Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - SOTU Address: Is This What a Failed Presidency Looks Like?

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - SOTU Address: Is This What a Failed Presidency Looks Like? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/112677-sotu-address-what-failed-presidency-looks-like.html)

I find it interesting that people here seem to put a lot of stock in polls, yet no one mentioned that Bush's SOTU polled pretty well, if you believe CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/23/sotu.poll/ This doesnt' tell you anything about whether Bush really is right or not, of course. Me, I didn't watch the speech; I'm finding it increasingly painful to listen to his speaking because he sounds like he's speaking a foreign language.

This presidency is in approximately the same position as Truman's was in 1950, including the absymal approval ratings. I suspect that historians would have come up with a pie chart similar to the one in #30 if they had been polled in January 1951. We are way too close to the events to make judgments, and the effect of Bush's decisions won't be apparent until a few years from now at the very least.

BTW, George Mason Univ is a libertarian-leaning (i.e. rightish, but not theocon or socially conservative) institution. Which isn't to say everyone there is libertarian, but more than on your average campus.

I guess what I'm seeing here is that everyone views the speech, or Cheney's interview, through a lens of whether they like this administration or not, and it makes almost no difference what these people say. If you like Bush the speech was masterly, and if you don't it was a pack of lies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

????????????? loquitur, I clicked on the cnn link that I'm including in my excerpted quote of your last post....and I voted....There is an active public poll option displayed in the lower left corner of the page that you linked to...... and this result came up:

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/result...3.exclude.html
What was your overall impression of the president's State of the Union address?

Positive

36%

35818 votes

Negative

64%

62920 votes

....and it seems consistent with other polls and with our small number of votes in the poll on this thread.....and.....unlike the tiny poll sampling emphasized in cnn's "story", it displays the results of 100,000 votes......so, I'm sorry....I am missing your point....

well, the diff is that the online poll isn't scientific. You know about sampling and self-selection, right? CNN readers aren't necessarily representative of the population as a whole.

oh, and TFP readers are not necessarily reflective of the population either, for similar reasons: self-selection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I also agree with ratbastid that presidencies can't really "fail". The union is intact and the country exists basically as it did prior to W taking office.

Oh, I didn't say that. The Bush Administration has been a sucking disaster, both domestically and in our relations to other countries, and it has done real and lasting damage to the country.

I just don't care for the term "failed presidency". Look, it was (er... will have been) eight years long. It was a whole presidency. The man succeeded at being president. Didn't, IMO, succeed at much else, but nobody can argue he didn't succeed at becoming and being the president. So his presidency obviously didn't fail. Most every initiative or policy did. But not the presidency itself. He's president. No two ways about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Can you tell me how you're disagreeing with me? Other than pointing out various ways that he's succeded (being president, holding the union together, etc.), how is what you said much different than what I did?

Since this is the second time this has happened to me in this thread, I'm starting to wonder if I've somehow managed to convey not only a tone of voice but a tone of voice that implies that I'm being sarcastic or disagreeable in some way...

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

...the "in" thing to do on this board is to try and pin as much crap on Bush as is possible, it has turned into a looney left rah-rah place where someone can cut and paste anything to prove their point and the rest will post cheers and follow right along.

I cant speak for others, but I dont post because its the "in" thing to do. I have serious, and I believe legitimate, concerns about Bush's performance and policies and both the short and potential long term impacts that have resulted. I havent seen others post "cheers and follow right along"; I have seen others respond with their own articulate posts expressing their concern.

How is that different from the (granted) smaller in number right wing rah rah crowd here that attempts to justify Bush policies and performance with their own cut and pastes?

To speak out in opposition is "looney" as opposed to the "sincerity" of Bush supporters?

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

You and RB are absoultly correct, but the "in" thing to do on this board is to try and pin as much crap on Bush as is possible, it has turned into a looney left rah-rah place where someone can cut and paste anything to prove their point and the rest will post cheers and follow right along.

Was Ken Star guilty of fornication and lying about it or was Clinton? Accusing the accusors is an old, old fallacy. I don't make Bush do the things he does, nor RB, nor host, nor rat, nor anyone else. Bush makes his own mistakes, and to point out those mistakes is to take the first step in trying to correct those mistakes, as he is our responsibility. While pointing out his mistake isn't the last step, it's better than doing nothing and MUCH better than supporting his mistakes.

To support a president's mistake is to make a mistake yourself. I'm sorry our president sucks. It hurts, I know. Let's not pretend that the "loony left" is responsible for his mistakes, though.

thejazz: i hope that you were not referring to my post about historians when you asked the other rb about potentials for confrontation/misinterpretation of your posts--i was just riffing off the position that historians came to occupy in the process of collective evaluation of a presidency.

my point was that i know alot of historians and wouldn't necessarily accord a priori weight to what they say simply because they are historians.

reconmike: nice attempt to trivialize opposition to the bush administration by attributing it to some imaginary fashion. i assume this fantasy sequence serves a good psychological effect for you: protecting your politics by reducing opposition to the functional equivalent of pokeman. except of course that pokeman cards were a fashion in the empirical world, and the "fashion" of criticizing the bush administration is only a "fashion" in your head--shaped perhaps by the fast and easy dismissal of dissent you get from the planet limbaugh.

most of the folk who post here in opposition to the bush administration and its policies have been consistently in opposition for some time--even during that period when reactionary dominance was such that critiques of this foul administration would be greeted as treason by the conservatives here.
what has changed is that quite a few of the folk who used to post here from the right have stopped posting since november.
i am not entirely sure why, as there are as many reasons to withdraw from posting as there are reasons to post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

Roach, in short, I wasn't referring to you. dc_dux and I agreed on something but it took a us a little while to sort it out. I got a huge kick out of your "riff" on historians as bad conceptual artists, especially when you're lumping yourself in there with them. If you don't mind, I may cut and paste your post to some history professors I know.

And by the way, I think you're agreeing with dc and I.

As I said up above in #41, "This presidency is in approximately the same position as Truman's was in 1950, including the absymal approval ratings. I suspect that historians would have come up with a pie chart similar to the one in #30 if they had been polled in January 1951. We are way too close to the events to make judgments, and the effect of Bush's decisions won't be fully apparent until a few years from now at the very least."

loquitor: by extension, i assume that you do not find contemporary history to be a viable term. if not, when does the present drop away and the past start? just wondering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I "knew" of Harry Truman....our lives overlapped by 19 years, Harry S Truman was a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0671869205/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/002-4231307-3281667?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books">great man</a>
.....and George W. Bush, sir.....is no Harry Truman !

c'mon, Host, I wasn't saying Bush was Truman, only that judgments made at this stage are not reliable, using Truman as an example.

Did I really have to explain that? I thought it was clear...........

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

It was a joke, loquitur....a takeoff on Lloyd Benston's response to VP pre-election debate opponent, Dan Quayle......

"Senator, I knew John Kennedy, John Kennedy was a friend of mine....."

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

It was a joke, loquitur....a takeoff on Lloyd Benston's response to VP pre-election debate opponent, Dan Quayle......

"Senator, I knew John Kennedy, John Kennedy was a friend of mine....."

I knew I recognized that from somewhere!

yes, I knew where it came from, but this being just words on a screen I couldn't tell if you were using Bentsen's words to make a point about Bush or just making a joke.

Sorry. And now I'm annoyed at you for making me think of Dan Quayle, especially on a weekend when I'm supposed to be enjoying myself..........

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Now wait just a second, Dan Quayle was not a bad guy. In many ways I see him as the public precursor to W. And well..... W isn't....... yeah sorry about your weekend there Loq.

Quayle is responsible for our lowered expections? Cheney, meet quayle.:cool:

Quayle perfected that "deer-in-the-headlights" look. No one else has ever come close.

In elementary school, I had a student teacher spell potato with an "e", and try to defend it to a classroom of third-graders by saying the VP spelled it that way.

I swear.

Oh....yeah ! IMO, this is what a failed presidency looks like:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070214-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 14, 2007

Press Conference by the President....

.....THE PRESIDENT: ........Sheryl.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, it seems pretty clear where this Iraq vote in the House is headed. Your press secretary has said repeatedly that members of Congress ought to watch what they say and be concerned about the message that they're sending to our enemy. I'm wondering, do you believe that a vote of disapproval of your policy emboldens the enemy? Does it undermine your ability to carry out your policies there? And, also, what are you doing to persuade the Democratic leadership in Congress not to restrict your ability to spend money in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks. A couple of points. One, that I understand the Congress is going to express their opinion, and it's very clear where the Democrats are, and some Republicans; I know that. They didn't like the decision I made. And by the way, that doesn't mean that I think that they're not good, honorable citizens of the country. I just have a different opinion. I considered some of their opinions and felt like it would not lead to a country that could govern itself, sustain itself, and be an ally in the war on terror. One.

Secondly, my hope, however, is that this non-binding resolution doesn't try to turn into a binding policy that prevents our troops from doing that which I have asked them to do. That's why I keep reminding people, on the one hand you vote for David Petraeus in a unanimous way, and then the other hand you say that you're not going to fund the strategy that he thought was necessary to do his job, a strategy he testified to in front of the Senate. I'm going to make it very clear to the members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our troops and they need to make sure we have the flexibility necessary to get the job done.

Secondly, I find it interesting that there is a declaration about a plan that they have not given a chance to work. Again, I understand, I understand. The other part of your question?

Q It emboldens --

THE PRESIDENT: The only thing I can tell you is that when I speak, I'm very conscience [sic] about the audiences that are listening to my words. The first audience, obviously, is the American people. The second audience would be the troops and their families. That's why I appreciate the question about whether or not -- about the troop morale, it gave me a chance to talk to the families and how proud we are of them.

Third, no question people are watching what happens here in America. The enemy listens to what's happening, the Iraqi people listen to the words, the Iranians. People are wondering; they're wondering about our commitment to this cause. And one reason they wonder is that in a violent society, the people sometimes don't take risks for peace if they're worried about having to choose between different sides, different violent factions. As to whether or not this particular resolution is going to impact enemy thought, I can't tell you that.

But I can tell you that people are watching the debate. I do believe that the decision I made surprised people in the Middle East. And I think it's going to be very important, however, that the Iraqi government understand that this decision was not an open-ended commitment, that we expect Prime Minister Maliki to continue to make the hard decisions he's making.

Unlike some here, I'm a little more tolerant of a person who has been only in government for seven months and hasn't had a lot of -- and by the way, a government that hasn't had a lot of experience with democracy. And on the other hand, it's important for him to know, and I believe he does know, that the American people want to see some action and some positive results. And listen, I share that same desire.

The faster that the Maliki government steps up security in Baghdad, the more quickly we can get to what Baker-Hamilton recommended, and that is embedding and training over the rise in presence, protection of the territorial integrity of Iraq, and a strong hunt for al Qaeda, and terrorists who would try to use that country as safe haven. I thought the Baker-Hamilton made a lot of sense, their recommendations. We just weren't able to get there if the capital was up in flames. That's why I made the decision I made.

Yes, Peter.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, we've now learned through sworn testimony that at least three members of your administration, other than Scooter Libby, leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the media. None of these three is known to be under investigation. Without commenting on the Libby trial, then, can you tell us whether you authorized any of these three to do that, or were they authorized without your permission?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks, Pete. I'm not going to talk about any of it.

Q They're not under investigation, though?

THE PRESIDENT: Peter, I'm not going to talk about any of it.

Q How about pardons, sir? Many people are asking whether you might pardon --

THE PRESIDENT: Not going to talk about it, Peter. (Laughter.) Would you like to think of another question? Being the kind man that I am, I will recycle you. (Laughter.)

John.

Q Thank you --

THE PRESIDENT: You like that one? "Recycling" him. (Laughter.)

Q That took care of one of my questions, as well, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: If that's the case, sit down. Next question. (Laughter.) ........

.....THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks.

Q I'd like to follow on Sheryl's question about undermining the troops. Do you have to support the war to support the war here? I mean, if you're one of those Americans that thinks you've made a terrible mistake, that it's destined to end badly, what do you do? If they speak out, are they by definition undermining the troops?

THE PRESIDENT: No, she actually asked "the enemy," not "the troops." But I'll be glad to answer your question. No, I don't think so at all. I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission.

I said early in my comment -- my answer to Sheryl was, somebody who doesn't agree with my policy is just as patriotic a person as I am. Your question is valid. Can somebody say, we disagree with your tactics or strategy, but we support the military -- absolutely, sure. But what's going to be interesting is if they don't provide the flexibility and support for our troops that are there to enforce the strategy that David Petraeus, the general on the ground, thinks is necessary to accomplish the mission.

Michael. Michael, who do you work for? (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, I work for Politico.com.

THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me? Politico.com?

Q Yes, sir. Today. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: You want a moment to explain to the American people exactly what -- (laughter.)

Q Mr. President, thank you for the question. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Quit being so evasive.

Q You should read it.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it good? You like it? .......

O.k., but do you want to know why the issue of support of the troops keeps coming up? No matter how you look at it Democrats are weak on defense, and after listening to a number of our Democrats in Congress explain their position on the troop increase they don't really seem to want to convert their words into a show of real support of the troops.

Here is the deal. If Iran is in fact suppling weapons being used against our troops, your decision tree starts with two choices - you can address the issue or ignore it. If you ignore it, it is clear you don't support the troops, no matter what your position is on the war. If you support the troops you have to put your foot down and tell the world that, supplying weapons used against our troops is unacceptable. If you are against the war, you can still say that and make a promise to remove the troops ASAP, apologize for the war, whatever. So, instead of Congress debating that kind of a resolution, something that caould actually have an impact and save lives, they debate a resolution that will have no affect on policy. They should show they support the troops rather than repeatedly saying it in an empty chamber.

They could also include language in a resolution saying that they condemn the actions of our enemy, but they don't. I wonder why? I conclude they are weak on defense, and just hope that by running away everything will be better.

Bush on the otherhand, sends a clear message to Iran - we know what is going on and we are going to defend our troops, get your act together before it is too late. That is how you show support. You don't let others get away with f***ing with our guys and gals in uniform. Bush still has his balls, has not failed and truly supports our troops.

I think that we have a definitive answer, with this, if it is an accurate report......yup, it's a failed presidency, and impeachment is the only realistic option, now:

Quote:

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/speci...5-07.htm?lrail
Sunday, April 15, 2007

Domenici Sought Iglesias Ouster

By Mike Gallagher
Copyright © 2007 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Investigative Reporter
Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired after Sen. Pete Domenici, who had been unhappy with Iglesias for some time, made a personal appeal to the White House, the Journal has learned.
Domenici had complained about Iglesias before, at one point going to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before taking his request to the president as a last resort.
The senior senator from New Mexico had listened to criticism of Iglesias going back to 2003 from sources ranging from law enforcement officials to Republican Party activists.
Domenici, who submitted Iglesias' name for the job and guided him through the confirmation process in 2001, had tried at various times to get more white-collar crime help for the U.S. Attorney's Office— even if Iglesias didn't want it.
At one point, the six-term Republican senator tried to get Iglesias moved to a Justice Department post in Washington, D.C., but Iglesias told Justice officials he wasn't interested.
In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.
Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.
At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.
Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.
The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.
Iglesias' name first showed up on a Nov. 15 list of federal prosecutors who would be asked to resign. It was not on a similar list prepared in October.
The Journal confirmed the sequence of events through a variety of sources familiar with the firing of Iglesias, including sources close to Domenici. The senator's office declined comment.....

Quote:

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1003571799
Albuquerque Paper Ties Bush to U.S. Attorney Firing

By E&P Staff

Published: April 15, 2007 1:25 PM ET

NEW YORK Writing in the Albuquerque Journal today, investigative reporter Mike Gallagher lays out evidence he believes ties President Bush directly to the recent firing of David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico.......