Democrat Unclear on the Concept

25 Comments so far

  1. Steven Andrew Miller (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 8:55 am

    What “concept” is that? Partisan Politics above People?

  2. nikkos (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 10:25 am

    Steven Andrew Miller:

    Presumably, Donna Brazile assumed that Bush was not the best man for the job- which is why, by her own words, she notes that not only did she run the Gore 200 campaign, but she also worked- and voted- against Bush in the 2004 election as well.

    After 5 years of imperial rule by Bush and Co., it is clear to most Americans that his Presidency has been a disaster for our country. Certainly this point should be clear to someone as politically active and aware as Ms. Brazile.

    In light of all that has passed, most recently the President’s half-assed response to the Katrina disaster, what sense does it make to blindly support the President, especially if you are a Democrat, MOST especially if you are a Dem strategist? None.

    While I am all for the healing to begin, if we do not address that which inflicted the wound in the first place, then the wound “heals” over the infection. Rooting out the infection is painful but necessary in order to ensure that the healing is lasting.

    Only by reviewing the failures of the past can we avoid making the same mistakes in the future. It’s amazing that this simple truth needs repeating, but apparently it does (witness the GOP quashing the Dem’s proposal for an independent Katrina commission- “We’ll investigate it ourselves,” sayeth the President.)

    Ms. Brazile could have tempered her enthusiasm for Bush with some well-placed and judicious criticism of his response. She did not. Her op-ed reads like a mash note from a fawning school girl to the high school quarterback, who, although he is glad to accept her deluded support, and no doubt shares the note with his buddies for a good belly laugh, will never give her the time of day.

    Here’s a news flash- we live in a democracy. We elect leaders to represent our interests at the national and global level. When these leaders do not perform to our expectations, we use the political process to register our discontent and enact change.

    The constant suggestion from the right that “partisan politics” is inappropriate, is simply an attenpt to stifle dissent. To put it simply: one must engage inpolitics in order to help people. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    Any criticsm of the President is by its very nature a political act. Are you suggesting that no critiism of the President is appropriate at this time?

  3. Steven Andrew Miller (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 12:36 pm


    I read as far as “After 5 years of imperial rule by Bush and Co., it is clear to most Americans that his Presidency has been a disaster for our country.” and I stopped.

    #1 Using the phrase “imperial rule” suggests you are out of touch with reality.

    #2 “Most Americans” voted to re-elected Bush after 4 years.

  4. Marty (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 1:05 pm

    While it is true that most American’s voted for Bush this time (51%), another interesting factoid is that more American’s also voted AGAINST Bush (48%) than in any recent election.

    I disagree with imperial as well…I’d go with Autocratic.

  5. nikkos (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 1:37 pm

    A Bush defender telling me I’m out of touch with reality? That’s rich. Thanks Steven Andrew Miller, I needed a good laugh today.

    Perhaps it’s for the best that you stopped reading my comment when you did- it is rather long, has lots of big words, and just gets worse (or better depending on one’s perspective) from there on out.

    However, I doubt you actually stopped reading it- more likely, you simply stopped thinking.

  6. bassoholic (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 3:41 pm

    Stop thinking…so that’s how people like Bush. I should’ve seen it before!

  7. nikkos (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 3:52 pm

    Bassoholic, I was referring specifically to Steven Andrew Miller, but if you would like to paint with a broader brush, you’ll find no quibbling from nikkos.

  8. Gabe (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 4:18 pm

    Wow! Where to begin. So many comments that I could make.

    As to the vote issue, he had more popular votes than any president in recent history. So while there may have been more against him than usual, there were also ALOT more for him than ever before.

    I’m with you Andrew. Nikkos has been long out of the realm of reality for awhile. All I have to do is point back to the recent debates that we have had about Katrina. Nikkos, you sound like a broken record: “imperialist rule” or “Bush is to blame for Katrina”. Do you have an original thought in your head or do you take everything so blindly that the democrats feed you?

    As to the majority rule, yeah the majority ruled and said that Bush should be president. Have you looked at the political landscape lately? You’re out numbered, out-voted, and out-of-touch with mainstream America. Get over it! When you finally get enough people together to form a protest, let me know. We’ll be waiting at the Supreme Court with Roberts.

  9. nikkos (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 4:25 pm

    Always nice to hear from you Gabe.

    For a second there, your arguments were beginning to have an effect- I was actually becoming a conservative! And then I realized that creeping numbness was just my leg falling asleep.

  10. Gabe (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 4:34 pm

    What a witty response! Too bad it lacks substance and doesn’t really address the issues that I pointed out. You can’t admit defeat. So you resort to page two of the dem handbook which says to make fun of the person presenting the arguments. That way, you don’t really have to deal with them.

  11. Marty (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 4:52 pm

    but, but Gabe, I thought Nikkos and I were supposed to go back to one my apartment and drink wine while we watch goonies. Now you want us to protest the autocratic rule of one of the worst presidents in US history? I think you’re flip-floping.

  12. Gabe (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 5:09 pm

    HA HA! Oh that was good. Talk about using the political jargon. Maybe you should run for president. Think about it and see if you can raise the cash. :)

    And who said you couldn’t do all three?? You can drink wine, watch goonies (good movie btw), and protest the supposedly autocratic rule of one of the most decisive presidents in US history. Get two TV’s; one to watch goonies and the other to watch a presidential speech (or something presidential of your choosing like West wing). You can compare the two since you’ll have enough wine that you won’t care. How does that sound?

  13. Marty (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 5:24 pm

    Flip flop is not poltical jargon; it is common slang to describe an individual that cannot stay consistent with their opinions. Jargon would be used for words like cognitive dissonance–a psychological concept that explains pyschological and physiological responses that occur when an individual has attitudes and behaviors that do not remain internally consistent.

    In other words, Ms. Brazile should feel it when she begins to work with the autocratic president. Mr Bush should have felt it when he congratulated “Brownie” one week and had him resign the next.

    I’m glad you used the word Decisive though, as it gives us common ground to discuss Bush’s autocratic management style.

    What, in your opinion, was Bush decisive about?

  14. Gabe (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 6:26 pm

    If you look up in Websters dictionary the word Jargon, you will find: “the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group”. In other words, it can be terms that have been taken by specific groups like Republicans or democrats as a phrase or term that is specific to their group. So while your explanation of jargon is correct, it is only half correct.

    By the way, you misspelled psychological unless you were intending to spell physiological which in that case, you still spelled it wrong (i.e. pyschological).

    Where should I begin?
    1. The decision to go into Iraq
    2. The decision to stay in Iraq (despite people like Sheehan)
    3. Tax cut
    4. Rita
    5. John Roberts
    6. 9/11
    7. Removing “Brownie”
    8. Taking responsibility for the Federal response to Katrina
    9. Dealing with the economy and getting us out of the tech bubble mess that Clinton started (read the report, the recession started 4 months before Bush took office)
    10. Dealing with N. Korea (which N. Korea has now committed to dismantling their nuclear program)

    Need I go on or is this enough “common ground” for us to discuss politics? Now remember, we’re not debating the points of what I’ve given but whether Bush was “decisive” in each one of these instances. So don’t try to squirm out of this by saying “yeah but that wasn’t what really happened.” The question was whether he was decisive or not when these things happened.

  15. Marty (unregistered) on September 23rd, 2005 @ 7:42 pm

    Before this continues Gabe, I would ask that you cut back on the snark. I am no stranger to arguements–from minor ones to significant legal discussion–so you do not have to be insulting with such language as “Squirm.” Agreed?

    In regards to “jargon” you are arguing that since the Republicans claimed it in ’04, it is now political jargon? Interesting. It is a very literal take on the word, and I’m not sure I agree. There is nothing technical about Flip Flop; jargon would imply something more obtuse. Flip flop is far too obvious. I’ve never seen Flip Flop in Roberts Rules of Order.

    I’m sorry I misspelled a word; I noticed you still understood what I wrote, but you did not directly address those points.

    First, I dont’ believe Bush was decisive in the following points:

    #7: Removing Brownie. He flip flopped. That’s on record. At first he says he’s doing a great job, then all of sudden, he’s fired.

    #10: The North Korea situation has evolved over the past four years. Originally, the administration stated it was against non aggression pacts–Jan. 29, 2003 (BBC timeline) and Oct 20, 2003. Bush himself said “”We will not have a treaty, if that’s what you’re asking. That’s off the table.”

    Mr Bush repeated that the US had no plans to intervene against Pyongyang. “I’ve said as plainly as I can that we have no intention of invading North Korea.”

    The recent events indicate a significant shift from his original stance. That is not decisive. That is an evolution of policy. Further, it is not consistent with his own rhetoric; however, that is a discussion for another day.

    Now, for issues 1, 2, and 3, I would argue that Bush was Autocratic, not decisive. Bush and his people PUSHED a war and a Tax cut that a substantial portion of the American people did not want nor could we afford. You say decisive, I say autocratic.

    I will not disagree with 4 or 5. But I will quote David Cross in regards to #6, “Even Nader would have bombed Afganistan.” Now, for the first few hours post 9/11, Bush was flying all over the country, Cheney was no where to be found. At ground Zero, he put on a hell of a show…. but I digress

    Before I address #9, I don’t know what report your referencing, nor do I know what sources they are using. I will not debate that point unless you clarify it.

    And last, but not least, is #8. After two weeks of a horrible response to a natural disaster, he says, “I take full responsibility.” Decisive implies there would be a definite result of his action. What was the result? An accelerated response to Rita? A Bipartisan commission that the Democrats will not join because of Republican bias?

    Out of your list, I initially agree with 2 points. So far, civil. We’ll be able to keep it that way, right?

  16. nikkos (unregistered) on September 26th, 2005 @ 10:33 am

    Setting aside the fact that your list of Bush’s greatest hits reads to me as a (partial) list of his greatest misses, I’ll pose another question. I ask this question in good faith, not as a “gotch.”

    In the 2004 campaign, Bush was famouly unable to answer this question: what mistakes have you made as President?

    Can you answer it?

  17. Gabe (unregistered) on September 26th, 2005 @ 11:49 am

    Nikkos, given that the question was in good faith I will try to answer it but I also want to add what I already pointed out above; the list was not about whether it was a hit or a miss but whether he acted decisively in that situation.

    As for his mistakes:
    1. Going into Iraq without securing the borders first (to stop terrorist activity and WMD from leaving the country)
    2. Underestimating the number of military forces we needed in Iraq (as the commander and chief, he is ultimately responsible for that)
    3. Federal response to Katrina (which he took responsibility for)
    4. The handling of the gas crisis
    5. Environmental policy

    While I may agree about some things with Bush, I don’t blindly follow him. I disagree with such things as environmental policy. I’m also big on making sure the troops are taken care of since I was one myself.

    Does that answer your question?

  18. Gabe (unregistered) on September 26th, 2005 @ 12:10 pm

    On to Marty. I will keep my “snark” comments to myself and try to keep this discussion civil.

    I’ll give you #7 but not #10. The only thing that evolved about #10 was N. Korea’s stance on negotiations. If you go back and read the record that you quoted, he was saying that because N. Korea broke the non-proliferation treaty that had been setup by Clinton. What Bush was decisive about and remained steadfast about was whether we negotiate directly with them. He has said from the beginning that we will not enter into direct talks but it will be a unilateral discussion involving China and S. Korea.

    About 1, 2, and 3, you say autocratic; I say decisive. It’s called semantics and a difference of opinion. Or in other words, “you say tomato, I say toemato.”

    On #8, I think we’ve seen the result which was a highly accelerated response to Rita and the point was about his choice to accept responsibility. Since it begs the question, I’ll ask it; since this discussion was about his decisiveness, how long should he wait to take responsibility for the actions of the government? Do you wait to see if the response gets better and give your employees the time to make up for what they did or do you automatically fire them and put in new employees? I personally think that he was giving them their opportunity and when saw that things were not getting better, he stepped in.

    So out of the 10, I would also disagree with you and say there are really only 2 points that we strongly disagree on; #8 and #10.

  19. nikkos (unregistered) on September 26th, 2005 @ 12:43 pm

    Gabe, I would suggest that “decisiveness” is the wrong criteria for judging a leader’s effectiveness. Who cares how decisive a leader is if the decisions made are wrong?

    Reminds me of the Simpson quip when Homer says, “There’s the right way, thr wrong way and my way- which is the wrong way, but FASTER!”

  20. Gabe (unregistered) on September 26th, 2005 @ 1:49 pm

    Ah Nikkos, this is where you should have stopped. We’re not debating leadership. We’re debating decisiveness which is one facet of leadership.

    On top of that, I would add that decisiveness is important but I agree with you that it shouldn’t be the only criteria by which we judge a person’s leadership. What I disagree with you about is whether ALL of his decisions were wrong. You’re now making a generalization about the president which is wrong because not everything he’s done has been wrong and I would hope that you would agree with me. I could cite a few examples but instead I’ll just let this one go for the sake of space in this ongoing debate.

    Notable Quote:
    “He who hesitates is lost.”

  21. nikkos (unregistered) on September 26th, 2005 @ 2:01 pm

    You will note I generalized my question. I said “a leader” not “Dear Leader.”

    No need to limit yourself due to space. Pixels are free. I doubt you’ll need much room to recount Bush’s successes, however.

  22. Gabe (unregistered) on September 26th, 2005 @ 2:04 pm

    I already gave you 10 in the above comments and I even gave you some mistakes. So I think we’re both doing pretty good.

  23. nikkos (unregistered) on September 26th, 2005 @ 2:22 pm

    I agree, you have been far more forthcoming than many others that have made similar arguments. I thank you for that as it has given me additional insight into your perspective. I don’t disagree with your positions any less, but I do understand a bit more how you have arrived at your convictions.

  24. Gabe (unregistered) on September 26th, 2005 @ 4:07 pm

    Wow! Did hell just freeze over?? Something that Nikkos and I actually agree on?!?!

    Thank you for that. I do appreciate that we can agree and come to common ground. I don’t think that Bush is perfect by any means. I’m not a neo-con or whatever you want to call it. I do agree with some of the things that he’s done but I do consider myself a realist. When the bullets are flying, you tend to be realistic about what needs to be done to survive.

  25. Marty (unregistered) on October 3rd, 2005 @ 11:48 am

    Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to you; other duties have priority over political debate..

    anyway, as to the North Korea situation, Bush was quoted as saying “no treaties.” Now we’re discussing treaties. It is an evolution of his policies, not decisive action.

    As for 1-3, I think that would be the heart of our Debate. Autocratic vs Decisive. The semantics and linguistics of Politics is the heart of the current red/blue divide in this country. That is where we should have our discussions.

    As for Katrina, I’ll quote you directly:
    On #8, I think we’ve seen the result which was a highly accelerated response to Rita and the point was about his choice to accept responsibility. Since it begs the question, I’ll ask it; since this discussion was about his decisiveness, how long should he wait to take responsibility for the actions of the government? Do you wait to see if the response gets better and give your employees the time to make up for what they did or do you automatically fire them and put in new employees? I personally think that he was giving them their opportunity and when saw that things were not getting better, he stepped in.

    An accelerated response to Rita doesn’t mean he accepted responsiblity for Katrina. It means he learned from the Katrina debacle. Brown should have been fired the minute he stated he didnt’ know about the convention center. In a situation where people are in dire straits, decisive action is required. FAct is, he took too damn long.

    Also, if he had really taken full responsiblity, he’d come out and criticize Brownie’s testimony to the sham commity AND he would stop the members of his party from critizing local efforts to Katrina.

    From my perspective, we disagree over 5 points; the semantics of points 1-3 are just too big to ignore.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.