OK, I'm back but I don't know for how long.

Today I wanted to talk about a couple of things which have been mentioned in reply to my recent blogs. I've decided I'd rather answer in an entry to my blog than get into an argument through the reply system. Call me a coward, but I'm as human as the next and I prefer a stage for my monologue to standing at bay surrounded by detractors.

Anyway, one remark recently aired I couldn't agree with more. I accept it wholeheartedly. All politicians are politicians, Republican, Democrat, Green Party, or Socialist. The number one goal of a politician, no matter what their politics, no matter what their character, no matter what their goals, is to get elected or reelected.

I'm reminded of what a professor of a course I took in college said. The course was on the history of labor unions in this country. He said that any organization, once formed, takes on goals distinct and sometimes contrary to the goals of its members. And the primary goal of any organization is to survive.

And, of course, this makes perfect sense. If an organization does not survive it can scarcely work for the goals of its members. But, it doesn't fight for survival because of those goals but to achieve its own. And politicians are no different. They must be elected if they wish to achieve whatever lofty goals they attain to, as well as achievement of their personal ones.

I'm a Republican. The main reason I am is because I find that the Republican Party's aims and goals most closely approximate my own. Given that, the man they run is largely immaterial. I'm smart enough to know that whoever is elected seldom strays too far from the party line, it's political suicide. On the other hand, there are some men who have been sore disappointments.

So, why do I like George W. Bush? Why do I like this Republican candidate? Because I feel a kinship with him, I feel like he and I could be friends. Now I know that if there's any occupation which is similar to the occupation of actor, it's that of politician. Hey, we've had one recent President who WAS an actor, another who wanted to be, and a third who wanted to bed them.

Therefore, I know that it's seldom you see the real face of the men in the Oval Office, so I guess you can say, if you wish, that I like Bush's personna. But I believe that there is a certain amount of truth to the image you see. I like the boldness that many decry, I like the patriotism he shows, and I like his expressed opinions on many topics.

I know there are many people who would boo and disagree with me, but I appreciate his character. I think he's an exceptionally honest man given his occupation. There are those who believe he was in some sort of a "conspiracy" to start the war with Iraq. I don't believe that, see no evidence of it. There are those who believe he deliberately lied about the WMD's. I don't believe that.

Imagine if you will the mind process of Bush in deciding about war. Would it have gone like this?

"Let's see, I know there aren't any WMD's there any more. But I want to invade and kill Iraqis so much, I don't care. Sure, I have half the world against taking the action, and a significant portion of my own citizens against it. It's going to cost so much that it's going to hurt the economy, which won't look good. It's also not going to look good if it doesn't go well, and I have reelection next year. But, what the hell, I'll throw my career and reputation and place in history away because I just want to go in and kill some people."

I doubt it.

I think he went into Iraq because he felt it was the right thing to do. Even though he ran a risk that he was throwing away his chance at reelection if things didn't go right. And that's what I would have done, so how can I fault him. Oh, I suppose if he could have gotten a clear-cut mandate from the UN it might have been better, even though I don't think we need their permission and I don't believe he would ever have gotten it.

While we're looking at Presidents, let me recount the ones I've gone through since becoming an adult. Kennedy and Johnson I remember mostly as those in power when I was running scared ahead of the draft and the Vietnam War. Nixon, despite a few character flaws :), ended that war. As far as Watergate, he certainly made a lot of wrong decisions and paid the price.

That brought up Ford, chosen by his party because he was a party man, a non-entity in the Presidental parade, right up there with Millard Fillmore. The only good thing I can say about him is that I didn't vote for him. Then we have Carter, the what-me-worry kid, the man who "lusted in his heart," scarcely more competent than Ford. And in the wrong party to boot.

We went into the Presidency of Regan with almost 20% inflation (looking a lot like Brazil there), and exited it with a strong enough economy to survive the recession of the first Bush and create the surpluses under Clinton. Yes, I really believe that, that's what I saw, though others may have seen something different.

The first Bush was a disappointment. Clinton was an even larger one. I could give Clinton credit on the domestic front if it wasn't for the fact that the first two years of a President's tenure is spent on the coattails of the previous one. I might have if I hadn't been aware of the fragility of the dotcom system, and how much of a bubble in our economy it represented.

And I don't agree with all of George W. Bush's actions. I never have with any President. I like a drug benefit for Medicare, selfishly since I'm approaching retirement and I take medicine which my doctors say is necessary if I wish not to die. It's not a particularly good benefit, it's designed wrong, and is too expensive for what it is. On the other hand, it's not what Bush wanted, it's a compromise worked out by a severely divided Congress.

By the way, my definition of a compromise is a decision that nobody's happy with. Compromises aren't necessarily the best solution to any problem. I don't approve of Bush's pronouncement about illegal aliens, but I do believe that that is the politician speaking. He's listening to his political advisors, thinking it will get him the Hispanic vote. I think he's being ill-advised.

Overall, I think history will show George W. Bush as one of our best presidents. Of course, he's still got 4 years to prove me right or wrong. And there are always the historical revisionists to worry about. But, my opinion.

So, who did you like as a President? Those Democrats out there that thought Clinton got a raw deal, let us know in your blogs about the good things he did. Think positive and not negative. We'd all like to hear it.

Another point, another item, done quickly. My opinions were described as "out-of-date." After some thought, I began to wonder whether opinions can be considered thus. If we mean "out-of-style," I suppose it's accurate. If we mean "wrong," I can hardly agree with the assessment. And, regardless of what is meant, there are still many millions of people who hold most of the same opinions, so it doesn't bother me to hold them too. Regardless, I don't feel I need to change my opinions just because there's newer ones that are in favor, I have to go with what I think right. I'm also not likely to get a earring or any other body piercing any time soon.

By the way, a lesson I learned for good (I would have thought I'd already learned it, but I relearned it) last night. It's always best if when you make statements which you present as fact, that you know for sure what you're talking about. Check your facts, check your figures, find out for yourself, amazing the peace of mind it can give you when your facts are actually that and not rhetoric, exaggerations, or inaccuracies designed strictly to prove your point.