[jikl]

Admittedly I live a long, long, way away; but we still see a lot about US politics. In 20, 50 and 100 years time...

What will be the positive things?

Sean

[Al_U_Card]

He left when told to?

[Codo]

He gave freedom to the Iraquis, Afghans and made the oil sources of middle east easier avaiable for the US-Companies. He start the fight for Democracy in the whole world. He started the war gainst terror and was winning.
He solved the biggest bank crisis in history.

At least he will think so. Maybe I am too stupid to understand his genius.

For me, he destroyed the long lasting friendship between the US and the "Old Europe" and the next President will have a hard work to repair this damage.
He borrowed billions from our kids and made many gifts to the rich.
He claimed to fight for democracy and human rights, but in reallity he fought democracy and human rights. ABu Greib, Guantamo, not accepting the international court in Den Haag, war against Iraque, ...

I guess he will be nr. 2 or three in the ranking of the presidents of the USA. There had been just one or two worse. At most.

[PassedOut]

Dubya was a very poor president for sure. A disaster, in fact.

On the plus side, though, Bush named non-white people like Colin Powell and Condi Rice to prominent posts in his administration. Few Americans could help but notice that these two were (even when we disagreed with them) much more intelligent and competent than the white men in his administration like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and (especially) Bush himself.

Probably those Bush appointments helped to reduce some of the residual resistance to voting for a candidate like Barack Obama.

[Al_U_Card]

The epitome of Bush' legacy is summed up in that video of him being informed of the 9-11 attack while "visiting" the first-grade class. How useless must you be felt to be (he had only been in office 7 months) when you are told to continue reading instead of standing up and taking charge of the situation?!

http://ca.youtube.co...feature=related

[kenrexford]

Maybe we will learn that he blocked an alien attack and that this whole Iraq thing was a ruse to secure the local stargate.

[hrothgar]

jikl, on Oct 31 2008, 12:46 PM, said:

Admittedly I live a long, long, way away; but we still see a lot about US politics. In 20, 50 and 100 years time...

What will be the positive things?

Sean

Relegating the Republican party to the status of a regional party (maybe even killing them off)

In all seriousness, I can see scenarios in which the Republican party might go the way of the Whigs...

[mikeh]

hrothgar, on Oct 31 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

jikl, on Oct 31 2008, 12:46 PM, said:

Admittedly I live a long, long, way away; but we still see a lot about US politics. In 20, 50 and 100 years time...

What will be the positive things?

Sean

Relegating the Republican party to the status of a regional party (maybe even killing them off)

In all seriousness, I can see scenarios in which the Republican party might go the way of the Whigs...

I can see a scenario in which the republican party might split... all too often, the public image of the republican party is epitomized by Sarah Palin and the segment of the party her nomination was intended to appease/mobilize. But, once in a while, we hear from well-informed, educated conservatives who have rational arguments against some aspects of the Democratic platform. A couple of nights ago, larry King had major operatives from the 2 parties on his show, and I was very impressed by the Republican.. he was articulate, polite, respectful of Obama, with intellectual and policy-driven reasons for disagreeing with him. None of this 'un-american', none of this 'palling around with terrorists'.

That brand of republicanism surely still holds sway in many voters, but they are drowned out by the wilfully ignorant (even if intelligent) brand of republicanism manifest in the Palin approach.

However, while the evangelical branch of republicanism might survive, due to the zealotry of its members, it seems likely that it would be doomed to being a regional party.. maybe attaining a few gubernatorial seats, and some members of Congress, but never the presidency.

The more intellectual wing probably couldn't survive, either monetarily or in the popular vote....

Since I suspect that the powers that be in the republican party know this all too well, I suspect that the situation will continue, unhappily, as it is for many years to come.

Oddly, I see a parallel between the current state of the republican party and the taliban. The leaders of the party made a deliberate effort, years ago, to cultivate the religious right.. to attempt to secure them as a reliable base. By doing so, they energized a lot of voters, and no doubt felt that they could always control them.. as did the CIA and the Pakistani Intelligence services with the taliban. Now, however, the tail is threatening to wag the dog. And there is no easy way out for the intellectual wing of the republican party, other than to endorse Obama, as so many of them are doing. That, of course, merely increases the power that the religious right has over the GOP.. as the moderates are driven out, who is left?

[Al_U_Card]

hrothgar, on Oct 31 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

In all seriousness, I can see scenarios in which the Republican party might go the way of the Whigs...

http://ca.youtube.co...h?v=qxyEFlKe0Zo

[RichMor]

mikeh, on Oct 31 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

<bunch of snips>
I can see a scenario in which the republican party might split... all too often, the public image of the republican party is epitomized by Sarah Palin and the segment of the party her nomination was intended to appease/mobilize.
<bunch more snips>

Mike,

I agree that the Republican party could split, explode, implode, etc.

If the Democrats win the Presidency and additional congressional seats and additional governorships the Republicans will have even more reasons to fight with each other.

Besides 'ditto' I want to add this.

The Republicans are the victims of their own deliberate strategy to split the country into imaginary groups and set the groups against each other. Like Dr Frankenstein, the monster eventually turned on its creator.

RichM

[Mosene]

Barack Obama comes across as a believer in the neoliberal economic agenda and a proponent of sustained US presence in the middle east. As such, the "intellectual" republicans have already won. There does not appear to be any true left Democracts out there (although there really never have been).

BTW, we can thank the neoliberal economic paradigm for the horrible shape the US and much of the world is in economically (what does the US produce anyway? Money?). We can thank the US obsession with the middle east for the horrible position the US is in in terms of international credibility and massive debt owned by Japan, China and others.

Obama offers little hope in my opinion.

[luke warm]

a quick question here... what if mccain wins? iow, would the views above about the rep party being regional (or even whig-like) still hold? i know it isn't likely that he'll win, but the polls are showing some perplexing tightening

[mikeh]

It would probably make it impossible for a moderate republican to win the nomination for decades... the right wingers will attribute the success to Palin and McCain's pandering to the sleaze/lunatic fringe.. the ones who yell traitor and kill him at their rallies... who think Obama is an arab and who boo McCain when, in a rare moment of decency, he corrected her... altho of course, it says something very sad when calling someone an arab is seen, almost universally, as an insult.

[the hog]

PassedOut, on Oct 31 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

Dubya was a very poor president for sure. A disaster, in fact.

On the plus side, though, Bush named non-white people like Colin Powell and Condi Rice to prominent posts in his administration. Few Americans could help but notice that these two were (even when we disagreed with them) much more intelligent and competent than the white men in his administration like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and (especially) Bush himself.

Probably those Bush appointments helped to reduce some of the residual resistance to voting for a candidate like Barack Obama.

This is a fair comment. I would also suggest that Dubya is the worst President in my memory. Waiting for Oliver Stone's film here.

[akhare]

The_Hog, on Oct 31 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 31 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

Dubya was a very poor president for sure. A disaster, in fact.

On the plus side, though, Bush named non-white people like Colin Powell and Condi Rice to prominent posts in his administration. Few Americans could help but notice that these two were (even when we disagreed with them) much more intelligent and competent than the white men in his administration like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and (especially) Bush himself.

Probably those Bush appointments helped to reduce some of the residual resistance to voting for a candidate like Barack Obama.

This is a fair comment. I would also suggest that Dubya is the worst President in my memory. Waiting for Oliver Stone's film here.

I wanted to see the film too, but decided to pass after most reviews said that it potrayed him in rather sympathetic light.

The Time review said that the only pertitent "W" in the film was in the question "Why (was the film made)?" ..

[matmat]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 31 2008, 06:49 AM, said:

He left when told to?

he hasn't left yet.

[Al_U_Card]

matmat, on Oct 31 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Oct 31 2008, 06:49 AM, said:

He left when told to?

he hasn't left yet.

So far just wishful thinking....

I still can see clouds on the horizon. Obama is pretty smart and will probably "play ball" with the PTB.....but at least he will be able to speak coherently as he lies to us.