The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[AGDee]

There is no way we are going to pull out of there without the insurgents knowing whether we publicize a timeline now or not. It's not like we can sneak out of there overnight and leave the Iraq military in charge. They are going to know. We aren't going to be able to rid the country of them. There are so many Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan that pretty soon, the majority of the population will be the insurgents. It makes sense to me that if the Iraqi's knew the timeline, then they would have to step up and do what they need to do to save their country instead of just being dependent on us. And, maybe the ones who are considering fleeing would stay because they would have hope that it would get better. The blogs I read of Iraqi's who have left for Syria and Jordan all say that they hope to go back home after we leave.

And, if we want to talk about the war on terror, then why is the Taliban gaining strength in Afghanistan and where the heck is Osamba Bin Laden? Why did Bhutto refer to someone in an interview as "the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden" and NOBODY from any "reliable" news source picked up on her saying that at the time and investigated it further? Yet, the interview is on YouTube.

This world frightens me.

As for the power of the Executive branch and who takes the blame.. ultimately, the CEO of the company takes the blame for what happens with company. Bush is our CEO. His veto pen has been swift. His insane addendums to bills that state that they do not apply to him are shocking. His refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty and the fact that he is in the back pocket of the oil companies do affect global warming. I would love to see a President put together a cabinet made up of people who are qualified to do the jobs rather than from their good ole boys network. I'm not saying he's the first president to do that, but it would be nice if he were the last (I know, that would be a utopia).

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But I sure hope I'm wrong. I'd love to look forward to years of no natural disasters, no government bureaucracy, economic prosperity and excellent health care for all as soon as Clinton or Obama is elected. I can, right?

Yes. So be sure to vote for one of them.

ETA: In hindsight, Nittanyalum, I can see that I quoted you earlier when largely I'm still responding to Skylark's post. Read that post, and I think you'll see what I found over the top although I acknowledge that I overstated at first in my response to her, but you can see when the edit was made too.

Got it, thanks.

[UGAalum94]

I really don't think it's in the best interest of any political candidate to set up the standard of everything bad that happens during a President's terms is his or her fault. We may have that expectation, but it's a childlike and delusional one and I don't think that good executives are served by it either.

Bush could have provided better leadership. I don't think anyone seriously wants to see him in office even a minute longer than his present term.

But two of the three groupings on Skylark's list are an overstatement of what Bush had any kind of exclusive control over. And the Katrina one seems particularly nutty. I suspect had it not been on the list, I wouldn't have flipped out, but my God, people it was a hurricane! W may be a powerful guy but he doesn't make the weather.

Congress is at least as much to blame for the social security issue that's been looming for a long time and I'm old enough to remember the first time Hillary tried to fix health care. It's fundamentally kind of goofy to lay it all on Bush. (And again, kind of fundamentally shortsighted of the Democrats to so since we all know he's out.)

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But two of the three groupings on Skylark's list are an overstatement of what Bush had any kind of exclusive control over. And the Katrina one seems particularly nutty. I suspect had it not been on the list, I wouldn't have flipped out, but my God, people it was a hurricane! W may be a powerful guy but he doesn't make the weather.

I'm sorry, but you are glossing over the real influence the Executive branch has over bureaucratic functioning and policy by continuing to tag it with "exclusive control." No one has said anything about "exclusive control" but you. But as AGDee said, the responsibility ultimately lies on the top dog. Or as I like to say, "A fish stinks at the head."

And you REALLY have to let this protestation about Katrina go. Did you miss this entire part of the awful, detestable ordeal? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1361404.shtml

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

There is no way we are going to pull out of there without the insurgents knowing whether we publicize a timeline now or not. It's not like we can sneak out of there overnight and leave the Iraq military in charge. They are going to know. We aren't going to be able to rid the country of them. There are so many Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan that pretty soon, the majority of the population will be the insurgents. It makes sense to me that if the Iraqi's knew the timeline, then they would have to step up and do what they need to do to save their country instead of just being dependent on us. And, maybe the ones who are considering fleeing would stay because they would have hope that it would get better. The blogs I read of Iraqi's who have left for Syria and Jordan all say that they hope to go back home after we leave.

And, if we want to talk about the war on terror, then why is the Taliban gaining strength in Afghanistan and where the heck is Osamba Bin Laden? Why did Bhutto refer to someone in an interview as "the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden" and NOBODY from any "reliable" news source picked up on her saying that at the time and investigated it further? Yet, the interview is on YouTube.

This world frightens me.

As for the power of the Executive branch and who takes the blame.. ultimately, the CEO of the company takes the blame for what happens with company. Bush is our CEO. His veto pen has been swift. His insane addendums to bills that state that they do not apply to him are shocking. His refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty and the fact that he is in the back pocket of the oil companies do affect global warming. I would love to see a President put together a cabinet made up of people who are qualified to do the jobs rather than from their good ole boys network. I'm not saying he's the first president to do that, but it would be nice if he were the last (I know, that would be a utopia).

I've got no well developed plan how to get us out of Iraq or to stop global terror, and I'm pretty sure that it's not going to be as easy as the political rhetoric in this campaign from either side make it out to be. I tend to think McCain's view is closer to reality although I sure hope it's not 100 years.

I'd love to see a better President too, and we're pretty much certain to get one if only because it's hard to imagine worse, and that's one thing that unites both ends of the political spectrum, albeit for different reasons.

But we're not going to get better government if we just allow scapegoating of lame ducks to carry the day. We have to try to hold all the elected officials, particularly the ones who can run again, presently influence policy, and most importantly control funding, responsible for the stuff they screw up and we have to press for better government, not just the "your guy sucks more than my guy" pep rally mentality we've got now.

To throw it all (the issues listed by Skylark, with the exception of other countries hating us) on Bush lets too many other people off the hook, in addition to being inaccurate in many cases and in regard to the complete vilification of Bush for Katrina, fundamentally unfair.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

To throw it all on Bush let's too many other people off the hook in addition to maybe being in many cases inaccurate and with complete vilification for Katrina fundamentally unfair.

Ok, I couldn't really decipher what this sentence actually says, but I think I've said all I can say on the matter for now. You keep making this a "you're just dumping on Bush" point and that's not the majority of the arguments I'm making or reading in other posts.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I'm sorry, but you are glossing over the real influence the Executive branch has over bureaucratic functioning and policy by continuing to tag it with "exclusive control." No one has said anything about "exclusive control" but you. But as AGDee said, the responsibility ultimately lies on the top dog. Or as I like to say, "A fish stinks at the head."

And you REALLY have to let this protestation about Katrina go. Did you miss this entire part of the awful, detestable ordeal? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1361404.shtml

I got the idea from the post I was originally responding too that Skylark laid it all on Bush. It was that idea I responded to.

Do you think Bush should have sent the aid without the governor of Louisiana asking for it? Do you think he knew stuff that they didn't know at the state and local level or just that he was obligated to act in a way that the mayor and the governor weren't? Can you point to a hurricane or any natural disaster for which the federal government sent in aid without being asked before the event occurred? I think it's grossly unfair to pretend that the only (or even the main) government failure with Katrina occurred at the level of the Federal executive.

[nittanyalum]

^^^But that fish REEKED from the head in that situation, no doubt about it. And now I'm really done like my other "last" post said, you're starting to "discuss" by question, which I don't think will go down a productive road.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Ok, I couldn't really decipher what this sentence actually says, but I think I've said all I can say on the matter for now. You keep making this a "you're just dumping on Bush" point and that's not the majority of the arguments I'm making or reading in other posts.

You're right, that sentence was out of control. I'm really tired. Here's what I was trying to say:

To throw all the responsibility for the problems Skylark lists onto Bush lets too many other people off the hook. It may be both inaccurate and unfair. It particularly strikes me as unfair with the issue of hurricane Katrina.

Perhaps I misread her post and she (Skylark is a she, right?) didn't intend to lay it all on him in the first place.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

^^^But that fish REEKED from the head in that situation, no doubt about it. And now I'm really done like my other "last" post said, you're starting to "discuss" by question, which I don't think will go down a productive road.

The hurricane reeked from the head?

You're right, follow up won't be productive in this case.

[AGDee]

I do think it's important that we analyze where the previous leader failed so that we don't elect someone with the same traits that led us here in the first place.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

Do you mean Skylark's reference about Bush lining the pockets of energy CEOs? Um, do a google search for "Bush tax cut" and oil companies. Originally passed back in his first term.

Are you saying that had the tax cut not been passed we'd be all set with social security and health care?

Who was responsible for passing the tax cut into law? Who would have been responsible for making sure that the money in the federal coffers, had the tax cut not gone into effect, went to shoring up Social Security or God forbid, Federal health care benefits? What evidence can you point to of a willingness on the part of Congress to any of the things necessary to yield the results that Skylark wanted to see?

Certainly, a reasonable person can conclude that Bush provided bad leadership, but so much more than that went into it.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I do think it's important that we analyze where the previous leader failed so that we don't elect someone with the same traits that led us here in the first place.

I agree, but I don't think that's what we're really doing in most cases with Bush. Our response isn't "what can we really do to ensure no more cronyism in Federal appointments" which is an honorable but probably quixotic venture; it's just Bad Bush Bad.

I'm not asking that we ignore all his many failures. (Harriet Myers!?! Thank God that ran aground quickly.) But let's be really careful in figuring out where the blame ought to go and where the power should rest to try to fix things.

And I know that so much of what people who hate Hillary hate her for is the same kind of "well, it's an easy target" kind of thinking.

[AGDee]

I will say this... What bothers me about Bush, more than any one action or decision is a personality trait of his that has clearly impeded his actions and decisions. It is his inflexibility. It seems that once he gets an idea in his head (eg. "We're going to war with Saddam because he tried to kill my daddy"), there is nothing that stops him from acting on it, even if there is evidence that it is the wrong thing to do. Some people believe that it is an admirable trait (he doesn't "waffle"), but I think this is a continuum between waffling because you are just trying to please who you're talking to at the time and being so stubborn and hard headed that you won't change your mind no matter how many facts you are presented with. What I'd really like to see in a candidate is someone who has firm belief systems but will take the actual facts, process them, and act on them accordingly.

To get this back to the current election, I now dislike John McCain because I feel like he used to be in the middle of that continuum but is now completely waffling to please the most conservative in the right wing. I am not convinced that Hillary Clinton is flexible enough, although I believe Bill was (example: welfare reform, typically not something a Democrat would do but he saw that there had to be a compromise because it was out of control). As for Obama, I don't feel like I know enough about him to determine it because he hasn't been in the spotlight long enough to tell. I get a distinct impression from Huckabee that he leans toward the inflexible range. I didn't even rip on Bush #1 for the "no new taxes" thing. To me, that was an example of "I really didn't want to have to, but when the facts presented themselves, I realized we had to make a change". I admire that.

If I used the measure of "Who can I stand to see on TV constantly for the next 4 years", it's Obama. That's a pretty shallow measure, but the man is a great orator. That was a very successful trait for both Reagan and Bill.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I will say this... What bothers me about Bush, more than any one action or decision is a personality trait of his that has clearly impeded his actions and decisions. It is his inflexibility. It seems that once he gets an idea in his head (eg. "We're going to war with Saddam because he tried to kill my daddy"), there is nothing that stops him from acting on it, even if there is evidence that it is the wrong thing to do. Some people believe that it is an admirable trait (he doesn't "waffle"), but I think this is a continuum between waffling because you are just trying to please who you're talking to at the time and being so stubborn and hard headed that you won't change your mind no matter how many facts you are presented with. What I'd really like to see in a candidate is someone who has firm belief systems but will take the actual facts, process them, and act on them accordingly.

To get this back to the current election, I now dislike John McCain because I feel like he used to be in the middle of that continuum but is now completely waffling to please the most conservative in the right wing. I am not convinced that Hillary Clinton is flexible enough, although I believe Bill was (example: welfare reform, typically not something a Democrat would do but he saw that there had to be a compromise because it was out of control). As for Obama, I don't feel like I know enough about him to determine it because he hasn't been in the spotlight long enough to tell. I get a distinct impression from Huckabee that he leans toward the inflexible range. I didn't even rip on Bush #1 for the "no new taxes" thing. To me, that was an example of "I really didn't want to have to, but when the facts presented themselves, I realized we had to make a change". I admire that.

If I used the measure of "Who can I stand to see on TV constantly for the next 4 years", it's Obama. That's a pretty shallow measure, but the man is a great orator. That was a very successful trait for both Reagan and Bill.

I agree with you.
The term "waffle" has become a rather over used hot key word.
I do not see any thing wrong with a person changing their minds as information, facts, or even time changes.
I see a problem, as you said, with a person who can not process change or ignores information and facts that support it.