86 replies to this topic

[waterpanther]

Quote

Merry Christmas! Really.

And a Merry Fitzmas to you.  Really!

Quote

I've been to Austin, the capital city, and that is a very liberal city. They can't stand Bush.

The Rio Grande Valley is also very blue.

Edited by waterpanther, 25 December 2005 - 07:40 PM.

[Nonny]

waterpanther, on Dec 25 2005, 04:38 PM, said:

The Rio Grande Valley is also very blue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd like a blue Christmas without him....   

Nonny

[CJ AEGIS]

Official Warning:

This warning applies to the following members for the following posts:
Ogami

Quote

No one's forcing you to read it if you don't want to. I'm not your nanny.

waterpanther

Quote

And I'm not your teacher. By all means, proceed as illogically as you please.

These posts are violations of Section 1A of the EI Guidelines:

Quote

1A. Healthy disagreement is welcome, as long as criticisms are focused on the ideas being expressed rather than on the people expressing them. Responding to other posters with insulting, dismissive or deliberately disruptive comments violates this spirit. Therefore, posters who make such comments may be required to edit them. A poster who persists in making such comments may be warned, and may face suspension from the forum where the behavior occurs, or further penalties depending on the persistence and/or severity of the behavior.

As stated in the Forum Charter for Orbis Terrarum, this is ultimately a discussion forum for politics, history, and current events. The environment should allow questions, answers, and discussions to flourish. Personal insults and attacks against each other lower the level of discussion in the entire forum. This type of behavior constitutes a violation of 1A of the guidelines of EI.  In addition this is a notice to Waterpanther that this is your second warning in OT and another will result in a suspension from the forum.

If a fellow user's opinions annoy you, then we suggest that you take the higher road and not respond to them or you should directly address the topic at hand. If they are violation of the guidelines with their post then contact one of the OT Moderators and we will deal with it. Insults, dismissive, or snide comments directed at your fellow posters are violations of 1A and that type of behavior will not be tolerated.

Any questions or comments on this warning must be directed to AQG or handled by PMing one of the OT Staff or Admins.  Per Article 5 Section 1 of the OT Policies & Procedures these types of comments cannot be addressed in OT.  

Thank You for Your Time
CJ AEGIS
End of Official Warning

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 26 December 2005 - 08:37 AM.

[mjtian]

Hey my State (Missouri) is finally agreeing with me, although its a little too late   :pout:



mjtian

[Batrochides]

I regret to say that any poll that reports that Bush's negative approval, whether taken as a national whiole or state-by-state, is, for all practical political purposes, useless insofar as it points to partisan success in either the 2006 Congressional elections or the 2008 Presidential election.

President Bush, like every other President in post-WWII history, became a lame duck the moment he was re-elected for a second and concluding term. Ideologically, the battle map remains barely changed, so that once again the Congressional electoral fights will be fought more on local issues and provincial candidate assessment rather than on national issues.

Batrochides

[waterpanther]

Lame duck is as lame duck does.  If I recall correctly, President Clinton retained approval ratings in the 60's all through his impeachment.  He was hampered by a hostile, partisan Congress, not by sinking popularity with the electorate.  It's yet to be seen how Bush's losses will play out with his party members in Congress, but a number of them already seem to be distancing themselves from him.

Bottom line:  if the electorate is sufficiently unhappy with Bush's policies, specifically Iraq and its surrounding issues, as well as the economy, they will elect Senators and Representatives who will remedy those policies, of whatever party.  If they are sufficiently unhappy that they want him impeached or forced to resign, au Nixon, then they will elect to Congress those who will impeach or Bush or chivvy him out the back door of the White House.  Those representatives are currently more likely to be Democrats, but by next November there are likely to be a lot more Republicans willing to try to save their own skins at Bush's expense.  We'll see what happens.

[Spectacles]

Quote

WP: It's yet to be seen how Bush's losses will play out with his party members in Congress, but a number of them already seem to be distancing themselves from him.

Santorum for one. Heck, Santorum's distancing himself from himself. So far, though, Casey leads in the polls in PA.

http://www.post-gaze...5361/628284.stm

[Batrochides]

My dear waterpanther:

With all due respect, President Clinton's (likely his favorite) policies during the first two years of his Administration, with followed traditional post-Vietnam Democratic thought, badly wounded his ill-found 1992 image as a moderate, and in any case incensed the opposition in 1994 to the point that the House of Representatives was shorn of a good number of the Watergate era Democrats, and that party have still not recaptured the House despite the fall of Newt in the distant past and rosy predictions since.

Further, when you contend that the electorate will choose a politician of any stripe ("of whatever party") simply because there is disapproval over the handling of the conflict in Iraq, this utterly ignores recent political history which indicates that such decisions are made on a wide range of issues, not to mention those cultural issues which have proven to be the bugbear against Democratic Party success since 1968.

America is not a parliamentary democracy focused around centrally-controlled parties; as Tip O'Neill put it: "all politics is local."

Best wishes.

Batrochides

Edited by Batrochides, 28 December 2005 - 05:55 PM.

[Spectacles]

More about how Santorum's affiliation with Bush is hurting him in PA:

http://www.centredai...ly/13396630.htm

Quote

Posted on Tue, Dec. 13, 2005
Poll: Santorum's support of Bush hurts re-election prospects
MARTHA RAFFAELE
Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. - U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's support of President Bush hurts his chances for re-election next year, Pennsylvania voters said by a 2-1 margin in a poll released Tuesday.

More than one-third of all Republicans surveyed in the Quinnipiac University poll also said Santorum's re-election prospects aren't helped by his support of the president.

The poll showed Democratic state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. leading the two-term Republican incumbent by 50 percent to 38 percent in the 2006 Senate race, compared to a 52-to-34 percent lead in Quinnipiac's October poll. Voters also said they disapprove of Bush's job performance, 59 percent to 38 percent.

As a result, Santorum has done some things lately to distance himself from Bush, such as pointedly not attending a Bush appearance in PA.

I suspect that Republicans in states where Bush's disapproval rating is high will be doing what Santorum is doing unless Bush's numbers turn around.

[DWF]

I can't imagine why his approval rating are down.  

http://www.dailyhaha.../bush_movie.htm

[waterpanther]

Quote

America is not a parliamentary democracy focused around centrally-controlled parties; as Tip O'Neill put it: "all politics is local."

Coffins coming home from Iraq are very local.  Peoples' wallets are even more local, and more tender.  Rising energy and medical costs are especially painful for many.

[Ogami]

Here's a slogan the Democratic party might conceivably use: "Vote for us, Bush fooled us like we were a bunch of rank amateurs, so that means we know what we are doing."

[Eskaminzim]

^^^ Kinda catchy, but I think it would be better if it rhymed.

[BklnScott]

I'm curious, Ogami, what you think Bush fooled "us" about?  Are you referring to lying about Iraqi WMDs, or lying about Iraq's connection to Al Qaeda & 9/11?  Inquiring minds wanna know (I wanna know!)  

[Ogami]

_Ph asked:

I'm curious, Ogami, what you think Bush fooled "us" about?

Isn't that the claim of every Democrat with an office in Washington? The Democrats voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, the Democrats voted to authorize the Patriot Act. Then they all pretend like they didn't read what they were signing, that Bush fooled them. John Kerry has been saying this for years now, it shouldn't be news. Of course, it does make the Democrats look rather clueless if they vote for stuff just to "look good", without looking at any of it.

So that would make a catchy slogan for the Dems: "Vote for us, we didn't read what we were voting for. But if we did, you know we'd do it better!"

-Ogami

[waterpanther]

Actually, what the Democrats are claiming, and truthfully, is that Bush lied to them, by commission in assuring everyone who would listen that Saddam had WMD and was complicit in the 9-11 attacks, and by omission, withholding information that would contradict his position.  Were the Dems wrong to be bamboozled?  Sure, they were.  They should have figured out by then that Gee Dubya is an habitual liar.   (My personal favorite of GW's lies is "Iraq wouldn't let the U. N. inspectors in," pronounced while the inspectors were actually in Iraq and Gee Dubya standing beside Khofi Annan.  The incident speaks volumes for Mr. Annan's ability as a diplomat.  It also speaks volumes for Mr. Bush's--limitations.

[Ogami]

Waterpanther wrote:

Actually, what the Democrats are claiming, and truthfully, is that Bush lied to them, by commission in assuring everyone who would listen that Saddam had WMD and was complicit in the 9-11 attacks, and by omission, withholding information that would contradict his position.

So you believe Senate and House Democrats when they claim that the intelligence reports they received all those years (including the Clinton years) were fabricated by Bush? I'd like to know how Bush deliberately falsified such intelligence to these congressmen, while he was still governor of Texas! The Democrats gave speech after speech when Clinton was president over Saddam's known WMD, why did this suddenly become a deliberate lie when Bush became president? What a lucky break!

They should have figured out by then that Gee Dubya is an habitual liar.

But why take my word for it, when I can back up everything I say with rock solid quotes from those very same Democrats?

The difference between you and me, Waterpanther, is that you can only tell me how you "know" Bush lied. I can prove the Democrats are lying now, with their own precise words from 1998:

Quote

We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.

In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.

Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

http://www.iraqwatch...in-10-9-98.html

Whoomp, there it is.

Edited by Ogami, 29 December 2005 - 11:14 PM.

[Balderdash]

Ogami, on Dec 30 2005, 12:13 AM, said:

Waterpanther wrote:

Actually, what the Democrats are claiming, and truthfully, is that Bush lied to them, by commission in assuring everyone who would listen that Saddam had WMD and was complicit in the 9-11 attacks, and by omission, withholding information that would contradict his position.

So you believe Senate and House Democrats when they claim that the intelligence reports they received all those years (including the Clinton years) were fabricated by Bush? I'd like to know how Bush deliberately falsified such intelligence to these congressmen, while he was still governor of Texas! The Democrats gave speech after speech when Clinton was president over Saddam's known WMD, why did this suddenly become a deliberate lie when Bush became president? What a lucky break!

They should have figured out by then that Gee Dubya is an habitual liar.

But why take my word for it, when I can back up everything I say with rock solid quotes from those very same Democrats?

The difference between you and me, Waterpanther, is that you can only tell me how you "know" Bush lied. I can prove the Democrats are lying now, with their own precise words from 1998:

Quote

We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.

In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.

Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

http://www.iraqwatch...in-10-9-98.html

Whoomp, there it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Whoomp, there it is."  

I'm glad that I decided to read the entire thing.  The problem these Democrats AND Republicans were addressing was Saddam putting the weapons inspectors out of the country.  They were not advocating war but missle strikes on military targets and giving the President some teeth when he tried to work with Saddam through diplomacy.

Mr. President, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted when he successfully negotiated the memorandum of agreement with Saddam Hussein in February, `You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by fairness and force.' It is my sincere hope that Saddam Hussein, when faced with the credible threat of the use of force, will comply with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. But, I believe that we must carefully consider other actions, including, if necessary, the use of force to destroy suspect sites if compliance is not achieved.

[Ogami]

Balderdash claimed:

The problem these Democrats AND Republicans were addressing was Saddam putting the weapons inspectors out of the country. They were not advocating war but missle strikes on military targets and giving the President some teeth when he tried to work with Saddam through diplomacy.

Why is this a "problem"? It is the Democrats claiming today that they were lied to by Bush about Saddam's WMD. Apparently the Democrats have the memory of goldfish, they certainly believed the intelligence about Saddam's WMD before Bush came along. This would indicate that the Democrats are engaging in pure partisanship during a time of war, and that does not reflect anything good about them save their own crass desire for power.

-Ogami

[waterpanther]

Quote

The difference between you and me, Waterpanther, is that you can only tell me how you "know" Bush lied. I can prove the Democrats are lying now, with their own precise words from 1998:

Actually, I'm afraid you can't, not with the material you've cited or even the quote taken out of context.  Like Baldy, I read the whole thing, and there is not a single mention in either of those letters of extant weapons of mass destruction.  They refer to "weapons of mass destruction programs (or programmes)" being inspected and destroyed, not actual weapons.  There is a difference, you know.  The accuracy of the language seems to be borne out by Bush's own ultimate stand-down from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction program related activities" in his 2005 SOTU address.  

And as Baldy pointed out, the letters hardly call for full-out war.  They recommend missile and/or bombing strikes on suspected program facilities.  These letters do not support the assertion that the signatories somehow agreed that Saddam had WMD in 2003 (five years in the future!) or that they gave their assent to the flattening of cities and the slaughter of civilians.