A Bid to Repair a Presidency

Brandon

Brandon9000 wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Cyclo make Brandon stop picking on me.... I'm going to cry.

I have what I want. You fear to debate me on any level but childish name calling. That's actually a compliment.

Gosh, you are so easy to please.

Yawn, I so bored I think I will play with my two dogs. They are more interesting and loads more fun.

Ta Ta Brandon.

BBB

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Cyclo make Brandon stop picking on me.... I'm going to cry.

I have what I want. You fear to debate me on any level but childish name calling. That's actually a compliment.

I have told you on more than one occasion how much I greatly admire you. Do you now doubt my sincerity? Jeez, there's no pleasing you. You're a woman aren't you?

This is your sole method of defending your ideas, the irrelevant snipe. If you think that's the right way to live, then have fun.

0 Replies

Re: Brandon

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Cyclo make Brandon stop picking on me.... I'm going to cry.

I have what I want. You fear to debate me on any level but childish name calling. That's actually a compliment.

Gosh, you are so easy to please.

Yawn, I so bored I think I will play with my two dogs. They are more interesting and loads more fun.

Ta Ta Brandon.

BBB

If you were actually bored, you'd simply ignore me. In fact, you always respond to my posts, just not on the level of debate. You know you're not going to win a debate, so, not being particularly honorable, you try to win by misdirection.

0 Replies

Quote:

My point was that if people wish to prevail in an argument, but refuse to defend their ideas when they are challenged, then they lose in the sense that their opponent prevails.

Cha! You still don't get it.

Those you style your opponents do not style you as their opponent, for they do not wish to 'win' the argument in the fashion that you do, but rather to discuss and reflect.

Your desire to present 'winning' arguments is what limits you from having more productive discussion in the Politics forum. After a while of frustration it is understandable that many turn to derision instead of repeating the same treadmill of posts with someone who clearly is attempting a different aim than they are.

I suggest you start hanging out in the Debate Room more often; you will find the flavor of their fare more enticing than the drab discussions of the politics forum, which cannot have a winner or loser outside of the perceptions of one's own mind.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

BBB
Speaking of "mis-direction" let's get back to the topic of this thread which Brandon has tried to disrupt.

BBB

Jesse Kornbluth: 10 Americans Who Could Head the Reconstruction Better Than Karl Rove Jesse Kornbluth
Fri Sep 16, 2005

Astonishing, is it not, that in all of America, the only person the President is said to find up to the job of heading the reconstruction of the South is....Karl Rove.

The President didn't mention the Master Fixer's name last night, but The New York Times reports:

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary ...indicated that Mr. Bush would not use the speech to name a "reconstruction czar" to oversee the effort. A number of White House officials have advised the president to name such a czar, with Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of forces in the 2001 war in Afghanistan, being a favorite of Republicans who are pushing the idea.

Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort.

Rove? What has he ever run that wasn't followed by charges of dirty-dealing and fraud? What if he gets indicted for his apparent role in the outing of a CIA deep cover agent? And even in the best of circumstances, isn't he needed in Washington to tell the President what to think?

What if putting Rove's name out there was just a test? What if the White House would -- for the first time ever -- consider appointing notable Americans not obviously beholden to Republican and corporate interests?

In that spirit, here are ten Americans who could, I think, get us some results from the $200 billion this reconstruction is going to cost our children:

ROGER ENRICO: Twenty years ago, when Roger was CEO of the Pepsi division of Pepsico, I wrote his book, 'The Other Guy Blinked,' with him. What a lesson in leadership and commitment that was! This guy ran a demanding business all day, then worked me under the table at night. Inquisitive and demanding, compassionate and warm, tough and loyal -- Roger was the complete CEO package. If you were in an alley fight, this is a guy you'd want at your back.

KRISTIN BREITWEISER: The most visible of the 'Jersey Girls' -- the others are Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken, Patty Casazza, and Monica Gabrielle. They lost their husbands on 9/11 and asked one question ('Our husbands went to work one morning and didn't come home. Why didn't they come home?') over and over until they simply overwhelmed a recalcitrant White House. We owe the 9/11 Commission to these women. Surely they could stand face-to-jowl with construction companies.

BARBARA EHRENREICH: For her book, 'Nickel and Dimed,' she worked minimum-wage jobs and showed exactly how hard it is to live with dignity In her new book, 'Bait and Switch,' she explores what Bush economic policies have done to the middle class. Think she can read a balance sheet? I do. And as for connecting with workers, no question.

BOB PITTMAN: I worked for him for five years at AOL, and I'd be shocked to hear there's a tighter executive on the planet. His directives are unsparing, even for executives -- public transportation is a good thing, cabs are acceptable, black Lincolns sitting for hours at the curb are borderline felonies. Early in my tenure, when we were both working in Virginia, far from our homes in New York, he ragged me for never getting together with him. 'If I had an assistant, I'd get out of here early enough to have a social life,' I shot back. 'Nah,' he said, 'I don't need to see you that much.' Managing a turnaround? Yeah, he could get 'er done.

ELIOTT SPITZER: He's as ambitious as Rudy Giuliani, and ten times as competent. And he's a Democrat, which gives the White House a good chance to show that at least one decision in two terms isn't based on political loyalty.

CAROL FITZGERALD: Over eight years, Carol turned bookreporter.com -- one of the most unlikely ideas for a Web-based business: book reviews, book chats and services to writers and publishers --into a network of sites that pretty much owns books on the Web. And she's done it on a shoestring: $2 million in income over 8 years, 3 employees in the office, a large, mostly volunteer virtual staff. As her business partner, I'm in awe of her integrity, work ethic and willingness to speak blunt truths. Could she run a reconstruction? Hey, she could run anything.

HARRY PARKER: He became Harvard's crew coach in 1963, when he was just 27. For the next 6 years, Harvard did not lose a single intercollegiate race. His crews won 18 consecutive races against Yale. His winning percentage from 1963 to 1997 is .806 -- he is, very probably, the most successful coach in any sport in the whole and entire world. As a leader, he is sparing with praise, long on inspiration. His philosophy: "To build a winning crew, select the right athletes, place them in the proper seats, and allow for the freedom to create. In other words, hire the right people for the right jobs and manage with a long, loose leash." Just what the White House says, and never does.

JAMES SINIGAL: Co-founder and CEO of Costco -- the 'good' version of Wal-Mart--he has made it a point to treat his employees fairly. And still he produces profit. Apparently it can be done.

HAROLD MOORE: Mel Gibson played him in 'We Were Soldiers,' a film that only hints at his greatness as the leader of American troops at the first battle between US soldiers and the Vietcong. He flew in to Ia Drang on the first helicopter. He led his men from the front. When he saw men from another company beginning to haul one of his dead soldiers out of a foxhole with a harness, he snapped, "No you won't do that. He's one of my troopers and you will show some respect. Get two more men and carry him to the landing zone." When it was over and it was time for Moore to turn over command, he requested a full battalion formation. One soldier recalls, "We stood in formation, with some units hardly having enough men to form up. Colonel Moore spoke to us and he cried. At that moment, he could have led us back into the Ia Drang." Think of him as Patton, but with a bigger heart.

MICHAEL DOUGLAS: He's already played the President, and he wasn't half-bad. Acting is the least of what he does now; he's an artful producer and a productive activist. He eats issues for breakfast. He can meet a budget. And he's survived studio chiefs and studio accountants -- he knows the game.

Not that the White House could care what you think, but the place to send your suggestions is [email protected].

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Cyclo make Brandon stop picking on me.... I'm going to cry.

I have what I want. You fear to debate me on any level but childish name calling. That's actually a compliment.

I have told you on more than one occasion how much I greatly admire you. Do you now doubt my sincerity? Jeez, there's no pleasing you. You're a woman aren't you?

This is your sole method of defending your ideas, the irrelevant snipe. If you think that's the right way to live, then have fun.

I'm having a blast thank you Very Happy

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
My point was that if people wish to prevail in an argument, but refuse to defend their ideas when they are challenged, then they lose in the sense that their opponent prevails.

Cha! You still don't get it.

Those you style your opponents do not style you as their opponent, for they do not wish to 'win' the argument in the fashion that you do, but rather to discuss and reflect....

That's just not true. Sometimes they try very passionately to win. Your position here seems disengenuous.

Anyone who presents a point of view as his opinion, and then answers challenges with nothing but ad hominems and taunts, is probably someone who wants very much to win the argument or he wouldn't answer with so much emotion, or perhaps not at all.

The overwhelming majority of the people whose posts I challenge here, clearly want their ideas to prevail. The moment they refuse to answer the challenge on topic, my challenge prevails.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Speaking of "mis-direction" let's get back to the topic of this thread which Brandon has tried to disrupt.

To post in a forum like this, and then claim that a post that disagrees is a disruption, is very childish.

0 Replies

Brandon
As the Originator of this thread, I request that you cease trying to divert and disrupt the topic of this thread.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Brandon

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

As the Originator of this thread, I request that you cease trying to divert and disrupt the topic of this thread.

BBB

Certainly, if you can show that I have. I maintain that I have merely presented dissenting ideas, as is common in this forum.

The fact that you cannot merely disregard my posts, which ought to be easy, belies your former claim that you are simply bored by them.

You are actually, in luck, though. I am late for lunch, and then should probably do some work. You've lucked out just this once, but don't for a minute expect me to allow you to post political ideas unchallenged at A2K, which is apparently your wish.

0 Replies

Quote:

That's just not true. Sometimes they try very passionately to win. Your position here seems disengenuous.

Anyone who presents a point of view as his opinion, and then answers challenges with nothing but ad hominems and taunts, is probably someone who wants very much to win the argument or he wouldn't answer with so much emotion, or perhaps not at all.

The overwhelming majority of the people whose posts I challenge here, clearly want their ideas to prevail. The moment they refuse to answer the challenge on topic, my challenge prevails.

Assertions, nothing more. Too many 'probably' and 'majority' and 'perhaps' in there for a strong argument.

While mine still holds firm; there are no winners and losers on the A2K forum. You have no counter for this argument, for it is a fact.

Cheers and let's stop mucking up BBB's thread.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Re: Brandon

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
As the Originator of this thread, I request that you cease trying to divert and disrupt the topic of this thread.

BBB

Certainly, if you can show that I have. I maintain that I have merely presented dissenting ideas, as is common in this forum.

The fact that you cannot merely disregard my posts, which ought to be easy, belies your former claim that you are simply bored by them.

You are actually, in luck, though. I am late for lunch, and then should probably do some work. You've lucked out just this once, but don't for a minute expect me to allow you to post political ideas unchallenged at A2K, which is apparently your wish.

I've noticed that you use this disruptive tactic on a number of threads whose topic/posters with whom you disagree. You are misrepresenting your posts. They are not about the topic of this thread. They are your opinions about debating and you are trying to debate about debating. Thus your posts are diverting and disruptive to the topic of this thread. I again request that you cease such attempts.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Brandon

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
As the Originator of this thread, I request that you cease trying to divert and disrupt the topic of this thread.

BBB

Certainly, if you can show that I have. I maintain that I have merely presented dissenting ideas, as is common in this forum.

The fact that you cannot merely disregard my posts, which ought to be easy, belies your former claim that you are simply bored by them.

You are actually, in luck, though. I am late for lunch, and then should probably do some work. You've lucked out just this once, but don't for a minute expect me to allow you to post political ideas unchallenged at A2K, which is apparently your wish.

I've noticed that you use this disruptive tactic on a number of threads whose topic/posters with whom you disagree. You are misrepresenting your posts. They are not about the topic of this thread. They are your opinions about debating and you are trying to debate about debating. Thus your posts are diverting and disruptive to the topic of this thread. I again request that you cease such attempts.

BBB

0 Replies

this is some interest on the topic, i guess...

theaustralian.news

the same text ran in a few other papers.

rove? sure why not? running political campaigns is even better preparation than horse shows when heading up a project of this size. huh?

rove is there to provide spin and damage control on the whole thing. seems plain & simple, right ?

0 Replies

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
As the Originator of this thread, I request that you cease trying to divert and disrupt the topic of this thread.

BBB

Certainly, if you can show that I have. I maintain that I have merely presented dissenting ideas, as is common in this forum.

The fact that you cannot merely disregard my posts, which ought to be easy, belies your former claim that you are simply bored by them.

You are actually, in luck, though. I am late for lunch, and then should probably do some work. You've lucked out just this once, but don't for a minute expect me to allow you to post political ideas unchallenged at A2K, which is apparently your wish.

I've noticed that you use this disruptive tactic on a number of threads whose topic/posters with whom you disagree. You are misrepresenting your posts. They are not about the topic of this thread. They are your opinions about debating and you are trying to debate about debating. Thus your posts are diverting and disruptive to the topic of this thread. I again request that you cease such attempts.

BBB

You assert that my posts are off topic. Here was the opening post:

Quote:

washingtonpost.com
A Bid to Repair a Presidency
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 16, 2005

The main text of President Bush's nationally televised address last night was the rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, but the clear subtext was the rebuilding of a presidency that is now at its lowest point ever, confronted by huge and simultaneous challenges at home and abroad -- and facing a country divided along partisan and racial lines.

Hurricane Katrina struck at the core of Bush's presidency by undermining the central assertion of his reelection campaign, that he was a strong and decisive leader who could keep the country safe in a crisis. Never again will the White House be able to point to his often-praised performance after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, without skeptics recalling the fumbling and slow-off-the-mark response of his administration after the hurricane and the flooding in New Orleans.

His response to these criticisms...as if recognizing that his own road back will be one marked by steady but small steps, he spoke with workmanlike focus, spelling out the details of what has been done and will be done to help those displaced by the storm....the White House has decided not to contest the widespread perceptions that his administration failed...Bush's advisers believe that...

Here was the second post, your own analysis:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

...Some called it pandering, and it was. But I'm beginning to think it was clever pandering....Remember what is upper most in Bush mind. Protect and enhance his presidential legacy....Could it be that Bush's over the top pandering is deliberate. Is he certain that the fiscal conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, will not vote to approve the hundreds of billions of dollars that his proposals would cost?

Has he and Karl Rove figured out a way to win no matter which way the Congress votes?...

Here is my response:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your mind reading skills suck.

Admittedly succinct, and containing about as much courtesy as you show me, but it was on topic. I explain what I meant in my next post:

Brandon9000 wrote:

...you are far into a fantasy world of projecting thoughts and motives onto the Bush administration which have nothing whatever to do with what conservatives really think. We think that with few exceptions, the only failure of the Bush administration is to allow people like you to toss so much false dirt in his direction that some of it has stuck.

So, in summary, you have said what you think is in the minds of Bush and his staff, and I have said that your attempts to analyze their motives are way off. This is directly on your topic. As for subsequent posts, although it degenerated into a debate about debate, every post of mine was directly in answer to one that had been made to me by you and your liberal friends.

Your charge that I have posted off topic and that I am responsible for taking it onto a tangent is nonsense. I posted on topic, and the only way I could have avoided the tangent you took it on was to simply stop replying. In my opinion, you're just a crybaby who can't countenance any effective argument against your positions. However, on this forum, people are, in fact, allowed to post dissenting views.

0 Replies

Good Grief
Opinion: Good Grief
Bob Herbert
Bush Watch
9/20/05

In the same lavish way that Mr. Bush is promising to rebuild New Orleans and the rest of the storm-damaged Gulf Coast, he assured us and the rest of the world that the invasion he was ordering would lead to the rebuilding of Iraq and its devastated economy....But last Thursday, the very same day that he delivered his speech in New Orleans, the World Bank released a report showing that the continued violence in Iraq had frightened away private investors, slowed reconstruction and disrupted oil production.

The country has put its faith in Mr. Bush many times before, and come up empty. It may be cynical, but my guess is that if we believe him again this time, we're going to end up on our collective keisters.... Polls have shown that over the past two years Americans have lost a great deal of faith in Mr. Bush, who tends to talk a good game but doesn't seem to know how to deliver....

This president has had zero interest in attacking poverty, and the result has been an increase in poverty in the U.S., the richest country in the world, in each of the last four years. Instead of attacking poverty, the Bush administration has attacked the safety net and has stubbornly refused to stop the decline in the value of the minimum wage on his watch. You can believe that he's suddenly worried about poor people if you want to. What is more likely is that his reference to racism and poverty was just another opportunistic Karl Rove moment, never to be acted upon....

0 Replies

Katrina's Cost May Test GOP Harmony
Looks like my predictions are coming true. ---BBB

washingtonpost.com
Katrina's Cost May Test GOP Harmony
Some Want Bush To Give Details on How U.S. Will Pay
By Shailagh Murray and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 21, 2005; A01

Congressional Republicans from across the ideological spectrum yesterday rejected the White House's open-wallet approach to rebuilding the Gulf Coast, a sign that the lockstep GOP discipline that George W. Bush has enjoyed for most of his presidency is eroding on Capitol Hill.

Trying to allay mounting concerns, White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten met with Republican senators for an hour after their regular Tuesday lunch. Senators emerged to say they were annoyed by the lack of concrete ideas for paying the Hurricane Katrina bill.

"Very entertaining," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said sarcastically as he left the session. "I haven't heard any specifics from the administration."

"At least give us some idea" of how to cover the cost, said Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), who is facing reelection in 2006. "We owe that to the American taxpayer."

The pushback on Katrina aid, which the White House is also confronting among House Republicans, represents the loudest and most widespread dissent Bush has faced from his own party since it took full control of Congress in 2002. As polls show the president's approval numbers falling, there is growing concern among lawmakers that GOP margins in Congress could shrink next year, and even rank-and-file Republicans are complaining that Bush is shirking the difficult budget decisions that must accompany the rebuilding bonanza.

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) said he and other fiscal conservatives are feeling "genuine concern [which] could easily turn into frustration and anger."

Congressional Republicans are not arguing with Bush's pledge that the federal government will lead the Louisiana and Mississippi recovery. But they are insisting that the massive cost -- as much as $200 billion -- be paid for. Conservatives are calling for spending cuts to existing programs, a few GOP moderates are entertaining the possibility of a tax increase, and many in the middle want to freeze Bush tax cuts that have yet to take effect.

The resistance suggests that Bush's second term could turn out far rockier and more contentious than his first. One indicator many Republicans are watching to gauge whether Bush is becoming a liability for the party is in Pennsylvania, where Rick Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, is trailing state treasurer Bob Casey Jr. by double digits.

"My caucus would do anything for Senator Santorum," Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) said of his colleague. Chafee, who himself faces a tough reelection battle next year, predicted Republicans will increasingly be faced with the choice of propping up Bush or protecting their own. "I think they're going to collide," Chafee said of the two options.

Asked whether Bush's problems were a factor in his slump, Santorum responded, "That may be."

The White House is aware of the growing political problem and has moved on several fronts to pacify Republicans -- with decidedly uneven results. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, in a speech yesterday, said the White House will be forced to put several plans on the "back burner," including changes to the estate tax and permanently extending first-term tax cuts. "It's taken over the national agenda, and I think it will for a while," he said.

This prompted protests from one of the White House's closest allies, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who said waiting on taxes was unacceptable. But White House officials said Snow was accurately reflecting Bush's intentions.

Amid this friction, top White House officials told Republicans the relief and recovery package could come in much lower than widely quoted projections of $200 billion. Some House GOP leaders also are urging their colleagues to cool off, reminding them that the true cost of the relief effort is not yet known.

"There are tough choices that are going to have to be made," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "We're going to have to cut unnecessary spending elsewhere in the budget to offset some of the cost with Katrina."

House conservatives are particularly riled. Unhappy about spending growth during Bush's first term, they thought they had slowed the pace when Congress passed a relatively austere fiscal 2006 budget this spring.

A group of these conservatives, including Feeney, plans today to present to the White House a proposal to cover the cost of the entire Katrina relief and reconstruction package. Dubbed "Operation Offset," it will include repealing many of the pork-barrel projects stuffed into the $286 billion highway bill that Bush signed into law a few weeks before Katrina struck.

McCain called on Bush to undo the Medicare prescription drug law, while a number of lawmakers said the costly benefit should at least be postponed from its January starting date. Republicans are pressing ahead with the Medicare changes, even as the White House spreads the word it is opposed to such a move.

In one of the most unexpected proposals to cover the reconstruction costs, Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) raised the possibility of raising taxes. Other Republicans say that while a tax increase is unlikely, Bush tax cuts that are scheduled to take effect in coming years may be in serious jeopardy.

Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) said he will even comb through the Pentagon budget for cost savings. "Many of us think that we need to step back and look at what we're doing and reevaluate it," Voinovich said. But he added that "someone has to look at the big picture" -- and that someone should be the president. "The vision is missing," Voinovich said.

A new Gallup poll shows a majority of Americans believe the mission in Iraq should be cut to cover the recovery costs, while only a small fraction support slashing other domestic programs, raising taxes or increasing the deficit to finance it. New Orleans also has emerged as the chief target of angst. "The question is do we really want to flood New Orleans with money," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.).

Kingston said he has detected a building hostility toward New Orleans among his constituents, based on reports that local officials mismanaged the crisis, along with federal dollars that had previously flowed the region's way. "What we are hearing from constituents is: 'Wait a minute, slow down on this,' " Kingston said.

Deficits have rarely emerged as a potent political issue, with the exception of Ross Perot's independent bid for the presidency in 1992, but some worried Republicans believe the deficit may soon reach an untenable level, especially if Democrats can link it to Republican mismanagement.

"I don't know that anyone ever lost a race because of the deficit, but there is concern" that it could happen this time around, said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), the former head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "You can't just keep piling up debt."

0 Replies

A Bid to Repair a Presidency

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know