Centerfield

The problem with this situation is that, as nauseating as the repetitive commenting has become, the fact on the ground are still the same in 2006 as they were in 2004 and the voters know this.

If the Iraqi national government collapses Americans will call for the troops to come home. Until then, Rove has the upper hand and voters won't risk upsetting an admittedly fragile situation.

Ask your wife, as sick as she is with Bush, how's she going to vote in November???

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 1, 2006 12:43 PM

We're so vain that we think every Presidential speech is about us.

I'm also a "die-hard Bush fan", but I pretty much tune out his speeches.

I already know the arguments. I already know his points. I already contemplate and discuss these issues every day.

I figure, speeches like this expresse the fundamentals of the President's ideas and policies. Those of us who already understand these fundamentals tend to get bored by these simple, repetitive speeches.

But I don't think we're the majority, really. There's a lot of people who have more important things to do than hang out on the Internet debating deep politics.

Presidents have to make speeches like this on a regular basis, to set and maintain a consistent tone, and to make sure those who would not or could not pay attention last time, have a chance to pay attention this time.

Those of us who have been paying attention all along would be better off if we let him do the speech thing, while we moved on to the debate thing.

Posted by: stutefish at September 1, 2006 01:15 PM

I disagree. I think all the people unhappy with our current policies have to be pushed to think about all the details they may have had the luxury of ignoring, and deciding what it makes sense to do. People have been getting unhappier and unhappier, which has mostly to do with how they feel. That's a luxury. So it's time to say, "OK, fine, you're unhappy. What do you think we should do and why do you think it'll work? You complain? Fine, you volunteer to come up with better alternatives."

Islamic fundamentalists are attacking and killing civilians, and not just western civilians. They don't even recognize that Israel has any right to exist. While they may presently say they'll settle for the evacuation of all infidels from the holy land, their intepretation of the words of Mohammed gives us little reason to think they will in the future feel any need to treat us infidels with much genuine regard at all, should the tables of power turn in the future.

So frankly, I don't have much problem at all with Bush talking about fascists shopping a twisted vision of islam. It about sums it up for me, and points pretty accurately at the set of people who comprise our enemies, and with whom there is no opportunity for compromise.

Keep banging the drum, that's what I say,

Posted by: bk at September 1, 2006 01:17 PM

"and to make sure those who would not or could not pay attention last time, have a chance to pay attention this time."

You think there is ANYONE left who hasn't heard what the President has to say on this??

If that's true, it's because they simply don't care and don't matter much to the discussion, as you say.

98% of life is showing up.

"Those of us who have been paying attention all along would be better off if we let him do the speech thing, while we moved on to the debate thing."

What does that even mean??? If you want to give the President a free pass go ahead but don't expect any of us to follow your lead.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 1, 2006 02:13 PM

"OK, fine, you're unhappy. What do you think we should do and why do you think it'll work? You complain? Fine, you volunteer to come up with better alternatives."

No, BK. If they can't be bothered to pay attention 4-years into the Iraq War, your time would be better spent finding someone who cares.

They probably don't vote anyway.

They've got, "better things," to do.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 1, 2006 02:17 PM

Brian,
I agree. I have tuned out my dislike of Bush. It is critical we focus on the center of reality or there will be a dark age of terror and extortion. We must collectively or unilaterally squash the facilities and organizational centers of Jihadism and the means of lethality they hope to secure. See my series of links on the Friday thread for Tully.

Boxer's comments last night are even more untruthful than the distortions coming out of the White House. She claims. "if [voters] want a real fight against terrorism, then vote Democrat." She ignored the heart of what Rumsfeld and Bush were talking about. She says the real fight is with AQ and "other terrorists". Who might they be? She says nothing about Iran, Syria, Russia and China, or even the absurd retreat of UNIFIL's obligations under the cease-fire in Lebanon. Not a word about Syria being in charge of stopping supplies going to Hizb"Allah from its territories with Russian, Chinese and Iranian help. And Dean is king of ridiculous spin. He says we should get Bin Laden. How, by invading Pakistan?

Did Hitler declare his intention to destroy an allied country or defeat the West? How many died as a result of a popularly demanded appeasment when he did strike out and agress? Did Hitler openly test his missiles and jets as a threat against pre-emption? Was he a few years away from nukes? Didn't our attacks disrupt his securiting nukes? Did he possess a global network of terrorist proxies. Could he have fired clandestinely on America? Who can overlook the similar role Russia is playing now in an alliance with the worst despots on the planet?

To watch as the Democrats deny the obvious lesson of the last century, remain silent about the abuse of women and the spread of ant-Semitism and Jihadism, to ignore the proliferation of wmd into the hands of terrorists all because they dislike certain mistakes and incompetence on the Right is “morally and intellectually confused”. Frankly, I would use even harsher language. Democrats seem to have little regard for allowing the birth of a new bridge to the future; one in which we will be unable to prevent a nuke in NYC or LA. The center is caught between two extremes that threaten either blowback or defeat.

The consequence for America and the world we know is my primary fear. It pains me to side with those who have supported social conservatism, tactics without world class strategies, religion in government, corruption, massive tax cuts, poor energy policies and a fence to cure our immigration policies. I do so ONLY because of national security concerns. Any party that ignores security threats, promotes only retaliation and an impossible task of security-through-guarding-every target does not deserve the privilege to protect America and the liberty so many have given their lives for.

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 1, 2006 02:30 PM

what do you want W. to say? what could he say to make you think "finally, he gets it"?

Posted by: Rachel at September 1, 2006 02:59 PM

This all sounds like "Bush fatigue". A common ailment of second term presidencies. Similar in symptoms to "Clinton faitgue" though the suseptable population is different. First decribed (but with different words) in the early 1950's. Unfortuantely, treatment often no better than the disease (see above)

PS

98% of life is showing up.

Didn't it used to be 90%. Is this a new form of inflation?

Posted by: c3 at September 1, 2006 02:59 PM

I agree c3. Heck I think "bush" and "war" fatigue was occuring in 2004. and such fatigue happened with Reagan, too. I was shocked at the national vigil he recieved when he died. Not that I was expecting a Mussolini-type eulogy, but not so much fanfare.

Posted by: Rachel at September 1, 2006 03:11 PM

Reagan was a lesser deity.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 1, 2006 04:48 PM

Man, Brian and I are agreeing on everything today. I blame Rove. ;-)

Plus what c3 said.

Posted by: PatHMV at September 1, 2006 05:09 PM

Frankly, I'm starting to lean in favor of a single 6-year presidential term. When was the last time the last 2 years of a 2-term president were really happy and productive? It seems the opposition party at that point has succeeded in wearing the leader and his party down, some idiot cabinet officer or WH staffer is being investigated or prosecuted (something almost inevitable no matter who or which party holds the office), or there's some other sort of scandal.

The only thing that keeps me from fully supporting the 1-term, 6 years idea is the strong possibility that the same phenomenon would happen, only it would start 2 years earlier.

Posted by: PatHMV at September 1, 2006 05:13 PM

I get tired of the "bad-cop" rhetoric. I agree with the point that prevention is necessary in world affairs, but you know, Churchill made a point of trying to work with those who'd agreed with Chamberlain. After all, he pointed out, their goal was honorable - peace. The President (the "good cop") did point out that Democratic opposition is patriotic in nature as well, but we still had to have the bad cop (Rumsfeld), too.

Posted by: Jon Kay at September 1, 2006 06:01 PM

I'm starting to lean in favor of a single 6-year presidential term

Not working so hot in Mexico. Posted by: c3 at September 1, 2006 07:49 PM

A six-year single term would be o.k. by me. Some people think this would make the President a lame duck the day after he's elected. We'd have to look at other countries to see if this is true or not.

Others seem to think that second terms are bad because Presidents don't have the option of running again and they get lazy.

Would every President run for a 3rd term if given the option? Would most?

Running only twice was a tradition for incumbent Presidents even when they technically could run as long they wanted to.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 1, 2006 08:18 PM

Reading through this discussion clarifies my wish for a true democracy -- something that just might be possible with the right technologies. Imagine not having to depend on professional politicians who seem to mostly be interested in their own agendas rather than their constituents. At that point, I'd be all for a complete change of government!

Posted by: Heather at September 1, 2006 09:58 PM

Washington thought a two term limit would be established and acccepted by his own example. He was right until FDR came along.

Posted by: Tully at September 2, 2006 12:00 PM

Imagine not having to depend on professional politicians who seem to mostly be interested in their own agendas rather than their constituents.

Heather;

I believe the founding fathers were wise in protecting us from ourselves. I don't want visionary policy developments (as rare as they are) to become another reality show that captures our fancy for a year and then is cancelled the next due to low ratings.

Posted by: c3 at September 2, 2006 04:49 PM

I'm starting to lean in favor of a single 6-year presidential term

I started thinking about this around the time of the Mexican election, and, to me, 6 years is a helluva long time to wait for a guy you don't like to get out of office. Now my feelings are obviously no basis for defining election systems, but at least with our current system, the people "try out" a president for four years, and if they don't like him, then they boot him out for someone else (assuming, of course, the opposing party has a sufficiently decent candidate). It's not always true, of course, but that's the general idea IMO.

Posted by: mitch at September 3, 2006 01:50 PM