[NormB]

A couple of weeks ago an anti-Bush post generated a bunch of idiot posts regarding "zot" etc. Apparently if you can't say anything good about Bush you should not say anything at all.

At the time I claimed that Bush was not really conservative, but instead a total globalist. And I was right.

Bush bots unite!

Example, Levis moves all production out of America, china, india provide all service for the company. We sell crappy Levis Jeans to China and India, all the money stays in China and India and the pockets of Levis executives and stockholders. Good for America? Clearly not. Only good for the chosen few.

I am a capitalist, but there is going to be a fall out from all this, Companys will reap profits while scores of once employeed people go on welfare.

[raybbr]

His new theme is different, because it is all about interdependence. Two of his aides say the near defeat of the Central American Free Trade Agreement in Congress last summer — it passed by one vote, after arm-twisting by the president brought just enough Republicans back into the fold — jolted Mr. Bush into recognizing a new retreat from the world by his own party.

Bush is now going to start using the word "interdependence". How is it that we haven't been interdependent up till now?

[1rudeboy]

Example, Levis moves all production out of America, china, india provide all service for the company. We sell crappy Levis Jeans to China and India, all the money stays in China and India and the pockets of Levis executives and stockholders.

The U.S. Treasury still gets its cut, though.

[LdSentinal]

If Bush was a globalist, then so was Reagan.

[Bikers4Bush]

In my opinion Bush and the talking heads that he has around him have created his coming irrelevance by refusing to take a heavy hand with respect to illegals and the border.

You can't talk tough about national security while doing nothing to stem the tide of lawbreakers that reside here and those that cross the border daily and expect to be taken seriously.

The result is that when you push for something like the ports deal your word is no longer good.

[OpusatFR]

"...but instead a total globalist. And I was right."

Corporatist globalist.

How long before our laws are completely conformed to global laws? Whatever is good for the corporations will be extended to our lives.

Value added tax, universal tax to support various UN initiatives (see France), and hamonization of social attitudes are all on the horizon.

Gold cards and no borders for cross nation labor transfer, taxing authority harmonized with Mexico and other countries, and the continued downward pressure on labor wages to harmonize with China and India.

Nice future for our children....sarc/

[Publius6961]

I think this "globalism" debate is as irrational as religion or evolution debates.

The national interest demands that the debate be about the waste of National time and wealth in ANY form.

Foreign aid comes to mind.
Stopping decades-old practices that result in negative effects. e.g. aiding "palestinians"

[grania]

I am a capitalist, but there is going to be a fall out from all this, Companys will reap profits while scores of once employeed people go on welfare.

Capitalism seems to work best when there are government constraints to keep a balance between various factions...workers, owners, communities, etc. It seems that the problem is that the corporations have superceded the governments, globally, that maintained the balance.

The thing is, it isn't really the Dubai deal that's the problem. The Dubai deal is the one that finally struck a chord with the public. We only truly have a nation if infrastructure and points of entry are controlled by the US and US-owned and operated corporations.

[in hoc signo vinces]

What, exactly, is wrong with shunning isolationism?

The world has grown to small to be naive about our place in it. The dictates of the old world (i.e. Washington's farewell address to avoid foreign entanglements) is archaic.

It's not about being a Bushbot, it's about being right and fair about the facts.

[Uncle Miltie]

"Isolationism" is an improper diagnosis of several unrelated issues.

Anti-Iraq-War sentiment is fomented from the Left and their Media. It is an anti-Western Civilization anti-Bush movement.

The Ports reaction was a logical reaction to a deal unexplained by the Bush administration. Had they done their politics right (praising the UAE's help in the WOT, preparing the way with PR, noting that they run terminals, etc.) this would not have been a PR catastrophe. When the Administration's response to prima facie (sp?) issues was to call their opponents xenophobic, they hardened resistance.

"Guest Workers" is Orwellian double-speak for mass law breaking by illegal immigrants. Couple that with wholly unprotected borders through which Jihadists could easily slip, and you can see the Administration is willfully blind to the issue.

"China and India" conflates the strategic opponent with the strategic ally. There are many reasonable people who are concerned about the rise of a fascist nationalist (nominally communist) expansionist China, trade notwithstanding.

So that leaves their argument at India. If you shave off all the other red herrings, you are left with Willie Green, Pat Buchannan and a few other left-wing-nuts.

So hey Karl Rove: Quit blaming your poor PR and bad ideas on Isolationism. The only thing most of the foregoing issues have in common is the Administration's several and disparate malfeasance.

[i.l.e.]

Just remember - no matter how righteous a dude W may appear to be - he is still his father's son and poppy was the guy who invoked the phrase "new world order" more than anyone esle of his era.

[OldFriend]

All this port insanity simply proves the sheeple are willing to rush over the cliff.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

It is rare to find a politician that agrees with me on every major issue. I have supported Bush even though he has not acted as I would have acted as President. Did I vote for Bush because I disagreed with the other guy. No, but it did not hurt that Al Gore and John Kerry stood for the opposite of what I believe.

Bush good things:

1) National Security-Bush's basic policy has been right on target. The initial Iraqi CPA could have done better, but in a way that would be Monday Morning Quarterbacking. He has supported the Military.
2) Tax Cuts- The marginal rates needed cutting. We could have done without the stupid rebates, but I still agree.
3) Faith Based support- Yes, because it works
4) Supreme Court Nominations- Thank goodness Harriett didn't make it, but we got two new very good Justices.
5) Social Security Reform-I like private accounts, but unfortunately AARP rounded up the left and killed it. Still, he tried.

On the Negative:
1) No Child Left Behind was a big spending spree just to have standardized tests (I liked his first proposal, before Kennedy got involved).
2) Medicare Drug Benefits- Should have stuck to only helping the Poor at best.
3) Immigration- We need a barrier and more agents on the border, and more....
4) We need to balance the budget- The new Republican plan put forth (Mike Pense) is spot on.

On balance, I would love to have a President that meet all my goals, but will someone please show me a candidate that can be elected that meets all my goals? Reagan was the closest, but he still had to compromise with Tip O'Neil on some things.

[ex-snook]

"A Bush Alarm: Urging U.S. to Shun Isolationism"

Bush is conjuring up a strawman and proceeding to bash it. American Patriotism is not a danger to this country, selling the country to the highest bidder is.

[A. Pole]

He [Bush] said he had to convince Americans that "a 300-million-person market of middle-class citizens here in India" would soon be buying American goods.

"If we can make a product they want, then it becomes — at a reasonable price — and then all of a sudden, people will be able to have a market here," he said.

What would be such products? What is a "reasonable price" for Indian middle class? Why would such products be made in USA?

[Aliska]

Companys will reap profits while scores of once employeed people go on welfare.

Right you are, and as jobs and workers paying into the system lose their jobs and turn into takers, who is going to pick up the tab?

I think there is a lot of "magical" thinking going on that somehow it will just be all right.

First they took the blue collar workers' jobs away, but we didn't care because they were union and deserve it. Then they came for the mid-level white-collar workers, but most of us didn't care because they are concentrated mainly in a certain valley, and it didn't affect us. Then they came for the phone jobs. We started being annoyed by that, but who wants those jobs anyway? Now they are taking the engineer's jobs. Why should we care? Most of us are not engineers.

We know they aren't going to take the doctors, nurses, public service, private service sector service jobs, executives, certain other categories. Who is going to have the money to pay for that?

Maybe somehow it will level out. I don't see it. The middle class is systematically being destroyed unless they have government-protected jobs like in education, and soon we will have a minority filthy rich with most everybody else at the poverty level.

We should have started screaming a long time ago. It works if enough of us scream loudly enough. Our reps are afraid we won't re-elect them.

[William Terrell]

Isolationism.

Isolated, bad, no one wants to be isolated. Isolated, loner, out of which group we get school yard shootings, mad bombers and kooks. Isolated, lonely rejected.

All these harmonics of meaning are carried by that word.

Beware arguments for and against something based on the emotional baggage of a word applied to that which threatens you. The use of such tactics implies, if not outright indicates, an attempt to move a population towards that which is not in their interest.

Emotional contexts beget unthinking reactions, instantly, without the time for rational consideration.

So, examining the word "isolationism" without the kneejerk response to its root word baggage, and applied to the situation of American sovereignty and the unity and protection of the welfare of its people, "isolationism" means for the good of America and her people, keeping it and their wealth close and independent from foreign interests.

Which America did during its phase of becoming a world power, with all the safety and security that condition implies.

Now, we're not so secure. Foreign interests own a large part of us, interests that tend not to be ours. We enrich other nations at the expense of our own. We weaken ourselves, and, in the past, when there has been the perception we have weakened ourselves, we have been attacked.

Like now.

"Isolationism", producing what our people need here, trading with each other here, letting the wealth flow around within here and from producer to consumer here.

I have yet to hear a cogent reason why we must junk it all for foreign trade, becoming dependent on those who do not wish us well, at massive deficits and enriching those who do not wish us well.

[Paul Ross]

Bump!

The Globalism Jihad of the One Worlders is not the only problem with the staff and advisers surrounding the Presidnet. Clearly it is a huge problem however, as Newsweek reported March 6th that all the staff members surrounding the president were spotted carrying around copies of Thomas Friedmans' Globalist screed, "The World is Flat."

None of the 'bots wants to fess up where their liberal ideas are coming from.

You should also see the 'bot reaction I got when I pointed out that the President is still refusing to issue an executive order to ban federal funding of abortions. Reagan issued it right away in his presidency. Clinton reversed it right away. GWB has had 5 years to fix this.

[lewislynn]

Companys will reap profits while scores of once employeed people go on welfare.

Some of those unemployed people become entrepreneurs by going through trash cans for recyclables, we've all seen them. The recyclables are cubed and shipped to China to feed the industry there, only to be shipped back as manufactured products...

So you see, recycling does create jobs and it creates opportunities for Americans to be entrepreneurs.

[Paul Ross]

Who do you think the interviewed "senior official" is? Did you see that the Newsweek article on the ports debacle of March 6th...explicitly said that the President's staff were all seen carrying copies of Thomas Friedman's globalist-liberal screed..."The World is Flat."

We need to formally make anti-globalism a plank of the GOP platform.

This may have to take the form of the Party Formally Disagreeing with the sitting President:

E.g.,

the White House plans to have Mr. Bush expand his discussion of the need for the United States to embrace a new role in the world, even if that means explaining the benefits of globalization to a nation that does not appear to be in a mood to hear that message.

Its not a "mood" or a "temper tantrum" or a "prejudice." Its a fixed political position based on conservative philosophy and constitutional law. One that the President swore to uphold...

[georgia2006]

duncan hunters bill would be an absolute disaster for the us economy...btw when was the last time you bought a US savings bond?