It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:51 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Read This...You'll Feel Better! He's So Bad, He's Perfect!
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:54 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14442
Location: NC
He's So Bad, He's Perfect

From the Austin American Statesman (they copied from LA Times) on October 8, to keep and re-read on Nov 3 in the event Bush prevailed.

Under an odd logic, Bush deserves another term. Shouldn't he suffer for his blunders?
Jonathan Chait, an editor at the LA times, suggested that I use this week's column to try to make the most honest and persuasive case I could for President Bush's reelection.

At first I was skeptical. To say that I consider Bush a "bad" president would be a severe understatement. I think he's bad in a way that redefines my understanding of the word "bad." I used to think U.S. history had many bad presidents. Now, my "bad" category consists entirely of George W. Bush, with every previous president redefined as "good." There's also the fact that, on a personal level, I despise him with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. What I'm saying is, advocating Bush is kind of tricky.

But then I thought, what the heck. Why not try it for the sake of intellectual experimentation? After all, lawyers often defend some pretty repugnant clients, right? In keeping with that, I won't attempt to deny that my client has done some awful things. What I'll argue instead is that his very awfulness is the reason he deserves reelection.

Begin with the premise that a second-term Bush administration is unlikely to make things a whole lot worse. First of all, domestically, GOP moderates and deficit hawks have finally begun to wake up and realize that they have to rein in Bush's reckless fiscal policies. At the same time, if John F. Kerry is elected and tries to raise taxes or rein in spending, he'll probably suffer substantial political damage, as Bill Clinton did in 1994. But, unlike Clinton, he'll not enjoy Democratic majorities in both Houses, which means he stands a good chance of failing. That would be the worst of all worlds: Democrats would suffer the political costs of demanding sacrifice from the public, without the corresponding benefit of making the country better.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker has estimated that there's a 75% chance of a major financial crisis within the next five years if we don't reduce our budget deficit. That may be too high, but assume he's right. Whoever holds office would quickly become extremely unpopular, whether he had tried to deal with the deficit or not. If the choice is Bush doing nothing versus Kerry doing nothing, why not let Bush take the blame for his own mess? Why have a Democrat bail him out?

The foreign policy calculus is pretty similar. We don't have enough troops to fight the war we're in, let alone start another one. So there's no reason to fear Bush botching yet another war. And, as much as I desperately want to be wrong about this, the odds of Iraq evolving into a stable democracy look pretty grim right now. If such a scenario ever had any chance of succeeding, it would have required lots more ground troops to keep the peace and allow reconstruction. Now it's probably too late to do anything but salvage something short of total anarchy. If Kerry is president, conservatives will blame him for the failure in Iraq — if only we still had a leader of Bush's unwavering resolve, they'll claim, we would have won the war. If Bush is president, he'll be held accountable for his own bungling of the invasion.

That leaves the usual trump card — social policy. Plenty of my fellow liberals freak out at the thought of Bush appointing two or more Supreme Court justices. But maybe he deserves that too. Hear me out. Right now, Republicans get the best of both worlds. They get tens of millions of social conservatives marching to the polls to vote for them every two years but, because key points of the social-conservative agenda never gets enacted, they suffer hardly any political consequences for their positions.

Now, suppose Bush does appoint a couple justices. Maybe they will overturn Roe vs. Wade. If Roe falls, presumably states would decide how to deal with the abortion issue, and a reinvigorated pro-choice, center-left majority would be able to protect abortion rights in most places. In fact, the fear of a backlash would probably cause Bush's justices to chicken out and uphold Roe anyway. Then how would Republicans persuade social conservatives to keep supporting them?

Bush's presidency is a great mass of contradictions. There's an enormous gap between his purported values — fiscal discipline, toughness against terrorists, a commitment to social conservatism — and his true record. Sure, it would be emotionally satisfying to see Bush rejected by the voters once again. But maybe, for this president, defeat is too kind a fate.

Catherine

Never underestimate the danger wrought
by stupid people in large groups...

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:14 am 
Never underestimate the danger wrought
by stupid people in large groups...



If the Dumbocrats were so smart and witty and elitist why do you think a bunch of gun carrying, pick-up driving , hicks from the red states took all your power away......and I mean .....all...... your power .....The best you could hope for now that Fat A** Teddy Kennedy might be able to stop drinking and killing his dates long enough to lead a filibuster. Let me give you a hint ........because you are not as flipping smart as you think you are. We own your a** now!!! We will own it in the future. The American public is tired of your lies and most of all you being an obstructionist like Tom Daschel...........WHO!!! Oh that's right, we canned his little weasel a** too.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:50 am 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:44 am
Posts: 113
Marine Sniper,

I have three questions - Have you been appointed to speak for the
American public? Whose lies are you referring to? What about all
of Bush's lies?

_________________
"A hypocrite pats you on the back in front of your
face, and slaps you in the face behind your back."
-Unknown


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:47 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:32 pm
Posts: 279
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Marine Sniper wrote:
Never underestimate the danger wrought
by stupid people in large groups...



If the Dumbocrats were so smart and witty and elitist why do you think a bunch of gun carrying, pick-up driving , hicks from the red states took all your power away......and I mean .....all...... your power .....The best you could hope for now that Fat A** Teddy Kennedy might be able to stop drinking and killing his dates long enough to lead a filibuster. Let me give you a hint ........because you are not as flipping smart as you think you are. We own your a** now!!! We will own it in the future. The American public is tired of your lies and most of all you being an obstructionist like Tom Daschel...........WHO!!! Oh that's right, we canned his little weasel a** too.


Here is why they took their power away...it is called election fraud. 2000, 2002 & 2004. We are living under a coup.

Do you think that the American people are that much different than the rest of the world? The entire world wants Bush/PNAC out. The entire world. Americans are either less informed than the rest of the world or there was massive fraud.

If you have followed the voting problems since 2000 you will realize that there was clear fraud.

Question...when a Republican is filmed standing next to Bush on election day, early in the day, way before the polls close...and he says "It's all over. We won. It's all over except for the counting, and we'll take care of the counting"...what do you think that could mean? If a Democrat said that and then the Democratic candidate went on to win diispite the exit polls showing the opposite....what would you say?

They did not win the power. They stole it. Criminals do things like that. They did not win. They are not more popular. They do not have a mandate. They are simply criminals.

Period...end of story. :glasses5:

_________________
Peace,
Jesse - Editor, TvNewsLies.org
http://tvnewslies.org


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:54 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:44 am
Posts: 113
Honest politician is an oxymoron.

Image
Todd's Two Political Principals: 1. No matter what they're
telling you, they're not telling you the whole truth. 2. No
matter what they're talking about, they're talking about
money.

_________________
"A hypocrite pats you on the back in front of your
face, and slaps you in the face behind your back."
-Unknown


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:41 am 
As for speaking for the American public..... we spoke on Nov 2.


As for voter fraud ....Here we go again with the leftist wacko conspiracy theories.....Just like M.Moore's movie you have all kinds of charges and not a single shred of proof to back it up. If there was voter fraud you would have been in the highest court in the land by now.


All you have is Blah, Blah,Blah...........and that is why you are out on your butts.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:50 am 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:44 am
Posts: 113
Quote:
As for voter fraud ....Here we go again with the leftist wacko conspiracy theories.....Just like M.Moore's movie you have all kinds of charges and not a single shred of proof to back it up. If there was voter fraud you would have been in the highest court in the land by now.


Quote:
Ten preliminary reasons why the Bush vote does not compute, and why Congress
must investigate rather than certify the Electoral College (Part One of Two)

by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman
January 3, 2005

The presidential vote for George W. Bush does not compute.

By examining a very wide range of sworn testimonies from voters, polling officials and others close to the administration of the Nov. 2 election; by statistical analysis of the certified vote by mathematicians, election experts and independent research teams who have conducted detailed studies of the results in Ohio, New Mexico, Florida and elsewhere; from experts who studied the voting machines, tabulators and other electronic equipment on which a fair vote count has depended; and from a team of attorneys and others who have challenged the Ohio results; the freepress.org investigative team has compiled a portrait of an election whose true outcome must be investigated further by the Congress, the media and all Americans -- because it was almost certainly not an honest victory for George W. Bush.

Crucial flaws in the national vote count, most importantly in Ohio, New Mexico and Florida, indicate John Kerry was most likely the actual winner on November 2, as reported in national exit polls. At very least, the widespread tampering with how the election was conducted, and how Ohio's votes were counted and re-counted, has compromised this nation's historic commitment to free and fair elections.

On Thursday, January 6, the Electoral College will be challenged by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and other members of Congress under a law passed in 1887 in reaction to the fraudulent election of 1876. A fuller investigation requires assent by at least one Senator.

As this vote nears, Ohio’s certified presidential vote (and quite likely those of at least Florida and New Mexico) is simply not credible. George W. Bush’s ‘victory’ appears to have resulted from multiple frauds – a GOP ‘do-everything’ strategy to win the state that swung the election.

In today's article, we list the top ten glaring flaws in the Ohio vote that have allowed Bush to gather the votes to ‘win’ the presidency in Ohio with an apparent margin of 118,775 votes - the result from an official recount that manually examined only 3 percent of ballots cast.

This list involves very large totals of uncounted, tainted or fraudulent votes. Taken together, they exceed Bush's margin of victory in Ohio.

These expert analyses are based on state and local Board of Election statistics, U.S. Census reports, and other public documents. They were not conducted with any assistance from John F. Kerry’s campaign. All the conclusions presented can be re-checked among the wide range of documents posted at freepress.org under the Election 2004 department. The authors will also respond to specific journalistic inquiries at truth@freepress.org. Additional key sources are specified below.

These flaws involve very large numbers of votes. But they cannot fully explain how the results were recorded on Election Day for one crucial reason: the paper and digital record trail needed to analyze the actual voting has been sealed from public scrutiny by Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, who both administered the state's election and served as the co-chair of Ohio's 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign.

Blackwell and other Republican officials continue to discount such criticisms. Blackwell has written that the election ran "smoothly." His office has refused subpoenas requesting him to testify, terming them a form of "harassment." Ohio Republican Party Chairman Robert Bennett has said that this year's election had "fewer glitches" than previous ones. "We have bipartisan (election" boards and very specific rules and procedures," he says. "To have fraud within the counting process in Ohio, you would have to have massive collusion."

Nearly 85 percent of the state used paper ballots. Most were tabulated electronically – meaning an evidence trail exists, if it has not been destroyed or fatally compromised. But we have reason to believe this destruction has already occurred in a number of Ohio counties, rendering a full recount and audit impossible.

While the anomalies we have found in the Ohio vote are deep and serious, an in-depth study now indicates shocking parallels in New Mexico, which we will discuss in tomorrow's article.

The Bush-Cheney ‘do-everything’ strategy in Ohio covered a very wide range of tactics, from disenfranchisement of minority voters to discarding of ballots to tampered tabulators and much more. [Continued here...]


_________________
"A hypocrite pats you on the back in front of your
face, and slaps you in the face behind your back."
-Unknown


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:45 pm 
Oh goodie 3 more lefties that think G.W.B. should not be president......Studied by a team of leftie attorneys and challenged by a leftie dumbocrat from Michigan....This is starting to sound like the hanging chads of Florida in 2000.

Kick and scream as you may G.W.B. is your president.......Now how about some bi-partisan non-gay love!!!


......I will see you inauguration day!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:30 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14442
Location: NC
ummmm....and what do you have against gays, MS? Has a gay person harmed you in some way? Would you discriminate against a fellow American just because he or she was gay?

I know, I know I will get the same old Rush Limbaugh rhetoric, but...it's always worth a try to get you to say something original...besides being highly entertaining, even if it is an exercise in futility.

:roll:

Catherine

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:45 am 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:44 am
Posts: 113
I'll be wearing a t-shirt with this design on it on inauguration day.
The black ribbon looks really cool on GeeDubya's shirt lapel. Image

Image

_________________
"A hypocrite pats you on the back in front of your
face, and slaps you in the face behind your back."
-Unknown


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:15 am 
No Cathrine.....I know this is a leftie site....just didn't want anyone to get the wrong Idea about me......when I asked for love.


Has a gay person harmed me??!!! Oh that is a hoot!!!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:54 am 
lol @ the thought of a gay dude kickin the crap out of marine sniper.

It seems to me that the ones who mention gayness all the time are trying to purge inner thoughts and feelings. Just an observation. :D


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:07 am 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:44 am
Posts: 113
Marine Sniper,

Why would anyone get the wrong idea about you? After this remark:
"I love liberal chicks they are easy and I never call them back" - it's
pretty clear where you're coming from.

_________________
"A hypocrite pats you on the back in front of your
face, and slaps you in the face behind your back."
-Unknown


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:29 pm 
O.K.!!!!! as long as my machoness is protected I am happy :D


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group