Another reason to vote against republicans

[Snowguy716]

Oh yes! Republicans are very state-friendly. They don't agree that the federal government should have the power, that things are left best to local/state governments?

I can't wait to de-seat every republican in my area this November. This stuff just pisses me off so much.

Big Brother Knows Best

House bill would keep states from setting tough toxics rules

House Republicans are pushing legislation that would keep states from setting standards for pesticides and health-threatening industrial chemicals that are more stringent than federal regulations. If passed, the bill could nullify a California ban on brominated fire retardants, for example, and restrictions in San Francisco that limit certain chemicals in baby products. The bill would also require the U.S. EPA to use a cost-benefit standard when determining whether to ban certain toxics, and would impose no timetable for regulation, potentially delaying phaseouts of dangerous chemicals while the agency studies whether regulations are too hard on industry. The legislation was OK'd by one House committee this week, but would still need approval from another before moving to the House floor, and the Senate has yet to take it up at all. The bill is opposed by 12 state attorneys general, the American Nurses Association, and more than 60 environmental and public-health groups.

[FromCityToRural]

I don't know that it's obvious, but although I am a sworn Repub, I am less and less enamored with their performance of late. I'm not happy with the Dems either, though. It's going to be a tough midterm election this year for me.

[g-man430]

Some Republicans I like and some I hate, same goes with democrats. I can't wait until this November, just to watch all the slackers be unelected out of Congress. It's going to be great.

[hood]

I can't name a single republican that I respect, let alone agree with or "like." I used to respect a couple republicans, but even they have turned more towards the extremist segment of the party. In general I support moderate democrats, but it seems moderates frome either party are becoming tough to find. As for these environmentsl laws, how can you really be suprised at all to see this, given who its coming from?

[FromCityToRural]

I agree...moderates such as myself are becoming a hard breed to find up in congress. Hey, aren't these guys supposed to represent us? Neither side does that for me. With all the people I have met and known who share my political beliefs (socially center-left, fiscally very conservative), it's amazing there aren't more people in the halls of Congress talking common sense over partisanship. Joe Lieberman is one of the few, but I could never vote for him since he's from CT.

I think most problems we have now can be traced to partisanship - something BOTH PARTIES are responsible for - rather than just Bush. It seems like for some reason, Bush is the world's famously favorite scapegoat for everything, and it's incredible to me how many people actually latch on to a lot of this stuff.

Again, I don't like Bush 100% as of late, but sit down and think for a minute on the good things he's done, too. Unemployment very low, a recent boom in housing, stocks fully recovered from one of the most terrible events ever to happen. His party hasn't done everything right - I'm the first to admit that and question them on it - but my god, people, if things were REALLY as bad as y'all claim, I think we'd all know it.

[Snowguy716]

I do take some of what I said above back. I will be voting for one republican this fall. She's my state senator. She's a moderate and her biggest issues aren't gay marriage or immigration or abortion.. it's lowering property taxes for resorts/farms/everyone and increasing education funding. She's an old fashioned, fiscally responsible, multi-issued, constituent serving republican.. one that really hasn't been around much since God knows when.

I always say.. who cares whether Bob and Steve get married if you can't even put food on your table??? I mean, come on. I had some guy trying to convince me that economics didn't matter when it comes to politics.. please.. I'm a bread and butter kind of guy and right now the republicans just are not the party for those issues.

[monsoon]

I think the question should be changed to "why would you vote for a republican". Unless you are a religious extremist or big business, they have completely failed in running this country for the people since 2000. We are tied down like guliver in Iraq, countries are building atomic bombs because of our dismal foreign policy, wars are breaking out all over because we have no leadership, our economy is dying, stocks are falling, the government has become a large bloated buerocratic place staffed by incompetant cronies, the country is in the midst of a borrowing orgy which threatens to take down our economy for decades, there is an assault on the middle class, we are importing more oil than every, there is no energy plan except to give more money to the oil companies, and there is a general assault on the liberties that were once guaranteed in the Constitution.

Closer to home they have cut transportation funding to almost nothing which means many of our cities will have to live with their highways for transit for the foreseeable future. And violent crime is up in almost every city because funding for programs that reduced it in the 90s has been cut and eliminated. This is called "compassionate conservatism" I don't think there is anything compassionate about appealing the the worst in people simply to get votes.

It's atrocious, simply atrocious and shows what happens when people don't consider who they are voting for. Our President looks like an impotent buffoon on the world stage at the G8 summit where he is being dismissed as irrelevant by the EU and Russia. Bush went on to lecture Putin on Democracy on stage and Putin responed back "We certainly would want to have the same kind of democracy they have in Iraq". This was meet by great laughter.

So why would you vote for this party? Oh yeah, they give tax breaks to the corporations and the wealthy, beat up on Gays, take advice from Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh, pass legislation to stop someone from taking their dead wife off life support, and serve their own interests.

[Spartan]

I think the question should be changed to "why would you vote for a republican". Unless you are a religious extremist or big business, they have completely failed in running this country for the people since 2000. We are tied down like guliver in Iraq, countries are building atomic bombs because of our dismal foreign policy, wars are breaking out all over because we have no leadership, our economy is dying, stocks are falling, the government has become a large bloated buerocratic place staffed by incompetant cronies, the country is in the midst of a borrowing orgy which threatens to take down our economy for decades, there is an assault on the middle class, we are importing more oil than every, there is no energy plan except to give more money to the oil companies, and there is a general assault on the liberties that were once guaranteed in the Constitution.

Closer to home they have cut transportation funding to almost nothing which means many of our cities will have to live with their highways for transit for the foreseeable future. And violent crime is up in almost every city because funding for programs that reduced it in the 90s has been cut and eliminated. This is called "compassionate conservatism" I don't think there is anything compassionate about appealing the the worst in people simply to get votes.

It's atrocious, simply atrocious and shows what happens when people don't consider who they are voting for. Our President looks like an impotent buffoon on the world stage at the G8 summit where he is being dismissed as irrelevant by the EU and Russia. Bush went on to lecture Putin on Democracy on stage and Putin responed back "We certainly would want to have the same kind of democracy they have in Iraq". This was meet by great laughter.

So why would you vote for this party? Oh yeah, they give tax breaks to the corporations and the wealthy, beat up on Gays, take advice from Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh, pass legislation to stop someone from taking their dead wife off life support, and serve their own interests.

Its interesting that you say we have a bad economy and stocks are falling, since stocks are as high as they've ever been, we're in a bull market, job creation is up, and signs show that the tax cuts worked. Y'all are sounding like the typical doom-an-gloom liberals that the conservatives talk about so much.

While I am not defending our idiot of a president, I do think that the real republicans and true conservatives have some good ideas. The problem, as y'all have correctly identified, is that the Republican Party has failed to live up to the ideals on which it sold itself to the American public. They have collectively done nothing significant to help our country out. All they have done is cause major increases in our national debt and get is bogged down in the quagmire that is Iraq. I think that most Americans can see this, which is why Bush's polls are so incredibly low (which I find fascinating, since he has also had and maintained the highest approval ratings for the longest amount of time of any president in our nations history).

That said, the Democrats have not shown any signs that they are in touch with their constituancy either. They haven't shown any signs of leadership or that their cause is one worth voting for and more than the Republicans have. They keep throwing out just as many idiotic ideas as the Republicans so far as I'm concerned.

I think that America is in the process of a political party shift that will dramatically alter the parites that we have today. The politics of the world are changing, and neither group is capable of handling it. I see it as similar to shifts in the past (like from the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans). This could be in the form of a new party altogether or more likely major shifts in policy.

Its interesting to me that the people with whom most of us can agree that we like are the John McCain and Joe Lieberman type of moderates. Liberals tend to not like Lieberman, but like John McCain. Conservatives tend to not like McCain, but like Lieberman.

Slightly off topic, but sitll relevant: I, for one, do not plan to vote for one of my senators again, who has proven to be a Bush lackey, and has not lived up to what he said he would do. But the other senator, who is a good republican, has opposed some of Bush's more idiotic ideas but still lived up to what a good republican should be.

Like I said before, good Republicans and conservatives out there know that the current leadership has not lived up to expectations, and that is why polls are so low for the president. I think Congress is just as much at fault. I can't say for sure if this distrust will translate into more votes for the Democrats in the fall or not, but I can san for sure that the Democrats are banking on it.

[monsoon]

Its interesting that you say we have a bad economy and stocks are falling, since stocks are as high as they've ever been, we're in a bull market, job creation is up, and signs show that the tax cuts worked. Y'all are sounding like the typical doom-an-gloom liberals that the conservatives talk about so much.

Well actually that is just a positive spin on a bad situation and not a liberal doom and gloom as the numbers show. Stocks are actually lower now (and on the way down again) than when Bush took office, and the so called bull market is only making up from the really bad loses during his first term. It's a dismal record when you look at the history of the Stock Market of the last 25 years.

[g-man430]

Spartan, stocks are not the highest they've ever been, duh. Look at what has happened to them the last couple of days and maybe you would see that this country is in deep sh!t.

Slightly off topic, but sitll relevant: I, for one, do not plan to vote for one of my senators again, who has proven to be a Bush lackey, and has not lived up to what he said he would do. But the other senator, who is a good republican, has opposed some of Bush's more idiotic ideas but still lived up to what a good republican should be.

Both Demint and Graham suck in my book.

[Spartan]

So I don't follow the stock market every day? Thats not the point I am trying to make. Metro's comment just sounds like negative spin on the same thing I just said before. If the stock mart is going back up, even if its just to where it was when he started, then its still up.

[g-man430]

That just sounds like negative spin on the same thing I just said If the stock mart is going back up, even if its just to where it was when he started, then its still up.

True and I think everybody can agree on one thing here and that is we have to stop our dependency on oil all together, foreign and domestically.

[FromCityToRural]

Well, I don't know about all dependency on all oil - that'd be too much of a shock all at once. But we do need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil - supplying countries' instabilities can all too easily apill over and affect us this way.

[Snowguy716]

I think we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil as quickly as possible by increasing renewable energies. I think some goals would be nice:

1) All diesels running on non-oil fuel sources by 2015. More diesels on the market than are on right now by 2015.

2) All heating in homes is converted away from heating oil and natural gas is reduced or held at a slow or no increase through 2020.

3) All electricity is from non-oil sources by 2020 and is 40% renewable by 2030.

4) Ethanol and electricity cars are increased to run at least 50% of new cars by 2020.

5) Mass transit is deeply invested in so that all cities have mass transit run from non-oil sources (electric, bio-diesel, hydrogen) by 2030.

I think these are a few things that would help our country get rid of our oil addiction. Minnesota democrats have proposed these things (Our democrats are referred to as DFLers (Democratic-Farmer-Labor party)). The Republicans are catching on.. but they seem to think the best way to pay for these changes is by borrowing money through bonds.. while democrats want the "pay-as-you-go" alternative, which is really how it should be.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

For the good of the country, the Republicans need to swept out of congress this election. The party needs to die, and another needs to take its place that encourages social and economic freedom along with small government and fiscal responsibility.

Republicanism of today doesn't encourage anything but hate and low taxes, but the low taxes are artificial and don't reflect any changes on the expenses end. It's all a scam. Republicanism certainly doesn't encourage small government or fiscal responsbility either.

As a former Republican and a current Independent, I can say the Republicans (the politicians that is) are fraudsters, pushing hate and artificial wealth on the uneducated classes. They will certainly lose this election unless the Democrats totally blow it. I just hope that country doesn't go too far towards marxism in these next few cycles.

[FromCityToRural]

For the good of the country, the Republicans need to swept out of congress this election. The party needs to die, and another needs to take its place that encourages social and economic freedom along with small government and fiscal responsibility.

Republicanism of today doesn't encourage anything but hate and low taxes, but the low taxes are artificial and don't reflect any changes on the expenses end. It's all a scam. Republicanism certainly doesn't encourage small government or fiscal responsbility either.

As a former Republican and a current Independent, I can say the Republicans (the politicians that is) are fraudsters, pushing hate and artificial wealth on the uneducated classes. They will certainly lose this election unless the Democrats totally blow it. I just hope that country doesn't go too far towards marxism in these next few cycles.

That's the dilemma I face...I'm pretty disillusioned with the Republican party as a whole, but I can't bring myself to vote for Democrats either, since most of them are becoming left-wing nutjobs who, if the Republicans are guilty of hate-mongering, are as just as guilty. I agree, though, that government needs to be smaller, spending reduced, entitlements rolled back, and THEN taxes cut (something nobody with the D next to his name would ever fathom). At the same time, government needs to be less interested in controlling and regulating everything, which both Democrats and Republicans want to do in slightly different ways. If I want to pray in school, smoke a cigarette, ride my bike or motorcycle without a helment, or drive my car without a seatbelt (none of which I do, thanks to the apparently otherwise lost art of common sense), I and everybody else should be free to do so. GOVERNMENT IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR COMMON SENSE!

Basically, I can either vote for a party that's too interested in sticking its nose into my sex life, does not live up to its smaller government tagline, and is impotent in the face of illegal immigration, or a party that wants to pillowfight terrorists, tax the living hell out of me, and give my hard earned money to some lazy dude in a trailer park so he can buy a big screen TV and a Cadillac. Some choice.

[Gusterfell]

Somebody's been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. If you look at the Democratic platform, you'll see that none of the concerns you mentioned are in any way part of the party's goals:

That's the dilemma I face...I'm pretty disillusioned with the Republican party as a whole, but I can't bring myself to vote for Democrats either, since most of them are becoming left-wing nutjobs who, if the Republicans are guilty of hate-mongering, are as just as guilty. I agree, though, that government needs to be smaller, spending reduced, entitlements rolled back, and THEN taxes cut (something nobody with the D next to his name would ever fathom).

If it weren't for the Republicans' escapades in Iraq and their handouts to corporate friends, we could easily pay for all current entitlements, cut taxes for the working class, and maintain the budget surplus Bush inherited.

At the same time, government needs to be less interested in controlling and regulating everything, which both Democrats and Republicans want to do in slightly different ways. If I want to pray in school, smoke a cigarette, ride my bike or motorcycle without a helment, or drive my car without a seatbelt (none of which I do, thanks to the apparently otherwise lost art of common sense), I and everybody else should be free to do so. GOVERNMENT IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR COMMON SENSE!

No Democrat wants to ban private prayer in school. They want to ban official, school-led prayer, which would be a clear establishment of religion by the state. As for smoking, helmet, and seat belt laws, those are all state/local concerns, and have nothing to do with which party is in power in Washington.

Basically, I can either vote for a party that's too interested in sticking its nose into my sex life, does not live up to its smaller government tagline, and is impotent in the face of illegal immigration, or a party that wants to pillowfight terrorists, tax the living hell out of me, and give my hard earned money to some lazy dude in a trailer park so he can buy a big screen TV and a Cadillac. Some choice.

The Democrats want to actually pursue the terrorists who hit us on 9/11, rather than giving them a free pass while using terrorism as an excuse to implement all sorts of unrelated measures. You are aware, I trust, that the CIA just closed its unit focused on finding Osama bin Laden. As for taxation, unless you are fabulously wealthy, the Democrats want to give you deeper tax cuts than Bush has. Under their plan, taxes would only go up for those in the upper tax bracket... and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that those stories of people abusing entitlements are the exception rather than the rule. Besides, why is that anywhere near as offensive as (for starters) Halliburton milking billions off of the war in Iraq and reconstruction in New Orleans, while failing to fulfill contractual obligations in both cases?

Reading this, you probably think I'm a hard-line, liberal Democrat. I'm not. I'm an independant. However, if you look at the facts, rather than just what one party says about the other, there is a clear choice for the good of this country.

[Snowguy716]

Gusterfell, you have a point. Banning private prayer in school would be unconstitutional because the 1st amendment of the constitution clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

By telling someone they may not pray in school, they are infringing upon the "Prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's a two-way street. Conservatives out there that want sanctioned prayer in school are against our 1st amendment rights just as much as liberals that want to prevent people from praying (if there are any).

If you are prohibited from praying on your own, you should take issue with it.

As far as entitlements are concerned.. we do need to have a system that helps people out but is always encouraging those that are capable to work. Our system forces all people to be on a 6 month trial period where the state pays your rent, groceries, utilities, auto expenses, and a small amount of cash as long as you spend 40 hours per week looking for a job at a Minnesota job center. Democrats are fighting to amend this so that attending classes at colleges/universities counts towards the 40 hours. If, after 6 months, you can't find a job, you are considered unemployable and you are put on full welfare assistance.

If you are a teen mother or disabled you are automatically given welfare benefits if you apply and are eligible (don't have a rich boyfriend or husband). I don't see "trailer" or "flat screen" TV involved in this. My mom is disabled and she receives a social security check and medical insurance from the state/federal government. But even that isn't good enough for some conservatives.. they'd just assume that those cripples and lazy people just magically disappear so they can have their 5000 sq. ft. house in the suburbs and drive 4 SUVs... oh well, I guess that extra 1000 sq. ft. and extra car is worth someone elses well being. You earned, right?

[FromCityToRural]

Somebody's been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. If you look at the Democratic platform, you'll see that none of the concerns you mentioned are in any way part of the party's goals:

If it weren't for the Republicans' escapades in Iraq and their handouts to corporate friends, we could easily pay for all current entitlements, cut taxes for the working class, and maintain the budget surplus Bush inherited.

I can't say I've ever listened to Rush in my life...although I did used to listen to Armstrong + Getty, who are a pair of self-described Libertatians, if I recall. I agree that Bush is spending way too much, but I also believe that the spending cut should not now come from the "escapade" in Iraq, but rather the entitlements (specifically, welfare) that give away the money I and others work hard to earn. In an ideal world, Iraq would not have happened in the first place, but now that it has, I believe it's totally, completely wrong to just abandon it. Half-measures like that should not be tolerated.

No Democrat wants to ban private prayer in school. They want to ban official, school-led prayer, which would be a clear establishment of religion by the state.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.

As for smoking, helmet, and seat belt laws, those are all state/local concerns, and have nothing to do with which party is in power in Washington.

That's what the midterm elections are all about.

The Democrats want to actually pursue the terrorists who hit us on 9/11, rather than giving them a free pass while using terrorism as an excuse to implement all sorts of unrelated measures. You are aware, I trust, that the CIA just closed its unit focused on finding Osama bin Laden.

Good point there, I was taken aback when I heard news about the CIA doing that. It's unfathomable to myself how any president could ever let that happen. I don't however, trust the Democrats to deal with terrorists very aggressively.

As for taxation, unless you are fabulously wealthy, the Democrats want to give you deeper tax cuts than Bush has. Under their plan, taxes would only go up for those in the upper tax bracket... and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that those stories of people abusing entitlements are the exception rather than the rule. Besides, why is that anywhere near as offensive as (for starters) Halliburton milking billions off of the war in Iraq and reconstruction in New Orleans, while failing to fulfill contractual obligations in both cases?

That all sounds like the Democrats hate-mongering that I said they do. Again, the Republicans are not immune to this; the party polarization that's been going on means BOTH parties are guilty of this. And again, under any party's administration, there is bound to be some bugling of government contracts; the government is famous for that, and has been for decades! It's another reason why it needs to be scaled back, so that it can more effectively manage itself and audit contracts. Also, I can't believe I'm still hearing the tax cuts for the rich thing - if tax cuts are across the board, then OF COURSE the rich are going to get a higher dollar amount back. Duh. Granted, I do think it's good that the lower and middle class get bigger tax breaks, but I don't believe that anybody's taxes - upper class included - should be raised, just out of principal. Tax cuts should be funded by government cuts, period.

Reading this, you probably think I'm a hard-line, liberal Democrat. I'm not. I'm an independant. However, if you look at the facts, rather than just what one party says about the other, there is a clear choice for the good of this country.

I would say that yes, I do think you sound like a hard-line Democrat, and I do not see one clear cut party for the good of this country. BOTH are too polarized right now and I'd have just as hard a time casting a vote for a Republican as for a Democrat.

Lastly, I do want to clarify what I think on entitlements, as I have always put it in sweeping terms. Mostly, I mean welfare; benefits to disabled and elderly, as well as Medicare, are fine by me, and I think should be kept. But, I do think there needs to be a work program rather than just straight up welfare, as we did during the Depression. That way, folks who are on the program can learn skills to get off dependancy of the program more quickly, while doing public good such as building parks, maintaining sidewalks and streets, etc. The notion of giving money away to somebody through welfare is simply revolting to me.

[monsoon]

The Bush War in Iraq is costing approximately $2.5B/day, Yes $2.5B/day. This does not count costs to replace equipment sent in by the states with their national guard.

In 2007 we have the following items for Welfare:

• Public Housing - $2.178B

• WIC - $5.173B

• Food Stamps - $37B

• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Welfare) - $17.15 B

So if Welfare, Food Stamps and Public Housing were completely eliminated, we are talking about eliminating $62B from the federal budget. While I am a firm believer the government should not be paying people to have children out of wedlock who can't support them, this is a drop in the water when you are taking about the federal budget. Eliminate all of these social programs, and you paid for just 24 days of the Iraq occupation.

If anyone is voting for a Republican in hopes of eliminating these social outlays from the budget, really isn't focused on the real problems caused by this administration.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

The Bush War in Iraq is costing approximately $2.5B/day, Yes $2.5B/day. This does not count costs to replace equipment sent in by the states with their national guard.

In 2007 we have the following items for Welfare:

• Public Housing - $2.178B

• WIC - $5.173B

• Food Stamps - $37B

• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Welfare) - $17.15 B

So if Welfare, Food Stamps and Public Housing were completely eliminated, we are talking about eliminating $62B from the federal budget. While I am a firm believer the government should not be paying people to have children out of wedlock who can't support them, this is a drop in the water when you are taking about the federal budget. Eliminate all of these social programs, and you paid for just 24 days of the Iraq occupation.

If anyone is voting for a Republican in hopes of eliminating these social outlays from the budget, really isn't focused on the real problems caused by this administration.

I would put medicaid under welfare too. In 2003 the cost was $278.3 Billion, by 2009 it is projected to cost $445 billion.

The premise of the program is fine but it overruns it's intentions and is abused like all social programs. Limits need to be placed and it needs some reforms.

----

But yes, this War is terrible misuse of resources, and coupled with the tax cuts and increased spending, fiscal responsibility is not in the domain of Republicans. One can only imagine how far we could move along towards oil independence with those hundreds of billions.

I don't vote along party lines, and my vote this election will be candidate by candidate.

[monsoon]

I would put medicaid under welfare too. In 2003 the cost was $278.3 Billion, by 2009 it is projected to cost $445 billion.

Medicaid for 2007 is $199B, it will most likely be in the mid $180s, by 2009. Medicaid is administered by the states and partially funded by the federal government. It is optional for a state to participate in the program, but as of this date every state, both red and blue has participated. In any case keep in mind that medicaid helps far more people than people thought of to be on welfare.

Medicaid Outlays break down as follows:

• Long term Care to People with a disability - 44% - $87.6B

• Low Income Elderly - 24% - $47.76B

• Total - $135B

Now that leaves about $63 for other purposes, mainly aid to low income families with children. I don't know about you, but I really don't have a problem spending money on the elderly and the disabled. If we cut the other $53B then you have paid for another 25.2 days of the Iraq occupation.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Yea, that's not too bad. I got my numbers from Cato, so they probably inflated them.

[goodbye]

Sounds like most of you have all of the answers, so why not try running for President? It is great to live in the U.S.A.

I will not argue or discuss politics here, because it will not have an effect on our nation in the end.

I do have one question to interject as something for everyone to discuss: If not for the "War on Terrorism," what would be the cost of more attacks on our nation's soil? Since we have not been attacked since 9/11/2001 ( ), I am not as eager to jump on our leaders for taking the fight to their breeding holes. While there has been great sacrifice along the way, the victories and achievements are mounting up as well, if you look beyond the mainstream media to the source - the actual men and women fighting for our freedom.

While I understand some of you will find my comments absurd, they are not meant to show support beyond the resolve to fight global terrorism, which I see as highy important these days, since I love my freedom.

[monsoon]

If not for the "War on Terrorism," what would be the cost of more attacks on our nation's soil? Since we have not been attacked since 9/11/2001

Well forgetting that even though you said you wouldn't do it, you have asked a political question. First of all, our President has declared the War on Terror, not the War on Terrorism. There is a big difference. (actually there is no declared war)

If you are fighting a war on Terrorists, then you can measure the results. i.e How many Terrorist Plots did you stop, how many Terrorists have you killed or captured, how many Terrorists networks have we infiltrated, etc etc. You can have a plan and you can measure the results. The leadership is not interested in that hence the War on Terror, an emotion. You can't measure a platitude such as this, but it does sound good everytime that someome questions the actions of the President as he can simply involk the war on terror. It's a ticket to do anything he wants, and it continues to fool people who don't bother or won't look at the details of the failures of this president.