Politics

If you read through my posts you would see that I have attempted to avoid taking a side or even talking about politics. This topic creates quite a bit of hard feelings, and people get really wound up talking about it. My girlfriend, and her family have a different political view than I do, so when we gather together for a holiday or other special event I am definitely in the minority when politics are discussed, so I am pretty good at avoiding political discussions, however I do have political opinions. I base my opinions of the political events on what the President and other leaders say, and more importantly watch they do. I try to base my opinions on facts, rather than what someone else tells me I should think. When I listen/watch, I take in what is happening at face value, and I try not to add some hidden agenda. I listen to commentators of both sides of the political spectrum, because to be honest, that's the only way to get the "whole picture" of what's going on. I try to not dismiss people just because I don't agree with their point of view. However, from my point of view, people on the other side dismiss me and people like me as "dumb", "stupid", or "not worth listening to" because we disagree with their point of view. So... Often, I just keep my opinion to myself. Anyway, to the meat of the topic... Limpy99 suggested that President Bush was stupid because he stutters, and misspeaks. I commented on his blog and said that people who misspeak aren't necessarily stupid, and there are many eloquent people that are stupid. I said we should judge Bush and leaders based on their words, and actions. I also suggested if you can't stand to "listen" to Bush speak, to read his speeches. I know it pains me to listen to him because of his speech patterns, and the pauses for applause and whatnot. I also don't see how someone can become President of the United States by being stupid as I believe it requires quite a bit of intelligence or at least the smarts enough to surround oneself with people who are! Anyway, Limpy responded to me on my blog, saying that he "didn't trust him [Bush] as far as he could throw him". He said that Bush is "power hungry" and that he is "too confident". He also mentioned the "domestic spying" in his comments. When I hear/read things like this I wonder I live in a different world than everyone else, or if I am just blind. Maybe those on the other side of the political spectrum have are right and I am stupid. Maybe I just need someone to explain to me how Bush is gaining power, other than what he has by being President. President Bush has retaliated against terrorists who attacked our country, and countries that support them. He then helped the people of those countries build their own goverment. He could have taken them over and made them "Bushland", made them part of our country, or instituted a government run by him or by our standards. The facts are he didn't. He pushed two big pieces of ledgislation: "Patriot Act" and "Tax Cuts", however they are both temporary! The tax cuts may have given him slight popularity and given the economy a boost, but no additional power to him. I believe more taxes means more control, or more power, so what does "less taxes" mean? The Patriot Act does grant additional executive branch power but it's temporary and has congressional oversight. It is designed to help us against a real threat of terrorism from both international and national sources. From what I understand from the news recently the Patriot Act isn't (currently) being renewed by the Senate. If he was power hungry, why didn't he make it permanent in the first place? I could name about a dozen more things where Bush could have done things to "gain power", but hasn't. To be honest and frank with you, I think he has lost power, by not speaking more frequently about his policies and ideas. His lack of public speaking has distanced himself from the people that would give him strength and power, and his performance polls reflect this. I don't believe he is "rallying" people to his side, which is power, which is something President Clinton did very well. The comments about the "domestic spying" are exaggerated. Bush did authorize spying, as he should, but against known terrorists, and it was done with full disclosure to those government agencies that oversee that stuff. ''It's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he's just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?'' said Bush during an appearance at Kansas State University. It was "secret" so the people we were spying on wouldn't know we were spying on them, and we could continue to get inside information. This is now harder to do since this issue has become public! Who do you think that helps? Us or Them? And what's even more distrubing about people upset about this issue, is that our current President hasn't done anything that any other President before him hasn't done, and some MORE than he did... These previous presidents weren't categorized as "the bad guys" when they did it, and we weren't at war then! The only last comment I will make is, I would rather follow someone that is sure of himself because he will keep going until he gets there, even if he makes mistakes along the way. He doesn't have to apologize for the mistakes because he succeeds... Does Thomas Edison owe us 4,000 apologizes for failing 4,000 times attempting to create a lightbulb? Or do we thank him for having enough confidence for knowing he could do it, and never giving up until he did! I would not want to follow someone that is tentative, and unsure of where to go, because they will never succeed. Edison would have given up and said it's impossible if he didn't have the confidence that he could do it. If we allow our country, and our President give up now, we will lose, and we will have terrorists attacking our country, and many, many more innocent people will die. I choose to follow the confidence that we will prevail!