| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2878
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 10:47 am: | 
|
Interview of the President by Kai Diekmann of BILD
The Oval Office
May 5, 2006
1:55 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Have you ever been in the Oval Office before?
Q Once, a long time ago --
THE PRESIDENT: I'll give you a quick tour before our interview. So, the first thing that a President does, which I didn't realize, was pick a rug. I have no idea about rugs. And so in this job you've got to delegate. The American President is in a position where there's just unbelievable complexities to the job -- Darfur, Iran -- a whole lot of issues. So I delegated the decision about the rug to my wife.
The second thing a President has got to do is have a strategic mind. In order to be successful, in my judgment, as the President, you've got to constantly think strategically. And so I said to her, you pick out the colors, you be the tactical person, but I want it to say "optimistic person." That's all I wanted it to say. Here is the result. Isn't it beautiful?
Q Yes, it is very beautiful.
THE PRESIDENT: There's a sense of optimism when you come in here. And there's a reason why. You cannot lead people unless you're optimistic about what you're doing. You've got to believe it in your very soul. One of the interesting things about the presidency is people watch me like a hawk. They're looking at my moves. And if I'm going to be ringing my hands and if I'm all worried about the decisions I make are not going to lead to a better tomorrow, they'll figure it out.
And so when you talk to me today, I just want you to know I not only strongly believe in the decisions I make, I'm optimistic that they're going to work -- very optimistic.
These are all Texas paintings. That's West Texas, those are other Texas paintings. At least if you're a Texan, it reflects a way of life and a way of thinking. The interesting thing about Washington is that they want me to change -- they being the -- and I'm not changing, you know. You can't make decisions if you don't know who you are, and you flip around with the politics. You've got to stay strong in what you believe and optimistic about that you'll get good results.
And so --the other thing I want you to know about me is that no matter how pressurized it may seem, I'm not changing what I believe. Now, I may change tactics, but I'm not going to change my core beliefs -- a belief that freedom is universal, or the belief that private markets work, a belief in ownership -- when p own something, society is better off; a belief that there's a role for government, but it's limited in nature. And I'm not changing. I don't care whether they like me at the cocktail parties, or not. I want to be able to leave this office with my integrity intact.
That's George Washington, the first President, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three -- three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting? People say, so what? Well, here's the "so what." You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you're gone. If they're still analyzing the presidency of George Washington -- (laughter.) So Presidents shouldn't worry about the history. You just can't. You do what you think is right, and if you're thinking big enough, that history will eventually prove you right or wrong. But you won't know in the short-term.
Lincoln -- this is the place on the Oval Office wall where the President puts the most -- the best President, and I put Lincoln here, and I don't think there's any question -- now, people will have their -- but I think he was the most influential President ever. And the reason why is because that in the midst of a difficult presidency, needless to say -- the Civil War, thousands of people dying, with Americans killing Americans -- he had a vision of a United States. It's conceivable this country would have ended up being two countries had he not had a clear vision, even though all around him was seemingly falling apart. He was a great President.
That's called, "A Charge To Keep," based upon a religious hymn. The hymn talks about serving God. The President's job is never to promote a religion. The great thing about America -- and Germany, for that matter -- is that you should be able to worship freely. I like to tell people, you're equally American whether you're a Jew, Muslim, Christian, or Atheist -- you're equally all Americans -- and that if we ever lose that, we begin to look like the Taliban.
I understand in parts of Europe, some scoff at my faith. It doesn't bother me. But I happen to believe, for me at least, faith is one way to make sure that my values stay intact, and that I keep life in proper perspective, which is a very important part, in my judgment, of being a good decision-maker.
Finally, the desk, where we'll have our picture taken in front of -- is nine other Presidents used it. This was given to us by Queen Victoria in the 1870s, I think it was. President Roosevelt put the door in so people would not know he was in a wheelchair. John Kennedy put his head out the door. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2879
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 10:53 am: |
|
Here's the thing - why does he ALWAYS talk about himself so much? Again, it's all a big psychodrama about himself. That's why he fails to be the stoical western man he wants to be. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3318
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
1. The carpet-changing delegation to the first lady was featured in West Wing when Jimmy Smits' character won the election. Wonder if they got that from this interview?
2. Is Bush's inability to spell contagious? Most people "wring" their hands. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1745
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 11:03 am: |
|
Bush always tries to ingratiate himself with reporters with self-effacement and dumb jokes. Unfortunately, it often works. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Which is why he has won every political race he has entered. Why you libs (other than dave) can't find it in your political thinking to give him credit for being a great politician is beyond me. He, Clinton, and Reagan all have that special trait that comes across well and appeals to people. You may not like his policies and philosophy but the man is a good politician. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 3:49 pm: |
|
1. He won every political race he has entered because he has cheated or smeared his opponents, or was "out Texaned".
2. Southerner "wrings" his chicken.
|
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 223
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 3:51 pm: |
|
He has not won every political race he has entered. In 1978 Bush ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and lost. He lost to a genuine good old boy from Texas who portrayed Bush as a northeasterner who spent most of his time in Maine, was educated at a fancy New England Prep School (Phillips Andover), and then on to elite, snobby liberal schools such as Yale and Harvard Business School. He was portrayed as being out of touch with Texans.
After the loss, Bush learned his lesson. Bush vowed never to be "out Texaned" ever again. Hence the phony drawl, cowboy hat, boots, and "aw shucks" attitude. The phoniness has worked well for him politically. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2880
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
He, Clinton, and Reagan all have that special trait that comes across well and appeals to people. You may not like his policies and philosophy but the man is a good politician.
At 31% approval?  He's a dog. Ruff ruff.
Clinton was above 60 while being impeached.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 9:05 pm: |
|
You got me betty. GW lost in 1978. So he is undefeated since Carter was in office. Not a bad record. As for his approval rating, I ask, who cares. He is still doing what he wants, and with approval ratings that low it's time to buy. You libs are going to be surprised come November. |
Mr. Big Poppa
Citizen
Username: Big_poppa
Post Number: 644
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 9:32 pm: |
|
I love Texas!
 |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 9:47 pm: |
|
Poppa,
Your slipping. You already used that one! Get me something with some mud, a Waffle House, a tractor, and some Dickies! |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4881
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 10:20 pm: |
|
wow, big poppa, there's a whole lot of ugly going on in that picture. Wow. The hat, the t-shirts, the crappy stucco house, the weedy lawn. There's probably stains on the toilet seats, too, you just can't see them from this angle.
I f**** hate Texas. |
MichaelaM
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 191
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 11:03 pm: |
|
If I recall, Laura Bush chose that rug. It's yellow. Bush *really* likes to talk about it. |
ess
Citizen
Username: Ess
Post Number: 1923
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 1:39 am: |
|
Just because he is "doing what he wants" doesn't make him a strong nor effective nor good leader. In fact, "doing what he wants" has driven the country into real rough waters. Further, a good president wouldn't only be "doing what he wants". He (or she) would be doing what he (or she) thought was the best for the country and the people who live in it. Clearly, this president doesn't factor that in to his "doing what he wants". |
marion cobretti
Citizen
Username: Marion_cobretti
Post Number: 132
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 2:50 am: |
|
someone once told me the reason i like bush is b/c he comes across as a guy i could sit down with and have a beer and talk baseball,and they were right.from now on that is how i will base my political platform,baseball and beer.i think if we all did that this country would be run by pete rose and george wendt.not bad. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3247
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 10:51 am: |
|
Regarding Bush's track record at winning elections... Although I hate to say it, it's not that Bush is a good politician, it's that so many people are that STUPID.  Well, lots of them are regretting their votes now. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3321
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 11:35 am: |
|
Right, he does what he wants, like never vetoing a bill--why bother, when at signing ceremonies he outright says (and writes in the signing letter) that he will not implement some parts of the bill anyway, and proceeds to in fact ignore the will of Congress. He is beyond arrogant, he is destroying the concept of a democratically elected House and Senate passing laws. If he does not like a bill, he can veto it and then the House and Senate can either uphold or overturn the veto. And the cowardly weasels running the House and Senate let him get away with it.
Sure, Southernor and others may support Bush's politics, but I can't understand how people in good conscience can support his total disdain for democracy. It is not liberal to be upset by this, it is, in fact, truly conservative, in the sense of preserving the Constitution and accepted practices that are the bedrock of our political system. You would think that especially the strict constructionists (on issues like abortion and civil liberties) would be screaming bloody murder about this, but their silence, and the silence of GOP leaders, is deafingly and damningly partisan. And the silence of Dem leadership is spineless.
Imagine what would happen if a strongly pro-choice Dem wins in 2008 and is faced with a bill outlawing abortion in a series of instances, and that Dem decides to sign the bill but also says she or he will not implement the banning of abortion in some of the stricken instances. The nattering nabobs of conservative radio will be handing out flintlocks and fomenting a new American revolution within minutes, screaming about the President hijacking the will of the people as expressed through Congress. Fricking hypocrites. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 2:10 pm: |
|
I love this. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1931
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 2:23 pm: |
|
We know. It's annoying that you have to tell us all the time. It's akin to people who pop into a thread and all they have to add is, "me too".
Thanks for saying NOTHING! |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Eats Shoots & Leaves makes the point that I've made when I'm not posting pictures of the president's best moment or responding to Southerner wringing his chicken. "I can't understand how people in good conscience can support his total disdain for democracy". Substitute "good American" for "people in good conscience". The right wing is drunk on anarchy, starting wars and using the resulting confusion to steal from taxpayers and murder innocents. Inevitably, they will use the disaster they caused to proclaim that they were right and government doesn't work. For some reason, Southerner and the other reactionary posters think that wrecking the country is good fun. Our children will pay for this in the form of massive debt, global instability, loss of national prestige and increased terrorism and pollution. That's just fine with Southerner and the rest. Lie, smear, win. That's the Republican agenda.
|
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 891
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 3:17 pm: |
|
They have a lot of help.
Where are the dems? Two losers in a row. No discernible national platform. No ideas, old or new. A gaggle of cheap politicians, with not a real leader in sight.
The main reason the Republicans keep winning is that the Democrats make it so easy. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Chris, in all seriousness, the main reason the Republicans keep winning is redistricting, fraud, swiftboating war veterans, and Diebold machines. That's a fact, all neatly shoved under the cushion by a complicit press.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3057
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 3:32 pm: |
|
I agree with Chris. if the democrats could put up someone people could get excited about, they could easily sweep the election. But they put up bland, boring, intellectuals that no one can get excited about, and cannot even defend themselves against outright lies, let alone half-truths.
And they give nothing for people to grab onto in terms of ideas. Gore and Kerry had positions that they were simply unable to properly articulate. And who could get excited about either one of them.
Democrats are going to lose their biggest rallying cry in '08. Every candidate will be able to say "At least I'm not Bush." |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Democrats were painted by the media as not trustworthy, out of touch intellectuals and the dim amongst us believed it. Compared to an utter failure, who never worked a day in his life, who couldn't speak in whole sentences, a draft dodger, who was the figure head puppet of a bunch of Texas hooligans, these guys, Gore and Kerry were great men. A media that stayed quiet during the Swiftboat lies, stayed quiet about W's National Guard service, that made debate performances that were clearly a disaster for the Republicans seem comparable, and in the case of folks like Russert and Matthews made it impossible for Democrats and easy for Republicans, the idea that Dems had nothing to offer was a hoax. Figure it out. Wake the f@&# up!
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3059
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 4:06 pm: |
|
It was not a hoax. What percentage of voters in the last election voted for "not Bush?" How many would have preferred a candidate they could rally behind for their own accomplishments?
I blame the media for a lot of tings (being lazy, mostly), but they did not hand the victory to Bush. It;s not that Bush won. Kerry lost. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3324
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Dear Southernor:
What do you love about this? How is it in any way, shape, or form good for our country for the President to ignore Congress and the laws Congress passes? Forget Dem or Repub or Green or Blue or Red or Pink. As an American, are you saying that this does not raise concerns for you? |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 226
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Kerry lost by trying to outmilitary Bush on Iraq and be "Bush lite" with some tweaking, because Bush was riding high. Kerry was going to be even tougher and was all behind the Iraq invasion because it was popular at the time (80% plus of the American public supported the invasion). It wasn't popular to make a stand against the war at that time but a true leader should have. I've said it several times on this board, more democrats (most of all Kerry) should have exhibited leadership back in early 2003 during the run up to war, instead of following the war call like sheep. If Kerry had come out and said we should not invade Iraq and we need to re-think some provisions of the Patriot Act, he would have been portrayed as weak on terror (which he was anyway) and he still would have lost the 2004 election. But he'd be president in 2008. By testing the winds and reading the polls, and not sticking to his principles, he squandered his opportunity. He's a bright man, he must have known Iraq would turn into a mess. But he didn't say anything about the war being a mistake until it became a mess and public opinion turned against it.
Since he didn't exhibit leadership back when it mattered it is too late for him now, in my opinion. Again, I can't see how most of our elected leaders (Republicans and Democrats) didn't see this mess coming in Iraq. When I read that Kerry is going to run again I wince. When I read yesterday that Gore is considering another run I doubled over.
Same problem for Hillary. She was as hawkish as Bush, if not more so, concerning Iraq, in order to look like a strong leader who won't be weak in the war on terror.
It's true what someone on this board said earlier: The only people who could lose to the republicans at this point are democrats. The Dems seem to be saying that the Republicans are screwing things up so badly they can just sit back and watch and not do anything. Big mistake. Hammer away at everything they've done wrong day after day starting right now. Use that procedural maneuver to shut down the Senate until Roberts of Kansas gives us an update on the investigation into the use of pre-war intelligence. Demand to see the raw intelligence every day. It is Bush's sore spot so keep hitting it relentlessly.
I could just imagine what Republicans would do if a Dem was president and Osama Bin Laden, Al Zaqawhiri(sp.?) etc. were still out there making videos. Fox News would proclaim each night "It is day 1,090 that these terrorists responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 remain at large."
That's why the Dems should look for a governor to run, such as Bayh from Indiana or Vilsack from Iowa. They can't be portrayed as northeastern liberals from elite colleges who snowboard and look French, and they don't have a record of voting for war in Iraq and now saying it was a big mistake.
|
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1940
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Vote for me. I have no experience in politics but I can promise you this, unlike everyone in power -- I'm not a douchebag. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 895
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Bettyd: wonderful synopsis. Thank you for that.
-Chris |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3327
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Bettyd--a voice of reason in a forest of insanity. Thanks for your post. Don't forget Warner of Virginia.
I think it is Warner vs. Romney at this early point in time. Hillary, McCain, Rudy, Kerry, Gore, et al will self-immolate sooner than later. |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 228
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 6:35 pm: |
|
On a somewhat related topic. There was an interesting article about Senator Allen (R-VA) in yesterday's Boston Globe. He is considered a potential presidential candidate in 2008. Remember when Howard Dean said the democrats should concentrate on wooing southern males who drive around in pick ups with Confederate flags? He was immediately lambasted by southern politicians (Zell Miller in particular comes to mind) for having an incorrect, stereotpical view of a white, redneck southerner and that he "didn't understand the south." It turns out that Senator Allen throughout high school and thereafter drove a pick up truck with a confederate flag, and that he has a confederate flag in his house today as part of a "flag collection." If Howard Dean should be embarassed about expressing a crude stereotype, Senator Allen should also be embarassed about living up to it. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4885
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 6:49 pm: |
|
I still don't understand why Dean's opinion was considered a crude stereotype. There are southern white males who drive pickup trucks with confederate flags. It was just another example of the Republican slime machine in action, IMHO. Dean's point, which should have been and still needs to be taken seriously, is that Bubba consistently votes Republican even though it's against his own best economic interests, and the Dems have to tell Bubba why they'll do more for him than the GOP will. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 8:45 pm: |
|
I got to give it to you libs. You are great at Mondy morning quarterbacking. To bad the election is always on Sunday!
Alley,
You're welcome.
"Gore and Kerry were great men" - yet they couldn't beat a half man half monkey.
ESL,
I like your posts but I wish you weren't so naive. You are a liberal so I understand your displeasure. I was in your shoes with the same thoughts of the country going wrong with Clinton and the Dems in charge. If you can't see this is just politics as usual then you must be new to the political scene. I think many of you libs are still having a tough time adjusting to the minority status. That isn't a derogatory statement before you lose your cool. Us Repubs were the minority party for 40plus years. Don't worry, the country isn't going to crash down around you, and you will once again get power some day. Keep working hard to push your philosophy rather than jumping off the deep end.
betty,
Reasonably good analysis. You seem to be an intelligent person. I just think most of you don't understand the political shift that has taken place. The Repubs have won because more voters align themselves with the side of issues taken by them. It isn't so much the individual candidates but the philosophy. How else do you explain a half man half monkey winning? If you believe that then you also have to believe that the majority side with him on many issues. The Dems could easily win the WH if they change a few stances, but the Democratic Party has sold their soul to special interests that they can't piss off otherwise you get Nadered and lose huge votes. The Repubs have factions also but they are not nearly as splintered as the Dems.
tom,
I'll agree about Dean and the Bubba comment. Overblown of course, but we all know in this politically correct time you can't make those kind of statements. The Repubs have finally gotten in the politically correct game and used it beautifully to attack Dean. He's a public official so he is fair game, right? I disagree on the substance about economic interests but no use arguing. We'll let the election results speak for themselves. I wonder if you'll make that same statement went Corzine raises your taxes. I can hear you now - "those New Jersey libs consistently vote Democratic even though it's against their own best economic interests.." |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 10:05 pm: |
|
You know Southerner, your response was pretty good until you trailed off. Regarding people being naive, I agree with you. You understand that perception is easily swayed by how something is framed. I'm not sure if some of the intelligent and able people on this thread understand, in my humble opinion, how much and for how long they've been propagandized. The rehashing of facts, which is more than 95% of Americans can do, is impressive, but I'm not sure if some of the folks you addressed in your last response understand that they see things through a prism invented by a media with a specific agenda.
You, as your kind do, took my line about Gore and Kerry being great men out of context. They were great men in comparison. They were in fact great candidates in comparison. There was something more at work. There is a difference between the Washington press corps being lazy and being complicit. I say they were complicit. You get this Southerner, and I hand that to you. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 10:36 pm: |
|
election days are always Tuesday.
ae35unit - keep telling the truth and someone will finally get it.
|
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3329
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 9:22 am: |
|
Dear Southerner: Thanks for patronizing me, but I am neither new to the political scene nor naive. Perhaps you are simply in denial and so cannot step back to look at yourself with anything approaching objectivity, finding it easier to call someone naive rather than engage in a logical examination of both your and my statements.
For what it is worth, I have an extensive background in politics--both academic analysis and street-level organizing--and follow national and international politics more closely than most people do. In fact, I probably have a far better understanding of conservative political principles than you do, both from a political philosophy perspective and from a gut-level perspective, because I have spent a lot of time studying, thinking about, and discussing issues with conservatives (and liberals) for the last 30 years. Would it surprise you that I was a member of the John Birch Society and wrote a Masters thesis on the JBS and the radical right in America? That I have had correspondence with Viguerie, Schlafly, and other modern conservative fathers and mothers? That I have read deeply in Ortega y Gasset, Aristotle, Lippman, Churchill and countless conservative theorists? Or that I am versed in Neibuhr, Locke, Hume, and other great liberal theorists and have had long discussions with Ellsberg, Berrigan, Feingold, and other modern liberals? Do you even recognize half of these names? Do you even have a clue as to how to define "liberal" and "conservative"--two terms you toss around with careless abandon? Have you given the concept an iota of rigorous reflection and thought, or do you simply dismiss out of hand as "liberal" anyone you disagree with? (by the way, I do not consider myself either liberal or conservative--I am a mix of both traditions, as are most Americans)
So, try re-reading my post of 4:11 PM and think for a moment about what is truly conservative and what is truly best for our country, rather than reflexively exercising your knee. I ask you and other self-proclaimed conservatives again--how can a true conservative defend the radical actions of this President? For he is surely not acting like a conservative when he ignores the constitution and cavalierly defies duly-passed Congressional laws and long-standing practices. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3250
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 9:41 am: |
|
Hmmmm... smells like... um.... burnt Southerner. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1951
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 11:38 am: |
|
Quote:...but the Democratic Party has sold their soul to special interests that they can't piss off otherwise you get Nadered and lose huge votes.
Huh, so the Republicans haven't sold their soul to the Christian right and big business? I don't think so... |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 189
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 1:05 pm: |
|
ESL said:
I ask you and other self-proclaimed conservatives again--how can a true conservative defend the radical actions of this President? For he is surely not acting like a conservative when he ignores the constitution and cavalierly defies duly-passed Congressional laws and long-standing practices.
This is exactly right. I consider myself to be pretty conservative, (paleo, not neo) and I think President Bush is arguably the worst president in my lifetime. It will be difficult to repair the damage he has done, no matter who suceeds him. The whole conservative/liberal thing is not very useful because it has degenerated into a shorthand for Republicans and Democrats. The problem is that most Republicans are not conservative and most Democrats are not liberal.
Cheers |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 901
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Wow. . . so I am not alone, after all!
There are other conservatives out there who loathe this man. Primarily because he is NOT a conservative!
Hope springs eternal. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1969
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Chris, I am VERY left leaning in general. But enough of you guys on MOL asked me to do a little research on what made up the Republican party because I tossed the insult Republican around so cavalierly on a daily basis. I was horrified to see that the current administration is a mockery of what the party originally stood for. I would gladly take a traditional Republican over the buffoons currently in power.
Do I now need to go and read up on the word Conservative...?
>>GROAN<<
I keep making homework for myself. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3335
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Hope this helps, Alley. The first part of the entry, up through the section on Burke, is pretty good. The rest of the entry is more muddled.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative
Conservatism is a philosophy defined by Edmund Burke as "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve".[1] The term derives from conserve; from Latin conservare, to keep, guard, observe. Classical conservatism does not readily avail itself to the ideology of objectives. It is a philosophy primarily concerned with means over ends. To a conservative, the goal of change is less important than the insistence that change be effected with a respect for the rule of law and traditions of society. The traditional enemy of conservatism, therefore, is radicalism (not, as is often asserted, liberalism).
Because conservatism is tethered to the traditions of a given society, it cannot hold any single, universal meaning across the world. Additionally, conservative 'means' are often combined with other ideological 'ends' (e.g.: Conservative or Classical Liberal versus Radical Liberal). Conservatism is older than the left-right division in politics; and conservatives may align with either the left or right depending on the time and place.
} |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 912
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 2:09 pm: |
|
See? We have a lot in common.
We are not all strawmen. . . |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1977
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 2:45 pm: |
|
ESL, ummmm.... thanks? Seriously, not sure that helped. I imagine (guessing here), that even though I am quite liberal, that a few issues I'm probably quite conservative (maybe when it comes to upholding the Constitution? Our rights to privacy). But that's just a guess. In general though, I think most things right now with our Government suck and could do with a good bit of Radicalism to churn up the pot.
Thanks Chris. Seriously. Sometimes it's hard to REMEMBER what each individual's opinions are on all of the different topics for little posts. It's not like too many people come right out and state what their political ideologies are. It certainly would make it easier. And it's even harder still for someone like me who unfamiliar with all the different meanings and flavors of politics to put together all of these morsels together to know where any one person is coming from. My apologies for lumping you in with the other now I see not really conservative tow the line at all costs or elsers. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6325
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 2:59 pm: |
|
In the beginning of that interview Bush says one of the best things he has ever said. I wish I felt the same way..
Quote:There's a sense of optimism when you come in here. And there's a reason why. You cannot lead people unless you're optimistic about what you're doing. You've got to believe it in your very soul. One of the interesting things about the presidency is people watch me like a hawk. They're looking at my moves. And if I'm going to be ringing my hands and if I'm all worried about the decisions I make are not going to lead to a better tomorrow, they'll figure it out.
Now if only he had a brain. Its that old "if you put 1000 monkeys at typewriters eventually you would get the Bible" kind of thing |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 190
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 7:59 pm: |
|
Chris Prenovost,
You are certainly correct that Mr. Bush is not a conservative. I would consider him a Neo-Jacobin if I had to put it in a nutshell.
ESL,
Thank you for what is probably the first time Edmund Burke has been quoted on MOL! I would say that the Paleoconservatives are more or less the heirs of Burke. This article is a pretty fair summary:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism
Alleygater,
You said:
I was horrified to see that the current administration is a mockery of what the party originally stood for. I would gladly take a traditional Republican over the buffoons currently in power.
I'm not so sure that the original Republicans were so much different than today's Republicans. Consider this:
The Republican President and Party can be charged fairly with many transgressions against justice and good government:
—Waging an unnecessary war under false pretexts.
—Waging war with callousness toward civilian suffering and at great profit for favoured contractors.
—Justifying abuses of executive power by citing the supremacy of the President’s “war powers” (even when war has not been declared).
—Violating due process and the traditional liberties of individual citizens, including habeas corpus, under plea of national danger.
—Allowing important decisions to be made by unelected officials acting in secret.
—Justifying war by invoking the unique virtue of the United States and its mission to spread goodness among mankind, with the cheerleading of self-righteous religious fanatics.
—Piling up a government debt of previously unthinkable magnitude.
—Encouraging immigration of cheap labour from impoverished foreign countries to keep wages down.
—Appointing incompetent and corrupt party hacks to important offices.
—Dictating the outcome of elections by military force and rejecting unpleasing election results in the name of upholding democracy and self-rule.
The Republican Party is guilty of all of these things—in the 1860’s. Why should we be surprised that it has returned to its roots?
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/wilson.cgi/2006/04/12/The_More_Things_ Cha
Cheers
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 8:40 pm: |
|
ESL,
When you are done lauding yourself be sure to clean up and change the sheets. Why do you libs have to constantly remind yourselves how wonderful you are. You are so insecure it's laughable. If you were really so smart you wouldn't keep aligning yourself with nutjobs who can't beat a bunch of in-breds. And yes, I do throw around the terms liberal and conservative with careless abandon. Is this against some MOL rule I wasn't aware of? We get it already. You believe the country is crashing down around you. If you guys get back power then I take over that view and you can party. If you can't see this as politics as usual then your education is very hollow. Again, you libs don't know how to handle being the minority so you come out swinging. I get it, no problem.
AE,
We don't think unalike except who we want to win.
You politically savvy libs understand this while your many of your brethren don't. They celebrate everytime a new poll comes out as if that is going to get them power. I celebrate everytime Dean and Pelosi give us another soundbite for TV ads. We all know if the Repubs keep power most of you libs will spend 6 months whining about Diebold and fraud and then another year bashing Bush and then you'll jump in with whoever your nominee is regardless of their stance on every position you have criticized Bush on. I can't wait to see how you reconcile the vote for war with your backing of your candidate (Hillary). This is going to be fun. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3338
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 9:26 am: |
|
Southerner--thanks for proving my point. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
You're welcome. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1890
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:06 pm: |
|
"You are so insecure it's laughable. If you were really so smart you wouldn't keep aligning yourself with nutjobs"
Wow, there's some serious projecting going on with Southerner lately. His posts are getting more and more desperate. Must be slim pickins on the roadkill these days...not enough protien or something. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6333
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 8:15 pm: |
|
Quote:If you were really so smart you wouldn't keep aligning yourself with nutjobs
Then why do you do it Southerner?
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 8:28 pm: |
|
Because it's fun. Like reading your posts. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6340
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 9:38 pm: |
|
then you are one of the scariest f*&*&*g people on the planet, cause you don't care what happens to the world we live in. Wait, perhaps not the scariest just among the most pathetic. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1354
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 9:55 pm: |
|
When the dollar falls and gas is $6.00 a gallon, unemployment is 20%, Southerner will still be saying how much he enjoys reading those lib posts.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page