Re: Same Old Message out of White House..."Our" House is Holding Firm

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by hallerb@aol.com, Aug 28, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Bush is totally incompetent:(

    Much of our troubles TODAY were created by his failed policies

    One day we will find out he spends much of his days in a drunken
    stupor:(
     
    , Aug 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. arminius Guest

    "AnAmericanCitizen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------
    >
    >

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ug27,1,6532026.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
    >
    > GOP Sends Mixed Messages on Immigration
    > Candidates talk tough about enforcement, but the White House, in an effort

    to lure
    > Latino voters, says it's time to discuss reform.
    > By Maura Reynolds
    > Times Staff Writer
    >
    > August 27, 2006
    >
    > WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's announcement last week that

    stepped-up
    > enforcement appears to be slowing illegal immigration was designed to send

    a message:
    > The nation's borders are becoming more secure and it's time to talk about

    broad
    > immigration reform.
    >
    > That would appear to contradict the message coming from many Republicans

    on the
    > campaign trail: The border is dangerously porous and talk of reform is

    premature.
    >
    > But it is less of a contradiction than meets the eye. While Republican

    candidates are
    > trying to hang on to their congressional majority by trumpeting the need

    for border
    > security, the White House is laying the groundwork for a longer battle

    over
    > immigration with an eye on capturing the Latino vote.
    >
    > Republican Party leaders have the task of balancing the party's

    conflicting
    > short-term and long-term goals on immigration.
    >
    > In the short term, many if not most congressional Republicans are taking a

    hard-line
    > approach. In some districts, that means denouncing proposals for a guest

    worker
    > program or legalization of some immigrants as amnesty.
    >
    > "What you are seeing on the House side is uniform agreement on 'border

    security
    > first,' " said Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican

    Congressional
    > Committee. "Where they go beyond that is up to the individual.. This is

    district by
    > district. Each race is local."
    >
    > But strategists at the Republican National Committee and in the White

    House are
    > concerned that some of the tough rhetoric could give voters the impression

    that
    > Republicans are anti-immigrant. And that's a long-term danger for the

    party, because
    > its leaders are convinced that Latino voters are the key to turning the

    GOP into the
    > country's dominant party.
    >
    > "You always have self-serving politicians who are focused on one thing -

    getting
    > elected or reelected - and they put rhetoric ahead of what's good for the

    country,"
    > said Allen Weh, chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, where the

    GOP has
    > been battling to increase party registration.
    >
    > "We're going to have some collateral damage from this rhetoric, no doubt

    about it,"
    > Weh said.
    >
    > As a voter group, Latinos hold tremendous appeal for Republicans. First

    and foremost,
    > they are the fastest-growing segment of the population.
    >
    > Republicans also believe that despite Latinos' traditional loyalty to the

    Democratic
    > Party, they have a chance to make significant inroads by emphasizing

    issues other
    > than identity politics.
    >
    > For instance, party leaders think the Republicans' socially conservative

    positions on
    > issues such as abortion and gay marriage will resonate with Latino

    Catholics, as well
    > as with the swelling number of evangelical Protestants. Messages such as
    > self-reliance and low taxes can be made to appeal to the many Latinos who

    are
    > small-business owners.
    >
    > On immigration, the party is essentially trying to send two messages at

    once.
    >
    > "We are a nation of immigrants, and we are a nation of laws," Republican

    National
    > Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said this summer in a speech to a

    conference of Latino
    > officials. "We must forge a new way, a solution that recognizes these two

    essential
    > concepts."
    >
    > Whether a double-barreled message will resonate with voters remains to be

    seen. But
    > many House Republicans aren't willing to take chances on a long-term

    strategy at the
    > expense of losing control of Congress in the short term.
    >
    > "We have to solve our short-term problem before we solve our long-term

    problem," said
    > a senior Republican leadership aide, who would discuss internal party

    strategy only
    > on condition of anonymity.
    >
    > House Republicans are using their summer recess to hold a series of events

    around the
    > country designed to drum up support for their "enforcement first" approach

    to
    > immigration.
    >
    > That was the central idea behind a Republican-written bill, passed last

    year, that
    > raised illegal border crossing from a misdemeanor to a felony. That

    proposal sparked
    > nationwide street protests by Latinos, who carried signs saying, "We Are

    Not
    > Criminals."
    >
    > Democrats who are working to prevent Republican gains among Latinos say

    that the
    > administration's attempt to send two messages at once caught up with them

    last
    > spring.
    >
    > Joe Garcia, who works on Latino issues for the New Democrat Network, said

    that before
    > the street protests the administration had been courting Latino voters

    while
    > simultaneously encouraging right-wing radio hosts to beat the drums over

    border
    > security, raising fears of terrorists and foreigners flooding into the

    country from
    > Mexico.
    >
    > "This is an issue that plays to the xenophobic base," Garcia said. "For a

    long time,
    > [the president] was able to conduct two separate campaigns. The problem is

    that the
    > two of them met."
    >
    > It's conventional wisdom in Washington that little is expected to happen

    on
    > immigration legislation before the election in November, which allows

    candidates
    > maximum leeway to run against whatever version of immigration reform works

    best in
    > their districts.
    >
    > But some GOP House leaders are weighing whether it would help candidates

    if they were
    > to pass a modified immigration reform proposal before the election. Under

    discussion
    > is a two-stage bill: first, border security, and second, some form of

    guest worker
    > program "triggered" by certification of improvements in border security.
    >
    > "We can do it in phases," the House Republican aide said, noting the goal

    would be to
    > act before the election. "I wouldn't rule that out."
    >
    > Garcia said too much damage had been done to the Republican Party's image

    among
    > Latinos. A poll conducted recently for his group showed that support for

    the
    > president and the GOP had fallen dramatically since the 2004 election.
    >
    > "How do you call a certain group 'criminals' and then turn around and

    offer an olive
    > branch?" Garcia said.
    >
    > However the congressional election turns out, the long-term strategists

    are unlikely
    > to give up on their goal of sending more Republican Party membership cards

    to
    > Latinos.
    >
    > And toward that end, they hope to move the discussion, at least

    incrementally, toward
    > the next stage: Now that the borders are tight, what is to be done about

    the millions
    > already here?
    >
    > "I don't expect every Hispanic to wake up tomorrow and suddenly realize he

    is a
    > Republican," Mehlman said in his speech this summer. "But I do hope we can

    come
    > together as a nation to talk about immigration - without the angry

    rhetoric."
    >
    >
    > Do you want a Mexican way of life or an American way of life? That
    > isn't a dumbass liberal vs conservative question, it's a critical
    > question of what quality of life you and your children will have for
    > themselves. You want the kind that half the population of Mexico is
    > running to the border to get away from? That is what you'll get.
    > ....Hoy Paloy


    The White House affirms:

    "Democracy is like an old ugly whore who must drop her drawers faster and
    faster for less and less."

    Hank
     
    arminius, Aug 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. F. H. Guest

    Re: Same Old Message out of White House..."Our" House is HoldingFirm

    wrote:
    > Bush is totally incompetent:(
    >
    > Much of our troubles TODAY were created by his failed policies


    "HIS" failed policy's? Maybe his incompetence and a lifetime around
    right wing ideologues made him the perfect puppet. Who was in charge
    during 9/11? Matter of record that Cheney was giving orders to Bush.
    Who accompanied Bush to the 9/11 hearings to make sure he didn't screw
    up his testimony? And *they* insisted on testifying in private, without
    being place under oath.

    Who Bush serves is a good question. Clearly its not the American people
    (9/11, Katrina, deficit, idiotic war) or the "Its just a God damned
    piece of paper" Constitution he swore to uphold.
     
    F. H., Aug 28, 2006
    #3
  4. Hell_Toupee Guest

    How can you blame Bush for 9/11 and an inherited recession? Not that I'm
    blaming Clinton for the recession, because it's all of us not listening to
    Greenspan. But Clinton DID get the security agencies to not share
    information. That was in the 9/11 report.




    "F. H." <> wrote in message
    news:QyDIg.1432$4O4.787@trnddc02...
    > wrote:
    >> Bush is totally incompetent:(
    >>
    >> Much of our troubles TODAY were created by his failed policies

    >
    > "HIS" failed policy's? Maybe his incompetence and a lifetime around right
    > wing ideologues made him the perfect puppet. Who was in charge during
    > 9/11? Matter of record that Cheney was giving orders to Bush. Who
    > accompanied Bush to the 9/11 hearings to make sure he didn't screw up his
    > testimony? And *they* insisted on testifying in private, without being
    > place under oath.
    >
    > Who Bush serves is a good question. Clearly its not the American people
    > (9/11, Katrina, deficit, idiotic war) or the "Its just a God damned piece
    > of paper" Constitution he swore to uphold.
    >
     
    Hell_Toupee, Aug 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Dean G. Guest

    Hell_Toupee wrote:
    > How can you blame Bush for 9/11 and an inherited recession? Not that I'm
    > blaming Clinton for the recession, because it's all of us not listening to
    > Greenspan. But Clinton DID get the security agencies to not share
    > information. That was in the 9/11 report.
    >


    Also noted was the fact that while Clinton held almost weekly meetings
    with his anti-terrorism task force, Bush's taks force, headed by Dick
    Cheney had their first meeting on September 4, 2001, more than eight
    months after the start of Bush's administration. He also stopped the
    Predator surveillance of bin Laden in the spring of 2001.

    On Sept. 10, Diane Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence
    Committee
    briefed on July 5th, asked Dick Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby
    when
    the administration would start focusing on these terror threats which
    had
    so pre-occupied CIA's Tenet, the most severe in decades - she was told
    it
    would have to wait another six months.

    If you close your eyes long enough, your enemies will take advantage of
    it. Bush and the Christian Right were more concerned with fighting
    pornography and medical marijuana than they ever were about terrorism
    until 9/11. After 9/11, they did start to focus on terrorism, but after
    such an event, anyone would have. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.

    As for the recession, there was a tech bubble, and the effects would
    have been shorter and lighter if 9/11 hadn't occured. The current
    situation wouldn't be as bad if we were not engaged in a pointless war
    in Iraq, completely unrelated to 9/11. Oil prices would be lower, and
    we would be saving more than $100 billion per year. Add to this a
    record of deficit spending that has set new records, a feat which will
    have an impact on inflation and interest rates for years to come, and
    you have to give some of the "credit" to George W. Bush.

    But you're obviously a Republican, so despite Republican control of all
    three branches of the government, it must all be Clinton's or the
    Democrat's fault. It must be, because despite their shrill rhetoric
    about personal responsibility, Republicans are going to try to dodge
    responsibility for their actions, much like their leadership dodged
    Veitnam, all while they loudly supported the Veitnam War. Do I sense a
    pattern here ?

    How can I blame Bush ? It is very easy. I hold a person responsible for
    their actions, or lack thereof. Of course, Republican's still can't
    understand how anyone could hold Ken Lay responsible for Enron. He was
    only the CEO. Obviously people in charge get credit for the possitive
    things, but we can't expect them to take resposibility for their
    errors, can we ? YES, We can, and I do. Bush is the President, many of
    the decisions were his, or at least signed off by him. He gets the
    credit and the responsibility.

    Dean G.
     
    Dean G., Aug 28, 2006
    #5
  6. Hell_Toupee Guest

    You've guessed wrong, sir. I am a Libertarian. I hope you don't work as a
    circus hustler trying to guess a persons' weight!


    "Dean G." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Hell_Toupee wrote:
    >> How can you blame Bush for 9/11 and an inherited recession? Not that I'm
    >> blaming Clinton for the recession, because it's all of us not listening
    >> to
    >> Greenspan. But Clinton DID get the security agencies to not share
    >> information. That was in the 9/11 report.
    >>

    >
    > Also noted was the fact that while Clinton held almost weekly meetings
    > with his anti-terrorism task force, Bush's taks force, headed by Dick
    > Cheney had their first meeting on September 4, 2001, more than eight
    > months after the start of Bush's administration. He also stopped the
    > Predator surveillance of bin Laden in the spring of 2001.
    >
    > On Sept. 10, Diane Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence
    > Committee
    > briefed on July 5th, asked Dick Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby
    > when
    > the administration would start focusing on these terror threats which
    > had
    > so pre-occupied CIA's Tenet, the most severe in decades - she was told
    > it
    > would have to wait another six months.
    >
    > If you close your eyes long enough, your enemies will take advantage of
    > it. Bush and the Christian Right were more concerned with fighting
    > pornography and medical marijuana than they ever were about terrorism
    > until 9/11. After 9/11, they did start to focus on terrorism, but after
    > such an event, anyone would have. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.
    >
    > As for the recession, there was a tech bubble, and the effects would
    > have been shorter and lighter if 9/11 hadn't occured. The current
    > situation wouldn't be as bad if we were not engaged in a pointless war
    > in Iraq, completely unrelated to 9/11. Oil prices would be lower, and
    > we would be saving more than $100 billion per year. Add to this a
    > record of deficit spending that has set new records, a feat which will
    > have an impact on inflation and interest rates for years to come, and
    > you have to give some of the "credit" to George W. Bush.
    >
    > But you're obviously a Republican, so despite Republican control of all
    > three branches of the government, it must all be Clinton's or the
    > Democrat's fault. It must be, because despite their shrill rhetoric
    > about personal responsibility, Republicans are going to try to dodge
    > responsibility for their actions, much like their leadership dodged
    > Veitnam, all while they loudly supported the Veitnam War. Do I sense a
    > pattern here ?
    >
    > How can I blame Bush ? It is very easy. I hold a person responsible for
    > their actions, or lack thereof. Of course, Republican's still can't
    > understand how anyone could hold Ken Lay responsible for Enron. He was
    > only the CEO. Obviously people in charge get credit for the possitive
    > things, but we can't expect them to take resposibility for their
    > errors, can we ? YES, We can, and I do. Bush is the President, many of
    > the decisions were his, or at least signed off by him. He gets the
    > credit and the responsibility.
    >
    > Dean G.
    >
     
    Hell_Toupee, Sep 5, 2006
    #6
  7. Hell_Toupee <> wrote:
    >You've guessed wrong, sir. I am a Libertarian. I hope you don't work as a
    >circus hustler trying to guess a persons' weight!


    You do know that Libertarians are just Republicans who
    have admitted they're going to hell, right?

    --Blair
     
    Blair P. Houghton, Sep 6, 2006
    #7
  8. z Guest

    Hell_Toupee wrote:
    > How can you blame Bush for 9/11 and an inherited recession? Not that I'm
    > blaming Clinton for the recession, because it's all of us not listening to
    > Greenspan. But Clinton DID get the security agencies to not share
    > information. That was in the 9/11 report.


    The outgoing Clinton administration and the holdovers sure did share
    the information about al Qaeda with the incoming Bush administration,
    though. That was in the report too.
     
    z, Sep 6, 2006
    #8
  9. Dave Smith Guest

    z wrote:

    > Hell_Toupee wrote:
    > > How can you blame Bush for 9/11 and an inherited recession? Not that I'm
    > > blaming Clinton for the recession, because it's all of us not listening to
    > > Greenspan. But Clinton DID get the security agencies to not share
    > > information. That was in the 9/11 report.

    >
    > The outgoing Clinton administration and the holdovers sure did share
    > the information about al Qaeda with the incoming Bush administration,
    > though. That was in the report too.


    From the books I have read on the topic it seems that a lot of ex White House
    staffers, some of home had worked with several previous administrations, not
    just partisan appointees out to screw Bush the lesser, claim that al Queada was
    a major concern but could not convince the Shrub. He had a thing about Iraq and
    insisted that they dig up the dirt on Saddam. He ended up surrounding himself
    with yes men who made up the dirt that he wanted. Then when he was embarrassed
    about the inability to find WMDs in Iraq he blamed it on stale intelligence.
     
    Dave Smith, Sep 6, 2006
    #9
  10. Sev Guest

    I agree with most of what's been said- Bush came in ignoring terrorism
    (those stupid Clinton people had to be ignored), focused on the foolish
    tax cut and also foolish missile defense.
    Don't know why we're talking politics on this group, though the
    level of discussion on most dedicated groups is pretty awful from what
    I've seen. I am a partisan lib/ dem, but still like discussions to be
    civil and honest. Clinton did have his failings in foreign policy-
    mostly it didn't interest him much, and he was understandibly wary of
    involvements after Somalia. Thus he did nothing about Rwanda- and
    didn't want to get involved in Yugoslavia, either. The Europeans could
    have taken more initiative there, and I think Clinton was _partially_
    reluctant for fear he'd then be charged with racial disparity after
    doing nothing over Rwanda. Gore pushed him to get involved- one reason
    I think he would have made a pretty good President besides his interest
    in re-inventing government eg getting various levels to talk to each
    other eg those FBI memos which might have prevented 9/11.
    Clinton did wake up to al Quaeda after embassy and Cole bombings,
    but by then was embroiled in Lewinsky mess and feared he'd be accused
    of 'wag the dog' diversion if he acted too strenuously- thus the
    cruise missile strikes were his only response.
    The tech boom was undoubtedly responsible for part of the surplus,
    but Clinton did manage finances pretty responsibly, and deserves credit
    for it. Were people really so overtaxed in those years? I think the
    federal tax cuts are resulting in a shifting of burdens to state/ local
    levels, and the middle class taxpayers, meaning most of us. Not to
    mention the shear recklessness of the debt, which will haunt us for
    many, many years.
     
    Sev, Sep 6, 2006
    #10
  11. Dave Smith Guest

    Sev wrote:

    > I agree with most of what's been said- Bush came in ignoring terrorism
    > (those stupid Clinton people had to be ignored), focused on the foolish
    > tax cut and also foolish missile defense.
    > Don't know why we're talking politics on this group, though the
    > level of discussion on most dedicated groups is pretty awful from what
    > I've seen. I am a partisan lib/ dem, but still like discussions to be
    > civil and honest. Clinton did have his failings in foreign policy-
    > mostly it didn't interest him much, and he was understandibly wary of
    > involvements after Somalia. Thus he did nothing about Rwanda-


    He did a little more than nothing. To do nothing is to do nothing. The US
    used its position on the SC to block intervention in Rwanda.


    >
     
    Dave Smith, Sep 6, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    Sev wrote:
    > I agree with most of what's been said- Bush came in ignoring terrorism
    > (those stupid Clinton people had to be ignored), focused on the foolish
    > tax cut and also foolish missile defense.
    > Don't know why we're talking politics on this group, though the
    > level of discussion on most dedicated groups is pretty awful from what
    > I've seen. I am a partisan lib/ dem, but still like discussions to be
    > civil and honest. Clinton did have his failings in foreign policy-
    > mostly it didn't interest him much, and he was understandibly wary of
    > involvements after Somalia. Thus he did nothing about Rwanda- and
    > didn't want to get involved in Yugoslavia, either. The Europeans could
    > have taken more initiative there, and I think Clinton was _partially_
    > reluctant for fear he'd then be charged with racial disparity after
    > doing nothing over Rwanda. Gore pushed him to get involved- one reason
    > I think he would have made a pretty good President besides his interest
    > in re-inventing government eg getting various levels to talk to each
    > other eg those FBI memos which might have prevented 9/11.



    > Clinton did wake up to al Quaeda after embassy and Cole bombings,
    > but by then was embroiled in Lewinsky mess and feared he'd be accused
    > of 'wag the dog' diversion if he acted too strenuously- thus the
    > cruise missile strikes were his only response.


    Well, more than that. The Clinton administration caught Al Qaeda
    operatives actively involved in attempts to blow up Los Angeles
    International Airport on Millennium Eve, the Holland and Lincoln
    tunnels in New York and the United Nations building, aborted a planned
    assault on the Israeli embassy in Washington, and in cooperation with
    intelligence services on every continent successfully arrested,
    prosecuted, and imprisoned or executed dozens of terrorist cells
    overseas from the former Soviet Union to the Philippines, and froze
    $254 million in Taliban assets in the United States; besides actually
    hitting the convoy in which bin Laden was driving with an RPG, which is
    still closer than the current Keystone Kops have gotten to nailing the
    bastard. Clinton signed a National Security Decision Directive
    authorizing an intensive campaign to destroy al Qaeda and capture or
    kill bin Laden and sent the CIA into Afghanistan with a Pakistani
    commando unit to get him, until Musaharraf pulled the plug on the
    operation for fear of al Qaeda supporters in his administration and the
    military.

    And the anti-terrorism legislation Clinton tried to pass in 93, but the
    Republicans voted down, then again in 95 hoping McVeigh's home-grown
    terrorism might wake up the Republicans but it got voted down again,
    with Senator John Ashcroft of all people saying it was an unwarranted
    assault on Americans' rights and privacy. Now that's bleakly funny.

    And Clinton's bioterrorism preparedness initiative, which (besides all
    those preparedness drills) established a new national stockpile of
    emergency medical supplies, including 40 million doses of smallpox
    vaccine for the CDC which the Bushies used after 9/11.

    "Robert M. Gates, former director of the CIA was on hand to share some
    of his experiences and give his insights to the nation's ongoing
    challenge to battle terrorism.... He cited several instances where
    plans from terrorists were realized and halted throughout the 1990s,
    including:
    An attack on the Federal building in New York
    Plans to destroy the Lincoln and Holland tunnels
    A plan to fly a plane into CIA headquarters
    A millennium New Year's Eve plot to attack Los Angeles International
    Airport ..."
    <http://www.ism.ws/ConfPastAndOnlineDaily/files/May02/Keynote02.cfm>

    "[The Clinton administration was] correctly focused on bin Laden."
    -Paul Bremer,
    ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department and
    later chair of the Congressional National Commission on Terrorism,
    Washington Post,
    Dec. 2000

    "Overall, I give [the Clinton administration] very high marks [on
    counterterrorism]."
    - Robert Oakley,
    also ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department,
    Washington Post,
    Dec. 2000

    'The Clinton administration was "obsessed" with bin Laden'
    -the report of the 9/11 Commission

    > The tech boom was undoubtedly responsible for part of the surplus,
    > but Clinton did manage finances pretty responsibly, and deserves credit
    > for it. Were people really so overtaxed in those years?


    Ironic juxtaposition of the two topics:
    Clinton tried to pass airport security legislation, but the Republican
    Congress rejected it because they didn't want the government to pay for
    it, and the 8 Republicans on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee killed it
    because their big contributors, the airlines, didn't want to pay for it
    either.

    > I think the
    > federal tax cuts are resulting in a shifting of burdens to state/ local
    > levels, and the middle class taxpayers, meaning most of us. Not to
    > mention the shear recklessness of the debt, which will haunt us for
    > many, many years.


    It doesn't take a financial genius to figure that if the federal
    government is going to spend tons and tons more at the same time as it
    cuts revenues, it's going to show up as a hole in somebody's pocket.
    But most people are apparently in agreement with the Bush analysis:
    "Fuzzy math".
     
    , Sep 7, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    882
    Walter Roberson
    Sep 8, 2005
  2. dragon1964

    Holding out on a 10D

    dragon1964, Jan 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    556
    Tony Spadaro
    Jan 25, 2004
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Same old bloody same old...

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 13, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    322
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jul 13, 2007
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sun Same Old Same Old

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 24, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    348
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jan 26, 2009
  5. Pat

    Same old, same old

    Pat, Aug 5, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    89
    Views:
    2,013
    Bob Larter
    Aug 11, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page