News-Record.com

The Bushes are very good at doing one thing. Choosing Vice Presidents that the thought of promoting them would chill you to the bone.

Think about it Hank....

President Cheney.

Uuuuugghhh!

I'm afraid we'll just have to be content for history to countenance Mr. Bush to being 43rd best president on his last day & 44th thereafter.

http://www.officialbushcountdown.com/?gclid=CNT2go2ZwI8CFSKiQQodxRWISw

Perhaps this will confort you.

Nancy Pelosi was in Raleigh and spoke at Meredith College yesterday. Regarding the war, she talked about new proposals but admitted that she'd stick with approaches that don't accomplish anything.

"You won't see a lot that is new. It's just a repetition of the same."

She said all of this while standing under a banner that read "A NEW DIRECTION."

I might not agree with a politician, but I find I respect people, even politicians, with strong convictions. Right now political convictions other than "I need to get elected and/or re-elected" would be a good start.

But folks will keep voting the career/family politicians back in, and then sit and wonder why nothing ever changes. Soon Hillary will win the presidential popularity contest, with few qualifications and fewer strongly-held beliefs, and the ship of this two-family dynasty will list a bit more to port. But Pelosi's comment will still likely apply.

Good luck America.

Roger

R. Bennet: "Soon Hillary will win the presidential popularity contest, with few qualifications and fewer strongly-held beliefs..."

No prognosticator am I, but Hillary has a major vulnerability: She is firmly in the camp of the illegal alien lobby.

Example: Her recent awkard performances in regard to her support of New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's campaign to give illegal aliens drivers licenses (Republicans suspect facilitating voter fraud is part of the Democratic Party game plan in New York, and elsewhere).

When the public gets a better grasp of this issue, the Hillary Express will slow.

From NY Times political blog, "The Caucus":

"A day after she appeared to struggle to give her views on the subject [of giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens], Hillary Rodham Clinton offered support today for Gov. Eliot Spitzer�s effort to award New York driver�s licenses to illegal immigrants, as her campaign sought to contain potentially damaging fallout from what her own supporters saw as a tense and listless debate performance. Mrs. Clinton�s statement affirming her support of Mr. Spitzer in his office came less than a day after she offered a muddled and hesitant position on the bill, prompting a round of denunciations by her opponents. It signaled the extent to which her advisers viewed that moment as the biggest misstep she made in the debate, and one with long-term potential to undermine her candidacy."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/a-day-later-clinton-embraces-spitzers-license-effort/

Now watch a key 4-minute segment of the Russert-Hillary exchange [Scroll down a bit to the screen] on Youtube:
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/2007/10/31/hillarys-panderfest-blows-up-in-her-face/

I'm not sure how this got on Hillary (defenders of Bush have kinda slunk into the night I guess), but I happened to catch her Wellesley speech this morning & I have to admit it was an impressive speech. When it's primary time I'll not vote for her but I don't see anyone touching her unless she has a macacca moment and she is the most disciplined candidate I've ever seen. There is much to admire about the lady.

I don't see much inspiration on the Rep side for any of their folks.

I guess folks are going to have to get use to seeing Bill back in the White House (hmmmm with lots of free time on his hands and a busy wife) and listening to the announcers saying "And now entering the room are Presidents Clinton. Heck of an improvement over the last (nearly) 7 years but then again President Goober Pyle would fit that description (state of the Union address begins "Does any one want to hear my Cary Grant impression 'JudyJudyJudy'".

Here's a scenerio that could keep lots of you up at night. Could Bill Clinton be Vice President and accede back to the Presidency?

~

This sounds like the type of crap people said about Jesse Helms:

"I might not agree with a politician, but I find I respect people, even politicians, with strong convictions."

ARE YOU SERIOUS ROGER???
Hitler had convictions, as did Mussolini and Stalin--Did you respect them too? People who couldn't actually defend the racist, homophobic rants of Jesse Helms used to say things like that because they secretly agreed with his message of hate for anything non white, straight, or Christian. Helms, working for the election of an avid segregationist, once called UNC, the "university of niggra's and communists"---and because he NEVER recanted his drivel, people uttered words like Roger Bennet's above. Like, "Oh, you have to respect the fact he has convictions"! Yeah, he had convictions---but THEY WERE THE WRONG ONES!

Sorry Roger, but that just crawls all over me when I hear it! I think I know what you mean, but it is not appropos in all cases, as I pointed out above.

******************
"Bush misled us"

That is the lesson we should all take away from this---we should be vigilant and NEVER let it happen again. I would say Bush is more like the 'Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" in that when a REAL need arises, no one is going to believe a word from his mouth--other than those who receive their marching orders via a "drip bag" of Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage et al. They still think Iraq had something to do with the events of 9/11. God help us!

Oxymoron said:
This sounds like the type of crap people said about Jesse Helms:

Somebody must have had respect for "Uncle Funny"on election day.

Yeah, he had convictions---but THEY WERE THE WRONG ONES!

Because they are not yours!

Also, thanks for the last post. I was affraid you had forgotten to spout "drip bag".

Tom and Rufus,

Sorry Rufus. I think I routed us to Hillary by decrying the Bush/Clinton dynasties.

It's interesting to watch potential VP candidates jab at her, but it's too far from the election for this to be too bad for her campaign. The only things that matter are things that happen two weeks or so before it's time to vote. Everyone will be squeaky-clean for that.

I think she'll win because she'll put Clinton in as VP. A dramatic last-minute change of candidates, throwing the undecideds into turmoil. The 22nd Amendment gives room for it. All it says is that he can't be "elected" to the presidency, not step in if/when needed. Let the attorneys argue it out later (later being after she's elected).

Powerful ticket there. Why elect semi-Democrats like Giuliani when you can get the real thing?

Roger

So White Oak,
Are you telling us you are a racist? A homophobe? Or are you just so myopic not to know the difference?

"Also, thanks for the last post. I was affraid you had forgotten to spout "drip bag".

Well, White Oak, as the old saying goes, "A bit dog, barks first"! You MUST be a 'dittohead'!

LOL!

Roger,

I'll admit as this millennium goes on I've become nostalgic for the '90s. If Bill had a moderate Republican congress he would have been one of the great Presidents. An opposition congress would have enforced discipline on him which he needed but it needed to be an opposition that was interested in the good of the country. As it was all the congress he had was interested in was taking him down (to h*ll with the good of the country was their attitude). That makes me appreciate the Pelosi reticence to impeach.

Not really thread topic, but I ran across some interesting US military death statistics today,

Under Bill Clinton, there was a total of 8,032 US military deaths. Under G.W. Bush there have been a total of 7,805 Military Deaths. Both figures include combat and death due to accidents. I didn't add up Reagan years, someone can do that.

American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, prepared by the Congressional Research Services. Goes back 25 years.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Some observations:
1980 there were 2392 total deaths.
1983 peaked at 2465 total deaths
1993, 1213 total deaths.
2000 lowest year at 774 total deaths.
2004, 1887 total deaths
2005 1942 total deaths includes about 900 combat deaths
2006 1858 total deaths.includes about 900 combat deaths

Page 10 of the link above has the stats.

I didn't add up Reagan years, someone can do that.

17,201

Hugh:

I'm not sure how you got those figures. When I add up the Clinton years (1993-2000) I get 7500 total deaths, and when I add up the first 6 years of the Bush administration (2001-2006) I get 8792.

Clinton took office in January 1993, and Bush took office in January 2001.

Bush's figures only cover 6 years and omit what has so far been a very bloody year. If you look at the figures on a per year basis, annual military deaths under Bush are just over 500 higher than under Clinton--so far.

Rufus,
Good points. Clinton had worst congress to deal with, as instead of being a "do nothing" one, they were a detriment to democracy--Newt and his "shutting down the government" was theater of the absurd. Clinton managed to push through "Welfare to Work" while Gingrich lobbed grenades. My favorite quote of Newt's was when he called the Clinton's "counter culture McGovernicks"!!
George McGovern flew over 135 combat missions in WWII, and was married to the same woman for over 60 years.....let the "conservatives" compare that to Newt's draft dodging and multiple partners. Too dang funny for words.

`

Oxymoron said:
So White Oak,
Are you telling us you are a racist? A homophobe? Or are you just so myopic not to know the difference?

Am I proud to be white? Yes!
Do I approve of queers? No!

Do I know the difference? Yes!

Well, White Oak, as the old saying goes, "A bit dog, barks first"! You MUST be a 'dittohead'

Am I a dittohead? No!

LOL to you too!

If you all like to add up combat deaths, try the one's
while LBJ was in office!

Ghost,

Or or FDR or Lincoln....

The number of deaths don't matter as much as the necessity and wisdom of the cause of the deaths.

Rufus,
With comments like:

"If you all like to add up combat deaths, try the one's
while LBJ was in office!"

There is little reason to try and inject reason.

What does LBJ, or any other President have to do with Bush's foibles in Iraq???

Just another Bush/Cheney supporter who doesn't even know they don't have his interest at heart. Unless of course, it's that part of the administration that supports White Oak's stand on homosexuals.
Check out his unenlightened post where he says, "Do I approve of queers? No!"

Approve of them or not, they are here and have ALWAYS been here. That statement is about as ignorant as saying, "I don't approve of Mexicans".

APPROVE??? What is there to approve? Maybe the narrow minded guy doesn't LIKE them, but approval or disapproval is a moot point.

Whew! Rufus, it is folks like White Oak that got us into this mess, voting for
Bush-------probably a good reason to let those who don't want an education, drop out. Keeping someone who doesn't WANT to learn, in school just wastes time, money, and resources.
Wonder if White Oak "approves" of Black people??

Ron White, you nailed it! "You just can't fix stupid".

To adress some of your last post "Oxymoron".

I shouldn't have used the word "approve" in response to your question which ask if I was affraid of queers. I should have said , no I'm not affraid of them, I just don't agree with their lifestyle.
Which to me is kind of like not approving of them.

In answer to your question on why LBJ or any other president matters. I think you hatred of Bush over rides any other thought.

In response to your stupid statement "it's folks like WhiteOak that got us in this mess, for voting for Bush. How the hell do you presume to know whom I voted for in this or any election. You may think you know .

The underlying theme in this or any other post of yours is (after all of the name calling) I am smart and enlightened and anyone who dissagrees with me must be ignorant and stupid.

I don't think I've ever known anyone who suffers a greater superiorty complex than you do.

Remember one thing, just because someone does not agree with you, it doesn't make them wrong.

I still have my money confidently on Obama. Wait and see.....

Ghost,
Thanks for posting "Rants of a Homophobe".

What other 'bogeymen' do you fear?