Is George Bush the right leader for America?

[Shapley]

Hi Shap. Your admiration of fortitude seems not to be qualified by the direction it takes. Hitler had fortitude. Stalin had fortitude. Nero had fortitude.

I admire fortitude, 'tis true. I would point out that all of the people you mention are recognized as leaders, primarily because of their fortitude. All have admirable qualities, fortitude among them, though the evil they committed is generally considered to outweigh those qualities. In the case of President Bush, there is no supreme evil committed on his part. There is no holocaust, no purges, no burning of Rome (though many want to compare hurricane Katrina with the conflagration). There is a war. A war that appears to be won despite the claims of so many that it was hopeless, a quagmire, a lost cause. He was late turning it around, but turn it around he did. He showed fortitude when so many were showing their own lack of backbone.

I think, perhaps, that is one of the things that makes so many people hate him. I believe Albus Dumbledore said something in one of the Harry Potter books that "it is easier to forgive someone for being wrong than for being right". I don't know if J. K. Rowling is a philospher, or if she's merely paraphrasing a quote from someone else, but it is a valid statement. Thus it is with President Bush. Convinced that he lost the first election (he didn't), they could not forgive him when he won the recount, and then when the courts ruled (correctly) that Mr. Gore could not change the methodology used in counting in those counties that favoured him. Then, when he won the second election handily, their lack of forgiveness was increased. Surely, they thought, the second election would vindicate their belief that the people did not want him for a leader. They were wrong, he was right, and for that he cannot be forgiven.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I can only speak for myself, but just because Bush isn't as bad as Hitler or Stalin doesn't make him good.

That war we're "winning" still deserves not only criticism, but condemnation. Not only was it unnecessary, it diverted our focus from the real enemy - bin laden. Bush's "leadership" in Iraq cost us more than the financial bailout (where was that "leadership" in preventing THAT?).

As far as Katrina is concerned, while I don't believe the responsibility for cleaning up a mess that's been brewing for centuries (a major city below sea level) falls on the federal government, Bush's "leadership" was again found wanting.

So saying people hate him because he was "right" is like saying people hate you because occasionally you proclaim that 1+1=2.

[Shapley]

So saying people hate him because he was "right" is like saying people hate you because occasionally you proclaim that 1+1=2.

What I was saying is that those who wanted Al Gore to win (about half the people) never forgave the President for winning the election, and therefore were willing to accept any negative reports about him (the fake-but-accurate letter, etc.). His first four years were spent with the Democrats proclaiming that he was an "illegitimate President". The 2004 elections should have put the matter to rest, but it did not do so.

To be fair, the same will likely be said about many who opposed Mr. Obama, though I think only a handful of extremely out-of-touch people will actually believe that the election was 'stolen', they still cling to the not-an-citizen theory, and they will be blaming Mr. Obama for every failing.

Katrina had its' problems, but the fact remains that it is largely the responsibility of the State to take care of its' own. Mississippi and Texas, both battered by Katrina and Rita, picked themselves up and went on about their business. How it is that Louisiana became a ward of the entire nation is beyond me. Here we are, years later, and 'Katrina victims' are still living in those d****d trailers they claim are killing them. Whatever happened to personnal responsibility? I don't believe it is the Presidents' fault that the people there have given up on the concept of taking care of themselves. You can pray to God (or government) for deliverance, buy you still need to row the boat.

V/R

Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

Bush's "leadership" in Iraq cost us more than the financial bailout (where was that "leadership" in preventing THAT?)

I can only speak to the facts. The total value of the bailouts undertaken by the federal government in 2008 now exceeds the combined cost of every major war the United States has ever engaged in...

If that doesn't frighten you, then I don't know what will.

I do agree Pres. Bush's leadership was sorely missing, but I doubt that even if he hadn't supported it, I suspect congress had a veto proof majority of frighten little cowardly men/women.

[barfle]

What I was saying is that those who wanted Al Gore to win (about half the people) never forgave the President for winning the election, and therefore were willing to accept any negative reports about him (the fake-but-accurate letter, etc.). His first four years were spent with the Democrats proclaiming that he was an "illegitimate President". The 2004 elections should have put the matter to rest, but it did not do so.

When I first started paying attention, a Senator from Massachusetts had been elected President, with less than 50% of the popular vote. And if memory serves, there were cryers back then. I lived with two of them.

To be fair, the same will likely be said about many who opposed Mr. Obama, though I think only a handful of extremely out-of-touch people will actually believe that the election was 'stolen', they still cling to the not-an-citizen theory, and they will be blaming Mr. Obama for every failing.

It does seem like a birth certificate ought to be produced. At least to those who read the Constitution conservatively. However, I also recall a situation where Barry Goldwater, who was born in the territory of Arizona (not the state, because it had not yet joined the union) was declared eligible to be President.

Katrina had its' problems, but the fact remains that it is largely the responsibility of the State to take care of its' own. Mississippi and Texas, both battered by Katrina and Rita, picked themselves up and went on about their business. How it is that Louisiana became a ward of the entire nation is beyond me. Here we are, years later, and 'Katrina victims' are still living in those d****d trailers they claim are killing them. Whatever happened to personnal responsibility? I don't believe it is the Presidents' fault that the people there have given up on the concept of taking care of themselves. You can pray to God (or government) for deliverance, buy you still need to row the boat.

The point was that the "leadership" promise made by George W. Bush at his acceptance speech was broken. He didn't lead, and the debacle continues.

[barfle]

I can only speak to the facts. The total value of the bailouts undertaken by the federal government in 2008 now exceeds the combined cost of every major war the United States has ever engaged in...

If that doesn't frighten you, then I don't know what will.

I do agree Pres. Bush's leadership was sorely missing, but I doubt that even if he hadn't supported it, I suspect congress had a veto proof majority of frighten little cowardly men/women.

While the article (who the hell is CNSNews?) shows figures that are an order of magnitude greater than I recall reading, the point was that Bush failed to lead while the problem was brewing. Once the defecation hit the ventilation, everyone inside the beltway panicked.

[Shapley]

It does seem like a birth certificate ought to be produced. At least to those who read the Constitution conservatively. However, I also recall a situation where Barry Goldwater, who was born in the territory of Arizona (not the state, because it had not yet joined the union) was declared eligible to be President.

Actually, a birth certificate was produced and posted on the website, but the validity of the certificate was challenged, because of claims that it lacked an embossed seal. A revised photocopy of the birth certificate was posted, apparently with the lighting and camera angle changed to show the embossed seal in greater detail. I believe the current claim by the naysayers is that that one is a forgery.

The point was that the "leadership" promise made by George W. Bush at his acceptance speech was broken. He didn't lead, and the debacle continues.

I still fail to see what leadership role the President could take, short of a military takeover of the State of Lousiana. FEMA can offer assistance, which they did. However, as Mr. Browning stated in his press conferences, you won't see an fleet of tractor-trailor rigs and bulldozers emblazoned with the FEMA logo rolling into town, FEMA owns no such fleet. FEMA's job was to coordinate relief efforts. The relief trucks would bear whatever logo they bore when they were dispatched, whether that be the emblem of the US Army, Wal-Mart, or Mack's Trucking. The Coast Guard was there from the outset, National Guard units were on standby waiting for the Louisiana governors request, which came eventually. The President lacks the authority to order guard units into other States, in fact he lacks authority over guard units at all unless they are called into active duty, at which time they are Army troops, not National Guard. I believe there are further restrictions on the sending of Federal troops into the States.

According to FEMA's website:

FEMA has more than 2,600 full time employees. They work at FEMA headquarters in Washington D.C., at regional and area offices across the country, the Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center, and the National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, Maryland. FEMA also has nearly 4,000 standby disaster assistance employees who are available for deployment after disasters. Often FEMA works in partnership with other organizations that are part of the nation's emergency management system. These partners include state and local emergency management agencies, 27 federal agencies and the American Red Cross.

I don't know how many of the 4,000 standby employees responded to Katrina, or what percentage of those who responded were dispatched to New Orleans. Katrina tore a wide swath through both Louisiana and Mississippi, causing damage as far north as Jackson, Mississippi. I would suspect that, by the time you spread 4,000 people over that large an area, you didn't have many persons per square mile.

The worst fiasco of all, the Superdome shelter, wasn't even a FEMA shelter, that was solely the city of New Orlean's responsibility. But everyone was willing to accept that Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco were useless tits, it was up to President Bush to rise above the muck, and the Constitution, and save the city that wouldn't save itself. Disgusting.

The flooding of New Orleans was inevitable, as you admit. President Bush was unlucky enough to have it happen on his watch.

[Haggis@wk]

While the article (who the hell is CNSNews?) shows figures that are an order of magnitude greater than I recall reading, the point was that Bush failed to lead while the problem was brewing. Once the defecation hit the ventilation, everyone inside the beltway panicked.

Most of the funds that you don't recall reading about came about mainly because Congress or the press withheld the news; I suspect the latter rather than the former.

Bloomberg et al have verified the amounts and so far no one has challenged the article.

Congress is pretty much in a "We don' need no stinkin' Constitution" mode and the realization that no one will call them on it has resulted in a exhilaration similar, I suppose, to crack cocaine.

The big dirty secret is the SCOTUS ruled in the 1980s that no one, including members of the House or Senate, has the legal standing to challenge the Constitutionality of Congress' activity in the U.S. courts. At that time Ron Paul try to challenge a tax law that had been written by the Senate and passed into law.

The Constitution says clearly that tax laws must originate in the House. The Court ruled that Paul had no standing to challenge the legality of the law.

That pretty much kills any enforcement of Congress by anyone else. Up until this past Fall we were totally dependent on the antipathy and make up of the Congress to protect us.

Now, all bets are off.

[shostakovich]

Thanks, Barfle, for your commentary. We feel Bush's leadership was mightily flawed. Others cut him a lot of slack for that same leadership. Before he became president I thought he had one good quality. He was tough on crime (few, if any, stays of execution). Later it turned out such toughness was due to Alberto Gonzales, of shabby memory, who read the pleas and told Bush they weren't worth reading. At least that's my take on what I've read about the issue.

When he was elected in 2000 I was flabbergasted. I had thought of him as merely ill equipped for leadership. As the years went on I added "mean-spirited", "callous", and "out-of-touch" to the list. The 2004 election was a condemnation of the electorate as much as the president. It was beyond comprehension, even though Kerry was not too appealing. Even if the new year is a horror, the relief of not having him in the White House is worth a lot. Perhaps this thread will be retired after Jan 20, and my ulcer will have chance to heal.
Shos

[Haggis@wk]

Thanks, Barfle, for your commentary. We feel Bush's leadership was mightily flawed. Others cut him a lot of slack for that same leadership. Before he became president I thought he had one good quality. He was tough on crime (few, if any, stays of execution). Later it turned out such toughness was due to Alberto Gonzales, of shabby memory, who read the pleas and told Bush they weren't worth reading. At least that's my take on what I've read about the issue.

When he was elected in 2000 I was flabbergasted. I had thought of him as merely ill equipped for leadership. As the years went on I added "mean-spirited", "callous", and "out-of-touch" to the list. The 2004 election was a condemnation of the electorate as much as the president. It was beyond comprehension, even though Kerry was not too appealing. Even if the new year is a horror, the relief of not having him in the White House is worth a lot. Perhaps this thread will be retired after Jan 20, and my ulcer will have chance to heal.
Shos

Actually, I'm saving that last paragraph for a similar post in four years....

[dai bread]

A quote from one of the NZ Herald's columnists this morning: "...without autocues there wouldn't be any of the oratorical fatuity with which Mr Obama has enthralled an audience desperate for something,anything to believe in."

How much truth do you guys think is in that? If any.

[Shapley]

Actually, I'm saving that last paragraph for a similar post in four years....

Well, the end of the world as we know it occurs in four years. Who knows, we may actually look forward to it by then...

[shostakovich]

A quote from one of the NZ Herald's columnists this morning: "...without autocues there wouldn't be any of the oratorical fatuity with which Mr Obama has enthralled an audience desperate for something,anything to believe in."

How much truth do you guys think is in that? If any.

I think any speech worth hearing has to be written out. It may be memorized or it may be read, but coherent thought requires planning, IMO. Obama has a good delivery system. Even Palin's first speech was impressive.
Shos

[jamiebk]

A quote from one of the NZ Herald's columnists this morning: "...without autocues there wouldn't be any of the oratorical fatuity with which Mr Obama has enthralled an audience desperate for something,anything to believe in."

How much truth do you guys think is in that? If any.

I think any speech worth hearing has to be written out. It may be memorized or it may be read, but coherent thought requires planning, IMO. Obama has a good delivery system. Even Palin's first speech was impressive.
Shos

Bush can't give a proper speech even with the autocues (teleprompter, as we call it)

[barfle]

Actually, a birth certificate was produced and posted on the website, but the validity of the certificate was challenged, because of claims that it lacked an embossed seal. A revised photocopy of the birth certificate was posted, apparently with the lighting and camera angle changed to show the embossed seal in greater detail. I believe the current claim by the naysayers is that that one is a forgery.

The website is not a determiner of legal validity.

I still fail to see what leadership role the President could take, short of a military takeover of the State of Lousiana. FEMA can offer assistance, which they did. However, as Mr. Browning stated in his press conferences, you won't see an fleet of tractor-trailor rigs and bulldozers emblazoned with the FEMA logo rolling into town, FEMA owns no such fleet. FEMA's job was to coordinate relief efforts. The relief trucks would bear whatever logo they bore when they were dispatched, whether that be the emblem of the US Army, Wal-Mart, or Mack's Trucking. The Coast Guard was there from the outset, National Guard units were on standby waiting for the Louisiana governors request, which came eventually. The President lacks the authority to order guard units into other States, in fact he lacks authority over guard units at all unless they are called into active duty, at which time they are Army troops, not National Guard. I believe there are further restrictions on the sending of Federal troops into the States.

The point is that the job was botched, and that the promised leadership was wanting. Katrina was a suprise only to those who weren't paying attention. The Federal Emergency Management Agency didn't manage, and patting an inept bureaucrat on the back isn't leadership.

The worst fiasco of all, the Superdome shelter, wasn't even a FEMA shelter, that was solely the city of New Orlean's responsibility. But everyone was willing to accept that Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco were useless tits, it was up to President Bush to rise above the muck, and the Constitution, and save the city that wouldn't save itself. Disgusting.

For those who, for whatever reason, couldn't get FEMA help, the Superdome was not a bad plan B. But it was overwhelmed, and its infrastructure failed as badly as the rest of New Orleans' did. If an agency is supposed to provide emergency releif, it ought to do that, and it ought to do it before normally healthy people start dying.

The flooding of New Orleans was inevitable, as you admit. President Bush was unlucky enough to have it happen on his watch.

He was the one promising leadership. While there's plenty of blame to spread around for the conditions in New Orleans in the couple of weeks after Katrina, the failures of George W. Bush are not obscured by the failures of guys like Mayor Nagin and Governer Blanco.

[barfle]

Most of the funds that you don't recall reading about came about mainly because Congress or the press withheld the news; I suspect the latter rather than the former.

Bloomberg et al have verified the amounts and so far no one has challenged the article.

As I understand the text of the law, it's limited to $700B. Not that I think THAT's a reasonable number, either. And I have little doubt that it will stop there. The point I was trying to make is that the article seems to extrapolate a lot beyond what is known.

Congress is pretty much in a "We don' need no stinkin' Constitution" mode and the realization that no one will call them on it has resulted in a exhilaration similar, I suppose, to crack cocaine.

So much for "preserve, protect, and defend." While I agree that the US Capitol has a higher percentage of miscreants within its walls than San Quentin, MY point was that the oval office hasn't been any better.

[barfle]

A quote from one of the NZ Herald's columnists this morning: "...without autocues there wouldn't be any of the oratorical fatuity with which Mr Obama has enthralled an audience desperate for something,anything to believe in."

How much truth do you guys think is in that? If any.

I think there's a lot of truth in the description of the American public as being desperate for something, anything to believe in.

We've been led down the garden path by professional politicians for as long as I've been paying attention. Most of them have been far more adept at getting elected than in delivering on their promises, and while many of us have awakened to that fact, some still harbor the pipe dream that a slightly different politician will provide light at the end of the tunnel.

Happy New Year!

[Haggis@wk]

...the failures of George W. Bush are not obscured by the failures of guys like Mayor Nagin and Governer Blanco.

Darn, you made that comment just one day too late to be considered for the 2008 "Best Historical Revisionist Statement of the Year" Award.

I'm afraid you've watched too many disaster movies.

Every state in the union is primarily responsible for the safety and well being of its citizens. The federal government's only responsibility is to help facilitate the state in the execution of that duty, not to take over that duty.

FEMA's primary responsibility is to provide communications, and technical expertise to help the states and even then only at the request of the governor. If the state, as in Louisiana’s case, is completely unable to provide for that protection then the federal government’s options are limited. In this instance the state abrogated (actually it totally abandoned) its responsibility and then finger pointed when the federal government fumbled its first attempt in U.S. history to act as a state's surrogate.

Personally, I don’t expect a repeat of that fiasco unless an earthquake or another hurricane hit LA again. I don’t think any other state in the union is as inept or as corrupt as LA. Most state government seem to have disaster plans and agencies that actually work.

[Haggis@wk]

The point I was trying to make is that the article seems to extrapolate a lot beyond what is known.

And my point was that it is known. That $8.5 trillion figure includes actual expenditures as well as loan and asset guarantees. You'll recall that it was govt. guarantees to bailout Freddie and Fannie that got this ball rolling.

[barfle]

Every state in the union is primarily responsible for the safety and well being of its citizens. The federal government's only responsibility is to help facilitate the state in the execution of that duty, not to take over that duty.

While I agree that that's how it ought to be, FEMA's website offers direct disaster assistance for individuals and families. Which sure looks like it means they're taking on the job.

I don’t think any other state in the union is as inept or as corrupt as LA. Most state government seem to have disaster plans and agencies that actually work.

They're a special case, no doubt about it. Almost as bad as DC. But I don't blame either one on Bush's leadership or lack thereof.