Jim Roepcke's weblog have browser, will travel (est. 1999)

Donald W Larson
September 6th, 2002 - 19:31

I voted for Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election. I consider that one of my worst decisions of my life. The guy has no backbone for doing the tough things. He sat around the Rose Garden sending telegrams while Iran held our people illegally hostage. What a wimp!

I had to laugh at Brian’s comments about Carter sending telegrams had he been President last year on 9/11. America would have lost the battle, the war, and our way of life. No, we learned our lessons about wimpy Presidents from Carter’s single term.

And if the talk turns to the economy; I’ll remind you that President Carter served during the worst inflationary period of the 20th century. If you guys think this ‘mild’ recession is bad, you missed some big ones in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s due to wimpy leadership from Carter on the economic front.

Carter is the number one reason I changed from a Democrat to a Republican and I’m not going back to the party of wimps. Regardless of what Republicans do, I’m voting for them over any Democrat!

And yes Seth, I am a strong supporter of President Bush.

As for Jim being President, I don’t think so. Jim’s destiny is different. He is the voice of argument about everything he thinks is wrong with America. I’m confident that Jim will be writing commentary for his entire life about things that are wrong with America. It would be interesting to see how the same old things will get refreshed by Jim over the next 10, 20, 30,40, etc., years.

Meanwhile, the beat goes on, unabated.

Don

Brian Carnell
September 6th, 2002 - 12:35

At 04:12 PM 9/6/2002 -0400, Seth wrote:

>Brian said:
>
> >My gut reaction to reading this was thank goodness Jimmy Carter
> >wasn’t president on 9./11. His big decision probably would have been
> >to announce a boycott of any future Olympics to be held in
> >Afghanistan.
>
>Do you have *any* criticisms of the current administration?

Your question is really unrelated to the paragraph you quote. Anybody
would be preferable to Carter during a national crisis — despite the
rhetorical excesses (shared by Bush II), Clinton handled the Oklahoma City
bombing like a rather strong leader. I’m glad Carter wasn’t president
during that either. I’d rather have Jim Roepcke as president than Carter
during a national crisis (hey, and then Jim could get rid of those softwood
tariffs).

And yes, I do disagree with Bush II in a lot of areas. I think Carter is
right about American citizens being held as enemy combatants. Jose Padilla
should be tried in a civil court rather than be held indefinitely as an
“enemy combatant.” We were able to try McVeigh and Sirhan Sirhan in civil
courts without bring down the Union, so I don’t think that is necessary at
all. In fact, the country didn’t crumble when that California kid who
joined the Taliban plead guilty.

I just don’t think that Carter should pretend that the courts agree with
him or I. So far, they don’t.

Russell Gum
September 6th, 2002 - 19:13

Right on Jimmy. Those cowboys in washington forgot it is freedom and liberty that we are fighting for not against. Retract the term cowboys, most of the cowboys I know respect freedom. In any case, Bush needs to rethink the purpose of his war on Sadam. It should not be about political advantage, or in response to undefined and perhaps mythical threats. The real war is about the respect for America by the general public of the world. If the masses of Egypt all hate Americans that is more of a potential problem for us than Sadam. If we look at hatred as a form of voting, America is losing the election. I think that Carter understands this basic fact and Bush doesn’t have a clue.

Bill Kearney
September 11th, 2002 - 13:27

Good lord folks do some damned homework. Your elected officials in Congress and
the Sentate passed the horrible Patriot act. It didn’t come into being without
your own local representation screwing you. Stop blaming the President and get
off your ass to vote for people that will represent what you DO want. Assuming
of course you actually know what you want instead of just sabre rattling.

Carter fucked up AND he got shafted by political machinations. A very good
friend of mine worked in his national campaign HQ and tells some interesting
stories. Much of which surrounds Carter failing to recognize the need for
politics. What he didn’t screw up on his own the opposing parties (not just
Repubs either) maniplated to make him eventually take the fall. Aw shucks
politics kept our citizens trapped in the embassy. Getting them out was a whole
other train wreck.

Whine all you want about how expensive it will be to have another Iraqi
surrender campaign. Then tell us it’d be less expensive than nerve and mustard
gas attacks, anthrax and smallpox outbreaks and radiation clean up. Get wise
folks, here’s a guy unarguably known to use every effort to utilize WoMD. But
hey, we can just ignore him right? He’s on the other side of the world, he
can’t hurt us here! Sure, and where did 9/11 get started? There’s no
satisfying people who feel doing nothing is better than preventing disaster.
But those same are among the first to act outraged that the FBI didn’t
miraculously detect and prevent things. This after the people you DID elect cut
back on all sorts of foreign intelligence efforts.

As for Egypt and the rest, have you /been/ to those places? Or are you just
relying on Noam Chomsky and his ilk to inform you? If we’re so awful how come
they all want to emigrate here? The reality is the locals have a world of hurt
put upon them by their own officials who, quite conveniently, seek to blame the
US. Yet we give them more in aid dollars than their own GNP in some countries.
Yeah, we’re the bad guys. I’m sure Mugabe is workin’ real hard to make himself
look good at our expense. Like getting applause while Powell gets booed. Ugh,
what nonsense.

The candidate hasn’t changed as much as the political territory has. Bush is
pushing to fight the inane employment policies and such for the HSO. But the
long standing politcal machinery is fighting /any/ sorts of change regardless of
the fact they might help security of the citizenry. So the next time something
gets by someone who’s supposed to know, look deeper and see what’s wrong with
the staff behind them. You’d be /horrified/ to imagine the bullshit that goes
on.

As for US foreign interests abroad, who do you think is really driving those
efforts? It’s not the state department personnel. It’s American citizens
engaged in business in those foreign countries. Our officials listen to the
needs of the citizens and those folks are making requests. Are you? Or are you
just copping out because “one man can’t do anything”? Are you actively fighting
to punish the companies engaged in despicable practices abroad? Or are you just
going for a walk to the Walmart in your overpriced Nikes?

There’s definitely a problem in American policy. That problem is apathy and it
your own damned fault.

Bah, it’s not like anyone here is actually going to get up an DO anything.

-Bill Kearney

Brian Carnell
September 7th, 2002 - 13:39

At 11:37 PM 9/6/2002 -0400, Donald Larson wrote:

>As for Jim being President, I don’t think so. Jim’s destiny is different.
>He is the voice of argument about everything he thinks is wrong with
>America. I’m confident that Jim will be writing commentary for his entire
>life about things that are wrong with America.

Yes, to some extent, but at least you know where you stand with Jim. What
do we have with Bush:

- a president who campaigned on free trade whose actual record has been
just abominable — far worse than Clinton

- a president who said we wouldn’t be the world’s police force and was
actively floating trial balloons about disengaging from Iraq who is no
proposing an expensive unilateral assault on that country (and, frankly,
with a bad B-movie script)

- a president who campaigned on a “I trust the people” slogan who in just
two years has managed to enact all of the worst holdover anti-freedom acts
that the Clinton administration desired

- worst of all, a president who campaigned on an “aw, shucks, there will be
no more politics as usual” who has become a master of just that sort of
bureacratic nonsense. The whole farce surrounding Tom Ridge and the
Homeland Security agency or department or whatever the heck they call it is
exactly the sort of stuff I thought Bush was going to avoid.

I thought the Bush who campaigned back in October 2000 wasn’t half-bad. The
Bush who actually took office, however, bears little resemblance to that
candidate.

Donald W Larson
September 8th, 2002 - 10:18

Jim said:

Actually, I’m hoping that’ll only last another 2 years and 2 months.

LOL!

I understand what you mean.

I think America is much more than any President. The leadership may change, but not the momentum.

By the way, I read your anti-American comments because I think you represent many people who feel the same but are afriad to speak their minds.

Don

Donald W Larson
September 8th, 2002 - 10:18

Seth said:

Maybe, if the president were an all-powerful king, things could change
overnight, but he’s not… and if you remember, Bush is the president
who said the U.S. would be *less* of a world police force under his
leadership.

Seth,

What new police-force actions has President Bush initiated? I don’t count fighting a war against terrorist’s that attacked us as a police-force action.

If you’re speaking to the immenent attack on Iraq, then perhaps that is your point?

As for the other places around the world where the U.S. is actually doing police-force work like, Korea, Taiwan, NATO, Yugoslovia, etc., I agree let’s redeploy them to where they are actually defending American interests that are directly at risk, including our borders.

Don