mysteryman wrote:Thats a rather broad statement to make, isnt it.
After all, there are thousands of people serving in what could be called "executive branch" positions, so they can be considered part of this administration.
What Blatham wrote: "and all the rest in this administration and within the neoconservative community
who helped drive the administration in that direction are lacking".
There were no thousands of people involved in driving the administration towards the Iraq war.
Foxfyre wrote:ican711nm wrote:How about Hillary and Barack versus John and Mitt?
Wouldn't that be loverly?
The thing I've never been able to reconcile in my mind, though, is how candidates can reconcile their very different differences sufficiently to forge themselves into a unified ticket without both looking like jackasses.
The common pursuit of power has wedded many an enemy (e.g., Hillary and Bill).
There's a huge difference between setting aside "I can do anything better than you" and "A supports red tiddlywinks while B supports blue tiddlywinks."
I know our New Mexico governor wants a Veep appointment so bad he can taste it, and that would be much less of a compromise for either Hillary or Barack. I'm sure there are others who would also accept a bid from either camp.
McCain might have already cut a deal with Mitt in order to snag Mitt's delegates, but to me it would make a whole lot more sense to have a McCain/Powell ticket or McCain/some rising star ticket rather than a McCain/Romney ticket that brings strong negatives from both to the table. I think McCain is going to have to bring down his negatives in order to win in November against anybody.
I think McCain is incapable of bringing down his negatives. All Republicans have left to hope for is that Hillary and Barack bring their negatives up high enough to surpass McCain's.
Romney would give the ticket some business and economic skills, and some astute wisdom and knowledge on lots of issues. It could bring more conservatives into the voting booth, while McCain can still go out there personally and woo the so-called independents and moderates. Romney would balance and compliment the ticket much more than a Huckabee would. Remember, McCain wants to win. Also Romney brings much needed youth and vitality and energy.
If Americans want security, economic progress, good immigration policy, and health care plans, either McCain or Romney has it, and none of the Democrats have the right answers to any of the above issues. Without Romney, McCain is caught flat footed on health care and economics. Romney brings alot to the table that McCain needs.
Of course, McCain may or may not use Romney or listen to him if elected, but at least for the purpose of running, those are the factors I see.
blatham wrote:Butrflynet wrote:blatham wrote:Coulter was on Fox tonight, in a shouting match with Hannity. My heart soars like an eage.
::::airlifts an L up to the eage so can fLy:::
Thankyou.
Finn Jekyll recedes; Finn Hyde ascends
Danger - Danger!
...a legend in his own mind.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:blatham wrote:Butrflynet wrote:blatham wrote:Coulter was on Fox tonight, in a shouting match with Hannity. My heart soars like an eage.
::::airlifts an L up to the eage so can fLy:::
Thankyou.
Finn Jekyll recedes; Finn Hyde ascends
Danger - Danger!
Yes. I thought I had detected a disturbance in the farce.
Texas Republican Senator Ted Poe yesterday...
Quote:"I think there is probably joy throughout the terrorist cells throughout the world that the United States Congress did not do its duty today," said Representative Ted Poe, Republican of Texas."
I am embarrassed for my species.
I agree: the republicans use fear as their foundation to get what they want from congress and the people, but they are failing. They break laws, both domestic and international, and think they're doing us all a favor. Dumb can't be fixed.
An example of the 'help' that Bush has pledged to the McCain effort. This will be, again, a fundamental crux of the Republican campaign strategy - try to make the population fearful and try to suggest that Dems are weak on security.
Quote:Bush Beats Drum... Again
By Paul Kiel - February 15, 2008, 12:00PM
For the third morning in a row now, President Bush got in front of the cameras and accused Democrats of exposing the nation to attacks by refusing to pass the Senate's version of the intelligence bill.
This morning, Bush did his utmost to stress the calamity of letting the Protect America Act pass (the paperwork!) and made a direct argument that giving immunity to the telecoms for collaborating with his administration's warrantless wiretapping was a crucial national security issue. The highlights: ...
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/bush_beats_drum_again.php
What's wrong with it? I find it ironic that the party that proposes that we end military intervention as a way of blunting Islamist terrorism, should also oppose its only alternative - namely the use of intelligence and police powers to thwart its aims.
Sounds like a pretty good argument to me.
georgeob1 wrote:What's wrong with it? I find it ironic that the party that proposes that we end military intervention as a way of blunting Islamist terrorism, should also oppose its only alternative - namely the use of intelligence and police powers to thwart its aims.
Sounds like a pretty good argument to me.
Bush is making transparently fake and false arguments in his attempt to shield his administration from liability in breaking the law.
Glenn Greenwald makes an excellent point:
Quote:One other vital point: The claim that telecoms will cease to cooperate without retroactive immunity is deeply dishonest on multiple levels, but the dishonesty is most easily understood when one realizes that, under the law, telecoms are required to cooperate with legal requests from the government. They don't have the option to "refuse." Without amnesty, telecoms will be reluctant in the future to break the law again, which we should want. But there is no risk that they will refuse requests to cooperate with legal surveillance, particularly since they are legally obligated to cooperate in those circumstances. The claim the telcoms will cease to cooperate with surveillance requests is pure fear-mongering, and is purely dishonest.
The problem is that the telecoms WERE and ARE breaking the law. And Bush knows it. If they go to court, they will be found guilty for doing so, and in the process a lot of information about the gov't also breaking the law will be released into the public.
Bush had every opportunity to change the laws when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. He did not do so. This was a major mistake on his part and is now coming back to bite them in the ass.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
Bush had every opportunity to change the laws when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. He did not do so. This was a major mistake on his part and is now coming back to bite them in the ass.
Cycloptichorn
Yes, this was a major mistake by the Bush administration. But it ain't the Bush administration that is consequently going to get bitten in the ass as a consequence. The Democrats have stupidly made sure it is the American people and the Democratic Party who are consequently going to be bitten in the ass as a consequence.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The problem is that the telecoms WERE and ARE breaking the law. And Bush knows it. If they go to court, they will be found guilty for doing so, and in the process a lot of information about the gov't also breaking the law will be released into the public.
Bush had every opportunity to change the laws when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. He did not do so. This was a major mistake on his part and is now coming back to bite them in the ass.
Cycloptichorn
The fact is the Bush Administration had been operating under a legal theory that made it all legal. Whether that was wise or unwise I regard as an open question. Democrats in Congress have waged an unremitting assault on that legal theory and any Administration officials who defented it (former AG Gonzales), and now go on to vociferously oppose the after-the-fact legal remedy the Administration now proposes.
There is no escaping the conclusion that the Democrats wish, for their own reasons, to curtail the intelligence and police powers that may well be the only alternative to military assault on Islamist terror.
It's illegal to wiretap without FISA approval. That's the law.
george said:
Quote:The fact is the Bush Administration had been operating under a legal theory that made it all legal. Whether that was wise or unwise I regard as an open question.
The Bush administration has been operating under a legal theory (the unitary executive) which makes EVERYTHING legal if the President says it is.
Strive mightily, if it is your desire, to derive anything from this legal 'position' other than that law loses all meaning.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20858
Nah, Bernie. It is all peanuts compared to what was done during and after WWI by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson; during WWII by democrat President Franklin Roosevelt; and of course what was done during the Civil War by Republican President Abraham Lincoln.
Somehow the law did not lose its meaning during any of those episodes.
Did you read the piece on Goldsmith, george?
blatham wrote:Did you read the piece on Goldsmith, george?
Yes. However, it didn't influence my answer above. The article - in terms of the facts presented - was but a repetition of stuff I have already seen and heard (during Senate hearings mostly). I don't see that it illuminates the issue at all. The conclusions at the heart of the article are all the unsupported value judgements of the writer.
