George Galloway blasts the Senate

The Democrats haven't the political power or the votes to pass any legislation. They do have just enough in the Senate to block Presidential appointments and like actions. However as Cicerone has noted above there are ways around that. Moreover there is still the very likely prospect of a change in the Senate rules, engineered by the Republicans to eliminate the Democrats' ability to filibuster to stop Senate action. I believe this will happen sometime this summer in time for the next Supreme Court nominations. The Democrats are foolishly shooting their silver bullets at secondary targets.

Many Democrats believe their increasingly shrill and stubborn opposition will enhance their positions at the polls in the next elections. I don't agree with that analysis. Their chief spokesmen, Sen Reid and Rep. Nanci Pelosi are neither particularly likeable nor persuasive. They are very clear about what they oppose, based on the various agendas of the single issue groups that make up the most active elements of the party, but they have so far been unable to force all this into a coherent program expressing what they are for. Perhaps they will be able to change all that in the next two years. However there are no signs so far indicating they will be able to even begin to do that.

Second Presidential terms are usually periods of conflict and often impasse. Too early to say how this one will go, but the predictions of Bush's decline are - so far, at least - greatly exaggerated.

0 Replies

georgeob, I agree with everything except your last paragraph. This president is in trouble and in decline because his own party members are criticizing him, and beginning to distance themselves from Bush. Bush and his minions have made too many mistakes concerning social security, stem cell research, Teri Schiavo, and Iraq. All polls including FOX shows Bush in decline; that's not an exaggeration.

0 Replies

Earth to Cicerone-Earth to Cicerone--

George W. Bush is not a candidate in 2008.

George OB has apparently seen enough politics to know that an approval rating three years and four months before an election means NOTHING to the party in power.

Is Cicerone aware that Reagan's Approval rating was at a low 35% in Jan 1983, twenty two months before he smashed Walter Mondale winning 59% of the vote and 525 electoral votes?

0 Replies

It is true that there have been some breaks in Republican solidarity, just as Cicerone says. We all shall see what materializes as events continue. None of us knows for sure. At this stage in Clinton's second term, things were relatively far worse for him.

I do believe the Democrat's lack of any coherent agenda will prevent them from reaping any significant benefit from all this. They are at their best in saying NO and blocking initiatives. Beyond that one sees little there. That, I believe will be Bush's trump card.

0 Replies

chic, Just in case you've missed it, we're talking about the current president. His name is George W. Bush.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The Democrats are foolishly shooting their silver bullets at secondary targets.

Exactly.

And stay tuned for the screaming when their guns go click-click-click.

0 Replies

By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
Updated: 6:08 p.m. ET June 21, 2005June 21 - In the long run of history, a president's success is often defined by foreign policy. And for George W. Bush, the stakes are now clearer than ever: it's democracy or bust. Condoleezza Rice's sweep through the Mideast and Europe this week is providing dramatic evidence of just how much Bush understands that his reputation as president is riding largely on the success of his Arab democracy crusade. Almost since 9/11, Bush has made the spread of liberty a central theme of his presidency. But as the secretary of State told reporters traveling with her today, there is now "a new kind of urgency" to the campaign.

It's fairly clear why that is. Now slogging into its third year, the Iraq war has been a devastating, draining experience. Bush has lost much of his political standing and capital at home, polls show, and his Army is almost certain to remain occupied with this task for the remainder of his term.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
Updated: 6:08 p.m. ET June 21, 2005June 21 - In the long run of history, a president's success is often defined by foreign policy. And for George W. Bush, the stakes are now clearer than ever: it's democracy or bust. Condoleezza Rice's sweep through the Mideast and Europe this week is providing dramatic evidence of just how much Bush understands that his reputation as president is riding largely on the success of his Arab democracy crusade. Almost since 9/11, Bush has made the spread of liberty a central theme of his presidency. But as the secretary of State told reporters traveling with her today, there is now "a new kind of urgency" to the campaign.

It's fairly clear why that is. Now slogging into its third year, the Iraq war has been a devastating, draining experience. Bush has lost much of his political standing and capital at home, polls show, and his Army is almost certain to remain occupied with this task for the remainder of his term.

It is always amusing how the pundits exhibit extreme myopia when considering current events in the context of history.

This is to be expected, I suppose, since they rarely stray away from the big news story of the day.

Bush could go down as a failure if he fails!

My God, that's brilliant!

To the extent that there are Republicans who are ready to abandon the cause because of election concerns, shame on them, but that's politics and Republicans are no more immune to the imperative of getting re-elected than Democrats.

It's a flawed and complicated system driven by personal ambition as much as altruistic service, but damn it seems to work better than anything else out there.

The joke or tragedy of humanity is that we are capable of imagining a perfect world that might be within our grasp, but incapable of achieving it.

0 Replies

Gloom at end of Jerusalem summit
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas appear to have made little significant progress at a summit in Jerusalem.
Mr Sharon offered to hand over two more towns to the Palestinians within two weeks if Mr Abbas demonstrated efforts to control militant violence.

The Israelis said it was a good working meeting and reported some progress.

But the Palestinians expressed disappointment with the summit, saying it had failed to meet expectations.

"This was a difficult meeting," Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei told a news conference in the Palestinian city of Ramallah.

"There were no positive answers to the issues we raised," he said, making reference to the reopening of the airport, further releases of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank.

Ariel Sharon said for his part that he and Mr Abbas had agreed on "full co-ordination" over Israel's exit from Gaza.

0 Replies

I can't believe that Cicerone Imposter said that-

"We are talking about George W. Bush"( after I gave statistics showing that President Reagan returned from a low of 35% approval rating to a real drubbing of Mondale in the general election of 1984)

Is Cicerone Imposter serious?

Does he really mean we cannot refer to past events when we are talking about a president who is now in the Oval Office?

Cicerone Imposter really ought to tell the Presidential Historians about that SINCE THEY ARE ALWAYS USING DATA AND DOCUMENTATION TO COMPARE ONE PRESIDENT WITH ANOTHER.

If Cicerone is correct( and he is not) we could never compare the Economy of the last four years with the economy during the Clinton years( yet the Left wing does it all the time).

I will remind Cicerone Imposter of the "decline and fall" of the Bush Presidency when the Republicans keep control of the House and Senate in 2006.

0 Replies

"I have too much faith in mankind in general and the Brits in particular."

Dont fall into the mistake of thinking Tony Blair's and the British govt's attitude towards Bush reflect that of the British people. Blair is acting in the context of an alliance that goes back to 1941.

Most people in Britain regard Bush with a mixture of trepidation, loathing and humour. At the recent election, there were NO Labour pictures of Blair the world statesman with Bush, and very few pictures indeed of Blair himself...because of his association with Bush and Iraq.

The British govt.'s chief scientific advisor (no fool) is on record as saying climate change is a much greater threat to our well being than terrorism, yet Bush wont even admit to it being a problem, let alone ratify Kyoto.

Most people are deeply suspicious about Bush's Global war of Terrorism, and what lays behind it. They look at the failure to capture bin Laden, and the unnecessary war in Iraq and wonder.

And they look at the odd map and think you know if the Americans put gas and oil pipelines through Afghanistan, it would avoid going through Iran or Russia.

And regime change in Syria would provide the best route for the vast untapped reserves in the western desert of Iraq, avoiding the vulnerable straights of Hormuz.

And its all justified because a bunch of nutters flew planes into the WTC and pentagon.

George Bush will do whatever he wants. It might be good for him and the US, but the ordinary people in Britain are extremely sceptical of the good intentions of GW Bush towards the rest of the world.

0 Replies

I couldnt have put that better myself, Steve.

I thoroughly agree.

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

I will remind Cicerone Imposter of the "decline and fall" of the Bush Presidency when the Republicans keep control of the House and Senate in 2006.

I think this is a particularly important point on which chiczaira is likely correct. Certainly present events can be interpreted either way, depending on how much value or import one attaches to this or that symptom of what is going on. However the outcome of the next Congressional elections will be a rather clear indication of the relative success of Democrats and Republicans in presenting policy alternatives to the American voters.

Then we will get some real feedback on the effects of Democrat obstructionism in the Congress -- are they the Dutch boy holding back the flood of evil Republican appointees and legislation, or are they mean-spirited finders of fault who have little to offer themselves? Everytime I see Sen Reid or Rep. Pelosi in their generally overwrought and angry soundbites my conviction that the latter perception will win out is reinforced. The Democrats have experienced a downward trend in the Senate for the last thirty years, and there is little evidence to suggest a reversal anytime soon. Most estimates of the next election in the House show republicans holding their majority by a healthy margin. Just retaining majorities in both houses of Congress during a second term is quite unusual in American politics, and all the evidence so far very strongly points to that outcome.

The general tone of the media in this country is less and less an accurate reflection of the views of the voting public. The last several elections have provided rather vivid demonstrations of the truth of that observation. Democrats' outrage over the two Bush victories is in part a result of their excessive belief in what they read and hear from a sympathetic media establishment which pours out propaganda which they consume with credulous abandon, but which a growing majority of the voting public ignores.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The British govt.'s chief scientific advisor (no fool) is on record as saying climate change is a much greater threat to our well being than terrorism, yet Bush wont even admit to it being a problem, let alone ratify Kyoto.

If Steve needs a moment to straighten his skirt and give his pom-poms a rest, I would like to address the Kyoto segment of his dissertation. The American problem with Kyoto is how unfairly skewed it is toward China and the Chinese economic machine at the expense of American business. For what it's worth, Bush could back that treaty, but it wouldn't stand a chance of ratification given its current language.

Meanwhile, we all know who the world's largest polluter is and those of us here know the steps that have been taken to tackle that problem (and the expenses involved.) Hopefully you Brits are equally concerned with the planet's #2 polluter and what steps, if any, it is taking to address its problems in the mad rush for power:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1074119,00.html

0 Replies

"Oh yeah we're in Deepshit
over there in Sadir City
and that starts with D
and that rhymes with B
and that stands for Bush"

from the award-winning "The Military Man", a Broadway jolly which tells in song and dance the heartwarming tale of a small-town school visited by an ex-general turned cluster-bomb lobbyist from the Northop-Grumman Corporation. After it becomes apparent to the parents, teachers and children in the school that the suave and smooth-talking visitor is motivated not by any love of the school or its children nor by real facts claimed in his tearful speeches on imminent danger from that school in the neighboring town, but rather by his own fukking lust for wealth and power, they convert him to evangelical christianity which makes no difference at all.

0 Replies

Whooda your complete inability of making a serious point without gratuitous insult makes your posts not worth reading.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Whooda your complete inability of making a serious point without gratuitous insult makes your posts not worth reading.

Yes, I try to flavor them with those as I find it a nice break in the steady stream of anti-anti-anti propaganda coming this direction.

... and now back to another hearty reprise of "Deepshit."

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

George Bush will do whatever he wants. It might be good for him and the US, but the ordinary people in Britain are extremely sceptical of the good intentions of GW Bush towards the rest of the world.

Perhaps then the ordinary people of Britain are willing to put their trust in the competent, trustworthy hands of their friends in France and Germany. Surely they would never put self interest above the wishes of the British people.

I would like to know of other nations and their leaders whom Steve would credit with better intentions "towards the rest of the world", and, of course, some historical evidence to demonstrate the truth of the proposition.

All these pipeline notions are fantasy. Oil will flow to where there is money to buy it. Even the idiot Hugo Chavez, who so loudly proclaims he will divert oil sales from the U.S. while pumping and selling it with renewed vigor, knows in his pea brain that his need to sell it far exceeds ours to buy it.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Most people are deeply suspicious about Bush's Global war of Terrorism, and what lays behind it ... they look at the odd map and think you know if the Americans put gas and oil pipelines through Afghanistan, it would avoid going through Iran or Russia.

And regime change in Syria would provide the best route for the vast untapped reserves in the western desert of Iraq, avoiding the vulnerable straights of Hormuz.

Yes, what is up with that whole pipeline scenario? If the British people are so fascinated by the shapes of MiddleEastern countries and their potential for oil shipment, perhaps it's simply because they have not forgotten the Churchill White Paper and the drawing of TransJordan or the efforts of Sir Percy (a la Gertrude Bell) in the creation of the Iraqi nation. (Oil deposits be damned. There are tribal interests to be considered!)

And tell me, have the British masses always been so very interested in cartography as you suggest? Very Happy

0 Replies

The essence of the EU is pooled sovereignty. An idea quite beyond most Americans.

The US is the most powerful nation on earth, and I stick by my claim that it is the first and only truly global superpower.

It faces no other power block in opposition. America is de facto the leading nation on earth and it has a moral duty to give leadership on behalf of the whole planet. Instead we see narrow self interest. It started with Bush's imposition of steel tarrifs, and went on through rejection of Kyoto, ICC, bio weapons treaties, you name it and the US gives every impression of not giving a damn for the rest of the world. Unfair I hear you say....well it might be but I used the word impression and you can do something about that....

Thinking back to 911, we were all shocked. Many of us gave support and money. There was such good will towards the US, and Bush has blown that political capital as if never mattered. Many people now feel like demanding their money back.

As for pipeline fantasies, £2.9bn is a lot of money to spend on a pipedream

http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/bp/

0 Replies

George Galloway blasts the Senate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know