0
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 04:26 am
Ticomaya wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
McTag wrote:
I can understand why the Bushites might be despondent at the moment.

But not why you want to post when you've got nothing constructive, contrite, or even sensible to say.


Hmmmm.... ironic, huh?


Very.


What McTag said. Smile
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 10:46 am
About the Republicans' new Senate minority whip --

The link is from Salon, so you can bet the quotes are cherry-picked for negative impression...

but damn, what quotes they are. Confused

Note that in the original post, each of these Trent Lott quotes is sourced.

Quote:
Senate Republicans have just elected Trent Lott to serve as their new minority whip, and every mainstream media story reporting that fact will note that Lott lost his job as Senate majority leader in 2002 after saying that America would have been better off if segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948.

We prefer to remember Lott-isms of more recent vintages.

Lott on Iraq: After declaring that Senate Republicans and "real people out there in the world" don't "obsess" about Iraq like reporters do, Lott said in September that he doesn't understand why Sunnis and Shiites are fighting each other anyway. "Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference?" Lott asked. "They all look the same to me."

Lott on Tom DeLay: In an interview with the Washington Times in 2005, Lott said that George W. Bush "needs Tom DeLay" and that the White House should have been giving him "aggressive support." "I think the president would tell anybody privately or publicly that Tom DeLay has been a strong leader, aggressive leader, and that he hopes he'll stay in that leadership position," he said.

Lott on ethics reform: "Now we're going to say you can't have a meal for more than 20 bucks. Where are you going, to McDonald's?"

Lott on critics of "earmarks": "I'll just say this about the so-called 'porkbusters.' I'm getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble since Katrina."

Lott on Abu Ghraib: In an interview with the New York Times' Deborah Soloman, Lott said: "Most of the people in Mississippi came up to me and said: 'Thank goodness. America comes first.' Interrogation is not a Sunday-school class. You don't get information that will save American lives by withholding pancakes." Right, Soloman said, but unleashing killer dogs on naked Iraqi detainees isn't really the same things as withholding pancakes, is it? "I was amazed that people reacted like that," Lott responded. "Did the dogs bite them? Did the dogs assault them? How are you going to get people to give information that will lead to the saving of lives?"

Lott on what it means to look like an American: "I always had trouble understanding -- Iraqis look like Iraqis, and Americans look like Americans ... Methodists, Baptists and Catholics live in my hometown. They all look the same to me, they all look like Americans." Lott's hometown is Pascagoula, Miss., where about 65 percent of the population is white and about 29 percent is black.

Lott on saying things you shouldn't: "We've all fallen into that trap ... where you go before some group that you really shouldn't, or you're not quite sure who they are or you use some inflammatory language that appeals to that group. And you know, you've just got to learn not to do that. We all have to learn to not to do that, Republican and Democrat alike."


The ones on Delay/ethics/earmarks are particularly interesting. I hope that the Dems wont elect Murtha on their side (today?), because it would be a very swift way to score an own goal on the ethics/corruption issues they capitalised on these elections. But even if they do, looking at Lott here, it doesnt look like the Reps will be able to turn the tables on this any time soon anyway.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 04:58 pm
nimh

I'd read that bit earlier today.

Resurrecting Lott doesn't surprise me. He knows how to play the procedural games.

I'm guessing that the RNC strategy leading up to 2008 will be to make the dems look as bad/obstructionist as possible. Iraq isn't going to go away and they have to try and turn peoples' minds from the direction this last election indicated. An indication of this would be the appointments Bush has re-submitted to the courts and with Bolton and Tomlinson. Lott's experience, I suspect, is why they've gone back to him.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 05:05 pm
nimh wrote:


The ones on Delay/ethics/earmarks are particularly interesting. I hope that the Dems wont elect Murtha on their side (today?), because it would be a very swift way to score an own goal on the ethics/corruption issues they capitalised on these elections.


You win!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:05 pm
Though I was never privileged to meet him or hear him speak in person, it was with a sense of personal loss that I heard of Milton Friedman's passing yesterday. It seems appropriate to post a tribute to him by one of his students and admirers:

Freedom Man
Milton Friedman had both genius and common sense.

BY THOMAS SOWELL
Saturday, November 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

PALO ALTO, Calif.--Milton Friedman was one of the very few intellectuals with both genius and common sense. He could express himself at the highest analytical levels to his fellow economists in academic publications and still write popular books such as "Capitalism and Freedom" and "Free to Choose" that could be understood by people who knew nothing about economics. Indeed, his television series, "Free to Choose," was readily understandable even by people who don't read books.

Milton Friedman may well have been the most important economist of the 20th century, even if John Maynard Keynes was the most famous. No small part of Friedman's achievement was rescuing economics from the pervasive and virtually unquestioned Keynesian orthodoxy that reigned in many places.

Ironically, Friedman began his career as a believer in both Keynesian economics and in the liberals' vision of the world with which it was so compatible. Yet, in the end, no one did more to dethrone both. It is doubtful whether Ronald Reagan could have been elected president in 1980 without the changes in public opinion produced by Friedman's work in the previous decades.

The Keynesians' belief that government policy could wisely make trade-offs between rates of inflation and rates of unemployment was epitomized in the Phillips Curve, which seemed to lend empirical support to that belief. Friedman dealt that analysis a body blow when he argued that it was not the rate of inflation which reduced unemployment but the fact that inflation exceeded expectations.

In other words, even a high rate of inflation would not reduce unemployment if inflationary policies became so common as to be expected. The "stagflation" of the 1970s--with simultaneous double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment--validated what Friedman had said, in a way that no one could ignore.

Unlike so many intellectuals who have aspired to positions of power, Friedman preferred to remain outside of government and independent of politicians. His influence was nevertheless great because his ideas moved others, whether in the economics profession, in the general public or among policy makers.

Friedman's many contributions to economics, recognized by the Nobel Prize that he received in 1976, were only part of his contributions to society at large. His decades-long campaign to promote school vouchers has been enshrined in the foundation named for him and his wife, the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. He was a compassionate conservative long before that term was coined, for the rich obviously do not need vouchers to get a decent education for their children.

Friedman's own personal background made him familiar with the problems of those who begin life without the privileges of the elite--and of the importance of education as a way to advance beyond their beginnings. Born in Brooklyn in 1912 to immigrant parents, he grew up in New Jersey, living over his family's store, and worked his way through Rutgers University. Later, he went on to postgraduate work at the University of Chicago. The rest, as they say, is history.

As the central figure in the "Chicago School" of economists, and an outstanding teacher, Friedman over the years sent forth into the world--overseas as well as in the U.S.--a stream of economists who influenced the thinking, and in some cases the policies, of countries all around the world. These students, along with his writings, are part of his enduring legacy. His popular writings, speeches and television appearances spread his ideas through successively wider circles of people, who passed these ideas on to others, many of whom may never had known where these ideas originated.

As one of those privileged to have studied under Friedman, I felt a special loss at his death but also a sense of good fortune to have learned from him, not only when I was at the University of Chicago but also in the years and decades since then. He was a tough, no-nonsense teacher in the classroom but a kind and generous human being outside.

Students were not allowed to walk into his classroom after his lecture had begun, distracting others. Once, I arrived at the door just minutes after Friedman began speaking and had to turn around and go back to the dormitory, wondering all the while whether what he taught that day would be on the next exam. After that, I was always in my seat when Friedman entered the classroom. He was also a tough grader. On one exam, there were only two B's in the whole class--and no A's.

The other side of Friedman was his generosity with his time to help students, and even former students. In later years, long after I had left the University of Chicago, he helped me with his criticisms and advice on my work--only when asked. When I was offered an appointment to the Federal Trade Commission in 1976, he was asked by the White House to urge me to accept but he declined to do so. It was the best non-advice I ever got. I would have been miserable at the FTC.

Although in recent years we were both members of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, we each lived miles away and neither of us was physically present there with any great frequency, so the chance that we would both be there on the same day was virtually nil. The last time I saw Friedman in person was in 2004, when we were jointly interviewed on television. Afterwards, he gave me a ride in his little sports car over to the Stanford faculty club, where we joined a group for lunch. Then he drove back to his home in San Francisco, 30 miles away, though he was at the time in his 90s.

More recently, I happened to chat briefly with Friedman on the phone a few days before his death, and found his mind to be as clear and sharp as ever. That will always be a special memory of a very special man, one of the giants of our time--intellectually, morally, and as a human being.

Mr. Sowell is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, at Stanford.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009268
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:27 pm
nimh

Boehner and Blunt as leader and whip look to be in the same mold...procedural expertise deemed to be more effective/important than the negatives that might be associated with them. I'd probably have made the same choices.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 11:43 am
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/061117/asay.gif
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 01:17 pm
Problem with the cartoon is that "Iran near nuclearization" is not a news item. It's fiction.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 08:08 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
Problem with the cartoon is that "Iran near nuclearization" is not a news item. It's fiction.


Not for a kool-aid guzzler like McG, Roxxxanne.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 08:13 pm
We opened pandoras nuclear box years ago. We. Us. The United States. Period.
eventually somone is going to blow one up somewhere.

Eventually I will go bald.

Eventually I will get some sort of cancer.

Eventually (actually already) something bad will happen to one of my loved ones and/or me.

So what shall I do? Pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 07:11 am
nimh (et al)

Quote:
Even though she hasn't yet taken office, media already questioning Pelosi's suitability as House speaker
http://mediamatters.org/items/200611200006

Here's something to watch. In order for the republicans to change the perceptions/ideas of the electorate, they are going to have to make the dems look like a bad choice. Nothing much in real states of affairs (Iraq, jobs, terrorism, immigration, etc) will change in the next two years (not for the positive, any way) and fear is now far less useful as a tool. So they are left with a PR campaign which must make the alternate party look incompetent, fractious (meaning uncertain and flightly and feminine), and - sure as hell they'll go for this one - corrupt. That's the stuff they'll ramp up on and shove into available corners of the media vacuum.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 09:15 am
http://www.bendib.com/newones/2006/november/small/11-19-Impeach.jpg
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 09:21 am
Blood of millions?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 09:38 am
blatham wrote:
nimh (et al)

Quote:
Even though she hasn't yet taken office, media already questioning Pelosi's suitability as House speaker
http://mediamatters.org/items/200611200006

Here's something to watch.

Well, I dunno about this one Blatham. As a general prediction you may well be right, for sure. But the occasion here can hardly be chalked up to the big bad Republican/conservative media machine.

Pelosi did mess up with the Hoyer/Murtha thing. I have seen many critical analyses of that, and they were, if anything, concentrated on the liberal ends of the media - I think I remember TNR, San Francisco Chronicle, Salon (or Slate, which was it). Which is only logical, since it's one of those inside / personnel-type issues that only really gets the insiders agitated. And I've seen a lot of anonymous Congressmen quoted expressing their bafflement about "what was she thinking?" - and they were all Democrats.

I, too, think it was sheer stupidity of Pelosi to try to strongarm through an underdog candidate, pressuring Democratic Congress(wo)men in dubious ways. Especially considering that the underdog in question has been repeatedly scornful about policies to improve/enforce ethics in Congress, and has an apparent skeleton in the closet himself -- when anti-corruption was the one issue that influenced voters into voting Democratic more than any other, even Iraq, according to the polls!

I agree with you that the Republicans will try to pull the Dems into the mud on the corruption/ethics issue since its easier to attack on than Iraq - but jesus, if Pelosi is going to throw that door wide open from right after the elections, you gotta wonder about her.

So yes, for sure there is/will be a concerted Republican effort to go after the Dems, and Pelosi in particular -- but just because you're being hunted doesnt mean you're good. She can well be unfairly hunted and also herself be to blame for flack she is getting. She is getting it from fellow Dems after all - some good ones, too.

I think, on a deeper level, that this basically comes back to the discussion we have been having with each other again and again (Hillary and the value/danger in 'fighting dirty' in campaigs ourselves too are two issues that come to mind). You tend to - rightly - highlight the danger of the conservative smear machine, but in response - in my eyes - veer too much towards the closing the ranks instinct. Like everyone being unfairly attacked by the conservatives therefore is/should be a liberal hero, or at least a bulwark to defend against the attack.

I see a big pitfall in that. In face of unfair attacks, it's easy to submit to the defensive instinct, where one excuses or ignores the political failures of politics/politicians on one's own side. The better strategy - both tactical and in terms of virtue - however remains to always be critical of your own side too - or especially. To expose flaws or mistakes where they happen, and tackle them, regardless of, or even preferably before, the other side's attacks.

The funny thing is that you completely agree with that mindset/philosophy when it comes to international politics - when it's America, or the West, versus the dangers and threats from other cultures, you dont display any "closing the ranks" instinct, and rightly insist that we should always remain critical of our own country and government foremost.

For me, Cold War era politics is an important influence here. In general, I'm proud of the political heritage of the Left. But during the Cold War, even its 1980s tailend in which I grew up, it did succumb, too easily (lazily?), to the "but look at your side" argument. The Sandinistas were accused of a crime? Castro was denounced for repression? Too often, the leftist would answer either or both: a) but look at what the junta in Chile does, or what terror the Contras are perpetrating; b) but you cant trust what they write -- the CIA, the Americans, they are after any leftwing government, they have the most sophisticated media manipulators, they will always try to blacken the names of people like him, etc.

Both of which were true, and both of which were besides the point. It is an echo of the second one I sometimes hear, ever so faintly, in the arguments you sometimes make. You are right to warn against underestimating the conservative smear machine. But one would be wrong to see any strident criticism of Democratic politicians or politics in that light. Sometimes, a gaffe is just a gaffe. Pelosi effed this one up, IMO, and thus, lots of pundits are speculating about her not being up to the job, because they do have 230 hours of on-air punditing to fill. Although the Republicans will have been happy to pounce on it, this one was not of their making.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 10:01 am
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
Blood of millions?


How about hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands. Does that make Bush nicer?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 10:07 am
Not really the most appropriate thread to plant your anti-bush turds xingu. But, I guess that what you are all about.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 10:40 am
McGentrix wrote:
Not really the most appropriate thread to plant your anti-bush turds xingu. But, I guess that what you are all about.


And why not? If the pros can express their opinion than so can the cons.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 10:42 am
Re: Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III
McGentrix wrote:
Could the liberals on A2K please not pollute this thread into an anti-Bush thread? I'd prefer not having to weed through the garbage to read a post in a thread topic I am interested in.

This is a BUSH SUPPORTER thread. If you do not support Bush, please feel free not to read or post here.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 10:50 am
Re: Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III
McGentrix wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Could the liberals on A2K please not pollute this thread into an anti-Bush thread? I'd prefer not having to weed through the garbage to read a post in a thread topic I am interested in.

This is a BUSH SUPPORTER thread. If you do not support Bush, please feel free not to read or post here.


Typical conservative; they can't stand free speech.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 10:54 am
Re: Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III
xingu wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Could the liberals on A2K please not pollute this thread into an anti-Bush thread? I'd prefer not having to weed through the garbage to read a post in a thread topic I am interested in.

This is a BUSH SUPPORTER thread. If you do not support Bush, please feel free not to read or post here.


Typical conservative; they can't stand free speech.


Typical liberal; can't understand the written word.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 07:44:57