Third Party & Independents: Archives

David,

Good post with some good insights and questions. Why has it taken Bush 7 years to do what needed to be done from day 1? Of all the elected offices in this country, the Presidency is the one that needs to be the most transparent. Of course, there are going to be times when the President cannot be totally open and honest, but hose times are mostly in the case of a declared war or other national emergency.

My personal belief is that Bush ha spent the past seven years advancing a personal agenda related to Gulf War 1. A psychologist or psychiatrist might look at the present debacle in Iraq as an attempt to outdo Daddy by a child who has never known true succes. The only problem is that there was no planning done for after the war was won(the ouster and capture of Husseian) The war was won when that happened. But there was no exit strategy or plan for Iraq’s transistion to a new form of government.

I see the new initiative as too little way too late to salvage this presidency from the bottom level of governance.

David,

Perhaps what we are seeing is a last desperate move by the Republican party to salvage what they can, just in time for the campaign for President.

OG,

But the Gulf War was a rousing success from beginning to end, and it is quite apparent that GW learned nothing from those successes on how to run a war.
I find it curious that GW assembled virtually everybody involved in Daddy’s war, but only was able to come up with the results we have today.

While you may be right that such a system would have been a good idea from day one of the Bush administration, no such system was in place because previous administrations never implemented it either. If a Walmart manager would have done it, it’s funny that no US Presidents did. That is, unless there are other reasons.

What it really sounds like is adding an additional layer of administrative red-tape to agencies whose goals and functions are pretty-well defined by other means, and whose actions are already being evaluated and scrutinized by everybody from the administration to the specific congressional committees whose job it is to oversee them.

Perhaps it’s a good idea to have this additional layer of bureaucracy, but it seems odd to condemn George Bush, the first president to do it, for not doing it on the first day of his administration.

Loyal Opp, don’t read much history on presidencies, do you? What Bush is now ordering be done, have been done in nearly all previous presidencies within their first 6 months: “requires agency heads to set goals, develop ways to measure progress, use performance data in budget requests”.

The process begins prior to the Inauguration Speech, as the President defines for it, and first State of the Union address, what agency goals are to be, develop methods to measure progress, and by the second year of the administration, use performance data in budget requests.

FDR’s administration made tremendous use of these, as did the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, and Reagan administrations. Of course, they didn’t have the number or level of incompetency as heads of their agencies as Pres. Bush has. Rumsfeld’s trimming of the military in the face of an invasion and occupation of a foreign nation is but one of many examples of Bush’s appointed incompetents, resulting in objectives in opposition to other objectives, and disorganization and lack of control and accountability that ensues. Brownie as FEMA head was another. Ashcroft’s attempts to make the Justice Dep’t. an arm of the church, was yet another.

You have to go back to Polk and Grant to find such incompetence in leadership, organization, and accountability in an administration.

I do agree that the Clinton Administration got off to a poor organizational start in his first term. Incredible delays in appointments to agencies, complete lack of research and testing of the political atmosphere for the Universal Health Care attempt, etc. But, by his second inaugural, his administration was vastly more competent, organized, and accountable than Bush’s is here in his second to last year in office.

Loyal Opp, don’t read much history on presidencies, do you? What Bush is now ordering be done, have been done in nearly all previous presidencies within their first 6 months: “requires agency heads to set goals, develop ways to measure progress, use performance data in budget requests”.

Really, David? So may I ask what presidential histories YOU’VE been reading if you believe that nearly all previous presidents have mandated that each agency come up with a website and appoint a “performance review officer?”

You are confusing the means with the goals here, a basic logical error. Since the administration has come up with a novel new system, you’re pretending that this is the first time any of these matters have been addressed. Either that or you haven’t bothered to familiarize yourself with the articles you’re linking to.

If your local firehouse bought a new fire engine, would assume that it had never occurred to them before that their job was to put out fires? Perhaps it would, if you could somehow blame a Republican for something—even something totally illogical.

Loyal Opp, brush up on reading skills too! Because I never said or implied that previous presidents set up websites.

I said by exact quote: “What Bush is now ordering be done, have been done in nearly all previous presidencies within their first 6 months: requires agency heads to set goals, develop ways to measure progress, use performance data in budget requests.”

NOTE THE ABSENCE of any reference to website postings. That technology wasn’t available to Agencies prior to the Bush Admin.

Therefore, the rest of your comment’s illogical diatribe makes no sense to me. FDR’s administration coined the “First 100 days”, and every president since has used emulated in part, that first 100 days in establishing agencies organizational schemas, goals and objectives. And later in their administration, the measures by which progress on goals are reached or not.

It is taught in nearly all graduate MBA executive management courses. You know, the one’s Bush slept through. Bush’s strategy, as has been widely written about, was to appoint loyalists, regardless of other qualifications or organizational experience, or lack thereof.

But cheer up, almost 7 years later, Bush is finally soaking up some OJT learning.

David,

“NOTE THE ABSENCE of any reference to website postings. That technology wasn’t available to Agencies prior to the Bush Admin.”

I’m sure you knew this, but the first White House website was launched by Clinton/Gore in 1994, so the technology was available, but they probably didn’t want to spend the money to exploit it.

Rocky, the technology was available to the government to install, but, the budgets for agency implementation of it was not available for most agencies until the very end of the 1990’s, and far more so after 9/11.

Rocky, the technology was available to the government to install, but, the budgets for agency implementation of it was not available for most agencies until the very end of the 1990’s, and far more so after 9/11.

Do you even any evidence whatsoever for ANY of these claims?

That there was the technology but no budgets for them until the late nineties? That the budgets for implementing these technologies had anything to do with and/or increased after 9-11?

I’d like to see even a scrap of evidence for such claims. Or if not, an admission that you are stating as facts things which you hope are true in order to prevent your argument from completely crumbling.

LO,

David’s point is that Mr. Bush now is actually beginning to manage, and require accountability. This was done by virtually every President before him soon after they took office.
Clinton did take a lot of heat for his disorganization during his first term, but had things well in hand (no pun intended) before the start of his second term. The same cannot be said
of Mr. Bush.

Let me put it this way;
Imagine a Chinese fire drill, now take a hard look at this administration.
Please don’t tell me you don’t see any similarities.

The point that the Internet, websites, and e-mail, are now being involved is moot as the technology really didn’t exist before Clinton put up the first White House website in 1994, and even though the technology did exist after that, funding for the technology wasn’t readily available to all government agencies until the late ’90s.

Loyal Opp, last I checked, I have not received any checks from you to hire me as your personal tutor or research assistant. I spend considerable time and attention to such things in general and know where to find the resources for rebuttal or an article.

But, if you want knowledge on these matters, seek it as I have. If you want to refute my claims, by all means, research it and provide those resources. If I am verifiably wrong in my timeline, I will be pleased to thank you for educating me on my errors. I am wrong in my recollections from time to time, and even err in my understanding of new materials. I am not above learning by any means. Learning is what my whole life has been about.

David, in other words, you made up facts to suit your argument. And how that you’ve been called on it, you take this whole Who-are-you-to-correct-me? and I-can’t-be-bothered to provide evidence line.

I’d suggest that you should be one to do research before holding forth an subjects you are clearly not educated on.

When you have the most corrupt Administration in U.S. history, the very last thing that such aan administration wants is good records keeping and accountability. Now that the rats have devoured or spoiled most of what the can and most of them have abandoned the ship, why not clean things up some. And, as everyone knows, there is much to clean up. Millions of crony deal docucments need to be destroyed and many hard drives need to be replaced.

What a fallacious comment to make. Obviously, you have never heard of Warren G. Harding, And numerous other scandals of previous presidents. I certainly would like to see the direct evidence with regard to all this corruption you speak about. A mistake doesn’t always equate to corruption.

Loyal Opp said: “David, in other words, you made up facts to suit your argument.”

No, I reported facts I have read and run across. Refute them, if you can. You can’t. Ah, well.!

David, your claims HAVE been refuted, by myself and others, and it was very easy to do so because they bear no relation to reality. You can ask others to research and disprove facts that YOU alone seem to believe and claim to have read somewhere, but that doesn’t make your argument look very convincing at all.

I’ve participated enough in these debates here to know that it’s fairly routine to ask for links, evidence, or facts when somebody makes a controversial claim. That you refuse to do so now reflects on the weakness of your arguments and suggests that you cannot supply such evidence because none exists.

You said that the government lacked the technology to create websites like this before the late nineties, but Rocky pointed out that the White House had a website up and running in 1994. You went on to say that there was no budget for such technologies until an increase after 9-11. Again, with no evidence but your own memory.

But I say you’re wrong, that these claims fly in the face of the known facts (including the fact that there were tons of government websites beside the White House’s up and running well before Bush came into office).

I see that you’ve dug in and don’t expect you to concede any facts that disprove your own positions, even very well established facts, but I know that others are reading and hope that they will notice what’s going on here and dismiss your unsubstantiated, unsupported, and completely false claims.

Loyal Opp, blah blah blah, and still you produce nothing in the way of resources and or links or citations to make your case. That’s fine. I have given you opinion what it deserves. And you mine. But, there has been no evidence whatsoever given to refute my assertions. And it appears obvious why.

Loyal Opp, your reading and recitation abilities are in serious doubt. You said to me: “You said that the government lacked the technology to create websites like this before the late nineties,”

Please point out by quoting me where I said that. I never said that and I defy you again to refute my claim that what you are saying is wrong, because you are wrong, and the record of what I said is right here in the comments for all to see.

What I said and these are exact quotes: “That technology wasn’t available to Agencies prior to the Bush Admin. (PLEASE note the word Agencies. I even capitalized it to emphasize it.) The technology was available to the general public and government but Congress and the Executive had not authorized funding for these to most of the Agencies.

And in response to Rocky I said: “Rocky, the technology was available to the government to install, but, the budgets for agency implementation of it was not available for most agencies until the very end of the 1990’s, and far more so after 9/11.”

And now you come along, despite the record of what I have said, and make the untrue claim to me: “You said that the government lacked the technology to create websites like this before the late nineties.” Your comment is either a lie, or indicative of erroneous reading of what I said.

I was the owner and operator of a pay BBS in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, and I have followed and been involved with websites in one fashion or another ever since.

For your most desperately needed education on the subject:

In 1994, the NSFNet, now renamed ANSNET (Advanced Networks and Services) and allowing non-profit corporations access, lost its standing as the backbone of the Internet. Both government institutions and competing commercial providers created their own backbones and interconnections. Regional network access points (NAPs) became the primary interconnections between the many networks and the final commercial restrictions ended.

The entire backbone of the government internet was created from 1994 through 1997. Without the backbone, there was no government internet available to the general public via government web sites prior to this time.

As of Sept. 2000, there were only 36 federal government web sites in existence, as reported by Darrell West of Brown Univ. said in his comprehensive research entitled: Assessing E-Government: The Internet, Democracy, and Service Delivery by State and Federal Governments, and in which he said: “e-government is still in its infancy”.

Since, 2000, that number of 36 has grown to now hundreds of federal government web sites. Making my claim that the technology was not available to Agencies of the federal government prior to the late 1990’s and most of the growth of federal government web sites occurred after 9/11, historically correct and factual.

Now refute this information with resources of your own. I know you won’t, because you can’t rewrite history with credible resources. Enjoy your loss of this debate. ;-)

“You said that the government lacked the technology to create websites like this before the late nineties.” Your comment is either a lie, or indicative of erroneous reading of what I said.

But earlier you wrote:

NOTE THE ABSENCE of any reference to website postings. That technology wasn’t available to Agencies prior to the Bush Admin.

And now:

The entire backbone of the government internet was created from 1994 through 1997. Without the backbone, there was no government internet available to the general public via government web sites prior to this time.

Bush assumed office, in case you have forgotten, in 2001. Therefore saying that the technology wasn’t available until the Bush administration is false according to your own timeline. But honestly, I give up. If you see debating as “winning” or “losing” instead of getting to the truth, I can’t expect too much.

“agency heads to set goals” way to go Brownie

“develop ways to measure progress” lead tainted toys and meatpackers gone ecoli, excellent progress

“use performance data in budget requests” a doubling of the national debt, truely remarkable performance

Thank you Loyal Opp for begging off. It is the appropriate thing to do when one’s position is no longer tenable. Winning a debate is ALL about getting the facts and record straight and an appropriate understanding voiced for all to see.

I enjoyed watching your comments anticipate my inability to back to my claims. The more I delayed, the more sure your comments became that they were winning the debate on offensive tactics alone, as opposed to fact and record. Only to be dashed when fact and record were proffered.

I trust it is a debate trap your comments will avoid in the future. There really is no substitute for fact and record in a public debate. I did caution you to research the facts and record yourself before walking into this debate trap.

Yet, you persist in making more false claims as to what was said when you claim I said: “Therefore saying that the technology wasn’t available until the Bush administration is false according to your own timeline.”

I never said the technology wasn’t available until the Bush Administration. Those are your words. Not mine. What I actually said was: “the technology was available to the government to install, but, the budgets for agency implementation of it was not available for most agencies until the very end of the 1990’s, and far more so after 9/11.”

Clearly, my words indicate the technology WAS available prior to the Bush Administration. But, you now try to claim I said the technology wasn’t. If misrepresenting what others say is your only debate tactic, your comments will continue to be proved false and their credibility ever more suspect.

Ever hear the rant threatening to sue George? I gave it to CNN and I think they hosted it awhile ago. Check the url to download. Long and worth a listen. Here it is.