Actually, on Meet the Press they discussed that Iraq was one of the major issues in this election. Lieberman was being asked about his race for the senate this year, so of course that was the central point of conversation. 70% of Republican voters voted for him, while only less than half that voted for Lamont. 65% of Democrats voted for Lamont. That is astonishing, considering that many said he wouldn't win when he lost the Democratic Primary.
Most articles, and commentators have said that this election belonged to the middle ground, not to the liberal Democrats. It was not a vote for liberalism over conservatism or even Democrats over Republicans. They were voting against the status quo, and Republicans just happened to be in control of both houses at the time. But I would not overestimate Democrats' chances in 2008 or 2012.
Lieberman does not need to switch parties, as I'm sure he'd prefer to remain an Independent Democrat for as long as need be. In this political environment, he will have some real leverage. The Democrats would be foolish to ignore the moderate factions within the Congress.
Our Individual Elections
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I have much loathing for Lieberman, especially in view of his seeming myopic view that his success last Tuesday was the key development of the election (rather than, you know, widespread disaffection with Iraq). But the disadvantages attached to his presence in the party (mostly, his constant whining, threatening and Dem-bashing) will be more than offset by the fact that Dems control, among other things, the approval of judges (bye-bye, Gang of 14) and the guarding of intelligence (that which Pat Roberts kept under wraps, Jay Rockefeller will air).
Lieberman would actually be showing very little foresight to swing to the GOP side now. As I mention yesterday, Dems have a target-rich environment for Senate pickups in '08; all odds say they'll expand this majority -- which would put a GOP-ified Joe back in the minority after a mere two years (as well as making him a prime candidate for defeat in '12). The guy's self-absorbed enough he'll continue to shoot his mouth off, but I think his leverage is less than he imagines.
Lieberman would actually be showing very little foresight to swing to the GOP side now. As I mention yesterday, Dems have a target-rich environment for Senate pickups in '08; all odds say they'll expand this majority -- which would put a GOP-ified Joe back in the minority after a mere two years (as well as making him a prime candidate for defeat in '12). The guy's self-absorbed enough he'll continue to shoot his mouth off, but I think his leverage is less than he imagines.
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Not nice.OscarGuy wrote:What a schmuck. The best thing that could happen to the Dems is for him to die or become so ill he has to be replaced.
And anyway, Connecticut has a Republican governor, so that won't work out.
I suspect if the Dems just give him a chair, he'll shut up.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
What a schmuck. The best thing that could happen to the Dems is for him to die or become so ill he has to be replaced. Or, better yet, that one of the corrupt republicans in a Democratic Governorship resigns to be replaced by a Dem nominee.
And Criddic, you seem to think Bolton's going to change things but he's doing the same BS that you cite the UN does.
He vetoed a resolution to condemn actions of a terrorist nature because they were allies of the US. Namely Israel.
So much for being tough on the UN.
My opinion is that veto power should either be wholly eliminated or widely expanded to include nations that have far more power than they used to: Germany, Japan and India should all have veto power in addition to China, Russia, France, US & UK.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1163514425
And Criddic, you seem to think Bolton's going to change things but he's doing the same BS that you cite the UN does.
He vetoed a resolution to condemn actions of a terrorist nature because they were allies of the US. Namely Israel.
So much for being tough on the UN.
My opinion is that veto power should either be wholly eliminated or widely expanded to include nations that have far more power than they used to: Germany, Japan and India should all have veto power in addition to China, Russia, France, US & UK.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1163514425
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
From the Associated Press.
And I hope he does do it, because it would prove what those of us who hate him were saying all along. He is the biggest, stinkiest anus in America. And it would be a fitting slapdown to other as sholes who refused to campaign and help Ned, like the mushbrained plagairist Joe Biden who doesn't get to chair Foreign Relations and Creepy Uncle Harry Reid who kowtowed to Lieberman and publicly promised him his seniority within the Democratic party even though he was running on the I Love Me ticket. Back to the Minority, Harry!
We were right about the War On The Iraqi People in 2002 and 2003 and we were right about this schmuck.
Daily Kos puts it thusly:
Here's the bottom line for Joe -- if he leaves the Democratic Party, he'll give the GOP a short-lived 50-50 majority. But in 2008, the Senate map is ALL Democratic pickups. And Lieberman can then enjoy life in a big GOP minority.
So I full expect him to jump to the dark side. It's what his voters want, it's what his financiers want, it's what his strategists want. You get elected with Republican voters, money and advice, you sort of end up indebted to the other side.
Or, he thinks he's being funny and clever by taunting the Democratic caucus.
Either way, his career is over in two years. With a big Democratic majority, he'll no longer have the leverage to hold Democrats hostage, and the minority Republicans will have no use for him.
So he should enjoy these next two years as much as he can. Because by helping deliver the big Democratic majority in 2008, we'll finish the job we started this year.
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
LIEBERMAN WON'T RULE OUT GOP CAUCUSING
Would make change if he felt uncomfortable
(A.P.) November 13, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats.
Lieberman, a Democrat who won reelection as an independent, also said he wants to be called an Independent Democrat.
A strong backer of the Iraq war, Lieberman was returned to office on Election Day with strong GOP support. He ran as an independent after he lost the Democratic primary in August to Ned Lamont.
He said yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he will begin his new term as a Democrat because it would make him part of the congressional leadership. The senator is in line to become chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
"I'm going to caucus with the Democrats both because it's good for my constituents in Connecticut, because I retained my seniority, I become a committee chair, but also I want to continue to work to bring the party back to its historic traditions of strength on national security, foreign policy, and innovation and progress in domestic policy," Lieberman said.
He said that because voters returned him to Capitol Hill as an independent, "I am now an Independent Democrat -- capital I, capital D. Matter of fact, the secretary of the Senate called my office and asked, 'How do you want to be identified,' and that's it. Independent Democrat," the senator said.
With many Senate Democrats having campaigned or raised money for Lamont, as the party's nominee, Lieberman acknowledged that it might be "a little awkward" for him back in Washington.
"They played by the traditional partisan political playbook. And I can't say I enjoyed it, but we're all grown-ups, we've got a job to do, and I'm going to do my best to get that job done," Lieberman said.
Democrats will hold a 51-49 edge in the Senate, so Lieberman, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000, could find himself courted by Republicans.
He was asked about the possibility that he might switch caucuses if he became uncomfortable as Democrats sought to enforce party discipline, particularly if the GOP offered to keep him as a committee chairman and respect his seniority.
"I'm not ruling it out, but I hope I don't get to that point. And, and I must say, and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut, nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we, we want you to switch over,' " he said.
"I believe that the American people are considering both major political parties to be in a kind of probation, because they're understandably angry that Washington is dominated too much by partisan political games, and not enough by problem-solving and patriotism, which means put the country and your state first," Lieberman said.
In 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont abandoned the GOP and aligned himself with the Democrats, putting them in control of the evenly divided Senate. The switch made him a hero among Democrats and a traitor among Republicans.
Lieberman said Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia listed himself as an Independent Democrat in the late 1970s. Before that, the last senator to use the designation was in the mid-19th century, he said.
"I am going to Washington beholden to no political group except the people of Connecticut and, of course, my conscience," he said.
And I hope he does do it, because it would prove what those of us who hate him were saying all along. He is the biggest, stinkiest anus in America. And it would be a fitting slapdown to other as sholes who refused to campaign and help Ned, like the mushbrained plagairist Joe Biden who doesn't get to chair Foreign Relations and Creepy Uncle Harry Reid who kowtowed to Lieberman and publicly promised him his seniority within the Democratic party even though he was running on the I Love Me ticket. Back to the Minority, Harry!
We were right about the War On The Iraqi People in 2002 and 2003 and we were right about this schmuck.
Daily Kos puts it thusly:
Here's the bottom line for Joe -- if he leaves the Democratic Party, he'll give the GOP a short-lived 50-50 majority. But in 2008, the Senate map is ALL Democratic pickups. And Lieberman can then enjoy life in a big GOP minority.
So I full expect him to jump to the dark side. It's what his voters want, it's what his financiers want, it's what his strategists want. You get elected with Republican voters, money and advice, you sort of end up indebted to the other side.
Or, he thinks he's being funny and clever by taunting the Democratic caucus.
Either way, his career is over in two years. With a big Democratic majority, he'll no longer have the leverage to hold Democrats hostage, and the minority Republicans will have no use for him.
So he should enjoy these next two years as much as he can. Because by helping deliver the big Democratic majority in 2008, we'll finish the job we started this year.
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
LIEBERMAN WON'T RULE OUT GOP CAUCUSING
Would make change if he felt uncomfortable
(A.P.) November 13, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats.
Lieberman, a Democrat who won reelection as an independent, also said he wants to be called an Independent Democrat.
A strong backer of the Iraq war, Lieberman was returned to office on Election Day with strong GOP support. He ran as an independent after he lost the Democratic primary in August to Ned Lamont.
He said yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he will begin his new term as a Democrat because it would make him part of the congressional leadership. The senator is in line to become chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
"I'm going to caucus with the Democrats both because it's good for my constituents in Connecticut, because I retained my seniority, I become a committee chair, but also I want to continue to work to bring the party back to its historic traditions of strength on national security, foreign policy, and innovation and progress in domestic policy," Lieberman said.
He said that because voters returned him to Capitol Hill as an independent, "I am now an Independent Democrat -- capital I, capital D. Matter of fact, the secretary of the Senate called my office and asked, 'How do you want to be identified,' and that's it. Independent Democrat," the senator said.
With many Senate Democrats having campaigned or raised money for Lamont, as the party's nominee, Lieberman acknowledged that it might be "a little awkward" for him back in Washington.
"They played by the traditional partisan political playbook. And I can't say I enjoyed it, but we're all grown-ups, we've got a job to do, and I'm going to do my best to get that job done," Lieberman said.
Democrats will hold a 51-49 edge in the Senate, so Lieberman, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000, could find himself courted by Republicans.
He was asked about the possibility that he might switch caucuses if he became uncomfortable as Democrats sought to enforce party discipline, particularly if the GOP offered to keep him as a committee chairman and respect his seniority.
"I'm not ruling it out, but I hope I don't get to that point. And, and I must say, and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut, nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we, we want you to switch over,' " he said.
"I believe that the American people are considering both major political parties to be in a kind of probation, because they're understandably angry that Washington is dominated too much by partisan political games, and not enough by problem-solving and patriotism, which means put the country and your state first," Lieberman said.
In 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont abandoned the GOP and aligned himself with the Democrats, putting them in control of the evenly divided Senate. The switch made him a hero among Democrats and a traitor among Republicans.
Lieberman said Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia listed himself as an Independent Democrat in the late 1970s. Before that, the last senator to use the designation was in the mid-19th century, he said.
"I am going to Washington beholden to no political group except the people of Connecticut and, of course, my conscience," he said.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Sonic Youth wrote:criddic3 wrote:What is he lying about?
Psst... C'mere. Lemme whisper something in your ear. Closer...
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>DUH!!</span>
About being bi-partisan, Einstein. That was, y'know, the entire point of my post?
Yes, some of the agenda left to be resolved were Republican initiatives,
Just to put things in context, you believe the things Bush wants to pass are inarguable and reasonable. Little things like subverting the Constitution, or appointing a psychotic, U.N.-hating jerk to be our international ambassador and representative.
Just making sure.
but that doesn't mean the parties can't work together on them. So Bush reaching out is not a lie.
Criddic, are you really this dumb or is it an act?
Bush trying to get a bunch of conservative issues passed during the lame duck period of the session IS NOT "REACHING OUT"! He's getting a REPUBLICAN congress to pass his PARTISAN agenda BEFORE Democrats take over. Since when is that "reaching out"??? What this is called is LEAVING THE DEMOCRATS OUT OF THE PROCESS. He is attempting to force his conservative agenda package through before the will of the voters takes effect next year.
Now, if Bush really WERE bipartisan, he wouldn't be doing this. He would NOT be trying to cram a bunch of issues he knows will piss the Democrats off... ESPECIALLY after meeting with them and making a promise to work with them hand-in-hand. What he would be doing is bringing the issues forth directly to both sides and work out agreements and compromises that would represent the will of the people to the fullest. He would NOT produce a dish of right-wing goodies that infuriate 57% of the voters. He'd present an agglomeration of issues both sides could find agreement with. NOT a collection of his pet projects he damn well knows he'd have to fight hard for.
In other words (although I think I used them all up), he'd would be making concessions. That is, assuming he really was bipartisan, and assuming he wanted to foster a bipartisan atmosphere. Obviously he doesn't, even as he says he does. Liar to the end.
One of the main reasons that I rarely blast Clinton outright is because I understand he is a human being who was elected to one of (if not) the toughest job in the world. Not everything a President does will please everyone, especially matters of national security. This is because there are several different approaches to those issues, most of them legitimate in their ways.
President Bush today addressed a crowd at the new Museum for the Marine Corps., honoring 231 years of service. He told the story of a Marine named Dunham, who saved some of the troops in his group by jumping on a live grenade. When he had finished the story, which he told movingly, President Bush announced a posthumous Medal of Honor for him. He then concluded his remarks. As he returned to his place aside Marine generals, you could see he was holding back tears. He understands the sacrifice of the troops he has sent to battle. The President is a human being and he cares. This is why I have supported him all along. While some wish to demonize him and those who support him, I believe he is an honorable man who sees the struggle against radical Islamists as the central calling of America.
...
<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>Nurse! Quick, bring the bucket!</span>
Yeah, Einstein...
That "U.N.-hating jerk" is the best thing for America right now. We need someone who is tough on the U.N., because we want things to actually get done. The U.N. is notorious for sending mixed signals, like agreeing to resolutions condemning rogue regimes without following through on their promise for action if they don't take heed. They don't do enough. Oh, it's true that they bring certain humanitarian issues to light, but that's not enough.
The U.N. is well-supported by the United States and should have good representation there. John Bolton is the kind of Ambassador who will fight to keep corruption at bay. While he can't get paid if he is sent in a second recess appointment, I hope the President does it if the Democratic Congress blocks confirmation.
Now, I have never said that Bush's initiatives and policies are "inarguable." I do think most of them are "reasonable." The NSA program and the detainee policies are necessities to ensure our safety and to get as much information about our enemies, as well as to prevent attacks. The alternative is to leave them alone to plot, give them the freedom to mock our civilian courts and hurt us more. This is what you obviously advocate. You must be delusional to think that such a policy would make us safer. You may indeed argue that there should be proper oversight, and there should be. You may also argue about certain details in those policies, but to deny the positive impact of such tools is to deny that we have enemies who want to hurt us. You may call that a scare tactic or something, but that is only true if you don't believe there is a threat out there. And that can only be true if you believe that leaving Iraq alone now would create peace.
I don't think that President Bush is lying when he says he would work with the Democrats to get things done, but I also think he understands that this last session of Congress might be his last chance to get certain bills passed. He's just being smart. Besides, Nancy Pelosi has promised the least corrupt Congress in history, yet has decided to endorse a corruption-embattled John Murtha as the number 2 Democrat, citing his desire to withdraw troops -yesterday- from Iraq. Such a move is incredibly irresponsible. Even some Democrats have been quoted as being "puzzled" (Washington Post) by her decision.
What I was alluding to before was the fact that the Democrats' margin is rather small in terms of pushing legislation through come January will make it necessary for the new leadership and President Bush to work together. He has veto powers that cannot be overridden by such a slight majority. And yet, the margin is just high enough to be a potential barrier to his own agenda. They may not truly WANT to work hand-in-hand, but they will likely HAVE to. Thanks, very much, Einstein.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
criddic3 wrote:What is he lying about?
Psst... C'mere. Lemme whisper something in your ear. Closer...
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>DUH!!</span>
About being bi-partisan, Einstein. That was, y'know, the entire point of my post?
Yes, some of the agenda left to be resolved were Republican initiatives,
Just to put things in context, you believe the things Bush wants to pass are inarguable and reasonable. Little things like subverting the Constitution, or appointing a psychotic, U.N.-hating jerk to be our international ambassador and representative.
Just making sure.
but that doesn't mean the parties can't work together on them. So Bush reaching out is not a lie.
Criddic, are you really this dumb or is it an act?
Bush trying to get a bunch of conservative issues passed during the lame duck period of the session IS NOT "REACHING OUT"! He's getting a REPUBLICAN congress to pass his PARTISAN agenda BEFORE Democrats take over. Since when is that "reaching out"??? What this is called is LEAVING THE DEMOCRATS OUT OF THE PROCESS. He is attempting to force his conservative agenda package through before the will of the voters takes effect next year.
Now, if Bush really WERE bipartisan, he wouldn't be doing this. He would NOT be trying to cram a bunch of issues he knows will piss the Democrats off... ESPECIALLY after meeting with them and making a promise to work with them hand-in-hand. What he would be doing is bringing the issues forth directly to both sides and work out agreements and compromises that would represent the will of the people to the fullest. He would NOT produce a dish of right-wing goodies that infuriate 57% of the voters. He'd present an agglomeration of issues both sides could find agreement with. NOT a collection of his pet projects he damn well knows he'd have to fight hard for.
In other words (although I think I used them all up), he'd would be making concessions. That is, assuming he really was bipartisan, and assuming he wanted to foster a bipartisan atmosphere. Obviously he doesn't, even as he says he does. Liar to the end.
One of the main reasons that I rarely blast Clinton outright is because I understand he is a human being who was elected to one of (if not) the toughest job in the world. Not everything a President does will please everyone, especially matters of national security. This is because there are several different approaches to those issues, most of them legitimate in their ways.
President Bush today addressed a crowd at the new Museum for the Marine Corps., honoring 231 years of service. He told the story of a Marine named Dunham, who saved some of the troops in his group by jumping on a live grenade. When he had finished the story, which he told movingly, President Bush announced a posthumous Medal of Honor for him. He then concluded his remarks. As he returned to his place aside Marine generals, you could see he was holding back tears. He understands the sacrifice of the troops he has sent to battle. The President is a human being and he cares. This is why I have supported him all along. While some wish to demonize him and those who support him, I believe he is an honorable man who sees the struggle against radical Islamists as the central calling of America.
...
<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>Nurse! Quick, bring the bucket!</span>
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
What is he lying about? Yes, some of the agenda left to be resolved were Republican initiatives, but that doesn't mean the parties can't work together on them. So Bush reaching out is not a lie. You know you people must be the most heartless bunch around, because you have no reverence for the difficulties the job holds for a President.Sonic Youth wrote:criddic3 wrote:The good news for Bush is that it offers a chance to show the kind of leadership we know he's capable of by reaching out to Democrats and Independents, as well as his own party, to get real legislation passed. If President Bush and the Democratic-led Congress are truly serious about working together, which is what they have to do if they want to do anything meaningful, then both his legacy and their future will prosper as a result.
LOL! Same ol' same ol'.
Here's Bush's attempt at reaching out. Careful, don't cramp your gut laughing.
Legislation on oil drilling, nominating John Bolton, warrantless surveillance, etc etc etc. Partisan agenda, not bi-partisan legislation. But, a liar is a liar is a liar, even if his party gets voted out of the majority.
One of the main reasons that I rarely blast Clinton outright is because I understand he is a human being who was elected to one of (if not) the toughest job in the world. Not everything a President does will please everyone, especially matters of national security. This is because there are several different approaches to those issues, most of them legitimate in their ways.
President Bush today addressed a crowd at the new Museum for the Marine Corps., honoring 231 years of service. He told the story of a Marine named Dunham, who saved some of the troops in his group by jumping on a live grenade. When he had finished the story, which he told movingly, President Bush announced a posthumous Medal of Honor for him. He then concluded his remarks. As he returned to his place aside Marine generals, you could see he was holding back tears. He understands the sacrifice of the troops he has sent to battle. The President is a human being and he cares. This is why I have supported him all along. While some wish to demonize him and those who support him, I believe he is an honorable man who sees the struggle against radical Islamists as the central calling of America.
Just today, a supposed al-Qaida tape is threatening to blow up the White House. The British Intelligence have found at least 30 terror plots. With all of these things going on, I think the President knows when to play politics and when to bury the hatchet. Hopefully you who hate President Bush can try to follow in Pelosi's lead and do the same. This country needs real action and divisive politics is just a distraction.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Sonic Youth wrote:By the way, we ain't done yet. 10 House races are still undecided.
FL-13: The race for Katherine Harris's open seat is potentially going to the courts. Dem Christine Jennings trails by less than 400 votes, with reports of voting-machine problems.
Oh, the irony!
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
criddic3 wrote:The good news for Bush is that it offers a chance to show the kind of leadership we know he's capable of by reaching out to Democrats and Independents, as well as his own party, to get real legislation passed. If President Bush and the Democratic-led Congress are truly serious about working together, which is what they have to do if they want to do anything meaningful, then both his legacy and their future will prosper as a result.
LOL! Same ol' same ol'.
Here's Bush's attempt at reaching out. Careful, don't cramp your gut laughing.
Legislation on oil drilling, nominating John Bolton, warrantless surveillance, etc etc etc. Partisan agenda, not bi-partisan legislation. But, a liar is a liar is a liar, even if his party gets voted out of the majority.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Tsk, tsk, tsk... Sore loser-dom just doesn't become you, Criddic.
Whatever you personally think of Clinton, all throughout Monica-gate his approval rating never dropped below the 60's, or at least not by much and not for long. So, it doesn't matter what you think. Clinton never broke faith with the American people, and that's according to those same people. And to believe otherwise is willful idiocy. (I won't say "ignorance" because you are obviously NOT ignorant of that fact... which is why you fall back on phrases like "many Americans", a technicality that avoids having to point out any inconvenient facts. You're hardly the first liar to use that tactic.)
Bush's numbers, meanwhile, have been in the septic tank forever. He HAS broken faith with the American people, and this election was the capper. This needed explaining?
I still don't get what was "hateful" about it. You may not care for it, but I was very civil with my remarks, and intentionally so. It may be you hate what I said, but that's just your whiny deflection.
Whatever you personally think of Clinton, all throughout Monica-gate his approval rating never dropped below the 60's, or at least not by much and not for long. So, it doesn't matter what you think. Clinton never broke faith with the American people, and that's according to those same people. And to believe otherwise is willful idiocy. (I won't say "ignorance" because you are obviously NOT ignorant of that fact... which is why you fall back on phrases like "many Americans", a technicality that avoids having to point out any inconvenient facts. You're hardly the first liar to use that tactic.)
Bush's numbers, meanwhile, have been in the septic tank forever. He HAS broken faith with the American people, and this election was the capper. This needed explaining?
I still don't get what was "hateful" about it. You may not care for it, but I was very civil with my remarks, and intentionally so. It may be you hate what I said, but that's just your whiny deflection.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-- Damiencriddic will you please finally learn to include the names of the people from whom you are quoting? Thank you.
While I do sometimes name those I quote here, I wasn't singling out a particular person and felt it unnecessary. Besides, you all know what you said.
The Clinton remark was hateful, Sonic, in that it implied that he did nothing wrong while Bush has in your opinion. For many Americans, Clinton's consistent lying and half-truths, his perceived corrupt manner were breaking faith with the people. His personal approvals were often at odds with his job approvals. It is a tribute to his abilities as a politician that he was able to separate his personal flaws from his policies in the public arena. However, he remains somewhat unsuccessful as a President due to his personal/public failings and due to some decisions that may have inadvertently led to security failures. Your hatred of Bush allows you to see Clinton's actions as uneventful and harmless, while your theories about Bush the contrary. I agree that President Bush dropped the ball in the last two years, unable to keep his party concentrated on getting their agenda accomplished on actual policy like immigration or social security. In the end, this made the party vulnerable in the elections.
The good news for Bush is that it offers a chance to show the kind of leadership we know he's capable of by reaching out to Democrats and Independents, as well as his own party, to get real legislation passed. If President Bush and the Democratic-led Congress are truly serious about working together, which is what they have to do if they want to do anything meaningful, then both his legacy and their future will prosper as a result.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
