Reply With Quote
Bush is rapidly becoming the worst president of the last century.
Question to Bush this morning: is the White House is preoccupied with the CIA leak investigation, the troubled Miers nomination, and the problems of GOP congressional leaders?
Response:
Bush is rapidly becoming the worst president of the last century.
hey Rick Von Braum, you lost get over it
When it goes down in history, do you think that he will be remembered as the gold-spoon-in-mouth up that he's showing himself to be now, or mount-rushmore-worthy like TRO says?
The only ones I know screwing up are the dimm-o-craps who keep putting their foot in their mouth. He is such a screw-up that he won two elections. And you have him for three more years.
youve never said that before xray
elections mean jack now that they're largely done with electronic, privately owned voting machines.
And Bush doesn't have his foot in his mouth?
Delay doesn't have his foot in his mouth?
Please....they all are doing that.
Look at his approval ratings bud
High, or Low?
(compared to other presidents in our lifetimes)
the odd thing is that the Democrats, who have the self-assurance of a beaten dog, feel this way about themselves. Most sense, in their heart of hearts, that they are the Palestinians of American politics: they'll never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The most common word I hear from Democratic partisans to describe their own party is "pathetic."
Too true. Success as a President/administrator is defined by success in elections.He is such a screw-up that he won two elections. And you have him for three more years.
No wonder we're ing ourselves up as a country.
Woodrow Wilson won two elections, and history remembers him as a disaster.
LBJ won in a landslide. Now people are comparing Bush to him, and they're not meaning it as a compliment.
Nixon won election twice. He was hardly "successful."
A President's legacy is defined by what he does in office, not by how many votes he wins.
It is hard to be a libertarian when you aren't always sure the the general public is capable of self governance.
That's my point.
What we're seeing with some of the holdout Bush defenders is that if the Left is pissed off about something, then it must be good.
Obviously that's a fallacy; if Bush nominates his dog to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, it's not a good idea just because Nancy Pelosi hates it.
If Bush and the Republican leadership decide to appropriate $200 million in tax money to throw themselves a big-ass party on a cruise ship, complete with porn stars and lots of cocaine, it's not sound policy even though Howard Dean will decry it.
There is a part of the right that is defined more by its anti-leftism than its adherence to any right-wing ideology in particular.
Especially when said president actually got a minority of public votes.
See, here's Spurminator, Manny, and I having a nice meaningful dialogue, and you have to insert a tired old line that could have come from pulling the string on a talking Ted Rall doll.
If a discussion about a president being judged on actions instead of votes is any less tired and old then potatoe potato
The problem is, Extra stout. is that not all conservatives are pat buchanans and ann coulters who desire confrontation and harsh partisan dialogue that comes from getting a Bork nominee. Most of the conservatives in the party are social conservatives, and as long as they have someone to overturn Roe V wade then they dont care. I bet you most of the public doesnt know who even harriet miers if that means anything.
i doubt seriously that this statement will damage the pres with his base. it might anger the country club but it will go in one ear an out the other to the choir.
The President's atttiude is going to make it much more difficult for Republicans to raise money. It's not the little idiot cracker monkeys who bankroll Republican campaigns.
As for social conservatives, are they aware that according to Harriet Miers' writings, she believes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates affirmative action? Even Cass Sunstein laughed at that.
Of course I understand that the idiot cracker monkeys have no idea what the "Equal Protection Clause" or "Fourteenth Amendment" are, nor do they have any clue who "Cass Sunstein" is. I understand that the dumber Harriet Miers looks in her hearings, the more the ICM's will identify with her.
For all I know, making her look doltish may be the strategy -- it's hard to believe she could have had even moderate success in private practice if her responses to the Senate questionnaire reflected her true intelligence. I think the ICM's prefer having idiots run the country.
However, I also understand that without expensive election campaigns exhorting them to get out and vote, they won't remember to do so.
The basic problem is that Bush attempted bold things in his presidency, some things for which the execution was piss poor and other things for which the country will probably never be ready (ie Social Security reform). Of course, if Bush was for abortion "rights" and ass ing then he wouldn't have had as much trouble with his agenda. Social issues drive American politics today. I suspect that a good portion of his critics could really give a less about Iraq. Iraq is the means at hand. What motivates them is the desire to foist their lifestyle on everyone else. Of course, that's also what motivates a good portion of Bush's base. In addition, most of the social issues affect such a small portion of our society it's ridiculous that so much of our national political discourse is spent on them.
Bush also is not the most savvy politician. Clinton, for example, tried something quite bold in the 1st two years of his presidency (a mammoth increase in the socialization of health care services) and failed miserably...with his own party controlling Congress. The difference is, after that Clinton stopped with the bold initiatives and made his administration about small ones. Forget a national health care system let's have a tax credit for day care or a credit for adults to go back to school. Nobody's going to oppose that . Of course, is a politician really great when they avoid dealing with some rather serious matters and pass the buck?
Perhaps Bush would be performing better if his party did not control both houses of Congress.
The White House is declaring war on the Republican Senate. Yesterday, Sens. Brownback and Graham figured out a way to allow Bush to withdraw Miers without losing face.
They have requested "privileged" do ents from Miers' work with George Bush. Now, naturally, Bush will claim executive privilege and deny the requests. The thought was that by doing this, they could allow Bush to withdraw Miers' candidacy on principle.
Two Republican votes against Miers in committee, along with the Democrats, would be sufficient to send a negative recommendation to the full Senate, and give the full Senate enough cover to reject Miers.
The Senate GOP caucus contacted the White House with this strategy, thinking this would be the last best chance to stave up a full-blown war that would hurt the Republican Party and effectively destroy the Bush presidency.
But Mr. Petulant Little Rich Boy would hear none of it. He wants his crony, or else. The White House is threatening to use its political contacts to undermine the campaigns of in bent Republican Senators up for re-election next year.
The Senate GOP caucus has countered by threatening to investigate Miers' connections to Ben Barnes and GTECH during her time as Texas Lottery Commissioner.
Another update: Bush is willing to cave on the embryonic stem cell issue in exchange for Arlen Specter's support of Miers.
gtownspur, you still on board?
It's about time congressional Republicans stood up to the administration.
That's pretty interesting stuff.
Is the majority of press that Miers is getting bad now?
Really? I'm not quite sure how to respond to that new piece of information. That's one issue I did not like or agree with him on (stem cell research), but standing behind his convictions was something that I found most attractive.
Interesting dilemma.
that. Bush is hanging by his balls right now. He's grasping at straws now in order to gain some kind of position but bargaining from a position of weakness is always a recipe for failure.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions