Post by: The Rabbi on September 16, 2007, 05:12:27 PM
He hoped to win kudos for being "bipartisan." As a result he will get mediocrity. If he had picked Ted Olson he might have won some respect.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/attorney_general;_ylt=At5cTq_hmUO3U1nvja6Llzis0NUE
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 17, 2007, 08:01:17 AM
Post by: K Frame on September 17, 2007, 08:03:15 AM
New Political section for threads like this?
Hello? HELLO?
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 08:11:51 AM
Hello?
New Political section for threads like this?
Hello? HELLO?
New Political section for threads like this?
Hello? HELLO?
Hello? Similar threads Part I and II are in the other forum. Consistency anyone?
Post by: K Frame on September 17, 2007, 08:22:03 AM
The only thing those threads share is a name. They're not intrinsically linked in such a manner that separating them across forums will cause great bewilderment, distress, cohabitation of cats and dogs, or a plague of locusts.
All new political threads will be placed in The Politics Place.
Those that are placed elsewhere will be subject to being moved or deleted.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 08:38:35 AM
Does no one really have a comment on the substance of this?
Post by: K Frame on September 17, 2007, 08:39:47 AM
Why do you think we keep fistful around?
He's a built in blame magnet.
Post by: Paddy on September 17, 2007, 08:57:15 AM
He's the 'decider', let him decide.
This particular nightmare will be over January 20, 2009.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 17, 2007, 09:09:41 AM
Quote
This particular nightmare will be over January 20, 2009.
Just in time for the new nightmare to start...Chris
Post by: roo_ster on September 17, 2007, 09:17:28 AM
GWB seems to be too tired to fight the good fight for conservative issues and all to eager to spend his remaining political capital on RINOS, social engineering, and sops to the left.
He didn't fall too far from the tree.
Quote from: mtnbiker
Just in time for the new nightmare to start...
I assume you mean Hillary. Assume she gets one term...
Remember, his brother Jeb also has a hankerin' to be POTUS.
We could (theoretically) have 20 years' worth of Bush POTUS and 12 years of Clinton POTUS in the White house in the matter of 32 years.
GHWB 1988-1992
Bill Clinton 1992-2000
GWB 2000-2008
Hillary 2008-2012
Jeb 2012-2020
And then there is George P Bush, Jeb's son, who is supposedly being groomed for the family business...
Post by: Ron on September 17, 2007, 11:48:50 AM
He is a big government Republican with some conservative positions and leanings.
I am thankful for his two conservative Supreme Court nominees, very thankful.
Where are parts 1 and 2? Did you forget to post them Rabbi? <ducks for cover as he irritates Mike and The Rabbi simultaneously>
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 11:58:51 AM
President Bush really isn't a conservative across the board.
He is a big government Republican with some conservative positions and leanings.
I am thankful for his two conservative Supreme Court nominees, very thankful.
Where are parts 1 and 2? Did you forget to post them Rabbi? <ducks for cover as he irritates Mike and The Rabbi simultaneously>
He is a big government Republican with some conservative positions and leanings.
I am thankful for his two conservative Supreme Court nominees, very thankful.
Where are parts 1 and 2? Did you forget to post them Rabbi? <ducks for cover as he irritates Mike and The Rabbi simultaneously>
You are right. Bush is a pragmatist. His problem is that he is really a nice guy and wants to be liked. And he is a nice guy, from everything I've heard. But that doesn't translate well into effective policy when dealing with Democrats, who are only out to win.
As for the other parts, it was Fistful's fault.
Post by: Joe Demko on September 17, 2007, 01:14:49 PM
But that doesn't translate well into effective policy when dealing with Democrats, who are only out to win.
As for the other parts, it was Fistful's fault.
As for the other parts, it was Fistful's fault.
They may well be out only to win, but the Democrats have displayed a notable talent for choosing poor candidates and snatching political defeat from the jaws of victory in most of the time since JFK. GWB may be nice, but his failures are largely because he's a dumbass not because of effective opposition from the Donkeys.
Post by: longeyes on September 17, 2007, 01:16:47 PM
I hear this guy is okay by Schumer. What more recommendation would Bush need?
Post by: Paddy on September 17, 2007, 01:19:25 PM
longeyes beat me to it.
Post by: Bogie on September 17, 2007, 01:33:26 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 17, 2007, 01:35:07 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 01:52:56 PM
But that doesn't translate well into effective policy when dealing with Democrats, who are only out to win.
As for the other parts, it was Fistful's fault.
As for the other parts, it was Fistful's fault.
They may well be out only to win, but the Democrats have displayed a notable talent for choosing poor candidates and snatching political defeat from the jaws of victory in most of the time since JFK. GWB may be nice, but his failures are largely because he's a dumbass not because of effective opposition from the Donkeys.
But they win in the politics game, not necessarily in elections. The succeeded in blocking many of Bush's judicial nominees, even when they were the minority party. The succeeded in neutering his Justice dept over stuff that was perfectly legal and a stronger exec would have just rolled over.
And of course they won heavily in the last congressional races.
Post by: Joe Demko on September 17, 2007, 02:58:17 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 04:09:34 PM
Well, I agree with you in part. The Democrats did score those victories over Bush that you listed. I still attribute that more to him being a poorly suited to be POTUS than to any superior ability to play politics on the part of the Dems, though.
But they rolled over the GOP in Congress as well. Frist threatened them and then backed down. When a GOP member gets in some scandal or other, the GOP lines up demanding his ouster. When a Dem gets in trouble, well "they all do it."
Post by: longeyes on September 18, 2007, 06:44:49 AM
Bush is a decider; I'm a derider.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 08:29:32 AM
Bush is neither a nice guy nor an evil genius, he is just a rather ordinary rich boy riding on the shoulders of some very powerful people. He embodies the all too human failings of most mediocre people who should never be anywhere near leadership, and without a lot of help from unseen forces he wouldn't be. Bush was never a leader, he was kicked into the job by people who don't need to be liked the way Bush does.
Bush is a decider; I'm a derider.
Bush is a decider; I'm a derider.
That's an ad hominem argument.
Post by: longeyes on September 18, 2007, 02:43:55 PM
Our confused policy with regards to dealing with a very real Islamofascist threat emanates--in my opinion--from Bush's confused psyche. I see confusion and ambivalence in almost everything he does. He has cost us time, treasure, and blood, and his reasons for doing what he does don't convince. Of course, Rabbi, you're entitled to your own "ad hominem" opinion.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 03:42:04 PM
Very astute. Ecce homo.
Our confused policy with regards to dealing with a very real Islamofascist threat emanates--in my opinion--from Bush's confused psyche. I see confusion and ambivalence in almost everything he does. He has cost us time, treasure, and blood, and his reasons for doing what he does don't convince. Of course, Rabbi, you're entitled to your own "ad hominem" opinion.
Our confused policy with regards to dealing with a very real Islamofascist threat emanates--in my opinion--from Bush's confused psyche. I see confusion and ambivalence in almost everything he does. He has cost us time, treasure, and blood, and his reasons for doing what he does don't convince. Of course, Rabbi, you're entitled to your own "ad hominem" opinion.
Why would you attribute it to confusion when in fact Bush faces political realities? There is what he would ideally like to do and what realistically he can expect to do. Slamming him for failing to act against "Islamofascism" seems odd when speaking about the guy who launched two wars against terrorism-sponsoring states.
Post by: longeyes on September 18, 2007, 03:50:18 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 04:42:06 PM
There is only one political reality when it comes to fighting for your survival: the necessity of winning. I don't think Bush is really fighting to win. Maybe he's too busy celebrating Ramadan with friends of the Bush family.
So you would support Bush for President For Life with dictatorial powers so he can win, right?
Post by: longeyes on September 18, 2007, 09:28:15 PM
And that's exactly what I see in his conduct of the war across two theaters. He hasn't made the enemy afraid of us. Why I'll leave to your surmises.
Bush for Life? You jest, senor.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 02:40:14 AM
The Dems have been trampling Bush for six years. Bush doesn't have the stomach to bring it to them politically. They're even holding him up on the AG nomination now. He has needed to play hardball with the Dems the way the Clintons do. For whatever reason he can't do it, he can't make the Dems afraid of him. Is there no pressure he can bring to bear on the chief villains of the Opposition? Something's very odd here, and it isn't because Bush is such a noble fellow, such a nice guy. Spare me.
And that's exactly what I see in his conduct of the war across two theaters. He hasn't made the enemy afraid of us. Why I'll leave to your surmises.
Bush for Life? You jest, senor.
And that's exactly what I see in his conduct of the war across two theaters. He hasn't made the enemy afraid of us. Why I'll leave to your surmises.
Bush for Life? You jest, senor.
Except for the second paragraph I agree with everything you've written.
Post by: roo_ster on September 19, 2007, 03:00:45 AM
For a small moment in 2003, there was fear, as shown by Kadafi losing his nerve & taste for WMD. After that, not so much.
longeye's second paragraph naturally follows the first. Not being able to go after domestic political opponents hammer & tongs (politically speaking) has led to external, existential enemies not fearing us.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 03:37:57 AM
That said, his downfall has been trying to work with Congress and the Dems rather than just confront them. They take this as a sign of weakness and exploit it. Kind of like the terrorists do.
Post by: roo_ster on September 19, 2007, 05:57:11 AM
I agree with ya on all that.
If GWB would have gone after Congress and made a big pitch to the American people, I think Congress & the terrorists would have feared him and the American people would have respected him more and been more accepting of bumps in the road.
Post by: Ron on September 19, 2007, 06:40:44 AM
Quote
That said, his downfall has been trying to work with Congress and the Dems rather than just confront them. They take this as a sign of weakness and exploit it.
That is what Reagan avoided successfully.
He went past congress straight to the American people and congress was often playing catch up on the issues.
Reagan led.
Post by: Joe Demko on September 19, 2007, 07:22:50 AM
Bush is constrained by Congress and a host of other factors from just doing whatever he wants. I think Kennedy called the presidency a weak office. Bush Sr. is often criticized for not going on to Baghdad during Desert Storm but he pointed out his authority for war only allowed him to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, not invade Iraq.
That said, his downfall has been trying to work with Congress and the Dems rather than just confront them. They take this as a sign of weakness and exploit it. Kind of like the terrorists do.
That said, his downfall has been trying to work with Congress and the Dems rather than just confront them. They take this as a sign of weakness and exploit it. Kind of like the terrorists do.
I was with you until the gratuitous reference to terrorists.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 09:23:18 AM
Bush is constrained by Congress and a host of other factors from just doing whatever he wants. I think Kennedy called the presidency a weak office. Bush Sr. is often criticized for not going on to Baghdad during Desert Storm but he pointed out his authority for war only allowed him to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, not invade Iraq.
That said, his downfall has been trying to work with Congress and the Dems rather than just confront them. They take this as a sign of weakness and exploit it. Kind of like the terrorists do.
That said, his downfall has been trying to work with Congress and the Dems rather than just confront them. They take this as a sign of weakness and exploit it. Kind of like the terrorists do.
I was with you until the gratuitous reference to terrorists.
Or do you think there is some difference between the tactics of terrorists and that of the Democratic leadership in Congress?
Post by: Joe Demko on September 19, 2007, 10:06:45 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 11:01:05 AM
I think it was needlessly inflammatory rhetoric on your part. Though you will, no doubt, deny that you are likening Democrats to terrorists that is what you are doing. If both terrorists and Democrats can take advantage of the same shortcomings in Bush's character, that doesn't mean terrorists = Democrats.
No, there are significant differences between them. They dress differently, for example. Skin color tends to be different. There are more women in the Democratic caucus. The terrorists don't hate guns. Terrorists will fight back when challenged. I could sit here and do this all day...
Post by: Joe Demko on September 19, 2007, 11:12:50 AM
No, there are significant differences between them. They dress differently, for example. Skin color tends to be different. There are more women in the Democratic caucus. The terrorists don't hate guns. Terrorists will fight back when challenged. I could sit here and do this all day...
Yep, and you frequently do; thereby undermining the valid points that you do make. But hey, whatever amuses you and doesn't cost me anything is fine with me.
Post by: Paddy on September 20, 2007, 05:39:59 PM
Post by: Len Budney on September 20, 2007, 06:09:50 PM
HTH do we get from criticizing Bush for his AG nomination to Dems are terrorists?
Would it help to turn the tables? Strictly speaking, it's the Repubs who constantly try to make us as afraid as possible. Technically, by the definition of "terrorist," they come closer. Their motives are very different, of course. Terrorists want us afraid so we'll withdraw from Muslim territories, especially Saudi Arabia. Republicans want us afraid so we'll support the invasion of Iraq and, of course, vote Republican.
And remember! "The Transportation Safety Administration has elevated the threat level to: or'nge. Please watch your luggage, quiver in fear, and remember to pull the (R) lever in November. Thank you." Has the threat level been anything other than "or'nge" in like three years now?
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2007, 07:29:28 PM
"Bush is taking away all of our rights" = concerned citizenship
Post by: Len Budney on September 21, 2007, 02:38:43 AM
"There may be a terrorist attack" = fearmongering
They say a good deal more than that.
Quote
"Bush is taking away all of our rights" = concerned citizenship
He has taken away habeas corpus; it's in the public record. That's a fact--there's no "might" or "maybe" about it. Habeas corpus is gone. Yeah, I'd say taking note of the fact is "concerned citizenship." If "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance," we're doomed: what kind of "vigilance" watches them take away a core right, dating back to the magna carta, and says, "Nothing to see here!"?
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 21, 2007, 02:41:29 AM
"There may be a terrorist attack" = fearmongering
"Bush is taking away all of our rights" = concerned citizenship
"Bush is taking away all of our rights" = concerned citizenship
Remember, Bush is the font of all evil. He is the Satan, the Seducer.
Or else he's a grinning idiot.
But it's one of those two, I'm sure of it.
Post by: Paddy on September 21, 2007, 06:53:12 AM
HTH do we get from criticizing Bush for his AG nomination to Dems are terrorists?
Would it help to turn the tables? Strictly speaking, it's the Repubs who constantly try to make us as afraid as possible. Technically, by the definition of "terrorist," they come closer. Their motives are very different, of course. Terrorists want us afraid so we'll withdraw from Muslim territories, especially Saudi Arabia. Republicans want us afraid so we'll support the invasion of Iraq and, of course, vote Republican.
And remember! "The Transportation Safety Administration has elevated the threat level to: or'nge. Please watch your luggage, quiver in fear, and remember to pull the (R) lever in November. Thank you." Has the threat level been anything other than "or'nge" in like three years now?
--Len.