G W Bush, teflon President?

What about this: Ignore Bush. Go after Cheney.

If the economy was shit then Little Bush would be in the same shape as Big Bush was.

If Gore would have campaigned on the economy (even though it was clearly in contraction in 2000) he would have probably won.

If the economy was shit when Clinton was fingerfucking an intern in the Oval Office, he would have been gone in 1996.

If the economy was shit in 1988 Big Bush would have lost.

It's always about the economy unless you are a worthless campaigner. See Al Gore, 2000.

Iraq could stick, like shit on his shoe that won't quite come off. Notice how Bushco's "bringing democracy to Iraq" justification is fading as time grows short to reduce troops in time for next November's election (Thomas Friedman must be having fits.) It never quite topped the list of justifications anyway, though. "War on terror" is a larger and more maneuverable category.

The problem is that the sovereigns of the terrotories in question have already been vanquished and/or driven away, without any formal surrender process. The resistance now is totally stateless. How do you declare victory over a stateless opponent?

You're picking apart the polls Tracer. And the margin of error keeps it all dead even. In some areas, Bush has clearly lost traction, but he's still a long ways from being objectively viewed as convincingly beatable. Look what Clinton's numbers were at this point in his presidency.

But the great lesson of 1996 is not that you can use an intern as a humidor or get head while conducting official business in the Oval Office. The lesson is that American voters are extremely forgiving. It takes a lot to fire a president.

So while Bush's political enemies are always going to see the extreme negatives of his presidency, the general public doesn't have near the vitriol. They won't get it, either unless he really, really fucks up. And he hasn't done that yet.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20031111/s/r3666958546.jpg

And don't give me that bullshit about the war on terror, we have alienated plenty of our allies and I'm currently hearing plenty of warnings and hoping to God there's no massive attack on NYC or Washington (where almost all my friends live) because Bush couldn't be bothered to secure the ports and the incoming cargo because funds that should have gone to the f(&king Department of Homeland Security were used to start a unilateral war in Iraq that is now another front in the war on terror because - guess what - we made it one.

not anything scandalous, but is this true? some of my friends and i were wondering if we could get someone fired just for wearing trousers, and start a big fuss about it.

Taxes are lower across the board. The heinous dividend tax is on the way out. The Bushies have pushed hard to eliminate the death tax, which is good. The economy is improving rapidly, and considering Bush was handed an economy that was not only contracted but crushed from the events of 9/11, it's pretty amazing. That one thing--the economy--is a very large thing. And it's fundamentally better now than January 2001 when he took office. I sympathize with your relatives, your friends, and other citizens who have had to endure a relatively rough period, but things are getting better and it is very reasonable to assume that this trend will continue.

But that's just general economic terms. Personally, I think Bush wasted billions on steel tariffs, the Farm bill, and education.

I really don't know about the war on terror, actually. I think the concept is probably good but the execution has been far fetched. Going to Afghanistan was the right thing to do, obvious as it was. Going to Iraq was probably the right thing to do but the timing was probably rushed and the execution has been predictably average. Bush's amibition in foreign affairs has been admirable but he's been mediocre in his performance.

What I'm pointing out here is that all of my liberal buddies on ILX see the world through a very, very narrow lens. As much as the liberals of the world like to declare themselves open minded, they tend to only see political solutions and problems through their own set of ideals. And this myopia is going to cause plenty of heartbreak in November 2004 if it continues.

The reason is this: I grew up conservative and many, if not most of my friends are that way. Most of these people loathed Clinton and thought everything he did was wrong, they thought he didn't accomplish anything, and they were constantly amazed that anyone would want to vote for him once, let alone twice. They were positively mystified that our citizens thought Clinton did even one good thing for the country unless the Republican congress was forcing him (i.e. welfare reform, balancing the budget.) And when he started porking the help, my conservative pals thought the country would finally wake up.

But they were very, very wrong. As much as I deplored the massive attack Clinton led on liberty, his love of high taxes, his lying, his disregard for women, his massive ego, his aquiescence on foreign affairs, and other minor points, I always realized that most people thought he was an okay guy. Most people realized that Clinton was doing his best, and the guy was blessed with a rising economy and Republican congress that stood in the way of anti-growth initiatives. So despite his failures, Clinton survived.

And frankly, most of the vitriol being line-manufactured towards Bush is very, very reminiscent of what was thrown at Reagan. It's done in the same condescending manner: "Bush is awful! He lies! He doesn't care about the poor! He only cares about the rich! He caters to the greedy! He's destroying the environment! He's dim! He's going to blow up the world! We are losing all our allies! All he cares about is the military" It's all hyperbole and worse, it's fucking closed minded. And it's the same conceptual playbook all the Clinton haters used, the same playbook Bush 1 haters used, etc.

There are many reasons to despise Bush and his policies. But the left in America is so myopic about it that they fail to see the big picture.

Think about this: what is it that 50% of the country likes so much about Bush? I realize most of you ILXer's think that 50% must be a bunch of rich, retarded assholes. But as long as you keep that opinion, you're missing out. Step out of your little insulated world and try to understand your fellow citizens.

Oh, I know. You've tried to understand these people before and they just don't "get it." They won't listen, all they care about is a nice car, a summer home, and whatever Jesus just said. You've tried to show these people statistics and facts depicting how much Bush has destroyed the environment and they dismiss it with a bunch of "phony innuendo" conjured by "big business." You've tried to show people that Bush lied about the war, he's lied about so many things, and if they'd just read the New Yorker, the Guardian, the New York Times, Salon, and everything Michael Moore and Paul Krugman have published, then these crazy wingnuts would finally see the light. You've told these right wingers that the evidence is everywhere, and if they'd take time to study the FACTS that they wouldn't be so closed minded, and, well, fascist about everything.

But if somehow, someplace, you meet someone who thinks Bush is doing an adequate job, maybe you'll learn something about why it's so damn hard to fire a president. It's a monumental task, and once again, I submit to you: if the economy isn't shit, then it's much, much harder to accomplish. And right now, the economy isn't shit.

xpost

it is possible to turn this around. i do not understand why you say that people are unable to understand why 50% would vote for bush because they are blinded by myopia. is it possible that others are not able to understand why 50% wouldnt vote for bush because they are blinded by another myopia?

2. america does not have a left.

3. clintons great success was foreign policy. however, i believe this success to be a chimera, it was merely presented better

4. i think you are almost right when you say that the economy is the main arbiter. i dont, however, believe that the state of the economy is what matters in elections, it is the perception of the state of the economy that matters. this is something the economy shares with crime. it doesnt matter if things are going well if you dont believe they are, or you do not feel secure

5. i can easily believe bush will win the next election. while this may be problematic for the civil liberties of american citizens, it might have the continued positive effect of driving a further wedge between america and europe. i believe this to be a good thing for europe, although i dont believe britain will feel the benefit of this, because britain is unable to decide where its future lies, (despite proclomations of undying subservience to america)

6. i dont believe it is helpful to attack bush for being dumb (whether he is actually dumb is a whole other question, and not as clear cut as people seem to think).

7. the 'left' in america need to pick a candidate with the personality skills. politics is image not issue. another gore would be ridiculuous. clinton was good for the democrats for the precise reason bush is good for the republicans, because it exasparates the opposition that the general public continue to like them, no matter their perceived errors/wrongdoing

9. where are the anti-central govt people these days? is the anti-washington brigade something left behind in the 90s? when will that surface again? will it happen with the next democrat president, or could that arise more prominently during a 2nd bush term? how will the republicans deal with this type of criticism from the right?

10. for a right wing party, the republicans (inc the 'business' wing) seem curiously un-laissez-faire, when it comes to war, as well as protectionist economics. in the uk it has usually been the Labour government that has pursued foreign crusades and adventures?

choice =
i. non-big govt, isolationist and gated america defending against a chaotic and resentful world focused on america as its desired goal AND its hated foe
vs
ii. orderly global empire and VERY BIG GOVT INDEED

international free market requires both at once, hence coming crunch

(also free market demand all kinds of carriage networks and tranmission systems they are unable effectively to privide for themselves, cz if allowed to spring up ad hoc these are inherently wasteful and tangled and non-compatible: the golden age of free markets past always depended on prior creation of such system in more [slightly more] rational form, via projects established by imperial bureaucratic state centralisms like rome or britain or wherever...)

(this dialectic i think remains inescapable: imperial bureaucratic state centralisms were obv v.poor on other stuf and invariably collapse)

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oliphant/vc007260.jpg

My point, convoluted and riddled with ego as it is, is that the swing vote is not polarized like the fringes of the left and right. The swing vote, which is the deciding vote, has a very difficult time firing a president. The swing vote has to be convinced by the obvious that he or she must be fired--things of great, uncontestable magnitude must be present. Bush's record on the economy is clearly mixed--he's weathered a rather rough spell, but there is not convincing evidence that a) it was his fault b) that he has done nothing about it or c) that the economy has become demonstratively worse. Same with Iraq--he clearly had the will of the majority that going in was probably the right thing to do. The public is skeptical about how things are turning out, but no one thinks that something shouldn't have been done; it's more a question of timing and execution. Thus, on the two biggest issues of this election (economy and war), there is no incontravertible evidence that Bush was a major fuckup. Ergo, the swing vote is highly unlikely to fire him.

I wish, wish, wish, that someone would credibly attack Bush for his enormous increase in the size of government and his steady erosion of civil rights. But who's going to do that credibly? The Democratic Party? That's laughable. The Republicans have proven since 1994 that they are just as bad as the previous 40 years of Democratic lawmaking.

But the main problem with someone attacking Bush on issues of liberty isn't credibilty or the total hypocrisy of it all. It's that Americans don't give a shit. Americans have overwhelmingly voted for some nebulous concept of "security" as more important than liberty. Americans don't care if search/seizure laws are much more Draconian under Clinton and Bush than ever before. Americans don't care if wiretapping and other frightening forms of snooping are now easier than ever before. They don't care that the imperial federal government can steal their land, their property, and their identity. Americans think it's a fair tradeoff for "security". Americans would rather not deal with such pesky issues as their retirement or saving for a rainy day; they'd rather the government handle that "security" for them. And they're more than happy to trade off freedom for that.

From a purely local perspective, Bush's steel tarrifs have benefitted northeast Ohio. NE Ohio votes Democrat like it drinks beer (early and often) so to have Bush go the steel mill and say 'I was responsible for this' can be pretty a powerful message.

Additionally, the amount of government spending increased even with the supposedly tight fisted Republicans originating and signing off on every spending bill. And that's redistributive. Not to mention the discretionary spending Clinton as president authorized, not to mention the discretionary spending Clinton-appointed officials enjoyed while they headed various regulatory bodies.

Furthermore, while the Democrats may not be the explicit party of the left, they are it's main avenue.

although is there an ironic-socialist angle that could argue that an increased budget on defence and arms is actually contributory to a nebuluous idea of equal 'security' for all? ;)

From this perspective, Bush never met a spending increase he didn't like.

ie when the poor are taxed to the benefit of the rich

So what do you do, you nationalise the health care system, some things are too precious to be left to the market. Doctors remain wealthy, they'd never agree otherwise but you clear out the profit motive, you clear out all the money from the system that is about making more money for the HMOs and insurance companies. You make healthcare cheaper for the nation and work for the nation. Sure the problem is how to organise the enormous bureaucracy that inevitability results, the last 20 years of health policy have been about how to reorganise the UK's NHS.

Once you have removed the burden of bad health from the poorer sections of society you have a far more productive working class .... profit. Naturally the rich pay more because they pay more taxes but then they disproportionately gain from a more productive society, if you want to see it in those terms. If you want to see it in humanist/socialist terms then you have a working class freed from the oppression of ill health and a fear of the doctor's bill. Clintons plan, even at it's strongest, failed because it tried to work within the profit driven system.

In a mostly capitalist country, how is this not a good thing? If not much money is being made, the field of medicine becomes a lot less attractive in terms of research, practitioners, etc. How does that help society?

Another thing I get kind of confused by is going after Bush for expanding the Federal Government. To me, Homeland Security and federal screeners at airports are not that far from increased defense spending, which we have always expected the Republicans.

Objectively, Bush, as a person, does not demonstrate anything exceptional. His business career is one defined by corporate cronyism (I'll assert that many "great" business careers involve a lot of this though). His political career is similar, exploiting pre-existing family ties. His academic acheivements- he went to Yale and Harvard B school, and while I'm envious, I doubt that this was the result of any scholarly merit. Mind, I don't believe he's a moron. But his communication skills are embarassing to me as a citizen-- after seeing Blair speak, watching Bush is like watching a wind-up monkey clang little cymbals. I give him the benefit of the doubt as far as "what would he be like at a cocktail party," though I generally dislike the "type" that I suspect him to be. I find him to be, despite his privilege, extraordinarily vulgar. Hmm. I mean that in a bad way. Patrician noblesse oblige, when come, bring pie.

The secret of his success seems to be he is just some kind of money-power nexus, and I'm sure that is a talent in itself.

To discredit his regular guy persona would seem to be easy. But all the dems that might have the ability are pretty compromised themselves. Maybe they need someone significant willing to martyr himself-- just let him be the target, give him the dough and let him rip. Maybe Gore. Have him moderate a debate so it's on TV, and have him be anything but moderate. Flightsuit "Mission Accomplished" pics EVERYWHERE, explanations of Harken, the real TX education legacy, trading Sosa, whatever. It's a tragedy to me that I think this strategy might be necessary, because there are BETTER reasons to turn this administration out than that Bush is a cockfarmer.

I think something will have to go TERRIBLY wrong for Bush not to be re-elected, and I think that is possible.

what do you mean by this, charlton? that america does not have the same kind of left that england has?

wait that didn't come out right

Wearing his fundamentalist religion on his sleeve. Projecting the image of a folksy guy in fat-cat Washington (just ignore Cheney and the other operatives behind that curtain). Being reviled by the "liberal media" (even a bigger myth than the notion that Hussein has direct ties to Al Qaida, but the right has succeeded in planting that meme in a large portion of the U.S. population).

(x-post)

I've been somewhat disappointed in the seeming political opportunism of many of the Democratic candidates when it comes to taking a position on Bush's Iraq policy. I refer specifically to their positions on the $87 billion aid package.
I'm not sure what to say on this one. I was disgusted that many Dems' reaction was to try and make $20 bil a loan to Iraq, which is a terrible idea - on the other hand, I doubt the reconstruction is being done in a very efficient manner (Halliburton gas prices? building a museum? etc) and think better ways should have been found to demand accountability for where exactly this money was spent. I do want to see more vision and more clear plans for resolving this mess - and less criticism - from the Democratic candidates, but I see that it can be terribly politically risky, simply because the situation on the ground is always changing and a plan that looks viable this week can appear totally wrongheaded next week..

I think the vision is there for the Bush team, in terms of wanting a democracy established (or preferably, a representative republic) in the Middle East and Iraq being a logical place to make a go of it.

But I just don't see how anyone could sell this as something that will take generations to implement. I don't see how anyone could sell this as something less than a decades long project, an enormous investment of time, money, and lives. Iraq is surrounded by the enemies of freedom, people who have always hated America, people who have always hated Christians and Jews, people whose cultures have always been basically military theocracies at best. We're trying to democratize an entire culture, a volatile region, and wipe out thousands of bad guys at the same time. Not only has this never been done before, the US and the UN haven't been able to do it on a much smaller scale--we can easily name off countries that are still a mess for similar reasons and we've had a military presence there for decades.

The way I see it, the only way to make Iraq work in the short term (less than 5-10 years) is to colonize the joint. I'm not advocating it, just saying it seems like the most stable, reliable way.

And as for offering an endgame--no one out there is speaking the truth: it's going to take a huge military presence and hundreds of billions of dollars to stabilize that region. There's only one believable plan--more money and more military and more committment.

Some people think that only a complete victory by one side is the only thing that will change the Middle East. You really can't complete victory unless you're willing to basically colonize...think how long the US had to be in Japan and Germany (and all the other places we have active military bases) just to bring about some semblance of stability. And both of those places didn't have to deal with an entrenchment of conflict that is thousands of years and thousands of generations old.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that there was never any way to have an end game in mind when going into Iraq. There simply wasn't one possible, other than an idealist's wonderland. And while the threat of terror and the need to try to control the escalating capabilities of terrorists is a credible reason to want to take action, I'm just not sure that a solution is even possible unless the entirety of the world was focused on changing the Middle East. And that was never ever going to happen, no matter who was President.

This is what scares me about reelecting Bush - he's got people advising him who make policy and start unilateral wars because they're blinded by ideology. I don't think it's going to stop with Iraq, either. Have you heard the possiblity being floated that the draft might be reinstated? Is Syria next?

Germany and France could never sustain long term, significant committment; Western Europe is balkanized the way it is. Look at the EU--as mighty as the future could be, cultural divides and political gamesmanship are keeping it comparatively unstable. Now, imagine throwing the prospect of an all-consuming Middle East effort into that mix...it's just not going to happen.

Finally, "seriously" engaging in the Israel-Palestine conflict is the biggest quagmire of all. "Seriously" engaging the Nobel Prize for Peace winner Arafat has gotten the past two administrations exactly nothing. Should we be engaged? Yes. But again, it doesn't seem all wrong to think that there is never going to be some sort of diplomatic solution for a war that is thousands of years old unless someone wins that war. The only way peace is going to be brokered is if that peace is going to be enforced--who exactly gets the privilege of that duty? We all know the answer to that--the U.S. And how long do you think that the American citizens are going to stand by and watch our kids get blown to bits by the entirety of the Arab terrorism world should some sort of "deal" be brokered with Israel and the Palestinians? The answer is not very long, especially if we don't have a 9/11 to blame our presence there on. If the world takes on the Arabs, then the point country will be the US. And yet that is the only endgame for the US getting into the conflict with both feet.

And while I am scared for many things Bush does, I'm just as scared of him as anyone else that gets the job. All pols are blinded by their ideology and their love of absolute power. We saw it with Clinton, a reckless guy in his personal life and often in his political life, and we're seeing it with Bush.

And Western Europe is probably more stable politically and economically than it's been since the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648, maybe even more so.

Think about what Europe was like for the first half of the 20th century!

You might as well say "well the US has waaaaay too much on its plate to bother invading a country that has nothing to do with radical Islamic terrorism, what with the other pressing concerns it's got!" Well Bush invaded anyway. And funny, his folks certainly ACTED as if they wanted more people on board.

I wonder why you like talking about world events so much - you don't seem to know too much about them.

Otherwise it seems like you and daria g agree - Iraq is a big f'in problem with no solution in sight.

First, contrary to your post, I rarely post about world events on ILE. There are probably less than five in the past few years. So I don't know where that came from, but if that's how you assess my knowledge of world events, then I have to assume you're confusin me with someone else.

Secondly, the roots of the "Current" Israeli-Palestinian conflict are much older than 60 years (consider the impact and context of the Balfour Delcaration in 1917, for example.) Yes, I realize it was explicitly the creation of Israel as a state that is the modern source of problems, but to ignore what came before that takes away a significant amount of context in my book.

Thirdly, your criticism of my comments regarding Western Europe conveniently leave out my qualifier of "comparatively." I will leave it at that, other than to reiterate that comparatively, the interests of the EU countries are still far too disparate economically and politically to mount an ideological war in the interest of stabilizing the Middle East.

Finally, you assert that Iraq has "has nothing to do with radical Islamic terrorism." I don't quite know how you formulate this opinion based on facts, but I disagree with it.

I think there were several legitimate reasons to invade Iraq. I'm just not convinced there was any way to ever "win", given the global political situation and the amount of resources required.

There were very few islamic terrorists in Iraq before the US invaded. Now it's full of them because it's now crawling with targets. Saddam did a pretty good job of keeping the Islamists down with his repressive state mechanisms, and shaping Islam to his own needs as a leader. There was never any evidence of Saddam being involved with Al'Quaeda although he has supported the families of Islamist suicide bombers in Palestine, a deplorable act but one undertaken for his own anti- israeli and internal propaganda reasons. The only significant Islamist terrorist presence in Iraq, Ansar al-Islam, was actively opposing the Ba'athist government and the Kurdish government and is now presumably opposing the coalition occupation.

And besides Terrorism was not the reason war was prosecuted in Iraq, war was prosecuted because Iraq was in violation of Gulf War 1 cease fire agreements, UN resolutions etc., relating to the Iraqi production of Weapons of Mass destruction, for which no evidence has yet been found nor is likely to be found. Although the US government always linked the war in Iraq to the war on terror, it never was explicitly and to do so now, only further exposes the Illegality of the War as prosecuted.

there isn't a single regime in the middle east which predates the retreat of the british and/or french empires: a vast proportion of the problems date back not into "time immemorial" but to clumsily and ignorantly (and racistly) imposed euro-colonial "solutions", especially that nastiest of Roman imperial legacies, divide and rule

the american solution to happiness, liberty, property etc etc comes with its own built-in civil war between federal union and individual states, remember: not to mention its own founding anti-colonial violence - the generalised extension of this polity cannot but re-ignite one if not both, in the colonised space and then back home

= the us civil war arose partly bcz there was no other way to decide whether the "new states" wd operate under a pro-slavery or an anti-slavery reading of the us constitution (to decide either way wz to rig the vote in yr own direction, since the new state immediately became a voter on the issue)

consider the un constitution as one "reading" of the us constitution (which in several ways it clearly is, including the fact of its existence); the us-as-justified-coloniser-liberator as another reading of the constitution (in which "liberated" nations like iraq become in effect the 53rd or whateverth state, with ALL THE POSSIBLE LIBERTARIAN STATES RIGHTS freedoms that entails)

can this be resolved without the Civil War of the World? (and is bush lincoln or jefferson davis?)

ie the ordinarily valid distinction between local and international is become radically blurred: i think this blurring wz historically inevitable, tho i dislike the form it's taken

BUT the establishment and pursuit of this re-elctable persona has led him to a place where he must (simultaneously) claim to be able to bring resolution to the knottiest cultural-political problems, which - even if not genuinely thousand-year-old in *essence* are nevertheless rich in eloquent partisan pseudoscholars on all sides who will invoke obfuscatory thousand-year-old aspects to pursue their side of the case

ie he needs to continue to be "just an ordinary bloke like you" *but* an "ordinary bloke" with the somewhat unordinary wisdom and patience and evenhandedness and practical detailed ingenuity of solomon/confucius/[insert mandarin genius here] - and this is just to pursue his own vision of himself and the future

unlike gump, he never went to vietnam

haha who was prez when "being there came out?"

The biggie before Dubbya was, of course, Ronald Reagan. Reagan came along at just the right time for the Republicans. He was an ex-actor (clearly, not that good but serviceable and one that made the transition to TV, hosting a series that made him a lot of money)...at the time, many Americans were desperate to quell the memories of the historical realities of Vietnam, Watergate, the Iranian hostage situation coupled with the failed rescue attempt and double digit inflation. So Ronnie comes in smiling about the American dream (as much energy as you want and 3 cars in every garage) and talking tough about the Commies and convinces everyone that everything is alright. When 254 Marines get slaughtered in Lebanon, he changes the subject by attacking Greneda. After Carter gets reamed for allowing hostages to be taken by Iran, Reagan watches over the plan to fund the illegal war against the government of Nicaragua by selling missles to Iran. And when the Soviet Union collapses, Ronnie is given the credit by his followers and Gorbie is not mentioned as a player. Ronnie makes up his past, including his WWII escapades, sleeps in important strategy sessions and still leaves the WH, essentially a beloved figure.

Bush is a different story. When he takes over, Americans are in good shape economically. They are, however, still reeling over their own sense of puritanical morality. It's ok for the government to lie about wars and money connections....but NOT about sex. So while the majority of Americans did not want Clinton to be impeached over the blowjob, it still embarrassed them. And Bush, with all his families questionable financial dealings with oil and their unspoken relationship with the Saudi royal family, was squeaky clean on the sex front (hell, his wife is a librarian, for Christ's sake)....so, while most people think he DID lie about why we went into Iraq, they STILL think it was a good idea, as long as we get out quickly and without too many billions lost.

We Americans ARE a strange breed. A good shrink could spend a lifetime studying the collective American psyche.

um, what?

oh sorry wrong thread again

Since I've mentioned this several times in posts recently, I believe it is time for me to do a little research and find out my source of that information. I'd swear it was one of the few times the media actually publicized such Reaganisms, albiet never to follow up on them.

Well Mark, I WILL answer your commentary about librarians. Actually, I think they are a stellar bunch and if I wasn't so old, I'd think of making that a new career (I'd need to get a degree in library science and I'm not sure I'm ready to be a 57 year old freshman)....

Anyway, I WAS suggesting that librarians do have a general reputation as being squeaky clean, the antithesis of ole Bill C. It kind of balanced Dubbya's early problems with substance abuse. Actually, now that I think of it, the generalized picture of librarians could make for a neat porno fetish......"Lewd Librarians"....or "Lewd Lesbian Librarians".....I once went to the local library back before they developed their computer system to allow customers instant access to their account. I asked her what I had on order and she began reading off the titles of cd's I was waiting for....here she was, a woman probably 10 years younger than me but seemingly one who'd missed the entire rock n roll generation reading off titles by the likes of the Butthole Surfers, etc. It sounded so incongruous I began to laugh. Not just the way she read them but the fact that I found the notion that I, in my mid-fifties, actually wanted to listen to that shit.

"The legacy left by Bill Clinton ensures that the character of the president plays an important role for voters — and it will for some time to come."
"What do we have with Bush in office? We have honesty, for one thing. Honesty and a whole lot more integrity than we've had in the White House for a long time."

His Policies Aside, Many Voters Back the Personality in Chief
For Bush supporters in a Missouri town, it's not the issues that will count in 2004, it's character.

By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer

CLAYTON, Mo. — The nine Democrats vying for the presidential nomination make the case at every campaign stop that the nation needs fresh leadership. But millions of voters aren't about to consider that.

With a year to go until the election, a solid core of Americans emphatically back George W. Bush for a second term — no matter who else is on the ballot. They approve of his conservative values. Mostly, though, they admire his character.

Simply put: They trust him.

"Even if I don't line up with him exactly on all his policies, I want a president who stands up for what he believes in," said Robert Koerper, 44, a restaurant owner. "You always know where he's coming from. That's the kind of leader I want."

Such responses are not unique to this city of 16,000. National polls conducted in recent weeks have found a majority of Americans skeptical about the president's actions on such pivotal issues as taxes, the economy, health care, social security, foreign affairs and the war in Iraq. Still, about 55% say they approve of the way Bush has handled the presidency overall.
[...]
In fact, when measuring Bush's performance issue by issue, many voters found much to gripe about.

They complained that he gives too many tax breaks to the rich. That he alienates allies abroad. That he is paying far too dear a price, in blood and billions, in the occupation of Iraq.

Still, all but a few said they want him back in the Oval Office for four more years.

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=REAGAN-SCHROEDER-06-09-04&cat=WW

"After carefully watching Ronald Reagan, I can see he's attempting a great breakthrough in political technology," Schroeder said then when she was a Democratic representative from Colorado. "He has been perfecting the Teflon-coated presidency. He sees to it that nothing sticks to him. He is responsible for nothing."

The "Teflon president" label stuck around, but the line didn't have the effect Schroeder intended.

"I was hoping people would say, 'Yes, he is commander in chief, he should be responsible,' " Schroeder said Wednesday. "Instead people said, 'Yes, that is a Teflon coat. How do I get one of those.' "