Bush Does It Again

[franko]

For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year

why Time chose him

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Amen!

[blaise]

Worthy of a trip to the vomitorium.

I saw a televised interview with a Time editor. He explained that the award was for his successful political campaign. It did not compliment Bush for uniting the country or running the government well.

[franko]

Blaise said:

I saw a televised interview with a Time editor. He explained that the award was for his successful political campaign. It did not compliment Bush for uniting the country or running the government well.

Right. Time does not endorse Bush; just says that he is the most newsworthy.

[blaise]

I think buyer's regret is already beginning to sink in with the American public.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=345555

[franko]

Blaise said:

I think buyer's regret is already beginning to sink in with the American public.

This rating is a continuation of the long-term, close division that has been evident in public assessments of Bush's performance
Half are dissatisfied, half are satisfied, and the other half don't know or don't care. There is enough discussion here there and everywhere on Bush and his successes and failures (some focus on one more than the other).

REgret or not, they have him for three more years before he becomes lame-duck and _______ is nominated by the GOP. Any ideas Arnold won't be eligible until at least 2012).

[blaise]

It's not in equilibrium. The balance is slowly tipping.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html

[Skilly]

franko said:

This rating is a continuation of the long-term, close division that has been evident in public assessments of Bush's performance
Half are dissatisfied, half are satisfied, and the other half don't know or don't care. There is enough discussion here there and everywhere on Bush and his successes and failures (some focus on one more than the other).

REgret or not, they have him for three more years before he becomes lame-duck and _______ is nominated by the GOP. Any ideas Arnold won't be eligible until at least 2012).

I got my money on Jeb.


Btw, are they changing the constitution? You have to be born in the USA to be president, so Arnie wouldn't be eligible.

[franko]

Blaise said:

It's not in equilibrium. The balance is slowly tipping.

Same poll, same article: ABC and the Post worked together on it.

You didn't point out that while the war in Iraq (a mistake imo, just in case I haven't been clear) is losing favour, his domesitc policy is not (for some reason). Conservative politics does baffle me -- there are a lot more people who are working stiffs like you and me yet they elect leaders who favour big business!

[franko]

Skilly said:

Btw, are they changing the constitution? You have to be born in the USA to be president, so Arnie wouldn't be eligible.

Which is why I said at least 2012. There have been minor suggestions as to a constitutional change, but I can't see it. Can you imagine a Canadian-born US President? Jim Carrey, anyone? Alex Trebek?

[blaise]

franko said:

Same poll, same article: ABC and the Post worked together on it.

You didn't point out that while the war in Iraq (a mistake imo, just in case I haven't been clear) is losing favour, his domesitc policy is not (for some reason). Conservative politics does baffle me -- there are a lot more people who are working stiffs like you and me yet they elect leaders who favour big business!

Conservative is a blanket term. It covers economic conservatives and social conservatives. The Republicans have cleverly manipulated the social conservatives with red meat emotional issues such as patriotism, abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, the 10 Commandments in public places, the insertion of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. The big business leaders ride on the backs of social conservatives who go to the polls, but they do something even more important to ensure that they get their way: they buy Congress directly and through lobbyists. They own a substantial part of the broadcast, cable, and print media. Every Rupert Murdoch or Sinclair Broadcasting or Clear Channel outlet relentlessly pounds out right wing noise and the dummies eat it up. The right wing think tank subsidize sleazy publishers like Regnery Press in the publication of mendacious books about John Kerry and other Democrats in full knowledge that the boobs will buy it.

I despise both types of conservatives. I loathe the fleecing and the savaging of the environment by the crony capitalists and the imposition of nauseating ideas by the televangelists. I don't love Democrats and I don't care for a number of their special interest groups. My votes are anti-Republican all the way. I wouldn't even vote for one as the village dogcatcher because that would augment their infrastructure.

[franko]

Blaise said:

Conservative is a blanket term. It covers economic conservatives and social conservatives. The Republicans have cleverly manipulated the social conservatives with red meat emotional issues such as patriotism, abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, the 10 Commandments in public places, the insertion of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. The big business leaders ride on the backs of social conservatives who go to the polls, but they do something even more important to ensure that they get their way: they buy Congress directly and through lobbyists. They own a substantial part of the broadcast, cable, and print media. Every Rupert Murdoch or Sinclair Broadcasting or Clear Channel outlet relentlessly pounds out right wing noise and the dummies eat it up. The right wing think tank subsidize sleazy publishers like Regnery Press in the publication of mendacious books about John Kerry and other Democrats in full knowledge that the boobs will buy it.

So Republicans aren't stupid after all, I guess!

You are right -- conservtaives are all lumped together. The NDP took after the leader of the Green Party during the election saying "he was just a conservative in environmentalist skin".

Interesting, too, that just a few years ago "conservatives" were bemoaning the fact that the liberal press was manipulating eveything that went on, and that left-wing think tanks had control of the media.

I despise both types of conservatives.

But you don't even know me -- how can you despise me? I am one of them . . . somehow, I think -- more ocnservative in some things, less so in others . . . socially concerned yet fiscally responsible. At one time I would have considered myself a liberal, but now I just don't know . . .

I loathe the fleecing and the savaging of the environment by the crony capitalists and the imposition of nauseating ideas by the televangelists.

I'm with you there on both counts. As an admitted evangelical born-again I find it reprehensible that this earth that I consider was (oh-oh) created by God has been -- I agree with your word wholeheartedly -- savaged -- and often under the quise of Christianity (which equals capitalist hard work . . . you know, the Protestant work ethic -- as if non-Protestants don't work hard).

As an evangelical born-again I am embarrassed by the whole idea of televangelism, and the scandals that have taken place over the years. There is too much opportunity for greedy selfish human nature to shine through and take over -- and it does. But that is not a reason to disavow all who sincerely believe (after having thought things through).

I don't love Democrats and I don't care for a number of their special interest groups. My votes are anti-Republican all the way. I wouldn't even vote for one as the village dogcatcher because that would augment their infrastructure.

I wouldn't care if the dog catcher was Republican or Democrat or Muslim or scientist -- as long as he or she was the best person to do the job.

[blaise]

The Bush domestic policy will be muzzled to some extent because even the Republicans in Congress are uneasy about some of the proposed measuresd. In particular, partial privatization of Social Security (a huge boon to Wall Street, by the way) would require putting in 2 trillion (with a T) dollars to make up for the shortfall in funds available for paying present retirees and those approaching retirement age. Why? Because Bush says he doesn't want to make up for the deficit by increasing Social Security tax rates, extending the range of salaries subject to taxation upward, cutting benefits, or raising the retirement age. That 2T would therefore have to be borrowed, because the Bush tax cuts have emptied the treasury. Who would pay off the 2T plus interest? Not only today's workers but their children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren (and perhaps still another generation or two). Congressmen running for reelection don't want to have that pinned on them. Moreover, not everyone who contributes to a private investment account will fare well in the future. If they run out of funds, the government will no longer be required to bail them out. The unwise investors will have to subsist on drastically reduced Social Security benefits. Right now, 6.2% is deducted from wages (there is a cutoff above a certain point, but that cutoff point is periodically adjusted for inflation). If individuals are permitted to invest 2% privately (that's 32% of the 6.2%), their Social Security benefits will be only 68% of what they would have gotten otherwise. Individuals who don't have high-powered investment advisors frequently lose out on the market, while the wealthy tend to do better. This further contributes to inequality. Furthermore, with so much additional money invested in stocks, the price-to-earnings ratios would go up (supply and demand), the capital gains would be reduced, and the retiree might have to draw benefits at a trough in the market.

[blaise]

franko said:

So Republicans aren't stupid after all, I guess!

You are right -- conservtaives are all lumped together. The NDP took after the leader of the Green Party during the election saying "he was just a conservative in environmentalist skin".

Interesting, too, that just a few years ago "conservatives" were bemoaning the fact that the liberal press was manipulating eveything that went on, and that left-wing think tanks had control of the media.


But you don't even know me -- how can you despise me? I am one of them . . . somehow, I think -- more ocnservative in some things, less so in others . . . socially concerned yet fiscally responsible. At one time I would have considered myself a liberal, but now I just don't know . . .


I'm with you there on both counts. As an admitted evangelical born-again I find it reprehensible that this earth that I consider was (oh-oh) created by God has been -- I agree with your word wholeheartedly -- savaged -- and often under the quise of Christianity (which equals capitalist hard work . . . you know, the Protestant work ethic -- as if non-Protestants don't work hard).

As an evangelical born-again I am embarrassed by the whole idea of televangelism, and the scandals that have taken place over the years. There is too much opportunity for greedy selfish human nature to shine through and take over -- and it does. But that is not a reason to disavow all who sincerely believe (after having thought things through).



I wouldn't care if the dog catcher was Republican or Democrat or Muslim or scientist -- as long as he or she was the best person to do the job.

OK, I'll pull back a little. I don't despise you. I don't really care what you (or likeminded individuals) believe in. That's freedom. I do care about the attempt to impose morality on everyone else. I oppose censorship. I think viewing pornography and flag burning are in poor taste but not justification for imprisonment. I don't want to give in to parents' groups that demand the withdrawal of books by Mark Twain from libraries and schools and nude art from museums because they don't want their children to encounter them.

I retain my resolute stance about not voting for Republicans. The state legislator who represents my district is doing a good job but I still voted against him because he helps maintain a Republican majority, and many of the Republicans who represent other districts in the state are horrible. (I might add that I think his opponent would also have done a good job if elected, so the alternative would not have been an idiot.)

The conservative think tanks (and the media their contributors have bought) came into being after the defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Since most super-rich Americans favor Republicans, they had the money to do it.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blaise said:

OK, I'll pull back a little. I don't despise you. I don't really care what you (or likeminded individuals) believe in. That's freedom. I do care about the attempt to impose morality on everyone else. I oppose censorship. I think viewing pornography and flag burning are in poor taste but not justification for imprisonment. I don't want to give in to parents' groups that demand the withdrawal of books by Mark Twain from libraries and schools and nude art from museums because they don't want their children to encounter them.

I retain my resolute stance about not voting for Republicans. The state legislator who represents my district is doing a good job but I still voted against him because he helps maintain a Republican majority, and many of the Republicans who represent other districts in the state are horrible. (I might add that I think his opponent would also have done a good job if elected, so the alternative would not have been an idiot.)

The conservative think tanks (and the media their contributors have bought) came into being after the defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Since most super-rich Americans favor Republicans, they had the money to do it.

You have it wrong just like the Democrats.
The Wal-Mart states supported the Republicans and the Starbucks states supported the Democrats. Hollywood and the super rich support the Demos. The people who are already rich, the heinzes and Kennedy's support Demos. The middleclass trying to get ahead or at least not fall back are Republicans! Anyone who can't see the tide turning is missing the boat.

[blaise]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

You have it wrong just like the Democrats.
The Wal-Mart states supported the Republicans and the Starbucks states supported the Democrats. Hollywood and the super rich support the Demos. The people who are already rich, the heinzes and Kennedy's support Demos. The middleclass trying to get ahead or at least not fall back are Republicans! Anyone who can't see the tide turning is missing the boat.

Watch what happens to publicans in 2006. They will recede from their high water mark. They have brought an unwinnable war, an unsolvable deficit, and an export of jobs. And the old folks will turn on them if they go along with the dismantling of Social Security.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blaise said:

Watch what happens to publicans in 2006. They will recede from their high water mark. They have brought an unwinnable war, an unsolvable deficit, and an export of jobs. And the old folks will turn on them if they go along with the dismantling of Social Security.

In many respects you are correct, but it's the same refrain we heard in 2004 prior to the election.
The war is a mess.
The deficit is unacceptable.
Jobs are fleeing.
Social security is in big trouble.

As long as Democratic Presidents have been elected they have been cast out in favor of Republicans. And vice versa.
Mulrooney and Diefenbaker had majorities and they were cast out too. Students of history witnessed Whigs, Torries and Labor in Britain rotating. Chretian was unpopular but has yet to be replaced with a PC. The Communists fell in Russia and may yet return.
The Democrats will come back and then they will be thrown out.

In the meantime the US must stop coddling the Iraqi's and choose a side. Join the Saperlipopettees and Kurds and cast out the Sunni's. It is unacceptable to allow US soldiers to be attacked by radical insurgents who blend back into the crowd. Many Iraqis will be killed before this war ends and it is time to step it up a notch. No more Mr. Nice Guy. At this time, Mr. Bush is the man for the job until someone tougher comes along.

[franko]

Blaise said:

OK, I'll pull back a little. I don't despise you. I don't really care what you (or likeminded individuals) believe in. That's freedom.

Ah, I didn’t think you did. I was just being a little flippant under the anonymity of the board. But ain’t it great to live in a country where even if we argued face to face neither one of us would be imprisoned?

I do care about the attempt to impose morality on everyone else. I oppose censorship. I think viewing pornography and flag burning are in poor taste but not justification for imprisonment. I don't want to give in to parents' groups that demand the withdrawal of books by Mark Twain from libraries and schools and nude art from museums because they don't want their children to encounter them.

Yet another issue. Started out discussing Bush; it morphed back into politics as a whole, and now to ethics.

Those who hold stronger values are condemned for imposing their values on another (or on society as a whole), yet those with . . . I’m not sure of the word here, as to say lesser or lower does not seem right . . . different values also impose their value/system on others with impunity.

Censorship should begin in the home, not with the state. However, having said that, the state does have some obligation to carefully discern what is appropriate for different age groups. But the fact is, no one forces me to view a Malenthorpe exibit or to take my children to one – self-censorship fits the bill nicely.

I retain my resolute stance about not voting for Republicans. The state legislator who represents my district is doing a good job but I still voted against him because he helps maintain a Republican majority, and many of the Republicans who represent other districts in the state are horrible. (I might add that I think his opponent would also have done a good job if elected, so the alternative would not have been an idiot.)

The conservative think tanks (and the media their contributors have bought) came into being after the defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Since most super-rich Americans favor Republicans, they had the money to do it.

I’m just glad I live where I do and wasn’t forced to choose between the two. Maybe I’d have voted for Nader . . .

[franko]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

In the meantime the US must stop coddling the Iraqi's and choose a side. Join the Saperlipopettees and Kurds and cast out the Sunni's. It is unacceptable to allow US soldiers to be attacked by radical insurgents who blend back into the crowd. Many Iraqis will be killed before this war ends and it is time to step it up a notch. No more Mr. Nice Guy. At this time, Mr. Bush is the man for the job until someone tougher comes along.

But if he had just kept his nose out of things in the first place, he/the American GIs wouldn't be in this predicament!

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

franko said:

But if he had just kept his nose out of things in the first place, he/the American GIs wouldn't be in this predicament!

Keeping your nose out of it and hoping for the best is the ostrich response of sticking your head in the sand.
Better to fight in Iraq than on Wall Street USA.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Keeping your nose out of it and hoping for the best is the ostrich response of sticking your head in the sand.
Better to fight in Iraq than on Wall Street USA.

If you start a fight you must accept the possibility of receiving a bloody nose. Squatting in someone else's backyard and then crying when they attempt to evict you is just silly.

[HabbaDasher]

Gwyne Dyer is of the opinion that the motive for the 9/11 attacks was to get the USA to invade Afghanistan, thereby inflaming Islamic extremism.

www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20What%20Terrorists%20Want.txt

[blaise]

HabbaDasher said:

Gwyne Dyer is of the opinion that the motive for the 9/11 attacks was to get the USA to invade Afghanistan, thereby inflaming Islamic extremism.

www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20What%20Terrorists%20Want.txt

Mr. Dyer started off well but went completely off the road and plunged over a cliff when he asserted that a further devastating al-Qaeda attack before the election would have led to the defeat of Bush. On the contrary, his ratings would have gone up as much of the population, including some Kerry supporters, would have rallied behind him. Did the American public turn on Franklin Delano Roosevelt when the Japanese sank four battleships and inflicted other damage on the ships and facilities at Pearl Harbor? Not at all.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Blaise said:

Mr. Dyer started off well but went completely off the road and plunged over a cliff when he asserted that a further devastating al-Qaeda attack before the election would have led to the defeat of Bush. On the contrary, his ratings would have gone up as much of the population, including some Kerry supporters, would have rallied behind him. Did the American public turn on Franklin Delano Roosevelt when the Japanese sank four battleships and inflicted other damage on the ships and facilities at Pearl Harbor? Not at all.

From Dyer's article:

It probably would not do so unless Mr Bush's number were slipping
badly, for any terrorist attack on US soil carries the risk of stimulating
resentment against the current administration for failing to prevent it.
Certainly another attack on the scale of 9/11 would risk producing that
result, even if al-Qaeda had the resources for it. But a simple truck bomb
in some US city centre a few months before the election, killing just a
couple of dozen Americans, could drive voters back into Mr. Bush's arms and
turn a tight election around. Al-Qaeda is clever enough for that.

[HabbaDasher]

Mr B beat me to it....

[blaise]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Keeping your nose out of it and hoping for the best is the ostrich response of sticking your head in the sand.
Better to fight in Iraq than on Wall Street USA.

This is extremely shallow thinking. Bush and his pack of Neocon ninnies thought they could achieve a victory on the cheap against a seriously weakened Iraq. However, they didn't anticipate that it would get this bad. Therefore, they continue to disseminate the patently false message that Iraq was a threat to the US (how?). Of course, in the process they succeeded in deceiving themselves into thinking that in a few weeks or months they could get the oil flowing--for the profit of the energy companies that backed Bush.

Note that the Bushies have assiduously avoided armed conflict with North Korea, Iran, or China, which are potentially far more dangerous to the US than Iraq, because the enormous casualties entailed by invading those foes would be totally unacceptable to the American public.

[franko]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Keeping your nose out of it and hoping for the best is the ostrich response of sticking your head in the sand.

There is a difference between keeping your nose out and going looking for a fight. It is obvious that the excuses to invade Iraq were at best lame, lmae, and very lame. It was one thing to go to Afghanistan, where Bin Laden was reported to be hiding. It is quite another to say "We didn't find him so lets get someone else instead".

Unfortunatley for Mr. Bush, he took lessons from Goodenow and Buttman and cannnot back down without losing face -- that all-important pasrt of the psyche. He's in for the long haul . . . probably praying that the elections will take place without too many problems (fat chance) so he can say "we're done here".

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

HabbaDasher said:

Gwyne Dyer is of the opinion that the motive for the 9/11 attacks was to get the USA to invade Afghanistan, thereby inflaming Islamic extremism.

www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20What%20Terrorists%20Want.txt

I have no doubt that Bin Laden wants the US to attack Muslims thereby uniting Muslims against the US.
In one respect Ben laden is correct and Bush is way off base.
This IS a Jihad, a Holy War.
The enemies of the US are willing to die for their beliefs and have shown this time and again.
The US has no hope of winning the hearts of Arabs and promoting our style of democracy in countries that prefer Theocracies.
The next question is do we retreat and allow them to run their countries however they want or do we destroy them before they destroy us. Converting them will not work and is not a viable option.
Most countries, like Canada simply will pull back and ignore the atrocities and infractions of human rights. Chamberlain tried to negotiate with Hitler and it bought him time for a while.
The UN will write a nasty note, debate it for a while and half of it's members will sign it.
The US, in order to make the world a safer place, must eliminate the threats to our way of life, before they inflict terrible damage to us on our soil.
I have no quarrel with the majority of innocent people living half way accross the world, but if the only way to root out our enemies is to make a terrible choice, them or us; I choose US!
If I truly believed that the world is a big place and we are not in danger, I would pay $5.00 for a gallon of gas. The issue is not the price of oil, although I am not so naive that I don't think it influences others. The issue is can we coexist safely. If our intelligence concludes that the world is a small planet with porous borders and we are in dangered by radical extremists plotting to inflict destruction on us, I vote to strike first and hard and do WHATEVER is necessary to ELIMINATE the threats.
Fortunately, in a democracy, both majority and minority opinions are heard and respected. Debate is encouraged, but when a decision is made, action must follow.
Merry Christmas and happy New year.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Many people in the US are showing their feelings about Mr. Bush by sending Laura a Christmas present. Feel free to join them. (It's a T-shirt that has "I'm with Stupid!" printed on the front)

[MC Habber]

People who think intervention in Iraq was necessary seem to ignore the sequence of events leading up to it: the giant campaign of misinformation waged against the American public, the LIES told by the president about the justifications and motives for war, etc. They also are oblivious to the failure of the war to accomplish anything (positive) other than putting one man behind bars. For every Iraqi killed, 10 terrorists are created. This war has not and will never make the world safer for anyone, including the USA.