Hi Bob,

Thank you for your insightful piece. Speaking for myself and people I know around me, I can say that I have scandal fatigue. The Bush Administration has done so much evil so quickly and forcefully that I can't figure out where to start. Every time I pick one issue, another one comes along and prevents me from acting effectively on the first. Why bother protesting Iraq when I know people's votes are being stolen and opponents of the war will never be counted?

We don't have a national discussion on important issues because the Bush and the Republicans don't want one. They do what they want to do and they don't care what Americans think. So, they twist the facts, attack the opposition, offer false choices, set up straw men, parse words, catapult the propaganda, use phony terror alerts, slander and libel good people, and spin, spin away. Now they're even repeating bin Laden's own propaganda and stating it as fact. They do this because all they care about is creating confusion and chaos so they can do what they want, no questions asked. If voters knew the contempt Republicans have for the American people and our democracy, there would be no Republican party.

Hi David,

You wrote an interesting article today. I appreciated your insights on Bush's personality. As someone who grew up with an alcoholic parent, I recognize Bush's behavior all too well. He wants to stand back making grandiose pronouncements and leave the dirty work to others. That way, when things don't work out, he can claim his idea was valid, but other people let him down. Of course he's always being let down by others... but isn't it wonderful how he accepts other people's lack of perfection?

Of course Bush was correct when he said that a way to solve the problem in the Mideast is to turn it from a region of tyrants and poverty into a region of liberal democracy and prosperity. That conclusion would be incredibly obvious to any reasonably aware person. He was wrong to think he could make it happen. The Arabs have to do that for themselves. Or does he think the Arabs haven't bothered to try it on their own? Perhaps they were just sitting there, inert and clueless, waiting for someone to come along and tell them how to fix their culture? Please....

1) He doesn't act like a public servant, instead he treats the American voter like we're his servants.

2) He never answers questions, he just keeps repeating the same talking points.

3) To quote an awesome letter in today's NY Times:
"According to President Bush, the United States and the rest of the world are now locked in ideological warfare for decades to come that includes weapons of mass destruction with no mutually assured destruction mechanism as a deterrent.
Is there any possible worse outcome?"

That exact outcome was bin Laden's stated objective. Why is Bush allowing bin Laden to frame and, therefore, win this conflict?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0619/p09s01-coop.html

Max Boot's column comparing the foreign policies of Truman and Bush misses the real questions: "Was Truman successful in his prosecution of the Cold War?" And "Are there any lessons Bush could learn from Truman's approach?" Answering those two questions would be helpful, whereas comparing the multilateral nature of their respective foreign policies really reads as lame rationalization for Bush's approach: "See... I'm no worse than Truman, and people liked him."

Some think that Truman's approach to the Cold War (i.e. high military preparedness, strict containment, and active confrontation) would have bankrupted the country and/or started a general war had it continued under Eisenhower. Truman's approach was inflexible, doctrinaire, and costly. Defense spending under Truman approached 20% of GNP. It led America into armed conflicts, like in Korea, where our national interest was not directly involved. Truman treated the Cold War primarily as a military confrontation.

Mr. Chinni,

Thank you for soliciting feedback. I hope what I have to share will be useful.

Something I find disturbing is how much of our national news media, including the Monitor, tends to boil complex issues down to two opposing sides, rather than looking at the broader concerns of those in the middle. The problem with this approach is that it emphasizes extreme views and often legitimizes them. Worse, it is easily manipulated by those with ulterior motives.

There was an example of this recently in the Monitor's coverage of Gay Marriage. The author carefully represented the views of Gay Rights advocates, of legal experts, and of a Ms. Gallagher, who represented some "family" organization opposed to Gay Marriage. There was a quote in the article that I found telling and disturbing....

Friends, progressives, Democrats, Americans, our nation is facing an unprecedented crisis. This crisis is made up of a few little crises, which are converging and have the potential to permanently cripple America. These little crises fall under three headings... fiscal, global, and political. Each of these crises, taken in isolation, could hurt American power, but, taken in combination, they have the potential to bring chaos, disorder, and untold misery to the human race.

The first of these crises is the fiscal one. The Bush administration, following Grover Norquist's edict to "starve the beast," created this crisis. In 2000, they cut taxes in an attempt to force the federal government to shrink through starvation of funds. Their political calculus said that the best way to fulfill their hidden agenda of shrinking government was to cause a fiscal crisis and then simply respond to the groundswell of public outrage by cutting government services.

Why is gas so expensive?

I don't need to tell anyone reading this that gas prices are through the roof right now. The big questions are "why?" and "how do we fix this?"

Well, according to many of the talking heads in TV land, the issue is basically one of supply and demand. The world demand for oil is at an all-time high, while the production remains constant. In other words, there's an oil shortage.

Another explanation is that our refining capacity, damaged by hurricane Katrina, is only operating at 80% capacity and there is, in fact, a shortage of gas. They usually like to add that no new refineries have been built in decades due to pesky environmental regulations.

How's this?

The Republican Party is the party of angry, screeching women who can't get a man, control freaks who are hiding the skeletons in their closets, white collar criminals who belong in jail, religious fanatics who belong in Iran, and losers who need a life.

I sent this to David Brooks in response to his opinion piece today in the Times... I can't post the original, because it's premium content... :-(

Hi David,

A note on Dubai and why their government should be banned from direct investment in the USA... Dubai allows slavery and exploitation of children, as young as 4, who are abducted or purchased from South Asia and forced to jockey in camel races. If we put sanctions on South Africa for apartheid, then the least we could do is keep Dubai from trading with us, right? Child slavery is totally unacceptable, right??

I seldom agree with you. In the case of Hillary and the ports deal, I have to agree with your assessment of her character. She's not presidential material. I also agree that McCain or Warner or Hegel would be better choices. Speaking as a Democrat and an activist, I think it likely that one of those three will end up being President in '08... especially if we can get a Democrat Congress. Personally, I miss the days of ticket-splitting.

I wrote a response to this author and it seems a pertinent rejoinder to what what I've seen and heard here and in the world...

The article... http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/06/02/25_timidity.html

My response....

The counter-argument is that if Bush is a true fascist, which I believe to be the case, then it might be helpful to look at what happened to the opposition groups in Nazi Germany as Hitler took power. Basically, Hitler was brought in as Chancellor (Prime Minister) heading a center-right/Nazi coalition government, with Paul von Hindenburg as President. The folks on the center-right reached out to the Nazis because it allowed them to keep the communists out of a coalition with the left. The center-right folks thought that they could invite Hitler into power and that he would become more moderate once faced with the real necessities and burdens of governing. They thought they could tame him.