Not to jump back into it, but people who voted for Bush in the last election were in the minority. Gore won about a million more votes in the popular count. Of course, those numbers don't seem to matter--Bush won the real election 5 to 4.

I'd gladly trade you for a President who lies about his sex life. Ugh.

I think all the anti-war protesters out there--and indeed all of us--need to focus our energies on making sure that Bush loses the election.

I listened on NPR to a press conference given by Bush and Blair. The contrast made me sick. Blair was articulate and expressive. Bush babbled and kept repeating things like, "as long as it has to...that's what you've got to understand...as long as it has to...do you understand?"

i heard the same news conference. it was embarrassing. blair addressed points that our administration doesn't even want to admit exist, while bush's retorts always boiled down to "shut up and listen to me because i'm right."

Anything can change - especially during or after war - but can you guys explain Bush's approval ratings, consistently 55-65% - historically high for a midterm Prez in a down economy? Can you explain the 2002 election? Can you explain Bush's pre-9/11 legislative successes? Are the American people stupid, blinded or fooled? Do you guys possess special insights and information that a majority do not? Or are you guys just part of a liberal monority, pissed off about a Republican in the White House?

Oh, and you spelling B winners, make that "minority."

Oh, and in answer to your question about how Bush's numbers are good, let's use you as an example. When confronted with the opportunity to learn something about Bush's hypocrisy, you didn't go to the article, read Bush's own words, and contrast them with his own budget proposal--nor did you offer any substantive arguments about the article at all. You made ad hominems about liberals. So, if you're any indication, people either don't want to learn about Bush or can't handle it, when it's so much easier to pretend liberals are all full of shit.

My wife read the above post and thinks it's too harsh, so I apologize for the tone. Free speech begins at home. Unfortunately, it ends here, too. So let's get back on the topic--what do you think about Bush's lies, and why would polls change what anyone should think about a politician saying one thing and doing another?

No problem with the so-called harshness, but I disagree that my comment was ad hominem. Nor was it saying anyone is full of anything. And of course Gore got more votes. (Never forget to add that no one - not even the New York Times - has proved Bush lost Florida and hence did not legitimately win the electoral college.)

But I'm talking about '03 not '00. Regarding "budget lies", yes there are inconsistencies between pronouncements and line items - but c'mon, this is standard practice, regardless of who's prez. Kennedy did it, Clinton did it, Carter did it, Reagan did it. It's historically myopic to hold Bush to a different standard.

In a famous example, don't forget Kennedy - the Ivy League Democrat - proclaimed that the U.S. does not and never will condone assassinations. At the same moment he was urging the CIA to assassinate Castro.

You also err in taking the budget so literally. It is a political document. Numbers are always cynically proposed, in the full expectation there will be massive haggling - over issues that go way beyond the budget. You want my support for that new dam in West Virginia? Fine, gimme my missile contract in California.

I'm sure you've been to Tijuana or someplace like it. When you ask to buy that little pink piggy bank, do you fork over the asking price? How 'bout at a car lot? The budgetary process is no different.

Here and elsewhere, you hear "Bush is corrupt", "Bush is dumb", "Bush is a liar", "Bush doesn't deserve to be President", and so on. Yet all major public opinion polls indicate, as the New York Times reluctantly put it not long ago, "Americans are having a love affair with their President." At 55% it's not quite a "love affair", but at 65% it's pretty close. Either way, since Spring 2001, Bush has been an historically popular president.

So I ask: Are the American people being fooled? Do you possess special insights and information that the majority do not? Does the majority have the information you do but concludes differently? Or are you part of a minority that simply hates Bush and how he became president?

Are your perceptions of Bush factually correct, or are they subjective value judgements that way fewer people share with you than don't share?

Bush-trashers of course don't have to answer these questions, but I'd love to hear someone address them anyway.

In all seriousness--no sarcasm--that's the best post of yours I've ever read. We still disagree, but I feel like I understand your points much better, that there's actual give and take, and that I can hear what you're saying without having to wade through a bunch of name-calling. It's easier for me to answer your question because it seems like you genuinely want to hear the answer. So thanks. I'm being completely sincere here.

To be honest, I don't have a good answer for you about the divergence between me and most of the country. I could say something about polls and sitting presidents, but the fact remains that a lot of people like the guy and think he's doing a good job, whereas I think the opposite. Perhaps it's a function of who I am. I think American Idol is stupid, I hardly watch any TV, I hate Britney Spears, etc.--all of which are enormously popular. I know politics is different from entertainment, but not that much.

But here's another stab at what it might be, although it's anyone's guess. On a personal level, he's terrible in areas I care about. I'm a big believer in civil liberties (as you've no doubt realized from my posts) and a big hater of hypocrisy. I find that Bush employs rhetoric relating to things I really care about--tolerance (religious and ethnic) and freedom--and enacts policies that run counter to it. From a civil liberties standpoint, he's the worst president ever, and that's something that matters a lot to me. Environment is probably second, income distribution third. These are not Bush's strong points, even according to his fans, so maybe it's just me. I'm also pissed about the "election", but I'm too tired to get into that now.

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

Why don't other people care? I don't know. Maybe they don't realize the danger, or maybe they don't care as much about the Bill of Rights. Or maybe they expect less and less from the highest office in the land, and we just have different expectations. I want a President to be great, not just "not so bad". This might blow your mind--and it certainly should confound your understanding of me--but I would have rather voted for McCain than Gore or Bush. I don't agree with him, but he has principles and stands for something. Bush really didn't, Gore pretty much didn't. I wasn't a fan of his and didn't vote for him, just so you know. But, getting back to the populace, I think it's telling that the majority of people actually don't bother to vote. A cynic is a disillusioned idealist, but I'm not sure what to make of the apathy in the country--it's beyond cynicism.

I also think, in candor, that the level of quality discussion in the media and in general life--what used to be called civic discourse--is at a pathetic level. I can't talk about historically, because people have been disenfranchised for a long time and I do, indeed, remember the Maine (speaking of media hyped wars...). I have a graduate degree in economics and feel like I know a thing or two about fiscal policy that most people don't. And I think more blame still has to go to the wet noodle "opposition" party, which fails to present vigorous debate on matters of huge import and thus fails us all. So that's as good an answer I can provide. Maybe it's just that I haven't given up wanting more from the greatest and richest country in the world.

Anyway, that's my stab at it. I don't speak for anyone, don't consider myself a "liberal"--it's pretty much a bogeyman term now anyway--and wouldn't presume to speak for the "American people" and their opinions. But I hope that's useful and that this is the start of some meaningful dialogue.

It's easy to explain: false consciousness. Go read Marx's 18th Brumaire, where he explains why French peasants voted for the very people who were interested in screwing them. The masses are confused about what their real interests are and instead accept ideologies that explain to them why they are doing badly and why the powers that be should remain the powers that be. Like working class people who voted for Bush because they thought Gore would take their guns away (West Virginia), as if that were true, and as if that was really their problem as opposed to the economy, healthcare, etc. I can recall watching a presidential debate and afterwards the segment where the journalists interviewed a group of "undecided voters" about whether the debate changed their opinions. One woman, who said she was a nurse and that she could not afford good health insurance for her kids, said that health care was really important to her and that she liked Bush better than Gore because Bush talked about it a lot more. Was she paying attention to what he was saying? Clearly not. Or then those working-class women I saw at an agricultural fair in Up-State New York. They were wearing anti-Hilary t-shirts. Hello, working class women, don't you want to vote for a woman who once tried to get you decent health care? CHild care? Decent public education? Are Republicans really going to make your life better? So why the anti-Hilary stance? Beats me, although they must somehow feel threatened by her and think that she's a greater problem that their other problems, problems that I would consider real, more real than what ever it is that they think is at stake in the election. Cont'd.

The greatest ideology of them all that keeps people dumb and down in this country is this dumb idea of the rugged individual making the American dream his or her own by dint of hard work, an idea that promotes hostility to social welfare and helping people out with government intervention or Affirmitive Action. It pushes a vision of an egalitarian society wherein we are all equal and have equal opportunities (which we are then free to take advantage of our blow). As if this were ever true, or as if civil equality could really mask real inequalities. Even the rugged pioneer who cleared his homestead with a plow in one hand an a rifle in the other succeeded because of government programs and subsidies. All those Republic farmers out west are the biggest welfare queens of them all. And as if certain people, like our President, ever had to compete on an even playing field. I think it was Maureen Dowd who said something about how while we all have an equal ability to score, some of us are born on Third Base. Yet those already on Third are the first to turn on social welfare programs or attack Affirmative Action, acusing Democrats of waging class warfare and espousing their rhetoric about liberty, equality, and entrepreneurship. Why? Because liberty (esp. little government intervention) enables them to piss on the poor, and the ideology of liberty that they espouse encourages the poor to put up with it.

In reply to DB, one good 2-parter deserves a reciprocal attempt. I reiterate that the polls could always change. IÂ'm not covering my ass from maybe looking foolish down the road, but underscoring that the polls, in the long run, donÂ't mean Bush is doing the right thing. IÂ'm choir-preaching on that. Polls only indicate that to date he has X level of support, despite losing the popular vote in Â'00 and being placed in office by Supreme Court fiat (it would have been Congressional fiat anyway).

IÂ'm not 100% on his agenda, and like you, IÂ'm concerned about civil liberties. I see threats and hypocrisy from all sides. While I donÂ't puff, and do appreciate smoke-free bars, I disdain New YorkÂ's and CaliforniaÂ's anti-smoking laws. Can you ban smoking, but oppose a sodomy ban? Both can lead to death Â- but one is PC-sanctioned. Other PC actions, like those against unproven police profiling in New Jersey is also an assault on my liberties, namely the liberty to be free from crime.

Unlike ideologues, I donÂ't see post-9/11 civil liberties as always a principled debate. I see it as a practical matter of revising specific codes and procedures within the interpretable constitution to better protect us from another 9/11. And I see those revisions as constantly revisable. If some measure goes farther than necessary, or if a majority feel itÂ's unpalatable, or if it proves to not have gone far enough, we can, should and usually do tweak.

Per reading polls and traveling around the country, I doubt your suggestion people Â"donÂ't realize the threatÂ" to their liberties or Â"donÂ't care.Â" I liberals - acknowledging youÂ're not one - underestimate peopleÂ's levels of Â"awareness.Â" A majority currently perceive the primary threat to be to their own safety. Just in the last few months, I could be in an L.A. suburb, small town Oregon, backwater Florida, nowhere Colorado, urban Chicago, and it never ceases to amaze me that people, upon hearing IÂ'm from NYC, consistently ask, with worried faces, Â"Were you there that day?Â" TheyÂ're acutely aware.

DonÂ't overlook the fact that since 9/11 Americans have demanded Bush protect them. They have strongly indicated a willingness to abridge civil liberties. What to liberals is an Â"end-of-America-as-we-know-itÂ" threat is mere prudence to a large majority. Far from oppressing people, Bush is giving them exactly what they want...

dui...

Do I like getting patted down every time I enter an airport? Do I like strangers sifting through my stuff? Hell no. Do I want the one-in-millions with evil intent to be discovered? Yeah. So I abide the pat-downs and intrusions. HavenÂ't heard anyone complain yet. Regular air travelers willingly suffer to see their vulnerability mitigated.

And ask yourself: What would happen if there were another 9/11 tomorrow? As far as the PeopleÂ's willingness to dial back liberties, we ainÂ't seen nothing yet.

By accident, Georgie W. has the historic distinction of being President during the first modern-day attack on U.S. soil by foreign combatants. IÂ'm not aware of anything in his past that suggests the hostility to civil liberties some liberals ascribe to him. But I donÂ't for a moment doubt that a majority of our traditionally self-assertive populace, if truly alarmed, will say, Â"Just make sure we never need to be protected from you, W.Â"

In my view, some people are both overreacting to post-9/11 measures and naively underestimating whatÂ's required to stem the threat. Here in New York City, some people also naively underestimate whatÂ's required to make their streets safe (though a majority seem more realistic). ThereÂ's a Â"dream worldÂ" factor going on: Yeah, it would be nice if when we give people peace and fairness and a strong economy theyÂ'd respond in kind. But they donÂ't. At the end of nice ideas, there are always people who will come to fuck you up.

IÂ'll never forget the girl from Kansas who came to Brooklyn a couple years ago to help the disadvantaged. She ended up dead in the street, a knife in her back, and six dollars missing from her purse.

I think the Bush people are fundamentally more realistic about the threat than their critics, and to date are rising to the occasion. On the other hand, I read last week where Gore Vidal, speaking in L.A., said Â"Bush will be hounded out of office in Â'04 and will go down in history as the most reviled president weÂ've ever had.Â"

(okay, 3 parts...)

I'm sure you know the past is full of underestimated guys Â- Truman, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson Â- screw-ups, boozehounds, C-students Â- who rose to historical events thrown at them. In history books they look entirely different from how some contemporaries viewed them. By definition of the times and his actions, Bush is a candidate for iconic-president status. Revolting as this is to some, itÂ's at least as probable as VidalÂ's prediction.

Me, I make no predictions. But those who proclaim Bush Â"dumb, lying and corruptÂ" may be either triumphantly vindicated or severely humbled. They cannot know right now. But theyÂ'd be intellectually honest to be aware of how many people see it all differently. And they might be intellectually stimulated if they occasionally stop to wonder why.

And Michael, funny you wonder how upstate NY working class women could wear anti-Hillary T-shirts and wonder why they'd think Republicans might make their lives better. At least you acknowledge that it's a "beats me" kinda thing.

New York State is among the nation's Top 10 most highly taxed, and - if you consider only upstate - it's in the Bottom 10 of state economies. Do they see a correlation? Yes. And who wants their money? Democrats. In the memories of most upstaters, democrats singlehandedly oversaw the dismantling of their once-robust economy.

And if you venture into the "trenches" upstate, you'll see their disdain for Hillary is myriad and bottomless.

After reading your excellent article on the French, I'm quite disappointed to see you echo the elitist calvacade of politically ostracized lefties who, at day's end, have nothing to say except that The People must be dumb and fooled for not seeing things their way.

Unlike Marx, and unlike so many ideologues, I have a lot more respect for "the People". They're not some unwilling element to whom I administer perscriptions from on high. They are me and I am them. And there's no "beats me" - unless you're talking Backstreet Boys.

Those who are so vexed by the People's rejection of their Great Ideas might consider spending more time in bars, coffe shops and truckstops, and less time in libraries, universities, or on the web. Your answers are all out there.

I don't think the anti-Hilary thing has anything to do with a thoughtful critique of taxation and its effect on the economy. I think it's a strange cultural phenomenon having to do with Hilary being an outspoken, strong, aggressive woman. I suspect those women perceive her as a threat, and not an economic one. Otherwise I can't understand the depths of the animosity levelled against her. People HATE her. My father tells me that he's only seen that sort of hatred once before, and its target was Eleanor Roosevelt.

Republicans also tax, and lately they've been taxing and spending, only they give their handouts to the rich and the well-connected but then balk at spending on social welfare because of some "principled" hostility toward big government. The poor swallow it all, for they are too worried about their guns or too overly impressed by Bush's rhetoric of compassion to recognize the complete lack of it.

And now we have the spectacle of a draft-dodging president putting at risk the lives of others who didn't have his kind of protection or privilege. The poor who send their kids to the army heard his speech today and thought, "he really cares about us." Puke.

I listened to the news of that young woman POW who got rescued by Navy SEALS; while I'm delighted by the story and am proud of the SEALS, I kept thinking about this fact: she joined because she couldn't afford to go to college and this was her best chance economically. Her brother is in the service, too, for the same reason. She's poor, she lives in a poor state that voted for Bush because the NRA filled their heads with lies about Gore, and Bush sends her to Iraq, where she gets shot.

Yes I wrote that rather anti-French article, but I increasingly regret it: if Jessica Lynch lived in France, she would not have needed to join the army to go to university. She would not have gone through hell in Iraq or now be sitting in a hospital bed in German with broken limbs and bullet wounds. She would be busy enjoying life and studying for her degree.