I realize Bush gave approximately the same answer in one of the debates. I am a former teacher. I encourage young people to do just as you said--go to community college.

The problem is that education is at best a long range solution. Going back to school or to school for adults, especially if they are unemployed, is difficult. Although tuition is relatively inexpensive there are other expenses--books, supplies, transportation and perhaps child care.

Lantern your posts exposes conservatism for what it-- a brutal regurgitation of Social Darwinism. I have nothing against people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, but first they must have bootstraps.


Social Darwinism Link

There is nothing compassionate about Bush's brand of conservatism and he certainly hasn't been a leader on domestic affairs. In fact, he has been an abject failure when it comes to implimenting "compassionate conservatism," whatever that means.

What's your definition of a leader? Giving the bank to the U.N.? Parental permission from the U.N. on everything we do. Putting your hands up in the air and waving the white flag of cowardice? Leading wasn't getting 30 nations to defeat terrorism that most of your democrats agreed upon, including Kerry? Who happens not to even show up for work at the security commission.
I am not against the U.N. as I see it as a necessary entity like several but never do you give up the store altogether. Take a look at the Kyoto agrrement that Clinton signed. It was defeated in the senate 98 0. So what does that tell you of his policies of giving up our nation sovernty.
Is it wrong the China, The U.S and a few other larger nations to opt out of this agreement? Is this non-debatable? You don’t sign everything that comes your way without checking on it first and I certainly don’t agree with Kerry about installing all of the 911 commission suggestions completely without proper inspection of the report. This shows complete irresponsibility This commission for “recommendation” purposes only, not as a dictate to the executive branch or presidency.



I still don't find a substantive excuse here. Nothing is worth getting unless it's worked for. Good things only come with experience and time. Do you suggest we create a "pamper nation" type of welfare state? What are your solutions for giving people a head start in life? Your argument smacks of social engineering.

If you can breathe and go to the bathroom you definitely have "bootstarps"

I was addressing domestic leadership in the portion of my post you quoted. Then you go into a long tirade on foreign affairs with loaded questions and emotionally charged words like "cowardice," waving the white flag."

I have no idea where to even begin in answering you, but I will say that you seem to have accepted the Fox News or Rush Limbaugh version of John Kerry without question.

1) Is consistency equivalent to strong leadership (i.e. not "flip-flopping")?

That is not so easy to pin down. However, blind adherence to policies that are obviously misguided is certainly not a sign of leadership that could be described by anything outside of poor or lacking.


2) There must be more than one quality that makes Bush a "strong leader" so now, with no reference to Bush's consistency, are there other factors that make Bush a "strong leader."

Belief. I truly feel that President Bush strongly believes in his positions. Believing in one's self or one's goals is a vital component of leadership.


3) If not "strong" how would you describe Bush's "leadership"?

Lacking. To lead you must maintain credibility. To maintain credibility you must face up to and address mistakes when you make them. President Bush seems incapable of seeing faults in his actions. That is worse then lacking leadership, it is dangerous when you consider his position.


4) If Bush can be a "strong leader," how does his "strength" of leadership compare to Past presidents, or historical figures like Martin Luther King or Mandela?

How many other elected world leaders can you think of who so stubbornly refused to see fault in any decision they made? I don't see how Bush can rank very high on the list when you consider that issue.


5) Is Bush's strength only a charade of talking points and manipulated public opinion? What affect does the "strong leadership" phrase have when it is iterated through every speech, flyer and presentation on FNC?

The Presidents chief failing is blind adherence to policies even in the face of their ultimate failure or even a better solution. The Republicans are attempting to show this as "Consistency" because Senator Kerry is so terribly inconsistent. If President Bush passes for a "Strong Leader" in the hearts and minds of Americans then I am very worried about the future of our country.

A Strong leader, more then anything else MUST do two things:

Lead by example and Address mistakes, take ownership of them, and correct them.

President Bush gets moderate mention in the lead by example category, but he scores a solid F in the handling of mistakes and missteps.

I am not one for quoting Politicians on the Campaign trail and I am certainly no fan of Senator John Kerry's. However, this statement rang pretty true to me.



I am reminded of the old Wendy's Restaurant Ads, only this time its: Where's the Reforms?

1) Is consistency equivalent to strong leadership (i.e. not "flip-flopping")?

Generally, yes, but a leader can change his or her mind on an issue and still be "strong." The more important issue is what motivates the change of position, and the what change signals. For instance, a strong leader shouldn't change his or her core beliefs and driving principles. These include important issues such as national defense. A leader much choose a path that is right and stick to it. Nothing is perfect. If a leader cuts and runs at the first sign of trouble, or wavers, he will never achieve his goal. (The old, "if at first you don't succeed..." mantra.)

Now, as I said, that doesn't mean a strong leader doesn't change his mind. But when such a change is made, it must be for the right reason. Political expediency is NOT the right reason.

Now, I wanted to answer this question without referencing either candidate, but I have to say something about Kerry now. He's been playing the "anybody but Bush" line all campaign long. As part of this strategy, he's been talking out of both sides of his mouth to appeal to everyone who is looking for a reason not to vote for Bush. For instance, if you want a president who will use pre-emptive force, even if not supported by other countries, then John Kerry is your man. If, on the other hand, you want a president who won't use force unless it passes a "global test," than Kerry is your man. How any rational human being cannot see exactly what Kerry has been doing is beyond me. At any rate, it's NOT strong leadership.

2) There must be more than one quality that makes Bush a "strong leader" so now, with no reference to Bush's consistency, are there other factors that make Bush a "strong leader."

I think his plain-spokenness (if that's a word). He's not the most gifted public speaker, but I think many people can relate to him, at least a bit more than his adversary. Kerry seems much more stiff, or uppity, whereas Bush seems more understanding and compassionate.

3) If not "strong" how would you describe Bush's "leadership"?

I think he's a strong leader.

4) If Bush can be a "strong leader," how does his "strength" of leadership compare to Past presidents, or historical figures like Martin Luther King or Mandela?

That's a tough one. I wasn't around while most of these leaders were in play. If I could compare him to anyone at this point, I'd like to say he reminds me a bit of Reagan. Reagan had the courage to identify evil and confront it. These days, many people minimize the amount of backlash that Reagan experienced, both within and without the U.S., to his strong stance against the Soviets. Winston Churchill was another strong leader that I've read about, who comprehended evil and wasn't afraid to confront it.

5) Is Bush's strength only a charade of talking points and manipulated public opinion? What affect does the "strong leadership" phrase have when it is iterated through every speech, flyer and presentation on FNC?

No. Bush's strength is recognizing the most clear and present danger that we face today -- the prospect that terrorists, who have no regard for their own lives, could acquire and detonate weapons of mass destruction in a major U.S. city. That's the danger that motivated the Iraqi invasion, and it's the danger that must animate our national defense for the foreseeable future. The easy route is to minimize the threat, so that we can enjoy the type of "false peace" that we had in the 1990's. I think that's the place Kerry wants to take us. Unfortunately, it's not in our best interests to do so. Unless we act first to eliminate the threat, before it materializes, the next strike on our soil could be much worse than 9/11.

On this point, check out this Fake Kerry Commercial from Mark Simone.