0
   

The Democrats Gloat Thread

 
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 08:57 am
Hi Blatham, c.i....I have been away a loooonnng time. After Mamajuana died in Sept of '03 and with the all that was happening and not noted in the MSM, I kinda gave up.

It is indeed depressing to even think about gloating. Has anyone read Lewis Lapham's latest contribution in this months Harper's Magazine? If you haven't, I highly recommend it. It WILL NOT cheer you up, however.

We will be lucky is there is anything left to salvage when this gang is through. I have serious doubts about the Democrats who are slopping at the trough to help stop the drift of corporate fascism. I don't use the terms lightly. Hi to all! Have missed you.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 09:27 am
vietnamnurse
vietnamnurse, welcome back. Things have not changed much. We are still as loony as ever---just older.

BBB
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 10:01 am
Hi vietnamnurse, Welcome back! Missed your postings for a long time. During your absense, we have lost some good people including cavfancier and Joanne Dorel. Please stick your head in once in awhile to let us know you're okay.

BTW, I had the opportunity to visit Vietnam last February, and was impressed with the people and food (nothing like what we find in the states(California). Saw Hanoi, Halong Bay, Saigon, and the Mekong Delta.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 10:12 am
Welcome back, Vietnamnurse!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 10:21 am
World Net Daily uses bogus numbers in an attempt to put a positive spin on the president's low approval ratings:
President's 'terrible' rating better than last 7.

Quote:
Despite the fact President Bush's job approval ratings have dropped to the lowest point of his presidency, they still remain higher than the low-point ratings of the last seven presidents, including his predecessor Bill Clinton.



That statement is flat out wrong. The article compares Bush's average approval rating (39.5%) with the lowest approval rating for recent presidents:

• Bill Clinton: 37 percent
• George H.W. Bush: 29 percent
• Ronald Reagan: 35 percent
• Jimmy Carter: 28 percent
• Gerald Ford: 37 percent
• Richard Nixon: 24 percent
• Lyndon Johnson: 35 percent

So far, Bush's lowest approval rating is 29% -- tied with his old man. The only other recent presidents with a lower low were Tricky Dick and Jimmy Carter.

In fact, the average approval rating for all of these presidents exceeds Bush's 39.5% average - and that number is artificially inflated due to the huge rise in patriotism following 9/11.

(Thanks to The J-Walk Blog)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 10:26 am
I'll be happy when I see George W Bush's rating drops to the low teens; the worst of any leader in the free world - he deserves every drop. I don't see how history can be kind to a president that's done everything wrong including foreign affairs, our economy, and crisis management. His choice of Harriet Miers should do him in real good; even his own party members are running away from this president.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 11:04 am
Hi, Vietnamnurse! Glad to see you back. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 11:07 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'll be happy when I see George W Bush's rating drops to the low teens....

That makes two of us. You wonder how his ratings are even as high as they presently are.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 11:09 am
VNN!!! What a pleasure to hear from you again!

It has been a horrible five years, hasn't it?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 11:50 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
World Net Daily uses bogus numbers in an attempt to put a positive spin on the president's low approval ratings:
President's 'terrible' rating better than last 7.

Quote:
Despite the fact President Bush's job approval ratings have dropped to the lowest point of his presidency, they still remain higher than the low-point ratings of the last seven presidents, including his predecessor Bill Clinton.



That statement is flat out wrong. The article compares Bush's average approval rating (39.5%) with the lowest approval rating for recent presidents:

• Bill Clinton: 37 percent
• George H.W. Bush: 29 percent
• Ronald Reagan: 35 percent
• Jimmy Carter: 28 percent
• Gerald Ford: 37 percent
• Richard Nixon: 24 percent
• Lyndon Johnson: 35 percent

So far, Bush's lowest approval rating is 29% -- tied with his old man. The only other recent presidents with a lower low were Tricky Dick and Jimmy Carter.

In fact, the average approval rating for all of these presidents exceeds Bush's 39.5% average - and that number is artificially inflated due to the huge rise in patriotism following 9/11.

(Thanks to The J-Walk Blog)


Walter, I don't claim to be a number-crunching fool, but it would appear to me that the WND article is refering to Bush's current approval rating averaged amongst 6 polling organizations in the month of October, 2005 (his lowest), and saying that it is higher than the lowest approval ratings of the prior recent presidents. According to the Pew report, his current approval rating is his lowest, 38%. And that is is higher than the lowest approval ratings of many of those other presidents.

I don't know where "J-Walk Blog" got the idea that Bush's lowest approval rating is 29%, but the WND clearly quotes the Pew report as stating that Bush's approval rating is 38% and it is the the level of "public satisfaction with national conditions" that stands at 29%. It appears J-Walk Blog suffers from a bit of reading comprehension difficulty.

So, I'd say your post is "bogus."



You disagree with my analysis?


World Net Daily wrote:
Despite the fact President Bush's job approval ratings have dropped to the lowest point of his presidency, they still remain higher than the low-point ratings of the last seven presidents, including his predecessor Bill Clinton.

A new survey from the Pew Research Center shows Bush's job approval at 38 percent.

"President George W. Bush's poll numbers are going from bad to worse," said the Pew report. "His job approval rating has fallen to another new low, as has public satisfaction with national conditions, which now stands at just 29 percent. And for the first time since taking office in 2001, a plurality of Americans believe that George W. Bush will be viewed as an unsuccessful president."


WND Article.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 12:13 pm
Tico, The approval ratings for past presidents are now fixed, whereas the rating for Bush is headed south with three more years till doomsday. If the trends for Bush holds true, it may go below Nixon's 24. With his poor performance on Katrina and his nomination of Miers doesn't bode well for Bush. Time will only tell.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 12:25 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Tico, The approval ratings for past presidents are now fixed, whereas the rating for Bush is headed south with three more years till doomsday. If the trends for Bush holds true, it may go below Nixon's 24. With his poor performance on Katrina and his nomination of Miers doesn't bode well for Bush. Time will only tell.


It may or may not, as you say

But I guess WND's point remains: He still has a higher lowest approval rating than his predecessors.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 12:27 pm
Quote:
The US is reeling, like imperial Britain after the Boer war - but don't gloat

Timothy Garton Ash in Stanford
Thursday August 25, 2005
The Guardian


If you want to know what London was like in 1905, come to Washington in 2005. Imperial gravitas and massive self-importance. That sense of being the centre of the world, and of needing to know what happens in every corner of the world because you might be called on - or at least feel called upon - to intervene there. Hyperpower. Top dog. And yet, gnawing away beneath the surface, the nagging fear that your global supremacy is not half so secure as you would wish. As Joseph Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary, put it in 1902: "The weary Titan staggers under the too vast orb of his fate."


The United States is now that weary Titan. In the British case, the angst was a result of the unexpectedly protracted, bloody and costly Boer war, in which a small group of foreign insurgents defied the mightiest military the world had seen; concern about the rising economic power of Germany and the United States; and a combination of imperial overstretch with socio-economic problems at home. In the American case, it's a result of the unexpectedly protracted, bloody and costly Iraq war, in which a small group of foreign insurgents defies the mightiest military the world has seen; concern about the rising economic power of China and India; and a combination of imperial overstretch with socio-economic problems at home.

Iraq is America's Boer war. Remember that after the British had declared the end of major combat operations in the summer of 1900, the Boers launched a campaign of guerrilla warfare that kept British troops on the run for another two years. The British won only by a ruthlessness of which, I'm glad to say, the democratic, squeamish and still basically anti-colonialist United States appears incapable. In the end, the British had 450,000 British and colonial troops there (compared with some 150,000 US troops in Iraq), and herded roughly a quarter of the Boer population into concentration camps, where many died.

In a recent CNN/Gallup poll, 54% of those asked said it was a mistake to send American troops into Iraq, and 57% said the Iraq war has made the US less safe from terrorism. The protest camp outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, which grew around the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, exemplifies the pain. CNN last Sunday aired a documentary with top-level sources explaining in detail how the intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was distorted, abused, sexed up and, as the programme was entitled, Dead Wrong. This will hardly be news for British or European readers, but the facts have not been so widely aired in the US. In another poll, the number of those who rated the president as "honest" fell below 50% for the first time. This week, he has again attempted to bolster support for his administration and his war. It doesn't seem to be working.

A recent article in the New York Times plausibly estimated the prospective long-term cost of the Iraq War at more than $1 trillion. If Iraqi politicians do finally agree a draft constitution for their country today, only the world's greatest optimist can believe that it will turn Iraq into a peaceful, stable, democratic federal republic. Increasingly, the Islamic Republic of Iran quietly calls the shots in the Shia south of Iraq. As the Washington joke goes: the war is over, and the Iranians won.

Meanwhile, oil prices of more than $60 a barrel put the price of petrol at American pumps up to nearly $3 a gallon for basic unleaded fuel. For someone from Europe this is still unbelievably cheap, but you should hear the shrieks of agony here. "Gas prices have changed my life," moaned a distressed Californian commuter. If higher energy prices persist, they threaten not just a still vibrant economy but a whole way of life, symbolised by the Hummer (in both its civilian and military versions). Besides instability in the Middle East, the main force pushing up oil prices is the relentless growth of demand for energy from the emerging economic giants of Asia. The Chinese go around the world quietly signing big oil supply deals with any oil-producing country they can find, however nasty its politics, including Sudan and Iran. When a Chinese concern tried to buy a big California energy company, that was too much - American politicians screamed and effectively blocked the deal.

China and India are to the United States today what Germany and America were to Britain a hundred years ago. China is now the world's second largest energy consumer, after the United States. It also has the world's second largest foreign currency reserves, after Japan and followed by Taiwan, South Korea and India. In the foreign reserve stakes, the US comes only ninth, after Singapore and just before Malaysia. According to some economists, the US has an effective net savings rate - taking account of all public spending and debt - of zero. Nil. Zilch. This country does not save; it spends. The television channels are still full of a maddening barrage of endless commercials, enticing you to spend, spend, spend - and then to "consolidate" your accumulated debt in one easy package.

None of this is to suggest that the United States will decline and fall tomorrow. Far from it. After all, the British empire lasted for another 40 years after 1905. In fact, it grew to its largest extent after 1918, before it signed its own death warrant by expending its blood and treasure to defeat Adolf Hitler (not the worst way to go). Similarly, one may anticipate that America's informal empire - its network of military bases and semi-protectorates - will continue to grow. The United States, like Edwardian Britain, still has formidable resources of economic, technological and military power, cultural attractiveness and, not least, the will to stay on top. As one British music hall ditty at that time proclaimed:

And we mean to be top dog still. Bow-wow.
Yes, we mean to be top dog still.

You don't have to go very far to hear that refrain in Washington today. The Bush administration's national security strategy makes no bones about the goal of maintaining military supremacy. But whether the "American century" that began in 1945 will last until 2045, 2035 or only 2025, its end can already be glimpsed on the horizon.

If you are, by any chance, of that persuasion that would instinctively find this a cause for rejoicing, pause for a moment to consider two things: first, that major shifts of power between rising and falling great powers have usually been accompanied by major wars; and second, that the next top dog could be a lot worse.

So this is no time for schadenfreude. It's a time for critical solidarity. A few far-sighted people in Washington are beginning to formulate a long-term American strategy of trying to create an international order that would protect the interests of liberal democracies even when American hyperpower has faded; and to encourage rising powers such as India and China to sign up to such an order. That is exactly what today's weary Titan should be doing, and we should help him do it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1555724,00.html
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 01:21 pm
Hello, Hello! C.I. My husband and I have a chance to go back to Vietnam with our hospital unit as part of a reunion...not decided whether to go or not. I would love to hear details.

Joanne Dorel and CavFancier? What happened? Are they not posting or did something worse happen?

It is a terrible thing to have been right all along about things that one predicted would turn out dreadful. I keep thinking about all the long talks I had with Mamajuana in 2003...she predicted civil war in Iraq.

Blatham, remember the thread where you talked about American "exceptionalism" and you were denounced by many? Not by me, though. I thought it was on the mark.

All the Nobel's going to people against the Iraq war...sweet.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 01:27 pm
Vietnamnurse???

Big wave!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 01:41 pm
Vietnamnurse, Yes, go to Vietnam. If your plans include Hanoi and or Saigon, I have good suggestions for some great restaurants.

We saw alot during our seven days in Vietnam. While in Hanoi, we saw a water puppet show and saw Ho Chi Min's tomb. Even saw his home on stilts. We passed by the hotel where the US flyboys used to hang out in Hanoi, because we had lunch at a restaurant close by. Even went to see the area where the Vietcongs made their underground caves to hide from the US troops, and the traps they built to kill with spikes. Ugly.

However, most Vietnamese are friendly towards Americans, and their food is really good/outstanding. In Hanoi, we stayed at the Sofitel Meetropole, one of the best. Some in our group had dinner at the Opera restaurant across the street from the hotel, and sitting at the next table in a special room with only two tables of the restaurant was Bob Woodward. A guy in our group that works for ABC News in New York City wouldn't turn around and shake his hand even though I had my camera at the ready.

You'll love Vietnam and the people. I was impressed.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 02:41 pm
All the Nobel's going to people against the Iraq war... not a surprise.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 02:44 pm
Not a surprise at all; intelligence being a common factor, yaknow.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 02:45 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
All the Nobel's going to people against the Iraq war... not a surprise.


Could you explain that a bit? This year's? Or from when on? In all categories or just a few?


And not a surprise - why not?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 02:46 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Not a surprise at all; intelligence being a common factor, yaknow.

Cycloptichorn


Not the "common factor" I was thinking of ....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.58 seconds on 06/08/2025 at 07:53:01