I think I might be the one person that likes W.
I’m not a fan of this “let’s spend tons of money” approach he has, but I understand the rationale: the only way to change the culture of gov’t is bureaucratic turnover. One has to show that conservative measures and ideas work, and that means spending a lot of money in order to reorient the bureaucratic machinery that already exists to fulfill very different purposes.
I’m also not a huge fan of this “the only good gov’t is democracy” rhetoric, which ignores that key allies in the War on Terror – like Jordan – aren’t exactly democratic. But I understand that he says this stuff without meaning badly for those regimes, and that a liberal would have to be openly hypocritical, not just mistaken, if he asserted the same.
I wonder about all these polls that show Iraq fatigue, and the GOP poised to lose nearly every Senate and House race this November there is. My own feeling is that we’re just a bunch of big babies. We want a country to rebuild itself over night, and we have a ton of conspiracy theory and a lot of lousy “ideas” for restoring order where there is none to stand in place of “endurance” and “staying the course.” Our anger at Mr. Bush is not that we’re losing in Iraq, it’s that we have a foreign policy in the first place, I suspect.
Against this post of mine a million articles and arguments can be cited, many of which I’m familiar with. What criteria do they need to meet, do you think, in order for them to not just be ranting for the sake of saying “war is bad” or “the Bush administration is evil?” What constitutes legitimate criticism of the ruling party, and how is it possible for a rabid, foaming at the mouth populace to level that criticism without being so arrogant it assumes it knows the answers before the questions are even asked?