Fernando,

I and a majority of the U.S. are extremely happy that we have a president who feels his primary responsibility is U.S. security. His responsibilities to the rest of the world are at best, secondary.

Nevertheless, the world will never appreciate how much safer their country is because we voted for President Bush. Kerry would have sooner or later, led you right down the well-trodden, appeasement path.

I don't agree Gazpacho.

It would be rather simplistic to say that USA is isolated from the World as if anything that happens outside your borders doesn't matter (for your own security).

One votes the leader he thinks best defends his own country, and a governor should always have his own people good in mind. But a good governor should always try to have an eye on his friends and defend them, and two eyes on his foes and erode their will to fight.

Nevertheless, our president is a good example of how a president should not be

I have my doubts that Bush was the best choice for you (and for the rest of the World), but I don't think either that Kerry would have been the best election. Perhaps Al Gore.

Anyway, you write here as if you would want to throw at everyone's face that Bush was elected and Kerry wasn't... Let antiamericans cry, I really didn't care if Bush was elected or Kerry was, as you say, he is your president.

Let us hope he really behaves the best, first for your country (as it should be) and second for the rest of us.

Fernando

Fenando,

Al Gore couldn't even win the vote in his own state of Tenesee. What does that tell you?

Lots of people here were pretty fed up with the Clinton crowd. But they'll forget by 2008. I predict the liberals will be very happy with our next election.

Gazpacho's point, that politics in the US is like a pedulum, that swings back and forth, favoring one party or another does happen, mainly because of laws/taxes enacted, and foreign affairs. When we reach a point of saturation on issues, we tend to lean in the opposite direction.

Whether or not 2008 will be the point when we reach "dead center," favoring neither party, I can't say. A lot of where we stand will depend on what happens in Iraq & Afghanistan over the next two years. If we aren't showing progress towards a lasting peace in both nations, the Republicans may find they are in for a stormy ride in the mid-term elections of 2006, but don't bank on that happening.

Then there's the issues surrounding the "far-right" moralists who are being somewhat seperated from the party already by Bush's decision to install Rice as Secretary of State. How far the administration goes towards making peace with middle of the road voters will change the playing field quite a bit.

But, in my opinion, even if the Democrats do show gains in the House and Senate in 2006, the Republicans will still hold a majority, and both parties are going to be scrambling to figure out who they have that would make viable Presidential candidates in 2008.

Count on one thing. The Iraqi issue will be at the forefront of both campaigns, and the winner will be the person who demonstrates what type of an "end game" to us being there is possible, and would enact it, as well as how the US can mend fences with its allies.

Another thing that should be considered. The Democratic party will also try to divorce itself from the far-left radical element to grab a share of the swing votes. It could make for interesting politics.

Wolf

Thanks for your post Wolf

If there were no changes in the Government it wouldn't be a true democracy. We had 14 years of socialism and there is nothing worst than having the same president for so much time.

Gazpacho:
That he wasn't able to win for a handful votes...

But anyway, I have no preferences between republicans and democrats, they are both the kind of parties that I would vote. And they don't have homologue parties in Spain.

Fernando

Gazpacho - please note that the majority you refer to rather condensendingly was an extremely narrow one. I do not claim to speak for you - please try and refrain for speaking for me ...

Puna: Who cares how narrow the victory was, as long as the "good guy" wins!!

I just returned from a five day trip to the Peoples Republic of Oregon. I think if those people of that state had their way we would be living under the Marx rule. No sales tax but a 22%hotel tax, no sales tax, but car rental tax that was equal to the rental of the car. Then they wonder why they are lossing jobs, and cannot entise business to move in. The stares that I got, walking around on the streets of Portland with my redneck, white socks, and drinking my blue ribbon beer. I wasn't sure I was going to get out of there alive. But, being the hardy western redneck that I am, I endured and now safely back in the warm climate of right wing,right thinking Arizona.

Ignacio, you have forgotten to tell that F.J. Losantos wrote the book "La Dictadura Silenciosa” 10 years ago. He said many Spanish citizens living in Cataluña and País Vasco were harassed by nationalist groups and governments and had to leave this areas of Spain by -according to recent ZP terminology- "nationalistic fundamentalism" .

Not that it matters, but it is nice to know, so here it is...................
In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity about our government and its policies, we should remember England's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words to his own people.

During a recent interview, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain was asked by one of his parliament members as to why he believes so much in America. And does he think America is on the right track?

Blair's reply -- "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in ... and how many want out.".