3 ms·
I didn't see much insight here. It was the typical liberal "00 was the decade of Bush and Bush is bad" with a little social media admiration mixed in. The tru
by SamAtt 17y ago
I didn't see much insight here. It was the typical liberal "00 was the decade of Bush and Bush is bad" with a little social media admiration mixed in.
The truth, I think, is that the last decade was simply a hard one and George Bush was just a product of his times. It was a decade where the U.S. chose security over freedom and grew into a nation it didn't want to be. While Bush was just a President who was not wise enough to turn the country around while being appeasing enough to give the nation what it thought it wanted.
I know some here love Barack Obama but I think he represents the same one-sided mentality of the last decade. He is the knee jerk reaction to Bush, opposite in every way and just as extreme to the other side.
My hope is that the next decade finds a balance this one has lacked.
- kiba 17y agoI have a hard time thinking that Obama is different than Bush. All he seem to be doing is getting stuck into wars, and endorsing the Bush administration's policy of interventionism into the economy. Plus, I still remember the anger and betrayal I felt when Obama signed the act that immunize telecoms for their spying activities. They don't even pretend to be subtle about it!
- onewland 17y agoI think you're projecting on the politics. Though the author lamented Bush's 2004 win, "(In the alternate decade of fantasy, President Gore, forever slim and with hairline intact, not only reads those intelligence memos in the summer of 2001 but acts upon them; he also ratifies the Kyoto Protocol and invents something even better than the Internet.)" sounds like a direct condemnation of that "00 as the decade of Bush and Bush is bad" attitude. Also, I didn't catch the glowing reviews of Obama in there, except that she referred to him as an intellectual. I agree with you, though, that the article was basically content free.