> I am really curious. Why do you continue to equivocate for Bush being from NZ?
OK, fair enough — you’ve asked a very personal question but it is a fair one. Here goes:
Bush was a great President, and during his Presidency the rift between our two Nations began to mend. Despite Helen Clark, not because of her.
Under a far-right President that would not have been possible. And, incidentally, the excellent relationship the US enjoys with Australia would probably not have been possible under a far-right President, either.
Simple enough, I guess.
As to my own politics and why I support Bush, they don’t fall tidily into “left” or “right” / “liberal” or “conservative” as you would understand the terms — as would be in common with most people in the Commonwealth. They tend to be in your “right-hand” of the spectrum, with a few from the “left” mixed in.
(for example, I see nothing wrong at all with socialized medicine if it is done properly — but I am entirely against the welfare state)
> What’s your interest in propping up a man who showed no inclination whatsoever in maintaining very few social or any fiscal conservative policies?
He was a war-time President whose focus (rightly) was external, not internal. I would be very harsh and critical if it were any other way. His only full-time job so far as I am concerned was to prosecute the WOT: anything he did above and beyond that was to be done in his spare time, after hours.
For example, I am likely to be very harsh and critical of Obama if he dares to focus on social issues rather than prosecuting the WOT. During wartime, that is a leader’s only legitimate business: all else must fall in behind that. That is what Churchill did, and his politics would be very similar to mine.
Dunno if that helps...
But you contradict yourself.
The US has never had a far right president and it's unlikely that it ever will. Reagan was conservative, but he was not far right.
But from all indications, as of noon today, we will have probably our first really far left president.