| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
the Animosity answer |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
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: 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? |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
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 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So tell me... who else had to resign over Monicagate? |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
quote: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: You wanna bet? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Right here; quote: 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: 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: 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 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
"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" |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I thought Easter was over... but, here we go down the bunny trail.... quote: 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: 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: 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 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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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. Really! Well, you pointed out the huge popular approval numbers for Clinton just before the election in which the Democrats failed to win anything so how valid does that make your statement? So, let me ask the direct question again in another way. How does he get the people to follow him? I'm curious as to your great interest in Bush's restoration of popularity. Is that really the answer you want or do you want the opportunity to debate any suggestion someone may offer. Ok, shoot me....I'm suspicious by nature Let me give my direct answer again in another way. I have no idea. You will have to get input from someone else. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Really!! It's quite illustrative of the point. The Democrats picked up 4 seats in the Senate -- forming the 50 - 50 split that would eventually lead to a Democrat majority when Geffords left the Republican party. This was the first time in American History that exactly 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats were elected to the Senate. It was a close mirror to the Presidential Election which was decided by 537 votes in Florida, with the popular vote going to Gore and the Electoral College going to Bush. Total votes cast for the House race in the 107th Congress: Democrats 46,595,202 Republicans 46,738,619 Again very indicative of the tightness of the Presidential election. An even better illustration of the point is Clinton's unpopularity in the first term after the missteps of the first couple of years vis a vis the successful bid of the Gingrich Contract With America and the Republican Revolution. quote: I'm an American. I live here. Work here. Raise my kids here. The suggestion by McIntyre is quite frankly unnerving. This country is -- once again as made obvious in this thread -- divided enough already and your 'uniter' friend and his cadre are responsible. I'd hate to see the country get more divided -- wouldn't you? I'm asking because I think it's good to understand and have civil discourse which is what six of the seven participants of this thread are doing. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-24-2006 11:59 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and your figures are quite illustrative of my point. With such a popular president, a man who had given us such a wonderful economy for eight years, why should the numbers even have been close? One would think it should have been a done deal for the Democrats....if people really believed what they were being told. Obviously they didn't. This country is -- once again as made obvious in this thread -- divided enough already and your 'uniter' friend and his cadre are responsible. Figures...I suppose the country had never been divided before Bush....something else to add to his resume. I think that's kind of a strange statement to follow with I think it's good to understand and have civil discourse Yes, I'd hate to see the country get more divided, too. Please ask the Democrats to stop! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So then you agree with McIntyre that Bush hasn't been partisaned enough for the base? |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"An even better illustration of the point is Clinton's unpopularity in the first term after the missteps of the first couple of years vis a vis the successful bid of the Gigrich Contract With America and the Republican Revolution." ~ I am not sure what you mean here, especially since I am one of seven (lol), but Clinton took (is it Gigrich?) and company's Contract With America and brilliantly used it against Gingrich and the Republicans by taking credit for signing 7/10 points of contract into law. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: You make the argument that Gore shouldn't have shunned Clinton. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's not my argument, reb. It should be yours... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Thanks for correcting my typo. I've fixed it now... Yes, Clinton, faced with unpopularity -- triangulated his position against the Republicans, bounced back, and won re-election. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
You can't have it both ways Deere.. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
As I consider it further Opeth -- you actually brought the salient point to the table. It was Clinton's traingulation run that opened the door for third-party candidate Nader. 41's 'read my lips' (but don't look at my crossed fingers) opened the field for Perot and Buchanan. Rove is tasked with the mid-term election -- Bush will play to the base. McIntyre is right. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Hi, Reb....I've been following the thread. Yano....after listening to Fox News iand their talking heads in the wee hours of the morning, I have a feeling it may not be necessary to stir up division between the parties. I kind of think the "fear" element/homeland security may be the card that is played. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The only problem with the 'fear' factor Jo is that the electorate (and the world) don't trust him anymore. But, where it could work -- which is what Rove is interested in -- is if the base trusts him -- that's where he'll be playing. His mantra has always been 'play to the base'. He wants to protect his 'permanent majority' though -- which means that if you only have 40% of the electorate you have to fracture the rest with a divisive issue. Contrast that with the Reagan principle of finding an 80% isssue and getting in front of it. The 80% issue that's hurting the most right now is gas prices which is what has some 65% of the people giving Bush low scores on his handling of the economy. 80 percent say the oil companies are gouging. Even O'Reilly is saying the gas companies are gouging the public. If Bush releases some reserves to push prices down, rattles his sabres at his big oil friends and is able to attach his name and the party to lowering gas prices -- they could close the November elections with at least a 3-5 seat majority. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You make the argument that Gore shouldn't have shunned Clinton. - LR That's not my argument, reb. It should be yours... - Deer You can't have it both ways Deere.. - LR Ok, you have me with that response. Normally I have some kind of idea what you mean but I'm completely in the dark with that last reply. You educate us on the excellence of Bill Clinton as president. He was great for the economy, decimated the deficit, basically was scandal-free except for Monica, was investigated but could not be pinned down on anything, a man that some have referred to as the president that may go down in history as the best ever, a president with a huge popularity rating. You make the comment the success or failure of the President's party is always, always closely tied to the general approval of the President. and yet you say that I make the argument Gore should not have shunned his support. YOU should be the one saying Gore should not have shunned him. How could any incumbent party lose with such a popular all-star leading the battle? Should have been no contest. You are the one that can't have it both ways, my friend. Either Clinton was an asset or an ass. Either the Democrats felt his leadership would help them or they didn't. They either felt that his actions while in the Oval office would encourage people to continue to vote Democratic or they didn't. The fact that they ran from him gives the answer. Quite a quandry, no? A wonderful, popular president whose support no one wanted....your argument should be why not? if you felt he was that good for America and the Democratic Party. Obviously his Democratic cohorts did not share your views.... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 10:00 A.M. quote: And there it is -- they take a fork and go for the 80/20 game first -- brilliant strategy -- they couldn't have asked to have a dispute with Iran, have the possibility of Nuking Iran leaked to the press, have the unregulated petroleum futures market get the jitters, send crude sky-high and then have something to rally against at a better time. How lucky can one President get? Sorry Mike -- I was a little tired this morning -- I should have explained. The Democrats either ran ON Clinton's record -- or they ran AWAY from him. You can't have it both ways. Of course -- Gore ran AWAY from him. But you brilliantly, with words and opinions that aren't representative of my position, make the case that he shouldn't have done that. Additionally -- you're trying to have it both ways too with allegations made against Clinton that turned out to have no teeth. That would mean you'd have to accept every allegation made against GW, like the one I very carefully didn't make above, as a valid scandal. Separating ISSUES from scandals -- if you wanted to open a Clinton thread there are plenty of points I could help you bash on. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Who in the world would say that? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! For someone who has contributed nothing more to this thread than "You wanna bet?" and "Who in the world would say that?", you seem to be on a mission not to let it go. Having a boring day, Brad? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Actually, I'm pretty busy these days. But you know me, the moment someone says "the best ever" Or "one of the best ever" my buttons are pushed. Would anyone, seriously, put Clinton in the same league as Washington or Lincoln, Teddy or FDR? Would anyone seriously put Bush in that league? And, to be honest, Bush is not in the same league as Buchanon or Johnson, Hoover or Harding. We're stuck in an age of mediocrity (pun intended). I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
What you just said, Brad, reminds me of the title track from an old Bruce Cockburn album titled "The Trouble With Normal", especially this lyric: * "It'll all go back to normal if we put our nation first" But the trouble with normal is it always gets worse * While I have deep optimism that soon enough we'll discover fresh, independent, visionary voices which can build the fullest promise of our nation again cooperatively, I agree we are in a sort of mediocrity phase right now, and I certainly can never accept both Clinton or Bush as greater presidents we've had. I'd rank Clinton fair and Bush poor. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
It's been several months since this thread started but it continues to be relevant. Curious if anyone's positions have changed? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bush's has. His popularity level has gone from the low 30's to the upper forty's. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
And gasoline? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
