Quote:
Originally posted by MuadDib
Man, all the candidates are leaders and most of them are good ones. Any of the democrats has a better foreign policy and all have actual PLANS for the WOT and Iraq. I can't fathom how people can vote for someone based more off an event than the politicians character, policies, or agenda. Honestly, any yahoo could do what Bush is doing now, what we need is some real leadership. Not to mention Bush has not acted outside of the popularity polls even once! I don't know where people get this idea that he takes stands on bold and contraversial issues. While it is true he takes unwaivering stands (which I would say is a ridiculous thing), it is also true that he has never made a bold stand without at least a majority (usually at least a 60% majority)of the Americans polled behind him. He is not a good leader, but he happens to be it for now. As the president and leader of this country in a time of some crisis he deserves a certain amount of respect simply because of the office that he holds (legitimately gotten or not) however it shouldn't go so far as meaning he deserves anyones vote because of it.
|
Bush has done things on his own schedule from the beginning. He took his time before entering Afghanistan when America was calling for instant blood, he went into Iraq without the "world" coalition and UN approval everyone was wanting.
To think anyone could do what he's doing is ridiculous. To point to the candidate's foreign policy plans as superior is misguided at best. They are, besides being incomplete, wholly untested and some are almost certain to lead to increased turmoil.
Certainly, to each his own, but to point to the entire field of Democratic Presidential hopefuls as leaders is unrealistic. Some have shown quite a bit of leadership the majority have not.