Liberals are ruled by their emotions, not logic. When liberalism/socialism is critically examined as a governmental model by a logical mind, it is inarguable that it has failed every time it's been tried. Then again, I guess it depends on how you define success. The far left would claim success even after (or maybe especially after) their confiscatory wealth redistribution policies crippled the economy, as long as these policies ensured an equality of misery and punished the achievers. To liberals, results don't matter as long as there are good intentions. Some have called liberalism a mental disease. I think it's more of a mass morality disorder.
Liberals never let pesky facts get in the way of their red hot rage and naked hatred for George Bush the man. He has been vilified and impugned by the left in this country like no other, except for maybe Ronald Reagan. Of course, Reagan was a lightening rod to the left because he was the father of modern day conservatism and and a man of unimpeachable integrity. And he is directly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, the liberals utopic model. Bush's administration has been more like a "Reagan ultra ultra light" on the conservato-meter, except when it comes to the "small" issue of national security. I have said it before and I'll say it again, George W. Bush was the right man at the right time in our nation's history. His legacy will bear this out when viewed by non-diseased and mentally stable minds.
Ann Coulter has a great column on this topic this week - BUSH'S AMERICA: 100 PERCENT AL-QAIDA FREE SINCE 2001. She goes so far as saying that Bush "will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents" for keeping us safe since the terrorist attacks on 9/11. She makes the point that the Iraq war has been a "stunning success," and that "Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed".
This, to the chagrin of Obama and the democrats, who have gone "all in" in this political game of Texas Hold 'em, betting the dealer's "flop" will produce an Iraq war "flop" and America's defeat. Obama's calling card has always been that he has been against the Iraq war from the beginning because it was unnecessary and unwinnable. Since it was both necessary and we are winning big, the question becomes this: Will Obama be allowed to take his chips back from the pot and re-stack, or will the electorate rightly hold him to his losing hand by not putting him in the White House?
I guess we will see in November. I agree with Rush Limbaugh's comment that this election would be about people voting for Obama and people voting against Obama. That is a testament to the fact that the Republican nominee is not a conservative and does not garner a lot of enthusiasm from right-minded individuals like myself. However, he is pro-life and he does have strong national security credentials. And With Obama on the ballot, I won't even have to hold my nose when voting for McCain.
New York Named After Horrendous Slave Trader !! - New York, both the city and the state, is named after the house of York and particularly for James Stuart, then Duke of York, one of the most successful sl...
2 hours ago