Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
*Bilmore, this is your cue to take the moral high ground and defend Chelsea so that you can claim that your hatred of Clinton is not based on partisanship, KWIM ?

There was not enough Glenfiddich in the whole of my home to induce me to enter into this particular round of posting.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or maybe it's what we get for taking away Texas and California. It's not like Mexico has a new-found hatred for American soccer.

Absolutely! I am always surprised that so many people just seem to expect Mexico to just looove the U.S. (as they expect with all of Latin America). I guess lots of folks are too historically ignorant to understand that about 150 years ago, we stole about 25% of our land mass (and about 33% of Mexico's) from them at gunpoint. (It included some of the nicer parts too, along with the deserts.) That's bound to irk them.

Although, it is worth pointing out, a la Bilmore's new paradigm of foreign policy, that said bitch-slapping has discouraged them from bothering us since, excpet for that minor unpleasantness with Mr. Villa.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I guess lots of folks are too historically ignorant to understand that about 150 years ago, we stole about 25% of our land mass (and about 33% of Mexico's) from them at gunpoint. (It included some of the nicer parts too, along with the deserts.) That's bound to irk them.

If what you say is true, people in Mexico should spend less time living in the past and more time living in the present. They have a lot of problems in that country that need solving and stewing over something that happened long ago isn't going to help to solve them. Despite what Bustamonte and the racist organization he belonged to in college wanted, they ain't getting that land back.

It is time to move on Mexico.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I hate to say it, but that was my impression too. Tim Russert kept throwing charts and accusations and pointed questions at him, and his one-line answers were a.) often poorly worded, phrased, thought-out and b.) more often poorly delivered.

Wow, do you really think so? That is interesting (not sarcastic). I actually logged on to post that although I'm sure crackpots around the greater Berkeley area were as pissed as I was during some of the things he said, Bush's supporters would find much to like during that speech. I thought he was shooting for a message to the base that he was still the responsible man of action he's always been, but that he doesn't get caught up in the parsing of words that the media for some reason wants to force him engage in.

In other words, I thought it was a politically savvy move at a rough time in his presidency/campaign. But maybe it's rougher than I thought. Not that you're a typical GWB base supporter, but I would have thought a Hannibal Smith-type like yourself would have liked that vibe.

There were a few good core ideas in there, but they got buried in the incoherence. For example, (paraphrasing) "I'm not going to change based on polls", "I'm not talking about Skull and Bones because its a secret society", "sometimes people don't like those people/nations who are doing what needs to be done because they falsely blame the problem-solver as the problem-creator" etc.... But fuck, this guy (and most politicians) should not give unscripted interviews if they hope to come out looking good, unless they completely anticipate the expected questions and answers. The stuff about the budget was the worst part, though the stuff about tax cuts sounded like an excellent defense.

Hello

I missed the good tax cut justification, but I was probably predisposed not to hear that one. For general funniness I enjoyed his "It's OK to beat on me, that's politics, but I pity the fool that denigrates the National Guard" riff. For general annoyingness my favorite was this one:

Russert: But your base conservatives and listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, they're all saying you are the biggest spender in American history.

President Bush: Well, they're wrong.

Russert: Mr. President

President Bush: If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.

...when the actual annual growth in discretionary outlays was for the last two years was 13% and 12%, both of which were greater than the same percentage for any single Clinton year.
(Ty I would be forever grateful if you could help a technically illiterate brother out and put this table into this post but if not you can click here to see a graph the Heritage foundation put together on this:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Bud...m&PageID=53575)

Although it's technically true they're declining I'm not sure that is really relevant. And although Russert cites the Heritage Foundation as critical of the admin on this one I guess I'm more confident that their numerical anlysis than in GWB's. I would welcome someone showing me where Bush's statement was derived from, if not these numbers.

In other news, the Simpsons and Curb Your Enthusiasm were awesome tonight. That is all.

[eta Thanks, Ty.]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
(Ty I would be forever grateful if you could help a technically illiterate brother out and put this table into this post but if not you can click here to see a graph the Heritage foundation put together on this:

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
[chart]

How did they define discretionary?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
In other news, the Simpsons and Curb Your Enthusiasm were awesome tonight. That is all.

[eta Thanks, Ty.]

We're so caught up in the HBO stuff being big ticket on sunday, that I keep forgetting to watch the Simpson's. Curb was very very good. I love when Larry realizes he's fucked and just throws in the towel............

[andViolins]

How weird is this story?

Pilot reportedly promoted Christianity on flight

(CNN) -- American Airlines is investigating reports that a pilot asked passengers to identify themselves as Christians so non-Christians on board could talk to them about their faith, a spokesman has said.

Spokesman Tim Kincaid said on Sunday the incident reportedly happened Friday on Flight 34 from Los Angeles, California, to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City.

"It is under investigation," Kincaid said. "We've had some complaints about it."

Kincaid said the pilot, whose name was not released, reportedly asked Christian passengers to raise their hands before suggesting that the other passengers should discuss Christianity with those passengers.

The pilot, who had just returned from a mission to Costa Rica, reportedly said he would be available at the end of the flight for further discussion, Kincaid said.

"We're investigating to learn the facts," Kincaid said. "That would be against our policy if it did happen."

The pilot was not scheduled to fly during the weekend, the airline said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/02/08...ity/index.html

aV

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

See Club! --

That's precisely why you should want a Democratic President and a hostile Republican Congress.

You won't get the judges you want, but the President won't be able to spend the money the Dems. want.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
See Club! --

That's precisely why you should want a Democratic President and a hostile Republican Congress.

You won't get the judges you want, but the President won't be able to spend the money the Dems. want.

S_A_M

We can't have a Democrat President anytime soon. what we need if for you guys to win back a few Senate seats, but last time I looked, it seemed you are more likely to lose a few more.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not sure if anybody else caught this, but his performance was one of the worst I have ever seen by a publicly elected offical. Just abysmal. He was completely incoherent. Someone needs to give a wake up call to the White House if they don't want the election to be a completel blow out.

Agreed here as well. He is unable to put together a paragraph of thought in speech. One sentence? Perhaps. But he'd immediately get off track or onto some irrelevant side point. And it was not just bobbing and weaving, because it's not like the other points were non-answers. They were incoherent irrelevancies.

As for Russert, I would say he was definitely easier on Bush than most guests in two ways. 1) He let Bush continue, rather than interjecting, which is understandably respectful. 2) He did not ask the tough follow-up like he usually does, which suggests kid gloves. He did not follow the usual Russert model of question; non-answer; repeated, more pointed question; follow-up answer more to the point or repeated dodge (when Russert drops, leaving non-answer to be replayed on nightly news).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I keep forgetting to watch the Simpson's.

Heathen!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by andViolins
How weird is this story?

Pilot reportedly promoted Christianity on flight

I would not enjoy a flight piloted by a man who was busy telling me how much better heaven would be than my present life.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
I would not enjoy a flight piloted by a man who was busy telling me how much better heaven would be than my present life.

never flew Egypt air?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
never flew Egypt air?

Heh. I want my pilot firmly convinced that death is final, and horrible.