Bounce, Bounce, Bounce......

Well, the president is not dead after all, according to yesterday’s CNN/USA Today poll. He has bootstrapped himself up to a 44% favorability rating…a 5% increase in just one month, as Republicans return to the fold in droves.

I hope Jack Murtha hasn’t ordered that new stationary yet…..

Looks like the Republican party is in the process of staging a comeback of sorts. After being bashed around all year by the no-plan Democratic party, it appears that a giant resurgence has taken place within the party as more and more Republicans have realized that there really isn't an alternative over on the left side, and there never was.

Falling gas prices (funny how the president got bashed when prices were sky high, but nary a word is spoken as they fall like a brick), almost zero inflation, newspapers full of job opportunities, a new Medicare prescription plan that senior's love, and a tax cut all send the message that the economy is humming along.

Plus, people are finally understanding that Iraq IS a battleground for the War on Terror and that if a guy like the Pope can be vilified by the Muslim world, well then anyone can be vilified by the Muslim world.

He is staging a third quarter comeback true, but he (and the Party) need to bear down even harder as they 'round the bend to the finish line in November.

One more jump in the polls should do it, and continued success with the economy and improvement within Iraq is the way.

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at September 20, 2006 8:23 AM
Comments
Comment #182767

Go to http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm for a full picture with lots of different poll numbers over the last year. He’s right where he was a few months ago.

I would hope Republicans would have something a little more substantive to talk about than one set of Bush’s poll numbers. Like, what will it take to defeat the insurgents in Iraq?

Posted by: Steve K at September 20, 2006 8:40 AM
Comment #182768

SE-
There’s a term for bounces at the bottom of a bad polling numbers: A Dead Cat Bounce. As in, if you toss one off the roof, even a dead cat will bounce a little when it hits the floor.

Call me back when he’s polling higher than 40%

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 20, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #182769

oops, I thought this was about the checks that Bush was writing. My bad.

Posted by: gergle at September 20, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #182770

Consider this an official pontification: I wonder how much gas prices will jump come, oh, say, the second week of November? I gotta go with Steve K on this one. Let me know when more than half the people polled think that he doesn’t suck.

BTW, gergle, ROFLMAO!! Love it!

Posted by: leatherankh at September 20, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #182771

There are polls that will say different things, and whoever takes the polls can make it say anything they want.
If you think the economy is doing good, come to Michigan and take a look. Senior Med plan is a pain to setup and is a disater.

Falling gas price are not because of what bush did(which is nothing other then make a hand full of money by gouging the american public), it is because no major hurricanes, and the bullying of Iran is not working out like bush wants it to.

Iraq is now in a state of Civil War, and unfortuantely our troops are in the middle. Even the former Sect of State, says that bush lied to the american public about Iraq with false and misleading information and that they had no plan on what to do after they took out saddam.

The only bounce bush took is on his head to many times.

Posted by: KT at September 20, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #182772

POLLS ARE REPORTED UPON TO MAKE A POINT OF VIEW PALATABLE. HERE IN CONNECTICUT WE HAVE JUST THIS PAST WEEK HAD A POLLING FIRM’S OWNER CONVICTED OF PRODUCING FRAUDULENT RESULTS. ALTHOUGH I WOULD NOT SUGGEST ALL POLLS ARE UNDERTAKEN SO AS TO PRODUCE A DESIRED RESULT, CLEARLY SOME ARE.

IT IS REGRETTABLE THAT POLLS SEEM TO GUIDE THE PRESS IN ITS REPORTING AND EVEN MORE UNFORTUNATE THAT POLITICIANS RELY UPON THEM IN DETERMINING THEIR APPROACH TO VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES.
FOCUSING ON POLL RESULTS IS LIKE WATCHING THE TIDES MOVE IN AND OUT, I.E.THEY ARE CONSTANTLY MOVING. UNLIKE TIDES HOWEVER THEY AREN’T AS PREDICTABLE AND THEREFORE SHOULDN’T BE USED AS THEY ARE TO PREDICT RESULTS OF IMPORTANT MATTERS BEING CONSIDERED BY ALL OF US. ELECTIONS THEMSELVES IN RECENT YEARS SEEM TO FAIL IN PROVIDING EVIDENCE OF THE POPULAR OPINIONS OF THE MAJORITY. MANY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LOSERS IN THE PAST TWO ELECTIONS CLAIM THEIR LOSES WERE DUE TO VOTER FRAUD PERPETRATED AGAINST THEM. SO MUCH FOR THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF REAL AND VALID POLLING RESULTS.

IRONICALLY THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA NO LONGER SEEMS AS INTERESTED IN DETERMINING “WHAT IS”! RATHER THEY FOCUS TOO MUCH ON WHAT POLLSTERS PUBLISHED RESULTS SAY IS “BELIEVED”.

Posted by: JIM H at September 20, 2006 9:09 AM
Comment #182773

“If you think the economy is doing good, come to Michigan and take a look.”

What do you know, I live in Michigan. My wife works in Detroit and I work in Southfield. I can tell you that the problems Michigan has is with leadship (or the lack therof) in Jennifer Granholm, Debbie Stabenow, Kwame Kilpatrick and Carl Levin. They have no concept of how business thrive. The business taxes here drive people companies out, as well as the city taxes. People don’t want to come to Detroit or Michigan. That is not the SOP known from the left as “Bush’s fault.”

It’s been nothing but Democrats in charge during the “dive”, and people are falling all over themselves to re-elect them. It’s the same old theme of “Hey, I can do this for you so you don’t have to. Elect me!” and then they end up failing miserably and smearing others. You have liberal leaders blaming everyone else for their problems when everyone else around them are doing just fine.

Posted by: Matt at September 20, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #182777

Stephen

That’s 44% ,not 40%…and that is a significant jump. I call it a “Nine Lives” bounce.

Gergle

Bravo. I will save that one for the Mighty Eagle awards.

Mark

It’s too bad up there…but Ford needs to make a more competive product. Consumers are very savy and they vote with thier credit cards on cars, I think.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 20, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #182778

Matt,

Stabenow and Levin have no authority over the state of Michigan. Your state is running by the Governor, a Democrat, and the legislature, which is controlled by the Republicans. So it’s divided, not Democratic, government.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 20, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #182779

SE,

Take a look at the link Steve K provided. There is no significant jump. The 44% is on the upper range of a wide band of disgruntlement that the American public has had with Bush for a while.

In the last week alone, various organizations have polled him at 37%, 39%, 42%, 39%, and 40%. Yes, 44% is higher than the rest of the polls this week. That probably means it’s an outlier, not that it’s the lead of a trend (more polling over time will be necessary to be sure).

I’m continually amazed by your support of the no-plan Republican party. Yes, it’s the Republican party without a plan. All we have from them is “let’s keep doing the same thing that has failed us to this point”. That’s not a plan; that’s stubbornness in the face of failure.

a new Medicare prescription plan that senior’s love

That’s funny. According to this poll, 75% of seniors think the new plan is difficult to understand, and 48% plan not to join. That’s not love.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 10:19 AM
Comment #182780

“nine lives bounce” Good one, and I thought Bushies had no humor!

Here’s a statistically consolidated view of your wishful thought:

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/bushindex.htm

And here’s the graph:

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/graphic-approval_files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 20, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #182782

Lawnboy

Actually, the polls are ALWAYS skewd LEFT…a fact….

Posted by: sicilianegle at September 20, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #182783

SE,

“Facts” aren’t facts just because you want them to be. If you don’t like poll results, it means that you disagree with the results, not that they are skewed in a certain way.

Can polls be skewed? Sure. Are you talking out of your ass here by claiming an absolute and eternal bias? Absolutely.

Please, please do everyone a favor and learn what a fact is.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #182784

Sic Eagle, I have only two words to say to you about this article:
Horse Feathers!
No wait, two more:
Read This.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 20, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #182785

I’ll believe that the bounce is real when republican congressional candidates in tossup races start inviting Bush to their public events (not just private fundraisers) and the Democrats stop mentioning Bush in their ads. Not before

Posted by: Steve K at September 20, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #182788

Adrienne

Welcome back! It is always good to hear from a leftie heavyweight…and no I am not being patronizing.

However, surely you can admit that the preesident is gaining steam, can’t you?

He’s not going backward, surely you can admit that. Try being a smidgen objective here.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 20, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #182789

LB,
I believe that a majority of the 48% that “plan not to join” are electing not to because they already have a prescription plan that has better benefits. OMG!! A non-government plan that has better benefits? Can it be true?
http://1.1.1.1/702624784/266448840T060920104804.txt.binXMysM0dapplication/pdfXsysM0dhttp://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7453.pdf

Leatherankh,
I did not blame the prez for rising gas prices, nor do I credit him for the drop. It has to do with a free market. Demand drops, supplies increase so the price MUST go down - both for crude and refined products.
You are quick to blame the prez for high gas prices, but scream about conspiracies to avoid handing out praise for falling prices. How typical. I don’t know if you are uninformed or if you just hate so much you are blinded by it.


Gergle,
Not as many “bad checks” as the libs would like, though. The federal deficit is something like 15% lower than projected because of increased revenues due to a growing economy and lower taxes for everyone. More money in my pocket means I have more to spend on goods. The more we all spend on goods means more jobs, which increases employment. More people with jobs = more people supporting themselves and more people paying taxes AND means fewer people for the government to support.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=185&sid=818900

Posted by: Rich at September 20, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #182791

From their website:
“Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”

CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION in the US Media?? Are you serious?? How could this organization possible be objective and un-biased?? Further, I don’t see how it could legitimately be a tax exempt endeavour.

Posted by: Rich at September 20, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #182795

SE,
Even if the poll numbers are up how can that be attributed to anything but successful propoganda? Has he done something impressive in the last month that we missed?

Posted by: Schwamp at September 20, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #182796

The American public is just beginning to pay attention to this political stuff.

In the Rep’s favor: falling gas prices, these kooky groups promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories (truthout, loose change, ad nauseum), assasination movie, fairly strong economy, stock market nearing all-time high.

The wild card is, of course, Iraq.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 20, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #182798

Falling gas prices are not good for the country. They make efforts to get off foreign oil more difficult.

Posted by: Trent at September 20, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #182799

You know, it’s rather interesting that just a few months ago, I questioned a poll by saying that the poll did not say what area was polled, what age groups, what race, what sex, what questions were asked, what time of day it was…etc. and I was roundly poo-poo’d upon.

I said here that I really don’t believe ANY poll (whether good or bad for my political belief) because I was very familiar with polling techniques and how numbers could (and ARE) manipulated.

My, how attitudes have changed about polls around here (when they favor the president). Suddenly my words are echoed with utter clarity by those who wish to “poo-poo” this poll.

Thank you, Dems, for converting to my way of thinking. Sadly, I’m sure it’s only until there is a poll that is unfavorable for the Reps…and then polls will once again be “The Voice Of God” and totally infallable.

Posted by: Jim T at September 20, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #182800

SE….Yes, Bush’s poll numbers are up. Yes there has been some good news recently, almost always is. But I will still be voting for Democrats in the upcoming election for one simple reason: Republicans have had 5 years to come up with a real imiigration and border security plan, and to date have come up with NOTHING…NADA…BUPKES….I say let’s give the other team a chance. Thay cannot do worse on this EXTREMELY IMPORTANT issue to Americans. Personally I think Democrats should mention this issue everytime they speak. Love Newt’s phrase: “Had Enough?” Yes I have. Time for another team to get up to bat and see what they can do. And if the Dems strike out? Then throw them out as well…but hey to be fair let’s give them 6 years of owning all significant branches of government (except the Senate from 2001-2003 of course).

Posted by: Steve Kl at September 20, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #182802

Matt, Granholm took over a state government in the red, from a republician governor that ran this state into the ground. SE made the statement that the economy is doing great, yet Detroit it the 2nd poorest city in the nation, fords is getting ready to go under.
The state might have a Dem governor but republicans run the house and senate, blame them and the prior governor.

Posted by: KT at September 20, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #182803

Bush’s recent bounce, from avergaing low-30’s to high-30’s, is attributable to the tried and true Republican tradition: scare the base. Get them all riled up about some national security issue and watch that number jump. Bush’s stand on legalizing torture is doing just that. Also, he’s taken his foot off the gas over immigrant amnesty, very unpopular with the connies.

The real test for Bush is ahead. It is almost certain that the Democrats are going to pick up several seats in November, possibly gaining control in one or even both houses. With serious opposition already coming from republican leadership (McCain, Specter), will Bush be able to survive without a rubber stamp Congress for his last two years? People like the Senators mentioned above, as well as Graham, Warner and others know they want their political lives to extend far beyond 2008, and if Bush is the sinking ship, they will happily be the rats.

Posted by: David S at September 20, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #182804

No, Jim T,

It’s not that we’ve been converted. It’s that SE is claiming an absolute that isn’t true.

You’re right that polls need to say who was polled, exactly what questions were asked, etc. That does not mean that SE has any idea what he’s talking about when he says that all polls are skewed to liberal. It also doesn’t mean that this particular poll cherry-picked out of the vast array of options is the end-all be-all.

We’re not poo-pooing this poll - we’re saying it has to be looked at in context, in addition to the context that you mentioned before. And we don’t treat polls that are in our favor as the “Voice of God” (at least, the reasonable among us don’t).

Sadly, there are unreasonable people on both sides (see SE for an example) that don’t understand how to read and use polls.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #182808

Rich,

Not only the articles, but look at the 4 action items on the right. Completely unbiased

Posted by: Keith at September 20, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #182810

“Adrienne

Welcome back! It is always good to hear from a leftie heavyweight…and no I am not being patronizing.”

Oh stop with the flattery now. Just read the article.

Rich, since you object to the messenger, you don’t have to.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 20, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #182811

All this talk about polls, it’s a bunch of crap; didn’t care about the polls when the President was in the 80’s and don’t care when he’s in the 30’s or 40’s. The real poll will be in November; then will see how everyone did.


Now let’s pull together and beat these islamofascists so we can bring our troops home and bring justice to the victims and their families from 9/11. You think you can stop hating Bush long enough to do just that?!


Posted by: rahdigly at September 20, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #182812

rah,

That’s a great sentiment, but what does it mean? Bush hasn’t shown any ability to put together a plan that actually “beat(s) these islamofascists so we can bring our troops home”, so what do you propose?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #182813

Schwamp,

Even if the poll numbers are up how can that be attributed to anything but successful propoganda? Has he done something impressive in the last month that we missed?

Lobbying for torture?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 20, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #182814

Lawnboy,

Well, I can be patient. Sooner or later, people will come around to my way of thinking…

:-)

Posted by: Jim T at September 20, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #182817

I tend to think that this bounce in the polls is a continuation of the American public waking up to how far out in left field the Democratic party is. They boast of killing the Patriot Act, then the London terror plot is broken up using the very tactics the Patriot Act allows. I think Bush can get a big boost by taking his case for defining torture and allowing harsh interogation techniques to the CIA, the American people will not tolerate threats to thier lives. Further, the people this would involve are not even American citizens, so I fail to see how they’re entitled to Constitutional protections in the first place. The simple matter is that on the majority of issues, the general malaise over Iraq has clouded the fact that most Americans will agree with Bush’s strategy for keeping America safe even while disagreeing with the effectiveness of how its been executed. The Democrats would sooner have Americans killed than to violate a foreign terrorists’ civil rights. Idiots like Ned Lamont are Karl Rove’s dream come true and another example of how the Democrats will once again somehow manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: 1LT B at September 20, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #182821
I fail to see how they’re entitled to Constitutional protections in the first place.

Because the U.S. signed a treaty describing thier rights, and the Constitution declares that treaties are part of core American law.

It’s really simple.

The Democrats would sooner have Americans killed than to violate a foreign terrorists’ civil rights.

Pure BS. The Democrats want to figure out a way to keep Americans from getting killed without violating the human rights of citizens and of non-citizens that might be being tortured and imprisoned unfairly. The assumption you make is that everyone the Administration locks up and has tortured is guilty, and there’s no reason whatsoever to believe that’s true. In fact, we know it’s not.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #182825

1 LT B-

“most Americans will agree with Bush’s strategy for keeping America safe even while disagreeing with the effectiveness of how its been executed”

So, most people like the plan, regardless of whether or not it works? What kind of crap is that? What America is waking up to is the FACT that Iraq was a major distraction from the WOT, and that they are now in more danger because of it rather than less.

Posted by: David S at September 20, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #182828

Lawnboy,
“That’s a great sentiment, but what does it mean? Bush hasn’t shown any ability to put together a plan that actually “beat(s) these islamofascists so we can bring our troops home”, so what do you propose?”


We do have a plan, it’s called “winning”. The dems, ACLU, and the moveon.org’s don’t believe in winning this war; while the troops, the victims families and the rest of America (certainly) does!


Figure out what side your on and get on it!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 20, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #182829

One here is confusing plan with goal.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 20, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #182830

No, rah, “winning” is a goal, not a plan. And Dems, the ACLU, moveon.org, and others agree with the goal.

Try again.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #182831

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/gasindex_files/NEWBUSHINDEX_28670_image001.gif

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 20, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #182834

lawnboy

Seriuosly I don’t dream stuff up. Last night I was watching CNN…The Situation Room…and that is exactly what the pollster said…that CNN?USA polls always are skewed to the left.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 20, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #182835

Prove that they’re for winning! And, winning is a goal that we’re going to achieve; with, without or inspite of the naysayers.

The plan is to engage them, stay on the offense, foil their plots of terrorism through data gathering, and cripple their finances. We’re succeeding thus far; though, it would be nice if the people I mentioned would get behind it as well.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 20, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #182836

SE,

So, one person on CNN says something, and you assert it forever as a fact?

Wow.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #182837
Prove that they’re for winning!

Prove that they’re not. After all, you’re the one who made the initial claim.

Oh, “engage them”. That clears up everything.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #182839

SE,

Also, there’s a big difference between saying that CNN/CBS’s polls have a consistent bias (which is plausible) and your initial claim: “the polls are ALWAYS skewd LEFT”

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #182840

Philippe,
Good chart. As Nikkolai noted earlier, falling gas prices and falling oil prices help the president several ways. The fall is driven by washing away of some of the fear factor from oil prices. Weather patterns are keeping hurricanes away from the Gulf. Attempts to whip up fervor for bombing Iran are being slapped silly by just about everyone outside the Neocons.

Also, we are at a point in the economic cycle which looks favorable. Short term factors look great, and I truly hope the stock markets make that long awaited run to new record highs.

But in the background, housing prices have already begun the long, slow fall. The deeply inverted yield curve indicates recognition.

So Bush has enjoyed a bounce into the high 30’s/low 40’s. Good link, Adrienne! It puts the current approval ratings into historical perspective.

Let us see if anyone can disprove your link to Mediamatters, or impeach their credibility with actual evidence. I had a lot of fun providing evidence in the previous thread. The link was to a right wing resource which has previously been caught plagiarizing a satirical article from “The Onion” and presenting it as news. It does not get much funnier than that!

Posted by: phx8 at September 20, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #182841

Speaking of confused, SE’s quote was:
“Seriuosly I don’t dream stuff up. Last night I was watching CNN…The Situation Room…and that is exactly what the pollster said…that CNN?USA polls always are skewed to the left.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 20, 2006 12:47 PM”

And, here’s your reply:
“Also, there’s a big difference between saying that CNN/CBS’s polls have a consistent bias (which is plausible) and your initial claim: “the polls are ALWAYS skewd LEFT”
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 12:54 PM”


Things must be tough (for some) out there…

Posted by: rahdigly at September 20, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #182842

rah,

Huh? In one, he was specific to a particular sets of polls by one group. In the other, he seemed to be saying that all polls are skewed.

That’s a huge difference. What’s your point?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #182844

My point is that you continue to dodge questions, or just dismiss them without debate. You’ve done that in the past and you’re (still) doing it now. Here are a few examples.


SE submitted that quote from someone being interviewed on CNN and your reply:
“So, one person on CNN says something, and you assert it forever as a fact? Wow.”

I stated a claim that the ACLU, moveon.org and democrats aren’t for winning this war and your reply was:
“Prove that they’re not. After all, you’re the one who made the initial claim.”

So, instead of debating us, you settle for third-grade comebacks. Nice.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 20, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #182846

Rah,

Yes, I have responded this way in the past. In the past, when you have made a stupid claim, I have protested. As in the past, instead of defending your claim, you insist that people who disagree have to prove that you are wrong (as though the “Word of Rahdigly” was absolute unless proven otherwise). And once again, I will insist that the burden is on you for making the claim in the first place.

Am I dodging the question? No more than you are. Since you make the first claim, the burden is on you to back it up. You refuse now as you have refused in the past. As always, your claims are empty.

And I don’t always “dodge” the question. Many times I have directly challenged you on fact, with evidence and history, and you just ignore it.

After all, you have shown many, many times that the standard of proof you require has nothing to do with any common approaches in logic or debate. As far as I’ve been able to tell, the only proof you accept is your wanting to believe it to be true. Since that’s a ridiculous and impossible standard, it’s much more reasonable to ask that you back up your claims. At least, it you be reasonable if I could expect that you might ever bother.

SE claimed something was a fact. When challenged, he revealed that there was no evidence for his claim except hearsay, and that his initial claim was different than what he would be willing to try to support. What I a bit snarky in my response? Perhaps, but I think my point was clear.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #182852

Lawnboy, it’s good to hear that you admit what you’ve done that in the past; it saved me from digging up quotes from other blogs, not that I was going to do that anyway. You are (still) doing what you claimed you did in the past.


If you would have responded to SE’s quote with a retort, such as: “you gave me one source that said the polls are skewed towards liberals, here are two sources where they said the opposite”, then that would have been debating the issue. Saying that “well you believe everything that source says” is just childish; as I’ve said earlier, that’s a third graders argument.

For my quote, I said those groups are against winning, you could have easily said that “here are some instances were they are for winning”, yet you chose to go the third grade rout; making me prove to you first when, up to this point, you have no credence to even get into those points. I’m not going to waste my time going into this when you haven’t proven yourself worthy of a (simple) debate. It’s not about “rahdigly’s world”; it’s about a simple debate.

And, Credence!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 20, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #182854

rah,

My day goes by just fine when I don’t think about debating you. So, if you don’t want to support your claims, that’s great by me; everyone knows you don’t have a leg to stand on, so I’m not bothered if you don’t try to disprove it.

Have a good day.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #182859

BTW, the correct word is credibility, not credence. As in, “If I had credibility, you would give credence to my statements.”

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #182862

Later!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 20, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #182867
So, instead of debating us, you settle for third-grade comebacks.

rahdigly

Coming from the master of never answering a question.

Posted by: Steve K at September 20, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #182868

First, get a decent tracking site - look at this

http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2006/09/bush-approval-gallup-at-44.html

Second - the medicare drug thing - senior hated it (including my parents) until they found out how much they were saving, now they love it… get with the news TODAY.

Third - The democrats are their own worst enemies. They are self destructing.

Fourth - Bush is finally doing something about immigration, and also getting the interrogation thing out there. The idea that we can’t use sleep deprivation and water boarding to extract information from a bunch of terrorists is just Stupid. And if we stop, we are stupid. The argument about what they will do to us in the future is a bunch of crap - because they are cutting off peoples heads!

Posted by: Ed at September 20, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #182870

Who’s next?!… Oh, Steve K, what do you want?!

I’ll give you a phase that you should take heed to:

“don’t hate the player, hate the game”.

:o)

Posted by: rahdigly at September 20, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #182871

Ed,

First - that’s a good additional resource.

Second - do you have a newer poll showing that people are happy with it? Or do you have nothing more than a single anecdote?

Third - yep

Fourth - once again, assuming that people are guilty, so therefore they don’t have rights. The problem (well, one of the problems) with this is that there are people we are torturing that have absolutely nothing to do with beheadings or any other terrorism.

Also, you’re pointing to stupidity on the wrong side. The real stupidity is setting up a precedent that we won’t have a leg to stand on in the future if an American soldier is captured and tortured. If we don’t care about human rights and the Geneva Convention, why should our future enemies? Your position puts our service men and women at risk.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #182876

A few points

1. Gas prices are going down because people are driving less and so are buying less gas. It’s a Market thing.

2. Polls are skewd, but if they didn’t turn out to be at least close to what the actual numbers, we would stop using them (in other words, Nov. will help determine the truth of pollsters).

3. Questioning someone’s premise is an acceptable method of discussion, in fact, it’s called the socratic method (who wasn’t a third grader). so, if you can’t defend a claim, just say so.

Posted by: Some Guy at September 20, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #182878

rah,

what does Iraq have to do with 9/11??

At a political level we cannot win because Iran is developing stronger ties with the Iraqi Shiites every day - ties they will exploit the moment we leave.

Iraq has already promised that no military bases on it’s soil would be used to attack Iran(I guess that White House plan is in the trash).

Regardless of the military outcome, with or without civl war, the end of the Iraqi conflict will result in Iran being the supreme military power in the region.

In my book, that’s a Loss.

Tactially, we don’t have a succesful plan either. I have here the MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL QUESTIONS ON IRAQ:

Who EXACTLY is it that we are trying to beat in Iraq? THIS IS NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

Are we trying to defeat the Sunni insurgents who fear persecution/genocide at the hands of Shiite revenge?

Are we trying to defeat the Shiite sanctioned assassination squads that are killing 2-3,000 adult Sunni men every month?

Or are we trying to defeat the Kurds, who just banned the Iraqi flag in their province, a symbol of the independence they will take by force as soon as we leave?

Leaving the rhetoric aside, someone answer the question: who is the “who” that we are trying to defeat in Iraq? I honestly don’t know anymore.
And once we know who that is, how do you expect to defeat them?

Posted by: CPAdams at September 20, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #182882

This makes me happy. El Busho, of the once >90% approval ratings, is at 44% AT BEST! And the Republican sheep ARE HAPPY! Only this administartion can fool its supporters into being proud of 44%!


Posted by: David S at September 20, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #182884

Am I the only one who thinks that the oil companies might be strategically lowering gas prices in order to help the Republicans?

Posted by: womanmarine at September 20, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #182888

Republicans are returning to the fold because they are afraid. They are afraid of Democrats more than they are the direction the country is headed. Fear, and odd emotion to run a democracy on.

Vote for a change in the direction which this country is headed, vote out an incumbent, and for a challenger. Change will not occur any other way. Voting to keep the same people in office is voting to keep the same policies in office which by and large changes nothing.

Fickle Americans. Suckers for a high dollar advertisement or, slick PT Barnum speech. Cancels common sense more times than not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 20, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #182889

Womanmarine, the appartus to investigate that possibility is on hiatus until after the elections. And after the elections, they will have more important things to investigate like the unknown future as opposed to the knowable past.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 20, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #182890

CPA,
“who is the “who” that we are trying to defeat in Iraq?”


The who are the terrorists: Al Qaeda in Iraq, Sunni insurgents, Iranian backed shites, Syrians and other islamofascists. Take your pick there’s plenty of “who” there to fight; we just have to actually fight them instead of fighting our gov’t.


“what does Iraq have to do with 9/11??”

It doesn’t have a direct connection; meaning, Iraq didn’t fly our planes into those building. Iraq and every other terrorist sponsoring nation had everything to do with the aftermath of 9/11; b/c it changed the way we looked at threats (imminent or long-term).


“Iraq has already promised that no military bases on it’s soil would be used to attack Iran(I guess that White House plan is in the trash).”


One would hope the White House “trashes” the idea of not attacking Iran from Iraqi bases; unless one is routing for Iran.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 20, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #182892

Problem is the Democrats don’t have any answers either. I might go with the democrats if they had real answers to real issues… they don’t.

And the whole issue with the Geneva conventions and the treament of our soldiers….

they aren’t signees of the Geneva conventions… they will just behead a captive on TV anyway..

Posted by: PS at September 20, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #182896

PS, the Geneva conventions have nothing to do with criminals and murderers. They have to do with purported non-criminals and non-murderers maintaining their humanity and the moral high ground to lead. Without the Geneva Conventions and their observance, there is nothing to keep civilized nations from becoming as uncivilized as the terrorists and criminals.

The Geneva Conventions were a truly historic and monumental turning point for humanity in a world ravaged by world war and atrocity. Abandon them, and one abandons all claim to any lessons learned from World Wars I and II.

It is a profound statement that the terrorists, criminals, and the Bush Administration agree that the they should NOT be bound by the Geneva Conventions. They have this much, very much in common. Profound indeed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 20, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #182897

Sorry about the polling numbers mistake. That said, one could understand my confusion.

I took a look at the polls on Bush’s favorability, and found them all over the place. Zogby America currently has him pegged at 51%, which is actually better than yours. Fox Opinion Dynamics, though, has your president at 39 percent favorability, in which case my challenge might have some merit (it was 59% unfavorable) Somehow they have their wires crossed with CBS/NYT, which had him pegged at 50% unfavorable to 32% favorable.

But lets stop for a moment amidst all this polling confusion and ask ourselves what favorability means. It means folks like him.

That said, Bush is suffering on other fronts. They might think he’s nice, according to some of his polls, but on the subject of the job he’s doinghe’s got real problems. In all but the FOX, he has the majority disapproving, and even in the FOXNews poll, There’s a 9 point difference. More telling, perhaps, the AP Ipsos, which doesn’t seem to have an undecided column has 60% of the responders disapproving, a difference of 21 percent. If you really pressed people, it seems, Most of the country agrees Bush isn’t doing a good job.

Moreover, according to this poll, a majority of Americans believe that it would be good for the country to find out what Bush has been up to in office

I still think that a great deal of this is not based on any substantive improved feeling about Bush.

More Importantly, since 2003, faith has steadily eroded in whether this country is on the right track. IN almost every poll I see, less than half of people after that year believe things are going well.

If you read the broader picture, dead cat bounce is accurate. People are beginning to forget the last outrage. Bush, though, has shown exceedingly good talent at reminding people just how bad he is at his job.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 20, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #182898

Stephen Daughtery

Dead cat, live cat,dead elephant, live elephant…..call it what you want but this is true:

The president is more popular than he was 30 days ago.

Accept that premise as truth.

Now, if the NEXT 30 days show that improvement (you call it dead cat, I call it building momentum going into November)….then gridlock will not happen on Capital Hill.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 20, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #182899

Chavez calls Bush ‘devil’ in U.N. speech
POSTED: 12:02 p.m. EDT, September 20, 2006
Adjust font size:


UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took his verbal battle with the United States to the floor of the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, calling President Bush “the devil.”
“The devil came here yesterday,” Chavez said. “He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world.”
The leftist leader, who joined Iran last week in an alliance against U.S. influence, accused Washington of “domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world.”
“We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head,” he said.
He also said the United Nations in its current system “doesn’t work” and is “antidemocratic.”
Chavez called for reform, saying the U.S. government’s “immoral veto” had allowed recent Israeli bombings of Lebanon to continue unabated for more than a month.
“Venezuela once again proposes today that we reform the United Nations,” he said.
Chavez lambasted Washington for trying to block Venezuela’s campaign for a rotating seat on the U.N. Security Council. He said if chosen over U.S.-favorite Guatemala in a secret-ballot U.N. vote next month, Venezuela would be “the voice of the Third World.”
The U.S. government warns that Chavez, a close ally of Iran, Syria and Cuba, would be a disruptive force on the council.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Posted by: Lando at September 20, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #182900

LawnBoy,
Bless you for so eloquently stating to rahdigly the problems he has, (and has had) in his posts. I don’t believe I’ve ever actually seen a source or link posted by him to support any of his claims. Of course I may be wrong, and I’m sure that he will jump on this as soon as he figures out this response is not in his defense.

As far as polls go - I honestly believe that if one looks hard enough one can get a poll to say almost anything - favorable or unfavorable about what ever one wants. It is merely the way the questions are worded and what thee choice of answers actually are. Ex. Do you agree that President Bush is a great President?
A. He’s not the worse
B. He’s not the best
C. He is not only the best, but should be crowned King
D.I don’t know.

Almost any way one tries to answer the question one ends up not being able to say anything truly negative about him - assuming one wants to.

Polls seldom actually offer choices that mean something, so I don’t trust them - just like statistics, they can be read almost anyway one wants to. Half full or half empty.

Posted by: Linda H. at September 20, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #182901

Lando,
It is worse than you think. I heard the audio. The audience laughed. They sympathized with Chavez. To give some credit, the interpreter delivered the english translation really well, she had a terrific sense of timing. But the audience did not boo, did not hiss, did not shout him down. When Chavez said he still smelled the sulfur, they laughed.

Remember, that was the head of a country which is the 5th largest oil exporter in the world. Early in his first term, BushCo backed an attempt to overthrow Chavez right after the attempt happened. The coup failed. We have been paying for the incompetency of this administration ever since. Chavez pokes Bush in the eye every chance he gets. Do not worry, we will be in better shape once the Neocons are gone.

Posted by: phx8 at September 20, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #182903

Linda,
“Bless you for so eloquently stating to rahdigly the problems he has, (and has had) in his posts. I don’t believe I’ve ever actually seen a source or link posted by him to support any of his claims.”

You’re (so) right. Bless you Linda, you have allowed me to see the error of my ways and I’m sorry… Whatever!!!! Give me a break!!!

You guys disagree with what I say and, instead of debating with someone with whom you disagree with, some choose to go the “third grade” route by saying things like “prove it”, “I don’t have to prove it, you prove it”, “just b/c you quoted a fact, does that mean you believe everything it says”, etc.


Get real people. Rahdigly is in the higly and he’s not going to be dissuaded by whiny, panicky verbal jabs. No way!


As far as the UN speeches go, it’s interesting how Chavez goes to the UN and bashes Bush just like the dems and even people on this blog have. Also, did anybody notice that the Iranian President said a prayer in his speech yesterday? Not a word from the athiests or Bush Bashers. Yet, if Bush had done that, oh man there would be an outrage; like the one we see daily on Bush in this blog.


Posted by: rahdigly at September 20, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #182906

rahdigly,

If all you can see is “3rd grade” responses, it has more to do with your how you are interpreting responses than the responses themselves.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward at September 20, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #182907

Phx8,
“It is worse than you think. I heard the audio. The audience laughed. They sympathized with Chavez. To give some credit, the interpreter delivered the english translation really well, she had a terrific sense of timing. But the audience did not boo, did not hiss, did not shout him down. When Chavez said he still smelled the sulfur, they laughed. Remember, that was the head of a country which is the 5th largest oil exporter in the world. Early in his first term, BushCo backed an attempt to overthrow Chavez right after the attempt happened. The coup failed. We have been paying for the incompetency of this administration ever since. Chavez pokes Bush in the eye every chance he gets. Do not worry, we will be in better shape once the Neocons are gone.”


Ok, here’s (yet) another example of “libs gone wild”. When you first read it, it looks as though you’re actually going to get mad at Chavez for saying such hateful things; you were going to be mad at the audience for lauding (or not codemning) such a hateful “leader”. Then, you talk about how Chavez is a “Big Oil” guy and how Bush backed an attempt to overthrow him… AND BAM!! You drop all that and, instead, (actually) end up blaming Bush! Unbelievable!!!

Only libs can pull something like that off.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 20, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #182909

Rah,
Well, yes, I think supporting the overthrow of democratically elected governments is a very, very bad idea. We agree, right? And people in this country who support overthrowing democracies should be condemned, right?

When it comes to Bush, the democratically elected leader of Venezuela will never give it a rest. When Bush is gone, I am confident almost anyone could forge better ties with Venezuela- McCain, Hillary, anyone at all.

Posted by: phx8 at September 20, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #182910

Real men don’t read polls. Hey, let’s liven this party up—let’s go bomb Iran!

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 20, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #182912

Chavez and Amana-dinnerjacket are both jokes. Tin-horn third rate fascist dictators who should not be around much longer. The only worry is if the dinnerjacket guy hands off a nuke to a terrorist group. Otherwise, they suck.

Iran MUST not be allowed to get a nuke. We should continue to stir internal unrest. And be ready to help Israel when the time comes. And, it’s coming, baby.

Cheers.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 20, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #182922

Nikkolai,
Ahmadinejad is a hard-liner and no friend of the US. Did you know he came to power, in part, because of yet another case of Bush foreign policy incompetency?

Did you know the Iranians sent the US a peace overture in 2003? The offered us everything we wanted. Bush turned it down. The rejection undermined the moderates, and strengthened the position of the conservatives, people such as Ahmedinejad.

In 2003, the US invasion of Iraq intimidated the Iranians, and they were ready to cave. The US seemed to hold the stronger hand. But instead of improving relations, we rejected them. Today, the Iranians have been the biggest beneficiaries of Bush foreign policy in the world.

Actions have consequences, Nikkolai. Belligerence has a nasty way of being its own reward, whether it is undermining a democratically elected government, such as Chavez in Venezuela, or rejecting peace overtures, such as with Iran in 2003, or more recently stalling the cease fire between Israel and Lebanon.

What is the result? Polarization. The result is alienation of allies, and the strengthening of opponents, to the point that an audience yuks it up when Chavez makes fun of Bush.

Really, Nikkolai, it would be hard to screw up worse than Bush. Perhaps his legacy will be that only one 9/11 attack occurred on his watch.

Way. To. Go.

Posted by: phx8 at September 20, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #182927

But I hear his “diablo” reference to Bush may actually alienate his many US left-wing worshipers. Most of them are atheists, it seems…

Posted by: nikkolai at September 20, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #182929

“But I hear his “diablo” reference to Bush may actually alienate his many US left-wing worshipers. Most of them are atheists, it seems…

Speaking as a far-left admirer of Mr Chavez, and card-carrying atheist—on the contrary, I wasn’t offended. I thought it excellent theater.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 20, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #182933

I’m really amused by the remarks of Chavez.

Now, if only the people of his country had that freedom of speech.

Posted by: Jim T at September 20, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #182936

nikkloai Do we really need to use such bad words. Can we not be alittle more civil. I bet you call yourself a christian.

Posted by: Jeff at September 20, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #182944

SE-
This President once had ratings in the 90’s and 80’s. Now his his job approval ranks in the thirties. What I see from you here is the tyranny of low expectations. You’ve seen him like this for so long, that you fail to see the truth behind all the polls presented.

That truth is this: Bush has squandered his post-9/11 mandate. Nobody can take ratings like that from you. You gotta lose them. Why do you got to lose them? Because in the rare circumstances where people grant such across the board approval, the only way to lose people is to alienation. You have to push them away, make them choose to hate you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 20, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #182958

Fear-mongering, corrupt, cynical and inept Republicans or timid, clueless, directionless Democrats. Nice choice. The Republicans badly deserve to lose and the Democrats won’t make a case for themselves. They are, at best, the UnBush. But as Bush wraps himself in the flag (yet again) and keeps mentioning the ever-elusive Osama five years later (how does he get away with such chutzpah?), we’re left to wonder how it is that the Dems are so incredibly lame that Gary Hart (!) is the only one with a plan - and he calls it a manifesto (!!). Geez Louise. Is there no one to direct us out of this Theater of the Absurd? Where is Inoesco when you need him?

Posted by: Reed Sanders at September 20, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #182960

“Where is Inoesco when you need him?”

Having an ale with Sam Beckett.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 20, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #182961

Stephen, Bush’s approval ratings in the 90s and 80s were nothing more than a mirage, a reaction from the public which was not pro-Bush at all but pro-America in the immediate dark days after 9-11.

There’s not a President or leader in history who could have maintained those numbers for five years—that is unless we experienced regular attacks like 9-11 the whole time. Something which, ironically, his administration has actually prevented.

Bush’s approval rating hovers around 40%, has a floor of about 36% and a ceiling of around 50%. What’s more, if he was able to run for a third term, I can’t think a Democratic candidate who could beat him.

Is he enormously and universally popular, no? But out of every ten people you meet, four will hate him, four will love him, and two are pretty much on the fence and responding to whatever is in the current news cycle.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at September 20, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #182978

Lawnboy
All those terrorists at Gitmo are in a position to be tried for some terrorist charges. They will be. They would not be there if there were no evidence.

Posted by: tomh at September 20, 2006 11:45 PM
Comment #182988

I would say that republicans are returning to the flock not because they necessarily like it but more because they get scared silly by the prospect of -gasp- a democratic congress.

Posted by: Silima at September 21, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #182990

phx8

You do realize that there is no credible evidence, other then Chavez’s statements, that the US had anything to do with it.

Lawnboy

You talk like the 500 or so prisoners in were picked up in a drug sweep on the streets of LA. These guys are the worst of the worst. Picked up on the battle fields mostly in Afganistan.

Posted by: Keith at September 21, 2006 2:47 AM
Comment #182991

Keith,

These guys are the worst of the worst.

Are you Rumsfeld? You parrot him so well, I couldn’t tell the difference. Nice performance.
Anyway. I guess that’s why so many detainees were released since 2002, teenagers included? Because they were less worst than the worst of the worst? Does it make any sence to you?!

These guys were indeed “picked” up. They are/were terrorists suspects. Many of them could probably proved being ones. They should be charged then tried. 4 years after, they still are not.
Until they will, neither you neither Bush can’t label them terrorists, just terrorists suspects. I think americans once used to call this in their former lawfull past “innocent until found guilty”, “innocency presumption” or even simply “Justice”.
Check an history book for reference.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court rules that the Geneva Convention applied to Gitmo detainees too. Bush now is trying to twist US past interpretation of Geneva Convention in a constant attempt to refuse Gitmo detainees any trial, whatever fairness.

And some of you guys are wondering why the rest of the world has lost respect for US???

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 21, 2006 5:40 AM
Comment #182992

My Name Is Roger:

STEPHEN DAUGHERTY:

Mr. Daugherty…Just being inquistive.

QUESTION:

Who would you like to see as President of the United States of America?

QUESTION:

Is there any Rupublican, that you as a Democrat, would like to see as President of the United States of America?

QUESTION:

Do you EVER vote for any Rupublicans?

QUESTION:

Can you think of anything that Presiden Bush has done good?

ROGER A Conservative Christian Rupublican, who sometimes votes for Democrats

Posted by: ROGER at September 21, 2006 5:59 AM
Comment #182997

Stephen:

It is also true that no one keeps approval numbers in the 80’s and 90’s range. It just isn’t allowed to happen, because opponents can always find something. The point is you cannot keep everyone happy, since much of the country is divided on various issues. So if you take one side, you alienate the other side.

The point that I see in this whole ratings/polling issue is that Bush’s numbers have bounced up a bit. They still are bad, but less bad. For the GOP, that is good news. The bounce may be a dead cat bounce, or they may be as an effect of the GOP message. Time will tell.

When Bush’s numbers go down, the left on WB seems to revel in it. When they go up, the left seems to discount it. The opposite is often true, with the right taking the mirror image.

Objectively, it is relevant to not look at one single poll, but rather a composite of many. That weeds out the inherent biases in each individual poll. Next, it it relevant to note that polls are inherently flawed as predictors, but are useful as tools to help us predict.

Bush numbers going up is good for Reps and bad for Dems. Bush numbers going down is bad for Reps and good for Demss. That’s the bottom line.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 21, 2006 7:24 AM
Comment #183003
You talk like the 500 or so prisoners in were picked up in a drug sweep on the streets of LA. These guys are the worst of the worst. Picked up on the battle fields mostly in Afganistan.

That is your assumption (and tomh’s, too), which has not been verified. If the President followed American and international law and precedent, then there would have been a process by which your assumption would have been validated. Unfortunately, he didn’t, and it hasn’t.

In fact, there is very good reason to believe that you are wrong. Abu Bakkar Qassim was in Guantanamo, and he writes that “(l)ike hundreds of Guantánamo detainees, I was never a terrorist or a soldier. I was never even on a battlefield. Pakistani bounty hunters sold me and 17 other Uighurs to the United States military like animals for $5,000 a head. The Americans made a terrible mistake.”

I’m sure you’ll just say that he’s a lying terrorist, so of course he’d say that. But that would mean that you’re assuming his guilt to prove his guilt. I’m not willing to rely on such circular reasoning.

In another case not about Guantanamo but still on the subject, a Canadian returning from vacation in Tunisia with his family was arrested at JFK, sent to Syria, and tortured there. The Canadian government made a thorough investigation, and they found that Arar’s story was credible, and that there was no evidence of a link to terrorism at all.

We’re making mistakes and trying to cover them up by hiding the evidence, and you’re complicit.

It’s one thing to try to set up the rules that should be in place when (if) we capture bin Laden. Unfortunately, Bush and his loyal followers are using that standard to lock up hundreds of people that very well might have had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

And all you have is an assumption that isn’t not happening, and that assumption is contrary to facts.

Imagine that you were on vacation in Germany and the British military arrested you and sent you to one of their bases in Cyprus. They claimed that you were a terrorist and never let you see the evidence against you, never let you try to establish your innocence, and denied all your legal rights. All that happened is that Tony Blair declared you an “enemy combatant”, so every right you ever had was gone.

That is perfectly analogous to the situation that we have put some of the Guantanamo prisoners in. I’m sure you wouldn’t think it fair for Tony Blair to lock you indefinitely up based on no evidence, so why is it acceptable for Bush to do the exact same thing to other people?

That’s the problem with the “they’ll just cut our heads off” argument that others make. When creating a fair and just and appropriate legal policy, it’s important to make sure that both the crimes of the guilty and the rights of the innocent are addressed. Too many on the right are willing to throw away the presumption of innocence, and would thus throw away their own rights.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 8:46 AM
Comment #183011
You talk like the 500 or so prisoners in were picked up in a drug sweep on the streets of LA. These guys are the worst of the worst. Picked up on the battle fields mostly in Afganistan.

You should look at this:
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/5/Umanskyb.asp?printerfriendly=yes

At National Journal, Corine Hegland was planning a profile of the white-shoe lawyers who have been representing many of the Guantanamo detainees. Hegland says she conducted interviews with about ten of the attorneys, and that at the end of the sessions each attorney would mention the same thing: “‘You know, my client wasn’t caught on the battlefield and he isn’t tied to al Qaeda.’ I was taking the train back from New York one night, and it hit me over the head, ‘Holy crap, what happens if the attorneys are telling me the truth?’”

Finding the answer wasn’t easy. After a Supreme Court ruling in 2004 giving Guantanamo prisoners access to federal courts, lawyers for the detainees filed petitions challenging their clients’ imprisonment. In about 130 of the cases — there are about 400 prisoners — a judge ordered the Pentagon to hand over its evidence.

Each prisoner’s file included a page or two of the military’s summary of evidence, often accompanied by supporting memos and a transcript of the hearing in which the military had reaffirmed that the prisoner was in fact an “enemy combatant.” The files were publicly available at federal courthouses. But they had been rarely explored in depth, and their contents were never compiled systematically, which is exactly what Hegland set about doing.

After two months of sifting the information, Hegland had her answer. “The data was really clear,” she says. “It was mind-boggling.” It showed that most of the detainees hadn’t been caught “on the battlefield” but rather mostly in Pakistan; fewer than half were accused of fighting against the U.S., and there was scant evidence to confirm that they were even combatants. In other words, most of the detainees probably were entirely innocent.

Just a few days after Hegland published a three-part series on her findings in early February, a law professor at Seton Hall University, Mark Denbeaux, and his son, Joshua Denbeaux, who together have represented Guantanamo detainees, published a study that also used the Defense Department’s own data, though a somewhat different set. After stripping out the prisoners’ names, along with the supporting memos and transcripts, the Pentagon had publicly released the summary of evidence against every Guantanamo prisoner. Using that larger but less detailed data set, the Denbeaux’s findings echoed Hegland’s: Only 8 percent of detainees at Guantanamo were labeled by the Defense Department as “al Qaeda fighters,” they found, and just 11 percent had been captured “on the battlefield” by coalition forces.

Before Hegland published her stories, she presented her conclusions to Pentagon officials, who continued to deny that many at Guantanamo could be there by mistake. Like Gutman, Hegland concluded that the officials weren’t really lying. Instead, they didn’t know, and didn’t want to know, the truth. “I don’t think anybody at DoD had looked at actual data and the patterns,” she says. “They kept asking these guys about 9/11, every single one.”

Posted by: Max at September 21, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #183016

The simple fact about the detainees is, if they’ve made mistakes and dragnet-ed a bunch of innocent people into the mix, it is not in their political interest to say so, because it means two things:

One, they’re bad at telling the difference, and two, they’re wasting time, money and America’s prestige on somebody who’s not a threat to us.

Good strategy is always about concentration and multiplication of force, finding the right things to do and the right way to do it at the least practical incursion of cost. Ending up in an unnecessary war and destroying the Army’s readiness is not merely bad because it’s the wrong target, but because you now have less resources to go after the right one.

Similarly, here, inefficient pursuit of our enemies denies us the ability to concentrate and multiply our force against the real enemy. Each man held as an enemy combatant:

a)Consumes food and water;
b)requires a place to hold them.
c)requires a certain number of soldiers set aside to guard them;
d)creates legal expenses;

Among other costs. If the person is innocent, we’re wasting the above in addition to the above:

a)waste the time, energy, and manpower for interrogation;
b)are almost guaranteed to be a font of bad information, if interrogation methods succeed in breaking them;
c)will forever bear watching, because of the uncertainty of torture.

The more we use such tactics as these, which do not distinguish between guilt and innocence well, much less good information and bad, we are bound to waste more of our time and resources chasing phantoms than catching and killing the real deals.

It’s not the stronger and tougher way to deal with terrorism, It’s the fat, dumb, and happy way of dealing with terrorism. Sometimes, as in the case of installing the Shah of Iran, the blowback of being so foolish can be catastrophic. The overthrow of the Shah emboldened Terrorists and Islamic Radicals everywhere. The Shah’s brutality and malfeasances, coupled with that of other leaders, lead people to lose faith in moderation and modernity.

Brutality can simply inflame a situation. Going to the Dark side will not necessarily bring about a brighter day.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 21, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #183017

Phx8,
“Well, yes, I think supporting the overthrow of democratically elected governments is a very, very bad idea. We agree, right? And people in this country who support overthrowing democracies should be condemned, right? When it comes to Bush, the democratically elected leader of Venezuela will never give it a rest. When Bush is gone, I am confident almost anyone could forge better ties with Venezuela- McCain, Hillary, anyone at all.”


First of all, I do not believe Chavez or “dinner jacket” (Nice one Nikkolai) were “democratically” elected; that’s just ridiculous to give any credence to that.

Secondly, my point (to you) was that you made it sound like you were against what Chavez said, appalled at the reaction of the audience, then you mentioned how he is a “Big Oil” monger and then you dropped all that and blamed Bush. It (just) doesn’t make sense! I can understand your contempt and utter disgust for Chavez and the UN audience’s reaction; hell, most Americans felt the same way, yet there was no reason to turn that into a Bush bash like that.

The problem, that many of us on this blog have said, is that too many people (especially on this blog) direct their hatred and contempt towards Bush rather than the “real” enemies. I mean, and I will challenge anybody on this, I never hated Clinton or Bush 41; two Presidents that I didn’t like nor vote for, yet I never did (voraciously) attack either of them like the way people do (and have done) with GWB. Man, this is our freaking country we’re talking about here! I would never utter the same comments as the enemy just to smear the President. That’s insane!


Posted by: rahdigly at September 21, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #183027

Rah,
It is not a matter of belief about the election of Chavez. He was democratically elected. We may or may not like him. He may ditch democracy and extend his term another 12 years. But there is not escaping the fact- the fact- that he is democratically elected.

I actually think Bush is right about advocating concepts like freedom, liberty, & democracy. Sometimes that will result in unpleasant groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, or a Chavez participating in the policical process. On balance, it is better to engage opponents as peacefully as possible in a political process, rather than resorting to war.

As for Bush- I thought Bush #41 was a pretty good president. I though Clinton was one of the best we have seen.

I might dislike or disagree with a lot of what the current Bush has done. My problem is that a president does not get a pass on starting a war based on pretexts. It is flatly unacceptable. Even worse, if possible, is botching the occupation so badly. Tens of thousands, more likely hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result. Well, I could go on & on, but you get the idea. When an administration lies to convince our country to go to war, it is despicable, it deserves condemnation, and I will never let it rest.

Posted by: phx8 at September 21, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #183033

SE-

What is your take on the continued dismal approval ratings for the republican congress (25%)? In light of the world summits and election year media blitzes, it doesn’t surprise me a bit to see Bush inch up on the approval meter. After all, he’s got babbling dictators to be compared to. When I see the Chavez saying the crap he said yesterday, it only makes Bush look like a much more viable alternative. However, congree is still very much at work. They are trying, as usual, to do 6 months of bill writing and debate in about 6 days. And, as usual, they are screwing it up. Here’s the latest from congress:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/opinion/21thu3.html?th&emc=th

When will current republicans pull their heads out of their rich, egocentric asses? And more importantly, why don’t more republicans, especially those like yourself who purport to be so concerned with our nation’s security and future viability (although it is debatable), cry foul and demand that their party begin doing things for real people who are not outspoken fundementalists or businessmen with a stake in government contracts?

This is getting rediculous…gross misrepresentation at best, and outright corruption at worst. Neither seem far fetched. Any thoughts on this very important issue of the day SE? Yet the straight ticket voters continue to shape and warp their very morality to suit these policies which seem to be, alarmingly and increasingly so, aimed directly at NOT helping real people, while trying to hold some shred of consistency in the ability to claim the high road on issues like security. Cold hard reality is setting in: the party in power has abused that power, and are no longer working for people like you. People like you know it. Everyone else has known it for years (all the tell tale signs were there…but it was “war-time” so we were effectively muzzled). Now the president gets a small bump in approval ratings as he sits opposite some of the most batshit crazy people on the planet, and I am to honestly believe that you are riding some great wave of popular support for the republican party?

Either you are playing the partisan fiddle for the sake of hearing yourself (and pissing off the neighbors who just want to go to sleep), or you are just as nutty as the republicans in power at the moment. As a registered republican, I find this current state of affairs to be insulting to the intelligence and repugnent to the soul. I hold little faith that democrats will use this opportunity wisely, but my god, anything is better than being lied to, insulted and offended on a daily basis, and then to top it off, having SE cheerleading those tactics as if they are actually leading this nation anywhere but in the polorized and dis-enfranchised crapper.

Any thoughts other than I must be a liberal extremist?

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 21, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #183042

Phx8,

Whether you liked the previous Presidents or how you feel about the current President, it still doesn’t explain why you would set up displeasure with the disgusting comments from Chavez and then (give him a pass) go after Bush.


That was a good thing to try and overthrow Chavez; Chavez is nothing but a corrupt dictator, regardless of his “democratic” elections (8 times). And, the Iranian President was elected “democratically” as well; it’s a joke, we all know he’s a puppet, placed there by the mullahs. He has to be overthrown as well; hopefully the Iranian people will do it, yet if they get slaughtered I’m sure people will blame Bush.

The fact is these corrupt leaders are alligning themselves against us and people still want to make the case against Bush. That’s just crazy! The Iranian President gets respectfull (soft) interviews by our own media and he gets a nice picture on the cover of Time; especially, when you compare it to Bush with the cowboy hat covering him up. Also, the Iranian prez said a prayer in his speech, calling for the 12th Imam, and nobody in the press says a word; if Bush prayed, look out brother. Chavez gets an ovation for his repulsive comments and nobody has a problem with that? Their comments and presence are put aside for Bush?!!!


Why can’t you put aside your dislike for Bush and use it to describe these despicable dictators?! Do you think it would make you less of an American?! Do you think you would be violating you 1rst amendment right by criticizing someone other than Bush?!!


Posted by: rahdigly at September 21, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #183043

Lando, why are you reprinting copyrighted material on this site? Please produce permission to reprint this article to managing_editor@watchblog.com or, find yourself in breach of our Rules for Participation.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at September 21, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #183046

Roger-
To be honest with you, I still like Kerry, but at this point I’m still waiting for the best candidate to show up.

If a Republican had to be president, I’d rather it be somebody like McCain, someone reasonable and with some sense of his own fallibility

I think you joked earlier about how you vote for Democrats when nobody else is on the ticket, or there’s somebody worse there, and I’d guess I’d have to say the same. I’d vote for one if they showed obvious superiority over the Democrat, though.

As for the good that Bush has done? He’s demonstrated that there are significant differences between Republican and Democrats. He’s helped bring the Republican Majority to its knees, something we were failing to do by ourselves, and he’s unified and invigorated my party in a way it hasn’t been for decades.

I would have traded all that in for him to have been all he had promised himself to be. As good as seeing my party take back its pride and its purpose, I would have much rather seen that happen on a more subtle basis.

The Republican Party, I think, failed by trying to be leaders with only their party and their people in mind. They should have recognized that this government and the country it represents belongs to all of us, and they rule at the sufferance of the moderate majority. That Moderate majority has had it up to here with the Republicans.

Now, what I believe is that the low opinion of Democrats mainly comes from the passive role they have played under the Republican system. I think it is imperative that when and if the Democrats achieve power, they make a big impression on Americans with their productivity and professionalism, and their ability to put the nation’s interests ahead of their political agenda. The Republicans, if they want power back, have got to be just as no-nonsense. Americans are sick of everybody failing to take their responsibilities seriously.

Joe-
This moderate majority I speak of is less interested in politics, and more interested in results. The bottom line is that the focus on the apparent rise in his prospects is a bit short-sighted. You should ask yourself why he’s in the position he is in.

The Republicans don’t seem to grasp that the media bias claim is essentially a sophisticated version of shooting the messenger. It changes nothing about what the Reporters are reporting, and if you have a real problem before you claim bias, before you claim that the media is out to smear him, then you’ll have a real problem afterwards.

The Republicans and President Bush need to start facing the realities behind the bad poll numbers, instead of trying to prove how good of a Leader Bush is by how good people say he is. Circular arguments like that get dulled by countervailing evidence. People need a substantial reason to believe the Republicans are good leaders again, not merely more loop-de-loops around the polls.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 21, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #183049

Rah,
Think about what we want. Both you and I want to see systems put in place which are consistent with our values, the national interests, with our concept of Human Rights. Bush is right when he is willing to sacrifice stability for democracy. (He is wrong when that change is done by force). Making that change means putting up with people like Chavez and, yes, even Ahmedinejad. They are temporary. A viable system of government will last. The damage done by overthrowing governments does more harm than the dislikable people who sometime come to power.

Posted by: phx8 at September 21, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #183051

Rahdigly-

Wow. Talk about your big-stick deplomacy, huh? Ever stop and wonder WHY the anti-american rhetoric works so well? Maybe because every time we get involved in deposing a dictator we end up supporting an unpopular regime and resentment takes hold. I think people like you should really stick to their own interests that they actually know something about. Stay out of the business of choosing how other sovereign nations choose governance. Start by reading Rawls’ “Law of Peoples” and then honestly tell me you agree with the notion of toppling regimes for the sake of “security” when there is no threat of state-sponsered attack whatsoever. If you are scared of Iranian rhetoric today, I am certain your “plan” would only make those matters worst.

In getting involved in the internal business of sovereign states, inevitably, the US will make a short-sighted decision that has long term negative repercussions with direct correlations with the extent of our involvement. We are, after all, self serving, no? We’d better be, anyway. So who in the world appreciates a selfishly motivated outsider intrusion into their business? No one. Not even you, I’m sure.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 21, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #183053

Stephen-

I take issue with one comment:

“The Republican Party, I think, failed by trying to be leaders with only their party and their people in mind.”

I’m a republican (although possibly a RINO) and I have to say that I felt the exact same feeling of alienation by this administration. Me, and many others like me, feel betrayed by the lack of transparency and lack of consistency between what is said publicly, and what actually gets carried out. It is not just a purely partisan feeling at all. This administration and this congress have betrayed the vast majority of their own party in their attempts to stick it to democrats and advance a warped notion of public servantry.

I’m nowhere near a straight ticket voter. But I really am to the point where I will vote against ANY endorsement of Bush’s approach to 99% of issues. That is a sad effect of using alienating tactics at every turn…you end up alienating everyone.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 21, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #183062

SE:

You know what happens when a ball bounces? It goes up to a certain point and then it falls. Law of nature.

The high point of the bounce is probably due to the feelings people have on the anniversary of 9/11. Bush’s popularity does not exist except among diehard Republicans like you. Republicans have been so discredited that even with this “bounce” 10% more people say they will vote for Democrats than for Republicans.

Democrats will win big in November.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at September 21, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #183063

I’m baffled how any rational person could support Bush after so may failures, obvious lies and outright manipulations of public trust. I guess it’s really just traditional Republican philosophy that keeps a few blindered, up-tighty righties voting for this unmitigated mistake.

Posted by: Lorry at September 21, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #183065

Kevin23:

“I’m a republican (although possibly a RINO) and I have to say that I felt the exact same feeling of alienation by this administration. Me, and many others like me, feel betrayed by the lack of transparency and lack of consistency between what is said publicly, and what actually gets carried out. It is not just a purely partisan feeling at all. This administration and this congress have betrayed the vast majority of their own party in their attempts to stick it to democrats and advance a warped notion of public servantry.

This is a remarkable statement, and it makes me wonder if I would have the courage and good sense to make such a statement if the shoe were on the other foot.

I often fantasize waking up and finding myself a senator from a large state—more like a nightmare for some here. But I have always believed that even the most recalcitrant problems can be solved by people of good will, who are guided by beliefs and goals that are greater than themselves.

This reaching across the political aisle for some sort of understanding and compromise (I know, a dirty word now, to be sure), is what has kept this country from falling apart in the past. And what scares me more than terrorists, is a calcifying and hysterical partisanship that leaves no room for simple common sense.

In my next life, if I am in a position within politics, I would be proud to work with you, Kevin23. You and I could get some good things done.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 21, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #183066

Ah yes Paul, the pendulum theory. I’m a big proponent. However, another law of nature came to my mind:

An object in motion remains in motion until acted on by a force.

I really do hope that the democrats come to play this election. Amid this avalanch of republican screw-ups, I can’t imagine them staying in power. But it is not a foregone conclusion that individual local elections will be influenced by a general national sentiment. People still need good candidates, who are willing to stand up and confidently speak on their own merits. If democrats take a Rove-esque, take no prisoners approach, will we really be better off? Maybe, but I see REAL opportunity here to advance public debate…something that hasn’t happened in about 6 years.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 21, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #183067

phx8:

“When an administration lies to convince our country to go to war, it is despicable, it deserves condemnation, and I will never let it rest.”

Well said—we see eye-to-eye on this.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 21, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #183070

Paul Seigel

Hold on there partner. We still have ,what 6 weeks or 7 weeks before the mid-terms?

In politics, that’s a lifetime.

Ask Mike Dukakis…you remember him, right?

He’s presently covered in cob-webs somewhere in Massachusetts, I think.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at September 21, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #183074

It’s interesting how the comments from Chavez and the “pip-squeak”, about Bush, are (eerily) similar to that of what the democrats have been saying about Bush. What’s more, is that you could print their comments, without providing their name, and one would’ve guessed that was a Democrat who said it; no, just these despicable rulers. Nice.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 21, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #183085

# Tell Disney and ABC to stop playing partisan politics with 9-11

# ABC, Scholastic injecting conservative misinformation into the classroom

# Hate has no place on the airwaves

# What would Coulter have to say for the networks to stop promoting her?

From Adriennes link!

Is this Attempted Censureship or what?
The Extreme left doesn’t want both sides heard.

And btw Adrienne, I dont understand why this article from a leftist site makes any point for you.

Scottie

PS Air America having some major troubles. What happened folks?

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #183086

No, Rah, it’s not interesting. Both Chavez/Ahmadinejad and the Democratic leadership disagree with Bush, although for completely different reasons and with completely different goals. That there is some overlap in rhetoric is both unsuprising and meaningless.

I can only imagine that your goal here is to try to intimidate those that disagree with the sitting President into silence with a stupid attempt at guilt by association. It’s yet another attempt at unAmerican equating of dissent and treason. It fails now, just as it always does.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #183087

And all!

After careful research Adriennes links is so full of misrepresentations it is nuts. I would encourage all to look for themselves:

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200609190002

An Example:

According to Gallup, on the eve of President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination, he was suffering the WORST JOB APROVAL RATING of his presidency — 58 percent.

Look and see if that happens to be true then see if you can find anymore inaccuracies!

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #183089

Ah but Lawnboy, You are right. But your question is wrong:

No, Rah, it’s not interesting. Both Chavez/Ahmadinejad and the Democratic leadership disagree with Bush, although for completely different reasons and with completely different goals. That there is some overlap in rhetoric is both unsuprising and meaningless.

.
The far left is what is with them, not your leadership. Did you see Danny Glover Hug ol Hugo? Thats what I was talking about in another post. There is about 30% of the Democratic party that love these guys and whatever they say. And it is a big tumor on the democrats that you can’t get rid of and that you cannot silence.

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #183090

.
BTW,

It is because of this that Kerry became known as a flip flop. He couldn’t wholey support the war because of those voters and he couldn’t stand against it because of the rest of the party. Hillary, will have the same problem in the primary and the general election. (just ask Dick Morris, Former Clinton Campaign Guru,he will tell you!)

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #183092

THIS JUST IN, FROM THE LIBERAL TIMES:

Bush lied about (insert subject here), and Bush is (insert phrase here). Daily we are bombarded with crap, utter and complete bull-crap, about the latest thing the president lied to us about, and what he is doing now that will kill us all shortly. Wht is it that the Grand Poo-bah of some nearly 3rd world country gets up on the floor of the UN-(ethical) and calls the leader of the greatest country on the face of the earth names like a third-grader, and Accchhhhmed go-get-a-job behaves childishly in public, and it’s international news, but when we make significant progress in the war on terror, you never hear about it. It almost sounds as though Accchhhmed go-get-a-job and the other worthless piece of fecal matter have been in strategy sessions with the Libs. To all Libs, what, specifically and exactly, is your plan for action on the war on terror? Should non-citizen detainees that aren’t even being held on main-land soil be granted rights as though they were legal citizens? Please! Answer very specifically! All you Libs do is whine and bitch and moan and kavetch and complain, but I have yet to hear a solid credible plan for action from anyone on the left.

Posted by: Ryan at September 21, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #183093

Danny Glover and Hugo Hug!

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #183094

Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein!

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #183095

Ryan,

All you Libs do is whine and bitch and moan and kavetch and complain

Fortunately, we never hear you doing those things. Oh…

I have yet to hear a solid credible plan for action from anyone on the left.

And we have yet to hear the equivalent from the administration, and they’ve been in power for five years.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #183096

rahdigly,

Debating with someone with whom you disagree with, some choose to go the “third grade” route by saying things like “prove it”, “I don’t have to prove it, you prove it”, “just b/c you quoted a fact, does that mean you believe everything it says”, etc.
I will be happy to debate you if you actually post something that makes sense. Give me proof, not just your ideas, and we can go at it. You, must however stay on topic, use respected resources, and clearly written sentences. No name calling, or innuendos. A nice clear debate, both of us knowing that neither of us will actually win, but ending with respect on both parts. I’ll even start.

I don’t hate George W. Bush. However, I do not have any respect for him, or how he governs. I have many doubts regarding his truthfulness.

This does not mean I have stopped loving my country, and do not support our troops. I just think our troops would be less likely to die if they were home, instead of overseas fighting who? And who knows maybe less Iraq civilians would be dying as well…

Here we go:

Bush tends to jump into situations, and when he discovers he was wrong, he tries to back up his actions by trying to pass laws that retro-actively support the mistakes his has made. Or blaming someone else for his mistakes.

1. Blaming the Iraqis for 9\11 was unjustified. Invading them was also unjustified. We are not known as invaders, we have always been known as peace keepers. So he pushes through the Patriot Act.

2. Trying to find some way to blame Iraq for 9\11 was totally unsuccessful. No WMDs. Now he’s created a civil war in Iraq, and because he refused to pay attention to the IRAQI own Polls, insisted on staying even when it become blatantly obvious that THEY did not want us there. He then come up with “stay the course”. What ever that means - it appears that staying the course means to continue to fight in Iraq, killing more and more civilians, and getting more and more of our young people, children really, killed.

3.He tries to illegally wire-tap American phones, and now he wants the Courts to uphold him for breaking the law.

4. He wants torture made legal, after having ordered it be done, this time trying to change the Geneva Convention.

5. When it came down to the hurricanes, he was much too slow at getting help to the people, and found it fairly easy to blame Brown for the mistakes, almost immediately after praising him for doing such a good job.

No, I do not belive that Bush caused the hurricanes. That is ridiculous!

6. I will even concede that in all likely hood, FEMA was sort of a forgotten agency except for the part it played in a humanly arranged disaster, such as a bomb. It had not been used in almost 4 years, not since 9/11, so of course no one had checked over the Department lately. Why bother to make sure the dept was still up-to -date? Of course, after having just returned for the area I can tell you personally about the horrible conditions the people still live it. Oh, and FEMA has folded and basically gone home.

7. Our tax deficient is raising at an over-whelming rate.
Yes I know all about the so-called jobs his administration has created. The ones where since jobs are going overseas, do not begin to pay enough for someone to live on, let alone a family.
The kind of jobs that don’t offer Health Insurance, retirement, or just plain nothing. I blame Clinton for the overseas problems for NAFTA agreements, but Bush didn’t seem to want to look at the mistakes that have occurred with that one and simply increased the problem.

8. Immigration. All Bush does is talk about it. Now that Fox is no longer President of Mexico, I wonder if Bush will actually try to follow through with some plan. Illegal immigrants are, ILLEGAL. Bush wants to reward them for breaking the law. I believe they should be deported. Yes, I know all the reasons about how awful it would be to deport them, and how my own family came from overseas, but my family came LEGALLY, as did most everyone else’s. Through Ellis Island, or through ports that could handle them. Not by sneaking in across the borders.

Posted by: Linda H. at September 21, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #183097

Lawnboy, Remember Sesame Street? Three of these things belong together? One of these things doesnt belong?

Donald Rumsfeld visiting a leader that we had one agreement with, fighting Iran, and Danny Glover, hugging and agreeing with the all premises of Chavez’ political agenda, are , well, TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

And it is still a tumor on your party. That old pic of Rummy and Dummy doesn’t. One pic is old, One pic is from today. HEHEHE

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #183098

Ok, Here’s a ‘plan of action’: Dump Bush, then indict his sorry butt.

Bush hasn’t lied? You can’t be serious. Now even Powell, a highly credible person, receives wrath from this petulant and abyssmally ignorant man.

Check the facts, do the research: we have ‘elected’ a political machine-based puppet to whom phrases like “it is unacceptable to think that…” are uttered. Sorry, but that is what he said. Very very sorry. There is no context in a truly free society where those words have any merit.

Wake up.

Posted by: Lorry at September 21, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #183099

BTW Lawnboy,

Wasn’t that Pic of yours taken before Sadamn gassed the Kurds, invaded Kuwait, Shot at our planes everyday in the no fly zone, refused to comply with UN mandates, I could go on but you can all research for yourselves.

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #183100

Here is one youy dont have to research.

Does the name Scott Speicher ring a bell?

OK, just a tease, reasearch it!

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #183102

Scottie,

The picture of Donald Rumsfeld as a private citizen interacting with a known dictator is just as embarassing as the picture of Danny Glover interacting with Chavez.

And both are silly and irrelevant to any real conversation.

If the worst thing you can show about the entire Democratic Party is that one person not in leadership had a picture taken with a bad guy, then I think we’re doing ok.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #183103

http://www.humorgazette.com/images/pix-clinton-jfk.jpg

And this pic was taken before Clinton played Cigar Tag with Monica

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #183104

Additionally, Democrats warn Chavez: Don’t bash Bush

Find a new broad brush, please.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #183105
The picture of Donald Rumsfeld as a private citizen interacting with a known dictator is just as embarassing as the picture of Danny Glover interacting with Chavez.

And both are silly and irrelevant to any real conversation.

Ah! But you are wrong! One of those pics is very relevent. It was taken today! It very much represents the great divide between the Far left and Normal Democrats. And that divide cost you the last Presidential Election. You guys could have won ba a margin that would have eliminated any election Irregularity talk. That divide kept it from happening.

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #183106

You went in a circl but forgot what I said to begin with:

Ah but Lawnboy, You are right. But your question is wrong:

No, Rah, it�s not interesting. Both Chavez/Ahmadinejad and the Democratic leadership disagree with Bush, although for completely different reasons and with completely different goals. That there is some overlap in rhetoric is both unsuprising and meaningless.

.
The far left is what is with them, not your leadership. Did you see Danny Glover Hug ol Hugo? Thats what I was talking about in another post. There is about 30% of the Democratic party that love these guys and whatever they say. And it is a big tumor on the democrats that you can’t get rid of and that you cannot silence.

Shall we dance around the room again? Again I agree with you. The leadership is trying fast to distance themselves. About 30% of your party’s vote is tied to it.

Only way to get aroud it is “flip flop”

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 05:48 PM

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #183107

Scottie,

I have no idea what you expect in response. Yes, you found a picture of a private citizen. And yes, the RNC was much better at pointing out Kerry’s inconsistencies than the DNC was at pointing out Bush’s equally large inconsistencies.

Beyond that, I think you’re just gloating over irrelevancies.

Have fun.

Let me know when you have an actual idea to discuss.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #183109

Let me know when you have an actual idea to discuss.

Thats funny, this tumor of a divide is an idea being discussed blog after blog, cable channel after cable channel.

Here is the point! Ill make it very clear:

Until the Democrats can get their message back to mainstream instead of letting the far left control the pulpit, you have a tumor attached to the democratic party. Most democrats disagree with the likes of Glover, Shehan, Moore, and the likes. Whether you like it or not their message is what comes out of the democratic party.

The problem comes it that about 12-13% of the population are far left extremist. That makes about 1/3 of your party. And They get excited about Glover Hugging Chavez. They Boo Hillary when she shows any kind of support for anything that looks like war. They Pie peoples faces when they speak. And very much want to censor what the right has too say. Its a good thing your whole party isnt like that

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #183111

And your party has enough extremists that Michael Savage has a nationally syndicated show. Everything you say about us is true in some form for your party. That’s why I wonder what your point is.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #183112

BTW I looked for pictures of the mainstream democratic leadership taking a pic with Cindy Shehan, Micheal Moore, or Danny Glover. I couldnt find any. Can someone help me with this?

Oh Yes, I found one of Micheal Moore and Jimmy Carter. That was a pic that caused some uproar wasn’t it?

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #183114

Ah yes I Knew you would go there!

Our extremist dont carry the pulpit! our extremeist have views on aborting unborn children:

Click Here!

The right to not let the small portion of athiests take all references to God from our Society;

The far left would have us handle terrorist with cookies and milk. Lets play Sesame Street again!

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #183115

Scottie,

I’ll amend my earlier statement:

Let me know when you have an actual idea to discuss and the ability to express it coherently using the English language.

I have no idea what you think you’re talking about.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #183116

Scottie,

I’ll amend my earlier statement:

Let me know when you have an actual idea to discuss and the ability to express it coherently using the English language.

I have no idea what you think you’re talking about.


You do realize that a statement like that is not only not relevent, kinda against watchblog rules, and is generally used when one cannot rebut what another says.

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #183117

No, Scottie. It’s completely within the rules.

Your post from 7:06 is absolutely incoherent. Each sentence seems to be logically unrelated to the sentences around it.

It’s hard to rebut incoherence.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #183119

Yes, Scottie, those are the rules. What’s your point?

I was critiquing the incoherence of your message. I did not attack or insult you, and I did not say you don’t have the write to post here. I simply said that I won’t have anything to respond to until your message is both meaningful and understandable.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #183121

That’s funny, I have understood everything that Scottie has said so far. I consider my self a moderate Dem. If Micheal Moore, Cindy Shehan, {and the others that are far to the left of my left wing point of view} would refrain from being nuts, we could win elections much easier.

Posted by: Talondegato at September 21, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #183122

OK, Talondegato, please translate the message from 7:06.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #183125

Thats easy, Scottie was responding to your statement that both sides have extremist. The far right is not 1/2 as loud as the far right. The far right extremist, altho wrong, are against abortion. They are also against the far left taking any mention of God in the public discourse which I have to agree with Scottie on. The far left is very wrong though when it comes to protecting us from the other extremists. That is not only clear to understand, but as much as I hate to agree with him, Scott is right.

Posted by: Talondegato at September 21, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #183126

The far right is not 1/2 as loud as the far right.
=
The far right is not 1/2 as loud as the far left.

Sorry

Posted by: Talondegato at September 21, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #183127

My Name Is Roger:

STEPHEN DAUGHERTY:

Thanks for your reply.

I am a Rupublican…. because I am very conservative, when I find a Democrat running for office, and he is conservative and the Rupublicans do not have a conservative running, I will vote Democrat. Where the problem may come in… is when they are both conservative. Then I do my homework and try to find out where they stand on thhe issues I feel are inportant.

If a Rupublican does not support issues I feel strongly about, I will not vote for him. If a Democrat does support issues I feel strongly about I vote for him. It just seems… that most of the time, it is a Rupublican and not a Democart who is on the same wave-link with a cconservative outlook.

I DO NOT THINK THIS COUNTRY WILL GO DOWN THE DRAIN…. IF WE HAVE A DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE.

It just seems… that most of the Democrats lean too far to the left for me to feel… I want them in office.

But… what I do like [ WELCOME TO AMERICA],is this helps keep things in check, so that… the far right does not always have its way, and the far left… does not have its way, and [ togeather ] RUPUBLICAN and DEMOCRATS will represent most if not all of the people of the United States.

ROGER A Conservative Christian Rupublican who does sometimes vote for Democrats.

P.S. Again Thank You!

Posted by: ROGER at September 21, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #183128

Iraq is not battleground in the war on terror. It is a civil war between the sunnis and shiites. Partition the country into kurdish,sunni, and shiite areas and get the heck out of there. The war on terror’s battlefield is in Afghanistan, and in the cities of western culture.

Posted by: michaelviles at September 21, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #183129

Thank you Talondegao,

I was beginning to wonder if I was crazy! I own a pizza place, taught JR HI for 5 years, and have an IQ of 140. I just dont type. Sometimes causes a problem but I didn’t think it was that bad.

But I’ll Clarify even moore’:

Your extremist are bigger and stronger than my my extremist!

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #183130

Harkin defends Venezuelan President’s U-N speech against Bush

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #183132

Scottie,
Don’t thank me yet!
I do have to say that your 7:05 post was not spelled out the best. However, Lawnboy understood it fine, I am sure.

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #183133

I guess that’s your right to think so, but I disagree. However, there’s no use in getting into a pissing contest about whose extremists are worse (too many definition issues there to get started), so I’ll just have to let it go with your admission that your side has extremists, too.

But please read Talondegato’s complete rewrite of what you wrote and compare it to yours. Perhaps you have a high IQ and formerly taught, but all of that is meaningless without sentences that connect to each other and have some sort of context.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #183134

Hehehe

Posted by: Scottie at September 21, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #183136

I figured that Talondegato just an alias for Scottie to be able to rephrase without having to lose face.

Your mistake of 8:05 confirmed it.

:)

And no, I didn’t understand it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #183137

Scottie
This is Typical right wing spin. Harkin did not defend Chavez. He said the speach was “incendiary” The title complete misleads the reader. harlin said “Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush’s policies.” I can understand is a long way from “I agree” or “I support” or Chavez is right. But truth be told I can undersand the anger of certain people around the world too. I guess you want a president who doesn’t understand other peoples point of view??

Posted by: 037 at September 21, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #183141

Kevin23-
The way I would phrase it is that the Republican party acted like it could write policy for themselves, and simply write off everybody else as a privilege of their majority status. They might have to pay attention to you somewhat, but they believed that their base was the far right.

I think that’s the mistake right there. The base people should try to keep are not the people devoted to being Democrats or Republicans at all costs, but rather those for whom the politics is more of a choice. Those who can spread themselves far without spreading themselves thin are both best qualified to be leaders, and best suited to do the will of the people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 21, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #183144

Sicilian Beagle, Im also very happy today because my kid got a D in his exam, the week before he got an F. He is definetely getting better. Dont you think?

Posted by: obladi at September 21, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #183148

obladi

I was a two-oh and go guy in schools, so if you kid gets a C….fine with me! :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 21, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #183158

People must be responding to the good news coming out of Iraq on a daily basis. Looks like we’re winning this sucker just like we won in Afghanistan. You can ask our buddies in Pakistan.

It’s not just the good news from Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan that’s pulling in those favorable numbers, but what about that torture thing. All right. We’re on the right track. Human dignity indeed. Hey, did someone say a bad word about a poor little innocent zygote? Let’s show some human dignity where it’s deserved.

Posted by: Stan at September 22, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #183169

My Name Is Roger:

I know that this is not about the Rupublican Party makeing a comeback, but this does concern both Demoncrats and Rupublicans.

I just received an E-MAIL which said { The 9th. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Contra Costa Calif.}, said that religious speech is NOT PROTECTED under the first amendment in the same way as political speech.

QUESTION: What do you think of that?

QUESTION: Has anyone else heard anything about this?

Again…. I know that this is of the subject, but I think [IF] it is true, it is something that all of us [ both Democrats and Rupublicans ] should be concerned about!!!!

ROGER A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at September 22, 2006 7:25 AM
Comment #183170

Roger:

Speech is speech is speech. I would fight to the death to protect the freedom of speech, even for those with whom I disagree.

A few years ago, a bunch of white supremacists were run out of an upstate New York town and were unable to hold a rally. The local newspaper trumpeted how happy they were that the skinheads had been prevented from holding their rally.

While the skinheads were vile and disgusting, and their message of hate was repugnant, I found the newspaper’s stance chillingly hypocritical.

Speech is speech is speech.

I wonder about the accuracy of the e-mail, or if it was a bit overwrought in hopes of eliciting a response. Would be interesting to know more about it. God bless.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 22, 2006 7:54 AM
Comment #183174

Roger,

The decision was not that “said that religious speech is NOT PROTECTED under the first amendment in the same way as political speech.” The decision was that libraries have the right to ban loud, disruptive meetings involving singing in order to maintain “the library’s primary function as a sanctuary for reading, writing and quiet contemplation”. The libraries have that right to regulate political meetings, and the decision was that they have that right for religious worship services, too.

So, the decision was the opposite of how it was described to you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 22, 2006 8:47 AM
Comment #183177

Lawnboy:

After reading your link, I don’t know that you have it correct either. The link states that “In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said that the Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries had the right to hold religious discussions in a room that was open to other community groups, but that the county could prohibit it from conducting worship services.

It goes on to state that “Deputy County Counsel Kelly Flanagan said the county was concerned that allowing prayer services in a public building would amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

“We think a library and a church are different things and should stay different,” Flanagan said.”

There is no mention whatsoever about the loudness of the meeting or whether it was disruptive. The issue at hand is precisely what Flanagan says. The county is okay with people talking ABOUT religion, but not practicing religion at their library.

If any group, secular or religious, wanted to hold a loud disruptive meeting in a library, I’d be all for disallowing it. But if a church group wants to hold a prayer meeting, for instance, where the level of noise would be no different than any other meeting, they should be allowed to do so.

That is what the county is not allowing. Think about if the county said that a group of Democrats or Republicans could discuss politics, but could not engage in any strategizing for either party. That would be akin to the same thing.


Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 22, 2006 9:41 AM
Comment #183180

joe,

I think there’s evidence for both interpretations in the article. That general religious meetings are allowed by not worship services that would interfere with “the library’s primary function as a sanctuary for reading, writing and quiet contemplation” tells me that the main problem is the noise and disruption, not the religious content.

But I could be wrong.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 22, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #183184

Joe-
As a telecom student at Baylor, one of the required classes was telecom policy, and one of the subjects touched upon was First Amendment protections.

The government cannot tell you what to say or not say. However, it can restrict the time, place and manner of certain kinds of speech.

For example, they can drag protestors off of private property, thus ending the protest, because the owners of that property reserve the right to determine who can remain on their property. It may get in the way of their speech, but that’s beside the point.

If the folks we’re being loud in a meeting at the library, it’s the wrong place to be such. A calm, quiet discussion with prayer conducted likewise is one thing. Singing is another.

I would also have a problem with them actually holding a service in the place, treating it like a church. That would cross the line and give the appearance of state support for the church.

It’s important to maintain this separation for the sake of religion in this country, because a government with license to support religion, is a government that can hold it hostage with the threat of withdrawing it. Do you want an elected official to have the power to close down a church?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #183194

Lawnboy:

It’s possible that the church service was too loud. But Deputy County Counsel Kelly Flanagan didnt mention noise as an issue when he/she said “the county was concerned that allowing prayer services in a public building would amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.”

Stephen:

In my opinion, you are mistaking allowing religion with endorsing or supporting religion. If I support the right of skinheads to speak their filth, it does not mean I support their message. If a county allows its publicly held building to be used for A) Little League meetings, B)Kiwanis meetings, or C) church meetings, the county is not endorsing any of above. They are simply allowing the building to be used.

You talk about the “the appearance of state support for the church”, but it is far more important to consider the reality over the appearance. By allowing groups to use their facility (in reality the members of the community are members of the groups and therefore have an ownership stake in the facility), the county takes no stake in the type of meeting.

If the meeting is too loud (say for instance a band practice or a loud church service), then of course that should be regulated. But not for the type of music or the type of meeting, but rather for the noise level of said music or meeting.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 22, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #183197

Joe,

We don’t know the full quote. It’s possible the writer of the article didn’t want to reiterate the point about noise made earlier.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 22, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #183203

Joe-
If you removed the ritual aspect of it, removed any exclusive claim on certain hours, removed hymns and other imposing nose or disturbances, I would call it a prayer meeting. If it resembles a religious service, takes on the function of it, then I believe it represents a breach of religious separation.

If it’s more like a discussion, a regular meeting, with prayer at the beginning and end, but no set of ritual steps and/or set schedule of readings (as you would find in mass or service), then I consider it not to be such a breach.

The point is not to have the library become a sacred space, enforced by the government. I think the important distinction is between somebody worshiping within a place, and somebody making it a place of worship- set aside regularly and ritually for such purposes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #183209

Stephen:

Respectfully, I think you’ve misunderstood the concept of separation of church and state. The concept requires the government to be neutral in regard to religion.

Under your logic, the government would be required to prevent a church group from holding a prayer service in a public building, while at the same time allowing a secular group to have a meeting in the same public building. That would eliminate neutrality.

You are saying that its okay to talk ABOUT religion in a public setting, but not to PRACTICE religion in a public setting. That’s a dangerous precedent to set.

After 9-11, our community held a public “meeting” in a park near a school. Patriotic and religious songs were sung, and God was invoked in prayer by village officials and religious leaders alike. A locally well-known religious leader opened with a prayer. Using your logic, this community meeting should have been prohibited since it was on public land and it had all the aspects of a religious meeting—-not to talk about religion, but the actual practice of it.

In the case of the library, it is not the building that becomes the sacred place. I’ve seen church congregation meet in homes, in office buildings, in strip malls and in churches. Our church rented out the local high school auditorium on several occasions for Easter or Christmas pageants, and also just for a large church service. Fortunately, we were treated as citizens of our community, rather than outcasts.

Under your logic, we should have been prevented from using the only nearby auditorium large enough to house us for these events. That would have been wrong.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 22, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #183210

Jeeze, this thread has certainly become wacky since I last read it!

Lawnboy, good posts as usual. LOL! Scottie and Talondegado are the same person!

phx8, glad you liked my link. Yes, a little bit of historical perspective is such an important thing to keep in mind. :^)
You wrote:
“Let us see if anyone can disprove your link to Mediamatters, or impeach their credibility with actual evidence.”

No one has.

“I had a lot of fun providing evidence in the previous thread. The link was to a right wing resource which has previously been caught plagiarizing a satirical article from “The Onion” and presenting it as news. It does not get much funnier than that!”

:^D No it really doesn’t! That’s priceless.

Roger, jbod,
American tax dollars pay for our libraries. Why exactly should American tax payers want our libraries to be turned into churches? These people can use their own private properties for their services until they can afford to rent or buy themselves a permanent place to worship, right?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 22, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #183212

How is it “turning” the library into a church?
Does the library turn into a sex house by allowing sex-addict meetings?
Does it turn into a racial orginization by allowing the naacp to hold meetings there?
Does it turn into a man hating org by allowing NOW to have meetings there?
NO!
Its a public building that the public should be allowed to use as it wishes. Neither the library nor govt is endorsing anything that goes on there.
Christians pay taxes too you know.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #183213

kctim-

I think the government is rightfully more concerned with their library funds (tax money) being used to ensure there is a quiet place to read and check out books (ie. library) than they are making sure there is a sufficient meeting place for community groups to meet and be loud. Seems like common sense. The public library should be, first and foremost, a public library.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 22, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #183214

kctim,
I don’t want my tax dollars going to pay for the place where any of those organizations will meet. I’d like to see libraries using spare rooms for more shelves full of books, or for banks of computers, or as places where little kids can have stories read to them. In other words, I want my tax dollars going make sure that a library will remain a library.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 22, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #183215

Thats fine with me Kevin. But if you allow one group to hold meetings there, you have to allow others.
In small towns, the library is sometimes the best place to hold larger meetings.
I know our library has allowed the Scouts to hold meetings, the African-American..Irish-American etc… groups to hold meetings and so on. Even though I disagree with those kinds of groups 100%, I do not believe I should trample their rights to stop them from meeting.

You either make it a library and a library only or you allow ALL groups the same opportunity to have their meetings there.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #183218

kctim:

But of course!!

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 22, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #183220

Got to love it. The dems who always rally around polls now say polls are of no account. Well here are the favorables for bush from the latest polls (source polling report.com) L.A. Times/Bloomberg 9/16-19/06 45% , CBS/New York Times 9/15-19/06 37 %,USA Today/Gallup 9/15-17/06 44 %,FOX/Opinion Dynamics LV 9/12-13/06 40 %, AP-Ipsos * 9/11-13/06 39 %,NBC/Wall Street Journal RV
9/8-11/06 42 %,Gallup 9/7-10/06 39 %,Pew 9/6-10/06 37 %, ABC 9/5-7/06 42 %,CNN 8/30 - 9/2/06 41 %. Notice how few are in the upper 30% range? Most are in the 40 - 45% range. See what never fails to happen every election cycle is the dems HAVE to stand for something after labor day when they hit the campaign trail. The dems do well bashing bush and republicans all year up to when they have to show thier hand and play thier cards. The american people then see the dems have no plan. You gotta love it.

Posted by: scar at September 22, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #183221

kctim,

Then would you say that if a library allows a book club to meet that should have to also allow punk bands to use their rooms for practice?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 22, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #183222

kctim,
During the hours that my tax dollars pay to keep the library open, and pay the librarian and janitors salaries, and go toward the purchase of books and materials for the library, I want the library to be exactly that. However, if any kind of group, including religious groups, want to meet in that space after library hours, then I don’t have a problem with it at all. Of course, I don’t think it’s too much to ask them to shell out some sort of a nominal fee to pay to keep the lights on, and to have a janitor to clean up after them.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 22, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #183223

Adrienne
I agree. But some library’s give groups the opportunity to reserve rooms to use for their meetings. It is one of the few taxpayer funded things that is actually for the taxpayers, so I don’t really mind them allowing “public” meetings there too much as long as ALL groups are given equal access.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #183224

LB
If the band is willing to comply with the rules and regulations of the library, then of course they should be allowed to meet there too.

I wouldn’t think too many people would disagree with you on that Adrienne.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #183225

So, what if the rule is no loud music? Would that be acceptable?

If so, would it be acceptable to tell a religious group that they could use the library for Bible study but not for worship services?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 22, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #183228

“I don’t really mind them allowing “public” meetings there too much as long as ALL groups are given equal access”

Hmmm. Lawnboy mentioned punk bands — I’m now wondering if maybe my husbands instrumental surf band can now start using the Berkeley Public Library as their practice pad — for free! As it is now, the four members have to shell out two hundred and fifty bucks a month for the tiniest of rooms located in a warehouse district in West Oakland — that they actually share with a punk band that pays the same amount. Be nice if they could really spread out — hey, and with all the chairs and tables, we could even invite all our friends to come watch them practice! And if the wonderful sound of Fender Jaguar’s plugged into vintage Fender reverbs and played through Fender amps bothers anyone trying to read, I can just tell them that we have just as much right to be there as the Sex-addicts or the Christians!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 22, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #183231

LB
It depends what worship services are.
What your digging for is wrong my friend, the group was not denied because they were too loud, they were banned because of the subject.
The noise factor was just a sidenote.

Judge Paez: preventing the room from being “transformed into an occasional house of worship”

Deputy County Counsel Kelly Flanagan: “the county was concerned that allowing prayer services in a public building would amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion”

It was not about the “noise,” it was about the war on the Christian religion and this “seperation of church state means freedom FROM religion” myth thats going on.

Now, IF the noise is disruptive, does the library have the right to ask them to quiet down? Yes.
If they don’t quiet down, does the library have the right to ban that group? Yes.

But that is not what this case was all about. Paez and Flanagan told what the real intention was.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #183233

kctim,

How do you know that? Both issues are mentioned, and both are plausible.

I guess you just know.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 22, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #183234

Yes, when your wrong and you know it, bring out the extremes of the issue to cloud the underlying truth.
You take the Christian religion out of the picture and you guys would be screaming about the groups rights being violated. Especially if it was a minority group.
Glad to see nothing has changed in the week and a half I was gone.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #183235

kctim,

I’m glad that you continue to see issues however you want to see them, independent of the facts.

How’s the “racist” school board doing, by the way?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 22, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #183237

Lawnboy:
“I’m glad that you continue to see issues however you want to see them, independent of the facts.”

Spot on. He also ignored everything that I just said. I told him point blank that I didn’t think ANY group should have the right to take over the library when tax dollars are paying to support it and keep it open, but he now has to overlook what I said in order to try to dole out yet another slap.
And he couldn’t even see the humor in my last post — or the obvious kernel of truth lodged within it.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 22, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #183238

No LB, I don’t “just know,” I read the story.

“Library’s ban on prayer service upheld on appeal”

Does it say ban on noise caused by prayer service? Nope.
So tell me, if this case was only about “noise,” why doesnt Flanagan say so?

The “noise” issue was barely mentioned while the freedom from religion issue is at the forefront.
Both may be “plausible” but, in their own words, Paez and Flanagan clearly laid out their motive.

Because noise had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #183239

Again, the decision didn’t ban religious meetings, just religious worship services, which often implies music.

The decision didn’t ban religious meetings.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree, just like I disagree that neutrality is equivalent to declared war.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 22, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #183241

You also ignore that Paez said “The county has a legitimate interest in … excluding meeting room activities that may interfere with the library’s primary function as a sanctuary for reading, writing and quiet contemplation.” Was that inconvenient for your interpretation?

Anyway, I’m done on this topic, I think.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 22, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #183243

LB
Rather than only accepting the independent facts that you agree with, you should look at all the facts.

Oh, and from what I have read (I no longer live in greater KC, care about my kids too much) being of a certain race doesn’t automatically mean your resume goes into the trash can so much anymore. They have had some changes. Still a mess though.

And Adrienne
“He also ignored everything that I just said. I told him point blank that I didn’t think ANY group should have the right to take over the library when tax dollars are paying to support it and keep it open,”

So, by agreeing with you, I ignored you. Ok.

“but he now has to overlook what I said in order to try to dole out yet another slap”

Or did I overlook you when I agreed with you?

“And he couldn’t even see the humor in my last post — or the obvious kernel of truth lodged within it”

Thats because it wasn’t that humorous really.
You want to equate Christians praying to the noise produced by a band and its just not the same thing.

There also was no attempt at a “slap.”
The 9th has made, yet another, bad decision and rather than side with an “evil Christian” group, you would rather trivialize the meaning of the decision.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #183244

Regarding the whole library thing… why is this even a partisan issue? The group was not using the library as a mere meeting place, they were using it to host worship services. Translating that into more common language, they were using the Library itself *as* their Church. This would have freed them for paying for the space and upkeep of an actual Church by foisting the bill off on the taxpaying public, essentially causing the funding for the Library to directly subsidize a particular religion. How can any conservative be in favor of that?

Posted by: Jarin at September 22, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #183245

“Again, the decision didn’t ban religious meetings, just religious worship services, which often implies music.”

Well, they can worship all they want—but if I have to hear “Amazing Grace” one more time, there’s going to be trouble.:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 22, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #183247

Kctim-

Relax champ. I read it and immediately thought about disruption being a possibility in the library’s decision. Then I kept reading to see that it was precisely the reason given. What is your problem with it again? Because there is a possibility that someone, somewhere along the road influenced the decision based on religous intollerance? Sounds like you are reaching, and doing so on shaky evidence (its not even hearsay, it’s pure speculation).

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 22, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #183248

“…if I have to hear “Amazing Grace” one more time, there’s going to be trouble”

Exactly! I’m good about finding the redeeming qualities in most things. But I really can’t take church choirs. Sorry to all the really nice people who participate in them, but I put them on the same level as the elementary school marching bands’ renditions of the Star Spangled Bannor on Parent-Teacher night.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 22, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #183250

Kevin
Reaching? Shaky evidence? Speculation?
Which part of the story is based on those?

“Deputy County Counsel Kelly Flanagan said the county was concerned that allowing prayer services in a public building would amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion”

“The county initially banned all religious activities in the rooms”

When I HEARD about it, I too figured it was because of the noise. But when you read the story, it was because of the religion.

And “relax Champ?”
I’m hardly worked up with this. I just find it amusing to watch people think one thing is fine for one group but not for another. Especially when they proclaim they are for ALL.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #183256

kctim:
“Yes, when your wrong and you know it, bring out the extremes of the issue to cloud the underlying truth.”
“You want to equate Christians praying to the noise produced by a band and its just not the same thing.”

In a library, noise is noise. Doesn’t matter whether it’s a sermon, a choir singing or a band (like my husbands) playing. If noise is allowed, it’s no longer a place to read and study — no longer a library — but a meeting hall being funded by our tax dollars.

“You take the Christian religion out of the picture and you guys would be screaming about the groups rights being violated. Especially if it was a minority group.”

I thought that the “you guys” was being directed to both Lawnboy and myself, but now you say:

“Or did I overlook you when I agreed with you?”

I don’t care whether it’s a religious group or the sex addicts, or whoever, when they cease quietly dispensing or discussing information such as studying the Bible, or books that might help people overcome sex addiction, or whatever the topic, and instead start holding participatory group meetings in the library for their organization, then they are basically making the taxpayers fund their organization. I think that’s wrong and waste of our tax dollars that were earmarked for a public library.

Jarin:
“Regarding the whole library thing… why is this even a partisan issue? The group was not using the library as a mere meeting place, they were using it to host worship services. Translating that into more common language, they were using the Library itself *as* their Church. This would have freed them for paying for the space and upkeep of an actual Church by foisting the bill off on the taxpaying public, essentially causing the funding for the Library to directly subsidize a particular religion. How can any conservative be in favor of that?”

Exactly. This is just how I think what that group was doing should be viewed — and obviously, the court agreed.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 22, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #183266

Joe-
I think you’re splitting hairs on the public setting thing. We both know we’re talking about a facility run by the state, as opposed to the public space of the community

If you had held your mentioned meeting in a City Hall Auditorium on a scheduled basis, I would consider that a violation. But in the park, as long as you don’t create a public disturbance, I have no problem.

The problem you have with renting a school out is what happens if some wierd-ass cult decides to try and rent the place for the same purposes. Then the Government gets into the tricky and likely unconstitutional business of deciding what’s religion and what’s not.

The conservatives in this country are far too paranoid about the liberals, far too paranoid about those who do not share their religion.

If they are dissatisfied about all this, maybe our two side should talk and work out some sort of reasonable, constitutional compromise.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #183267

SE-
One more thing: Bush is not getting that much credit for dropping gas prices because he is perceived as responsible for their rise. It’s sort of like you don’t give credit for somebody rolling the car off your dog when they rolled the car over it in the first place.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #183276

I’m amazed! A quick run-through of these posts show Republicans going ape-shit because the current resident of the White House has an approval rating in the low 40% range. Clinton was above 60% while ya all were impeaching him!

Posted by: mark at September 22, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #183291

I think bush shoutd get the credit for gas prices after all there is an election in 46 days its all politics.

Posted by: Jeff at September 22, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #183355

Presidents don’t control gasoline prices. Market forces do. That said, the recent spike and subsequent fall were brought about by natural causes and speculation. Most americans are ignorant when it comes to economics, so this poll just confirms that. The only thing Mr. Bush has done is take away the restraints of overtaxation and allowed the economy to run itself. As for the war on terror, Mr. Bush said after 9/11 that we were in a war that could take decades. That said, America has become a fat lazy indecisive group of whiners. We reek of weakness, and nothing interests bullies more than the smell of weakness. The WW2 generation just shakes their heads in disbelief at our indifference.

Posted by: Ed at September 22, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #183380

Adrienne,

I don’t want my tax dollars paying checks to welfare bums,abortions for welfare bums, medical care for welfare bums,or any other way the government wipes the butts of the lazy either, but there’s obviously little I can do about it.

Posted by: Duane-o at September 23, 2006 1:09 AM
Comment #183424

Ed But as you know by keeping republicans in power the oil companys will still get there big tax breaks and subs. Not so with Dems.

Posted by: Jeff at September 23, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #183430

That might be true. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the price of gasoline.

Posted by: Ed at September 23, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #183465

My Name Is Roger:

For all of you who looked into the matter of the FIRST ATMENOMENT - RELIGIOUS SPEECH and POLITICAL SPEECH. THANK YOU ! !

And for all of the coments and information. THANK YOU!

I am going to get my son or my son-in-law to down load the information, and sent it to the people that sent me the E-MAIL. I would do it myself — but —- I am not that good at that kind of thing

Again thank you!

ROGER A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at September 23, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #183614
One more thing: Bush is not getting that much credit for dropping gas prices …Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2006 06:16 PM
Have you seen this?

-dave

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 24, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #183754

Scottie:
“According to Gallup, on the eve of President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination, he was suffering the WORST JOB APROVAL RATING of his presidency — 58 percent.

Look and see if that happens to be true then see if you can find anymore inaccuracies!”

Just for the hell of it, I went and looked:
National Geographic said: Even while president, his approval ratings only once dropped below 60 percent.

While USAToday verified the claim:
John Kennedy Nov. 1963 58% Killed Nov. 22, 1963

No one else has found any other inaccuracies, Scottie. Would you care to try another?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 25, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #183766

Adrienne,

I found a lot more detailed data on Kennedy’s approval ratings. Basically, Scottie’s right, but just barely. Kennedy’s last approval rating of 58% was his second worst; he’d polled at 56% a month earlier.

So, MediaMatters was technically wrong, but the general point they were making (that Bush’s rating are astonishingly and historically low) is still correct.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 25, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #183799

Thanks Lawnboy. What’s interesting about that is that the Roper Center is affiliated with the Gallup organization, and yet the article claimed to be “according to Gallup”. I was going to try to find that info, but to do so, I’d have to pay Gallup a fee. Since it isn’t that important, and since I know the Roper Center is a reputable source, I won’t bother.
Anyway, when your wrong you’re wrong — and that goes for Eric Boehlert, and Gallup, and National Geographic, and Me.
So, sorry Scottie — you were right, and I was wrong.
Still, it would have been nice if you had been the one to give out a link to that 56% rating, thereby saving Lawnboy and I (or anyone else) a few minutes of searching. Guess it was just a whole lot easier to imply that Media Matters always attempts to lie outrageously, rather than tell us that the article was off by a couple of points?

Any other inaccuracies you’ve found? Let me know — seriously.
I’ve always considered Boehlert a good writer and an honest one, but I don’t want to link to him again if he isn’t being careful about his factchecking.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 25, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #185101

Duane-o,

I don’t want my tax dollars paying checks to welfare bums,abortions for welfare bums, medical care for welfare bums,or any other way the government wipes the butts of the lazy either, but there’s obviously little I can do about it.

Now that’s a very lame excuse. You *could* do much about it. Engage in politic. Get elected. Then change your country as you want it.
Stop being a lazy ass waiting after others to do your job for you.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 12:57 PM
Post a comment