Does George W. Bush really say what he means and do what he says? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 05-10-2007, 08:46 AM

I want to examine why people think the way that they do about George W Bush.
I think that we know much more about how people of opposite opinions react to news reports about Mr. Bush, than we do about why and how these reports influence people's opinions about the man. Here is what recent polling shows about the "trust" issue:

Quote:

http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm

CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Dec. 15-17, 2006. N=1,019 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.

"Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think it applies or doesn't apply to George W. Bush. How about [see below]?"
.
.

"Is honest and trustworthy"

12/15-17/06
____Applies___ Doesn'tApply____Unsure
______45 %______53 %____________2 %

8/18-20/06
44 54 2

4/21-23/06
40 55 5

.

So what is it that influences you to trust, or not trust George Bush? Is it more visceral than logical? Does Bush strike you as being a "regular guy"....someone that is approachable......an easy guy to have a beer and shoot the shit with?
Or....conversely.....does he seem too phony to you....too "packaged", so to speak.... Why have you concluded that Bush says what he means and does what he says....or that he says one thing, but does another?

Quote:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42590
Long-Awaited Beer With Bush Really Awkward, Voter Reports

November 16, 2005 | Issue 41•46

WARREN, PA—Although respondents to a Pew poll taken prior to the 2004 presidential election characterized Bush as "the candidate they'd most like to sit down and have a beer with," Chris Reinard lived the hypothetical scenario Sunday afternoon, and characterized it as "really uncomfortable and awkward."

Reinard, a father of four who supported Bush in the 2000 and 2004 elections, said sharing a beer with the president at the Switchyard Tap gave him "an uneasy feeling."

"I thought he'd be great," Reinard said. "But when I actually met him, I felt real put off."

The president arrived at the bar via motorcade close to 3 p.m. After a sweep by Secret Service agents, Reinard was asked, for security reasons, to move from his favorite stool. Shortly after he had reseated himself, Reinard said he "was pleased" to welcome the president to the Switchyard.

"Boy, it sure is a good day for a cool one," Bush reportedly told the assembled patrons, who were watching the Dolphins Patriots game.
<center><img src="http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Long-Awaited-C.article.jpg"></center>
"When he first walked in, everything seemed fine," bartender Bob Kern said. "He told everyone 'Hi' like he was one of the regulars, then sat next to Chris."

Reinard ordered two Budweisers, but Bush interrupted him, saying he'd prefer an O'Doul's non-alcoholic beer.

"I completely forgot he stopped drinking," Reinard said.

Following the initial gaffe, Bush attempted to smooth things over, asking Reinard to call him "George." Reinard complied, but later said "it felt a little unnatural."

"I guess I was supposed to tell him to call me Chris," Reinard said. "I didn't like him calling me 'Mr. Reinard' the whole time, but I didn't know if it was okay to interrupt him to say 'Call me Chris.' And then also, it felt weird to just say it out of nowhere. Like, 'Call me Chris.'"

Bush asked Reinard if he had any hobbies, and Reinard told the president that he enjoys spending weekends with his children on local lakes in his small aluminum boat.

"Mr. Bush, I mean George, seemed to like that, and I felt that we finally made a connection," Reinard said. "But then he started telling me about this one time he was on a yacht with some Arab prince and they spent four hours landing a sailfish."

"It was a good story, but I just like catching a few bass with my kids is all," Reinard added. "I know he didn't mean to make me feel bad, but still."

Reinard told the president that he has lived most of his life in the Warren area, except for several years he spent in nearby Jamestown, where he attended community college for a year. Bush told Reinard he was born in New Haven, CT, and grew up in Texas before attending Yale University as an undergraduate and earning his MBA from Harvard, all while maintaining membership in many exclusive clubs.

"I asked George how much it costs to be in those social clubs, but he said he didn't remember," Reinard said. "I think he just didn't want to say the amount. He'd change the subject on me a lot, say he did a lot of partying back then, but that was all behind him now, since he found the Lord, or whatever."

Bush asked Reinard what he did for a living, and Reinard said he runs a small carpentry business.

"He asked me how it was going, what with the economy bouncing back. I said that if things didn't pick up soon, I was going to have to close up shop and work for my uncle in Youngstown," Reinard said. "George was quiet for a while after that. Then he told me about when his second oil company was going under. He suggested using my connections to get some outside investment capital."

"I don't have any connections," Reinard added.

When the conversation reached a dead end, Reinard and Bush were silent once again, their eyes tracking the game.

"We were sitting there watching the game, and some cheerleaders were up there waving their pompoms," Reinard said. "Then George mentioned that he used to be a cheerleader at Yale. I didn't know what to say to that one, so I just drank the rest of my beer real fast."

After nearly a minute of silence, Bush drained the remainder of his O'Doul's and wished Reinard goodbye, saying that he'd stay longer if he could, but had "some business to tend to."

"He shook my hand and smiled, said he had to run," Reinard said. "Something about a conference or a summit. It seemed like he was actually relieved to go."

Reinard and Kern both estimated Bush's stay at the bar as no longer than 15 minutes. This included Kern's attempt to pay for Bush's beer. Bush only smiled and waved at Kern, and a member of his Secret Service escort pulled a $10 bill from his coat pocket and tossed it on the bar.

Reinard likened the encounter with Bush to "being cornered at a company Christmas party by your boss."

"It was like, do you act and drink like normal, or are you on your best behavior?" Reinard said. "Are you up-front with the guy or do you choose your words carefully? What does he want out of you, anyway? Or does he just want to connect with somebody, because it's lonely at the top? You just don't know for sure."

"Overall, it was okay, I suppose," Reinard said. " One thing's for sure, though—I still wouldn't want to have a beer with that stuck-up Kerry."

Willravel · 05-10-2007, 08:57 AM

First off, I rarely trust someone who smirks at the frequency that Bush does. They usually think they are much smarter than they are, and they are usually so falsely confidence, covering for inadequacy and low self esteem, that they are unable to have the maturity to admit wrong doing. I think that happens to hit Bush on the nose. The question to ask would be:
Is George W. Bush:
a) Foolhardy and corrupt, unable to leave Iraq because he still sees it with dollar signs in his eyes.
b) Foolhardy and stubborn, unable to leave Iraq because he's dug his feet into the ground and is throwing a tantrum.
c) Is easily the most stupid world leader in history, and is acting like a man child who cannot pull himself together enough to think his way out of this. He's overwhelmed.
d) He's easily controlled by Cheney, Rummy, and the other members of the PNAC, and is more of an instrument or tool than a human being.

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 09:11 AM

I think this is an important topic that might tell us a lot about how we're forming our opinions. Unfortunately, I can't reply in detail right now.

I did want to mention that if you follow host's link to the polling summary website, there are other polls (USA Today and ABC news come to mind) which ask the same question and track the results over a longer period of time. The results are a little difficult to read (it takes me a second to focus my eyes on the date column) but interesting. I'd kind of be interesting in plotting these on a bar graph that correlated major events of the Bush administration so you could see how specific things have impacted this "gut feeling".

I also think that it is interesting that Bush himself seems to be a person who relies on gut feelings to assess character and events - how often have we heard him talk about peering into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and finding that the other was a "good guy" or a "trustable leader"? Maybe it makes sense that other people who think this way are comfortable with President Bush?

The onion article, obviously, is just satire, but it is pretty funny in a topical way... The stuff above it certainly warrants discussion.

host · 05-10-2007, 09:39 AM

We all make "snap judgment" decisions, based on first impressions of people who we meet, or read media reports about, and/or view on video/film. Shaping those "judgments" has been a "science", especially in the marketing of products and political candidates, as far back as collective memory can be retrieved.

For the purpose of all of us who participate here, reaching a better understanding about each other with regard to how we come by our opinions and what might influences us to further solidify, or....to alter or to reverse them, I am hoping that our members who hold opinions about Mr. Bush that are contrary to those held by willravel and myself, will share how they got where they are, and how they stay there....with regard to their trust of Mr. Bush.

This article indicates that some have changed their minds about Bush since they voted for him in 2004, but most have not:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/us...bd105e&ei=5070
May 2, 2007
On Polling
For Most Bush Voters, No Regrets After 2 Years
By JANET ELDER

George W. Bush was elected to a second term by a big majority of Republicans, half of political independents and 11 percent of Democrats. Now, more than two years later, the majority of those voters say they are satisfied with the Bush presidency. But some have lost faith, and those who have say it is because they can no longer back Mr. Bush’s support of the war in Iraq.

Fifty-eight percent of Mr. Bush’s voters say their feelings about the administration can best be described as satisfied but not enthusiastic. Nine percent said they are enthusiastic. But 26 percent said they were dissatisfied and 6 percent said they were angry, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll taken in March.

When asked if they approve of the way Mr. Bush is doing his job, 66 percent said they approve while 21 percent said they disapprove and 13 percent are unsure.

This is in sharp contrast to the last two-term president, Bill Clinton who was more popular in his second term than in his first. At a roughly comparable point in his presidency, April 1999, just two months after he was acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment trial, 88 percent of people who voted for Mr. Clinton for a second term said they approved of the way he was doing his job, 7 percent disapproved and 6 percent were not sure.

Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush each struggled to hold on to the public’s trust during tumultuous second terms that upended their agendas and left their parties on the defensive. But Mr. Clinton presided during a time of peace and voters seemed to separate their judgments about Mr. Clinton’s character from assessments of his presidency. Mr. Bush is presiding over a lengthy war now opposed by a majority of Americans. And it is the war more than anything that has led many of Mr. Bush’s supporters to change their minds about him.

Thirty-four percent of Mr. Bush’s 2004 voters are now critical of his handling of the war. Twenty-eight percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq from the beginning.

Homer Reedy, a Republican from West Virginia said he voted for Mr. Bush in 2004 because he thought the president would call the troops home. “I voted for Bush in 2004 because I hoped he would call the soldiers back, but he didn’t,” he said. “We’re losing so many lives with the car bombings and everything. I wouldn’t approve of him again unless he stopped the war in Iraq.”

Other voters like Arlen McKinley, from Harlan, Indiana, a Democrat who voted for Mr. Bush, said they did not believe Mr. Bush when he talks about the war.

“I don’t think he’s honest. He’s not telling the American public what is actually going on. They tried to hide so much stuff and then it all comes out later,” Mr. McKinley said in a follow-up interview after the poll was conducted. “He doesn’t seem to want to bend, to admit he made a mistake and bring the troops home. I don’t think he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction until after we went in, but if he did know and went in anyway, that would make it worse.”

Mr. Bush’s overall job approval among all voters has been declining since before he put his hand on his family’s bible and took the oath of office for the second time. In mid January 2005, it was 49 percent among all Americans. In a Times/CBS News poll in late April of this year it was 32 percent. It has been hovering around 30 percent since February 2006. Historically, low approval ratings in a second term are difficult to turn around. Mr. Bush’s approval ratings among both the general public and his 2004 voters may be difficult to budge too, according to George C. Edwards III, a professor of political science at Texas A&M and the author of many books about the presidency and public opinion.

“People don’t trust him and don’t think he’s competent. Its hard to overcome that,” he said. “You could out perform those views in the first few months but after six years, people are confident they have a handle on him.”

Looking ahead to 2008, a majority of Bush voters say they are looking for distance from Mr. Bush and his policies. They say they want a candidate who does not have the strident approach to the war that Mr. Bush does. More than half of Mr. Bush’s 2004 voters, 58 percent, said they want the 2008 Republican nominee to be flexible about withdrawing troops from Iraq rather than committed to keeping troops there until the United States succeeds, as Mr. Bush has advocated.

The nationwide telephone poll in March was conducted with 1,362 adults, 788 of whom said they voted for Mr. Bush in 2004. The nationwide telephone poll in April was conducted with 1,052 adults. Each poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The error is higher for subgroups. Full results of each poll can be found on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/polls">nytimes.com</a>.

....so why do you trust....or not trust Mr. Bush? Why do you think that so few change their positive, trusting impression of him, despite all of the negative press that he has received since the Nov., 2004 election? Mr. Bush himself, once publicly declared his very positive impression of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, based more it seemed, on his own personal, visceral assessment of Putin, only to look less favorably upon him, as time went on and more negative information about Putin's leadership and decisions was reported.

Bush's remaining "base" does not seem to be as flexible as Bush himself, when it comes to letting developing, negative information influence their thinking.

aceventura3 · 05-10-2007, 09:57 AM

What has Bush said, that he has not followed through with?

We knew he was going to take military action in Iraq shortly after 9/11. He was re-elected with everyone knowing what he was planning on doing in Iraq. The only surprise was the strength of the insurgency.

We knew he was going to cut taxes.

We knew he was going to appoint conservative judges.

We knew he was pro-business.

We knew he was going to appoint people from his father's and the Reagan administrations

He said he was going to be a "uniter", but we knew this was not going to happen given the tone in Washington after he stole the elction from Gore.

So, what has he done that is inconsistant with what he said he was going to do?

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 10:02 AM

Ace: I'm glad you mentioned the uniter thing. It is my opinion that his dividership has been based more around his singleminded devotion to unilateral action, domestically and internationally, thank the political atmosphere. His lack of interest in outside input or transparent decision-making preceded 9/11 by a significant margin.

I also think that he meant almost nothing of what he said about gay marriage. That "amendment" was nothing other than a cynical ploy to galvanize likely Republican voters to the polls. I'm not saying he personally supports gay rights, but that he did not actually believe that the issue was as important as they made it out to be.

I also question what he meant, if anything by "compassionate conservatism".

aceventura3 · 05-10-2007, 10:12 AM

I think he is close to being indifferent on the subject in terms of legal benefits to gay partners compared to married men and women. However, from a religious point of view, I don't think he supports gay marriage. And, I think the key issues during the campaign was activist judges and the trend of local governments legislating this issue, an issue probably needing some form of a national standard.

Willravel · 05-10-2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What has Bush said, that he has not followed through with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bush

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

'Nuff said.

ubertuber · 05-11-2007, 07:37 AM

I put the three polls from host's link onto one page. I'm no statistician, but it helps me to be able to see it all in one place, and I can visualize things much better this way. If I find more polls that are appropriately targeted in their question, I may update this. I'd really like to be able to incorporate a timeline into the x axis to show major events during the administration, but I'm not enough of an excel whiz to figure it out.

bush trust.GIF

loquitur · 05-11-2007, 08:03 AM

I put zero stock in this "uniter not divider" stuff. I can be a great uniter if all of you decided to stop disagreeing with me and just go along with my opinions. What's that, you're not willing to do that? Surprise, surprise......

Unity works only when people agree with you. As a standard for success in a democracy, where a substantial minority of people always disagrees, it's vacuous, fatuous and silly.

It makes for nice rhetoric but it's otherwise stupid. I can't believe people really take that seriously.

ubertuber · 05-11-2007, 08:10 AM

Unity also works when people feel included. That's where my observation about unilateralism in domestic politics came from.

I don't think that's stupid.

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 08:11 AM

Unity works when a political leader is willing to compromise and build consensus around a middle ground that is in the best interest of the country....Reagan did it with the Dems on social security reform and tax reform and Clinton did it with the Repubs on welfare reform and deficit reduction.

Bush has never demostrated that willingness..other than perhaps with No Child Left Behind..which he subsequently did not fund at the authorized levels.

Bush never vetoed a bill in his first 6 years with a Repub Congress.....by my count he has threatened to veto at least 8-10 bills currently working their way through Congress (minimum wage, prescription drug reform, contracting reform, homeland security funding, wiretapping, etc.....). That is not someone demonstrating a willingess to "unite".

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Unity works when a political leader is willing to compromise and build consensus around a middle ground that is in the best interest of the country....

I am sure we define "unity works" in different ways, but "unity works" also when a leader leads with unyeilding conviction, confidence and certainty. Perhaps different moments in time require different leadership characteristics.

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 08:35 AM

When a leader is unyeilding in the face of overwhelming public opposition, it not only weakens him as a leader, it weakens the country as well....but as you rightly noted, we measure leadership in much different ways.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

When a leader is unyeilding in the face of overwhelming public opposition, it not only weakens him as a leader, it weakens the country as well....but as you rightly noted, we measure leadership in much different ways.

You change the conditions. First we speaking in very general terms, then we are not. Historically, leaders who overly seek compromise and unity at the expense of conviction have been weak.

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

First we speaking in very general terms, then we are not

Actually, it was the reverse. Frst I spoke in specifics...comparing Bush to Reagan and Clinton then I spoke more generally about leadership in the face of public opposition.

roachboy · 05-11-2007, 09:45 AM

has no-one read "the prince"?

the problem is not that cowboy george the human being and cowboy george the spokesmodel for american reactionaries do not line up: of course they dont. if power is rooted in spectacle and the center of the spectacle of power is the image that personifies it, then what matters is the consistency of the image itself...and nothing else...because the image is about the production of a signified and that signified IS the personification of state power. the referent--you know, that hale fellow george w bush whom we all adore, each in our way----is at the very most secondary.

the problem is that cowboy george as spokemodel is incoherent outside a very particular frame of reference. the purview of that frame of reference has been shrinking and shrinking and cowboy george has not adjusted. as the purview shrinks (and the space outside it grows), the claims rooted in it become increasingly absurd. that i--for one--found the framework absurd from the outset (by framework i mean the neofascist conception of nation that is at the core of populist conservative ideology)--or that others here might also have found it so--is strangely enough secondary.

that the bush people have shown themselves wholly incapable of registering the collapse of the hold their political ideology might have had IS their weakness. that weakness follows from the rigidity of ultra-right discourse--it is a structural problem with the discourse itself.

ace might argue that this rigidity follows from the idea that cowboy george is a "man of conviction"---but that idea is a function of the frame itself, is only relevant as a function of that frame, only has an effect if you accept a whole series of other predicates that, taken together, ARE that frame.

so ace's claims regarding bush as "man of conviction" are circular. and what they indicate is a repetition of the weakness of conservative discourse in general: it cannot adjust. it is rooted in claims that do not allow for it. the entire idea of populist conservative ideology rests on claims about the nation as essentially static, a hallucinated community that they get to define in their own image. its basic structure is narcissism. that is the weakest possible approach to the spectacle of power, *unless* you presuppose total control over the dominant media, which you reduce to a relay system for particular political messages that are presented as descriptions of the world. well, the right had it for a while--right after the 9/11/2001 attacks---but they fucked it up. now it's over and they cant face it. narcissism doesnt allow for it. the ideology doesnt allow for it. since they cannot adapt, the best the right can hope for is another attack. but another attack would obviate everything that they have been doing since 9/11/2001 to prevent another attack.

so it would seems that they are fucked.
every advantage they had has turned out to be a weakness.
of course, because we the people are only politically free one day every four years, the story isnt over-----so this is only how things look now.

but isnt machiavelli fun?

host · 05-11-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You change the conditions. First we speaking in very general terms, then we are not. Historically, leaders who overly seek compromise and unity at the expense of conviction have been weak.

Yeah....Bush is "strong", alright....but does he "mean what he says" ?

Quote:

http://www2.jsonline.com/election200...te14121300.asp
Bush calls for unity after Gore concedes
President-elect seeks consensus, national healing
By CRAIG GILBERT
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: Dec. 13, 2000
Washington - On the heels of a soothing concession from Al Gore, Republican George W. Bush spoke to Americans for the first time as their president-elect, preaching bipartisanship, promising to "change the tone" in Washington and declaring "now it is time to find common ground and build consensus."

Election 2000

Photo/AP Photo/AP
President-elect George W. Bush addresses the nation from the chambers of the Texas House of Representatives in Austin, Texas on Wednesday. Bush promised that he and Al Gore, who gave his concession speech earlier, would do their best to heal the nation.

Saying the nation has been through a "long and trying period," Bush promised that he and Gore would "do our best to heal our country after this hard-fought contest."

His brief, prime-time speech, from the chamber of the Texas House of Representatives, repeatedly stressed reconciliation and unity.

Bush voiced the hope that rather than divide the country, the adversarial endgame to the election would "heighten a desire to move beyond the bitterness and partisanship of the recent past."

Bush's comments came one hour after Gore addressed the nation, flatly conceding the race and vowing to "do everything possible to help (Bush) bring Americans together."

"I personally will be at his disposal," said Gore, flanked by family members and running mate Sen. Joseph Lieberman. "And I call on all Americans - I particularly urge all who stood with us - to unite behind our next president."

Taken together, the back-to-back speeches from these bitter rivals were as amicable and upbeat as any of their supporters might have expected.

So ended the 2000 election, almost 36 days late, the murkiest in modern times, a contest that resisted clarity and consensus to the bitter end....

....but this is what we actually got:

Quote:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/07/six_questions_f.php

.........Voting Rights

· Voter Purges And Rejected Ballots In 2000 Disenfranchised African Americans. In 2000, Republican election officials used a flawed felon list to purge voters from the voter roll. This disproportionately affected African Americans, disenfranchising thousands of them. In Miami-Dade County alone, almost 5,000 African Americans were purged from the voter roll as compared to less than 1,300 whites and "over half of the African Americans who appealed from the Florida felon exclusion list were successfully reinstated to the voter rolls." [Miami Herald, 6/5/04; Washington Post, 6/21/02]

· Republicans Across the Country are Forcing Voter ID Laws that Disproportionately Disenfranchise African American Voters. President Bush has failed to stand up to a national Republican effort to promote state voter ID laws that disproportionately disenfranchise minority, senior, rural and student voters.

· Rejected Ballots Disproportionately Impacted African American Voters. According to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' report on the 2000 election, "The rate of ballot rejection for votes cast by African Americans was an estimated 14.4 percent, compared with a rate of 1.6 percent for votes cast by non-African Americans." [U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, "Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election," 6/01]

Bush's Response:

· President Bush Has Refused To Exert The Leadership Needed To Reauthorize The Voting Rights Act. Despite his rhetoric on the VRA, the President has failed to pressure the Senate into voting to reauthorize the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist has yet to schedule a vote.

· Bush Underfunded HAVA Reform Funding For 2004, Despite Bipartisan Support. The 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) authorized $2.4 billion in election grants for FYs 2003 and 2004. Despite the $1 billion remaining in promised funds, Bush requested only $500 million for HAVA's implementation for FY 2004. HAVA's bipartisan sponsors in the Senate and the House called on the Congress to fully fund the bill and had former presidents Carter and Ford write to Bush urging him to fund HAVA. Senators Chris Dodd and Mitch McConnell joined together to add $1 billion dollars to HAVA for the EAC to disburse for FY 2004. [Roll Call, 1/24/04, 11/12/03; Congress Daily, 12/22/03]

....and this:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=44
it was discovered by the the Sarasota Herald Tribune that the 2004 purge list
HAD ALMOST NO HISPANIC NAMES ON IT, due to a "database error"), and
the way the 2000 Florida 65,000 names voter purge list smelled....since only
seven states do not automatically restore voting rights to felons who complete
their sentences, and the accuracy of that list was called into question, and
now because Florida recently was found to have neglected to give a notice,
required by law, to 125,000 inmates, since at least 1993, informing them at
the time of their release, how to apply to the governor for clemency in order
to restore their right to vote. Bush "won Florida" by 537 votes...
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/St...s_felon_.shtml

http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pag...ht_to_vote.htm

This....is the "point".....the 2000 Florida vote contest resulted in the closed thing to coup that resulted in the "installation" of a POTUS who lost the popular, nationwide vote, by 500,000. He promised to be a uniter, not a "divider". He appointed 2000 Fla vote recount "intimidator", John Bolton. last year to an interim UN ambassador job that his own party's senators would not approve Bolton to hold. Now....a revamp of the white house staff is touted.
Fake 2000 "local protestor" in the Miami-Dade vote recount gets appointed to take Karl Rove's principle government job.

At what point is it appropriate to stop protestion against this...and end attempts to educate people as to the history of the 2000 Fla. vote....???
...when Bush stops appointing the thugs who broke the rules to put him in office, there would be nothing new to comment on!

[/quote]
....and this:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...1074-2005Jan23
In The Loop
Miami 'Riot' Squad: Where Are They Now?

By Al Kamen
Monday, January 24, 2005; Page A13

As we begin the second Bush administration, let's take a moment to reflect upon one of the most historic episodes of the 2000 battle for the White House -- the now-legendary "Brooks Brothers Riot" at the Miami-Dade County polling headquarters.

This was when dozens of "local protesters," actually mostly Republican House aides from Washington, chanted "Stop the fraud!" and "Let us in!" when the local election board tried to move the re-counting from an open conference room to a smaller space

With help from their GOP colleagues and others, we identified some of these Republican heroes of yore in a photo of the event.

Some of those pictured have gone on to other things, including stints at the White House. For example, Matt Schlapp, No. 6, a former House aide and then a Bush campaign aide, has risen to be White House political director. Garry Malphrus, No. 2 in the photo, a former staff director of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice, is now deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. And Rory Cooper, No. 3, who was at the National Republican Congressional Committee, later worked at the White House Homeland Security Council and was seen last week working for the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
<CENTER><CENTER><img src="http://www.washintonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/intheloop_012405.jpg">
Here's what some of the others went on to do:

No. 1. Tom Pyle, who had worked for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), went private sector a few months later, getting a job as director of federal affairs for Koch Industries.

No. 7. Roger Morse, another House aide, moved on to the law and lobbying firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds. "I was also privileged to lead a team of Republicans to Florida to help in the recount fight," he told a legal trade magazine in a 2003 interview.

No. 8. Duane Gibson, an aide on the House Resources Committee, was a solo lobbyist and formerly with the Greenberg Traurig lobby operation. He is now with the Livingston Group as a consultant.

No. 9. Chuck Royal was and still is a legislative assistant to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a former House member.

No. 10. Layna McConkey Peltier, who had been a Senate and House aide and was at Steelman Health Strategies during the effort, is now at Capital Health Group.

(We couldn't find No. 4, Kevin Smith, a former GOP House aide who later worked with Voter.com, or No. 5, Steven Brophy, a former GOP Senate aide and then at consulting firm KPMG. If you know what they are doing these days, please e-mail shackelford@washpost.comso we can update our records.)

Sources say the "rioters" proudly note their participation on résumés and in interviews. But while the original hardy band of demonstrators numbered barely a couple of dozen, the numbers apparently have grown with the legend.

In the context of the above Al Kamen column and the phoio embellished doucmentation that it offers, consider rereading the report about John Bolton, located in my OP...here's an excerpt........

Quote:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=3Posted Posted on Sat, Jul. 13, 2002

Bush gave plum jobs to supporters who worked recount, paper reports

By CAROL ROSENBERG

Knight Ridder Newspapers

......Bolton, the U.S. diplomat now responsible for arms control issues, said no payoff was promised for his decision to join the post-election fray. He had worked for the first Bush administration and, <h3>finding himself in South Korea on election night, contacted former Secretary of State James Baker in Texas to see how he might lend a hand. The reply: Go to Florida.</h3>

``I think, frankly, most of the people who did it just went down there by instinct,'' Bolton said. He said he received no legal fees, although the campaign paid his hotel bills and other expenses.

Bolton was part of the legal team and a ballot observer in Palm Beach County. Then he rushed to Tallahassee as the recount battle reached higher courts.

It was his role, on a Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, to burst into a library where workers were recounting Miami-Dade ballots to relay news of the U.S. Supreme Court's stay in the on-again, off-again presidential recount. ``I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count,'' he was quoted as saying in news reports at the time....

...and now, the details of this are still emerging:

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ngs/?page=full

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | May 6, 2007
Missouri attorney a focus in firings
Senate bypassed in appointment of Schlozman

...Republicans claimed that ineligible voters were a major problem and pushed for laws to require photo IDs. Democrats said there was no evidence of widespread fraud and that such requirements suppress turnout among legitimate voters who are poor or disabled, and thus less likely to have driver's licenses.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...9c7d0&ei=5088&
By ERIC LIPTON and IAN URBINA
Published: April 12, 2007

Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.....

The Justice Department's voting rights section referees disputes over the fairness of state election requirements. Under federal civil rights law, the section must sign off on redistricting maps and new voting laws in Southern states to ensure that changes will not reduce minority voting power.

Schlozman stepped into this fray in May 2003, when he was promoted to deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division. He supervised several sections, including voting rights. In the fall 2005, he was promoted to acting head of the division.

Schlozman and his team soon came into conflict with veteran voting rights specialists. Career staff committees recommended rejecting a Texas redistricting map in 2003 and a Georgia photo ID voting law in 2005, saying they would dilute minority voting power. In both cases, the career veterans were overruled. But courts later said the map and the ID law were illegal.

Bob Kengle , a former deputy voting rights chief who left in 2005, said Schlozman also pushed the section to divert more resources into lawsuits forcing states to purge questionable voters from their rolls. One such lawsuit was against Missouri, where he later became US attorney. A court threw the Missouri lawsuit out this year.

Schlozman also moved to take control of hiring for the voting rights section, taking advantage of a new policy that gave political appointees more control. Under Schlozman, the profile of the career attorneys hired by the section underwent a dramatic transformation.

Half of the 14 career lawyers hired under Schlozman were members of the conservative Federalist Society or the Republican National Lawyers Association, up from none among the eight career hires in the previous two years, according to a review of resumes. The average US News & World Report ranking of the law school attended by new career lawyers plunged from 15 to 65.

Critics said candidates were being hired more for their political views than legal credentials. David Becker , a former voting rights division trial attorney, said that Schlozman's hiring of politically driven conservatives to protect minority voting rights created a "wolf guarding the henhouse situation."

Asked to respond on behalf of Schlozman, the Justice Department said it considers job applicants with a wide variety of backgrounds and insisted that politics has played no role in hiring decisions.

After the 2004 election, administration officials quietly began drawing up a list of US attorneys to replace. Considerations included their perceived loyalty to Bush and a desire by White House political adviser Karl Rove to increase voter fraud prosecutions, documents and testimony have shown. Most of the proposed firings were for US attorneys in states with closely divided elections.

Among those later fired was David Iglesias , from the battleground state of New Mexico, where many of his fellow Republicans had demanded more aggressive voter fraud probes. Iglesias has accused his critics of making the "reprehensible" suggestion that law enforcement decisions should be made on political grounds.

Missouri is another closely divided state. According to McClatchy Newspapers, Graves appeared on a January 2006 list of prosecutors who would be given a chance to resign to save face. He abruptly resigned in March 2006. Gonzales quickly installed Schlozman as Grave's replacement, bypassing Senate confirmation under new law that had been slipped into the Patriot Act.

That summer, the liberal activist group ACORN paid workers $8 an hour to sign up new voters in poor neighborhoods around the country. Later, ACORN's Kansas City chapter discovered that several workers filled out registration forms fraudulently instead of finding real people to sign up. ACORN fired the workers and alerted law enforcement.

Schlozman moved fast, so fast that his office got one of the names on the indictments wrong. He announced the indictments of four former ACORN workers on Nov. 1, 2006, warning that "this national investigation is very much ongoing." Missouri Republicans seized on the indictments to blast Democrats in the campaign endgame.

Critics later accused Schlozman of violating the Justice Department's own rules. A 1995 Justice election crime manual says "federal prosecutors . . . should be extremely careful not to conduct overt investigations during the preelection period" to avoid "chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities" and causing "the investigation itself to become a campaign issue."

"In investigating election fraud matters, the Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself," the manual states, adding in underlining that "most, if not all, investigation of alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates."

The department said Schlozman's office got permission from headquarters for the election-eve indictments. <h3>It added that the department interprets the policy as having an unwritten exception for voter registration fraud, because investigators need not interview voters for such cases.</h3>

On Nov. 7, 2006, Missouri voters narrowly elected Democrat McCaskill over the Republican senator, James Talent . The victory proved essential to the Democrats' new one-vote Senate majority.

Last week, McCaskill told NPR that she'd like Schlozman to testify before Congress: "What this all indicates is that more questions need to be asked, and more answers under oath need to be given."

As the controversy over the US attorney firings started building, the Bush administration picked someone else to be western Missouri's US attorney. Unlike with Schlozman, the administration first sent the nominee to the Senate for confirmation.

The only folks who Bush is uniting, are wealthy white conservatives and chrisitian fundamentalists...
[/quote]

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

has no-one read "the prince"?

the problem is not that cowboy george the human being and cowboy george the spokesmodel for american reactionaries do not line up: of course they dont. if power is rooted in spectacle and the center of the spectacle of power is the image that personifies it, then what matters is the consistency of the image itself...and nothing else...because the image is about the production of a signified and that signified IS the personification of state power. the referent--you know, that hale fellow george w bush whom we all adore, each in our way----is at the very most secondary.

the problem is that cowboy george as spokemodel is incoherent outside a very particular frame of reference. the purview of that frame of reference has been shrinking and shrinking and cowboy george has not adjusted. as the purview shrinks (and the space outside it grows), the claims rooted in it become increasingly absurd. that i--for one--found the framework absurd from the outset (by framework i mean the neofascist conception of nation that is at the core of populist conservative ideology)--or that others here might also have found it so--is strangely enough secondary.

that the bush people have shown themselves wholly incapable of registering the collapse of the hold their political ideology might have had IS their weakness. that weakness follows from the rigidity of ultra-right discourse--it is a structural problem with the discourse itself.

ace might argue that this rigidity follows from the idea that cowboy george is a "man of conviction"---but that idea is a function of the frame itself, is only relevant as a function of that frame, only has an effect if you accept a whole series of other predicates that, taken together, ARE that frame.

so ace's claims regarding bush as "man of conviction" are circular. and what they indicate is a repetition of the weakness of conservative discourse in general: it cannot adjust. it is rooted in claims that do not allow for it. the entire idea of populist conservative ideology rests on claims about the nation as essentially static, a hallucinated community that they get to define in their own image. its basic structure is narcissism. that is the weakest possible approach to the spectacle of power, *unless* you presuppose total control over the dominant media, which you reduce to a relay system for particular political messages that are presented as descriptions of the world. well, the right had it for a while--right after the 9/11/2001 attacks---but they fucked it up. now it's over and they cant face it. narcissism doesnt allow for it. the ideology doesnt allow for it. since they cannot adapt, the best the right can hope for is another attack. but another attack would obviate everything that they have been doing since 9/11/2001 to prevent another attack.

so it would seems that they are fucked.
every advantage they had has turned out to be a weakness.
of course, because we the people are only politically free one day every four years, the story isnt over-----so this is only how things look now.

but isnt machiavelli fun?

People with conviction have to believe in something. Do you concede that Bush acts on his convictions? What those convictions are and if they are circular is another question.

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 11:02 AM

Carter had unyeilding conviction. Did that make him a great president?

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Yeah....Bush is "strong", alright....but does he "mean what he says" ?

Starting with your first source:

Quote:

Photo/AP Photo/AP
President-elect George W. Bush addresses the nation from the chambers of the Texas House of Representatives in Austin, Texas on Wednesday. Bush promised that he and Al Gore, who gave his concession speech earlier, would do their best to heal the nation.

Saying the nation has been through a "long and trying period," Bush promised that he and Gore would "do our best to heal our country after this hard-fought contest."

His brief, prime-time speech, from the chamber of the Texas House of Representatives, repeatedly stressed reconciliation and unity.

Bush voiced the hope that rather than divide the country, the adversarial endgame to the election would "heighten a desire to move beyond the bitterness and partisanship of the recent past."

Bush's comments came one hour after Gore addressed the nation, flatly conceding the race and vowing to "do everything possible to help (Bush) bring Americans together."

"I personally will be at his disposal," said Gore, flanked by family members and running mate Sen. Joseph Lieberman. "And I call on all Americans - I particularly urge all who stood with us - to unite behind our next president."

Taken together, the back-to-back speeches from these bitter rivals were as amicable and upbeat as any of their supporters might have expected.

So ended the 2000 election, almost 36 days late, the murkiest in modern times, a contest that resisted clarity and consensus to the bitter end..

Bush had bi-partisan support on No Child Left Behind legislation, and as I recall worked very cloely with Sen. Kennedy.

Here is an interesting point of view:

Quote:

Two months after the Supreme Court stepped in to halt the counting of votes and Democratic candidate Al Gore conceded the presidency to George W. Bush, official Washington is moving towards a coalition government in all but name, with the Democrats playing the role of junior partners. The most bitterly contested election in more than a century has been followed by the Democrats' acceptance, without protest, of an illegitimate government and its program of social and political reaction.

On a daily basis, Democratic congressmen and senators troop through the doors of the White House to fawn over the Republican president whom at least some Democratic leaders were denouncing only a few weeks ago. Bush was invited to address the closed-door caucuses of House and Senate Democrats—a gesture that congressional Republicans never made to Clinton—and he received a friendly reception.

Democratic Party spokesmen have generally welcomed the Bush administration's initiatives on federal funding for social services provided by religious groups, on privatization of public education, in the guise of “reform,” and on national missile defense. Democratic Senator Zell Miller of Georgia agreed to co-sponsor the Bush tax cut plan, whose benefits go mainly to the wealthy, and many congressional Democrats have joined in the feeding frenzy on Capitol Hill, as corporate lobbyists seek to add provisions to reward their particular industries.

Even those Democratic Party loyalists who proclaimed the greatest hostility to Bush during the election campaign have sought a rapprochement with the new administration. Most of the Congressional Black Caucus accepted a Bush invitation to meet with him in the White House, an office that he only occupies thanks to the widespread disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney praised Bush's second choice for secretary of labor, Elaine Chao, who was nominated after the withdrawal of right-wing ideologue Linda Chavez. At a press conference last week, Sweeney pledged to work with the new administration and specifically praised Bush's proposal for “faith-based” social service programs.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/fe...dems-f13.shtml

Perhaps I was wrong about the Democrats after the election.

loquitur · 05-11-2007, 11:09 AM

DcDux, Carter had conviction? Hogwash...... he got his start trucking with racists and then ended up gaming the system in '76, and when he was president ended up as a failure precisely because he didn't believe in anything strongly enough to make up his mind. He didn't get "convictions" until he was an ex-President.

I'm also surprised you think Reagan was known for compromising. Do you recall that absolute vilification that was thrown at him for his anti-communism? He was an arrogant unilateral cowboy warmonger, simplistic and dunce-like. Have you really forgotten that?

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 11:13 AM

loquitor....check Carter's record on human rights while in office....read some of his speeches (particularly those to the UN).. Thats not to say I think Carter was a great president by any means, just that unyielding conviction does not necessarily make a great leader.

and I was in the Senate when Reagan was president...I dont recall the vilification of Reagan by members of Congress (maybe one or two strays)...I do recall that he a cordial and mutually productive working relationship with the Democratic leaders of both the House (Tip O'Neil) and the Senate (Robert Byrd).

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Carter had unyeilding conviction. Did that make him a great president?

The logic in your question is flawed. Unyielding conviction does not make one a great leader or a great President. There are many factors that make a leader great. A person with unyielding conviction can be a fool.

My point is that there are many leadership styles and they can all be effective under the right circumstances. You seemed to indicate one style was better than another.

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 11:38 AM

My point is that in circumstances where there is overwhelming public oppostion to a leader's position, one style is absolutely better than any other..and that is both sides to compromise and reach consensus for the larger good.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

My point is that in circumstances where there is overwhelming public oppostion to a leader's position, one style is absolutely better than any other..and that is both sides to compromise and reach consensus for the larger good.

There was overwhelming opposition to the Civil War. It would have been easy for Lincoln to compromise and allow the nation to split into two.

loquitur · 05-11-2007, 12:29 PM

DcDux, compromise is fine if the issue is compromisable. Not every issue is. If you were approached by the cannibal lobby to legalize cannibalism, would you compromise and allow a law that let them eat babies only two days a week?

roachboy · 05-11-2007, 12:34 PM

ace: like i said, your claim---and is YOUR claim, not mine--is circular. i neither know nor care if george w. bush as a human being is or is not a "man of conviction" or whether, if he appears that way when you are hanging out with him, it follows from the inability to consider complexity or from something else. you do not know the guy either. both of us are in the same place, then, in that when we move from the image of george to the actually exsiting guy george, we move from what we know something of (the image) to something we know fuck all about (the guy)....we fill in the blanks based on predispositions. i get around this by not pretending that i know george w bush as a human being--where you seem to feel like you do. that fantasy is your prerogative, and decorum prevents me from being able to say in this forum the extent to which i find that fantasy ridiculous--along with the politics that enable it.

but hey, maybe you thought you knew the characters from "friends" too.

loquitur · 05-11-2007, 12:41 PM

oh, and about Carter: he was selective on human rights just like everyone tends to be. As for Reagan's good working relationship, if you recall, he had a majority in the Senate and enough Southern Democrats going along to be able to get tax cuts passed and a whole bunch of restrictions on the size of the govt early in his term. That lasted until he lost the Senate in '86, which IIRC was around the same time Iran-contra broke.

However, most of the Democratic party was screaming, continuously, that Reagan was a stooge of the rich, a warmongering numbskull who wanted to launch a nuclear war and wasn't smart enough to understand how horrible it was. I believe the term was "amiable dunce." And the Europeans were worse: they came out en masse to protest the Pershing missile placements that they were sure were nothing more than big provocations and huge targets for the Soviet Union. We know how that one worked out, don't we.

Basically, you can't fight something with nothing. If you don't believe in anything you give no one any reason to support you. Compromise works at the margins, but not at the core. Paul Wellstone, for example, didn't compromise much. I don't think Russ Feingold does much compromising either. They really believe(d) and stuck to it.

Elphaba · 05-11-2007, 12:44 PM

Google "George W Bush Flip Flops" for numerous links that track when George says one thing and later another.

The most recent: Bench marks are unacceptable (and he just vetoed a funding bill that included them) and suddenly today, bench marks are acceptable. The surprise visit of 11 Republican congressmen yesterday may have contributed to his change of mind. They told the president that he is no longer believed by the majority of Americans and that he needs another "spokesmodel" (thanks rb).

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

oh, and about Carter: he was selective on human rights just like everyone tends to be. As for Reagan's good working relationship, if you recall, he had a majority in the Senate and enough Southern Democrats going along to be able to get tax cuts passed and a whole bunch of restrictions on the size of the govt early in his term. That lasted until he lost the Senate in '86, which IIRC was around the same time Iran-contra broke.

However, most of the Democratic party was screaming, continuously, that Reagan was a stooge of the rich, a warmongering numbskull who wanted to launch a nuclear war and wasn't smart enough to understand how horrible it was. I believe the term was "amiable dunce." And the Europeans were worse: they came out en masse to protest the Pershing missile placements that they were sure were nothing more than big provocations and huge targets for the Soviet Union. We know how that one worked out, don't we.

Basically, you can't fight something with nothing. If you don't believe in anything you give no one any reason to support you. Compromise works at the margins, but not at the core. Paul Wellstone, for example, didn't compromise much. I don't think Russ Feingold does much compromising either. They really believe(d) and stuck to it.

Your recollection about the Demorcratic party screaming continuously is just revisionist history. Perhaps some of the more left leaning media and certainly European citizens (not the govts). For the most part, the Democrats in Congress neither underestimated nor demeaned (until Iran Contra) Reagan, other than such times as when he suggested that ketchup could serve as a vegetable for school lunches or when he mistook the mayor of Newark for his HUD secretary, to name just a few of the lighter Reagan moments. THey were critical of his "trickle-down" supply-side economic/tax policy, but so was his budget director, David Stockman, who subsquently resigned as a result and his VP George HW Bush, who, when campaigning against him, called it voodoo economics.

As for Wellstone and Feingold (and you can include folks like Kucinich and Ron Paul), its far different to be non-compromising when you are a legislator rather than the chief executive with the majority of the country opposing your core program....a program for which you cannot offer any evidence that it has a likelihood of success.

And the cannibalism and Civil War examples are hardly worth a response.

05-10-2007, 09:11 AM	#3 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I think this is an important topic that might tell us a lot about how we're forming our opinions. Unfortunately, I can't reply in detail right now. I did want to mention that if you follow host's link to the polling summary website, there are other polls (USA Today and ABC news come to mind) which ask the same question and track the results over a longer period of time. The results are a little difficult to read (it takes me a second to focus my eyes on the date column) but interesting. I'd kind of be interesting in plotting these on a bar graph that correlated major events of the Bush administration so you could see how specific things have impacted this "gut feeling". I also think that it is interesting that Bush himself seems to be a person who relies on gut feelings to assess character and events - how often have we heard him talk about peering into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and finding that the other was a "good guy" or a "trustable leader"? Maybe it makes sense that other people who think this way are comfortable with President Bush? The onion article, obviously, is just satire, but it is pretty funny in a topical way... The stuff above it certainly warrants discussion. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-10-2007, 09:57 AM	#5 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	What has Bush said, that he has not followed through with? We knew he was going to take military action in Iraq shortly after 9/11. He was re-elected with everyone knowing what he was planning on doing in Iraq. The only surprise was the strength of the insurgency. We knew he was going to cut taxes. We knew he was going to appoint conservative judges. We knew he was pro-business. We knew he was going to appoint people from his father's and the Reagan administrations He said he was going to be a "uniter", but we knew this was not going to happen given the tone in Washington after he stole the elction from Gore. So, what has he done that is inconsistant with what he said he was going to do? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-10-2007, 10:02 AM	#6 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Ace: I'm glad you mentioned the uniter thing. It is my opinion that his dividership has been based more around his singleminded devotion to unilateral action, domestically and internationally, thank the political atmosphere. His lack of interest in outside input or transparent decision-making preceded 9/11 by a significant margin. I also think that he meant almost nothing of what he said about gay marriage. That "amendment" was nothing other than a cynical ploy to galvanize likely Republican voters to the polls. I'm not saying he personally supports gay rights, but that he did not actually believe that the issue was as important as they made it out to be. I also question what he meant, if anything by "compassionate conservatism". __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-10-2007, 10:12 AM	#7 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I think he is close to being indifferent on the subject in terms of legal benefits to gay partners compared to married men and women. However, from a religious point of view, I don't think he supports gay marriage. And, I think the key issues during the campaign was activist judges and the trend of local governments legislating this issue, an issue probably needing some form of a national standard. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-11-2007, 07:37 AM	#9 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I put the three polls from host's link onto one page. I'm no statistician, but it helps me to be able to see it all in one place, and I can visualize things much better this way. If I find more polls that are appropriately targeted in their question, I may update this. I'd really like to be able to incorporate a timeline into the x axis to show major events during the administration, but I'm not enough of an excel whiz to figure it out. bush trust.GIF __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-10-2007, 08:57 AM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	First off, I rarely trust someone who smirks at the frequency that Bush does. They usually think they are much smarter than they are, and they are usually so falsely confidence, covering for inadequacy and low self esteem, that they are unable to have the maturity to admit wrong doing. I think that happens to hit Bush on the nose. The question to ask would be: Is George W. Bush: a) Foolhardy and corrupt, unable to leave Iraq because he still sees it with dollar signs in his eyes. b) Foolhardy and stubborn, unable to leave Iraq because he's dug his feet into the ground and is throwing a tantrum. c) Is easily the most stupid world leader in history, and is acting like a man child who cannot pull himself together enough to think his way out of this. He's overwhelmed. d) He's easily controlled by Cheney, Rummy, and the other members of the PNAC, and is more of an instrument or tool than a human being.

05-11-2007, 08:03 AM	#10 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I put zero stock in this "uniter not divider" stuff. I can be a great uniter if all of you decided to stop disagreeing with me and just go along with my opinions. What's that, you're not willing to do that? Surprise, surprise...... Unity works only when people agree with you. As a standard for success in a democracy, where a substantial minority of people always disagrees, it's vacuous, fatuous and silly. It makes for nice rhetoric but it's otherwise stupid. I can't believe people really take that seriously.

05-11-2007, 08:10 AM	#11 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Unity also works when people feel included. That's where my observation about unilateralism in domestic politics came from. I don't think that's stupid. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-11-2007, 08:11 AM	#12 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Unity works when a political leader is willing to compromise and build consensus around a middle ground that is in the best interest of the country....Reagan did it with the Dems on social security reform and tax reform and Clinton did it with the Repubs on welfare reform and deficit reduction. Bush has never demostrated that willingness..other than perhaps with No Child Left Behind..which he subsequently did not fund at the authorized levels. Bush never vetoed a bill in his first 6 years with a Repub Congress.....by my count he has threatened to veto at least 8-10 bills currently working their way through Congress (minimum wage, prescription drug reform, contracting reform, homeland security funding, wiretapping, etc.....). That is not someone demonstrating a willingess to "unite". __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-11-2007 at 08:20 AM..

05-11-2007, 08:35 AM	#14 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	When a leader is unyeilding in the face of overwhelming public opposition, it not only weakens him as a leader, it weakens the country as well....but as you rightly noted, we measure leadership in much different ways. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-11-2007, 09:45 AM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	has no-one read "the prince"? the problem is not that cowboy george the human being and cowboy george the spokesmodel for american reactionaries do not line up: of course they dont. if power is rooted in spectacle and the center of the spectacle of power is the image that personifies it, then what matters is the consistency of the image itself...and nothing else...because the image is about the production of a signified and that signified IS the personification of state power. the referent--you know, that hale fellow george w bush whom we all adore, each in our way----is at the very most secondary. the problem is that cowboy george as spokemodel is incoherent outside a very particular frame of reference. the purview of that frame of reference has been shrinking and shrinking and cowboy george has not adjusted. as the purview shrinks (and the space outside it grows), the claims rooted in it become increasingly absurd. that i--for one--found the framework absurd from the outset (by framework i mean the neofascist conception of nation that is at the core of populist conservative ideology)--or that others here might also have found it so--is strangely enough secondary. that the bush people have shown themselves wholly incapable of registering the collapse of the hold their political ideology might have had IS their weakness. that weakness follows from the rigidity of ultra-right discourse--it is a structural problem with the discourse itself. ace might argue that this rigidity follows from the idea that cowboy george is a "man of conviction"---but that idea is a function of the frame itself, is only relevant as a function of that frame, only has an effect if you accept a whole series of other predicates that, taken together, ARE that frame. so ace's claims regarding bush as "man of conviction" are circular. and what they indicate is a repetition of the weakness of conservative discourse in general: it cannot adjust. it is rooted in claims that do not allow for it. the entire idea of populist conservative ideology rests on claims about the nation as essentially static, a hallucinated community that they get to define in their own image. its basic structure is narcissism. that is the weakest possible approach to the spectacle of power, unless you presuppose total control over the dominant media, which you reduce to a relay system for particular political messages that are presented as descriptions of the world. well, the right had it for a while--right after the 9/11/2001 attacks---but they fucked it up. now it's over and they cant face it. narcissism doesnt allow for it. the ideology doesnt allow for it. since they cannot adapt, the best the right can hope for is another attack. but another attack would obviate everything that they have been doing since 9/11/2001 to prevent another attack. so it would seems that they are fucked. every advantage they had has turned out to be a weakness. of course, because we the people are only politically free one day every four years, the story isnt over-----so this is only how things look now. but isnt machiavelli fun? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-11-2007 at 09:48 AM..

05-11-2007, 11:02 AM	#20 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Carter had unyeilding conviction. Did that make him a great president? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-11-2007, 11:09 AM	#22 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	DcDux, Carter had conviction? Hogwash...... he got his start trucking with racists and then ended up gaming the system in '76, and when he was president ended up as a failure precisely because he didn't believe in anything strongly enough to make up his mind. He didn't get "convictions" until he was an ex-President. I'm also surprised you think Reagan was known for compromising. Do you recall that absolute vilification that was thrown at him for his anti-communism? He was an arrogant unilateral cowboy warmonger, simplistic and dunce-like. Have you really forgotten that?

05-11-2007, 11:13 AM	#23 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	loquitor....check Carter's record on human rights while in office....read some of his speeches (particularly those to the UN).. Thats not to say I think Carter was a great president by any means, just that unyielding conviction does not necessarily make a great leader. and I was in the Senate when Reagan was president...I dont recall the vilification of Reagan by members of Congress (maybe one or two strays)...I do recall that he a cordial and mutually productive working relationship with the Democratic leaders of both the House (Tip O'Neil) and the Senate (Robert Byrd). __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-11-2007 at 11:19 AM..

05-11-2007, 11:38 AM	#25 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	My point is that in circumstances where there is overwhelming public oppostion to a leader's position, one style is absolutely better than any other..and that is both sides to compromise and reach consensus for the larger good. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-11-2007, 12:29 PM	#27 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	DcDux, compromise is fine if the issue is compromisable. Not every issue is. If you were approached by the cannibal lobby to legalize cannibalism, would you compromise and allow a law that let them eat babies only two days a week?

05-11-2007, 12:34 PM	#28 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace: like i said, your claim---and is YOUR claim, not mine--is circular. i neither know nor care if george w. bush as a human being is or is not a "man of conviction" or whether, if he appears that way when you are hanging out with him, it follows from the inability to consider complexity or from something else. you do not know the guy either. both of us are in the same place, then, in that when we move from the image of george to the actually exsiting guy george, we move from what we know something of (the image) to something we know fuck all about (the guy)....we fill in the blanks based on predispositions. i get around this by not pretending that i know george w bush as a human being--where you seem to feel like you do. that fantasy is your prerogative, and decorum prevents me from being able to say in this forum the extent to which i find that fantasy ridiculous--along with the politics that enable it. but hey, maybe you thought you knew the characters from "friends" too. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-11-2007, 12:41 PM	#29 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	oh, and about Carter: he was selective on human rights just like everyone tends to be. As for Reagan's good working relationship, if you recall, he had a majority in the Senate and enough Southern Democrats going along to be able to get tax cuts passed and a whole bunch of restrictions on the size of the govt early in his term. That lasted until he lost the Senate in '86, which IIRC was around the same time Iran-contra broke. However, most of the Democratic party was screaming, continuously, that Reagan was a stooge of the rich, a warmongering numbskull who wanted to launch a nuclear war and wasn't smart enough to understand how horrible it was. I believe the term was "amiable dunce." And the Europeans were worse: they came out en masse to protest the Pershing missile placements that they were sure were nothing more than big provocations and huge targets for the Soviet Union. We know how that one worked out, don't we. Basically, you can't fight something with nothing. If you don't believe in anything you give no one any reason to support you. Compromise works at the margins, but not at the core. Paul Wellstone, for example, didn't compromise much. I don't think Russ Feingold does much compromising either. They really believe(d) and stuck to it.

05-11-2007, 12:44 PM	#30 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Google "George W Bush Flip Flops" for numerous links that track when George says one thing and later another. The most recent: Bench marks are unacceptable (and he just vetoed a funding bill that included them) and suddenly today, bench marks are acceptable. The surprise visit of 11 Republican congressmen yesterday may have contributed to his change of mind. They told the president that he is no longer believed by the majority of Americans and that he needs another "spokesmodel" (thanks rb). __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007