Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

P. Diddie is correct. We haven't seen any pictures of our fighting men that have lost limbs. Why has this happened? What is the logic behind it?
What do our leaders say about this?

Who indulged in these stupidities?

Who said:

"The decision to use force is never cost free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life."

Why Bill Clinton, in his speech of December 16th 1998 when he gave the order to bomb Iraq.

Can you imagine the most sensitive president of the twentieth century saying that???

Pierre Tristam? Is that the dynamite Pierre Tristam that writes on the pages of the Daytona Beach newpaper that has a circulation of 84,000?

Dynamite!!!

Bill Safire better look to his laurels!

You won't like this source either, but that won't change the truth...



New York Times

Do you suppose, gat, that Bill Clinton read the papers while Monica scobbed him?

Do you suppose anyone besides you could care?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DeLay calls Democrats party of 'extremist appeasement'

DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Here's a story that tells all about what DeLay said, but does not emphasize that he said it at the Heritage Foundation..........one of many hard right groups funded by Richard Mellon Scaife.....(of the Clinton impeachment fame) Anyone notice a trend here?

Why of course, you are correct, P. Diddie, to post the article from the NY Times. They say that Bush is incurious and only gets data from his top advisers. I guess you missed that part about tweaking the media. That would be Bush saying:
"I don't read what you guys write anyway"

But, the most brilliant President of the 2oth Century.

Bill Clinton.

What does the foremost Presidential Historian in the United States say about Clinton's attention to his aides?

Fred Greenstein says, in his The Presidential Difference- P.186

quote

"Despite the freedom Clinton afforded his staff, he has NOT been the kind of president who is beloved by his aides. His associates found him DIFFICULT TO ADVISE, because of the INCONSTANCY of his policy positions. He was also subject to fits of anger, and became a source of embarrassment to those of his aides who stood behind his denial of sexual involvement with Monica Lewsinksy...there was never a point at which Clinton extablished a principle of organization that conserved his energy and mitigated the tendency of his administration's policies to exist mainly IN HIS OWN MIND>"...The oxymoronic organization of the Clinton White House has been compared to a little boys'soccer team with no assigned positions and each player chasing the ball"


You were saying about President Bush????

Lola_ I take it that you do not agree with Representative Delay's political positions.

I am sure that you are aware that the new re-districting in Texas will result in three to five new Members in the Congressional House from the Republican Party in Texas.

I am sure that you know that it would be practically impossible for the Republicans to lose the House in 2004.

I don't know if you are aware that DeLay has ambitions to be speaker of the House.

You may, Lola, see DeLay as speaker in late 2004.

Would you like that? I think not.

(picturing a large black bird, all alone on a telephone pole, cawing, "Clinton's COCK! Clinton's COCK! Clinton's COCK!")

Clinton was the best Republican President of the 20th century. I would have been far happier with a liberal.

Which is precisely why Joe Lieberman stands no chance.

I don't think that Dyslexia has read the article by George F. Will written on Jan. 12, 2001 just before Clinton left office.

The Article was entitled:

Clinton's Mark

quote

"Serious historians probably will rate Clinton as perhaps more consequential than Chester Arthur- although Clinton had no achievement as substantial as Arthur's civil service reform...Clinton inherited a rising economy, the recession ended a year and a half before he entered the White House. Partly because there was a Republican Congress during three-quarters of his presidency, his politics did not interfere with the private sector's wealth creation that made possible his proudest, but not noticeably Democratic, boasts--a balanced budget, then a surplus.

The two most important policy developments of the Clinton years were the enhancement of free trade( NAFTA, GATT, normalized relations with China) and welfare reform. The former happened because Clinton favored it and most Republicans, unlike most Democrats, supported it. The latter happened because he did not dare to veto a third time what the Republicans persisted in sending to him"

end of quote


Professor Fred Greenstein agrees with Will. In his book -"The Presidential Difference. Greenstein says:

"Clinton is likely to be remembered as a politically talented underachiever, whose White House experience provides a reminder that in the absence of emotional soundness, the American presidency is a problematic instrument of democratic governance."

Does Dyslexia have any evidence to show that Clinton was the best president of the 20th century or is that just his UNSOURCED OPINION?

Here's my (un) considered opinion about Clinton's presidency. He promoted conservative initiatives, because the liberal ones wouldn't fly in the republican dominated congress. It was a time in our economy when if left alone, it did fairly well. I don't think any president has that much influence on our economy, no matter whether it's a republican or democrat. The money policies of the federal reserve board has more influence on our economy than the president, but I think too much credit is given to Greenspan. Money policy is a tricky business. It isn't science, and much of what the federal reserve does with interest rates is a guessing game more than fifty percent of the time. There is no doubt the low interest rates have helped the housing and auto industries, but I wonder if all the activities were positive ones for our future economy. Some wonder if the increased cost of housing is based on "irrational exuberance." We will find out during the next three to seven years.

Cicerone Imposter-

May I be allowed to say:

A great post.

As far as I am concerned you posited several very important truths!!!

I heard a report this morning on NPR's Morning Edition, reporter Wade Goodwin in Austin. He said now that the Democrats are out of the redistricting fight, it's now between the Republicans in the House and Senate. After all this, the Republicans may not be able agree on a map after all. On one side is House Speaker, Tom Craddick from Midland, which sits in the oil rich Permian Basin. He wants a new Congressional seat for Midland, but that means Lubbock will lose the conservative Democratic congressman, Charlie Stenholm who is the ranking Democrat on the House Agricultural Committee and is well loved in Lubbock for all he's done for the farmers and ranchers there. The district in Lubbock is Republican dominated but they love their conservative congressman, Stenholm. Ironically, Stenholm's chief defender is Republican Bob Duncan of the Senate Redistricting Committee. So it's a battle between the Republicans in the House and the Republicans in the Senate. The map of Tom Craddick with 6 more Republican seats has the support of Tom DeLay who wants to be House Speaker some day and benefits if Texas Republicans are indebted to him. Unofficially Karl Rove and George Bush also support the speaker's map. On the other side is the map of Bob Duncan. So it's oil vs. the farmers and ranchers. Duncan has made it clear that Tom DeLay, Rove and Bush do not have a seat in the Texas Senate, and the senators will support Stenholm.

Reporter Goodwin told a funny story at the end of his report. He said he was sitting in the office of the Republican Lieutenant Governor the other day and calls were pouring in from irate voters. Goodwin asked the secretary in the office, taking the calls, what was the ratio of those in support and those in opposition. The secretary smiled and said, "well, they're all mad. No one is in support. So we'll see what happens next. Only in Texas, folks........

(edited twice for spelling errors)

Oil vs ranchers, then the OK Corral.

Yes Dys, I would have been happier with a liberal myself, but Clinton beats the poo diddle out of Bush any day. Of course, anyone would

BTW, PDiddie, I know some folks who used to brief Reagan and they said he needed his reports to be as simple as possible. He couldn't understand anything more complicated than a cartoon report with little pictures and arrows. I think Bush has the same problem.

Lola. I know some folks that used to brief Clinton and they said that he was an "irascible bastard"
The "folks" I know are as good as the "folks" you know but I can add to that with evidence which you almost never provide.

Quote- Dr. Fred Greenstein- The Presidential Difference.

P. 186

QUOTE

"(Clinton) has not been the kind of president who is beloved by his aides. His associates found him difficult to advise, because of the inconstancy of his policy positions. He was also subject to fits of anger."

Dr. Fred Greenstein is one of the leading presidential historians in the United States and knows far far more about Presidents than you do. Lola.

Your "folks" matched against my "folks" AND Dr. Greenstein don't make it.

Sorry Lola.

There is an unmistakeable...resonance...to italgato's voice here. Do the rest of you concur?

It is, or at least my assumption holds it to be, a desert effect. It has the distinct characteristics about it of an Abrahamic dialogue - the parched and infertile landscape, the lonliness, the 'god and me, we're tight' thing, the big emptiness.

I think I know how he does this...just opining, but it could be like this...as he types, he talks out loud into a big old oil funnel which is fit into about 20 feet of garden hose, and which exits out into a toilet bowl where microphones pick it up and broadcast it back to his terminal.

It's a unique voice.

Lola- I will remind you when the new map is drawn in Texas which will set up the Districts to allow four or five more Republicans to win in 2004.

Cheers- Lola

Thank you-Mr. Blatham. I appreciate your insight.

Since I have some friends who live in Windsor, I think I know some of the sources of your frustrations.

If and when the Canucks can ever begin to shuck off their propensity to a warmed over Socialism and make friends with the people from Quebec, they might be able to come up with a dollar that is worth more than .65cents American.
How did you guys ever get in such a mess, Blatham.

Do you know the old saying- If your'e so smart, why aren't you rich???