What the heck is wrong with you, Mr. President?

MAKnight | 11/09/2005 | MAKnight

[MAKnight]

Good day Mr. President,

With all due respect, sir, what in the name of the Almighty is wrong with you?

And when I ask you this question I do believe I am speaking for the vast majority of those people who walked the precincts, sent down the checks, who cheered loudest when the Ohio results came in last year in November. I am talking about your supporters. Those of us who have and most likely will continue to stick by you until the day you finally return to Crawford three years from now.

We are the ones who have kept your poll numbers up when everyone else expected and hoped for them to go down. We are the ones who have remained your staunchest supporters even as the world mocked and insulted you. More importantly, We are the ones who got you elected, re-elected and provided you with majorities in both Houses of Congress, not just once, but twice.

We are the ones who hope and pray that you succeed.

So, again, with all due respect Mr. President, listen and take heed; we're tired. We're sick and tired.

We're sick and tired of seeing your poll numbers descending into the twenties. We're sick and tired of watching attacks by the other side and their Press allies on your Administration being met with only impotent and cowering silence. We're sick and tired of reading far better arguments on behalf of your own policies from the keyboards of anonymous posters on a myriad of websites than we hear from the mouths of your Administration's spokesmen (and this includes you). We're sick and tired of watching so many good men and women being slandered by the Democrats and their Press allies simply for being your nominees, without your Administration standing up to defend their honor. We're sick and tired of watching your administration compromising on the principles that got you elected, avoiding necessary confrontations, refusing to criticize even the harshest and most mendacious of your opponents, all in order to pander to an audience that hates you beyond the scope of reason.

And at the end of it all, what does your administration have to show for it? A torrent of anger, hate, lies and attacks from the other side and the Press that cannot have been any more than what you would have gotten if you had gone all out for a truly Reaganite Republican agenda and defended yourself and your administration, instead of listening to so-called "moderates/centrist" demands that you triangulate and turn the other cheek. Your continued dedication to cowering from your opponents in order to enamor yourself to the Left (or the so-called "Center") has only yielded continuously declining poll numbers for your administration and disastrous portents for your party's future as the majority party in Congress.

For goodness sake, why is it not yet obvious to you, Mr. President, that this dogged adherence to this "new tone" fantasy is actively harming you and your party? How much longer is your administration planning to continue imitating a punching bag? When, in the name all that is holy, are you going to start fighting back?! You are being overtly accused of deliberately sacrificing the lives of American soldiers in Iraq for personal gain by the Senate Democrat Leader and his Press allies, and yet you remain silent!

Why should I, or anybody else, continue to fight for someone who lacks the fortitude to defend his own honor and principles? Why should I continue to take the time to defend you when you refuse to defend yourself?

Mr. President, once again with all due respect, I implore you, stand up and fight. You were not elected to get along with Democrats or to make them like you. You were not elected to just get "things" done, but to get the "right things" done. You were elected because the American people trusted you more than the other guy to know what those "right things" are. Stand fast and fight back. Not just because you owe it to yourself, but, more importantly, because you owe it to your party, which made you their standard bearer and do not deserve to be dragged down along with you. Because you owe it to us, your supporters. Even more, you owe it to the soldiers fighting in Iraq, because you sent them there and yet they still gave you over 70% of their votes last year. And, finally, you owe it to the country, which looks to you for leadership, which needs to know that you did not send the best of its sons and daughters to die in vain.

Stand up and fight.

That is all.

Sincerely Yours
MartinAKnight

[Ben Chad]

... Republican, Conservative forum ...

Which is it? Republican or Conservative? From what I've seen in recent years, can't be both.

[Southack]

"Not to be persnickety, but that is a blatant falsehood."

On the contrary, the OSHA rules that would have gone into effect without President Bush's move to stop them would have required levels of corporate workers' compensation insurance, ergonomic compliance, and ADA compliance with which no home business at the time would have been able to readily comply.

In the short term, every home business would have been out of compliance or illegal. The rules were so bad that home businesses would have been required to have had concrete access ramps to their front doors for ADA compliance, for instance...something that the typical home business just doesn't have and can't instantly be added.

Same goes for the ergonomic computer chairs, wristpads, and monitors that were about to be required.

[Cboldt]

So the [Bush's] executive order [rescinding Clinton's XO that "implemented Kyoto"] never went through.

I haven't found firm confirmation, and the paragraph cited in my previous post is not correct - the XO dates don't line up at all. And I'd really like to read the supposed court case that asserts the President can't rescind a previous XO. That assertion is "out there." As is typical, no cite, just a naked assertion.

That's one of the problems with the media and this chatroom. Sweeping and/or vague citations that aim to make a point. Most readers fall for the assertions they like and dismiss the ones they don't like. 1 in 1,000 bothers to "check it out."

I always have to keep a sharp eye out for people who credit Bush for doing this, that, or the other thing, when in fact he never actually accomplished it.

That swings both ways. I like to dig one layer or so deeper to see what really happened - trying to get a view of both sides, if you will. Did so yesterday with the assertion that a Federal judge issued finding that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack.

But back to greenhouse gases and Bush's position - I think the best evidence of his poistion is his support for the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

[Southack]

"He actively and arrogantly gave Sandy Berger a pass.."

No. President Bush is in the Executive Branch. The Judge who gave Berger a fine and probation is in the Judicial Branch.

Bush would have to be King over all of government to have "Actively" given Berger a pass.

This is the U.S. We don't have a government King.

[Southack]

"I'm starting to come around to the longstanding complaints from old school party members that this administration is relatively inept compared to previous ones."

An inept Administration wouldn't get everything that they wanted passed through Congress.

Ask yourself if the ban on partial birth abortion made it through Congress. Likewise, did we get to deploy our national missile defenses and cut taxes?

Did we get to give immunity from lawsuits to our firearms manufacturers? Did we pass CAFTA and bankruptcy reform?

Did Congress vote to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Are thousands of our airline pilots now armed?

Did Libya surrender its WMDs? Did Syria withdraw its troops from Lebanon? Did Russia retreat from Georgia? Is Hussein in jail and the Taliban out of power? Are little girls going to school in Afghanistan?

[Eagle Eye]

Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.

As wrong as the ergonomic rules were, your statements are just as wrong as when Rush asserted that OSHA wanted to inspect homes of telecomuters. That was just plain false.

That was started by someone who didn't have a clue getting their hands on information they didn't understand.

So this whole line is just plain wrong and promoting intentional misinterpretations is wrong, too.

I'm not an OSHA employee, so don't even go there. But each of your assertions is incorrect and I've worked for some of the stakeholders that pushed to get the ergonomic rules overturned, but for none of the reasons you listed. And that's because those reasons were invented and promulgated by those with more agenda than facts.

[inquest]

From your link:

"We know the surface of the Earth is warmer and an increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity is contributing to the problem."

It's rather troublesome that the administration is talking like this. In fact, the evidence is piling up that increased solar activity is mainly to blame for the warming. And even the UN's IPCC's data show that there are countervailing factors that reverse climate change (such as increased cloud cover), that make it next to impossible to say with any kind of certainty what will happen over the next several decades. Hence, the classification of this as a "problem" is dubious, at best.

[ODC-GIRL]

Thanks for a sight for sore eyes. Book marked.

[Southack]

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/mar2001/sb2001036_231.htm

"The regulations, which took effect in the final week of the Clinton Administration, would cover 102 million workers at 6.1 million job sites. A decade in the making, the regulations include requiring employers to ... correct hazards as they occur. If an employee is injured on the job and unable to work, employers must pay 90% of salary and benefits for as long as three months.

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), which is to begin enforcing the rules in mid-October, estimates that they would prevent 300,000 workplace injuries every year and reduce the 1.8 million injuries reported annually. But business groups insist the rules are far too costly and overly broad. "You can't have this type of drain on the economy and have the type of prosperity we've had over the last seven or eight years," says Giovanni Coratolo, director of small-business policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

EYES ON CAPITOL HILL. Estimates of how much the regulations will cost vary widely, with OSHA figuring the burden on employers at roughly $4.5 billion a year. Business groups dismiss that number, insisting that implementation costs are likely to top $100 billion annually."

[Soul Seeker]

I think very few actually long for Kerry or Gore. I think most of us still feel blessed we have this man, rather than the other two.

The difference with Miers is that it was self-inflicted. And, remember, the administration made some inexusable charges to disparage the objectors of the nomination. Forgiveness cuts both ways, and I think both the administration and those of us on the other side have chosen to leave it in the past.

Recollecting, in the Miers nomination, they showed more "fight" than I've seen recently in anything else they've done...and it was against their base. This is the troubling aspect. Why were they so determined to engage that fight?

I just don't understand some of the decisions they have been making recently.

[Eagle Eye]

In the short term, every home business would have been out of compliance or illegal.

Many home businesses are sole proprietorships and not subject to OSHA.

The rules were so bad that home businesses would have been required to have had concrete access ramps to their front doors for ADA compliance, for instance...something that the typical home business just doesn't have and can't instantly be added.

There are provisions in ADA for companies to get into compliance over a period of time and to even be exempt from portions of it if it is demostrably unreasonable. Besides that, OSHA doesn't enforce ADA, so whoever fed you this misinformation mixed apples and oranges.

Rather odd that not once in the discussions and meetings that I attended regarding this topic since 1995 did any of your concerns surface.

Like I said before, the ergo rules had enough problems without having to invent more.

[Cboldt]

President Bush has fairly consistently said that human activity has a detrimental impact on climate. He wants to get the votes of environmentalists too.

He's pretty much a big government guy, but he's compassionate about it, and he's always been up front about it.

[Southack]

"Many home businesses are sole proprietorships and not subject to OSHA."

That's true today thanks to President Bush, but I'm unaware of any such exemption in President Clinton's OSHA rules that were to go into force at the end of his last term.

Can you cite such an exemption on-line?

[Southack]

"President Bush has fairly consistently said that human activity has a detrimental impact on climate."

Source?

[Eagle Eye]

Your article backs up my position, not yours.

Business that are exempt or partially exempt from the recordkeeping rules wouldn't have been affected by new form 300 reporting requirments. This includes most home businesses.

The comp issues were ridiculous as were the requirements to go 'fishing' for suspected ergonomic injuries.

Like I said, the ergo rules had plenty of problems without invneting new ones.

This is similar to those 2A advocates who use the false Hitler quote. It sounds good but isn't true. Using it doesn't strengthen their position.

[Fruitbat]

Well, I will say this, if W continues to hit on his USSC nominations and gets them pushed through, that could be enormous in forthcoming years.

[Southack]

"The comp issues were ridiculous as were the requirements to go 'fishing' for suspected ergonomic injuries. Like I said, the ergo rules had plenty of problems without invneting new ones."

Be specific. Include a link, and be brief...and I'll update my list with your modified OSHA wording.

[glennaro]

What happened to the long-standing practice on FR to label a thread such as yours -- although it is well-written and I enjoyed reading it -- as a "Vanity Post"?

[Cboldt]

"President Bush has fairly consistently said that human activity has a detrimental impact on climate."

Source?

"Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto," Bush said, noting that the treaty didn't require other "big polluters" such as India and China to cut emissions.

---

A White House briefing document giving key details of plan said: "The president's goal seeks to lower our rate of emissions from an estimated 183 tonnes per million dollars of GDP in 2002 to 151 tonnes in 2012."

Bush claimed this would "put America on a path towards stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in the long run, while sustaining the economic growth needed to finance our investment in a new, cleaner energy structure."

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1932

---

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 11, 2001

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I've just met with senior members of my administration who are working to develop an effective and science-based approach to addressing the important issues of global climate change. ...

The Kyoto Protocol was fatally flawed in fundamental ways. But the process used to bring nations together to discuss our joint response to climate change is an important one. That is why I am today committing the United States of America to work within the United Nations framework and elsewhere to develop with our friends and allies and nations throughout the world an effective and science-based response to the issue of global warming.

My Cabinet-level working group has met regularly for the last 10 weeks to review the most recent, most accurate, and most comprehensive science. They have heard from scientists offering a wide spectrum of views. They have reviewed the facts, and they have listened to many theories and suppositions. The working group asked the highly-respected National Academy of Sciences to provide us the most up-to-date information about what is known and about what is not known on the science of climate change.

First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.

There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.

Yet, the Academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.

For example, our useful efforts to reduce sulfur emissions may have actually increased warming, because sulfate particles reflect sunlight, bouncing it back into space. And, finally, no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.

The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.

There are only two ways to stabilize concentration of greenhouse gases. One is to avoid emitting them in the first place; the other is to try to capture them after they're created. And there are problems with both approaches. We're making great progress through technology, but have not yet developed cost-effective ways to capture carbon emissions at their source; although there is some promising work that is being done.

And a growing population requires more energy to heat and cool our homes, more gas to drive our cars. Even though we're making progress on conservation and energy efficiency and have significantly reduced the amount of carbon emissions per unit of GDP.

Our country, the United States is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. ...

Kyoto also failed to address two major pollutants that have an impact on warming: black soot and tropospheric ozone. Both are proven health hazards. Reducing both would not only address climate change, but also dramatically improve people's health.

Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers. And when you evaluate all these flaws, most reasonable people will understand that it's not sound public policy.

That's why 95 members of the United States Senate expressed a reluctance to endorse such an approach. Yet, America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change.

We recognize our responsibility and will meet it -- at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world. My Cabinet-level working group on climate change is recommending a number of initial steps, and will continue to work on additional ideas.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html