Bush actually had a coherent response, seems like one he had in advance.

My guess is that was a softball lobbed by a press corp lackey.

Unless you know you have a name attached to those so called "quotes".

And about W getting in the way, when he finally went to the areas affected by Katrina, Air Relief was grounded.

Hi Aaron,

I'm not going to address the specifics of your post, but the idea behind it.

When do you give your political opponents credit? I don't mean when the roots of their belief tally with yours but when they don't.

My approach is root and branch different from Bush. My axioms that I rest my morality is completely different. Some of our morality turns out to be the same. On two occasions that I have noticed he has risen above Presidents with axioms closer to mine than ever before.

I think the roots of both positions go to his fundamental religious beliefs (note I said fundamental not fundamentalist). He is a Christian and I am not. Since I'm emphasising the religious difference I should say my background is brought up C of E, am by nature strongly Atheist/Agnostic and was a reluctant convert to Buddhism 7 years ago. When I say reluctant I don't mean I was forced into it but that I find it hard to acknowledge a religion as true, struggle with the practice and constantly wrestle with the ideas. Having spent a number of years studying Buddhism I do know what I'm talking about but would hesitate to say my views are representative of Buddhism, they are representative to me. Anyway back to the point.

The first is in concern for Africa. Individual Americans have a philanthropic pattern. Don't get me wrong I want your government to step up and give more in foreign aid, but I acknowledge your low tax regime creates a basis for people to give. That is something that is missing in Europe. High taxes mean less disposable income and so people are less able or inclined to give money away. We give more away than the US in terms of GDP because of state donations but individuals reduce the gap significantly. Africa needs a freeing of protectionism and incentivised debt relief. Bob Geldorf pointed out that Bush has done more for Africa than any other President. Not enough, but still that's not a bad testimonial.

The second area is his inaugural speech. He called for more democracy in Saudi Arabia and other countries. He departed from the usual we'll going along with everything you do as long as you support us. Saudi is a horrible regime and who spoke out against it - Bush. Why has it taken so long - because American Presidents have done what's right for America and not what is just right.

Both of these need to be backed up by future actions. And I'm watching for them.

-----------------------

Ok Aaron,

I think unless you can acknowledge what your "oppenents" do well and do right you really aren't thinking deep enough.

I ask you to point out something good about someone you disagree with. Not a half hearted well they didn't complain about this or that, or a look this supports my ideas - an unabashed this is good and it comes from a direction I don't support. If not you another dedicated Republican. We're not fools on the other side of the fence and you're not either. If you can't see faults in your positions and interesting ideas in others, you're either not understanding what people are saying or not listening. And you're certainly not thinking deeply enough.

sorry, aaron.

we liberals TRY to participate in hive-mind, but it just doesn't work very well for us.

we'd like to never contradict anything any other liberal says, ever.

we're very sorry.

Brit,

I understand that you said you were not going to specifically address Aaron's post, but I think you over-abstracted a little. I don't think Aaron was saying that cons and libs never ever agree on anything, or respect anything about each other.

I know your challenge was to Aaron and not me, but I'll respond to it anyway. Most liberals I know truly mean well (trolls like Um Yeah and certain slimeball politicians aside), they're just misguided or have fundamental misconceptions about the world. Also, I am strongly in support of liberal movements in many countries, Iran for example. However, I think in countries like America, where everyone is free and no one is oppressed and there's not really that much to be upset about, people are liberal for the sake of trying to feel rebellious and often would like to implement policies that are simply wrong (abortion for example).

Just reread that and realized the end wasn't 100% clear - what I meant is that liberals in places like America try to come up with things to change for the sake of feeling like they're changing something, and so try to come up with challenges to a society that's already free. I hope that's an improvement.

>>However, I think in countries like America, where everyone is free and no one is oppressed and there's not really that much to be upset about, people are liberal for the sake of trying to feel rebellious and often would like to implement policies that are simply wrong (abortion for example).

When did we achieve this level of perfection?

>>they're just misguided or have fundamental misconceptions about the world.

I can point several instances in the past 3 or so years where Conservatives on the whole have been dead wrong.

Can you do the same for Liberals?

>>often would like to implement policies that are simply wrong (abortion for example).

... OK Thanks for playing Dick but you are awarded no points.

I didn't say we're perfect. However, we're pretty good. If you want perfection you'll never be happy.

I can point to several instances in the past 3 or so years where Conservatives on the whole (as in the bulk of them) have been dead wrong.

Can you do the same for Liberals?

>>I didn't say we're perfect. However, we're pretty good. If you want perfection you'll never be happy.

You're the person I want to get out of the way while I'm trying to make it a better place.

If you really want to make the world a better place, you should start just about any other place than America...go to Iran and protest against their government or do something about the Darfur situation. What I've been trying to say, perhaps not succinctly, is that as far as problems go, America is a lot better than most places.

">>I didn't say we're perfect. However, we're pretty good. If you want perfection you'll never be happy.

You're the person I want to get out of the way while I'm trying to make it a better place."

....WOW!

That was certainly candid. I wish left politicians would speak as bluntly as Mattk.....then again I wish all politicians would speak bluntly. I suppose that's kind of like Mattk's wish for utopia.

Suffice to say, in no uncertain terms he labels himself an ideological extremist. If you obstruct his perfect utopian vision you best do as he says and get out of his way...If history is any guide, those sorts tend to get violent when things go bad.

>>That was certainly candid. I wish left politicians would speak as bluntly as Mattk.....then again I wish all politicians would speak bluntly. I suppose that's kind of like Mattk's wish for utopia.

Oh get over yourself. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention to their stump speeches, but don't conservatives also run on how they're going to improve things?

>>America is a lot better than most places.

Dick, I mean seriously that does not mean its wrong to be for improving things in OUR OWN country.

Here is another great example of "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't"

http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2005/09/kerrys_katrina_1.html

The president, whom I once supported, could not appear earnest in ‘his’ decision to monitor Rita because of, in part, his laggard response to Katrina. Leadership demands more than perfunctory remarks on the day of Katrina’s wrath. Perhaps a nearly five week vacation was not quite enough to refresh and invigorate.

Many on the left like to quip about his insensitive remark regarding his merrymaking days in New Orleans or his callow attempt at strumming the gift guitar. There have even been insightful, albeit mean-spirited, comments regarding the administration’s dithering in Katrina’s wake. Ironically, for the left, their antipathy for the president only makes their criticism appear as opportunistic as they accuse his Rita-related actions of being.

No, such vitriol misses the point. Despite the administration’s song and dance, the president failed to formulate the Federal government’s effective response to Katrina when politically-connected appointees like Mike Brown were allowed to direct FEMA. What kind of ‘leader’ allows Brown, whose background was bereft of the appropriate experience, to direct such a vital agency? Those lyrics come to mind, “The answer my friend [was] blowing in [Katrina’s] wind.” Furthermore, his ill-advised replies of not pointing the finger and that no one could envision the failure of the levees came across as dismissive. Such flimsy apologia may hold water with his acolytes but surely accountability was better served by correcting FEMA’s abysmal reaction sooner rather than later.

In addition, his Jefferson Square teleprompter recital in front of the nation in Katrina’s wake merely put an explanation point on the contrived responses of a president who appears disconnected. During his recital, one could not help but view the motionless clock in the background and muse that it was a stark metaphor for his ‘leadership’ during this catastrophe: Inert and in the dark.

Still, there are glimmers of hope. The president can learn from this, as too can the local governments; not all of the blame can be pointed at Washington. And it is hoped that a bi-partisan committee will be selected to determine what needs to be improved in the preparation and response for future disasters. After all, this being a non-election year, perhaps the Democrats might be counted on to employ reason and provide sound recommendations. Hmmm, on second thought….