I'm curious ... of all the people showing shock and outrage over the Micheal Vic dog fighting controversy, i.e. the inhumane treatment up to and including execution for undesired dogs, how many of those same people are pro choice when it comes to undesired pregnancies?
I imagine next PETA and the environmentalists whom live in trees to prevent the commercial "slaughter" of Redwoods will get together and have a conference with Planned Parenthood in order to discuss just how heartless and intolerant conservative Christians are. Just a thought.
FR
Monday, September 3, 2007
Bias on Display ...
It's these little sophomoric assumptions that drive me insane. You see "resignations" occurring as the administration's second term is winding down and your assumptions leap to "cracking up", "hemorrhaging", etc. And to top it all off, to whom do you leap to as the immediate comparison for all things Bush? Nixon of course. Listen meat head, resignations occur all throughout administrations, but especially as the second term is coming to a close. These people (outside of Gonzalez) are leaving in order to pursue professional possibilities while their name is still "hot." And it's much more so when your last boss is STILL president. This is an age old tradition for cabinet members and senior staff. In the AG's case he just didn't handle his PR well, and was consumed by the DNC smear machine. In reality, the federal prosecutors he fired wasn't a scandal at all - he fired 6, while Clinton/Reno fired all 96! As was their right to do so. They work at the discretion of the president.
The truth is, Bush has had more loyal and long term senior staff / cabinet members than most modern presidents. The longest serving sec def. The longest serving senior advisor in Rhove, Condi has been with him from the start, and he has a grand total of three press secretaries - how many did Clinton go through? Lets take a look, shall we - and I'll only use numbers through 1997 - 5 years worth of sith lord Clinton's service, just to put the "umph" in your six year surprise at Bush & co. In those 5 years Billy "the dry cleaner can get that right out" Clinton had: 2 secretaries of state; 2 secs of treasury; 3 secs of defense; 2 secs of Agriculture; 3 secs of commerce (although the first died); 2 secs of Labor; 2 HUD secs; 2 secs of Transportation; and 2 secs of Energy. And add to that the countless senior staffers/advisers such as Stephonopolous, Dee Myers, Dick Morris, etc. And some of those left in the first term and under scandal! The fact that many in the Bush White house held on till half way through the second term goes is to his credit. And again, outside of Gonzales not one of these resignations were due to scandal - unlike Nixon or Clinton, making your tricky dick analogy tantamount to cow dung. If any recent president has the most to share with Nixon it is none other than William Jefferson Clinton. These resignations are par for the second term course - nothing more. Hardly a "hemorrhage."
The truth is, Bush has had more loyal and long term senior staff / cabinet members than most modern presidents. The longest serving sec def. The longest serving senior advisor in Rhove, Condi has been with him from the start, and he has a grand total of three press secretaries - how many did Clinton go through? Lets take a look, shall we - and I'll only use numbers through 1997 - 5 years worth of sith lord Clinton's service, just to put the "umph" in your six year surprise at Bush & co. In those 5 years Billy "the dry cleaner can get that right out" Clinton had: 2 secretaries of state; 2 secs of treasury; 3 secs of defense; 2 secs of Agriculture; 3 secs of commerce (although the first died); 2 secs of Labor; 2 HUD secs; 2 secs of Transportation; and 2 secs of Energy. And add to that the countless senior staffers/advisers such as Stephonopolous, Dee Myers, Dick Morris, etc. And some of those left in the first term and under scandal! The fact that many in the Bush White house held on till half way through the second term goes is to his credit. And again, outside of Gonzales not one of these resignations were due to scandal - unlike Nixon or Clinton, making your tricky dick analogy tantamount to cow dung. If any recent president has the most to share with Nixon it is none other than William Jefferson Clinton. These resignations are par for the second term course - nothing more. Hardly a "hemorrhage."
Help Wanted...
Isn't it a wonder that there are so many unemployed people in the Washington D.C. area?
Carl Rove, Al Gonzales, Rummy, Ari, McClellan, Tony Snow, John Snow... Bush's White House has been hemorrhaging staff like a severed aorta! On the upside for those leaving the job though... it seems that you can make millions by writing a book. According to the examples of O'Neal and Clarke, being forced to resign your White House appointment is as good as a multi-million dollar best seller!
Tony Snow need never worry about "being able to feed his family on only $168,000" again... not only can he go back to FOX News as the new White House commentator, but his book deal should net him residuals that will carry his grand kids on to Harvard degrees.
I am honestly curious... when was the last time that a two-term President had this many resignations in less than 6 years? It MUST be Nixon (who else?), but that's not a very flattering historical comparison, is it?
Couple that with the mass defection of GOP members in Missouri and Kansas, led by Koster in the MO State Legislature, and the scene is set for a real divide in the GOP come '08.
What is the cause of all this hubbub? Why the failure of the GOP since '94? What is the reason for all this drama?
T
Carl Rove, Al Gonzales, Rummy, Ari, McClellan, Tony Snow, John Snow... Bush's White House has been hemorrhaging staff like a severed aorta! On the upside for those leaving the job though... it seems that you can make millions by writing a book. According to the examples of O'Neal and Clarke, being forced to resign your White House appointment is as good as a multi-million dollar best seller!
Tony Snow need never worry about "being able to feed his family on only $168,000" again... not only can he go back to FOX News as the new White House commentator, but his book deal should net him residuals that will carry his grand kids on to Harvard degrees.
I am honestly curious... when was the last time that a two-term President had this many resignations in less than 6 years? It MUST be Nixon (who else?), but that's not a very flattering historical comparison, is it?
Couple that with the mass defection of GOP members in Missouri and Kansas, led by Koster in the MO State Legislature, and the scene is set for a real divide in the GOP come '08.
What is the cause of all this hubbub? Why the failure of the GOP since '94? What is the reason for all this drama?
T
Sunday, September 2, 2007
The Stranger...
Okay, now I am just playing around. Hehe...
I do think this is just about the best Joel album ever, though... and Scenes is one of his best songs. The Entertainer is right up there, too (Streetlife Serenade, '74, but I didn't include it on the poll... not even in the top 5 of his best albums).
Damn good album... do you even remember vinyl, Ryan?
*snicker*
I do think this is just about the best Joel album ever, though... and Scenes is one of his best songs. The Entertainer is right up there, too (Streetlife Serenade, '74, but I didn't include it on the poll... not even in the top 5 of his best albums).
Damn good album... do you even remember vinyl, Ryan?
*snicker*
Titus: One more thing...
Back to James' question about a republican resurgence in Congress...
I can't stress enough that I agree whole-heartedly now (as I did four years ago) that the Dems have forgotten how to lay down a clear and detailed plan of how they intend to "fix"... or at least "improve" on... the failings of the Republican administrations of Bush since '01.
The problem I see with the GOP right now is that they are falling into the same trap. Sure, Pelosi and the Gang are still "top dog" when it comes to meaningless rhetoric with no details or content... but when was the last time you heard the President or any other top Republican leader lay out a clearly defined agenda of what is to be done and how it is going to happen? I'd say it was the "No Child Left Behind" Act... but a strong case could be made that it goes all the way back to Homeland Security and the immediate aftermath of 9-11. Pelosi's "To Do" List is now (and was when given) a joke, and nothing is going to come of any of it. No one can hold a majority in Congress based solely on the platform of "at least we aren't Republicans!"... but it does seem that this is (once again) going to be how the GOP tries to win back the majority in both Houses... pointing fingers at the failings (perceived or real) of the Dems during their majority control.
It never stops amazing me that in an age when the average national campaign can easily spend budgets that soar into the hundreds of millions of dollars, candidates and incumbents can't hire someone to do a little research and draft up even rudimentary "plans" for how best to address some of America's more pressing domestic and foreign policy issues. Simply showing the voting public (which is less than 45% of the eligible population, I admit) that the candidate is aware of the problem and has taken the time to investigate it to a degree that gives him more than one option if elected would put that person MILES ahead of the game, in my eyes.
All it would take is enough of a scripted knowledge of the issue and its possible solutions to put a candidate from either side right on top of the polls.... but no one ever listens to me.
T
I can't stress enough that I agree whole-heartedly now (as I did four years ago) that the Dems have forgotten how to lay down a clear and detailed plan of how they intend to "fix"... or at least "improve" on... the failings of the Republican administrations of Bush since '01.
The problem I see with the GOP right now is that they are falling into the same trap. Sure, Pelosi and the Gang are still "top dog" when it comes to meaningless rhetoric with no details or content... but when was the last time you heard the President or any other top Republican leader lay out a clearly defined agenda of what is to be done and how it is going to happen? I'd say it was the "No Child Left Behind" Act... but a strong case could be made that it goes all the way back to Homeland Security and the immediate aftermath of 9-11. Pelosi's "To Do" List is now (and was when given) a joke, and nothing is going to come of any of it. No one can hold a majority in Congress based solely on the platform of "at least we aren't Republicans!"... but it does seem that this is (once again) going to be how the GOP tries to win back the majority in both Houses... pointing fingers at the failings (perceived or real) of the Dems during their majority control.
It never stops amazing me that in an age when the average national campaign can easily spend budgets that soar into the hundreds of millions of dollars, candidates and incumbents can't hire someone to do a little research and draft up even rudimentary "plans" for how best to address some of America's more pressing domestic and foreign policy issues. Simply showing the voting public (which is less than 45% of the eligible population, I admit) that the candidate is aware of the problem and has taken the time to investigate it to a degree that gives him more than one option if elected would put that person MILES ahead of the game, in my eyes.
All it would take is enough of a scripted knowledge of the issue and its possible solutions to put a candidate from either side right on top of the polls.... but no one ever listens to me.
T
Titus: Hmmm...
As much as it still tickles me to see the GOP implode with such fiery abandon (it must be a remnant of my misguided liberal youth), this kind of issue is negating the GOP's ability to point to items like Lewinski as indicative of general "liberal Democrat" behavior and is taking away the moral "high ground" that the GOP has fronted since the 1970's.
Now, while I am not a subscriber to the idea that the GOP has a lock on moral issues in this nation, and I still feel that the largest of moral issues are out of the realm of governmental authority anyway, the GOP does need to do a serious bit of self-examination over the next few months, so that the party can focus on needed issues and topics for the next year... '08 (election year, for those who live on Tatooine or Curosant... hehe).
A "resurgence"? I don't know. Keep in mind that the general feeling of malaise in this country concerning government stems from only one real source... perceived government failings. In 2001, we had the invasion of Afghanistan. In 2003, the invasion of Iraq. In 2005 we had the single, largest, most devastating natural disaster to EVER hit the US (Katrina... damn her!). Spread over the entire time frame, we have run-away gas prices, a housing market that is about to crash due to damn-near criminal corporate refinancing practices and killer interest rates, an economy that can't seem to self-sustain at all, and a job market that is as low as it has been in 35 years.
None of these issues have been satisfied in the eyes of the general public either. The focus of the resulting unhappiness is always going to be the White House (and Congress, to a lesser degree), and that means people are going to associate the failings of government (real or perceived) as the fault of the GOP and G.W. Bush. That is the biggest road-block to a resurgence, not some men's room trist by a has-been Senator from Idaho.
As concerns the comment made by Jambo and his "report cord"... I did say he sent his final grades, but if you recall the discussion, we talked of a project where we combined our efforts into a uniform format and could refine and revisit topics at will. I did not get THAT kind of input from Jambo... only a list of his final grades.
Now that I think about it, though... it may be that James' list of Presidents went as far back as McKinley. My later work on the topic did take the list back all the way to the 19th Century, and he may have given me that big of a list. Let me look into it.
Surely no one will argue that an idea as well-thought and meaty as this one is worth revisiting... especially as this is such a great format (the blog, I mean) for publishing and viewing (read showing) the content to a large audience.
Who would contend that an objective, rational look at the actions and abilities of former (and one current) President isn't something the three of us could be very good at? At least one of us is capable of doing volumes of research on historical data, while another is an accomplished writer (and "published"... yes, we know!), and between the three of us, we have a broad, balanced view of history... a Democrat, a Conservative Republican, and a moderate "fence sitter".
Once again, I state: This is an idea worth pursuing, my friends.
Now, while I am not a subscriber to the idea that the GOP has a lock on moral issues in this nation, and I still feel that the largest of moral issues are out of the realm of governmental authority anyway, the GOP does need to do a serious bit of self-examination over the next few months, so that the party can focus on needed issues and topics for the next year... '08 (election year, for those who live on Tatooine or Curosant... hehe).
A "resurgence"? I don't know. Keep in mind that the general feeling of malaise in this country concerning government stems from only one real source... perceived government failings. In 2001, we had the invasion of Afghanistan. In 2003, the invasion of Iraq. In 2005 we had the single, largest, most devastating natural disaster to EVER hit the US (Katrina... damn her!). Spread over the entire time frame, we have run-away gas prices, a housing market that is about to crash due to damn-near criminal corporate refinancing practices and killer interest rates, an economy that can't seem to self-sustain at all, and a job market that is as low as it has been in 35 years.
None of these issues have been satisfied in the eyes of the general public either. The focus of the resulting unhappiness is always going to be the White House (and Congress, to a lesser degree), and that means people are going to associate the failings of government (real or perceived) as the fault of the GOP and G.W. Bush. That is the biggest road-block to a resurgence, not some men's room trist by a has-been Senator from Idaho.
As concerns the comment made by Jambo and his "report cord"... I did say he sent his final grades, but if you recall the discussion, we talked of a project where we combined our efforts into a uniform format and could refine and revisit topics at will. I did not get THAT kind of input from Jambo... only a list of his final grades.
Now that I think about it, though... it may be that James' list of Presidents went as far back as McKinley. My later work on the topic did take the list back all the way to the 19th Century, and he may have given me that big of a list. Let me look into it.
Surely no one will argue that an idea as well-thought and meaty as this one is worth revisiting... especially as this is such a great format (the blog, I mean) for publishing and viewing (read showing) the content to a large audience.
Who would contend that an objective, rational look at the actions and abilities of former (and one current) President isn't something the three of us could be very good at? At least one of us is capable of doing volumes of research on historical data, while another is an accomplished writer (and "published"... yes, we know!), and between the three of us, we have a broad, balanced view of history... a Democrat, a Conservative Republican, and a moderate "fence sitter".
Once again, I state: This is an idea worth pursuing, my friends.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Jambo: Titus said bad tastes...
Linger no matter what. So in the light of the recent departure of two prominent Republican senators, does that sink the hopes of a Republican resurgence in 2008?
Keep in mind, I am not a Republican. But since the Democrats have done nothing with the majority in both houses the Republicans had a chance. Any campaign next year could point to some Pelosi speech in December '06, citing her "To Do" list in the first hundred days of Congress of '07 and insert a canned laugh track. There is no Legislative Branch consolidation concerning war powers, no immigration bill, and nothing on health care.
Is it impossible to look past Craig's humiliation and Warner's retirement? And who'd have thought three years ago that Virginia could have two Democrat senators?
F.Ryan, are you losing hair?
Keep in mind, I am not a Republican. But since the Democrats have done nothing with the majority in both houses the Republicans had a chance. Any campaign next year could point to some Pelosi speech in December '06, citing her "To Do" list in the first hundred days of Congress of '07 and insert a canned laugh track. There is no Legislative Branch consolidation concerning war powers, no immigration bill, and nothing on health care.
Is it impossible to look past Craig's humiliation and Warner's retirement? And who'd have thought three years ago that Virginia could have two Democrat senators?
F.Ryan, are you losing hair?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
