubt more than a few percent of Republicans ever considered him better than Reagan, for example. It was a much-anticipated respite from a corrupt Democrat administration, giving us good reason to be lenient.

Zipperfish wrote:

Behind him, he had Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle--a veritable "Who's Who" of neoconservative heavyweights. It was the neocon dream ticket.

Just to remind you, my point has been that neocon is not the conservative mainstream. It shares foreign policy in common with it, but it conflicts with education, the environment, and government spending generally -- which, not coincidentally, are the areas where Bush's major failures lie from my ideological point of view.

You go on to mention paleo-conservatives. How is it you know of paleoconservatives and neoconservatives and not of new conservatives as distinct from each? It wasn't paleoconservatives who criticized Bush's campaign stop at Bob Jones U; it's the most paleoconservative University you can find!

Paleoconservative ideology got it's name from the distinction between the isolationist and protectionist conservatism of the 19th and early 20th century and the growing free trade new conservatism. Both of these are distinct from the Neoconservatives, liberals who were became convinced that a right-wing military and foreign policy was the only way to prevent a new Hitler should one arise. New conservatives and paleoconservatives largely agreed on domestic issues and largely disagreed on international trade. Both of these groups disagree with neoconservatives on domestic issues, but new conservatives generally agree with neocons on foreign policy.

Reagan was a new conservative and Bush was a neoconservative. Reagan was largely successful and Bush was a mix of success and failure exactly divided along new conservative lines. Even when Republicans distance themselves from Bush, it's usually on domestic affairs or in the specific execution of the program in Iraq. You'll find very few Republicans who think we never should have got to Iraq at all, or that we should get out ASAP.

Incidentally, the most recent paleoconservative President I can name is Taft.

It seems kind of ridiculous to call new conservatism 'New' when it began in the 1940s and 50s, so it's quite common to say just 'conservatism', but that leads to confusion between the union of the three and the identity of new conservatism specifically.

If you're still thinking I'm making this up, go read "The Rise of the Right" by Bill Rusher. It tells the 50-year story of the rise of the new conservatism up until Reagan's election, and was published more than two decades ago. It couldn't possibly have been a reaction to Bush's failed policies, and it is the source for most of my knowledge of the conservative movement before my lifetime. If you can't find a copy, send me a private message and I'll mail it to you.

Zipperfish wrote:

I do know that whenever the word torture came up, George W Bush was right there. I admit to a personal bias here--I really dislike torture.

That is definitely a place where the phase "failure of the Bush Administration" applies.

Zipperfish wrote:

He embarked on a new imperialism, deciding that any country that wasn't democratic enough for his tastes would be subject to pre-emptive conquering as a matter of policy.

Or he toppled an imperialist regime who had long been threatening to attack, who systematically refused any attempt to determine whether he had the ability, who was clearly seeking to expand what offensive ability they had, who was in direct violation of more than a dozen international agreements, and whose neighbors had successfully attacked America on our soil. There were plenty of good reasons to act to prevent the worst case scenario.

And more important to our current topic, conservatives who criticize Bush for being too liberal very rarely use Iraq as a defending point. The hypocrisy you imagine doesn't apply to the issue of Iraq. It would be more reasonable to say Iraq is the reason conservatives put up with Bush's liberal-leaning domestic views.

Zipperfish wrote:

What ideology is that? The neoconservative ideology, where the US government has an active military aimed at world-wide social reengineering to the US ethos? Or the much humbler vision they are espousing now, with small government, lower taxes?

New Conservatism. Which means either Neoconservative or Realist foreign policy, a preservation of traditional morality in law enforcement, and the "humbler vision" of small government, particularly in the area of domestic government spending.

Zipperfish wrote:

Basically Bill Clinton ruled for eight years of peace and prosperity virtually unparalleled in US history, and George W Bush for eight years of war, economic turmoil and deficit spending. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: Are you better off now than you were then?

The "peace" of the Clinton years was the result of the military power of the previous two administrations: Russia and Iraq were both quieted by Reagan's policy of "peace through strength" that Bush 41 continued for much of his term. Then we got prideful and stupid, opening ourselves up for economic failure and foreign attack.

The Clinton era had more reasoned debate, I agree. With a President from one party and a legislature from another the debate demanded better arguments, since neither side would concede as a matter of party loyalty. The Clinton era was one of intelligent pursuit of lousy ideology, while the Bush era was one of frail pursuit of a mixed ideology. It was sure nice to have some correct points of ideology in there, and occasionally even competent pursuit of them. For that reason, I still like Bush somewhat more than Clinton.

Zipperfish wrote:

I'm hoping you'll get back to that spirit of optimism and enthusiasm under President Barack Obama.

Well, I'm pretty sure that's the winning candidate. But I don't expect the spirit of his administration to have any beneficial substance behind it. I'm expecting another Jimmy Carter.

Zipperfish wrote:

That took way to long. I should be writing. Always a pleasure, Psudo.

You, too. Enjoy the writing.