[Risa]

>>They got what they voted for.<<

I think that is not true. I know many people who are in shock at the true philosophies of G.W. Bush. Who ever would have thought that G.W. Bush is an ideologue of radical libertarian economic theory and all that it implies (open borders, hollowing out industry, deifying that fake high priest of private bankers, Alan Greenspan, with his specious cheap wage = low inflation theories, faith-based handouts from taxpayers, a medicare bill that transfers vast taxpayer wealth to private business, massive agribusiness subsidies, and so on). Bill CLinton damaged badly the Democratic party by posing as a Democrat. One wonders what will become of the Republican party after G.W.


Frankly, I don't see much difference at all between Clitnon and Bush in terms of economic and social policy.

[Varda]

There's a difference between getting what you vote for and getting what you wish for. The virtue of prudence requires wide-eyed objectivity. The prudent voter looks at the record of the politician and those around him (and ignores the propaganda pro and con).

What you call radical economic theory is usually called globalisation. It's a done deal among the corporate set. These people invested heavily in GW prior to the campaign. Remember that he had more than 70 million cash on hand before the primaries. But even if that didn't set off red flags, the voter could have been clued in by paying attention to GW's speeches prior to the campaign.

"The Clintonesque George Bush,
October 9, 1999
by Edward H. Crane

"George W.: "Government must be carefully limited -- but strong and active and respected within those bounds."

The latter statement is defining for the Eastern Establishment of the Republican Party. In the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, Bob Dole and Governor Bush's father, George Bush, these Republicans pay lip service to "limited government" to keep the conservative-libertarian majority of the party on board, but then govern with "strong and active" intervention." http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-09-99.html

There were many other red flags in Bush speeches and appointments. Those who ignored what he said and did in favor of what they "felt" about the candidate got what they voted for.

[ovrtaxt]

Actually, Buchanan made it clear-- Bush is not a true conservative. I gritted my teeth and voted for him, hoping that things wouldn't turn out too badly. So far, I have been half wrong and half right.