"At least you know where he stands..."

[kentuck]

How many times did we hear that about Bush during the campaign. So if everybody knew where he stands, they were conscious of the direction he is taking our country and are just as responsible as Bush.
================================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/opinion/28luttwak.html?ex=1259384400&en=e87a86c86d6d1d72&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

<snip>
First, what do his critics fear that Mr. Bush will do? Some speculate that he will want to challenge Iran over its nuclear initiatives, spurning the freeze recently negotiated by Britain, France and Germany. Or they fret that he will unilaterally increase the pressure on North Korea after years of multilateral frustration. Some are more concerned that he will widen the campaign for democracy in the Middle East beyond Iraq: the obvious target for removal by military means being the Baathist dictatorship of Syria, which has exposed itself to retaliation by aiding terrorism in Iraq. And most assume that the president will want much wider action to suppress the insurgency in Iraq, with the re-conquest of Falluja only a first step.

All this seems logical. But while re-elected presidents who no longer have to face the voters are theoretically free to pursue their wildest dreams, in practice they never do. Consider the last two second-term presidents

[pagerbear]

1. One heard that a lot about Jesse Helms, too.

Even though he directed his hate toward the acceptable victim of the time--blacks in the 40s and 50s, accused Communists, gays and lesbians.

[elehhhhna]

2. Idi Amin, also.