Name me one single speech that Clinton gave that demonstrated leadership. Are any of his speeches memorable? Most of Bush’s aren’t either, but that one was a defining moment of the post-September 11th need for unity. After 9-11, Bush was inspiring in a way that reminds of Churchill or MLK or Kennedy.

Sure he can’t say “nuclear” but he is the twice elected President of the United States and that speaks volumes about Americans and our idea of leadership. Liberal Elitists want Academics to lead by scaring us of “Global Warming” or “Big Oil”. They want people that are intellectual SOUNDING. Bush has never claimed to be a great mind. He is an average American that loves baseball, apple pie, and hails from Texas. Presidents come in all shapes and sizes, but don’t project your own discontent onto Bush when the Dems have offered up nothing better in the last two elections.

And at least Bush’s “lies” are no where near as intentional or phony as Nancy Pants and Dingy Harry’s campaing promises to drain the swamp and 100 hours. They sure are inspiring leaders aren’t they.

And many of them have been cases of first impression. You can say that the Congress has overreached just as easily as I can disagree, but the courts have never dealt with many of these issues, the founders didn’t specifically anticipate them, and they’re fairly unique historically.

Slavery is taught as the reason the civil war was fought, but Lincoln himself said that “if the war could be ended without a single slave being freed he’d do it.” The slaves were freed to create an insurgency, not for some great humanitarian reason.

Pearl Harbor was incurred when FDR launched an OPEC-like embargo of oil against Japan; FDR wanted to get into the war in 1938, but the America First movement wouldn’t let that happen until Pearl Harbor.

Gulf of Tonkin probably never happened, and if it did it was in the North’s waters.

And Donald Rumsfeld explained that Saddam had weapons because he (Rumsfeld) sold them to Saddam.

This country has a history of going into Justifiable wars for unjustifiable reasons. That will never change because there will always be want to goto war and find reasons that seem right in the moment.

Ron Paul does not think Americans should fight for other nations. Call it being a kook, or call it supporting limited government to a fault. TR once said something to the effect of “100 dead Spaniard aren’t worth the spilled blood of one American.”

The task must be to fight the wars that we end up fighting, in an effective manner to justify the American lives lost.

Another thing I’ve been discussing with pals here: take someone like Paul, eliminate the crazier stuff, ditch the religious right social policy stuff, and me and a whole lot of people would be in play.

Ever head of Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik? It is called the Libertarian Party. And it is filled with nutjobs just like Ron Paul.

But it is also built on the ideals of Milton Friedman about the war on drugs, government spending, government intervention in our lives, school choice, and lower taxes.

Liberty frees us all. Liberals don’t believe in Liberty. They believe that government is the cure not the problem. If you really want to make a statement, join the LP. If on the other hand you value Libertarian Ideas that are free of the Religious Right bias and rooted in Liberty like those that Milton Friedman was all about, there is a certain Presidential Candidate that is likable, charismatic, and supports smaller government and greater personal liberty. A Reagan Republican. Think about switching parties and electing someone that doesn’t need Haldol and Thorazine to control the voices in his head (Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, etc.) and vote for Fred like I plan to.

Leaving Ron Paul out of the equation, you’d like us to take a conservative, make him love socialized medicine, big government and all sorts of other government entitlements (see: turning into a liberal) and suddenly you’d like him?

No – just drop the inane social conservatism. Doing that would probably be a steep political price to pick up some Rockefeller Reps on the coasts, though, so I understand why this isn’t a viable strategy.

I’m one of those jerks that just has to argue. Heck, you should see me on Daily Kos. I’m shocked I haven’t been banned yet, because I do the same basic thing.

Philosophically, I’m a Dem – I don’t especially believe in natural rights as inalienable (particularly property rights), but I’ll generally support them as a matter of politics. That’s where I part company with conservatives, even if I agree on the conslusions (for example: I think the conservative analysis of the fairness doctrine is ridiculous, even though I oppose the fairness doctrine as a matter of policy)

(And sorry for being so long-winded tonight)