ST and Govt out of touch with American Politics
-
people know of her skeletons already, they will still vote for her no matter what.
-
Your opinions, if you genuinely believe them to be true, are at best, misguided.Originally posted by Arapahoe:Bill was probably more fortunate during his white house term, For economics success, I would attribute more to James Rubin abilities to reduce interest payment on national debt, and Greenspan abilities to keep interest low during the BillÂ’s years, all these help for the fed to balance budget. Bill was also fortunate that the global economy was ridding on IT growth and increase productivities. I believe the one bill was probably his legacy was 401K Plan.
There's no denying Bill Clinton couldn't have done everything alone - in fact, he would be the first to give credit to members of his administration - but there's also no denying the success of his administration lies in his ability, at the very least, to put the right people in the right places (compare Clinton's administration to the first administration of George W Bush - look at how many of Dubya's key appointment holders had actually played a prominent role in his father's administration).
If you aren't going to give him credit for anything else bar the Lewinsky affair, I don't think you actually look out of place if you believed this regime works as a democracy.
If you needed any clarification, Greenspan doesn't wake up and decides with the rest in the Fed Reserves how much interest rate to cut based on figures popping up in his dreams - the fact, if anything, would be a clear and concise reflection of Clinton's economic policies which provided the platform for Greenspan to do what he did.
You must be genuinely disconnected from reality if you believed this.Originally posted by Arapahoe:It may have contributed to Clinton miss-calculated the threats and did not response strong enough to take out Osama when he had the chance. For that he has to live with it.
Could Clinton have been culpable for failing to foresee 911? What you're effectively saying is that a Judiciary has lapsed in its judgment for failing to put a thief to the gallows just because the same chap who stole would someday go on to commit murder... -
Contrary to popular beliefs, I regard the biggest threat to Hillary to be Al Gore. Despite not having declared his intentions to run, he has already featured prominently on a couple of Gallup polls on the Democratic front (some put him streets ahead of Hillary and Obama).Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Hillary not getting a boost from Bill Clinton? I'm not so sure about that. Most of the American newspaper articles pretty much show that Hillary Clinton is in the lead running for the Democrat nomination, while Obama next, and John Edwards even further. That was a recent poll. A recent article in the Times magazine (US edition) show that she brings him around a fair bit, and quite a lot of people cheer for him. Even if she doesn't derive much support because of her ties to Bill Clinton, the latter is certainly helping her plan the campaign, which is a key advantage for her.
It seems that opinion is reflected on a fairly widespread basis - betting firms taking wagers for the Democratic nomination and the Presidential elections have trimmed Gore's odds drastically over the last couple of months. Throw in the fact that he's won an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth" and the pedigree and experience he had working in the Clinton administration and perhaps, 8 years on, with the masses being more prepared to accept him than they had been in 2000 (to be fair, he wasn't much of a charismatic politician although he's efficient), this could be his time yet.
Besides, Gore hardly needs to worry about any fundraising issues as, given his reputation, big names often have very little trouble seeing them through the early stages of the primaries and he still has a long time to get ready for the Super-Tuesday instead of the New Hampshire primary. -
You must be disconnected from reality to suggest the highest employment rate and highest salaries exist today. With a weakening USD that is as low as I can remember and inflation far higher today than during the Clinton administration, you must be in the midst of unravelling some new economic theory that's nobel-worthy to suggest what you've just said.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Wrong. Highest employment rate and highest salaries exists today, not during the Clinton years.
If you study US economy and politics carefully, clinton did nothing for the economy. The boom under his admin came about thru the spill over effect of the Reagan and Bush years and the IT boom. The Clinton administration was not able to even sustain the boom and we actually saw a shortage of power in California under Democrats. Recession actually set in during the Clinton admin itself.
The IT boom did catapult Clinton's economic achievements, no doubt about that. To suggest "he did nothing" is as true as this regime being a bonafide democracy as understood by the harshest definitions of a dictionary. As a matter of fact, Clinton presided over the longest economic boom in American history (yes, that 116 months of consecutive economic growth started from the latter part of George H W Bush's term, but it's no coincidence it lasted the entire Clinton term - even after taking into account the growth had slowed near the end of the Clinton Presidency - and continued into the start of George W Bush's term).
Now, that's what you call having done nothing for the economy? Kim Jung Il must be the greatest living democrat on the planet then. -
Al Gore.. hmm it isn't really too late for him to run. The Primaries haven't started and if he does announce his candidacy, it will be equivalent of a thunderbolt. Oh well, things will be tricky if he fights with Hillary Clinton for her supporters.Originally posted by walesa:Contrary to popular beliefs, I regard the biggest thread to Hillary to be Al Gore. Despite not having declared his intentions to run, he has already featured prominently on a couple of Gallup polls on the Democratic front (some put him streets ahead of Hillary and Obama).
It seems that opinion is reflected on a fairly widespread basis - betting firms taking wagers for the Democratic nomination and the Presidential elections have trimmed Gore's odds drastically over the last couple of months. Throw in the fact that he's won an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth" and the pedigree and experience he had working in the Clinton administration and perhaps, 8 years on, with the masses being more prepared to accept him than they had been in 2000 (to be fair, he wasn't much of a charismatic politician although he's efficient), this could be his time yet.
Besides, Gore hardly needs to worry about any fundraising issues as, given his reputation, big names often have very little trouble seeing them through the early stages of the primaries and he still has a long time to get ready for the Super-Tuesday instead of the New Hampshire primary.
And his recent film-documentaries have been giving up a boost in profile. I'm not sure how things will turn out. It is still early for him to announce his candidacy. He is definitely the heavy weight among the democrats when it comes to policy. Not least, bloody irony if he makes president right after Bush.
-
Cut that mug some slack - he probably doesn't even know the difference between state laws and federal laws, much less the function of the Legislative or what exactly do the Senate and House of Representatives do...Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Huh? You do realise that the US is a federation of states, and what one state does for its own energy policy isn't quite the responsibility of the Federal Government?
The Democrat, as a political party, is quite a fragmented one, since each Senator, Governor, etc. is actually answerable to the electorate? Same goes for the Republicans? I mean, even the current Republican Governor of California makes more deals with the Democrat legislators of California more than the Republican legislators.
As for sustaining the boom, the bursting of the IT bubble was quite out of the Government hands. You can't really blame them for anything, and many of the institutions exercise a fair degree of independence. This isn't Singapore you know, where the PAP exercises maximum control over everything.
And during the last 2 years of the Clinton Administration, the Republican controlled Congress simply stonewalled just about anything the Clinton Administration put out, and set the course for how the conservative right steamrolled just about anything for the last 6 years.
If there is something that Clinton can claim to, is that he reaped some of the largest surpluses the US Govt has ever had thanks to prudent spending. Contrast that against Reagan who simply spent tonnes of cash on military and other stuff and lowered taxes. The same went for the current administration.
The thing I believe I have noticed, is that the US Federal Government has very little control over the economy in general, and they only have some degree of macro control. I am no economist, but I have noticed that the economy of each state is highly dependent on how each state runs it. The Federal Bank (incidentally, the US Federal Government may appoint the Federal Board, but it does not exercise control or even own it.) is an extension of the macro control of the economy. -
Now, you must have been sleeping on your research.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Not true. They only blocked those bad policies. Did Clinton admin initiate any tax cuts to boost the economy? Never! They supported Clinton in the war on Serbia.
If Clinton had not reduced taxes for the middle and lower-income groups, in addition to dishing out other incentives, how on earth do you think his administration would have seen the largest proportion of people withdrawing themselves from welfare rolls? (I hope it's not too hard to understand people on welfare are the poor and not the rich)
Yes, unlike the current noob who thinks cash falls from sky by the grace of God, Clinton balanced the books by targetting the corporations and increasing the income tax of the richest lot to 39.6% (affecting only 1.2% of the population earning at least USD180, 000 per annum). -
ha ha ha most of your fixation on Bill is yours truly.Originally posted by walesa:You must be genuinely disconnected from reality if you believed this.
Could Clinton have been culpable for failing to foresee 911? What you're effectively saying is that a Judiciary has lapsed in its judgment for failing to put a thief to the gallows just because the same chap who stole would someday go on to commit murder... -
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:I am going to have to ask you to bring up your own evidence on it. Saying this wrong and that wrong and not backing it up is simply superfluous. And if you claim that they were sleeping on the job, they must be sleeping so well that the budget turned in a surplus, of which has a lot to do with how the federal government controlled it.
-
Do you have the faintest clue of what you're talking about? Do you know how the primaries/caucuses and the electoral college system work?Originally posted by Mat Toro:Here's me analysis.
back in 2004, even a lousy candidate like John Kerry can garner a strong fight against Bush. If you look at the electorate in 08, the democrat supporter base will get stronger with the growth of women and hispanic population.
Hilliary will probably win the nomination in the primaries and she will have to appease the black voters by incorporating Obama as running mate.
All these add up to a hilliary win in 08.
Why should the '08 electorate base be stronger than say, '92 when Clinton ran for the Presidency? Are you assuming all blacks and hispanics eligible to vote will vote for the Democrats? And on what basis are you making your claims - how do you even know how many of those eligible to vote will even bother to turn up on election day?
If you aren't aware - and applying your above reasoning (look, for the sake of this discussion, I shall assume blacks and hispanics will vote disproportionately in favour of Democrats) - Al Gore actually lost the 2000 elections despite having more support from women and the minorities and I'm sure you'll agree he's a more capable candidate than John Kerry. So would you like to explain why did he lose the 2000 elections, in the given circumstances, despite Clinton effortlessly being able to clinch the '92 campaign with almost twice as many electoral seats as Georgw HW Bush despite having less support from women and the minorities than Al Gore?
If anything, Clinton's greatest regret as far as Gore's 2000 campaign was concerned stemmed from Gore's failure to capture New Hampshire, where Clinton had spent almost his entire public service career as first, the attorney-general then later on as a governor. Even though New Hampshire's seemingly few seats looked negliglible on the surface, the eventual 271-267 defeat for Gore proved just how decisive New Hampshire could have been had Gore allowed Clinton to campaign for him. -
The Democrats' biggest worry should Al Gore decide to run apparently - believe it or not - stems from the division of Hillary's campaign staff as much as anything. At the end of the day, both sides will want to enlist the help of almost the entire team that propelled Bill Clinton to office.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Al Gore.. hmm it isn't really too late for him to run. The Primaries haven't started and if he does announce his candidacy, it will be equivalent of a thunderbolt. Oh well, things will be tricky if he fights with Hillary Clinton for her supporters.
And his recent film-documentaries have been giving up a boost in profile. I'm not sure how things will turn out. It is still early for him to announce his candidacy. He is definitely the heavy weight among the democrats when it comes to policy. Not least, bloody irony if he makes president right after Bush.
That said, the biggest winner could then prove to be Obama should that split prove decisive enough - it's all just rumour-mongering and speculation in the meantime though. But we'll see soon enough shore Gore formally announce his candidacy... -
Fixation? Well, it must have been some fixation that he left Office with the second highest opinion ratings of the 20th Century.Originally posted by Arapahoe:ha ha ha most of your fixation on Bill is yours truly.
With silly ramblings that make as much sense as a toddler's wailings, I'm indeed hard-pressed to make much sense of your fixations.
-
Originally posted by walesa:
You just took on the wrong guy buddy. It is you who don't know what you are talking about. I happen to be working with an organisation that conduct consultancy for both political parties.
Do you have the faintest clue of what you're talking about? Do you know how the primaries/caucuses and the electoral college system work?
Why not? Don't you know that the Hispanic population had grown in proportion since even 4 years ago? Don't you know most Hispanics vote Democrat?
Why should the '08 electorate base be stronger than say, '92 when Clinton ran for the Presidency? Are you assuming all blacks and hispanics eligible to vote will vote for the Democrats? And on what basis are you making your claims - how do you even know how many of those eligible to vote will even bother to turn up on election day?
Where did I say all blacks and hispanics vote Dems? Please show me you.
Are you able to tell us why blacks and hispanics shld switch allegiance this time?
Hilliary is definitely a stronger candidate than Kerry.
If you aren't aware - and applying your above reasoning (look, for the sake of this discussion, I shall assume blacks and hispanics will vote disproportionately in favour of Democrats) - Al Gore actually lost the 2000 elections despite having more support from women and the minorities and I'm sure you'll agree he's a more capable candidate than John Kerry. So would you like to explain why did he lose the 2000 elections, in the given circumstances, despite Clinton effortlessly being able to clinch the '92 campaign with almost twice as many electoral seats as Georgw HW Bush despite having [b]less support from women and the minorities than Al Gore?
As for Gore, I don't see him as particularly strong back in 2000. What did you see in him? He invented the internet? He insulted Mahathir in msia?
Clinton didn't run for 2000. What are you talking about? Why shld he be dispaointed and what has that got to do with Hilliary's run for 08?
If anything, Clinton's greatest regret as far as Gore's 2000 campaign was concerned stemmed from Gore's failure to capture New Hampshire, where Clinton had spent almost his entire public service career as first, the attorney-general then later on as a governor. Even though New Hampshire's seemingly few seats looked negliglible on the surface, the eventual 271-267 defeat for Gore proved just how decisive New Hampshire could have been had Gore allowed Clinton to campaign for him.
Lets make a bet shall we? I don't think Hilliary will make a good president but I really think she will win. -
You just took on the wrong guy buddy. It is you who don't know what you are talking about. I happen to be working with an organisation that conduct consultancy for both political parties.
For a person who claims to work for an organisation, you certain have very good skills at debating, not least your writing skills is left wanting.
Where is your bloody evidence? I have been waiting for them, and I have been getting nothing.
And what organisation? A right wing organisation?Why not? Don't you know that the Hispanic population had grown in proportion since even 4 years ago? Don't you know most Hispanics vote Democrat?
No one said all the blacks and hispanics vote Dems, but you left the impression that most of them would since you said:
Where did I say all blacks and hispanics vote Dems? Please show me you.
Are you able to tell us why blacks and hispanics shld switch allegiance this time?Why not? Don't you know that the Hispanic population had grown in proportion since even 4 years ago? Don't you know most Hispanics vote Democrat?
Where did I say all blacks and hispanics vote Dems? Please show me you.
Are you able to tell us why blacks and hispanics shld switch allegiance this time?Hilliary is definitely a stronger candidate than Kerry.
You must be definitely working for some right wing organisation. Strong? He garnered nearly more than half the popular vote and it was down to the electoral college which caused him to lose.
As for Gore, I don't see him as particularly strong back in 2000. What did you see in him? He invented the internet? He insulted Mahathir in msia? -
If I've taken on the wrong guy, it must be down to the fact that you actually belong to the asylum. Do shed some light as to the nature of your organisation which actually conducts consultancy for both political parties.Originally posted by Mat Toro:You just took on the wrong guy buddy. It is you who don't know what you are talking about. I happen to be working with an organisation that conduct consultancy for both political parties.
As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for you to show me something more concrete to back up your load of specious polemics - from the abovementioned to how Reagan brought the Cold War to an end with his spendings.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Why not? Don't you know that the Hispanic population had grown in proportion since even 4 years ago? Don't you know most Hispanics vote Democrat?
Where did I say all blacks and hispanics vote Dems? Please show me you.
Are you able to tell us why blacks and hispanics shld switch allegiance this time?
They don't need to switch allegiance to dispel your argument - you've yet to show how that increase could be categorically translated into votes for the Democrats that would yield a similar increase in proportion. That, in essence, is what you've been insisting.
No wonder you don't see so many things as well.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Hilliary is definitely a stronger candidate than Kerry.
As for Gore, I don't see him as particularly strong back in 2000. What did you see in him? He invented the internet? He insulted Mahathir in msia?
Are you an idiot? Or are you a dyslexic who has problems comprehending English? If, for any reason, you've interpreted my words to mean Clinton having run in 2000, you ought to go back to your grammar class instead of debating with the "wrong" person.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Clinton didn't run for 2000. What are you talking about? Why shld he be dispaointed and what has that got to do with Hilliary's run for 08?
Are there legislations in place to ensure I could recover any outstanding debts against the insane? If so, I might give your proposition a serious thought.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Lets make a bet shall we? I don't think Hilliary will make a good president but I really think she will win.
Some organisation you must be working for... -
Originally posted by walesa:
There are consultants who are free to consult with any party that can engage them.
If I've taken on the wrong guy, it must be down to the fact that you actually belong to the asylum. Do shed some light as to the nature of your organisation which actually conducts consultancy for both political parties.
Money talks, they don't have to be mutually exclusive about who they serve?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war#End_of_the_Cold_War
quote:Originally posted by Mat Toro:
Why not? Don't you know that the Hispanic population had grown in proportion since even 4 years ago? Don't you know most Hispanics vote Democrat?
Where did I say all blacks and hispanics vote Dems? Please show me you.
Are you able to tell us why blacks and hispanics shld switch allegiance this time?
As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for you to show me something more concrete to back up your load of specious polemics - from the abovementioned to how Reagan brought the Cold War to an end with his spendings.
Since Hispanics largely support Dems, don't a proportionate growth in their numbers translate to a proportionate increase for Dem votes? How difficult is that?
They don't need to switch allegiance to dispel your argument - you've yet to show how that increase could be categorically translated into votes for the Democrats that would yield a similar increase in proportion. That, in essence, is what you've been insisting.
You see, you can't answer me in what way Gore was a strong candidate.
quote:Originally posted by Mat Toro:
Hilliary is definitely a stronger candidate than Kerry.
As for Gore, I don't see him as particularly strong back in 2000. What did you see in him? He invented the internet? He insulted Mahathir in msia?
No wonder you don't see so many things as well.
Yes, my US associate is a well known independent strategy consultant, ie not affiliated to any political party.
Are there legislations in place to ensure I could recover any outstanding debts against the insane? If so, I might give your proposition a serious thought.
Some organisation you must be working for... -
Yeah right. I would be surprised if they even employed you to advise on foreign policy with your obvious right wing rhetoric.Originally posted by Mat Toro:There are consultants who are free to consult with any party that can engage them.
Money talks, they don't have to be mutually exclusive about who they serve.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war#End_of_the_Cold_War
And what does that article serve? It just showed he increased his military spending into grandiose projects which mostly came to naught.
The Russians however, were spending tonnes since the end of WWII, courtesy of Stalin, and they have every reason not to trust the West which have historically tried to contain them and even interfere in Russian affairs especially during the civil war in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution.Since Hispanics largely support Dems, don't a proportionate growth in their numbers translate to a proportionate increase for Dem votes? How difficult is that?
Publish the damn figures damn it. Trends do not stay as trends all the time, what with the latest defeat of the immigration bill by both Democrats and Republicans.
And it's nice to see that you are ignoring the fact that Gore garnered the popular vote while George W Bush won because he garnered the Electoral college vote.
You see, you can't answer me in what way Gore was a strong candidate.Yes, my US associate is a well known independent strategy consultant, ie not affiliated to any political party.
Yeah right. Give me the name and I'll go dig up the dirt on it. -
Make yourself clear, instead of flipping about pushing your luck to see which argument suits your end. It's not rocket science that image consultants are hardly the same as political consultants. And yes, independent strategy consultants hired by both political parties are as common as seeing pigs fly...Originally posted by Mat Toro:Yes, my US associate is a well known independent strategy consultant, ie not affiliated to any political party.
Point me out to the part where the demise of the USSR can be directly attributed to Reagan's spending.Originally posted by Mat Toro:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war#End_of_the_Cold_War
Are you naive or stupid? Even if I were to analyse this from a purely statistical perspective, I've got to make room for standard deviation and room for estimation error, don't I?Originally posted by Mat Toro:Since Hispanics largely support Dems, don't a proportionate growth in their numbers translate to a proportionate increase for Dem votes? How difficult is that?
If the numer of Hispanics eligible to vote increase by 1%, are you telling me categorically the Democrats will definitely get 1% more votes? Or are you assuming that the increased proportion of Hispanics will all vote on election day and all vote for the Democrats? Your argument would only stand if and only if the abovementioned assumptions hold true and I'm amazed any consultant strategist would churn out such drivel.
For someone to lose the tightest Presidential elections ever with a simple majority doesn't render him a strong candidate? What planet are you from?Originally posted by Mat Toro:You see, you can't answer me in what way Gore was a strong candidate.
So on the basis of what you perceive Hillary's campaign to be a strong one, how do you justify Hillary being a strong candidate? Just because you imagine her to be one?
Yes, and you've been talking to James Carville.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Yes, my US associate is a well known independent strategy consultant, ie not affiliated to any political party. -
Please lah....Rating? of all person you accept rating ? and opinion only from Liberal perharps? History will judge Bill, its still too early to coin it to the 20th century. U of all person should know every well.Originally posted by walesa:Fixation? Well, it must have been some fixation that he left Office with the second highest opinion ratings of the 20th Century.
With silly ramblings that make as much sense as a toddler's wailings, I'm indeed hard-pressed to make much sense of your fixations.
At least my rambling is my opinion. Yours is still fixation on an individual character
-
Well, a recent Gallup poll put him at 4th in a list of the greatest presidents in history.....Originally posted by Arapahoe:Please lah....Rating? of all person you accept rating ? and opinion only from Liberal perharps? History will judge Bill, its still too early to coin it to the 20th century. U of all person should know every well.
At least my rambling is my opinion. Yours is still fixation on an individual character
Do realise that the president isn't there to merely sit down and let his subordinates do all the work. It is up to the President to pick the best people for the job, whilst giving his own input and approving bills. Though the same can't be said of the current president. -
The current President administration does make a good comparative case study in Managing High Performance Team other than NBA. Bush walked in without much International Relation Exposure. He had put in seasonal team of washingtonian understood how things get done, Actually Too Good that Cheny and Rumsfield had their own agenda.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Well, a recent Gallup poll put him at 4th in a list of the greatest presidents in history.....
Do realise that the president isn't there to merely sit down and let his subordinates do all the work. It is up to the President to pick the best people for the job, whilst giving his own input and approving bills. Though the same can't be said of the current president. I think what was out of place in experience and diplomacy was Collin Powell. But he is such a True Soldier that when the President ask him to take the job he took it. ( i think now he wished he had not)
911 really throw the team into test, different of opinions are expected with any team structure. But the Bush team was negatively synergized n rivalry within the team. Collin powell was no where to be found. Secretary of defense was out of line overshadowing diplomacy.
It bring to a question of success of a high performance team who meets the individual role and balance skill set, but not necessary overshadow the other roles to yield conclusive result.
Bill Clinton had to change warren christopher, and secretary of defence, Bush should have made the changes and drop Rumsfield and Collin Powell altogether after the 1st term and consolidate his leadership within his team member change the synergy. But again maybe he wasnÂ’t in any position as Cheney was beside him.
never get a seasonal VP. -
It wasn't just Cheney and Rumsfeld. There was Wolfowitz and a no. of other cronies that really turned the administration into one neoconservative paradise filled with a lot of ideology and a total detachment from the realities of their "dreams". Bush was just a puppet and the strings were pulled by the rest. It was a bloody mess anyhow, and the whole Govt was filled to the brim with people who supported their ideas. Nepotism showed its bloody head when the people appointed were total goofs. Case to point was Katrina when the FEMA totally botched the recovery operations and then a lot of procurement cases showed up.
The current administration can be described as the worst administration in a long time and by far the most idealogical ever. -
Hope it will get better when the new President takes over next year.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:It wasn't just Cheney and Rumsfeld. There was Wolfowitz and a no. of other cronies that really turned the administration into one neoconservative paradise filled with a lot of ideology and a total detachment from the realities of their "dreams". Bush was just a puppet and the strings were pulled by the rest. It was a bloody mess anyhow, and the whole Govt was filled to the brim with people who supported their ideas. Nepotism showed its bloody head when the people appointed were total goofs. Case to point was Katrina when the FEMA totally botched the recovery operations and then a lot of procurement cases showed up.
The current administration can be described as the worst administration in a long time and by far the most idealogical ever. -
It jolly well better. The US has to manage its foreign policy a hell a lot more better and a lot less confrontational. But that is a wishful dream at best since both liberal and conservative have delusions of grandeur.Originally posted by qlqq9:Hope it will get better when the new President takes over next year. -
if u don't mind to let us know, who is your choice for the next President?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:It jolly well better. The US has to manage its foreign policy a hell a lot more better and a lot less confrontational. But that is a wishful dream at best since both liberal and conservative have delusions of grandeur.