Posted on 01/20/2005 2:21:15 PM PST by Pokey78
Juan Williams is the pitcher for the pre-All Star Game home run derby. His job is to toss them up slow, straight and in the center of the strike zone. Whack! Another stupid idea hit out of the park.
100% effective in fighting poverty.
This sounds like a job for the Executive Editor. Wait, that was the Executive Editor.
BTW, in our "Patriot's History of the United States," we argue that a single speech by Reagan---the "Star Wars" speech---virtually ended the Cold War. The power of words is unbelievable, far more so than the power of regulations or laws. If that's true, then the emphasis on liberty will inevitably change the dialogue in America, and will, IMHO, end the modern Dem Party, which is the party of dependency.
I derive so much humor from his softballs, though.
Me too.
He thinks clearly and articulates it clearly.
Yes, and he did it so well the morons most likely didn't even realize it until they heard it on the news! LOL
A quibble: might that be best expressed as "the power of ideas", the words being merely the messenger?
I think to a degree you are right---every great president has combined the two. Washington continued to pay bribes to the Barbary pirates because we didn't have a navy; Lincoln kept the war about reunification until emancipation was unavoidable. But I think Bush is a little different in that he is picking these countries off one at a time: Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and it is clear to all but the most stupid Saudis that they are in the cross hairs, if only down the line.
No one is more peaceful than someone with something to lose. No one is more violent than that person defending what he has. That, is freedom.
I know your point, but I would argue that until ideas are expressed, they are powerless. If you really want to get metaphysical, I believe that since there is energy literally in words, words literally evoke change however tiny.
Democracy can't exist without capitalism (i.e. free exchange.) Capitalism, in the narrow economic sense, can exist quite well without democracy. (See China)
Capitalism is not to be worshiped. It is to be understood and applied. It is a necessary ingrediant for democracy, but it is not sufficient of and by itself to create or maintain a democracy.
...the world's only superpower....
What's China, then? Chop Suey?
Dan
"America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one," he said. Boom! The wall between the two schools is gone, at least in the president's formulation.
---
Absolutely. this is a fundamental and important point. It is a turning away from certain compromises we made in the past.
And it means that the 'realists' cannot cling to 'stability' as the goal, nor can we pretend dictators should have say in the UN. This has far-reaching implications, most of them good.
Good point.
Words do matter and do mean things.
That's not exactly true. Bush has installed democracies in neighboring countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). That's going to put a lot of pressure on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to reform.
You don't fight wars in every place simultaneously. Instead you attempt to defeat the enemy in detail, picking your times and spots, and deal with some nations sequentially rather than in parallel. You also tailor your tactics to the specific situation. In some instances you employ force, while in other instances you apply diplomatic or economic or political pressure.
This is not to say that Bush's strategy will work, nor is it to express confidence that Bush will take action against the authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But I don't think it is fair at this point to accuse Bush of ignoring Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He has a heavy agenda. If nothing has happened by the end of his second term, your criticism will be much more justified.
That's what baffles people about W, he'll actually mean it when he says his goal is to spread democracy worldwide.
He only has 4 years. Once done with Iraq, I doubt we can do anything more but perhaps help Iran undergo regime change, hopefully without invasion (except for some secret military operations).
It isn't like President Bush can change the entire Middle East himself.
Whoever is POTUS after the 2008 election will have to continue the trend. And, I don't know if there is really anybody but Bush with the determination to continue such an extremely interventionist policy full-bore. Even among Republicans, that person would be hard to find.
So, while I am hopeful we will see significant change in the next four years, I am also a realist. I think that in order to accomplish the goals we need to accomplish on the domestic front....tax reform, social security reform, and if we can somehow also manage it, tort reform, we can not expect the entire ME to be transformed by President Bush. Iraq will be, and hopefully that will lead to other countries, but he can't do it all. At most, we may also be able to change Iran before 2008, and that is not even a sure thing.
Unless of course he starts a draft and massive military build-up, but I would not support that, so definitely the general public would not either.
Somebody will need to take up the torch after 2008 to continue the progress.
I would disagree with your statement that any true conservative has to be thrilled that for the first time since Lincoln someone is emphasizing human liberty as the central mission of the USA on several fronts. First off, Lincoln didn't give a hoot about liberty. Lincoln's only goal, often stated was preserving the Union, even if he had to go about it in an unconstitutional manner. In fact, he stated often that liberty wasn't the issue early and often. It wasn't until years into the war that he made the abolitionist goal his own....and even then, the Emancipation Proclamation very carefully applied only to the slave areas in rebellion, not to those slave areas still part of the Union. The second area of disagreement would be this idea that all true conservatives will thrill at this statement that it is the goal of the US to deliver freedom to the rest of the world. If you had said neo-conservative, I might have agreed. But most true conservatives will probably be appalled at such sentiments. Sovereign nations are entitled to the form of governments that they decide to set up. It is none of our business until it threatens our security. If the extent of this stated policy is in moral and some sort of financial support, true conservatives will probably go along. If however, this includes sending troops into various countries to "liberate" them without some real threat to our security then I think you will see conservatives revolt in much the same manner that they are going to do with this insane "guest worker" program. Seal our own borders first if you are so concerned about security, then worry about promoting democracy abroad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.