How much bi-partisan spirit can we expect from a POTUS who renames the rival party? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 11-09-2006, 12:36 PM

Please...post no jokes about Bush mispronouncing words frequently, and no accusations of pettiness. Pettiness is deliberatley renaming the rival politcal party, and obsessively staying "on message", referring to it consistently by the Orwellian "rename" that you've given it:

The other, major party in the US, is officially titled "Democratic Party", as it always has been:
www.dnc.org .....

But here is what we get...over and over:

Quote:

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...cid=1111001723

Bush to take 'new direction' in stride

Facing the music after a thumping makes for alluring theatre

By MARK LEIBOVICH

....... ''I say, why all the glum faces?'' Mr Bush began, blending humour and irony in an unsubtle taunt at his media nemeses. (Double bonus points for the curiously British ''I say.'') He also could have been projecting.

His voice went soft and sheepish when he congratulated the ''Democrat leadership in the House and Senate'', deploying a term for his adversaries _ the ''Democrat'' party as opposed to ''Democratic'' party _ that he has to know annoys many of them. ........

If you, and Mr. Bush, sincerely desire a "new spirit of bi-partisanship, why pull this "Orwell speak"? What do you think that using it, will accomplish, anymore?

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005
GOP strategists christen "Democrat [sic] Party" -- and the media comply

Summary: Several media figures, including news reporters, echoed Republicans by employing the word "Democrat" as an adjective to refer to things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party.

In recent months, media figures, including news reporters at CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the Associated Press echoed Republicans by employing the word "Democrat" as an adjective to describe things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party -- including referring to the "Democrat" Party itself, even though that is not the party's name. The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

Hertzberg pointed out in an article for the August 7 issue of The New Yorker that the word "Democrat" is a noun, arguing that its use as an adjective defies the rules of English grammar:

The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun "Democratic Party" as "One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828." (It defines "Democrat n" as "A Democratic Party member" and "Democratic adj" as "Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party," but gives no definition for -- indeed, makes no mention of -- "Democrat Party n" or "Democrat adj".) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points.

Hertzberg noted that Republicans "as far back as the Harding Administration" have referred to the "Democrat Party," including late Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI), who "made it a regular part of his arsenal of insults," and former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS), who "denounced 'Democrat wars' ... in his [1976] Vice-Presidential debate with [former Sen.] Walter Mondale [D-MN]."

Further, Hertzberg wrote that "among those of the Republican persuasion," the use of " 'Democrat Party' is now nearly universal" thanks to "Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo 'Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,' and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz." While Hertzberg noted that Luntz "road-tested the adjectival use of 'Democrat' with a focus group in 2001" and "concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the ... Democratic Party," he also wrote that Luntz had told him recently that "[t]hose two letters ['ic'] actually do matter," and that Luntz "recently finished writing a book ... entitled 'Words That Work.' "

Notwithstanding its partisan pedigree and grammatical awkwardness, a Media Matters for America review* of the Nexis database for the last three months found a number of examples of media figures, including news reporters, using the word "Democrat" as an adjective. For instance, on the August 13 broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, guest host and CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley used "Democrat" as an adjective four times, referring to both the "Democrat Party" and the "Democrat primary," during an interview with Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont.

Additionally, Media Matters' review found similar use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective by the following reporters and media figures:

* CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley, on the August 8 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360.
* CNN national correspondent Bob Franken, on the May 26 edition of CNN's American Morning.
* New York Times senior writer Robin Toner, in a May 31 article.
* Wall Street Journal reporter Theo Francis, in an August 11 article (subscription required).
* Chicago Tribune business columnist Bill Barnhart, in an August 15 column.
* AP writer Peter Jackson, in a May 16 article.
* AP writer Tom Raum, in a June 16 article.

*(democrat party or democrat primary or democrat candidate or democrat strategy or democrat strategist or democrat response or democrat lawmaker or democrat congress! or democrat representative or democrat senat! or democrat member or democrat caucus or democrat house or democrat proposal or democrat bill or democrat politic! or democrat plan or democrat legislat! or democrat tactic or democrat ploy or democrat statement or democrat press or democrat release or democrat claim or democrat agenda or democrat talking point or democrat nomin!) and date(geq (5/16/06) and leq (8/16/06))

From the August 13 broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation:

PELLEY: On Tuesday, it looked like a pretty good idea to run against the war in a Democrat primary; then, Wednesday, the plot came up that was revealed of the bombing of -- potential bombing of airliners into the United States.

[...]

PELLEY: I should mention that we invited Senator [Joseph I.] Lieberman to be on the broadcast. Even though you defeated him in the Democrat primary, he's decided to run as an independent in the general election, but Senator Lieberman is attending the wedding of his daughter this weekend, and it's undoubtedly a more pleasant thing to do than be on Face the Nation.

[...]

PELLEY: Our CBS News polling in your race showed that among Democrats in Connecticut, more than 80 percent said the war was important to them in -- in their vote. Now, that's one state, and just the Democrat Party. The question is: Do you think an anti-war candidate can win the presidency in 2008?

[...]

PELLEY: Running as a -- as an anti-war candidate in Connecticut, in the Democrat primary -- again, a very small slice of the national pie -- what lesson should the Democratic Party take from your victory when looking at the nation as a whole?

From the August 8 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:

ANDERSON COOPER (host): Candy Crowley joins me now from Connecticut, also Amy Walter, the senior editor of The Cook Political Report.

Candy, let me start off with you. If that's true, if there are a lot of people in Connecticut feeling that Joe Lieberman had sort of focused too much on the national effort -- no longer represented their interests -- that does not bode well for him running as an independent.

CROWLEY: Well, it doesn't, except for that they've made this choice very deliberately. They looked at the numbers, and what they saw was that there is huge support among Connecticut Republicans and independents. And remember that independents, those that are not affiliated with either Democrat or Republican parties -- this is the largest party in Connecticut.

So, they looked at those numbers. They saw how he polled with those people, and they made a very deliberate choice a couple of weeks ago, knowing that this was going to be his best route to return to the U.S. Senate.

From the May 26 edition of CNN's American Morning:

FRANKEN: The plot really thickens on this one. This has to do with the uproar of congressional leaders over an FBI raid into a Democrat Congressman, William Jefferson [LA], who has been implicated in the scandal -- one of the scandals that's been going on on Capitol Hill. They're saying that this is a violation of the constitution.

And what [House Speaker J. Dennis] Hastert [R-IL] is saying is, is that the leaks about his being part of another investigation are really part, to quote his interview with WGN Radio in Chicago: "This is one of the leaks," he says, "that come out to try to intimidate people and we're just not going to be intimidated on it."

From Toner's May 31 New York Times article:

One reason for Democratic optimism here is the possibility of a wounded Republican nominee emerging from a bitter (and relatively late) primary. Mr. Ford's major opponent in the Democrat primary withdrew recently, giving him the luxury of running a general election campaign -- raising money and running advertising, most recently on the price of gasoline.

From Francis' August 11 Wall Street Journal article:

During the bidding, political tensions are mostly muted, though in 1998 Ms. Harris dubbed the baby possum she won for $100 "Sandra" after her opponent for secretary of state, Sandra Mortham. This year, Republican and Democrat candidates stood together as the auction approached, eyeing the nearby cage of possums, including a big, one-eyed male that the handlers called "fierce."

From Barnhart's August 15 Chicago Tribune article:

The prospect of a Democrat Party takeover of the U.S. House in the fall election bothers conservatives; the thought of more than two more years of George W. Bush depresses liberals.

From Raum's June 16 AP article:

One set of numbers Bush will not give and which Democrats and some Republicans are pressing for the hardest is the timing and size of a U.S. troop withdrawal. Telegraphing such a timetable would be "bad policy," Bush says.

Democrat Party chief Howard Dean, however, says, "The reality is that our troops and their families still have no strategy from this president to get the job done in Iraq and get them home."

From Jackson's May 16 AP article:

The Republican and Democrat candidates for Pennsylvania governor Republican former Pittsburgh Steelers star Lynn Swann and Gov. Ed Rendell, respectively are unopposed in the primary. If elected, Swann would become the state's first black governor.

WTF is this all about.....the POTUS using this Sen. Joe McCarthyist misdescription of the rival party that he says he "wants to work with", in his communication to the nation, on the two consecutive days after his party experienced large election losses, and lost control of both branches of congress? He doesn't "get it", do you?

MuadDib · 11-09-2006, 01:13 PM

Mole Hill ≠ Mountain

Ch'i · 11-09-2006, 01:21 PM

Too early to tell.

stevo · 11-09-2006, 01:21 PM

too bad

isn't eleven characters long.

Moskie · 11-09-2006, 01:43 PM

how much bi-partisanship can we expect from people who latch onto observations like these, host?

saying the "Democrat Party" isn't a slur, it isn't insulting. it's just what he happened to say. let it go.

jorgelito · 11-09-2006, 02:06 PM

Um, what exactly is the problem here? I was actually going to post a thread complimenting the Republicans on their graciousness in defeat and the Democrats for being well-behaved as well (as far as I know). George Allen's concession was nice and classy.

I'm not a Bush fan but I still think he deserves some credit for declaring a willingness to work with the Dems (yes I realize he doesn't have much choice but it's still nice), same with Pelosi for stepping up and saying how she wants to work with the president.

For all the negatives (and for sure there are) it is still nice to see and recognize the positives.

Democrat, Democratic (I actualy did not know this was the official name). I don't think this was an intentional insult. You guys already won man, what else do you want?

Tomato, tomato, potato, potato, nuclear, nuclear.......

So far, the only lunatic has been Rush Limbaugh (the radio broadcaster).

shakran · 11-09-2006, 02:12 PM

Host, usually I agree with you but you're a bit off base here. First off we're talking about a guy who says things like "sublimable messages," so I will NOT discount the idea that this is just Bush demonstrating a speech-brain disconnect that's so common with him.

Second, the democrats have an excellent chance at this point to show the American people that they DO know how to govern and govern well, and that things are better when the democrats are around. Part of knowing how to govern does involve getting along with the other guys. If we start getting pissy over this, what does that display?

Now, if he'd called us the Fucker party, you might have something, but really, what he said doesn't bug me. I will, however, be watching with great interest to see what he DOES.

scout · 11-09-2006, 02:16 PM

Harding was president from 1921 - 1923 so for the last 80 - 85 years Republicans have been referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party". So it's really nothing new, more like ancient news. Taken from the link you provided .....

Quote:

"......Hertzberg noted that Republicans "as far back as the Harding Administration" have referred to the "Democrat Party," including late Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) "......

This is the first time I've voted for a Democrat for anything other than a local or county office since 1992 and now I'm starting to remember why. I was hoping we could leave the nit-picking, he said she said crap and the bi-partisanship in the past and move onto to something that will actually move this country forward and more toward the center. To all you Democrats out there, please use this chance wisely and do something positive. Please, don't squander it, don't attempt to go to far left, just bring America back to center ground and please don't nit pick the little things that mean nothing in the big picture.

ratbastid · 11-09-2006, 02:17 PM

I don't think I'm going to get too bent out of shape about this. It's just a name. A rose by any other name would still control both houses of congress.

"ratbastid" is spelled all lower-case. When somebody refers to me as "Ratbastid", I notice it. That's not how it's spelled. It's not a problem for me, though.

cyrnel · 11-09-2006, 02:17 PM

If that's the best my potus can manage then he's low on ammo.

If it's by design, it's petty and demonstrates weakness.
If it's accidental, well, nothing new.

Anyway, should we expect any of them to make an overnight shift to bi-partisanship? Isn't it more likely that what we've heard so far was written for appearance's sake given the new situation?

Don't dull your blade. Use it on the real issues.

kutulu · 11-09-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Mole Hill ≠ Mountain

What he calls the party is the least of my concerns. He could call them the pinko communist party (he probably does behind closed doors) for all I care. I just want the parties to work together and get shit done.

Bush's immigration reform stance is much closer to where the Dems are. I think that is one area where they will find common ground.

shakran · 11-09-2006, 02:56 PM

I think Ratbastid has a good point.

(yes that was on purpose

)

cj2112 · 11-09-2006, 03:45 PM

Again....I'm gonna say it. I swear some of these threads really belong in Tilted Paranoia, rather than Tilted Politics.

dc_dux · 11-09-2006, 03:53 PM

cj...I would agree. But I hope you would also include as paranoid an OP suggesting Dems desire to raise taxes on the rich, and that they would possibly defne "rich" as $150,000 for married coups? $80,000 for single?

flstf · 11-09-2006, 04:09 PM

I agree with you, the Republics should be more respectful of the Democratics.

cj2112 · 11-09-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

cj...I would agree. But I hope you would also include as paranoid an OP suggesting Dems desire to raise taxes on the rich, and that they would possibly defne "rich" as $150,000 for married coups? $80,000 for single?

I wouldn't say the Dems desire to raise taxes on the rich paranoid, and calling anybody that makes 80k or a couple that makes 150k/yr rich is simply delusional.

guy44 · 11-09-2006, 04:55 PM

Actually, ask any Democrat who's had to suffer through a Rush broadcast or O'Reilly show. The "Democrat Party" is they're sort of semi-demeaning way of saying Democratic Party. It's not that huge a deal, I mean in the big scheme of things both those guys - and, obviously, Bush - have much more to answer for. But it is a real phenomenon.

However, discussing Bush's new "bipartisanship:" he's trying to renominate Bolton as UN Ambassador in a special session of Congress before the new Congress beings in January. Sound like a bipartisanship extension of an olive branch to you?

hiredgun · 11-09-2006, 05:32 PM

It's not too unlikely that it's a deliberate political move. It's just so marginal that I don't see any reason to focus our anger and attention on it. It's ultimately unimportant in light of everything else we need to accomplish.

host · 11-09-2006, 06:11 PM

A search for "democrat national convention" yields 11,600 results:
(The sites where the term can be found, speak for themselves)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

For the "rest of the world":

A search for "democratic national convention" yields 1,070,000 results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...22&btnG=Search

a search of the vanderbilt.edu tv news archive...including all US network evening news broadcasts, dating back to 1968, yields for the search term, "democrat party", just 7 results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...du&btnG=Search

a search of the vanderbilt.edu tv news archive...including all US network evening news broadcasts, dating back to 1968, yields for the search term, "democratic party", 12,400 results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...du&btnG=Search

My point is....the point of this thread...is that I expect my POTUS to not speak like a partisan who is "on the fringe"....like someone who has conscioulsy disciplined himself to describe "all things" having to do with the DEMOCRATIC PARTY...as DEMOCRAT...leader...votes....party....and national convention. All of the "inputs" that the"rest of us" received, as we grew up in America. conditioned US to refer to "that party", as the DEMOCRATIC PARTY...indeed...it is unnatural for me (an I'll venture...at one time...for Mr. Bush....to refer to it as "DEMOCRAT PARTY"...yet he did it...and does it...nearly always. If it's important enough to him...to make the effort to train himself to do that...I believe that it is important enough for me to notice it, comment on it...object to it...take exception to it. It isn't mainstream...and as Walter Cronkite would tell you....it isn't fucking "natural" to refer to the DEMOCRATic party that way. As long as Bush does that....especially in a concilliatory speach, he offer nothing to me, in the way of sincerity !

...host!!!!... get off of it....you say??? Consider that I'm just a guy taking time on a politics thread to do some searching, start a thread, and post about my observations. Mr. Bush trained himself to talk in a "special way"... who is petty...who is obsessive...who is not to be taken, at his word?...Me, "justaguyonaninternetforum"....or the rabidly partisan New England patrician POTUS, fronting as a "born again", southern, "regular guy" conservative extermist? You thought that Mr. Bush was speaking to YOU in his post election address and press conference? Think again !

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...A90994DC484D81
On Language; Banned Words
October 28, 1984, Sunday
By WILLIAM SAFIRE (NYT); Magazine Desk
Late City Final Edition, Section 6, Page 12, Column 3, 1390 words

....Coin Collecting

Why, Republicans asked for years, should we allow the Democrats to get away with the adjective ''democratic''? As a result, partisan Republicans, especially those who had been head of the Republican National Committee, called the opposition ''the Democrat party.''

Who started this and when? Acting on a tip, I wrote to the man who was campaign director of Wendell Willkie's race against Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

''In the Willkie campaign of 1940,'' responded Harold Stassen, ''I emphasized that the party controlled in large measure at that time by Hague in New Jersey, Pendergast in Missouri and Kelly Nash in Chicago should not be called a 'Democratic Party.' It should be called the 'Democrat party.' . . .''

Mr. Stassen, who is only four years older than President Reagan, is remembered as a moderate Republican; his idea is still used by the most partisan members of the G.O.P. Democrats once threatened to retaliate by referring to their opponents as Publicans, but that was jettisoned. Despite the urge to clip, Democratic and Republican the parties remain.......

Quote:

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/la...e_democrat.php

.....One of the least substantial but most annoying things about the Republicans' repetition machine is how well they succeeded with their schoolboy prank of changing the adjective "Democratic" to "Democrat." They've been so successful that many nonpartisan radio and TV journalists and even some party activists now say "Democrat party" or "Democrat primary"—and some young people probably can't remember a time when our party got to choose its own name. (Granted, by the time we all forget the former adjective, the prank will have lost its effect—just as the warm and fuzzy effects of renaming the "Department of War" the "Department of Defense" stopped decades ago. But it's still a nasty and bullying tactic, akin to Bush's mandatory nicknames, and I'm astonished that the Dems let it happen without a fight.)

RAYpublican, a presumed attempt at retaliation, seems a clear mistake because it's truly at schoolyard level, too crude to work. ("Democrat party" cleverly tracked the English language's tendency to make nouns into adjectives in ways that confound everyone but Germans, as in "rubber baby buggy bumpers.") One can imagine better alternatives ("the GOP party," pronounced "gopp," with its Cole Porter roots, comes to mind) <h3>but the sad fact is that Democrats aren't either disciplined enough or consistently petty enough to make anything like this stick......</h3>

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...D9405B838EF1D3
GOV. SMITH PROPOSES RADICAL NEW LAWS TO BRING HOME RULE; He Pleads for City Control of Public Utili... [PDF]

ALBANY, Jan. 3. --
January 4, 1923 - Special to The New York Times. - Front Page

......The people of this State have chosen the Republican Party as the majority party in this House, and the representative of the opposite party, the Democrat Party, for the place of Chief Executive of the State -H. Edmund Machold, the Republican Assembly Speaker of NY State

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...D9415B828FF1D3
Text of the Speech by President Hoover in the Coliseum at St. Louis Last Night; HOOVER'S ADDRESS IN THE COLISEUM

Nov 5, 1932, Saturday
By The Associated Press.

....Many years ago the Democrat party undertook to remedy that whole question of booms and slumps ........

near the end of Bush's "day after" press conference (Nov. 8, 2006) a member of the press corps asked:

Quote:

[urlhttp://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Ej9_Xr579JYJ:www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html
+%22democratic+party%22+site:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1[/url]

....Q Mr. President, you mentioned entitlements, and one of the big hot-button issues for the Democratic Party is Social Security and the idea of partial privatization, which you have talked about. And I wonder if there's anything in your agenda in that way that you're willing to adjust in the spirit of bipartisanship or back off from, given how important that is to the core of the Democratic Party?......

Bush "performed" flawlessly, (or the white house has sanistized the dialogue...):

Quote:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

......1:00 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I say, why all the glum faces?

Yesterday, the people went to the polls and they cast their vote for a new direction in the House of Representatives. And while the ballots are still being counted in the Senate, it is clear the Democrat Party had a good night last night, and I congratulate them on their victories.

This morning I spoke with Republican and Democrat leadership in the House and Senate........

......Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said you're interested in changing the tone, and committed to changing the tone in Washington. Just a few days before this election, in Texas, you said that Democrats, no matter how they put it, their approach to Iraq comes down to terrorists win, America loses. What has changed today, number one? Number two, is this administration prepared to deal with the level of oversight and investigation that is possibly going to come from one chamber or two in Congress?

THE PRESIDENT: What's changed today is the election is over, and the Democrats won. And now we're going to work together for two years to accomplish big objectives for the country. And secondly, the Democrats are going to have to make up their mind about how they're going to conduct their affairs. And I haven't had a chance to talk with the leadership yet about these issues, but we'll begin consultations with the Democrat leadership starting Thursday and Friday.......

.....THE PRESIDENT: I'm losing. I obviously was working harder in the campaign than he was. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE: Oooooh!

THE PRESIDENT: He's a faster reader. You know, Michael, I must confess I cannot catalogue for you in detail the different criticisms. In this line of work you get criticized from all sides. And that's okay, it's just part of the job. And so I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, but I can tell you that I believe the faith-based and community-based -- the faith- and community-based initiative is a vital part of helping solve intractable problems here in America. And I would hope that I could work with Congress to make sure this program, which has been invigorated, remains invigorated.

And the reason why I believe in it so much is that there are just some problems that require something other than government help, and it requires people who have heard a call to help somebody in need. And I believe we ought to open up grants to competitive bidding for these types of organizations, and we have done that. And it's very important that that program stay strong.

But, you know, Michael, you're probably following all these -- the different lists of concerns people have with my presidency, and I respect that. I just -- frankly, I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about in this question. I'm sure there are some people who aren't perfectly content, but there are some people that aren't perfectly content from different parties and different philosophies. All I know to do is to make decisions based upon principles that I believe are important, and now work with Democrat leaders in the Congress because they control the committees and they control the flow of bills. And I'm going to do that for the good of the country........

....Q Americans have heard it before, there's going to be cooperation, we're going to get along. What can you do to show Americans that there -- that you'll stop and avoid any gridlock? Because they've seen it come anyway.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had some pretty good success early on in this administration. We got the No Child Left Behind Act passed, which was an important part of bipartisan legislation. We got some tax cuts passed with Democrat votes......

Since 2003, Mr. Bush has been very reliable in using the adjective "democrat", in place of "democratic", in front of leader, or party, or votes...Mr. Cheney, and white house reporters, have been less, "on message":
http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html...24&submit.y=16

http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html...h=10&lk=1&rf=1

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010402-8.html

....This is an issue that is going to require close cooperation between members of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. But that's achievable because trade is an American issue. And it's an important American issue......

...in october, Bush slipped once....here:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0061019-9.html

....The same cannot be said for his Democratic Senate colleagues. More than 70 percent of the United States senators from the Democrat Party voted to take away this vital tool in the war on terror. We just have a different point of view, a different look at the world.......

Mr. Bush held his talking points "on message"....not slipping for two years:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0041030-3.html

....AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: You might remember what he said when they asked him about why he made the vote. Senator Kerry said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." I haven't spent nearly as much time in this part of the world as you have, but I can assure you, you're not going to find many people in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who talks that way. (Applause.).....

........During the last 20 years, in key moments of challenge and decision, Senator Kerry has chosen the path of weakness and inaction. With that record, he stands in opposition not just to me, but to the great tradition of the Democratic Party. The party of Franklin Roosevelt, the party of Harry Truman, the party of John Kennedy is rightly remembered for confidence and resolve in times of war and in hours of crisis. Senator Kerry has turned his back on "pay any price," and "bear any burden," and he has replaced those commitments with "wait and see" and "cut and run." (Applause.).....

back in 2001, Mr. Bush was not always "om message":

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010529-4.html

We listened to the voices of those in my party and in the Democratic Party who wanted additional help for those at the lowest end of the economic ladder. We listened, and as a result, this plan has even more help for lower-income Americans. The earned income credit is expanded for low-income married couples, and the child credit is refundable for parents, providing the most help for those who earn between $10,000 and $25,000 a year.

We acted on principle. We worked together to build consensus and to get results. This is significant -- and this is only the beginning. The Peterson family, and families like them all across America, need more than just a tax cut. The Petersons want us to work together to improve public education, strengthen their retirement security, modernize Medicare, and strengthen and modernize our national defenses.

Again, thanks to the members of Congress. I hope you enjoy your Memorial Day recess. And then, let's work together to complete the great progress we are making on legislation to improve America's public schools.

Again, I want to thank you all for coming. This is an historic day. It explains the art of the possible; it shows what can happen when good people come together with the intention of doing what's right for the American people. And we have done right by the American people today. God bless you. (Applause.)

END 3:20 P.M. EDT

I guess he's been "training"...for a long time:

Quote:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1
October 11, 2000

The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate

....BUSH: If he's trying to allege that I'm a hard-hearted person and I don't care about children, he's absolutely wrong. We've spent $4.7 billion a year in the State of Texas for uninsured people. And they get health care. Now, it's not the most efficient way to get people health care. But I want to remind you, the number of uninsured in America during their watch has increased. He can make any excuse he wants, but the facts are that we're reducing the number of uninsured percentage of our population. And as the percentage of the population is increasing nationally, somehow the allegation that we don't care and we're going to give money for this interest or that interest and not for children in the State of Texas is totally absurd. Let me just tell you who the jury is. The people of Texas. There's only been one governor ever elected to back-to-back four-year terms, and that was me. And I was able to do so with a lot of Democrat votes, nearly 50% of the Hispanic vote, about 27% of the African-American vote, because people know I'm a conservative person and a compassionate person. So he can throw all the kinds of numbers around. I'm just telling you our state comes together to do what is right. We come together both Republicans and Democrats.

MODERATOR: Let me put that directly to you, Vice President Gore. The reason you brought this up, is it -- are you suggesting that those numbers and that record will reflect the way Governor Bush will operate in this area of health insurance as president?

Gilda · 11-09-2006, 07:03 PM

Eh. It's a little annoying that people in the Republic Party do this, but I wouldn't blow things out of proportion.

host · 11-09-2006, 08:23 PM

<h3>Late apology from host for posting the following cj2112 quote and directing my questions to him....</h3>....the data in the post is still, IMO, worth displaying....and the question....if we don't restore the previous level of taxes on folks in the described income levels, and above....where will the revenue come from to battle the nearly $600 billion average new annual federal debt accumulation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj2112

I wouldn't say the Dems desire to raise taxes on the rich paranoid, and calling anybody that makes 80k or a couple that makes 150k/yr rich is simply delusional.

alrighty....who is "rich", then ???

2005 US Census data, based on income survey of 114,384 households.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incomestats.html

TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD

Family households.............. 77,402

Male householder.............. 16,753
Living alone................ 13,061
Female householder........... 20,230
Living alone................ 17,392

SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD

One person................................1,361 = over $100,000 (of 30,453)
$80000 to 82499.............................189
$82500 to 84999..............................98
$85000 to 87499.............................118
$87500 to 89999..............................76
$90000 to 92499.............................153
$92500 to 94999..............................44
$95000 to 97499..............................80
$97500 to 99999..............................50

2169 of 30,453 of surveyed osingle individual households had income of $80,000 or more in 2005.....

...............................income of $100,000 and over:
Two people................................6,589 (of 37,775)
Three people..............................4,230 (of 18,924)
Four people...............................4,641 (of 15,998)
Five people...............................1,956 (of 7,306 )
Six people................................ 645 (of 2,562 )
Seven people or more...................293 (of 1,366)
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/03200.../new01_001.htm

18354 of 83931 of surveyed multi-persons households had income of $100,000 or more in 2005.....

I suspect that the number of households with income of $150,000 or more, is signifigantly less than 18354 households

....so now that the results of a 2005 US Census survey of income of 114,384 households supports that $80000 annual income for a single person, and $150,000 income for a multi-person household is "top tier", if you refuse to endorse tax increases for these high earners (compared to the incomes of the rest of us), and knowing that debt of the US treasury has increased by 3,000 billion in just five years, after a year with a small US treasury surplus, as recently as in 2001, would you advocate for elimination of federal inheritance taxes of the estates over $2 million.....and....who would you designate for tax increases. Consider that, for 25 years after WWII, the top marginal income tax rate was 90 percent, and now it is 30, and the top tax on capital gains has been reduced to just 15 percent....yet you seem to see no basis for rolling back recent tax increases?

cj2112 · 11-09-2006, 09:44 PM

Wow....talk about putting words in my mouth. Can we get back on topic now?

pan6467 · 11-09-2006, 10:26 PM

Wow, Host, I respect you, I do appreciate all the time and effort you spend educating us but come on, getting all worked up about Bush dropping the "ic" at the end of a word and believing that he is intentionally fucking with the party is petty.

If this is truly something the party is going to get bent over.... then they don't have a chance in Hell holding onto the power.

The party needs to be gracious to the voters for the chance to lead, the party needs to listen to the peple and make sure they answer the needs in ways that are fiscally responsive and accountable and they need to show humility.

Because everyone in this country is watching them under a microscope now, waiting to see if they fuck up...... and the second they do, what the Dems did to the GOP the past 6 years or what the GOP did to Clinton for 8 will be nothing compared to what the GOP will do to the Dems this time. And the Dems will not survive.

So just let the leaders of our party do their job, work hard, prove we are the better party and we have a better plan and be done with it.

host · 11-10-2006, 12:08 AM

pan... I appreciate the respect and diplomacy that you are affording me here. Please consider that this examination and commentary about the Bush "usage" of "democrat", in place of democratic, takes place in the wider context of his record of duplicity, misrepresentation of who he is, and what he stands for, and...to put it charitably, the misleading nature of the man. You may dismiss the notion that it is very telling that he has worked so hard....and it must be hard...answering the probing and even derogatory questions of the press corp...and consistently getting his morphed adjective "democrat"...."democrat leader", "democrat party", "democrat votes"....right. It seems to me this petty obsession is not "on me"...it is owned by the man who practices it, so diligently and successfully....wednesday, thursday, in the 2000 debate with Gore....and much more accurately than Cheney has been capable of performing this "word game".

Now....we must decide....trust the man...take him at his word...or not. Is the "new Bush" more honest now, less dangerous...more trustworthy....how much of your willingness to take him at his word...now, is buoyed by hopefulness....how much of my unwillingness is clouded by skepticism and contempt? These are some facts; he's lost his congressional majority that allowed him to do as he pleased....he all but ignored it's leaders, when his party controlled both houses..wrote signing statements to circumvent it's legislative intent, bullied it and used recess appointments to aggressively negate it's decisions dispproving his appointees.

We've got a guy "leading" us....for six years...where? We know he went to Andover, and Yale, and Harvard grad. school....that he scored very highly on the military pilot program pre-admission test...yet we cannot even agree on whether or not he is "smart", capable, or intelligent. Isn't that odd....doesn't it make you curious enought to wonder, evena after six years, WTF the POTUS, the CIC....really is? Treat what I've offered here as a snippet, but one that I think is revealing of the "measure of the man"....relentless....obsessive....successful in whatever he has attempted, including training himself to always say "democrat". At the least, I've posted some things, in every post on this thread, that you probably didn't know. We all need to watch and listen to Mr. Bush more closely. I think that he has conceded nothing, offered only contradictions, and the signs, and the odds.... that he is "equipped" with a messianic-like self-identity...ego, if you will, now damaged, but unbowed....have not diminished, IMHO.

Thursday....this seems to be what his message was....he intends to milk the final days of his party's congressional control....not to ensure the safety of the US during his long, GWOT, but to cement the passage by the senate of this piece of his own personal protection from future prosecution....his and his cronies. Did anyone know that this POS of a bill, was passed by a unanimous republican house vote, and received a no vote from almost all house democrats, back on Sept. 29?Is he not a war criminal, and perhaps a traitor (remember the outing of Valerie Plame, and Libby's trial, scheduled to begin in two months?)

Considering what his stated legislative priorities are, now, and the post election, "blame game" he's playing, that the documentation below, describes, is Bush actually displaying any real candor, contrition, or acknowledgment of his own missteps and failures? If he is doing so....please point to examples of his sincerity and new penchant for putting his "country at war", first.

I've shared with you how "Bush's war" effects my family, and to an extent, my opinion. My stepson was emailing and/or calling us and his girlfriend, almost daily, and no one has heard from him for about ten days. It's only fair that I offer that info here, and let you decide how much that diminishes everything else that I've posted on this thread....I suggest though, that the facts, and the news reporting should be considered seperately from my opinions and personal circumstances.

Quote:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdqu...d109:H.R.5825:
H.R.5825
Title: To update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Sponsor: Rep Wilson, Heather [NM-1] (introduced 7/18/2006) Cosponsors (13)
Related Bills: H.RES.1052
Latest Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
House Reports: 109-680 Part 1, 109-680 Part 2

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/quer...U91Cx9:e22462:
SEC. 10. COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS AND ANTITERRORISM PROGRAMS.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and in addition to the immunities, privileges, and defenses provided by any other provision of law, no action, claim, or proceeding shall lie or be maintained in any court, and no penalty, sanction, or other form of remedy or relief shall be imposed by any court or any other body, against any person for an activity arising from or relating to the provision to an element of the intelligence community of any information (including records or other information pertaining to a customer), facilities, or assistance during the period of time beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, in connection with any alleged communications intelligence program that the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General certifies, in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets, is, was, or would be intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack. This section shall apply to all actions, claims, or proceedings pending on or after the effective date of this Act.

(b) Jurisdiction- Any action, claim, or proceeding described in subsection (a) that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable pursuant to section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

(c) Definitions- In this section:

(1) INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY- The term `intelligence community' has the meaning given the term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).

(2) PERSON- The term `person' has the meaning given the term in section 2510(6) of title 18, United States Code.

Perhaps you view him as "de-fanged"...less dangerous? How does that equal more trustworthy....more "worthy" of being given the "benefit of the doubt"? Would you afford such a thing to anyone else suspected of committing such serious crimes against the US and the communtiy of nations?

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20061109.html

THE PRESIDENT: Earlier this week the American people went to the polls, and they cast their ballots for a new Congress. The American people made their decision; I respect the results, and so does my Cabinet. I want to congratulate the Democrat leaders on the victory they achieved for their party.....

........Some of these issues need to be addressed before the current Congress finishes its legislative session, and that means the next few weeks are going to be busy ones. First order of business is for Congress to complete the work on the federal spending bills for this year, with strong fiscal discipline, and without diminishing our capacity to fight the war on terror.

Another important priority in the war on terror is for the Congress to pass the Terrorist Surveillance Act. We also need to pass the bipartisan energy legislation that's now before Congress.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...41100879.html/
Meet the 'New Bush'

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, November 9, 2006; 1:06 PM

What a difference this election has made. It was, in some ways, a whole new President Bush who appeared before the assembled press corps for a post-election <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html">news conference</a> yesterday afternoon.

Meet the New Bush: Owning up to all sorts of unpleasant realities; Speaking well of Democrats; Vowing to act in a bipartisan fashion while acknowledging voter skepticism on that point and pledging to overcome it with deeds; Self-deprecating, rather than bullying.

And -- oh yes -- jettisoning Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the quintessential symbol of his administration's obstinate refusal to acknowledge that the current strategy in Iraq is failing.

So is this New Bush to be taken at his word?

<h3>It probably depends on whether you think the president's badly eroded credibility has been restored by his admission that he lied during the campaign -- or whether that just adds to the damage.</h3>

Because possibly the most startling aspect of a consequential press conference on a incredibly tumultuous day was Bush's repeated acknowledgment that things he said when he was campaigning were either no longer operative -- or were outright deceptions.

Most notably, it was just one week earlier that Bush had told <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_20">wire-service reporters</a> in an interview that he wanted Rumsfeld (and Vice President Cheney) to remain with him until the end of his presidency.

Here's how Bush tried to explain that yesterday:

"[Associated Press reporter Terence] Hunt asked me the question one week before the campaign, and basically it was, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? And my answer was, they're going to stay on. And the reason why is I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer."

It is quite telling that rather than duck the question -- which Bush is more than capable of doing -- Bush chose to lie instead.

But, amazingly enough, that wasn't the only example of Bush saying he didn't really mean what he was saying in the run-up to the election. Bush repeatedly -- and casually -- asserted that many of the major elements of his stump speech were, in fact, not to be taken seriously any longer.

Consider this passage in his introductory remarks:

"Amid this time of change, I have a message for those on the front lines. To our enemies: Do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracy with a lack of will. Our nation is committed to bringing you to justice. Liberty and democracy are the source of America's strength, and liberty and democracy will lift up the hopes and desires of those you are trying to destroy.

"To the people of Iraq: Do not be fearful. As you take the difficult steps toward democracy and peace, America is going to stand with you. We know you want a better way of life, and now is the time to seize it.

"To our brave men and women in uniform: Don't be doubtful. America will always support you. Our nation is blessed to have men and women who volunteer to serve, and are willing to risk their own lives for the safety of our fellow citizens."

On the one hand, a noble and gracious and important assurance to the world of America's enduring values and determination. On other hand -- given the ferocious way that Campaigner Bush attacked Democrats as troop-hating terrorist-appeasing cowards -- an astonishing admission that he was just making that stuff up.

Said New Bush: "I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much -- they care about the security of this country, like I do. They see -- no leader in Washington is going to walk away from protecting the country. We have different views on how to do that, but their spirit is such that they want to protect America. That's what I believe."

Q. "Just a few days before this election, in Texas, you said that Democrats, no matter how they put it, their approach to Iraq comes down to terrorists win, America loses. What has changed today?"

Bush: "What's changed today is the election is over, and the Democrats won."

Here are some <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802508_pf.html">"before" and "after"</a> Bush excerpts, from The Washington Post.

Another reporter noted that Bush had been equally reassuring about both Rumsfeld and Cheney in the pre-election interview. So, just checking:

Q. "Vice President Cheney, of course, has made -- takes many of the same positions that Secretary Rumsfeld did on the war. Does he still have your complete confidence?"

Bush's response: "Yes, he does."

Q. "Do you expect him to stay -- "

Bush: "The campaign is over. Yes, he does."

In other words: This time I'm telling you the truth. Honest.
Deja Vu

Bush's comments yesterday -- and the aversion within the traditional media to actually calling what he did lying -- are reminiscent of an earlier incident that I chronicled in my June 1 column, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/01/BL2006060100995.html">Bush's Lie</a> . As I wrote at the time: "[W]ith credibility a paramount issue for the White House these days, it's worth noting that when asked about Treasury Secretary John Snow's future last week, President Bush could easily have ducked the question, or told the truth -- but instead, he chose to lie about it."
One Reporter's Take

<a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1556714,00.html">James Carney</a> writes in Time about Bush's press conference, and starts off with a positive spin on Bush's new candor:

"Give President Bush credit for being honest about his dishonesty."

But Carney then indicates that reporters soon had reason to believe it was a lie and that Rumsfeld's days were in fact numbered:

"After Bush declared his unbending support for Rumsfeld last week, it was telling how few aides and advisers to the President were willing to reaffirm what the President had said. When asked about Bush's Rumsfeld comments, one official didn't try to hide the pain the question caused him. He wouldn't talk about it. He and others made it clear that the President said 'what he had to say.' In other words, Bush's support for Rumsfeld would last only until the last polling station closed on Tuesday night."

Carney then attacks Bush for not having fired Rumsfeld earlier: "[T]he move that might actually have helped Bush and congressional Republicans when it mattered, before election day -- would have been to fire Rumsfeld last week, last month or last year. . . .

"[B]y waiting so long he let his pride get in the way of a much-needed change in Iraq policy. That mistake didn't just cost the Republicans seats in the Congress. It may have cost lives."

But here's my question: Don't those reporters who apparently knew it was a lie -- but didn't tell anybody -- bear some responsibility as well? What other lies do the reporters know about, but choose not to report?
The 'Honest Lie'?

<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/11/09/rumsfeld_bush/">Walter Shapiro</a> writes in Salon: "In the annals of presidential truth-telling (a thin volume), there is no obvious precedent for Bush's startling admission that he lied to reporters when he offered Don Rumsfeld a strong presidential vote of confidence just before the election.... Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution whose knowledge of the White House dates back to his days as a young Eisenhower speechwriter, called it 'the honesty of the honest lie. Bush was telling the truth when he said he lied.'
Old Bush

There were still some sign of Old Bush yesterday, of course.

For instance, the president still seems to believe that he can send the press -- and the public -- into a state of collective amnesia, simply by changing his rhetoric.

Bush marveled that the voters hadn't endorsed his Iraq policies.

"Somehow it seeped in their conscious [sic] that my attitude was just simply 'stay the course,'" he complained.

See my <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/10/27/BL2006102700776.html">October 27 column</a> for video and excerpts from the more than 50 documented instances of Bush himself using that phrase to describe his approach -- back when he thought it made him look heroic.

Old Bush still thinks the voters just didn't get it: "I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security."

It was New Bush who owned up to the public skepticism over his intention to act in a bipartisan manner -- New Bush who said action is more important than words.

"How do we convince Americans that we're able to do it?" he asked. "Do it. That's how you do it. You get something done. You actually sit down, work together, and I sign legislation that we all agree on. And my pledge today is I'll work hard to try to see if we can't get that done."

But it was Old Bush who insisted that his administration had already "made some progress on changing the tone" in Washington.

It was Old Bush who made it sound like Democrats are opposed to giving the government the tools it needs to protect the country. Democrats, of course, are in favor of the government having lots of tools -- just not certain ones they feel violate the Constitution, like torture and warrantless eavesdropping.

And it was Old Bush who diminished the clear message from the voters about Iraq. "I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there," he said. "Yet I also believe most Americans and leaders here in Washington from both political parties understand we cannot accept defeat."

By contrast, most Americans and leaders seem to have concluded that there's no way to achieve victory in Iraq.

The Coverage

........More on Lying

White House Briefing Reader Brent Zenobia of Portland, Ore., writes: "I found his most telling admission to be that all those nasty comments he made about the Democrats during the campaign were suddenly inoperable -- not that he regretted them, of course, but that he thought it was ridiculous anyone would take them seriously and of course he would say anything he had to to obtain the outcome he wanted. So much for Mr. Straightforward-Plain-Speaker, the public personality that was once the foundation of his approval rating ('someone we trust'). My religion teaches that lying is a particularly insidious sin, because the more you do it the more difficult it becomes to tell what's real and what's not. Bush evidently has lied so often that he no longer is able to see any ethical problem with it, and probably thinks everyone does it. Thus, if we're dumb enough to take him at his word, then that's our problem for being so gullible.

"How can people expect him to be a good faith partner for bipartisan cooperation when he himself admits that he will say anything to get his way, and never expects to be held accountable even if he's caught in the act of lying as he was yesterday with the pre-election Rumsfeld comment?"

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110801900.html
The Thumpees Try Their Luck at the Blame Game

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, November 9, 2006; Page A02

......He blamed corruption: "People want their congressmen to be honest and ethical, so in some races that was the primary factor."

He blamed Mark Foley, whose name remained on the Florida ballot: "People couldn't vote directly for the Republican candidate."

He blamed ballot rules. "You could have the greatest positions in the world . . . but to try to get to win on a write-in is really hard to do."

He blamed Democratic organization: "I'm sure Iraq had something to do with the voters' mind, but so did a very strong turnout mechanism."

He blamed bad luck: "If you look at race by race, it was close."

Implicitly, of course, he blamed Donald Rumsfeld, by firing him as defense secretary in favor of the "fresh perspective" of Robert Gates.

And, not least, he blamed the uncomprehending voters: "I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security. But the people have spoken, and now it's time for us to move on."........

.........The creator of this stiff wind, however, was in no mood for contrition. "Say, why all the glum faces?" Bush asked when he entered the East Room. In fact, his aides had worn exaggerated grins as they took their seats.

Clearly, Bush was trying to tone down the rhetoric from the campaign, when he said the Democratic "approach comes down to this: The terrorists win, and America loses." Yesterday, he voiced soothing notions of "consultations" and "bipartisanship."

But he seemed unsure how much to concede. He began by saying "Iraq had a lot to do with the election." He amended that to "Iraq had something to do with it." And finally he cited cases where "I'm not sure Iraq had much to do with the outcome." While he said "many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure" with Iraq, he looked puzzled when a reporter suggested that voters wanted the troops withdrawn. He said he was "making a change" at the Pentagon to respond to the voters, but he also said he was going to sack Rumsfeld "win or lose."

Likewise, he wrestled with the message voters sent on Tuesday. "If you look at race by race, it was close," he reasoned. "The cumulative effect, however, was not too close. It was a thumping." But when the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg repeated the "thumping" description, Bush bristled. "Let's make sure we get the facts," he said. "I said that the elections were close. The cumulative effect: thumping."

Ken Herman of Cox News teased the wounded president. "That was 'thumpin',' without a 'g,' correct?" he queried. "I just want to make sure we have it right for the transcript."<b?

MuadDib · 11-10-2006, 01:15 AM

Host, believe this or not, I think I might see where you are coming from here to a point. What's more, you are bringing to the table some very interesting facts AND a point of view that I would not have absent this thread. You always have the most well researched and citation supported posts in the politics thread.

That being said, where are we going with this discussion? I honestly hope you believe that I mean absolutely no disrespect, but I am just not seeing where you're going with this outside of Bush is bad/evil/corrupt/dumb/you-get-the-point. I really don't think that is all you are saying, but maybe I'm a little slow tonight and, one way or the other, I'm gonna need you to fill in the blanks for me.

Bill O'Rights · 11-10-2006, 05:33 AM

[groan]
Host.

You are, in my opinion, spending whatever crediblity that you've earned for yourself, rather frivilously here. I'm sorry, but this is just silly.

I want you to stop, for just a moment, and take three deep refreshing breaths. Now...I want to think for a moment about what I'm about to say.

Pan has just identified himself as a voice of reason within this post. I don't recall the words Pan, voice, and reason ever having been used in the same sentence before. Think about it.

I honestly believe that you're making way too much of...nothing. Look...the Democratic Party has literally cleaned house. Celebrate in that. Relax. Learn to let go. These are not the droids you're looking for.

stevo · 11-10-2006, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

and as Walter Cronkite would tell you....it isn't fucking "natural" to refer to the DEMOCRATic party that way.

I'm Walter Cronkite. And it isn't fucking natural.

I can just hear his voice in my head.

ratbastid · 11-10-2006, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

The party needs to be gracious to the voters for the chance to lead, the party needs to listen to the peple and make sure they answer the needs in ways that are fiscally responsive and accountable and they need to show humility.

You know, on a related note... The Dems delivered a "thumpin'" this week that was about on par with the ones they received in 2000 and 2004. I can't help but note the grace with which the GOP is accepting defeat, here. I can't help but think we'd have heard a lot of squealing from Democrats if the results had been a mirror-image of themselves.

It could simply be that the writing was on the wall for several weeks, but still, I give credit to the Republicans for their sportsmanship and for being truly gentlemanly in defeat. I doubt the Democrats would have been so mature.

Now: are politics done? Of course not. But there's a bipartisan spirit now. If we can keep that alive maybe through the next session, we can really get some things done. Part of that means not getting into high dudgeon over trivial matters. I'm not saying we should cede anything that's actually important. I'm just saying we should be careful not to take up a gloating or punitive (or for that matter, defensive) position toward the GOP. Now's time for reaching across the aisle--and for proving to the country that we have a maturity that they've been lacking during their tenure.

host · 11-10-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Host, believe this or not, I think I might see where you are coming from here to a point. ......

........one way or the other, I'm gonna need you to fill in the blanks for me.

The point is....nothing that Mr. Bush says, can be taken at face value, or trusted. When he speaks....it is to leave an impression that is to his advantage.....not to yours. So, how can he be given...."the benefit of the doubt"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

[groan]
Host.

You are, in my opinion, spending whatever crediblity that you've earned for yourself, rather frivilously here. I'm sorry, but this is just silly.....

......I honestly believe that you're making way too much of...nothing. Look...the Democratic Party has literally cleaned house. Celebrate in that. Relax. Learn to let go. These are not the droids you're looking for.

BOR, I believe that there will be far too few exercises like this thread, in this period of self-congratulations. This is not the time to "savor the moment". Bush is still POTUS. You need only look to what he and congress will attempt to "accomplish" in the waning days of their complete control. Newt in his pamphlet descibed below, "Language: A Key Mechanism ofControl.", indicates that the intent is for us not to think...to submit to "control". Mr. Bush's speech patterns indicate that he is fully committed to Newt's "control" strategy. I react to that with revulsion....hence... my inspiration for this thread. "Democrat Party", is of course, a metaphor for the larger and insidious agenda of control....that doesn't lend itself to reaching bi-partisan consensus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I'm Walter Cronkite. And it isn't fucking natural.

I can just hear his voice in my head.

The reference I highlighted below, to newsmax.com removing the "ic" from news articles, is the epitomy of examples of obsession that I've attempted to associate with Mr. Bush, in this thread. I guess that now....you either get the signifigance of Mr. Bush deliberately remaking even his reflexive speech to be more partisan.....or you don't.....

stevo....the point again.....is that all Americans who are within 15 years of Mr. Bush's age, were exposed to a news media that featured Cronkite as it's icon. Walter used the adjective, "democratic", when he referred to "that" party. Unless you train yourself....Mr. Bush, Walter, and I....all of us, 45 years and older....would reflexively....unthinkingly say....democratic national committee.....convention.....party.....leader, etc. Mr. Bush trained himself, and that is telling. This week he was actually sending no conciliatory message, I submit that he is incapable of such a thing. This is where he is "coming from":

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

You know, on a related note... The Dems delivered a "thumpin'" this week that was about on par with the ones they received in 2000 and 2004. I can't help but note the grace with which the GOP is accepting defeat, here. I can't help but think we'd have heard a lot of squealing from Democrats if the results had been a mirror-image of themselves.

It could simply be that the writing was on the wall for several weeks, but still, I give credit to the Republicans for their sportsmanship and for being truly gentlemanly in defeat. I doubt the Democrats would have been so mature......

......Now's time for reaching across the aisle--and for proving to the country that we have a maturity that they've been lacking during their tenure.

The disciplined, re-trained way that Mr. Bush speaks, indicates to me that he is a fully committed promoter of this. In addition to the criminality that we know Mr. Bush to have been associated with.....do you really think that this is a time to give him the benefit of your doubt? You know my answer to that question. Is the following information, even what you associate as "American", strategy, or behavior? You president practices it faithfully, it seems:

Quote:

http://www.ncte.org/library/files/Ab...LANGUAGE91.pdf

THE NEWT GINGRICH GUIDE TO POLITICALLY CORRECT LANGUAGE
GOPAC, a conservative Republican group whose general chair-man is RepresentativeNewt Gingrich of Georgia, published a booklet entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism ofControl." According to The New York Times (9 September 1990, p. 30) and The ChicagoTribune (19 September 1990), the booklet, which is designed for use by Republican candidates for office, contains a list of 133 words that GOPAC urges candidates to use to attack their opponents and to praise themselves. "The words and phrases are powerful," says the mailing to candidates. "Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used."
The booklet includes 69 "Optimistic Positive Governing Words" to "help define your campaign and your vision." Among the words listed are "environment, peace, freedom, fair, flag, rights, duty, we/us/our, moral, family, children, truth, humane, care(ing), hardworking,liberty, reformer, vision, visionary, confident, and candid." Thus, using this handy little list you can call yourself a "humane, confident, caring, hard-working reformer who has a moral vision of peace, freedom, and liberty that we can all build through a crusade for prosperity and truth."

Included also is a list of 64 "Contrasting Words" to "define our opponents" and "create a clear and easily understood contrast." The booklet recommends: "Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals, and their party." Among the words in this list are:
"traitors, betray, sick, pathetic, lie, liberal, radical, hypocrisy, corruption, permissive attitude, greed, self-serving, ideological, they/them, anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child, antijobs,unionized bureaucracy, impose, and coercion." Using this list, you can call your opponent a "sick, pathetic, incompetent, liberal traitor whose self-serving permissive attitude promotes a unionized bureaucracy and an anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child, antijobs ideology."

With these lists, Republican candidates need not bother with thinking or knowing anything. They don't have to examine, evaluate, or respond to their opponents' proposals and ideas, just automatically label them using the words provided. By following Gingrich's advice, Republican candidates also don't need to get involved with specific proposals or any details of their ideas and beliefs. No need for logic or reason. The candidates only have to pull a few words off the list, drop them in their speeches, and repeat them if asked any questions. No thinking necessary.

Those candidates who follow Gingrich's advice and make these words their basic tools of campaigning might just reach that highest of plateaus in political speech: "duckspeak," which is "to quack like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse; applied to someone you agree with, it is praise," wrote George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Those who use duckspeak make noises that sound like words but have no meaning. With duckspeak it makes no difference what the subject is, "whatever it was, you could be certain that every word of it was pure orthodoxy." After all, "it was not the man's brain

that was speaking; it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words but it was not speech in the true sense; it was a noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck." With the efficient use of duckspeak, the speaker can ensure orthodoxy, which "means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

With these lists of politically correct words, you too can enter Orwell's world of duckspeak and orthodoxy. And with these words you can also be politically correct, orthodox, and unconscious, with no need to think, because politically correct language is designed to eliminate any need to think and to induce political unconsciousness.

It works, during a "time of war", too! Doubt creeping in, as casualties of your troops mount.....not to worry! JUST SAY....OVER and OVER: "Stay the course!"

<h3>Does it matter if Mr. Bush believes his own bullshit, or not? He still says it.....still does it.....still just as dangerous......either way:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091201594.html
Bush Tells Group He Sees a 'Third Awakening'

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 13, 2006; A05

President Bush said yesterday that he senses a "Third Awakening" of religious devotion in the United States that has coincided with the nation's struggle with international terrorists, a war that he depicted as "a confrontation between good and evil."

Bush told a group of conservative journalists that he notices more open expressions of faith among people he meets during his travels, and he suggested that might signal a broader revival similar to other religious movements in history. Bush noted that some of Abraham Lincoln's strongest supporters were religious people "who saw life in terms of good and evil" and who believed that slavery was evil. Many of his own supporters, he said, see the current conflict in similar terms.

"A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me," Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. "There was a stark change between the culture of the '50s and the '60s -- boom -- and I think there's change happening here," he added. "It seems to me that there's a Third Awakening."

The First Great Awakening refers to a wave of Christian fervor in the American colonies from about 1730 to 1760, while the Second Great Awakening is generally believed to have occurred from 1800 to 1830.

Some scholars and writers have debated for years whether a Third Awakening has been taking place, although some identify other awakenings in U.S. history. Bush aides, including Karl Rove, have read Robert William Fogel's "The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism."

Bush has been careful discussing the battle with terrorists in religious terms since he had to apologize for using the word "crusade" in 2001. He often stresses that the war is not against Islam but against those who corrupt it. In his comments yesterday, aides said Bush was not casting the war as a religious struggle but was describing American cultural changes in a time of war.

"He's drawing a parallel in terms of a resurgence, in dangerous times, of people going back to their religion," said one aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was not open to other journalists. "This is not 'God is on our side' or anything like that."

The White House did not release a transcript of Bush's remarks, but National Review posted highlights on its Web site. On another topic, Bush rejected sending more troops to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas to find Osama bin Laden. "One hundred thousand troops there in Pakistan is not the answer. It's someone saying 'Guess what' and then the kinetic action begins," he said, meaning an informer disclosing bin Laden's location.

Quote:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/conten...talk_hertzberg
COMMENT
THE “IC” FACTOR
Issue of 2006-08-07

........In the conservative media, the phenomenon feeds more voraciously the closer you get to the mucky, sludgy bottom. “Democrat Party” is standard jargon on right-wing talk radio and common on winger Web sites like <h3>NewsMax.com, which blue-pencils Associated Press dispatches to de-“ic” references to the Party of F.D.R. and J.F.K. (The resulting impression that “Democrat Party” is O.K. with the A.P. is as phony as a North Korean travel brochure.) </h3>The respectable conservative journals of opinion sprinkle the phrase around their Web sites but go light on it in their print editions. William F. Buckley, Jr., the Miss Manners cum Dr. Johnson of modern conservatism, dealt with the question in a 2000 column in National Review, the magazine he had founded forty-five years before. “I have an aversion to ‘Democrat’ as an adjective,” Buckley began.

Dear Joe McCarthy used to do that, and received a rebuke from this at-the-time 24-year-old. It has the effect of injecting politics into language, and that should be avoided. Granted there are diffculties, as when one desires to describe a “democratic” politician, and is jolted by possible ambiguity.

But English does that to us all the time, and it’s our job to get the correct meaning transmitted without contorting the language.

The job of politicians, however, is different, and among those of the Republican persuasion “Democrat Party” is now nearly universal. This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party. “Those two letters actually do matter,” Luntz said the other day. He added that he recently finished writing a book—it’s entitled “Words That Work”—and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of “ic”s that his copy editor, one of those partisan Dems, had stuck in. 

In days gone by, the anti-“ic” tic tended to be reined in at the Presidential level. Ronald Reagan never used it in polite company, and George Bush père was too well brought up to use the truncated version of the out party’s name more than sparingly. Not so Bush fils—and not just in e-mails sent to the Party faithful, which he obviously never reads, let alone writes. “It’s time for the leadership in the Democrat Party to start laying out ideas,” he said a few weeks ago, using his own personal mouth. “The Democrat Party showed its true colors during the tax debate,” he said a few months before that. “Nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for actually getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program,” he said a week before that. What he meant is anybody’s guess, but his bad manners were impossible to miss. Hard as it is to believe from this distance in time, George W. Bush came to office promising to “change the tone.” That he has certainly done. But, as with so much else, it hasn’t worked out quite the way he promised.

— Hendrik Hertzberg

Telluride · 11-18-2006, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Bush's immigration reform stance is much closer to where the Dems are. I think that is one area where they will find common ground.

That's because both have terrible positions on this issue, in my opinion.

Lady Sage · 11-18-2006, 10:09 PM

Host, it doesn't matter what Bush calls the party. If they do a good job the people will vote for them, if they fuck up and use petty issues like this as the reason, then they'll never win anything again.

Pray that they show they can run the country better and lead us back into a prosperous time. Pray that they don't become their own worst enemies and look for petty excuses and bullshit to explain away any fuck ups.

We are not the GOP, we are the DEMS and while the GOP are good at making excuses the people buy into, the DEMS aren't.

This is Pan (forgot to log her out she's gonna kill me.)

11-09-2006, 01:13 PM	#2 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Mole Hill ≠ Mountain __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751 Last edited by MuadDib; 11-09-2006 at 02:52 PM..

11-09-2006, 01:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	too bad isn't eleven characters long. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

11-09-2006, 01:43 PM	#5 (permalink)
Moskie Pure Chewing Satisfaction Location: can i use bbcode [i]here[/i]?	how much bi-partisanship can we expect from people who latch onto observations like these, host? saying the "Democrat Party" isn't a slur, it isn't insulting. it's just what he happened to say. let it go. __________________ Greetings and salutations.

11-09-2006, 02:17 PM	#10 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	If that's the best my potus can manage then he's low on ammo. If it's by design, it's petty and demonstrates weakness. If it's accidental, well, nothing new. Anyway, should we expect any of them to make an overnight shift to bi-partisanship? Isn't it more likely that what we've heard so far was written for appearance's sake given the new situation? Don't dull your blade. Use it on the real issues. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

11-09-2006, 03:53 PM	#14 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	cj...I would agree. But I hope you would also include as paranoid an OP suggesting Dems desire to raise taxes on the rich, and that they would possibly defne "rich" as $150,000 for married coups? $80,000 for single? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

11-09-2006, 01:21 PM	#3 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	Too early to tell.

11-09-2006, 02:06 PM	#6 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Um, what exactly is the problem here? I was actually going to post a thread complimenting the Republicans on their graciousness in defeat and the Democrats for being well-behaved as well (as far as I know). George Allen's concession was nice and classy. I'm not a Bush fan but I still think he deserves some credit for declaring a willingness to work with the Dems (yes I realize he doesn't have much choice but it's still nice), same with Pelosi for stepping up and saying how she wants to work with the president. For all the negatives (and for sure there are) it is still nice to see and recognize the positives. Democrat, Democratic (I actualy did not know this was the official name). I don't think this was an intentional insult. You guys already won man, what else do you want? Tomato, tomato, potato, potato, nuclear, nuclear....... So far, the only lunatic has been Rush Limbaugh (the radio broadcaster).

11-09-2006, 02:12 PM	#7 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Host, usually I agree with you but you're a bit off base here. First off we're talking about a guy who says things like "sublimable messages," so I will NOT discount the idea that this is just Bush demonstrating a speech-brain disconnect that's so common with him. Second, the democrats have an excellent chance at this point to show the American people that they DO know how to govern and govern well, and that things are better when the democrats are around. Part of knowing how to govern does involve getting along with the other guys. If we start getting pissy over this, what does that display? Now, if he'd called us the Fucker party, you might have something, but really, what he said doesn't bug me. I will, however, be watching with great interest to see what he DOES.

11-09-2006, 02:17 PM	#9 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I don't think I'm going to get too bent out of shape about this. It's just a name. A rose by any other name would still control both houses of congress. "ratbastid" is spelled all lower-case. When somebody refers to me as "Ratbastid", I notice it. That's not how it's spelled. It's not a problem for me, though.

11-09-2006, 02:56 PM	#12 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	I think Ratbastid has a good point. (yes that was on purpose )

11-09-2006, 03:45 PM	#13 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	Again....I'm gonna say it. I swear some of these threads really belong in Tilted Paranoia, rather than Tilted Politics.

11-09-2006, 04:09 PM	#15 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I agree with you, the Republics should be more respectful of the Democratics.

11-09-2006, 04:55 PM	#17 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Actually, ask any Democrat who's had to suffer through a Rush broadcast or O'Reilly show. The "Democrat Party" is they're sort of semi-demeaning way of saying Democratic Party. It's not that huge a deal, I mean in the big scheme of things both those guys - and, obviously, Bush - have much more to answer for. But it is a real phenomenon. However, discussing Bush's new "bipartisanship:" he's trying to renominate Bolton as UN Ambassador in a special session of Congress before the new Congress beings in January. Sound like a bipartisanship extension of an olive branch to you? __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

11-09-2006, 05:32 PM	#18 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	It's not too unlikely that it's a deliberate political move. It's just so marginal that I don't see any reason to focus our anger and attention on it. It's ultimately unimportant in light of everything else we need to accomplish.

11-09-2006, 07:03 PM	#20 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	Eh. It's a little annoying that people in the Republic Party do this, but I wouldn't blow things out of proportion. __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert

11-09-2006, 09:44 PM	#22 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	Wow....talk about putting words in my mouth. Can we get back on topic now?

11-09-2006, 10:26 PM	#23 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Wow, Host, I respect you, I do appreciate all the time and effort you spend educating us but come on, getting all worked up about Bush dropping the "ic" at the end of a word and believing that he is intentionally fucking with the party is petty. If this is truly something the party is going to get bent over.... then they don't have a chance in Hell holding onto the power. The party needs to be gracious to the voters for the chance to lead, the party needs to listen to the peple and make sure they answer the needs in ways that are fiscally responsive and accountable and they need to show humility. Because everyone in this country is watching them under a microscope now, waiting to see if they fuck up...... and the second they do, what the Dems did to the GOP the past 6 years or what the GOP did to Clinton for 8 will be nothing compared to what the GOP will do to the Dems this time. And the Dems will not survive. So just let the leaders of our party do their job, work hard, prove we are the better party and we have a better plan and be done with it. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-10-2006, 01:15 AM	#25 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Host, believe this or not, I think I might see where you are coming from here to a point. What's more, you are bringing to the table some very interesting facts AND a point of view that I would not have absent this thread. You always have the most well researched and citation supported posts in the politics thread. That being said, where are we going with this discussion? I honestly hope you believe that I mean absolutely no disrespect, but I am just not seeing where you're going with this outside of Bush is bad/evil/corrupt/dumb/you-get-the-point. I really don't think that is all you are saying, but maybe I'm a little slow tonight and, one way or the other, I'm gonna need you to fill in the blanks for me. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

11-10-2006, 05:33 AM	#26 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	[groan] Host. You are, in my opinion, spending whatever crediblity that you've earned for yourself, rather frivilously here. I'm sorry, but this is just silly. I want you to stop, for just a moment, and take three deep refreshing breaths. Now...I want to think for a moment about what I'm about to say. Pan has just identified himself as a voice of reason within this post. I don't recall the words Pan, voice, and reason ever having been used in the same sentence before. Think about it. I honestly believe that you're making way too much of...nothing. Look...the Democratic Party has literally cleaned house. Celebrate in that. Relax. Learn to let go. These are not the droids you're looking for. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

11-18-2006, 10:09 PM	#31 (permalink)
Lady Sage Mistress of Mayhem Location: Canton, Ohio	Host, it doesn't matter what Bush calls the party. If they do a good job the people will vote for them, if they fuck up and use petty issues like this as the reason, then they'll never win anything again. Pray that they show they can run the country better and lead us back into a prosperous time. Pray that they don't become their own worst enemies and look for petty excuses and bullshit to explain away any fuck ups. We are not the GOP, we are the DEMS and while the GOP are good at making excuses the people buy into, the DEMS aren't. This is Pan (forgot to log her out she's gonna kill me.) __________________ If only closed minds came with closed mouths. Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open. It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.