Where Are The Democrats WMDs?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bullshit. Steroid Act, anyone? The huge focus this government seems to put on big business is not related to popular ideals by those with money in Washington? If they aren’t doing it for the sake of what is popular, their reasons must simply be for larger personal bank accounts. Notice that I am not just focusing this on Bush but what seems to be the growing sentiment in Washington in general.[/quote]

I think there’s a huge difference in opinion polls for the President, and the pack mentality that congress and the President dispalyed in not only the Steroid Act, but in the greed with which they pursued Big Tobacco.

And if you think for one second that those congressmen gave a shit about smoker’s health issues - I have a bridge I’d like you to look at.

But to answer you original question again - I don’t think opinion polls are all that important.

22

[quote]JeffR wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
“The difference is, Clinton didn’t use this dodgy information to launch a war.”

Please apologize to the workers’ families at the aspirin factory in Sudan.

Thanks,

JeffR

[/quote]

Funny Jeff,for a gung-ho right winger you don’t know what the word WAR means.

23

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Elk,

Clinton’s career low in approval rating was 43% (June 1993).

Bush’s career low is 44% (July 2005).

So, roughly the same.

Clinton’s career high was 69% (January 1998).

Bush’s career high was 90% (September 2001, of course).

I got these from Gallup and ABCNews. Take from them what you will.[/quote]

Yes, and clearly your info is false. From: USATODAY.com - President's approval ratings continue to sag
his ratings have hit as low as 42%. Why find false info?

That makes Elk’s statements correct…as much as that must pain some of you…and Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office!!!

24

[quote]JeffR wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Actually, the United States was attacked multiple times. Please indicate the effective measures taken by bill clinton to ward off further attacks.

JeffR

[/quote]

Okay Jeff, I will.

Clinton revamped the military, putting more emphasis on special forces units, in training and technology, than ever before.

Only 38 days after Bill Clinton took office, Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center for the first time. He then reacted accordingly, capturing and convicting the men responsible, Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and wali Kahn Amin Shah.

Clinton’s administration thwarted countless attacks! A plot to kill the Pope was thwarted. So was a plot to blow up 12 US jetliners simultaneously. Huge attacks were planned against the UN HQ, the FBI building, the Israeli embassy in Washington, the LA and Boston airports, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and the George Washington Bridge.

How did Clinton do this? He TRIPLED the counterterrorism budget for the FBI. He doubled counterterrorism overall. He dealt with Al Qaeda cells in more than 20 countries.

Clinton struck targets in Sudan and Afghanistan with Tomahawk missles in retaliation for terrorist strikes on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
After those embassy bombings, Clinton issued a presidential directive authorising the assasination of Osama Bin Laden.

The final Al Qaeda attack of Clinton’s era was the bombing of the US Cole. Clinton then instructed Richard Clarke to come up with a comprehensive plan to smash Al Qaeda. Then Clinton left office, and the inept Bush administration failed to follow through. Sandy Berger tried multiple times to warn his successor, Dr Rice, about the danger posed by Bin Laden.

From the NY Times:
‘As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condolezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that terrorism- and particulary Mr. Bin Laden’s brand of it- would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined.’

Also said by Sandy Berger:
‘I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on Al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject’.

Bush’s incoming team thought the Clintonites were obsessed with terrorism. They were more interested in other things, like missle defense.

Bush never attended a meeting to deal with domestic terrorist attacks before 9/11. Never. Despite all the warnings by the outgoing Clinton crew, domestic terrorism was ignored.

The holdovers from the Clinon era- Clarke and CIA director Tenet- constantly tried to warn Bush of upcoming attacks through Dr. Rice- but were ignored. Bush went on his record holiday, then we all know what happened. 3000 dead. It damn well wasn’t Clinton’s fault! Bush, Cheney, Rice and co. did NOTHING in the 6 months before 9/11 despite constant warnings and pleading from the likes of Clarke and Tenet. They are so much more responsible than Bill Clinton.

25

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Elk,

“I still think the right electrified the religious through a few different channels and that is what got ole Georgie elected the second time around.”

So given the massive turnout for Kerry also, did the Left electrify the Angry Left through a few different channels?

[/quote]

I think far more then Bush, Kerry and the dems even with their inherent faults were for the most part more truthful then Bush and company.

I have said it before and I will say it again. I don’t think Bush and his staff are intentionally evil, I think they have deluded themselves to think they are doing a greater good when in reality there actions aren’t in the interests of regular middle class or poor folks who bear the brunt or consequences of their actions.

So, Thunder, I think the way the right went after the presidency was far more manipulative and deceptive then the left or dems.

Mark my words the chickens are coming home to roost and this power that zeb, you, and others, are enjoying by your party aint gonna last! No matter how much jerffy and rainjack wish it to.

If people open there eyes the tide is starting to turn on many different levels and just like people got sick of Johnson during Vietnam there going to get sick of Bush and company and want a change. The repubs had the power and much like Clinton hurting his party be being blown, Georgie has done it to his party with this war.

26

Now, I assume the loving and honerable “conservative” response will be praise of what Clinton actually did do against terrorist acts instead of insults…because this is what you all claim you wish would happen with Bush anytime the most random disconnected fact is posted on this forum.

Let’s wait and see, kids, what type of reponses, if any, a post like that will get.

I mean, Bush has only received the LOWEST approval rating of a modern president.

27

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I mean, Bush has only received the LOWEST approval rating of a modern president.[/quote]

Well - he should just hang his head in shame, and resign. Nobody likes him.

If it makes the ABBer’s get a hard on to watch and gloat over the President’s approval rating - well then I guess it does serve a purpose.

But I’ve said it many times before - the current President doesn’t govern with a finger in the air to check which way the public wind is a blowin’.

I certainly hope the left keeps this fascination with the President alive for another year, or so. Even better would be for the Party Of Dean to think this means that the U.S. wants a dem in office.

28

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I mean, Bush has only received the LOWEST approval rating of a modern president.

Well - he should just hang his head in shame, and resign. Nobody likes him.

If it makes the ABBer’s get a hard on to watch and gloat over the President’s approval rating - well then I guess it does serve a purpose.

But I’ve said it many times before - the current President doesn’t govern with a finger in the air to check which way the public wind is a blowin’.

I certainly hope the left keeps this fascination with the President alive for another year, or so. Even better would be for the Party Of Dean to think this means that the U.S. wants a dem in office. [/quote]

Why do you, and others, insist on thinking of this only in terms of party affiliation? I don’t like Bush for what Bush does, not because he is a Republican. That has NOTHING to do with it. I would vote for another republican if they weren’t so ready to focus on lining their own wallets and sending troops to death on the basis of impulse and “texas oil drilling” bravado.

You seem to hold it in high regard that he cares little for what the people of America care about. I find that repulsive. Such is life.

29

Also, Rainjack, he may not hold his fingers to the wind, but when a president gets lower scores than the guy before who got his dick sucked (a fact that Republicans won’t let go of as if that was ALL Clinton did during his term in office), you would think he would start using that weathervane.

30

The sad fact is that there are men and women dying and the American people are waking up. No Republican Congressman has spoken out against TREASON COMMITTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE. Again, America is waking up. Look at the recent special election in Ohio. Nobody expected such strong support for Mr. Hackett. He’s an IRAQ WAR VETERAN and the GOP did not even show the slightest gratitude for his service. He lost (in a probably rigged up election, you know how these Diebold machines work) by 4 points in bleeding Red southern Ohio. Watch out you Neo-Cons, REAL democracy is on the march.

31

Pro X,

“Yes, and clearly your info is false. From: http://www.usatoday.com/…-18-poll_x.htm
his ratings have hit as low as 42%. Why find false info?”

Hey genius, learn to read your own sources and stop wasting my time:

“Bush’s job approval has been steady this month, but some scores on personal qualities have dipped, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Monday and Tuesday.”

Then to the polls cited:

  1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

    Approve Disapprove No opinion

Likely Voters
2004 Oct 29-31 51 46 3
2004 Oct 22-24 54 44 2
2004 Oct 14-16 54 44 2
2004 Oct 11-14 – – –
2004 Oct 9-10 48 49 3
2004 Oct 1-3 49 50 1

Registered Voters
2004 Oct 29-31 49 47 4
2004 Oct 22-24 51 46 3
2004 Oct 14-16 51 47 2
2004 Oct 11-14 48 49 3
2004 Oct 9-10 49 47 4
2004 Oct 1-3 50 48 2

“Job approval” - which means “approval ratings on the whole” - are what Elk asked for. The piece you cite has a Job Approval low of 44%. The 42% referenced one of the ‘personal qualities’.

Get your shit together, Pro X.

“That makes Elk’s statements correct…as much as that must pain some of you…and Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office!!!”

Well, your refuted information aside, that was the point of my post - take it for what it was worth. There are many different polls with different margins of error. I personally don’t put a lot of stock in polls, and I think there is not a wit’s difference between 43% and 44%. None.

So, am I pained? Yes, but not at what you think. I am pained that a so-called ‘doctor’ can’t even get basic arguments right and keeps posting like a numbskull. That is what pains me.

32

Pro X,

“The “angry left”? As if there is no “angry right”?”

Who said that? Elk was saying that Bush got his base up and that’s what got all his votes out - and the ‘Religious Right’ is his so-called base. So I asked if Kerry used the same tactics to get his base out - referred to as the Angry Left: you know, the ones that typically have a bumper sticker that says “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention” or something similar.

Those are terms used to describe the respective bases of the political parties.

Try and follow the ball, Pro X.

33

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Hey genius, learn to read your own sources and stop wasting my time:

So, am I pained? Yes, but not at what you think. I am pained that a so-called ‘doctor’ can’t even get basic arguments right and keeps posting like a numbskull. That is what pains me. [/quote]

Right, these are those insults you all claim to never dole out.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

This one states his job approval rating as low as 42%.

That along with
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000866232
shows his approval rating is the lowest for any second term president. Wow.

34

[quote]deanosumo wrote:

Clinton revamped the military, putting more emphasis on special forces units, in training and technology, than ever before.
…

[/quote]

Clinton slashed te military by 40%. Special Forces took a slightly smaller hit.

His only emphasis on Special Forces is he didn’t cut it quite as much as he cut the rest of the military.

Clinton’s administration was not quite as bad on terrorism as some of the right wingers would like to believe.

The main thrust of his administration was in the legal area, attempting to arrest and convict the terrorists.

His few forays into using military action against islamic terrorists were a punchline to a bad joke.

The CIA went from bad to worse under his watch.

According to most insiders Clinton would appear very disinterested whenever the subject of terrorism came up.

Overall his admistrations effort was above the horrible rating some would like to give it, but it wasn’t good either.

35

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why do you, and others, insist on thinking of this only in terms of party affiliation? I don’t like Bush for what Bush does, not because he is a Republican. That has NOTHING to do with it. I would vote for another republican if they weren’t so ready to focus on lining their own wallets and sending troops to death on the basis of impulse and “texas oil drilling” bravado.[/quote]

ABBers have no party affiliation - so I’m not sure what it is you are saying other than you don’t like Bush and you didn’t vote for him. You voted against him fro the simple reason that you don’t like him. And that - in a nutshell - is the essence of the ABBer.

If you don’t think he listens to constituents, then you are deluded. But that is a far cry from letting Gallup, or Zogby, or USAToday/Time/CNN polls say about him. I hold it in high regard that he isn’t swayed by the changing winds of Public Opinion.

36

Elk,

“I think far more then Bush, Kerry and the dems even with their inherent faults were for the most part more truthful then Bush and company.”

Of course, I disagree. A large part of the majority of the Democratic party was behind the War in Iraq - only when Howard Dean stirred up the Angry Left did generally mainstream candidates start blwoing smoke about being againt the war.

“I have said it before and I will say it again. I don’t think Bush and his staff are intentionally evil, I think they have deluded themselves to think they are doing a greater good when in reality there actions aren’t in the interests of regular middle class or poor folks who bear the brunt or consequences of their actions.”

I don’t agree with you, but I think that is a fair criticism based in reality.

“So, Thunder, I think the way the right went after the presidency was far more manipulative and deceptive then the left or dems.”

In order for a huge portion of the electorate to be ‘deceived’ by Bush into voting for him, they’d have to be of pretty low-grade intelligence and wisdom. The Democrats obviously think that is true - I am not quite that cynical. I think it is a lazy argument to reflexively assume that the only way that Bush got elected was because the public got ‘duped’ - it is an arrogant and quite elitist attitude at its base, and it is weak. I give the American public more credit than that.

“Mark my words the chickens are coming home to roost and this power that zeb, you, and others, are enjoying by your party aint gonna last! No matter how much jerffy and rainjack wish it to.”

Oh, I never claimed that it would last forever. You’re not exactly making a bold prediction - the pendulum swings back and forth all the time. And that really doesn’t bother me - the US needs two strong parties vying for contention. It’s just a shame that the Democrats haven’t lived up to that over the past several years.

“If people open there eyes the tide is starting to turn on many different levels and just like people got sick of Johnson during Vietnam there going to get sick of Bush and company and want a change.”

Perhaps, but Democrats are trying to get all drunk on ‘revolution’ talk, like ‘the tide is turning’. Nonsense. There is no revolution or massive sea change. The way the Democrats win is to moderate. All this melodrama is worthless talk - in 2006 and 2008, it will be politics as usual. No one is going to storm the Bastille in the next election.

37

Pro X,

“Right, these are those insults you all claim to never dole out.”

I never said I wouldn’t insult, I just said I’d never say anything on a bulletin board that I wouldn’t say in a real conversation.

If you don’t like being called out, do a better job of posting.

"http://www.pollingreport.com/B…

This one states his job approval rating as low as 42%."

Actually, were you to read your own source, it actually goes as low as 41%.

What you haven’t realized is that by presenting the polls I did, I was not taking a partisan stance one way or the other - I was merely throwing out numbers I saw from two credible sources.

You desperately want me to be cheerleading for Bush’s numbers, but that is not what I am doing. Elk asked a question - I gave an objective answer. You want to race and find a poll that has Bush lower - that wasn’t my game. That’s why I told Elk to ‘take from it what you will.’

“That along with
http://www.editorandpublisher…
shows his approval rating is the lowest for any second term president. Wow.”

Why wow? Bush is a natural risk-taker - for better or worse. I expect that his numbers would have a pretty wide distribution over time, since he doesn’t ‘play it safe’ or ‘triangulate’.

What you want is a schoolyard pissing contest - “my lowest poll numbers are one percent better than your lowest poll numbers - nah nah nah” - but as I said before, I don’t put stock in polls very much. The only barometer I am interested in are the elections themselves.

Oh, and as a man of science, I am sure you understand the point of Margin of Error - since you are so fixated on the slightest differences in the numbers for partisan advantage, remember that the MoE is generally plus or minus 3, so a 41 can be as low as 38 or as high as a 44.

In sum, low 40s is low 40s is low 40s. Who cares?

38

At the end of the day one person made the final decision to go to war in Iraq.

Denying that is intelectually dishonest. (nothing new)

Analogy:

I say I want to hit Joe.

You say you want to hit Joe.

You hit Joe and I give you a hard time for actually physically hitting Joe and your reply is but you wanted to hit him too.

A court would charge you with assault and battery and I would not spend 1 second in court.

This is a fact. What you belief and what is a fact are mutually exclusive.

I blame the Democrats for Vietnam and training Al Queda and the Taliban.

I blame the Republicans for fiasco in Iraq.

The only people who disagree with either points are partisan hacks.

39

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Analogy:

I say I want to hit Joe.

You say you want to hit Joe.

You hit Joe and I give you a hard time for actually physically hitting Joe and your reply is but you wanted to hit him too.

A court would charge you with assault and battery and I would not spend 1 second in court.
[/quote]

That’s a poor analogy. A better one would be: You say Joe stole a car, I say Joe stole a car. The police come & dicover that Joe didn’t steal a car. You point your finger & say I lied about Joe.

40

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Analogy:

I say I want to hit Joe.

You say you want to hit Joe.

You hit Joe and I give you a hard time for actually physically hitting Joe and your reply is but you wanted to hit him too.

A court would charge you with assault and battery and I would not spend 1 second in court.

That’s a poor analogy. A better one would be: You say Joe stole a car, I say Joe stole a car. The police come & dicover that Joe didn’t steal a car. You point your finger & say I lied about Joe.[/quote]

Huh?

The left’s claim is the Bush alone made the final decision to go to war with Iraq.

Your analogy is irrelevant.