Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RLK
The fact is, he lost the popular vote to the moronic Owl Gore.

Yes - but he has now served as president and we have come to love this man. He has instilled a deep trust in many of us. We just disagree.

I feel Bush is the leader for us during this time. You find much fault with him. Intelligence? Many of the great leaders were not brilliant - Truman, Reagan. There are characteristics sometimes more valuable than just intelligence. Traits such as moral clarity, a steely resolve, a personality well suited to dealing with opposing individuals, unity building, the ability to surround themselves with top quality people and experts, optimism and ability to overcome obstacles, patience and confidence.

54 posted on 05/17/2002 11:34:08 PM PDT by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: ClancyJ
Many of the great leaders were not brilliant - Truman, Reagan.

---------------------

If you will read Reagan's autobiography and some of his writing, his vocabulary and use of words suggests he was a pretty intelligent man.

55 posted on 05/17/2002 11:40:51 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: ClancyJ
With conservatives, or those who wish they were conservatives, Bush generally is as insightful as Chauncey the gardener from Being There: people project onto him all sorts of things which are beyond his comprehension, and infer from his demeanor some sort of as yet undisclosed master plan or agenda which will smite the Left hip and thigh, second guessing and reading into his words things which simply aren't there. To be a true acolyte in Bush requires more faith, that is, belief in the absence of sufficient evidence, than is good for basic mental hygiene. In other words, expecting something from Bush which he is unable to deliver has the potential to cause not a few mental problems in those who believe in him.

On the other hand, we have Bush pandering to Mexico and its caudillo/guerilla socialist kleptocratic political culture in an extremely dubious atempt to win Hispanic votes.

The following will serve as an illustration of how a certain politician adored by many conservatives is just another generic DC punter playing around with words, depending upon his audience to define his political identity:

The following are excerpts from a March 23, 2002 Washington Times piece by Bill Sammon.The following are excerpts from a March 23, 2002 Washington Times piece by Bill Sammon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"MONTERREY, Mexico: ----- ------- yesterday said Americans are duty-bound to 'share our wealth' with poor nations and promised a 50 percent increase in foreign aid, but 'We should give more of our aid in the form of grants, rather than loans that can never be repaid,' he said. 'We should invest in better health and build on our efforts to fight AIDS, which threatens to undermine whole societies.'

"In addition to the moral, economic and strategic imperatives of increasing foreign aid, ----- ------- said, it could also help in the war against terrorism.

"'We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage.'"

Here's a small political quiz. Who is quoted above?

a) George McGovern
b) Bill Clinton
c) Al Gore
d) Al Sharpton
e) Jesse Jackson
f ) Ted Kennedy
g) George W. Bush

Hint: He's very popular here at Free Republic.

61 posted on 05/18/2002 5:13:42 AM PDT by Mortimer Snavely
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson