I think she was right about the country being polarized in its current state. Everyone is either conservative or liberal and stick to their ideologies regardless of facts or opposition. It sad when they coined that term "flip-flopper" and watching everyone start to repeat it. The only thing I am looking for is solutions and so far I am not happy with the effects this current administration has had on this country and over seas. I never considered myself a liberal and still really don't care much for labels but nowadays you are either one or the other....

I think the polarizing is mostly one way. The, frankly, bizarre hatred the left has of Bush mystifies me. I know some conservatives, particularly on the fringe, hated Clinton but there's nothing I can recall in recent history that matches this Bush-as-Boogeyman.  Heck, even from the day Ashcroft was appointed in there have been hysterical charges against him as well.

I'm convinced that what has happened is that some people have an almost allgergic reaction to people who are deeply religious.

I didn't not like a lot of Clinton's policies and I didn't vote for him but when he took office I was very optimistic that he woudl bring about change. I didn't waste my time hating him just becasue he was not the guy I voted for in the election. I won't debate the merits of how he spend all his political capital later but I had hgih hopes to start with was my point.

Draginol - I think you are right about why there is such a reaction against Bush. I am not a religios man whatsoever and my inner liberal recoils when Bush talks about faith based initaitives and such. I just have to grit my teeth and push through the reaction and use my brain and not my haert to analyze the man as a whole. He is not just religious, he is also the President.

I read in the news that even the GOP is reassessing his leadership skills, what do you guys think of this?

My opinion of Bush hasn't changed much. I never thought he had very good leadership skills.

But I do want leaders who will make tough decisions and not get lost in nuanced decision making.

Making decisions is easy making the right decision is what is difficult and what counts...

Both parties centralized authorities "re-evaluate" their candidates leadership abilities constantly. That is the very reason for their existance. Not exactly news.

Making decisions is easy making the right decision is what is difficult and what counts...

Actually in many situations it is impossible to know what is the "rightest" decision and the important thing is to do *something* and quickly. This is the fallacy of the UN, this mody will not make a decision until they are all totally convinced that this is the "perfect" decision. This of course leads to no decisions whatsoever on anything. Hence the complete eunuchization of the UN as any sort of effective body.

Yes and now they (GOP) are considering what was once decisive and resolute as simply idealic and wrong. They were behind him 100 percent until recently when things have just become worse with prisoner abuse and even within the military they think the june 30 deadline is impossible. With this I am not voicing an opinion I am relaying what is being said.

Actually I am in the military too, and impossible is a big word to use. Is June 30 ideal? no of course not. Nothing ever is. Frankly we could leave tomorrow and Iraq would be self-governing. It is certainly posible, just not necessarily the best way to go about it. I would love to hear what your opinion of a good plan of action would be though. If you have alternatives that would work better... trot em out. Otherwise you are just kvetching.

I am not running for president. I expect that job to be done by this administration which so far the june 30 deadline seems obscure and improbable. Peace in the middle east is not impossible, does that mean that it will happen any time soon, probably not. Bush's own father had enough foresight to see this and I quote
"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability". Strangely enough it's eerie how close his words are to the truth.

As far as alternatives the first one would be to go after the source more aggresively. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq as far as I know, although the blunt of our force is currently trying to stabilize a country that we now know posed a less immediate threat than Al Qaeda. I know that if I were in the military I would feel even more passionate about all these mistakes.

Good leaders know how to choose between multiple non-ideal options.

That is why I prefer Bush to say Clinton on foreign affairs. Clinton (or Gore) would have analyzed the situation until it paralysed him (no rhyme intended).

Conservatives are becoming unhappy with Bush's leadership because he's getting wobbly. It's become more apparent that he's just winging the whole Iraq policy which is unnerving. The whole occupation phase was half-baked in my opinion.

You either take a tough position and stick to it or you take the heart's and minds approach with the plan to remove the troops. You can't pick and choose parts from either one because you'll lose respect from all sides.

Bush's political skills are...awful.

I agree with what you're saying Brad, except for the foreign affairs thing but you know that's my opinion.

from the day Ashcroft was appointed in there have been hysterical charges against him as well

such ingratitude. dismantling the constitution is a dirty job...but someone has to do it.

polarization implies 2 opposing groups separated by enough distance to preclude a middle ground. ashcroft is his only source of unqualified support..