Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Clusterings are important, and so are long term trends.

0 Replies

Thomas, we may differ in some particulars of ideology, but I like you, and the way you think. In fact, I particularly like the fact that you think. :wink:

I should add, however, I draw comfort from the evidence you, in that you think, are among the minority when considered in regard to representative samplings of your ideologic fellows Twisted Evil

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Thomas, we may differ in some particulars of ideology, but I like you, and the way you think. In fact, I particularly like the fact that you think. :wink:

Thanks!

timberlandko wrote:

I should add, however, I draw comfort from the evidence you, in that you think, are among the minority when considered in regard to representative samplings of your ideologic fellows

What's a liberal to do? Not all political camps can have first rate intellectuals such as Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh Wink

0 Replies

Not to mention - George the lesser Smile

0 Replies

Timber........you're spinning, and it shows. There are many who think Bush scored PR points by his Kodak moment in Iraq.....and there are others who think it's more proof of his lack of substance and his dependence on the PR approach. Some think he's all photo op and no content. So......who knows. Your pronouncement that the:

Quote:

discomfiture of The Opposition in regard to the recent Pro-Administration TV spot and the PR coup of The President's Thanksgiving Surprise

is amusing to you could be an example of the exact same phenomenon in reverse.....you being the opposition in this case. It seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, but the worse the pole numbers, the harder you and a few others who engage in spinning of the numbers try to read the results in your favor.

(edited once for spelling error)

0 Replies

And fall back on Clinton anecdotes, Lola!!

Over here, we measure the decline of Bushism by the defensiveness of its supporters.

0 Replies

Maybe its just a phenomenon of partisan perspective, but from where I sit, the defensiveness, complaining and spinning seem primarily to be coming from The Opposition. They of course have mounted an offense, or at least a counter attack, but an attack characterized at once by its lack of momentum and by its offensiveness to the sensibilities of The Vast Centrist Conspiracy.

0 Replies

From where I sit, threads like this resemble endless Punch 'n' Judy shows. Don't get me wrong, I love those shows, and I enjoy (and take part in) these threads, too. Though after a while, the bashing does become a bit monotonous...

0 Replies

Timber wrote:

Quote:

but an attack characterized at once by its lack of momentum and by its offensiveness to the sensibilities of The Vast Centrist Conspiracy.

But, as you say, Timber, the above is a matter of perspective, sometimes, I'd say often, partisan.

What is the need of the cheerleading?

0 Replies

Hell, Lola, the way the game is played anymore, the cheerleaders are the best part of the show.

0 Replies

I'm not sure that's true here, Timber. Your pom-poms look kind of frayed, and the kick isn't as high as it once was...

0 Replies

I'll freely admit that Tart. And to my mind, that speaks volumes about the quality of the show. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

OK, I admit it, Timber.........cheerleaders add some fun....but which show are you talking about? Is it the Bush show you recognize as poor?

0 Replies

It takes two teams to trash the game for everyone, Lola. The Current Administration and The Opposition are at once symptomatic and causal of one another ... neither would exist in its current form if not for the other. Thats pretty much a feature of a Two Party System.

0 Replies

I can't, with any honesty, agree that Karl Rove accepts a two-party system.

0 Replies

dys, If he's pulling the strings, he must be making up his own party because what's going on doesn't resemble any party that I know of. This administration is morphing the Repubs into something unseen before.

0 Replies

Clinton also confused some democrats with his approval of right wing issues such as welfare reform.

0 Replies

Quote:

This administration is morphing the Repubs into something unseen before.

Yes. With a proviso. This administration is very much the creation of the modern Republican party.

0 Replies

Quote:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091787/

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Clinton also confused some democrats with his approval of right wing issues such as welfare reform.

What confused them? The fact that he vetoed it not once, but twice, or the fact that he finally caved in when he realized he was on the wrong side of the issue?

Quote:

Clinton Hails Welfare Reform He Vetoed
Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2000

President Clinton, who twice vetoed welfare reform, then signed it under bipartisan congressional pressure, is crowing over how effective it's been the past four years.

The nation's welfare rolls have fallen to half what they were in 1996, the year the president finally allowed the Republican-authored welfare-reform legislation to become law.

Two times Clinton vetoed the GOP measure, which received strong Democratic support on Capitol Hill. The third time the Republican-led Congress sent the welfare-reform legislation to the Oval Office, Clinton signed it under immense pressure from members of his own party.

"In four short years, we have seen a new emphasis on work and responsibility, as welfare recipients themselves have risen to the challenge and made welfare what it was meant to be - a second chance, not a way of life," Clinton said Tuesday.

In the Associated Press coverage, which went to news media outlets around the world, there was no mention of Clinton's two vetoes.

Clinton had strongly opposed the approach taken in the 1996 welfare law that limits how long recipients may collect benefits, requires them to work while on the rolls and gives incentives to employers to hire them.

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know