Is George W. Bush a Uniter or a Divider?

[Astrocloud]

Here's a link to his original quote:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/19...ush/index.html

I showed the people of Texas that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another.

That was his promise in 1999. It was an exiting time after so many petty political stonewalls of the 90's (like the Government Shutdown). I honestly believed him then. When he was selected by the Supreme Court in a groundbreaking ruling, I thought I'd give him a chance anyways..


Now four years later, I don't think that Bush has lived up to any of his early campaign lies. However I ask you...

Is Bush a Uniter or a Divider

[lurkette]

I think it's hard for any politician to be a "uniter". The fact of the matter is that people in the U.S. have wildly different opinions and different values, and you can't please all of the people all of the time. I think it'd be nice if politicians were more respectful of the opposition and tried to work together to find common ground, but there seems to be such an entrenched "zero-sum" us vs. them mentality in politics that I don't know if that's even possible.

[Strange Famous]

Wasnt this also the punchline of a sick joke Bush made on the Dave Letterman show?

[Ustwo]

Bush tired, he even let Teddy Kennedy write the education bill, but saddly he learned you can't expect class or honnesty from democrats. I think now he knows you defeat them, not compromise with them.

[Astrocloud]

This is not *MERELY* about dividing the internal political structure of the US. This is also about dividing the World -or more precisely dividing the US from the rest of the world.

I guess that George Dubya was lying when he made that interview.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Astrocloud
This is not *MERELY* about dividing the internal political structure of the US. This is also about dividing the World -or more precisely dividing the US from the rest of the world.

I guess that George Dubya was lying when he made that interview.

Two things.

#1 Planes, towers, death.

#2 Was it Bush who divided or was it the left of the world who just rejected a repbulican president?

[Astrocloud]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Two things.

#1 Planes, towers, death.

And if you remember that the world was on our side after that -he blew it.

Originally posted by Ustwo
#2 Was it Bush who divided or was it the left of the world who just rejected a repbulican president?

It was Bush who divided.

[onetime2]

Well,

He's offering a prescription plan to seniors (unifying)

and a path to citizenship for illegals (unifying)

But by doing so he's certainly pissed off the Dems (divisive).

Offering up the prospect of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages (divisive) but it may just be a bargaining stance (I hope).

Then there's the whole France/Germany thing which he had no chance of influencing, so I'd say it's neither divisive or unifying.

He's trying to give the American people something to focus on long term in the Mars mission (unifying)

He's trying to give all the people of Iraq a voice in their government (unifying)

He wants to open up public lands to drilling/logging (divisive)

He is limiting participation in Iraq reconstruction (divisive for those who can't take part but unifying for those who can, so that's a wash)

Overall I'd have to say he's not particularly a uniter but I don't feel betrayed by it at all. He has a vision and he works towards it. If it conflicts with being a uniter he goes it alone. Basically exactly what a leader should do. Now that doesn't mean that his choices are all good, but that his actions are logical to achieve what he sees as being the "best" objective.

[Astrocloud]

Still no bites on "Uniter" votes yet.

[lurkette]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Bush tired, he even let Teddy Kennedy write the education bill, but saddly he learned you can't expect class or honnesty from democrats. I think now he knows you defeat them, not compromise with them.

An insincere token gesture. Got anything better?

[drawerfixer]

Originally posted by Astrocloud
Still no bites on "Uniter" votes yet.

I was actually planning on writing a large reply, but it seems like this will turn out like every other political thread.

Originally posted by Ustwo
Bush tired, he even let Teddy Kennedy write the education bill, but saddly he learned you can't expect class or honnesty from democrats.

The shots across the bow have already been fired. Regardless of what statements are right or wrong, it's not worth getting into this crapfest.

[mml]

I think that President Bush honestly believes that he is a uniter. I think he had honest intentions to work with both parties to achieve goals that both believed in. Unfortunately, his election was so controversial that he began his term with half of the country and congress pissed off.

Yes, Bush won the election, but he and his administration (in what I perceive as arrogance) never accepted the fact that they really did not have a strong mandate and they made few attempts to connect with the Democrats before rushing into their agenda.

The reality is that many of the issues Bush has addressed, are ones that Democrats have been wanting to handle for years, but it took a Republican to get it done, albeit not in the way the Dems would have liked. The problem is that in this atmosphere of distrust and anxiety, the Administration has not really been inclusive. They are secretive and anti-media and generally ignore any elected offical that is not a Republican(and do ignore Reps who do not agree with them - Paul O'Neil, John McCain, etc..).

While I think Bush wants to be a uniter, he and his administration's unbending philosophies make him a divider, and frankly that may be a more effective tool for him.

[Zamunda]

Originally posted by onetime2
Well,

He's offering a prescription plan to seniors (unifying)

He's trying to give the American people something to focus on long term in the Mars mission (unifying)

You quote these under unifying, but his prescription plan to seniors is a crock and his long term Mars objective flies in the face of his supposed effort to recoup the debt. Otherwise I agree with astrocloud that whatever he's done in America, he has certainly divided America from the rest of the world, and that's not what we need in this world.

Oh, and I almost forgot, his effort to work with the dems for unity? how about those hardline judges he tried to nominate and the dems filibustered... The republicans were arguing that no one had ever filibustered a judge nomination before... the truth is that no one had ever successfully prevented a nomination because when the democrats nominated reasonable candidates. Bush's blatant disregard for the senate and their role as an advising body by nominating judges according to his ideology doesn't sound very unifying to me

[Ustwo]

A democrat president doing many of the same things would be hailed. Hell JFK gave us tax cuts, the moon program and Vietnam. While I hope Iraq doesn't turn into a Vietnam, and Bush hasn't had a bay of pigs, I hope you see my point.

I think you need to ask yourself, is there anything Bush has done that was good. If your answer is no, nothing, then there is very little point in debating with you as you are not interested in debate. I don't like everything Bush has done, nor did I hate everything Clinton did.

[Strange Famous]

There is actually a lot of things you could compare in JFK and Dubya.

[Starfish]

well I used to be a huge fan of Bush.....but I wanted to know what exactly I said that I was supporting, so I did some research and I found out what I was really supporting...... I want Bush out of office and I want him out NOW he is a psychopath.... He needs to stop lying and he needs to STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY on another country when we need HELP ourselves... He needs to stop this so called "war" and bring the troops because there is no reason why we should still be over there anymore. Someone needs to shut him up forever...

[Zamunda]

I agree with ustwo, bush has done a few useful things in office so a debate is still in order. Quite frankly Im a little in support of Iraq, and its not really like vietnam at all. Starfish, while I agree that maybe Bush is not the best man to lead the country, if you really think that spending money on other countries is a bad idea then I just don't know what to say. You say there is no reason for the US to still be in Iraq?? well there's already another thread on this but here are just a few reasons why we can't and shouldn't leave now:
1. US companies are profiting because they won the first contracts to rebuild in Iraq (granted they were only offered to us but thats changing now, Canada is in too)
2. Al Qaeda is concentrating their efforts on our military setup in Iraq, meaning they're wasting their precious and dwindling resources blowing up some jeeps and helicopters, but we're safe in America
3. Leaving Iraq right now would be, quite possibly, the dumbest decision of W's presidency... exactly what his father did. Not only would the country probably fall into anarchy and eventually perhaps another dictatorship where we'd eventually get another president who wants to go in, but Al Qaeda would claim a great ideological victory having emberassed us and forced us out of their terrirtory.

As I said I agree that Bush is not the best man for the job, but not everything he's done has been bad, and you need to reevaluate the reality of the situation before saying we should pull out now.

[floydthebarber]

The man is a divider, how anyone can see him as a uniter is beyond me.

[Tophat665]

c) Dipshit

But, given that that is not an option, I'm with Floyd; I can't imagine how this is a question.

[Ustwo]

Oh well you can't please everyone, and some you shouldn't even try. Enjoy four more years

[nanofever]

I'm going to say united, who ever would have imagined the president and a drunken sailor would have so much in common.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by Zamunda
You quote these under unifying, but his prescription plan to seniors is a crock and his long term Mars objective flies in the face of his supposed effort to recoup the debt. Otherwise I agree with astrocloud that whatever he's done in America, he has certainly divided America from the rest of the world, and that's not what we need in this world.

Oh, and I almost forgot, his effort to work with the dems for unity? how about those hardline judges he tried to nominate and the dems filibustered... The republicans were arguing that no one had ever filibustered a judge nomination before... the truth is that no one had ever successfully prevented a nomination because when the democrats nominated reasonable candidates. Bush's blatant disregard for the senate and their role as an advising body by nominating judges according to his ideology doesn't sound very unifying to me

Talk to the seniors who have been shouting for prescription plans for years. Seems unifying to me. Don't believe the crap being fed to you about it. Having a prescription plan is better than not having one.

And, as stated, the Mars mission unifies people under a commong goal. The Mars mission is far from a big budget item at this point. Take a look at how much NASA will see their budget increase in the coming several years, it's not that big of a price tag.

As far as uniting with the world, no one can unite those who don't want to be united. France and Germany have an agenda to build their influence within the EU and challenge the US for influence on a global scale. And that was one hell of a list Bush threw out there in the SOTU of those countries who participated in Iraq but get no recognition as being "international". I'd have to say what he's done is far more unifying than ignoring the dozens of countries that worked with us because a few chose to guard their wallets rather than do what was right.

The hardline judges? Well, did you happen to get a sense of how much the Dems wanted to work together in the memos that the Republicans got a hold of? Yep. Gotta love the unity.

[smooth]

Originally posted by onetime2
Talk to the seniors who have been shouting for prescription plans for years. Seems unifying to me. Don't believe the crap being fed to you about it. Having a prescription plan is better than not having one.

Why don't we wait to talk to them after the election--when the "benefits" kick in?

[nanofever]

Originally posted by onetime2
Well, did you happen to get a sense of how much the Dems wanted to work together in the memos that the Republicans got a hold of? Yep. Gotta love the unity.

The irony, it burns... it burns.

[Sparhawk]

The latest example of Bush "uniting":

PRESIDENT BUSH'S decision Friday to install controversial judicial nominee Charles W. Pickering Sr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit using a recess appointment is yet another unwarranted escalation of the judicial nomination wars. We have lamented some of the attacks on Mr. Pickering, but his record as a federal trial judge is undistinguished and downright disturbing, and Senate Democrats are reasonable to oppose his nomination. Installing him using a constitutional end run around the Senate only inflames passions. The right path is to build consensus that nonpartisanship and excellence are the appropriate criteria for judicial selection.

The recess appointment -- the president's power to temporarily install federal officers without Senate confirmation -- is a uniquely bad instrument for federal judges. Judges are supposed to be politically independent. Yet Mr. Pickering will be a controversial nominee before the Senate as he considers cases and will lose his job in a year if he is not confirmed. Even his supporters should understand that he will be subject to the political pressures from which judges are supposed to be insulated.

We don't rule out the recess appointment in all circumstances. At times judges have commanded such uniform support that presidents have used the power to get them in office quickly, leaving the formality of confirmation for later. We supported, moreover, President Bill Clinton's lame-duck recess appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit of Roger Gregory, who, like Mr. Pickering, was held up in the Senate. But there was a big difference: Mr. Gregory was not controversial. His nomination, in fact, was eventually resubmitted to the Senate by none other than President Bush. It was held up initially because of a long-standing dispute over appointments to that court, not because of any concerns about the nominee himself. There was reason to hope that Mr. Gregory would be confirmed -- as, indeed, he was. In this case, Mr. Bush has used a recess appointment for someone who cannot, on his merits, garner a vote of confidence from the Senate and who has no prospect of confirmation in the current Congress.

We don't support the filibuster of nominees, but the answer to Democratic obstruction cannot be the appointment or installation of temporary judges who get to hear a few cases over a few months, all the while looking over their shoulders at the senators who oppose them. The great damage the judicial nomination wars threaten over the long term is to erode judicial independence, to make judges constantly aware of how they might have to answer to the Senate for a given opinion. Using the recess appointment to place Mr. Pickering on the 5th Circuit has made that danger into a reality.

[splck]

I'm amazed anyone thinks the shrub is a uniter.
4 more years? Please God...NO!

[Phaenx]

The Republicans are united. Course, they are usually always well managed in terms of operating a White House and running campaigns. So that's not out of the ordinary besides when a few people are running for President and squabble like a bunch of bitches.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by smooth
Why don't we wait to talk to them after the election--when the "benefits" kick in?

No problem. How about seeing how much it helps the seniors who have a condition that requires just one expensive drug. Take for example an MS patient without prescription benefits who requires a drug that costs $10k annually? I'm sure they will be sooo much worse off than they were before.

[Conclamo Ludus]

The more one tries to unite, the more they will be pushed away in politics. Uniting looks really good, and if the uniter looks better than you, your fucked, so you have to make it look like they are the divider.

[smooth]

Originally posted by onetime2
No problem. How about seeing how much it helps the seniors who have a condition that requires just one expensive drug. Take for example an MS patient without prescription benefits who requires a drug that costs $10k annually? I'm sure they will be sooo much worse off than they were before.

My point is that we won't see anything until after the plan goes into effect. The devil's in the details, as they say, but (strangely, to my mind) we can't know the details until Bush is safely re-elected because the program won't start until then.

You evidently reached your conclusions in regards to this matter a priori. That's a rather odd stance for a social scientist. I presume one can claim to possess whatever credentials one wants in an anonymous forum--I just assumed you would be a bit more careful to ensure your behavior was consistent with your claims.

[vapusforever]

I dont think Bush even knows what he is. How can we decide...

[onetime2]

Originally posted by smooth
My point is that we won't see anything until after the plan goes into effect. The devil's in the details, as they say, but (strangely, to my mind) we can't know the details until Bush is safely re-elected because the program won't start until then.

You evidently reached your conclusions in regards to this matter a priori. That's a rather odd stance for a social scientist. I presume one can claim to possess whatever credentials one wants in an anonymous forum--I just assumed you would be a bit more careful to ensure your behavior was consistent with your claims.

Umm yeah, I looked at the details and know that those who do not have insurance now and are paying $10k per year for a drug will be better off when they have part of the cost covered by the government. It is not exactly a giant logical leap. Your logical base of "until it happens we can't know anything about it" doesn't exactly jive with the whole concept of the scientific method.

I think my posts have demonstrated my knowledge of economics quite clearly, your awe inspiring analysis of my "credentials" not withstanding.

[Superbelt]

The Issues faced were :

--A way to cover the costs of Prescription Drugs.
--To deal with the ever rising costs of Medication.

The MediPork Bill solved neither.

Instead the Issue was prostituted and perverted. Neither of the issues were solved, and the stated Price Tag was used to cover their cannibalization of the underlying medical and hospital insurance features

--Bush Fundraisers will make out as Bandits (Big Surprise), as the Medicare Doctor-Patient Relationship is sold out to HMO Insurance/Corporate Raiders. Now HMOs will tell Medicare Doctors how to practice medicine, in order to exact there pound of flesh/profit. All accounts say the Medicare overhead is annually low single digits, and that HMO overhead is usually 30%. Something has to give for this Redistribution, and that will come out of the patient's hide.

--Worst, the cost ranges betwn $400 Billion and $2 Trillion. Alot of Red Ink for The next Generation and the next few Presidents.


Furthermore:
--Medicare is prohibited from asking for buyer's discounts from Drug companies, the way the VA and Union plans do, keeping drug prices artificially high to the tax payer.

--The Re-importation of drugs from Canada is still prohibited to individuals, and it may now extend to existing state plans in Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc.

--The plan doesn't start for atleast 25 1/3 months!! And perhaps as much as 35 months. This raises suspicion that after the election, in a bait and switch move, drastic cut backs in the stated benefits are enacted, using the mounting budget and trade deficits as cover.

--Frivolous items such as Plastic Surgery is now fully deductible as "An Above-Line" deduction like IRAs and 401Ks, and therefore subsidies by taxpayers.

--The Drug Coverage has ridiculous out of pocket expenses for regular Seniors- $1,195 for $1,500 of coverage for the first $5,000 of drug expenses. And this doesn't factor in the exclusion list of covered drugs, which is as long as a flag poll.

--Current Insurance Plans may be de-stabilized, as insurance companies cancel reasonable current drug coverages, to increase profits, using the MediPork Bill as cover.


The only silver lining is that it covers catastrophic care. But the extent of this benefit is unknown, due to the exclusion lists, and considering that HMOs will squeeze patient care and actually kill patients with their cheap notion of medical practice (avoiding x-rays, blood tests).

[floonine]

I am so glad someone actually knows enough about that bill to see that it isn't uniting anyone. I think the only thing he is trying to unite is church and state.
OMG I SAID IT!
/geek

[Astrocloud]

Originally posted by onetime2

I think my posts have demonstrated my knowledge of economics quite clearly

The only thing that is clear is that you will support Dumya regardless of what he does. I'm sure some people feel the same about Michael Jordon.


As the title of the thread suggests -this is about whether or not George W. Bush is a uniter or a divider. I find it particularly hard to swallow that some people call him a uniter in the face of all logic and then argue about it.

[matthew330]

depends on which way you look at it. He's certainly united the two political parties within themselves, but further polarized them.

[Astrocloud]

Originally posted by matthew330
depends on which way you look at it. He's certainly united the two political parties within themselves, but further polarized them.

That's true BUT if you look at the context of his original quote he said the opposite about himself. That he would unite both parties behind him. He's done far worse for himself than his supporters on here would admit to.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by Astrocloud
The only thing that is clear is that you will support Dumya regardless of what he does.

Just outright lying now Astrocloud, not even an illusion of truth.
I have disagreed with many things Bush has done, this post is just one example. Did I say he was a uniter? Nope.

Claiming that I'm off topic when I very clearly pointed to several instances of Bush being either a uniter or divider and then responded to posts generated from it? Please.

[lurkette]

Sigh. If you kids can't learn to get along I'm going to have to send you to your rooms without dessert.

Seriously, onetime2 and astrocloud, this is the 2nd time in Politics I've had to pull you two apart. If you're angry, don't post till you've calmed down. If you don't get a grip I'm gonna ask you to stay out of Politics altogether. And that goes for anyone else who might be tempted to step into the fray.

Carry on. POLITELY.

[Astrocloud]

Originally posted by lurkette
Sigh. If you kids can't learn to get along I'm going to have to send you to your rooms without dessert.

Sorry mom, I promise to stay on topic and not discuss the individual making the remark. However -if someone starts thumping their chest; telling others why their opinion is better than someone else's -shouldn't we be allowed to point it out why their opinion isn't better?

I suppose it's just a false appeal to authority anyways.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm


Back on Topic

Clinton and Bush court appointments: a study in contrasts

The philosophies which Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have followed in nominating judges have been very different.

Clinton took a centrist approach and most of the persons nominated by him were clearly moderates. In fact, many liberal Democrats thought Clinton's nominees were not liberal enough.

Bush, however, has stated that the judges he regards as role models are Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the most conservative justices. He clearly wants to move the federal judiciary to the right.



Clinton, as a lawyer, law professor and former attorney general of Arkansas, was in a better position to make his own judgments about potential court nominees.

Bush has to rely almost completely on others to evaluate his judicial nominees. The right wing of the Republican Party has long taken a special interest in getting conservatives appointed to the federal courts, and a number of observers believe that both President Bush and his father have used conservative judicial appointments to curry favor with the Republican right wing.



Clinton made it clear that he wanted to diversify the federal judiciary, particularly as to race and gender. In fact, according to a Report of the Alliance for Justice, "he appointed more women and African-Americans to the federal bench than Presidents George H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter and Ford combined."

Clinton had also make it clear he wanted to appoint very qualified people and, according to the Alliance for Justice Report, the American Bar Association "ranked Clinton's appointees the most qualified of any they had assessed since they started the process (of reviewing potential court nominees) in the 1950s."



Beginning in the Eisenhower administration, the procedure has been for the Bar Association to evaluate federal judges prior to formal nominations by the president. After nearly 50 years this was discontinued by the current Bush administration because right-wing Republicans regard the ABA as "too liberal."

The importance of the Supreme Court was dramatically demonstrated by Bush v. Gore, which stopped the manual recounting of votes in Florida and effectively guaranteed Bush the presidency. In the opinions of many pro-choice advocates, Roe v. Wade is hanging by a thread. In addition, recent affirmative action and sodomy cases were decided by close votes. Many important cases have been decided by 5-4 votes in recent years.



While the Supreme Court is the most important venue, it only accepts a limited number of cases so that in most cases the decisions of the federal appellate courts are final and very significant.

Republicans rejected 60 percent of Clinton's nominees to the federal district and appellate courts. In contrast, the Democrats have approved 168 of the current Bush nominees for federal judges, while rejecting only four as ultra-conservative.

Republicans should stop whining about Democratic opposition to a very small number of ultra-conservative nominees, and Bush should start making good on his promise "to be a uniter, not a divider" by not trying to pack the federal courts with nominees who are way out of the mainstream, such as Alabama Attorney General Willliam Pryor, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, all of whom have been filibustered by Democratic senators, including Florida's two senators, Bob Graham and Bill Nelson.



Bush's recess appointment of Mississippi District Court Judge Charles Pickering to a federal appeals court seat on Jan. 16 is but the latest example of the president's pandering to his right-wing base by nominating and appointing judges out of the mainstream. This is in sharp contrast to Clinton's conciliatory approach in consulting with and getting the constitutionally mandated "advice and consent" of the Senate in appointing moderates to the courts.



John E. Clay is a retired senior partner of the international law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw. He is president of the Longboat Key Democratic Club

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pb...ST13/401260429