Yes but much of Clinton's legacy was not his intent nor of his inspiration. Clinton simply did not act with the force and precision that Blair does. He was brought to his acts by others.

Yes, Blair is a more serious person, as is W. But Clinton wished to be them, he just wasn't ccapable.

I may sound like I think British PMs are better than US presidents. I do. Why are they? I think its because they have to be. The US system can be as messy as any, but it does seem to be able to endure mediocre heads of state. We've had a spate of them of late and have not suffered to much as a result. England seems to suffer more from so-so PMs. And perhaps that means the cream has to come to the top in a way that doesn't happen in the US. Since I have a distrust of heads of state, I go with the US I guess as a favorite.

ex:

No, the difference lies only in parliamentary structure. Give reagan and W a free hand to do whatever they wanted and they'd achieve even more. our system favors our leaders doing nothing but there's much repair work to be done on all that the Left was able to do after the post-Depression GOP collapse.

our system favors our leaders doing nothing

Precisely correct, Mr. Judd. Our system is wonderfully conceived for making it very difficult to get things done. This can be a plus or a minus, but on whole probably a plus. It also increases the amount of pork barreling compared to a parliamentary system. OTOH, it does so by giving individual members the power to defy whips and vote their consciences.

Other than stand w/W, what's Blair done?

(unless you think islamicizing or tying England to Old Europe is a good thing.. Oh, wait.......)

Nothing more than mutated monarchy, he's bringing them back to their past.

They've always been peasants and shall remain so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35364-2005May4?language=printer

www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35364-2005May4?language=printer

Sandy P: England is one of the most properous nations in Europe, ( I think Ireland is ahead per captita ) does that count? Islamsizing? When I was in London I was there a whole day before I met an English person. And they weren't all moslems. They were from everywhere. The impression is more exilerating than NY even. You heard different languages everywhere. And its a happy city. Or at least it seemed so. It was fun! It was wild like NY in the 80s but with out the misery.

And why can't England be part of Europe? Thats a market of 600 million people. We'll need friends like that in our tiffs with China to come.

Hey OJ, hate to say this old bean, but what Blair really means is that there is no right and left.

No, Blair hates the Left. What he says is that you can achieve the Left's decent ends by the Right's putatively indecent means.

England can't be part of Europe because its ideology is the opposite of Europe's.

Left Right Europe USA!

Its all one thing Judd!

There is no Westphalia! Its all one great secular drug dazed mono-culture of sex and death!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

PS Note: ( Evil laugh - uttered by the bad guy in the movie - bad guy may be distinguished from the other characters, ussually by the fact that he is more intelligent, more imaginative and more committed than any other character in the film. He is ussually the only one who has a plan and is doing something with his life. )

ex:

Now you're getting it. There's a fundamental dichotomy between Anglo-America and Franco-Germany. That's why Westernm Europe is a cesspool.

Has everybody's spell check program stopped working?

Our system deliberately makes it hard to get anything done lawfully. That's why the left took to the courts previously seeded with leftwing radicals to subvert our system and push through their cherished programs of multi-cults, quota systems, entitlements and find rights in the constitution that don't exist, etc.

Undoing it all will take time and massive effort. Bush has made a good beginning by his Supreme Court appointments, but there's more to do done and the next couple of presidents need to continue his work or we'll slip right back in the status quo of the bad old days when liberals ruled.

Dear Left/ Right Dichotomists - right hand camp

May I suggest that the left are not evil. That much of what they did came from absolute laziness. Take the abuse of the courts that Erp mentions. The courts were simply convienient.

Democracy relies on convienience and when the electorate are not paying attention, which is most of the time, convienience can be justified as saving money and time.

Of course the Left isn't evil. They favor one of Man's two impulses--towards security.

America just happens to be Founded on the other--towards liberty.

I am sure your security/ liberty theory has been batted around plenty and has lost all it's breakable parts and excess wieght. I don't buy it yet though.

other than 100m dead, and 2B enslaved for 50+ years, the left is decent. guffaw. it's always somebody else doing the work and paying the bills, when the left is involved. what a wonderful world it would be, if they never were. still, they are entertaining in a dark sort of way.

Even if the next couple of presidents don't continue on Bush's path with regards to judicial appointments, the future's status quo won't include liberal rule.

The Boomers are much more liberal than their children and grandchildren are, and more than immigrants to America are.
The hard left only makes up perhaps 20% of the American electorate now; within twenty years, they'll be down to perhaps 10%.

This is why Orrin keeps saying that we're facing a GOP majority for another 70 years, although that conclusion assumes that the composition and philosophical orientation of the parties won't change.

In any case, regardless of whichever party is in charge, for at least the next four decades America is going to be a mildly conservative place.

The great Chomsky has spoken.

Orrin maybe right about republicans. But ideologically everything can change. Look how far the democrats changed in the hundred years from 1850 to 1950. In fact, after Johnson the left hit it's rut and changed much less in the next thirty years than it had in the previous 50. That ended up undoing them.

Toe: 100 million dead? by what? old age?

now we know why the left always kills as many people as they can -- that's what they consider humorous.

ex:

They didn't change at all and haven't to this day--they are the party of economic security and moral relativism.

Let's be precise here: The party of proffered purported economic security. And the moral relativism of the 30s and 50s has given way pretty much to amoralism, now hasn't it?

exclab:

In this forum, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao are assigned to the Left.

Thus the 100 million dead.