quote: WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush stepped up his efforts to boost Republicans' political fortunes by headlining two big-money fund-raisers Tuesday, criticizing Democrats during both stops.
At an evening congressional gala in Washington, Bush drew applause by calling for an overhaul of the tax code, a national energy bill and permanent tax relief, among other things. He accused Democrats of trying to block all of them.
"They stand for nothing except obstruction, and this is not leadership," Bush said. "It is the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the road block, and the country and our children deserve better."
First of all, this is crap coming from a President that even now claims to be a uniter and not a divider. You can't be much more divisive when you are calling the minority party do nothings who only want to get in the way and don't want to accomplish anything.
He also totally ignores the fact that the reason the Democrats are trying to stop his legislation is because they don't agree with it, not just to be childish. All of which leads into his general perception that if you don't agree with him, it's not possible for you to have a good idea.
Also:
quote: Among those attending the $2,500-per-ticket dinner was Mary Carey, a blond porn star who says she plans to run for lieutenant governor of California next year as an independent.
A few hours before the dinner, Carey met with reporters to show off her evening gown -- black, floor-length -- and talk about a Republican lunch she and her boss, adult film executive Mark Kulkis, attended where presidential adviser Karl Rove spoke.
I have no problem with her going to any event she wants, but I find it galling that a party that claims to stand for the moral purity of America against the hedonism of the Democrats will still take the money of the people they claim have no morals, and will actually try to ascend her to office.
And how incredibly out of touch with the public is he if he thinks this is true:
quote: Bush also spoke at Pennsylvania State University with a clear message: Those who remain opposed to revising Social Security will suffer for it in the minds of the public.
An overwhelming majority of the public according to polls are against the President's plan to change Social Security, and a large number of Republicans are joining the anti-overhaul movement because of public negativity towards it.
Stay tuned for part two where I expound on how pissed off I am about environmental report editing, global climate change, and most especially how angry I am about Bush's comments on the Bolton nomination.
(PS: I'm practicing for the fall where I'm being given my own column to write on politics at my university's newspaper)
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also am not a fan of Dubbya. From what I can tell he tries to picture himself as a great FDR, a uniter and trusted leader...however he fails at it in pretty much every form. The brief unity that America has had were the few weeks after 911. I dislike with a passion most political leaders that can't be empathetic and see the issue from others point of views.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have to say he annoys me quite a bit as well. Please continue finding reasons he is lame; it makes for good reading.
Posts: 29 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can name you at least a dozen presidents off the top of my head who have blamed a stop-action congress for all their problems. This is pretty standard political fare. Congress blames the President, the President blames Congress. It's a pattern that you are going to see in almost every president of either party, because it works. Most of America loves to blame Congress. We love our individual senators and representatives, but have a low opinion of the body as a whole.
His optimism on social security, while being desperately out of touch with reality, is just a ploy as well. If you tell the public enough that everyone is with you, some of them will start to believe it. Remember Nixon's silent majority? Again, standard politician stuff.
As for the porn star...yeah, that's pretty funny. Isn't she the same one who ran in the election against Arnold? I don't really think we can consider her a serious candidate for anything, as I'm pretty sure all of her "ideas" revolve around taxing various parts of the sex industry.
Politics is slimy. On all sides. More so in the age of media "scrutiny" than ever before, in some ways.
posted
I don't see this as a Bush thing... in every campaign in my memory the people have talked like this. Hell, even on this website, people talk like this. It's the hallmark of political debate that you must make out your opponent to be stupid, lazy, and bad for your target. Oh, and make sure and point out their spelling or grammatical errors because, of course, that invalidates everything they say. It's the main reason I quit posting on substantial threads (except when I just can't stand the hubris).
As for the porn star, be fair. How loud would the outcries be if the woman was refused? All of Bush's opponents would be screaming "Theocracy!" at the top of their lungs...
... because everything you (rightly) complained about applies for his opponents, too.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other complaints aside, I very much doubt the GOP is going to try and advance the Porn-Star ticket to governor, Lyrhawn.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that this is fairly standard political fare. What concerns me the most is the probability that we will get one of Bush's cronies or his brother to run for office against Hillary or some other long time Washington insider. The whole bunch are too inbred and share a lust for power. We should be wary of those who actually want to be president. I would prefer the reluctant candiate who serves the people out of love for country.
When I consider the likelihood of another Bush or Clinton in office, or perhaps even a long-time Senator I am reminded of the last 100 years of the Roman Republic. Marius, Sula, Pompey, and Caesar were all cronies and relatives who's reign lead to the end of the Republic. If it happened to the Romans, it can happen to us as well.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that it's standard run of the mill political tough talk to demonize the opposition party, but doing so while claiming to be trying your hardest to unite the country is just too far over the top for me. He can't have it both ways, and it annoys me even more that some people are silly enough to really buy into his crap.
And no, I don't really think that the GOP will be supporting Mary Carey in her bid to be the Lt. Governor, but they certainly don't seem to have a problem taking her money and parrading her around the fundraisers do they? Anything for a buck in the GOP, which is laughable coming from the party that claims to be the caretakers of American morality, and the guardians of American virtuosity (that's a word isn't it?).
I also don't think there would have been any outcry if she were denied the right to run under the GOP banner. No one would raise a fuss if a pro abortion woman wanted to run under the GOP name in the Bible belt and was denied any more than anyone would complain if a pro logging lumberjack who drove a Hummer and hated unions wanted to run under the Democratic ticket and were denied. There's nothing wrong with denying someone the right to run if his/her principles don't match that of your party.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many presidents truly didn't want to be president. I would wager that the answer is one, and that is a maybe.
Are you thinking of Washington?
I wouldn't disagree with you. The extend to which he didn't abuse the power he had makes me think that power really wasn't his agenda.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Howard Dean I'll give you, but just barely. Dean is on par with Cheney, Rice and Bush as far as crazy out of touch rhetoric goes.
But Hillary? You have to dig to find text of her recent speeches. I think Hillary is automatically demonized just because of who she is, she doesn't even have to give a speech. You think of Democrats speaking fiery rhetoric and you automatically have to lump Hillary in there just because it's her.
Sorry, but I don't think you can include her in that same group. I haven't seen her give a televised speech, or even seen a news article with the text of a speech of hers in the last month. And what I have heard from her lately is fairly measured and thought out.
Dean bash all you want, he deserves whatever he gets, though that doesn't mean I think he is always wrong or that I want him to stop, but I really wish Republicans would leave Hillary alone for once. Are they really that afraid of her?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, they support them by raising the deficit so high that the troops' children will all be bankrupt from the taxes they'll have to pay one day to get America out of the red.
And I wouldn't have made such a comment had Jay not implied in his comment that Republicans always support the troops while Democrats don't. At least Democrats care about the financial well being of the troops returning home, and have the foresight to think more than a year into the future about what the effects of current spending will have on those troops' families and lives.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is that no one would complain if she were stopped, not that she would automatically be prevented if she tried.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they would, and loudly... it would be another sign of the Overtly Christian Homogeneity of the Republican Party Which is All About White Males(tm).
MY point is that you can't have it both ways... not unlike your point, except that I'm trying to say that it applies to being critical of Bush as well as Bush's criticism of others.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, I was thinking about Washington. He had the opportunity that others haven't to really take control, and chose not to. I think that he is probably the closest to a president who really didn't want to be president. Obviously I cannot vouch for him, as he is dead and gone, but he is the only one I would be willing to say that about.
posted
The problem with politics can be seen quite easily in this thread. Both sides make blanket statements about the other side. Each side is equally guilty, but each side sees themselves as holding the high ground in the debate. It's really quite interesting.
Ever read Interface by Neal Stephenson and J. Frederick George? Politics is media. Media is message. Labeling is winning.
quote: My point is that no one would complain if she were stopped
You mean no one would complain if she lost the primary and wasn't selected as the Republican nominee? I should hope not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parsimony: Each side is equally guilty, but each side sees themselves as holding the high ground in the debate. It's really quite interesting.
change that to "has to portray themselves as holding the high ground or they will lose their audience, and thereby, their power" and I agree with you 100%
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to beat up on both sides when I think they deserve it. Bush is the loudest, so he gets the most attention from me. Dean is starting to creep up on my list of people that deserve a verbal beating, but he isn't quite there yet, as I think the Dems have saved up a little spotlight time by being silent for the last six months.
And I don't usually make blanket statements about a party, but rather specifically go after the person in whichever party I have a problem with.
"You mean no one would complain if she lost the primary and wasn't selected as the Republican nominee? I should hope not."
I guess I'll have to reword myself. I meant no one (or at least not seriously) would really complain if the Republicans decided not to support her for ideological reasons. If she were a black woman and they said no, it would cause an uproar, but she's a porn star, few people would really cause a fuss over it.
Now if the Democrats refused to help her, then you might see some noise being made.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
