Looking to the Future---- If we survive the next 3 yrs.

It is nice to see you looking ahead.
Does that mean that if the next President is another Rpublican,you will accept that?

Or,will you cry "foul" if you dont like the election results?

Most likely McCain if he runs.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

I think we would be hard pressed to elect a disastrous scumbag idiot like bush again... a republican will be an improvement IMO because I don't consider bushco to be real republicans, I consider them some new dangerous breed of extremists....

I am surprised that you like McCain, McG.

I would gladly accept McCain as president. He is a million times better than Bush.

Any which way, its gonna get better. Even if its a Republican: McCain, Giuliani, even Rice would be better than GWB.

I'd vote for just about any moderate, be they Republican or Democrat. McCain and Powell come to mind. The fact is that Bush and his cronies ain't conservatives.

They're just liberals who want corporate welfare and empire.

I like McCain and/or Powell to head our ticket in the next election. Either would trounce any likely Democrat now on the field. These are perilous times, and we can ill afford a weak, indecisive Executive unwilling to fully use the power of the office. Fighting religious extremists who as a matter of faith will die to destroy the United States and Western Civilization is not going to be tied up in a neat end-game package. The tensions in Southwest Asia aren't likely to be played out in three, or even thirty years. In the intrim the Western nations need to remain firm, and willing on appropriate occasions to use force. So far the support of the industrialized world has been rather weak, and the cost of defending against aggression has fallen mostly to the United States and Great Britain. That could and should change, and it may more likely to occur under the leadership of John McCain, or Collin Powell.

I applaud the apparently free and open Palestinian election even though the result appears to be a government dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That may not be an entirely bad thing in the long run, though in the short term it may mean an increase in the tempo and scope of violence between the Palestinians and Israel. If the constraints imposed by negotiating peace are removed from Israel, then any attack upon her is likely to be devastating to the Palestinians and they will likely lose all that has been gained in the past decade. Oh well, it may resolve some problems and create others.

Iran is another dangerous situation that might linger for more than three years. At some point, the West is going to have to get tough with the rogue government now in power. If a Palestinian/Israeli conflict flared up, the Israeli's might bomb Iran again to destroy their nuclear programs. These scenarios aren't necessarily going to happen, but they might and the U.S. needs an a strong President willing make hard choices and commit military forces to a conflict that might result in significant military and civilian casualties.

I don't really understand the depth of hatred some have toward Bush. He is far from the worst President we've ever had, and he's done a pretty fair job in meeting the challenges that have arisen. He's at best only an adequate speaker, but actually most of our past Presidents were much worse. He appears to have clear and solid values, though those values are scoffed at by the left they resonate with a large part of the American People.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush plotted and lied to attack Iraq without reason. At the time Iraq was in violation of numerous conditoins of the Gulf War Cease-Fire, and Saddam fostered the idea that he did have Terror Weapons. Saddam was openly supporting terrorists by word and monetary payments. From the Cease-Fire onward, Saddam's campaign of mass murder against opponents and Iraqi minorities continued. Bringing down Saddam sent a strong message that the U.S. was serious in its War on Terror to every other sponsor of terrorism. With the down fall of the Iraqi Baathist Party, a free Democratic nation with liberal humanitarian values became possible. It is still possible, but only if we stay the course until the Iraqi government can stand on its own against extremist factions that hate the very idea of an open society. It is possible that at some point the Iraqi people may freely vote to embrace the extremist factions of Islam. That should be up to them, even if it puts Iraq into the enemy's camp. In the meantime, Bush and his administration hew to an unpopular, but necessary position.

The economy is not in a tailspin to destruction, though there are many challenges. Not least of the challenges is the size of the National Debt. Military costs, especially when our forces are actively engaged in a bloody conflict, must be borne. A significant percentage of the Federal Budget is sacrosanct and can not be altered, so Congress and the Executive have to work with that narrow band of discretionary spending between entitlements and the costs of maintaining an effective military. That means cuts to favorite programs, fewer discretionary programs, or increased national debt. Some spending, like the billions to aide the Gulf Coast, has to come from somewhere ... discretionary spending.

I suppose some on the Left would rather reduce the military to an honor guard than cut a dollar from their favorite social engineering program. "For want of a nail the nation was lost" kind of thinking would is irresponsible in the extreme. What is the alternative? Raise taxes and the cost of capital loans? Those would surely slow the economy down, and very likely send us into a major recession, resulting in less tax revenue and an even tighter federal budget.

Oil is a nasty word, but without it as we now stand the United States would be in a very difficult position. The economy would really get a shock with prices soaring and jobs vanishing. Parts of the country would virtually freeze over, and supermarket shelves would empty even with prices three times greater than they are today.

Some are very alarmed at the idea that American intelligence is capable of, and is, monitoring communications between terrorists outside the United States. Even more alarming is that calls originating inside the United States to those terrorists are monitored! It is possible that a soccer Mom might be calling a terrorist cell in Saudi Arabia to inquire about next weeks school lunch program, but I don't think so. Those who fear that their support of the Democratic Party might be read in GOP Party headquarters have an exagerated view of their own importance. Our intelligence capabilities are great, the greatest technology on the planet, but it is still limited and pushed to capacity just to focus on real physical threats to the American People. Could that technology be abused, certainly but not at the present. The danger of real civil rights abuses aren't from Gerorge Bush, but by some future President of either party. First lets attend to those folks who want to kill Americans, and then we can worry about limiting possible Executive excesses.

Painting Bush as Evil Incarnate is unreasonable. That approach to the current situation and problems we face is counter-productive. To demonize the President undercuts the credibility of opponents and their opposition to specific policies. What possible good can come from adopting the same intemperate name calling that spews forth from the enemy camp?

Is the statement that you "don't understand" the hatred toward Bush a sincere statement.

I am one who truly hates Bush with good reason. In almost every area is doing damage to what I believe are the values of America.

- The war in Iraq-- which in my opinion is unjustified and immoral with an unspeakable cost.

- Domestic Spying without judicial oversight-- which in my opinion is illegal and dangerous. The last famous instance of domestic spying was on Martin Luther King Jr. sparked by his opposition to an unpopular war.

- Treatment of Foreign prisoners of war without due process-- Which in my opinion is sacrifices what should be the core values of the American democracy.

- Failure to categorically rule out and repudiate torture-- Which in my opinion sacrifices the claim the America should have of morality.

Now these are all my opinions (and you should note that I was very careful to state this). This is not the place to argue my opinions-- you should just accept that they are the opinions of a significant part of the American public.

But, It seems obvious that someone with my beliefs-- who believe that the rights against search and siezure without judicial oversite are sacred; who believe that the American military should not engage in preemptive actions; who believe that America should hold to moral values including a refusal to resort to torture-- will find Bush a very hateful and dangerous figure.

You may disagree with my beliefs-- or you may believe that the perceived threat to national security trumps them.

But hatred of Bush by someone with my values is rational and reasonable.

Oh.... how about McCain AND Powell - together...... I agree, moderates are all welcome. I'd be happy to vote McCain.

The next president will be a Canadian

But, BOY would I LOVE to be able to vote for a winning leftie.