Looking ahead to Bush's second term...

Well that is confusing. I think somewhere you got something wrong because that just plain don't any sense. Why in the world would republicans adopt a plan within their own party to highlight ethical problems in another party if it does not affect the other party?

Just to show they are more ethical in that regard than the Dems. And since they no longer lived in that same glass house, they could now throw stones at the Dems without fear of being labeled hypocrites...as the Dems are in criticizing the change of an ethics rule they do not even have.

Oh, well, then I guess it really is not a big a deal as I thought. I thought the rule affected both parties and now that I see it don't, it changes the whole outlook on it.

It still seems silly to go to all the trouble of makig a rule to high light the other parties shortcomings and then when you fall short; get rid of the rule. Kind of takes the moral high ground right out from under them in my view.

The rule was modified to make its application dependent on the specific circumstances of each case...not scrapped entirely. So, at least at this point in time, the GOP still retains the ethical high ground re: this issue.

i agree with you, 100%. many say, "well? where are the abuses? what have you to report?" and then, say "so? what's your problem?"
here's the problem... once it's gone, it's gone for good. maybe nothing is happening today, though i suspect that there are indeed some nasty little things going on. but what about in the future? just what would it take for the government to push it a little farther down the field? another terrorist attack? the threat of an impending attack, with a little "intelligence" thrown in, ala "enriched materials from niger"?
how far are the american people willing to go in order to "feel safe"?

the greatest threat to the american way of life isn't that "islamists hate our freedom", but rather that we are in danger of allowing the tale of Big Brother to become a self fulfilled prophecy. imho, of course.

[quote="JamesMorrison"]I don't see much progress on the foreign policy front in the future unless Bush has a situation fall into his lap like Reagan had with the U.S.S.R. implosion.[/quote]

[color] again, i agree. reagan did do a fair bit to add to the ussr's crumbling, not the least of which was forcing them to drain every last ruble from infrastructure and put it into military (does that sound a little bit familiar to anyone here?). the ussr was driven into bankruptcy. a
unfortunately, bush isn't dealing with aggression from the same type of adversary.


[quote="JamesMorrison"]Are the youth of tomorrow to pay both social security taxes and contribute to their personal accounts? Is this the bridge to the future?JM[/quote]

[color]got me, dude. i still haven't heard the administration detail just how they plan to pay out to people that have over half of their lives invested in the social security system, when nobody is paying into it anymore. the system started out with a deficit because most of the first beneficiaries, like my grandfather never really paid much into it.

because not all republicans are from texas.

thanks larry, i needed a good laugh this morning! :wink:

Agreed.

Hard to see how the Republicans changing their rules in order to keep DeLay from being kicked out of leadership after he is indicted (which he definately is going to be) is 'keeping the ethical high ground.'

Are you sure you didn't mean to write 'keeping the monetary high ground?'

Cycloptichorn

Please cite the rule the ethically challenged Dems have to deal with an indicted member.

They don't have a rule. That's what 'case by case' basis means, yaknow.

The Republicans were the ones who formed this rule in the first place in order to point out the difference between them and the Democrats, and now they are basically reverting to the Democrat's plan of dealing with such an instance on a case-by-case basis, in order to cover Tom DeLay's a$$. There's no 'ethical superiority' here, on either side.

Cycloptichorn

Please cite the rule the ethically challenged Dems have that deals with indicted leadership, cyc.

blatham:
You have made a good observation about an "ideologically driven White House". Whether that force comes internally from its members or externally via an electoral mandate the resultant balance is important in whether or not the ideology is put into practice. If anything, this past election has eschewed the secular leaning of both the right and left coasts. A majority of red states in the geographical center are bracketed by a cordon of blue. Manifest in the election results is that more U.S. voting citizens are more comfortable with G.W. Bush's "values". The message sent is: "give me that old time religion".

But it would be wrong to attribute Bush's re-election upon this information alone. The security and terrorism issue played a large part also. Many citizens felt Bush had the right idea on this front also. The President's revamping of the Social Security system with "personal accounts" is another.

We can all argue over the fine points or "nuances" of each side of the aisle's position but the overall message sent from the electorate is: "It's the simplicity stupid!" The American people have decided that simpler is better. If it sounds good and feels good it must be true, Good vs. Evil, Us against Them. They seem to feel comfortable with the president's "gut feelings" that tell him what is "morally clear", after all what could be simpler than a gut feeling or intuition? No thinking necessary, emotions only need apply.

But what is more, many voted for the President simply because he embodied their feeling on one particular issue, whether it was abortion, less taxes, Iraq, or the war on terrorism. This "simpler" way rejects a Kerry like examination of problems and their accompanying "nuances". The secular, logical, scientific, pluralistic, examination and ultimately compromising method of intellectuals and diplomats is no longer at a premium. Colin Powell you may leave the building.

But the American people have spoken and that must be respected. Their beliefs are not wrong they are only different. We must believe that they hold to them with the same passion and conviction that we hold to ours. After all, wouldn't we, as alternative political victors, expect the same respect in return? This not the end of the liberal world. It is merely democracy in action.

Would Kerry have made a "better President" than President Bush? The answer is subjective. But those who feel that any candidate other than G.W. would have been the better choice have only thought their choice half-way thru. George W. Bush is now our legitimate leader and we should all make sure he is well informed and given every American resource so that he may make well thought-out decisions. Our duty as American citizens includes not only support of our leaders but to make sure they know exactly how we feel about every issue. The legitimacy of our leaders' springs from all of us. Long term, it is we citizens that are responsible for America's actions and its international reputation Yes we are free but responsibility is the flip side of that coin.

Do not despair for this is America. Those out voted always have the hope that they and their beliefs will be vindicated in future elections. Sounds good, but what really makes America great is the attenuation of ideologies and not their individual survival and ultimate rise to popularity. Many times the resultant synthesis from the collision of ideologies is better than the individual ideologies themselves.

JM

JM

That was a very well thought out post where the complicated was "simple" enough for us to understand it since it seems that is what we prefer.

But I want to say that it is all very well to say that america has spoken and if it only affected issues and policies in America I would agree with you.

What if for his next course of bold action President George Bush decides to wipe out terroism in Palestine? Lord knows all the reasons they are now giving for invading Iraq can certainly be contrived to use for invading Palestine.

Or France, a lot of the same reasons can be conjured up for reasons to invade France.

There are more places we could name but I think you get my drift of thought.

An observation from a political humorist: "The last time people listened to a Bush, they wandered a desert for forty years."

I just said, in my last post:



To recap:

The republicans didn't have a set rule either before 1993.

They established the set rule in order to go AWAY from the 'case-by-case' basis that the DEMOCRATS were arguing was the correct way to deal with this issue.

Now, they have reverted to a case-by-case basis. How are they superior to the democrat system? It's the exact same system, except the Republicans had to change their no-tolerance rule when it didn't fit the reality of the situation. It only shows how hollow the rule was in the first place; they never actually intended to use it, just to hold it up to shame democrats. Hardly morally or ethically superior.

Cycloptichorn

I know of no "case-by-case" rule, the Dems have for dealing specifically with indicted leaders, like the GOP now has.

If they do, please cite that "case by case" rule.

The whole POINT of taking it on a case-by-case basis is that you don't NEED a written rule....

Every time it comes up, you make a decision on what to do. It's called 'common sense,' instead of the overly strict method the Republicans advocated, and now are having to back off of.

Cycloptichorn

Ah so, that is what I thought. NOTHING requires the Dems to make a decision re: the indictment of their leaders, as does the revised GOP plan.

Thank ya, thank ya vera mush.

A meaningless difference, and you know it...

This is more of the same bullsh*t they had from before. Do you know what would happen if they (the GOP) didn't want to make a decision? Why, they would do what they just did - meet and change the rules. There is no moral superiority here, just posturing.

Cycloptichorn

Nope, the GOP has a rule that requires them to convene and decide whether to have a leader step down if indicted.

The Dems do not have such a requirement.

No matter how you try to rationalize it, it is as simple as that.