Replies

Correction -- YOU voted for someone you thought would be a leader.

Uhh... CORRECTION -- Bush claimed that he would tackle all manner of America's ills, from rebuilding the military to fixing Social Security to simplifying the tax code... Now, my Webster's dictionary must be outdated, because it defines a leader as somone who influences or induces; someone who conducts by holding or guiding; someone who commands or directs; somone who is at the head (of something). I know it's a huge stretch of the imagination, but bear with me... when you claim to be the man who will lead the country in this new direction (and you hold a majority in both houses;), you're claiming to be a leader rather than a do-nothing political hack.

Democratic governments don't have leaders

Huh? My understanding of world history, and of US history, and of the definition of democracy and representative republic must be waaaaay off. Guess I'll have to get rid of that outdated copy of Webster's.

BTW, Reagan was one hell of a president, and the nanny-state attitude was already well-established. Bush has been an improvement over Clinton, but we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul if his (and the Republican House and Senate's) choices mean a return to the democrat party regime.

Go back over the last 30 years and take a look at what passes for political discourse and debate. Politicians are among the most thoroughly mediocre, half-@ssed people you will meet in any walk of life. If you went through each elected member of the U.S. government -- regardless of political affiliation -- you'll likely find that the most common attributes these people have are excessive (often pathological) ambition and marginal intelligence.

Just listen to all these jack@sses complaining about "price-gouging" in the oil industry, and complaining about that $400 million retirement package for ExxonMobil's CEO as if it were some kind of crime against humanity. If these people weren't so dopey and self-aggrandizing, they'd change careers and become oil executives.