Bush is likeable but........

[lazarus]

I watched Bush's question and answer session in West Virginia today. He came across as a likeable guy...he was quite funny at times but when it came to serious issues of policy etc. he became ponderous, inarticulate and seemed out of his depth. There were long painful pauses and often what he actually said did not make any sense. I was really embarraced and I found myself not wanting to watch.

I'm trying not to be partisan here. Bush was likeable but......I really don't think he's running the country. I really don't think he has a real grasp of the issues that face America. There's something that's just.......missing....maybe its gravitas!

[Dr. Shane]

President Bush is not articulate and does a lousy job of defending his policies. It is a miracle he was elected to office. I am sure God had something to do with it.

[Jeannieb43]

Wellllll, I wouldn't put that burden on God!

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Yes, I saw some snippets of Bush's news conference a few days ago. I kept hearing him pause and wait so long between phrases I figured he must be listening again for some more prompting from his short-wave earpiece!

[olger]

Bush is good at one-on-one communication. He seems to stuggle with public speaking. Reagan was much better.

gcw

[K]

Could it be that he has a hard time because of the way he runs his office. He puts the best people in the jobs, lets them fly without much oversight, and then he gets asked all the hard questions. I think he is not articulate and, his lassie faire style of leadership leaves him kind of out of the loop.

K

[Dr. Shane]

His is a macro-manager like President Reagon was, not a micro-manager. Both styles of management have their advantages and disadvantages. His biggest problem is that he is not a good speaker.

[lazarus]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

His is a macro-manager like President Reagon was

---

When Reagan spoke I got a sense that he really had a grasp of the issues but with Bush I feel that he has been given a sheet of paper and told "learn this, this is our policy on Iraq."

Manchurian candidate kinda thing!

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

with Bush I feel that he has been given a sheet of paper and told "learn this, this is our policy on Iraq."

---

This is how the anti-Bush crowd has painted him. I will concede that Bush's enemies are better at communcation than he is. But that doesn't mean they are right.

I did not want to compare GW Bush's communication skills to RW Reagon. Reagon what the great communicator. I was simply comparing how they ran the White House.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

_____________ was likeable but......I really don't think he's running the country. I really don't think he has a real grasp of the issues that face America. There's something that's just.......missing....maybe its gravitas!

---

They said the same thing about Reagan at this point in his administration.

And I'm old enough to remember they said the same thing about Eisenhower, pluse he had a serious heart attack.

This is a standard script for the leftist media.

Villify the Republican. If that doesn't work, paint him as affable, pleasant, shallow, out-of-touch, incompetent. Yada yada yada.

By far the most incompetent President of my lifetime, probably in the top 5 most incompetent all time, would be James Earl Carter, "Jimmuh."

His inordinate affection for dictators while supposedly chamioning "civil rights," continues to highlight his incompetence.

But he was never affable or pleasant.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Villify the Republican. If that doesn't work, paint him as affable, pleasant, shallow, out-of-touch, incompetent. Yada yada yada

---

Hahahahaahah!

This would be really funny, 'cept for one thing....It's true!!!!

I would like to see if Bush's hump on his back has been reduced to a more micro chip sized reciever....And if he doesn't have that anymore, then either he is pondering just how much to tell the American people or he just doesn't have a grasp on what is truely happening....

I suspect that there is an overwhelming amount of things to ponder over on a daily basis....It takes a smart man at the helm to run America. And I don't think George is that smart....

And God is into allowing people to make mistakes so that they will learn from them....Unfortunately, we don't learn from history too well... And Satan is much more interested in screwing with people mind's anyway...

[jasd]

QR frame:

Inarticulate? Affable? If that’s all… one can only be thankful. I would that POTUS was ‘slow of speech’ as was Moses, rather than to devastate this nation’s military capability 40-45%. Oh, who did that? why! ol’ Bubba ‘pends-what-is-is, of course. That was a g’awful reason to have to lease all those foreign-flagged transports to project our military presence to thems Mesopotamian sands for Iraq redux… what’d it take? four months? Whoa! that’s a long-long lead time. Anyway,

mebbe, we oughta start worrying ‘bout thems that’s got POTUS’ Administration by its testaments, y’know thems boogie-men of our conspiracy theorist’s worst nightmares.

Or mebbe, we’d ha’been better served by wha’hisname? y’know, “Waaaa, waaa, he took my election away! stole it plumb right out from under me – hangin’ chubbs an’ all!” --gorp

Or mebbe, we’d ha’been better served by wha’shisname? y’know, “…yeah, I voted that way but that’s before I wanted to vote this way so in fact I did vote that way, or was it this way – but that doesn’t count ‘cause what should count is the way I really shoulda, or is that, I wanted to, --vote in the first place, or is that supposed tah be –the second place? blep-blep-blep… Who’s on first? Well, y’know what I mean.” --smarter-but-proved-dumber

Nyah.

Don’t get me wrong. I distrust all politicians. I think they’re all low-rent. People doing all those lawyer jokes are really confusing them with politicos. BUT,

the dictum is… him who’s got the gold has gots your fundament; and the Bushes are pikers where $s are concerned – backwoods, Texas Billy-Bobs. They’s be owned, OWNED. Who in bloody H, who is anybody, lives in a 10-cent town like Crawford!? Crawford? ain’t them those skrawny little crawstaceans yah throws in gumbolaya for flavor? y’know, likes that whooweein’! Justin Wilson feller who’sallatime Bars-B-Qin’ on TV?

One has to look elsewhere tah lay-off blame and/or agida – startin’ with the major-crud-media who’s yet to give us a positive looksee at American Heroes who are spilling their blood for the rest of us Hee-Haws back State-safe-side… ‘stead of incessantly grindin’ down any an’ everything of good report. REAL cruds. It is

the enemy glad-slappin’ your backside, that is, the metastasized fifth estate passin’ itself off as the fourth, and other likeminded, who labor insidiously to tilt the destiny of our peoples – to destruction. The question obtains – why? Whose will do they serve?

Oh, Reagan, though I admired the man and indeed, though I credited him with good grasp upon the issues, remember his first trip to Europe as POTUS and the incident of his teleprompter malfunction. Now that was the man everyone credited as ‘The Great Communicator’. I recall that when his teleprompter failed – he had as much difficulty delivering a message, as does Dubya. That said,

and giving credit where it is due – Dubya has never pretended that he was a communicator of any sort, let alone ‘great’ at it.

Yeah, the guy is affable. Wishfully,

he has the guts to expose that ‘gnomes of Zurich’ cabal – much as Kennedy tried – before being assassinated.

On Polls:

“Despite the fact that 70 percent (according to the major media polls… like the recent CBS poll front-loaded with democrats: mine, jasd) of the public thinks Bush is doing a lousy job, when they had a chance to put someone else in the White House a mere 15 months ago, they decided to keep him (with majority vote, something good old ‘artificial turf’ Bubba failed to get: mine, jasd).

There is, however, one poll taken by millions of Americans every day, year in, year out. Based on plummeting viewers, circulation numbers and ad rates, we can say with some certainty, the American people are beginning to loathe the liberal media.” --Ann Coulter

[Bravus]

Well, yep, nice report on the current Republican talking point/spin: the war in Iraq is actually going swimmingly, it's just that the media is focusing on the wrong things. Never mind that the deputy prime minister recognises that there are 30-50 Iraqis dying a ay, continually.

...and forgive me if I don't find Ann Coulter any sort of reliable or compelling source.

On the election, the 'liberal' media (the New York Times among others) actually hid evidence from the public of Bush's incompetence and malfeasance that may well have helped him get elected... and yes, the Democrats have also managed to shoot themselves in the foot very effectively on successive nominations.

Bush is very, very effective at doing what he's there for: enriching his pals. Halliburton alone has managed to transfer billions from the American taxpayer to wealthy Bush campaign contributors, and if there is a single pattern to this administration it is not in articulateness, it is this kind of revers Robin-Hoodery. The war in Iraq itself can easily be read in that light alone: not about the oil, not about the water, not about democracy (since that's something they use as a banner abroad to manufacture consent while trampling it at every opportunity at home), but about finding ways to (a) transfer largesse from the American middle class to the super-rich, ( validate the continuation and expansion of the military-industrial complex and © bankrupt the nation in order to slash social programs in education, housing, welfare and health in oprder to create a permanent under-educated under-class.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Bush is very, very effective at doing what he's there for: enriching his pals.

---

Now tell me about one American president that hasn't "enriched his pals"? That is how the system works. There have been many attempts to clean it up but none have worked. If a person or a company helps a politician to get elected, they will get favors in return. I don't have a problem with that - as long as everything is in the open and the politician doesn't profit personally from it. I do have a problem with secret deals.

And let's not forget that President Clinton also gave a no-bid contract to Haliburton during the Bosinian war.

Quote:

---

the war in Iraq is actually going swimmingly, it's just that the media is focusing on the wrong things.

---

The media is doing a Vietnam repeat. The war is going as all wars go. Please name me one war where people didn't die everyday? Name me one war where no POWs were abused? Name me one war where civilians were not killed by accident? Name me one war that couldn't have been better fought given hindsight? War is hell. This war is no different.

During WW1 and WW2 the media was only allowed to focus on the good so as to keep support for the wars strong. That was one extreame. The media coverage of the Vietnaum war was the other extreame. If it wasn't for the new media (talk radio, Internet & FOXNews) the coverage of the Iraq war would be a complete repeat of the Vietnaum. I am not looking for extreame (all good or all bad). I am looking for balance. Show me a bad story and balance it with a good story.

[Dr. Shane]

Ann Coulter is an extreamist like Howard Dean is on the other side. Does that mean we shouldn't listen to anything either one of them has to say?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

the 'liberal' media (the New York Times among others) actually hid evidence from the public of Bush's incompetence and malfeasance that may well have helped him get elected

---

I am only aware of them sitting on stories that involved national security. What story is this in reference to? Please provide sources if it is has not already been widely reported.

[Ted Oplinger]

Tagging in...

Bush...translating wealth from the middle class to the super-rich???

Well, that should have the Kennedys, the Shrivers, and the rest of the Democrat super-rich jumping for joy.

Jasd hit the nail on the head: money IS power in this world.

Anyone care to ask why capitalism is so tarred and feathered today, weighted down with so many taxes and bad publicity?

Simple: it allows no-name poor and middle-class people from "the other side" to quickly amass money and power. It disrupts the blue-blood aristocracies desire to retain power within the realm of a trusted few that they control.

Does anyone really think the Clintons were "people folk" from Arkansas? No, they were bought by the blue-blood Democratic monies, even as much as Democrats today deride the Bush family as being bought by the Republican blue-bloods...

About our current president...I think he's far more intelligent than many give him credit for being. However, having great intelligence doesn't always mean one comes across looking intelligent, nor to be able to communicate that intelligence.

To his detractors, though, I'll have to say he has done a much better job under his circumstances, than the last 6 previous.

Caveat: Reagan was a great president, but he did not have to deal with the kind of abject polarization and media hostility GWB must deal with each day. And yes, I do remember the Reagan years quite well...voted for him twice.

And for slashing social programs to create a permanent under-class?

Well, my two cents' worth is that most of those programs (of Democrat origin) are doing precisely just that: creating an underclass of poor, under-educated, gov't-dependent people whose existence is tied directly to gov't programs. Why? To create a permanent voting block of constitutents.

Since LBJ's "Great Society" programs...how many trillions of dollars have been moved into these programs? And the problems are no closer to being solved than they were 40 years ago?

And that's a "mean-spirited Republican" Bush thing?

The big thing in public education in the US today...Johnny can't read nor write...is the fruit of a long history using education as but another tool to create a voting constituency block. It isn't a sudden crisis brought about by GWB's fiscal policies. The problem's been going on far longer than that.

Each of those programs got started within a Democrat controlled Congress, and each went south from day 1. During the next 40 years, things got better only when someone from one party or the other get some backbone and demanded a little accountability and bang-for-the-buck. The all the bureaucrats cried out as if the world was coming to an end....

Um...er, uh...let me get down from the soapbox...

Forgive me for being just a bit cynical of the pot-banging on both sides of the political aisle.

Ted

[Bravus]

1. Rape and murder have happened all through history too: does it mean we should stop saying they're wrong, and working to stop them?

2. This administration is quantifiably, measurably much worse in terms of looting than *any* prior ones.

3. If public education has failed, where is the Republican plan to fix it?

4. Bush campaigned as 'a uniter, not a divider' and a 'compassionate conservative'. Someone above suggested the media led to the polarisation: to some extent and in some ways, perhaps, but Bush has presided over a radical polarisation of American society farther and faster than even the Clinton impeachment could cause.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

To his detractors, though, I'll have to say he has done a much better job under his circumstances, than the last 6 previous.

---

Excuse me! But in what way???? Concidering his polls, no one trusts him to do the right thing with the economy, nor with education , nor with Social Security nor with health care...The only thing the american public think that he is doing right is 'national security' and to be honest about it, even GORE could have done it as well as Bush...

Problem with the american public is that they dont' understand intellectuals... they only wnat canidates with charisma ....and Bush has charisma, but as for intellect, well, the public doesn't sesonate with an intellectual...Concider Gore and Kerry...both good intellectuals...but poor on the charisma scale....

But hey! you get what you think you want.......and if you know how to selll it, public is gonna buy it....And bush knows how to market....

[Ted Oplinger]

Bravus,

Quote:

---

1. Rape and murder have happened all through history too: does it mean we should stop saying they're wrong, and working to stop them?

---

Extremist argument. Equating the current US presidential administration with this kind of argument is the stuff of emotion, not intellect.

Quote:

---

2. This administration is quantifiably, measurably much worse in terms of looting than *any* prior ones.

---

Depends upon perspective as to what is being "looted". Many social conservatives thought Clinton did more quantifiable looting of the accepted norm of social morality than any other President in US history.

While I thought the man of low character, I didn't buy the extreme arguments used by the conservatives to villify everything Clinton did. Neither do I buy the current liberal arguments used to villify everything the current President does.

Quote:

---

3. If public education has failed, where is the Republican plan to fix it?

---

Actually, even the American press is more generous than that. The current President and Congress has pumped far more money into the public education system than any other President in US history. However, acknowledging that would mean giving the current President some sort of credit for doing something right, giving Republicans credit for trying to fix a virtually unsolvable problem, and the Democrats being unable to claim the spotlight on that.

I guarantee that if this President were carrying the Democrat banner, there were be no end to the lauds he be getting over his efforts to revamp the system.

As far as education as a whole goes - Republicans have placed quite a few ideas on the table...like increased funding, increased accountability for teachers, particularly those in the inner cities, where public education holds the poor children hostage - and is seen for what it truly is. There's the issue of vouchers for the parents of these poor children to send their kids to private schools - like Adventist schools?- but that would undermine the education bureaucracy beholden to...the Democrat party.

And the current minority party has proposed...what? That can be quantifiably listed as near zero, using their emotional and political capital simply to say, "If Bush and the Republicans are for it, then we're against it."

What kind of intellectual option is that?

Quote:

---

4. Bush campaigned as 'a uniter, not a divider' and a 'compassionate conservative'. Someone above suggested the media led to the polarisation: to some extent and in some ways, perhaps, but Bush has presided over a radical polarisation of American society farther and faster than even the Clinton impeachment could cause.

---

And whose rhetoric has fired up that polarization the most?

Look at your own posts above - that's not the stuff of coming together.

What is going down today is far worse than anything the conservatives did with Clinton, who himself used quite a bit of inflammatory rhetoric to throw gas on the fire.

Both sides have their pet little firebombs to throw - I don't like either side doing it. I do have to say that, from my perspective, most of the negative invective is coming from the American Left right now.

Ted

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

1. Rape and murder have happened all through history too: does it mean we should stop saying they're wrong, and working to stop them?

---

That is comparing apples and oranges. Full disclosure is the solution. Let any American citizen or company donate as much money as they want to a politician's campagn and require full disclosure.

Quote:

---

This administration is quantifiably, measurably much worse in terms of looting than *any* prior ones.

---

Don't believe everything the anti-Bush crowd puts out there. What about the LBJ administration? LBJ made his buddies rich off from wars from the time he was elected to Congress in 1937 until he left the Presidency in 1969. His buddies became rich off from WW2 and Vietnaum. LBJ played a large role in bulding Halibrton long before Dick Chenney or GW Bush were ever on the political scene. Many believe Johnson got us into Vietnaum so that Brown and Root could make more fortunes - and LBJ was a major stock holder in Brown and Root! (Does that put LBJ pretty high as a looting president?) When Haliburton bought Brown and Root LBJ's widow traded her shares of B&R for Haliburton and maintained a contolling interest until her recent death.

I don't see that GW Bush is even in the same class as LBJ.

Quote:

---

Bush campaigned as 'a uniter, not a divider' and a 'compassionate conservative'.

---

One must consider Bush's background as governor of Texas. Texas Democrats are more conservative and interested in compromise. Democrats on the national lever see themselves as the opposition party which means anything the President want they will oppose. No one can be a uniter with a group of people dedicated to oppose everything they stand for.

GW Bush is a compassionate conservative in that he funds entitlement programs like none other before him.

[Ted Oplinger]

Neil,

Quote:

---

Excuse me! But in what way???? Concidering his polls, no one trusts him to do the right thing with the economy, nor with education , nor with Social Security nor with health care...The only thing the american public think that he is doing right is 'national security' and to be honest about it, even GORE could have done it as well as Bush...

---

You're excused!

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should know that polls are weighted to say what is wanted to be said. Considering that most polls are run by *the Left*, I hardly find it surprising that the Polls can't deem Bush doing anything right, except maybe wiping his nose...but even that would give Bush credit for something. NO! The Script states explicitly that can't be done...

Quote:

---

Problem with the american public is that they dont' understand intellectuals... they only wnat canidates with charisma ....and Bush has charisma, but as for intellect, well, the public doesn't sesonate with an intellectual...Concider Gore and Kerry...both good intellectuals...but poor on the charisma scale....

---

I was wondering when this little lament was going to come in.

Actually, Neil, the American public does understand "intellectuals"...all too well. The American public, though, doesn't like being called "stupid" just because they don't agree with self-appointed "intellectuals".

That is the current problem of the American Left - they will call something "intellectual" only if it agrees with their point of view.

That, to this scientist and pilgrim, is a intellectually dishonest stand to take!

Yet, this is what happens when one side of the discussion automatically labels the opposite side as bereft of any good contributable ideas and intellect.

What I say about the current political scene is also what I say about the current battle on the science front - Creation vs. evolution. There's a classic example of intellectual dishonesty being used on both sides.

Polarizing arguments and statements have but one effect on me - that is, they cause me to tune each side out and start looking for the evidence each is either not giving, or is not willing to cede as credible perspective.

So...you say you think the only intellectual candidates are from the American Left...well, the, the possiblity of crying for another 8 years is a distinct possibility, when the American public again eschews the thought they're too stupid to understand the Left, and that charisma is the only thing they'll consider.

Quote:

---

But hey! you get what you think you want.......and if you know how to selll it, public is gonna buy it....And bush knows how to market....

---

Yep...the American people also bought the charisma of Clinton for 8 years, because he is a political genius and knows how to package the political image well. Yet even Clinton couldn't get Gore elected when Gore had everything in his favor.

Oh, yeah, I forgot...Bush and his cronies stole that election...can't forget about that...

When I filter out the emotion from both sides of the aisle, I get a much more balanced perspective of what is really going on. But that's just the way my intellect works...

Oh, drats...it doesn't agree with the Left, so I can't be intellectual, can I?

Regards,

Ted

[Bravus]

OK, Ted, I agree that 'rape and murder' was an extreme way of making that case. My point was just that 'the other guys did it too', which was Shane's response to the idea that the Bush administration is all about enriching the rich, is not a useful response. You're right that my language was extreme and not well calculated to bring unity or agreement, and I apologise for that. Would you be willing to address the substantive point, though? The gap between rich and poor is growing and accelerating: that's measurable. We can agree or disagree about whether that is a good thing. But just saying 'well, other presidents did it too' is not a response. And I would definitely challenge a Democratic president who presided over the same thing.

On education, I agree that Bush has put a lot more money into education, and laud him for that. I do have issues with the fact that so much of it is dedicated to testing, rather than to actual teaching (the old 'you don't make a pig heavier by weighing it' argument that we've had here before). And voucher systems may have potential, but in the short term all they do is take resources away from the weakest and poorest inner-city schools, giving those students who are unable to move an even worse educational chance than their current abysmal one. (And I do know what I'm talking about - I've worked with inner-city teachers in Chicago.)

I guess most of this stuff is debatable, depending on values and beliefs, and you all have the right to your own values. But the Bible has over 3000 verses about caring for the poor, the disadvantaged, the widows and orphans, and about justice and mercy. I'm not hearing a lot about ways to do that, I am hearing a lot about power and control and looking after the wealthy...

[Bravus]

In the final analysis, I guess what I was trying to say is that the theme of this thread is off the track. Neither Bush's likeability/charisma nor his (in)articulateness is to the point. In judging him as a man we need to accept that he has accepted Jesus as his saviour and is doing the best he can like the rest of us - we may well be in heaven with him.

But we're not judging the man, we're judging the president, and you judge a president, not by how clearly he speaks or by how much you like him, but by the effects and results of his actions as president.

His actions in the war of choice in Iraq (and that's one thing that makes this war different from many of the others cited) have cost billions of dollars, thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. All wars have costs, of course, but this *was* a war of choice. And those costs have to be weighed against the benefits, and those benefits are getting harder to see all the time. Is the average Iraqi safer, more comfortable or in any way better off now than under Hussein? Sure, some of the pain has moved from the Kurds to the Sunnis, but I'm not sure that benefit of sharing out the pain more equitably justifies the costs. Deciding that the war is worthwhile is essentially a matter of faith - of decided that, no matter how it looks now, it will get better in future. But as of right now, judging the president, the invasion was a mistake, and the occupation was dramatically bungled.

I could make the case in other areas too, including Katrina and disaster relief, but basically it's possible to argue away almost any point if you have sufficient faith in the president.

But let's not get off into argues about intelligence (I believe Bush is quite intelligent but often chooses not to inform himself) or likeability (some like Clinton and hate Bush, others vice versa, so even talking as though there was a universal 'liking' scale doesn't make sense). What we need to do is say 'are the people of America better off after these 6 years?' (in absolute terms, not compared to some imagined version of what they would have received under Gore) 'are the people of Iraq better off after these 3 years?' 'are the people of America genuinely any safer (from terrorism or natural disasters) than they were 6 years ago?'

Hey, and by the way, I think both Gore and Kerry were terrible candidates. They both got unfairly attacked ('inventing the Internet'/'flip-flopping/windsurfing/Swift-boating'), but they should have been much, much stronger, surer and clearer in their message. But saying 'these guys aren't great either' is also not something that disallows any criticism of the job Bush is doing.

I'm honestly willing to give Bush credit for what he does well, and there are one or two areas, including education funding, where I do just that. But again, when I'm criticising, I'm being idealistic, I realise: not comparing against 'crooks of the past', but comparing against 'what is good for the people of America and the people of the world'.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

My point was just that 'the other guys did it too', which was Shane's response to the idea that the Bush administration is all about enriching the rich, is not a useful response.

---

My point is that it is not a valid critism. When every president has done it, it has become accepted. If we want to change it that we can discuss that. But we ought not make Bush into a villian for doing what all the presidents before him have done.

Quote:

---

And voucher systems may have potential, but in the short term all they do is take resources away from the weakest and poorest inner-city schools

---

A voucher system would need to be phased in. They should start by targetting poorer students in the system that don't have the choices the wealthier students do. As more students exit the public school system the public schools will not require as many resources. The idea that vouchers rob public schools is really a strawman.

A public school with 2,000 students needs X amount of resources for those 2,000 students. Should 500 students leave the school the school would not need as many resources. The school could close down some classroom buildings, lay-off some teachers, purchase less textbooks, computers, etc. The amount of resources a school needs is determined by the number of students it has. If the number of students decreases it would be immoral not to decrease the amount of funding.

The only problem would be if all these students left all at one time. That would create a crisis. However if a voucher program is phased in, the changes in student population would be made in the course of 5 to 10 years. Teachers that would get laid off in shrinking public schools would get picked up by growing charter and private schools.

I strongly favor public finance of education. However I do not favor public facilition of education. Ideally I would like to see all education privatized with the government operating a handful of universities and alternative schools (grades 1-12) for problem students. Educational vouchers are a step in the right direction.

[Ted Oplinger]

Bravus,

Quote:

---

OK, Ted, I agree that 'rape and murder' was an extreme way of making that case. My point was just that 'the other guys did it too', which was Shane's response to the idea that the Bush administration is all about enriching the rich, is not a useful response. You're right that my language was extreme and not well calculated to bring unity or agreement, and I apologise for that.

---

Ah, great - I have won my brother back to the honest exchange of ideas and perspectives!

Apology accepted...no offense taken.

I do agree - the "everyone else" defense is quite lacking, though I do see it must be taken into account IF one particular individual is going to be singled out. There's something about equal application of standards I find to be quite relevant here.

Quote:

---

Would you be willing to address the substantive point, though? The gap between rich and poor is growing and accelerating: that's measurable. We can agree or disagree about whether that is a good thing. But just saying 'well, other presidents did it too' is not a response. And I would definitely challenge a Democratic president who presided over the same thing.

---

Okay....let's address the substantive points. Gap between rich and poor growing? Agreed - that's been the trend for the last 50 years. Accelerating at an alarming rate? Yes, it is.

What I can't see is laying the blame for that to be the sole responsibility of one party or the other. The usual trend is that socialist policies create a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots, while capitalist policies reverse that. Note: usual trend.

Factor in greed and power appetites for both sides, and one finds a major caveat here..."Old Money" across the political spectrum has a vested interest to keep as many new entries to the super-wealthy club, out.

"Super wealthy"?. That should preclude anyone with an estate less than 100 million in todays money, and it should also preclude those who are land rich but limited in other financials. How does this particular section of society keep their power?

One, they pay very little income tax, versus the size of their estates. Second, they utilize lots of loop-hole investments which require large sums of monies - making them effectively unavailable to the the masses (even many of the upper middle class can't take advantage of these)

Third, they use a lot of emplaced bureaucracy and bought politicians to efect policy to make it harder for the average citizen to be that successful.

Fourth, they use various propaganda devices (like all who make 100,000 per annum, today's dollars, are RICH - now that is a laugher!) designed to shoot down those on the verge of creating an estate large enough to bring them serious political clout to go along with the money.

Last, it doesn't help that 100 yrs ago, most people were self-employed. Today, over 90% work for someone else - helping someone else gather a fortune rather than themselves. This, coupled with policies which make it very difficult to become self-employed, will only exacerbate the gap.

It's the elimination of opportunity and limiting the access to prosperity which raises my hackles.

These points can hardly be laid to one party or the other, but rather a select few working through both parties to keep their power.

Hence, it really doesn't matter who runs in what office - they must sooner or later come to these super wealthy for money.

Yep, a bit cynical I am...

Quote:

---

On education, I agree that Bush has put a lot more money into education, and laud him for that. I do have issues with the fact that so much of it is dedicated to testing, rather than to actual teaching (the old 'you don't make a pig heavier by weighing it' argument that we've had here before). And voucher systems may have potential, but in the short term all they do is take resources away from the weakest and poorest inner-city schools, giving those students who are unable to move an even worse educational chance than their current abysmal one. (And I do know what I'm talking about - I've worked with inner-city teachers in Chicago.)

---

Performance testing for both teachers and students is only a place start. Accountability for teaching and learning must start somewhere. However, if that is going to be the end of it...then I have issues with any administration.

Education needs to be more than merely indoctrinnation of a particular curricula viewpoint (of science, history, etc.), but should teach children how to think and resolve issues that will face them later as adults.

As far as vouchers go...depends on how they are implemented. If implemented in a way designed to stick it to the education bureaucracy, then, yes, the children will be the end losers.

Quote:

---

I guess most of this stuff is debatable, depending on values and beliefs, and you all have the right to your own values. But the Bible has over 3000 verses about caring for the poor, the disadvantaged, the widows and orphans, and about justice and mercy. I'm not hearing a lot about ways to do that, I am hearing a lot about power and control and looking after the wealthy...

---

On that, we do agree. The Bible is replete with these...and it is also replete with verses that such care must come willingly - not forced by law and civil penalty.

As you said, a lot of things are fodder for debate. I just hope it can be done without a lot of intolerance for ideas for wherever they come from.

Later,

Ted