How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 the Animosity answer   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

the Animosity answer

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


0 posted 04-22-2006 09:25 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

The blog entry at real clear politics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/index.html by John McIntyre points to Bush's slipping support among his Republican base;

quote:

The new FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll has President Bush's Approval down to 33%. This is 3 points lower than any previous poll FOX News has released, and needless to say it is not good news for the White House. Among Republicans his approval has dropped to 66% and therein lies his major problem and the answer to how he can bounce back.

The President has got to get his Republican base back in the fold. If he can do that his approval ratings will stabilize in the high 30's and low 40's and he will be in a position to mount a comeback this fall. Bush could take sliding approval ratings into the high 30's in the RCP Average, but deterioration below 35% - it's not there yet, but the FOX poll could be a troubling leading indicator for the White House - starts to indicate loss of core support in his Republican base and that can become a very slippery slope which could effectively kill his presidency. He's got to pick a fight with the Democrats on something and get his base reenergized. Compromising with Ted Kennedy on immigration is not the answer to his political problems.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/04/bush_approval_starts_to_near_d.html



Is this Bush's real problem?  That he hasn't been partisaned enough for the base?  Is being more divisive going to get his numbers back up?

What do you think he should do to turn it around?


iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


1 posted 04-23-2006 01:55 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Putting a good, likeable communicator in front of the press might help him some, I think.  

Actually, I think his numbers might pick up with the recent compromise by the Iraqis on the prime minister thing - Jawad al-Maliki's appointment as prime minister-designate - and then bringing more troops home, resolving the Iran issue peacefully, and continuing to focus on alternative energy.  And then there's China......improved trade relations won't hurt.  But who knows......
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


2 posted 04-23-2006 04:08 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

On the contrary, I believe it's the intense partisanship of this administration that have, in result, brought him to these levels of disapprovement.

There is what I like to refer to as an "invisible schism" that's running through the GOP right now, between traditional conservatives that look to Barry Goldwater and earlier national figures that embrace small government, sate rights and other such true conservative milestones, and pro-business conservatives who align themselves with corporate interests who depend on them to build America's economy and such.

Lawrence Wilkerson

Former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson, who was very critical of the intelligence community which compiled the Iraq war intelligence, who has been a registered Republican for most of his life, I feel is representative of the effects of this "invisible schism", who feels the GOP has indeed moved away from its roots and doesn't represent his or the values of many older-school and moderate conservatives today:

*

"Question: Now, you were, I believe, a Republican for many years, you worked with the Republican administration and the Republican secretary of state. Do you think the Republicans and the Republican President will end up paying the price, the political price, for this war?

Wilkerson: Yes and I'm very concerned about that as a citizen. My mum wrote me a letter the other day and she said, "Son," -- she's 86 years old -- she said, "Son, please don't become a Democrat".

And I told my mum, I called her and I said: "Mum, you know what? I want my party back. I don't want to become a Democrat. I want my party back."

The Republican Party that I knew, that I grew up in, a moderate party, a party that believed in fiscal discipline, a party that believed in small government, a party that had genuine conservative values. This is not a conservative leadership. This is radical leadership. I called them neo-Jacobins. They are radical. They're not conservative. They've stolen my party and I would like my party back."


*

Take the traditional Republican achievement of environmental conservation and preservation, for example. Christine Todd Whitman is a Republican who understands wholeheartedly, as I do, that the environmental movement was a Republican movement. Theodore Roosevelt started the national parks system, and Richard Nixon founded the Environmental Protection Agency (which Whitman was administrator of at one point).

She ahs written a book titled "It's My Party Too: Taking Back The Republican Party.........And Bringing The Country Together Again", where she understandably feels that, on the environment for example, that as of late the current GOP has actually went against its own achievements, and our environment is more vulnerable than ever, with Republicans like Richard Pombo tearing away at our Endangered Species Act, many of the pro-environmental provisions enforced under Clinton reversed, and he EPA and FDA represented by corporate cronyism.

She also says this on Page 73 in her book:

"The defining feature of the conservative viewpoint is a faith in the ability, and a respect for the right, of individuals to make their own decisions - economic, social, and spiritual - about their lives. The true conservative understands that government's track record in respecting individual rights is poor when it dictates individual choices." (Whitman 73)

*

THIS is why Bush's approval ratings have sunk to this low, and why the Republican Congress has approval ratings even lower than that. (23%) It's because the GOP under administrations such as this have turned their backs on moderate and more traditional Republicans like them.

*

Conservatives widely value states rights over federal intervention. I think when many conservatives look at the Terri Schiavo intervention, the No Child Left Behind Act swamping down the ideas of the states to improve their own public education systems (Utah, one of only four states with a net approval of Bush currently, is leading the battle to drop out of NCLB altogether) and proposals for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and such, it's this sort of political approach that runs against these conservative notions and leave many feeling alienated from their party.

Many conservatives value small government and fiscal limitation and responsibility. When many conservatives look and see how this administration inherited one of our nation's strongest surpluses, and turned it into the nation's worst deficit, when they see how this administration spends about as much as many Democratic administrations do, when they see how they spend billions for interventionist war and tax cuts for the very rich while chopping away at Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, veteran's services and unemployment insurance, it's this sort of fiscal irresponsibility and weakening of the American family that leaves many conservatives isolated from their party.

Many conservatives are isolationist and reject foreign intervention policies like this Iraq war. Conservatives including Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts and James Webb, were opposed to this war from the beginning like myself and don't believe in aggressive world government, and as much as many conservatives have an anti-United Nations bias (they're not perfect, but I give them credit for many great things including feeding 104 million people a year in 80 countries, UNICEF's efforts to crack down on AIDS and immunization of children worldwide, eradicating almost completely smallpox and polio from the world, holding over a dozen peacekeeping operations that, without their activity, could allow armed rebels and marauders to take control again, helping form elections in East Timor, Iraq and other countries, bringing issues that are otherwise seemingly non-existent in the media to the public forefront including landmines, child soldiers and cholera, etc.) they also understand that many nations violate U.N resolutions like Iraq did yet we don't just go to war with them, and also, like me, are against any sort of pre-emptive war, period. It's this sort of reckless, senseless "long war" policy that has left many conservatives feeling isolated from their own party.

*

I'm not convinced there's much Bush can do to turn his approval ratings around, because two adjectives most Americans now label him as are "incompetent" and "stubborn". Bush is someone who likes having his boots bolted to the ground, he's someone you're just not going to budge or reach, and he's going to continue to fight the same old-fashioned way.

All I can say is, just after 9/11, when Bush showed brief admirable leadership in what appeared as though he has most interested in uniting Americans and getting right to the very source of the threat by overthrowing the Taliban and bin laden, his approval ratings were as high as 90%, ratings any president would dream their entire lives and beyond in having. He had the greatest opportunity to become one of the greatest presidents by continuing to govern by his campaign promise, of being a "uniter, not a divider.", by not falling to the "Either you're with us or against us!" partisan rhetoric.

Sadly, he chose months after the 9/11 attacks to play partisan politics rather than diplomatic politics, who has been doing just that ever since. And THAT is exactly why his approval ratings have literally been sliced by 2/3 their original glory.

He had an unprecedented opportunity, and he has blown it big time. I do believe there is little Bush can do to bounce back, and if I were the Republicans who are running for re-election this November in the mid-term elections, I would distance myself from the president and run campaigns independently. Perhaps, if the Republicans up for re-election run in the spirit of the Whitmans and the Goldwaters and the Wilkersons, they can hold the trifecta. But I feel it will rather just be another nasty electio season, with partisan mud-slinging and character assassination from both sides.

Love,
Noah Eaton



"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


3 posted 04-23-2006 06:29 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I don't know Jo.  Everybody always seemed to like McClellan.  Granted he didn't have much gravitas himself and he wasn't very revealing to the press... but, with this president is anyobody else going to get more information to give to the people?  Isn't changing the press secretary, without changing policy, just window dressing?

Noah, I think you have some good points.  The way it seems to me that you get over people thinking you're incompetent though is to be competent.  If they just stop making mistakes, which is what Reagan and Clinton did when they got into second term trouble, can they change public perception fast enough?

For example; Iraq has one month now to get their new government in place.  Let's say they do that.  Do the Republicans come back into the fold?  Or does he have to hit on some hot button issues like gay marriage, abortion, tax cuts, spending cuts...

If he just vetoed a big spending bill will that get his numbers up?

Or is it the case that anything the White House does right now will just seem like an overt attempt at playing politics with the voters and the polls.  This president isn't supposed to care about polls.. remember?

Does anybody actually think that Carl Rove has been 'demoted'?  Isn't focusing on the mid-term election really this administration's most important task right now?  If the House or Senate turn over -- don't the hearings start?

iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


4 posted 04-23-2006 06:51 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Reb, it is window dressing, no doubt.  But, I think a very likable, charismatic press secretary who "seems" communicative can make a slight difference with the illusion but probably not more than a point or two.  That won't help him much.  Yes, you are probably right that there will have to be some major divisive issue but I suspect that will be more up to each individual candidate and I think they will keep their distance from the President for the most part.  Maybe I'm just optimistic.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


5 posted 04-23-2006 07:38 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Yes, you are probably right that there will have to be some major divisive issue



I'm not advocating or prognosticating.  I don't know that that's the right approach for the President.  

I'm not sure there's anything he's going to do though to get the independents back and there's probably not much he could do since Iraq that's ever going to bring any Democrats back to the table.

What about you Republicans out there -- what do you think this guy should do?  Is going to do?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 04-23-2006 08:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I have no idea what he's going to do, Reb, but I also think it's a moot point. He's not running for anything.

Bush has made it clear from the beginning that his doing what he thinks is right is more important than his political career. In his first term, he went to war with Iraq, a move that was not  very popular.  He basically told the UN to lead, follow or get out of the way and called them useless, an obvious fact no president had ever dared say before. Had he been concerned about being re-elected, I doubt he would have acted so strongly. He put his political career on the line without hesitation. I doubt he will do anything differently now.

Bush is not running for office. The Republican candidate to be should be the object of your question. What will they do in terms of damage control? What new ideas will they come up with to win back lost popularity in the party? Will Bush become a Republican Clinton, the outgoing president that no one invites to dinner? Who can say? It's interesting, and even comical, that Kennedy, Pelosi and the usual suspects keep going after Bush, the man who can not run for the presidency. They should be going after the republican party as a whole but it appears they are not that smart. Instead they welcome the Republican dissenters, the same ones they will be running against in the next election.

It doesn't matter what Bush does in the way of popularity. Today Kennedy stated that Kerry should run again and he would support him. With thinking like that, the GOP will remain in power.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


7 posted 04-23-2006 11:26 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

So, Mike -- even though Bush isn't personally running for any elective office -- he's running the country.  Unless he can

A. Get his poll numbers up and have some pretense at a mandate for his proposals

B. Keep his party in Congress

C. Try not to go down as the worst American President in history http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

How do you see then next 2.5 years shaping up for America?

If you want to start grading scandals;

Nixon -- had to resign himself (along with his VP in an unrelated scandal)  huge cabinet losses.

Reagan -- huge shakeups in high level cabinet positions, prosecutions, convictions, pardons...

Clinton -- A low level clerk and an intern resigned.

Bush -- Indictments against a senior staffer and possibly more coming.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


8 posted 04-23-2006 11:47 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

"Clinton -- A low level clerk and an intern resigned."

~ Selective memory 101.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


9 posted 04-23-2006 11:55 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

So tell me... who else had to resign over Monicagate?
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


10 posted 04-24-2006 12:06 AM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

Please don't tell me that you only know of one Clinton scandal.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


11 posted 04-24-2006 12:19 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

List all scandal related indictments and resignations in the Clinton administration and then explain how that's going to help this president get his numbers back up...I know it changes the subject to something you'd rather talk about.

And then -- please post Clinton's exiting approval ratings.

or if you'd rather make reccomendations for W... go ahead...
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


12 posted 04-24-2006 09:35 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If you want to start grading scandals;


That's why I haven't entered this thread before you beseeched a Republican to answer. Please show me where I started grading scandals. I figure whatever I say will branch of to a Bush bash instead of the original question of the thread. Even as innocently as it began, there was little doubt it would turn into just another Bush bash, whichhas occured with regularity lately. I said nothing about scandals at all and yet you do and list them and then, when you bring up Willie, curiously absent seemss to be White House travel office scandal, missing FBI files, selling nuclear info, being the only President convicted of committing a felony while in office, being disbarred while in office....the list goes on. You say "Monica" as if that's all the man did and what's the big deal. Fine. I'm not really going to get dragged into another bash-defend Bush episode. They are getting a little tiring and they are cutting into my golf time.

What do I see for America in the next 2.5 years? I don't know and neither do you. If you had asked that question in August of 2001, would any response have been valid? We have no idea, especially in world issues today, what the next year, decade or quarter century will bring. The US will continue and it will thrive, no matter who sits in the office. You could have asked that question during the Civil War, the Teapot Dome Scandal, the Depression, Roosevelt refusing to pay tens of thousands of war veterans and sending them to Florida to work on building railways where they died in the great hurricane, Hirsoshima and Nagasaki, Korea, Viet Nam.....the world today is not so unique. We think so because it is our time in the same way we say "Fatty Arbuckle who?", but studying history verifies the old adage that the more things change, the more they stay the same. If one were to say, "Yes, but the world is different now, especially with nuclear weapons", then you have fallen back into the original trap of trying to predict the unpredictable. We survive and people continue to lead better lives than anywhere else in the world no matter who sits in the big chair.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 04-24-2006 10:30 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bush the worst President in history? Well, I suppose if the Rolling Stone puts a dunce cap on him and states it then it must be true, right? Oh, wait...they put a question mark behind it, didn't they?


You can believe this or not but I stated - while Clinton was still in office and before Bush was even elected - that Clinton would go down in history as the  worst president we ever had and I still believe it. I knew that, when he was out of office and the false rosy economical picture he put together to make himself look good, came apart the economy would take a tumble, even without 9/11 speeding it along and I made a fair share with puts due to analyzing where that would occur. I think Clinton did things we still don't know about, the ramifications of which will be very detrimental to the country when they surface,,,wheeling and dealing with China and North Korea come to mind. Time will tell. Clinton's exiting approval ratings? Very high. Clinton was the fellow you would love to have a beer with or invite to your party. The approval ratings were impressive. Equally impressive was how they figured into the next election, you know, the one where the Democrats lost the White House and Congress. Democrats vying for office ran from Clinton all the way up to the end, when they were so desperate they invited him to participate once or twice. So much for the approval ratings you point out.

I also think that Bush will go down as one of the greatest Presidents we've had. This is just an opinion so I'm not debating the issue. I think the day will come in the future that Bush will be regarded as the man who introduced democracy in the Middle East, the man who caused the end of unbridled terrorism and the man whose actions speeded up the creation of oil alternatives. I believe his actions and his foresight will be regarded as what strengthened America and kept it safe, the man who restored the Armed Forces after Clinton did his best to decimate them. 9/11 was not an isolated incident, as you well know. It was the last of a series of terrorist attacks against either America or  American interests around the world. Over half a dozen were committed during Clinton's tenure with nothing being done. Bush acted and there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since. Five years - you think it's because the terrorist groups lost interest? Hardly. They are too busy being on the run and our controls have been effective. Does that mean one won't occur in the future? Of course not. The resources to keep America safe from terrorist attacks is mind-boggling.....but it hasn't happened yet and I believe that no one in office but Bush could have lowered the odds of that happening. I would not be surprised to see the peoples of the Middle East celebrating Bush in the next couple of decades and showing gratitude for what his actions brought about. His actions will have changed the course of the world for the better in a way no other's has. Has he made mistakes? Has he done things I disagree with? Oh, yes, from stem-cell research to immigration policies but I believe that history somehow provides the right person for the right job at exactly the right time, from Roosevelt to Truman to Bush - leaders who did, not always the popular thing, but the thing that had to be done.

You asked for an opinion and I'm giving it. There's no need to dissect it and bring up points to argue over because it is my opinion only and you are entitled to yours. Nothing you say will change my mind and I have no doubt nothing I've said will change anyone else's. We are all entitled to our views.

All I know is that I wake up in the morning and I see a clean street outside and cars going by with people going to work at a time that unemployment is at its lowest in many years, children getting on school buses, people sitting in diners having breakfast, the mailman placing the mail in my box, planes flying overhead filled with people going somewhere, a cute little gal on the tube letting me know whether to expect rain or not.....all of this at a time when there are tens of thousands ofmainacs and suicide bombers and leaders screaming for the destruction of my country....and I am glad George Bush is the President.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


14 posted 04-24-2006 02:33 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

quote:
All I know is that I wake up in the morning and I see a clean street outside and cars going by with people going to work at a time that unemployment is at its lowest in many years, children getting on school buses, people sitting in diners having breakfast, the mailman placing the mail in my box, planes flying overhead filled with people going somewhere, a cute little gal on the tube letting me know whether to expect rain or not.....all of this at a time when there are tens of thousands ofmainacs and suicide bombers and leaders screaming for the destruction of my country....and I am glad George Bush is the President.

Well,  I guess I'd have to say I enjoy that scenario too, Mike, though it's only visible in some parts of the country/world, and I think it's IN SPITE OF rather than BECAUSE OF the current administration.
Of course, I'd really love to discuss this issue further with you ten years from now so that we can both have the supreme advantage of hindsight.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


15 posted 04-24-2006 04:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Kacy, ain't it the truth! I wish that were possible, too. We all know so much now.....and history may prove all of us to be dunderheads....hey, wanna see my fallout shelter from the 60's?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


16 posted 04-24-2006 05:16 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
I also think that Bush will go down as one of the greatest Presidents we've had. This is just an opinion so I'm not debating the issue. I think the day will come in the future that Bush will be regarded as the man who introduced democracy in the Middle East, the man who caused the end of unbridled terrorism and the man whose actions speeded up the creation of oil alternatives. I believe his actions and his foresight will be regarded as what strengthened America and kept it safe, the man who restored the Armed Forces after Clinton did his best to decimate them. 9/11 was not an isolated incident, as you well know. It was the last of a series of terrorist attacks against either America or  American interests around the world. Over half a dozen were committed during Clinton's tenure with nothing being done. Bush acted and there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since. Five years - you think it's because the terrorist groups lost interest? Hardly. They are too busy being on the run and our controls have been effective. Does that mean one won't occur in the future? Of course not. The resources to keep America safe from terrorist attacks is mind-boggling.....but it hasn't happened yet and I believe that no one in office but Bush could have lowered the odds of that happening. I would not be surprised to see the peoples of the Middle East celebrating Bush in the next couple of decades and showing gratitude for what his actions brought about. His actions will have changed the course of the world for the better in a way no other's has. Has he made mistakes? Has he done things I disagree with? Oh, yes, from stem-cell research to immigration policies but I believe that history somehow provides the right person for the right job at exactly the right time, from Roosevelt to Truman to Bush - leaders who did, not always the popular thing, but the thing that had to be done.


You wanna bet?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


17 posted 04-24-2006 05:33 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Please show me where I started grading scandals. I figure whatever I say will branch of to a Bush bash instead of the original question of the thread. Even as innocently as it began, there was little doubt it would turn into just another Bush bash, whichhas occured with regularity lately.



Right here;

quote:

Will Bush become a Republican Clinton, the outgoing president that no one invites to dinner?



And then you go into your Democrat bashing-fest.

But, it isn't inappropriate in this thread to compare scandal-laden presidency's to note their similarities and differences -- because the question is what should a president in this situation do?   McIntyre says go partisan.  Pick a fight.  Is that the right answer?  Is that going to make you support your guy more or less?  Would you view a push on a hot-button issue as a genuine cause or as an attempt to re-energize the base?

You have the Reagan Administration example where the pressure rose all the way to cabinet level resignations.  What did Reagan do?  Brought in Howard Baker, a more moderate outsider who had even been a leader against the Nixon White House in the Senate during the hearings.  Here a comparison might be bringing in someone like an Arlen Specter to be Chief of Staff.

But, what does this President do?  You may be right.  Jo may be right.  He may just change window dressings and call it a day.

I don't think that's going to get the American people behind him though.

This is, probably, the one thread in the alley that someone can participate in where there aren't right or wrong answers -- unless somebody wants to pick a fight over history -- which is what somebody is doing in this thread and it isn't the thread originator.  

It's completely about what YOU think and Republicans in general.

What are the consequences though of having essentially a lame-duck President for 2.5 years?  First and foremost -- it is a threat to National Security.  If our allies and enemies perceive the President as weak politically what happens to his footing in negotiations?   What happens when he says our intelligence service says that Iranian nuclear ambitions are a threat?  Even in trade negotiations his authority is diminished.

If the top person is perceived as dishonest and incompetent -- what happens to the rank and file Federal employees who are going to work everyday trying to do their jobs?

This man is the President of the United States -- not the President of the Republican base.

quote:

absent seemss to be White House travel office scandal, missing FBI files, selling nuclear info, being the only President convicted of committing a felony while in office, being disbarred while in office....the list goes on. You say "Monica" as if that's all the man did and what's the big deal. Fine.


Now you're arguing history -- he was convicted of Perjury in the Monica Lewinsky scandal -- the pressure wasn't on anyone in the White House to resign.  Of course, the Congressional Republicans and Ken Starr tried -- but they just couldn't get anything on the guy.  

On the other hand -- if your man's approval numbers stay so low -- aren't you going to see the same kind of wasted energy spent in a Democratic Congress on hearing after hearing after hearing?

quote:

I'm not really going to get dragged into another bash-defend Bush episode. They are getting a little tiring and they are cutting into my golf time.



The only bashing that's happened has been your pettifogging against Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry.

Less pettifogging and more point sticking might free up more time to curse at your clubs!  

Of course you go on further to bash Clinton, and defend Bush and... well,  you just make it clear that there's nothing you think Bush should do differently.  

You see trees of green, red roses too, you see them bloom, for me and you...

Try singing that around a GM plant.  Try singing that to an independent truck driver (a small businessman you should love) who has to park his truck because he can't afford the fuel anymore and the customers won't pay the fuel surcharges because some other (large) trucking outfit decides to eat the cost short-term.  Try singing it to the kid who isn't in college because grant money has been cut...

We don't have low unemployment -- we have a system that's chosen to ignore the long-term displacement of workers by globalization.

And, you've just opened up too, too many other tangents that don't even belong here.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


18 posted 04-24-2006 06:35 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

"Try singing that around a GM plant."

~ Explain to me how the fact that the Japanese make better cars than the Americans has to do with anything political?

~ And as for answering your previous question, Balladeer handled that for me rather well - unintentionally of course.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


19 posted 04-24-2006 06:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Will Bush become a Republican Clinton, the outgoing president that no one invites to dinner?

You call that grading scandals, Reb? Where do I mention scandal and which scandal was I referring to? That was nothing but stating a fact, easily verifiable. Gore had little to do with Clinton while running for office. Congressmen had little to do with him,also. He appeared to be regarded as more of an embarrassment than an asset. Where an outgoing President is one to lead the charge to keep the Oval office within the party, Clinton made few appearances or endorsements. So, if you want to take my comment as "scandalous" and create a list of presidential scandals from Nixon to Bush, omitting Carter who fired four of his cabinet members without reason, go ahead but you are arguing something I didn't even say.

If your comment about someone picking a fight over history refers to me, then you couldn't be more wrong. I stayed away not to pick a fight nor have i tried to do so. Your list of clinton scandals mentioned Monica and nothing else, as if that's all that happened during the man's tenure. You pointed out the man's wonderful exit popularity polls and I pointed out that they didn't help the Democrats win either the White House or Congress, which you didn't respond to. Will I refer to history? Of course - kind of hard to refer to the future. You asked a direct question about what should Bush do and I gave a direct answer....he doesn't have to do a thing. He's not running for office and, even when he was in his first term, re-election was not important enough to him to change his positions. You choose not to accept that - fine.

What are the consequences though of having essentially a lame-duck President for 2.5 years?  First and foremost -- it is a threat to National Security.  If our allies and enemies perceive the President as weak politically what happens to his footing in negotiations?

Really? How do you think our allies regarded Clinton during his lame-duckedness? They laughed at his foibles - made jokes about him. Was it a threat to National Security? I don't recall anyone complaining about it. At one time when Clinton sent a strong message to Hussein, Sadam responded with "Tell Mr. Clinton I do not get on my knees like an intern." You want to discuss not being taken seriously? Every time we have a two-term president, we have a lame-duck president. Our allies and our enemies both know that. National security has not been threatened by it yet. If anything, I think they would be more cautious with Bush that with other lame ducks of the past.

Me? A pettifogger?? How dare you! I'm going to be offended as soon as I look it up to see what it means   They only thing I said about Kennedy was that he just endorsed Kerry for another presidential run. That's a valid fact.

We don't have low unemployment -- we have a system that's chosen to ignore the long-term displacement of workers by globalization.

If you don't go straight into politics, I wanna know why..quite a sentence. I suppose that, even though they are working now, they are really unemployed because at some time in the future they will lose their jobs to someone in another country. Bush won't be president then but I'm sure it will all revert back to him someway?

....and I think to myself what a wonderful world...when I sing it to unions they join right in and sing along. Maybe THEY could go out and sing it to the rank and file while collecting their dues and making demands on industries that wind up sending work overseas..

As you say, there are many tangents and I'm really not interested in going into them any more than you are. If you want to make the claim that I opened them, fine. I'm happy to close them.

Bottom line is that I don't think Bush is overly-concerned with popularity ratings, as many of you are. He's going to do what he thinks is right, regardless, and yes that makes him stubborn, arrogant, and a list of other adjectives I'm sure you would be happy to supply. It also makes him the man who I'm glad is sitting there. The Democrats will not join with him for any reason. The Republicans will either boost his popularity ratings by joining him or boost their own by not. The next elections should be very interesting.

Me voy  
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


20 posted 04-24-2006 09:08 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

"You can believe this or not but I stated - while Clinton was still in office and before Bush was even elected - that Clinton would go down in history as the  worst president we ever had and I still believe it. I knew that, when he was out of office and the false rosy economical picture he put together to make himself look good, came apart the economy would take a tumble, even without 9/11 speeding it along and I made a fair share with puts due to analyzing where that would occur. I think Clinton did things we still don't know about, the ramifications of which will be very detrimental to the country when they surface,,,wheeling and dealing with China and North Korea come to mind. Time will tell. Clinton's exiting approval ratings? Very high. Clinton was the fellow you would love to have a beer with or invite to your party. The approval ratings were impressive. Equally impressive was how they figured into the next election, you know, the one where the Democrats lost the White House and Congress. Democrats vying for office ran from Clinton all the way up to the end, when they were so desperate they invited him to participate once or twice. So much for the approval ratings you point out."

Bill Clinton's Job Approval History

You can keep making excuses as you wish, and I myself have a rather lukewarm view of Clinton.....but you can't take away the fact that Clinton left office a popular president that appears to have no sign of wearing whatsoever. It appears your own partisanship still encourages what Colbert has called "truthiness" within you; taking and believing what you want and believe to be true, rather than the facts. (giggles)

Clinton absolutely did things that I condemn strongly to this day; his own war, encouraging the further deregulation of our media environment, his deceptive Welfare Reform agenda in particular. I do give credit to Clinton for other things as well, in that he didn't govern in an aggressively partisan fashion and focused on the domestic needs and policies of the American people. And I would certainly pick a flexible, understanding and the kind of person you can move as a leader rather than a stubborn person who bolts their boots to the ground and appeals to a mere inner-circle any day.

*

"I also think that Bush will go down as one of the greatest Presidents we've had. This is just an opinion so I'm not debating the issue. I think the day will come in the future that Bush will be regarded as the man who introduced democracy in the Middle East, the man who caused the end of unbridled terrorism and the man whose actions speeded up the creation of oil alternatives. I believe his actions and his foresight will be regarded as what strengthened America and kept it safe, the man who restored the Armed Forces after Clinton did his best to decimate them. 9/11 was not an isolated incident, as you well know. It was the last of a series of terrorist attacks against either America or  American interests around the world. Over half a dozen were committed during Clinton's tenure with nothing being done. Bush acted and there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since. Five years - you think it's because the terrorist groups lost interest? Hardly. They are too busy being on the run and our controls have been effective. Does that mean one won't occur in the future? Of course not. The resources to keep America safe from terrorist attacks is mind-boggling.....but it hasn't happened yet and I believe that no one in office but Bush could have lowered the odds of that happening. I would not be surprised to see the peoples of the Middle East celebrating Bush in the next couple of decades and showing gratitude for what his actions brought about. His actions will have changed the course of the world for the better in a way no other's has. Has he made mistakes? Has he done things I disagree with? Oh, yes, from stem-cell research to immigration policies but I believe that history somehow provides the right person for the right job at exactly the right time, from Roosevelt to Truman to Bush - leaders who did, not always the popular thing, but the thing that had to be done."

I would most strongly disagree with you here, but of course it's because I have the opposite view of you; that it's just what you believe will ensure his reputation as one of the greatest presidents that I believe will make him depicted as one of the worst presidents in American history. I believe he will be remembered as the man who destroyed the "conservative movement", who broke the confidences of many conservative consciences who grew in cultural and national influence over the past two decades, who see as we have the largest national deficit in U.S history, a pre-emptive, interventionist occupation that isoverextending our own armed forces, and weakening the infrastructure of the American family.

Moreover, the fact is, terrorism has always been in our world, long before 9/11, long before Pearl Harbor, long before the British Empire, manifesting itself in different forms over time. I believe that, ultimately, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", and most Muslims and Arabs will sadly and unfortunately interpret this occupation as a threat against their way of life and culture, an effort to change their faith and corner of the world. And with many neoconservatives calling this effort to spread democracy the "long war", other countries are going to think they're next to be targeted, and the bottom line is, war is war, and fighting fire with fire is only going to infuriate our enemies and make the flames scatter and multiply. I fear this war has badly damaged our relations with many peoples in the region, and I fear it may now encourage more future hostility and potential terrorist attacks against our nation.

*

"All I know is that I wake up in the morning and I see a clean street outside and cars going by with people going to work at a time that unemployment is at its lowest in many years, children getting on school buses, people sitting in diners having breakfast, the mailman placing the mail in my box, planes flying overhead filled with people going somewhere, a cute little gal on the tube letting me know whether to expect rain or not.....all of this at a time when there are tens of thousands ofmainacs and suicide bombers and leaders screaming for the destruction of my country....and I am glad George Bush is the President."

People didn't sit in diners having breakfast under Clinton? Mailmen didn't put mail in your mailbox under Reagen? The weathergirl didn't tell you whether it'd rain or shine under Carter or Nixon or Roosevelt?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


21 posted 04-24-2006 09:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Believe me when I tell you, Noah, the weather girl was ALWAYS wrong under Carter!! As far as the other things are concerned, yes, the sun always shone in those pre-9/11 days. Would it have, afterwards, under someone like Gore?

As I stated, sir, they are my opinions only and I respect yours. Time will tell which of us is more accurate and you have a much better chance of finding out than I do, youngster  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


22 posted 04-24-2006 10:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It doesn't matter what Bush does in the way of popularity

I have no idea what he's going to do, Reb, but I also think it's a moot point. He's not running for anything.

Bottom line is that I don't think Bush is overly-concerned with popularity ratings

He's going to do what he thinks is right, regardless


I've answered, Reb. You just don't want to accept my responses. I get the feeling that you think I should have some plan for Bush to follow to improve his popularity level. I don't.....and I don't consider it a crime not to have one. You seem to think I'm avoiding the question by not having an answer to contribute. The only reason I responded at all was to your call for any republican to respond. I'm no political advisor and no great thinker. I appreciate your concern for his popularity. I just don't attach as high a level of importance to it.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


23 posted 04-24-2006 10:09 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I thought Easter was over... but, here we go down the bunny trail....

quote:

Really? How do you think our allies regarded Clinton during his lame-duckedness? They laughed at his foibles - made jokes about him. Was it a threat to National Security? I don't recall anyone complaining about it. At one time when Clinton sent a strong message to Hussein, Sadam responded with "Tell Mr. Clinton I do not get on my knees like an intern." You want to discuss not being taken seriously? Every time we have a two-term president, we have a lame-duck president. Our allies and our enemies both know that. National security has not been threatened by it yet. If anything, I think they would be more cautious with Bush that with other lame ducks of the past.




Actually our European allies were laughing at how uptight all of we Americans were behaving over the Monica matter.   Rush Limbaugh laughed at his foibles.  He was taken quite seriously abroad.  Saddam Hussein, last time I looked, had a total disrespect for your man and his father as well.  

The lame-duck period for a second term president is normally considered the time between the election of a successor and his or her actual taking of office in January.  A popular president can and does influence the course of even an opposition Congress.  To wit -- the Tax Reform Act of 1986.  Even though cabinet level officials were affected by Iran-Contra and his approval ratings dipped drastically Reagan was able to regain the respect and admiration of the electorate and it was to his, and the nation's benefit.

Even though second-term presidents aren't running for re-election -- the Congress always is and the success or failure of the President's party is always, always closely tied to the general approval of the President.

quote:

You call that grading scandals, Reb? Where do I mention scandal and which scandal was I referring to?



Yes, I do.  And, appropriately so as mentioned previously.  You can't approach the issue of Clinton becoming a persona-non-grata in the Gore campaign without the discussion of why it happened any more than you can discuss the possibility for Bush without the subject of why.

quote:

If your comment about someone picking a fight over history refers to me, then you couldn't be more wrong. I stayed away not to pick a fight nor have i tried to do so. Your list of clinton scandals mentioned Monica and nothing else, as if that's all that happened during the man's tenure. You pointed out the man's wonderful exit popularity polls and I pointed out that they didn't help the Democrats win either the White House or Congress, which you didn't respond to.



What were the contributing factors to Clinton's dip in the polls?  That's what I'm addressing.  Your other 'scandals' were affectations of the opposition, and mostly extreme opposition, that never gained any traction with the electorate.  

I think that you'll find plenty of Democrats who would argue whether or not Gore or Bush won the race for the Presidency.  If you'll recall though, Senate control was very tight and tipped by the defection of Geffords back to the Democrats.

quote:

You asked a direct question about what should Bush do and I gave a direct answer....he doesn't have to do a thing. He's not running for office and, even when he was in his first term, re-election was not important enough to him to change his positions. You choose not to accept that - fine.



You don't think he should worry about his approval ratings.  He obviously does or else he wouldn't be shuffling the deck.  Any astute politician knows that governance isn't possible without the will of the people.  This is what Reagan did masterfully -- he'd go on television and lay out his agenda speaking directly to the American people -- they'd turn around and put pressure on their representatives and senators to follow the leader...  that's called leadership.  When people follow you.

So, let me ask the direct question again in another way.  How does he get the people to follow him?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


24 posted 04-24-2006 10:18 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

The lame-duck period for a second term president is normally considered the time between the election of a successor and his or her actual taking of office in January.



It would probably help to expound on that point a tad.

The reason said period creates a 'lame-duck' President is because in electing a new President -- the mantle and mandate of the people pass to the incoming President-Elect.  

Similarly -- a President without the approval of the people has no mandate.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> the Animosity answer   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors