Posted on 05/20/2004 10:13:51 PM PDT by dts32041
I'm not worried about Bush going to South Dakota, he will. I'm sure he's well aware that South Dakota is crucial for him and the Republicans. I'm just concerned with the Senate Republicans who refuse to work with him, after he's worked so hard to get them there. Bush sacrifices alot of time and effort by stumping for his representation in Congress.
Bush is going to win the election.
Rush is wrong. Bush should be taking the Senate Republicans to the woodshed more often to teach them to "fly right", rather than cower to the demands of the Democratic minority. We wouldn't be talking about 25 judges if only the Republicans in the Senate had some backbone and actually fought to get them passed. I watched the whole facade. Schumer and Corzine were pushing the Republicans around and had the Republican majority in the palm of their hands. There was no excuse for it. Bush stumped for many of these Republican Senators, and they actually let the Democrats take control.
Look, I don't know if you are a Democrat over here to raise trouble, or if you really don't "get" what is going on. "
I have been here since '99....and you? 3 months?
"Before passing negative judgment on this simply marvelous president, I would suggest that you examine the issues that concern you . . . in minute detail. That means more than merely "popping off" about your opinion. That means finding out exactly what the issues are, and how they are impacted, and by whom, and to what end. That would entail (for starters) 30-40 hours of in-depth study of peer reviewed articles, per subject, at your local college library, at the very least, coupled with some hands on experience in that area of interest. "
Is this a real conversation? Help me out with my narrow, shallow comments above, which I notice you didn't reply to. You might cut and paste the study requirement (including the hands-on experience, which by definition excludes nearly all of the people you are preaching down to on FR) above to all FR posters you disagree with. Notably, those that agree with your informed and educated opinion about this 'simply marvelous president' don't meet your education requirement either.
"Until you are ready to commit to the necessary study, it is senseless to "pop-off" jingoistic, Babbitt-ish, and/or populist sentiment, because it does nothing to advance the argument."
i.e. unless someone agrees with you their opinion is unstudied and has no validity, since in my case I must spend nearly 2 months of full-time work and study to properly prepare myself to make the comments I did above? FR does get entertaining at late hours...instead of this bizarre browbeating/patronizing attempt to discredit my comments, can you actually respond to them?
"With all do respect, your list seems to be a mile wide, but with absolutely no depth. "
Helpful responses about specific items on my list might give you an opportunity to put your thousands of hours of research and hands-on experience in the relevant fields into correcting my ignorant notions.
"This President is being advised by some of the smartest people in the world, who are making the very best decisions they can, BASED ON INFORMATION THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE. "
The 'government is smarter than you AND does the best they can' arguement should be reserved for those below the age of 12. In all fairness, it should be noted that this admin., as with all of the previous ones, has information I do not have, and only releases information that they approve or that they cannot control, so the last observation is accurate.
"IOW, you are clueless, as am I. The difference is, that I have worked for a President, and I know that I don't have the necessary information. "
This is a strange exchange. You do know that as a citizen you do have a right to an opinion about public policy issues, don't you? I have long believed a lot of the beauracrats in the white house have a disdainful attitude about the opinions of mere citizens who have no grasp of the real workings of washington. Many occupations do develop a rather provincial and hostile attitude towards outsiders, though only one has the power to forcibly extract money from our pockets and spend/rob it as they see fit. Your comments do tend to reflect this. Your lack of discourse on actually policy issues tends to reinforce it.
"None of your stories about how much "they" cost in medical care, or welfare, or education, or prison care, has any traction, because, for every dollar they "cost" us, they return tens of dollars. And the politicians know it."
I have made no such claims, and have not heard of a couple of them before your strange allegations. Please reference 'my stories' on these topics. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
It is old news that increasing population increases economic activity and increases the tax base for government revenues. No one doubts that this is good for government.
Reagan had no trouble jumping into the fray and exposing the left's idiocy, while bringing an incredible amount of dignity to the office. Rush knows better.
He also promised a new tone in Washington. The worst presidential policy I've ever seen.
More often than not he's twisted the arms of the Republicans to go along with the Democrats. That's the new tone in Washington.
"This President is a genius. Those who routinely accuse him of "caving" or of helping the other side, do not have the big picture, and it really takes too long to "explain" the nuances of politics to those who are so inexperienced, or tunnel-visioned, that they need to have every single item, and position, and decision, explained to them.
There are not enough hours in the day to explain to those who cannot see the big picture, or who are selfishly focused on their own particular agenda. The President is the man in charge, and he is doing a spectacular job. If some cannot see, it is only because they are blind. "
Actually, this is an evasion tactic to actually debating. Anyone who disagrees simply doesn't understand, or is selfishly focused on their own agenda (i.e. not yours). Right.
Rather than follow your comic-book world where the president is a right-wing version of 'west wing,' and the ignorant masses (at least those who disagree with him) simply cannot understand the good he does nor the reasons he does it, it is much more realistic to see a man who in intent on being re-elected to the exclusion of all else on the domestic side, while trying to avoid a PR blowup in his face on the current occupation of iraq, not helped by the fact what are probably somewhat standard interrogation tactics were documented and are being distributed to the press in a co-ordinated effort to dominate the news cycle as long as possible.
How did Bush cave in ? What was he going to do, use recess appointments ? Neal Boortz has lost his mind on this one.
How did this 60 vote nonsense get passed. Did the Dems vote on this change before the 2002 election? And what RINO a-holes went along with this travesty?
The public just doesn't care enough about the idiotic Dems obstruction tactics. Very annoying.
Good analysis.
May I also say that the GOPers in the Senate are a problem. Bush can't do much about things that go on in the Senate unless there is strong leadership there, and sadly, we don't have it, nor do we have the numbers to overcome this problem.
bttt
Geeze, no wonder the Liberals have as much power as they do.
This President is being advised by some of the smartest people in the world, who are making the very best decisions they can, BASED ON INFORMATION THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE.
IOW, you are clueless, as am I. The difference is, that I have worked for a President, and I know that I don't have the necessary information.
37 posted on 05/21/2004 12:13:49 AM PDT by trillium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
It's funny that here on FR, people constantly wring their hands over these "deals," yet NRO (I think) quoted a prominent unnamed Democrat as saying that every time there is a deal, it looks initially like the Dems win, then, by the end of the week, they figure out they've lost. I see no downside to this IF Bush planned no more recess appointments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.