A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
whereas Webb was the cool mature one, only confessing his internal feelings to a newspaper.

The story says that someone else was the source, but never let the facts tie you down, Hank. They hinder your style.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The story says that someone else was the source, but never let the facts tie you down, Hank. They hinder your style.

say we meet someday........ you ask how I'm enjoying the board (you know a personal kind of thing) and I respond "I'd enjoy it more if you step down". (you know a political goal I have)

You say "I didn't ask you that." who was rude?

what color is the sky where you live?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
why did he go to the reception then? snacks?

Basically.

My understanding is that it was one of those semi-mandatory events for all incoming members of Congress.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The source I read (Stan Collendar in the National Journal, if I didn't say that before) suggested that it was atypical for the appropriations bills to be punted in this way, and suggested that it would start the next Congress is a particularly contentious way. Perhaps he's wrong on both counts, and it's atypical. I didn't read any Democrats complaining about it.

On contentiousness, he's right, but only because it means the contentiousness starts then, rather than now. I can't imagine how one could sensibly conduct a meaningful budget debate during a true lame duck session. The dems., who would not have the majority, would be squawking to have their priorities put in, and the Rs would be saying why, we still have the majority?

As for whether it's typical or atypical, one would have to go back and look at how long it took for budgets to get passed in election years when there is a change of party control in either Congress or the Presidency. I don't have the time to do that, but I'm reasonably sure it has happened before in recent years.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When you're hosting a party, you don't say "FU" to the guests. But I'm not up on my Beltway protocol -- maybe Webb's refusal to wait in the receiving line was a provocation.

I have a hard time imagining a way of saying what Bush said that doesn't leave him sounding like a jackass, but maybe I have a limited imagination.

The response by each person was an example of alpha-male types playing dominance games. I'm sure Bush was taken aback.

[BTW -- A slightly puzzled, polite tone by Bush, as if he truly didn't understand Webb's nonresponse or the point of what he said, would have been appropriate and at least, not jackassian.]

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
say we meet someday........

How are you enjoying the board?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The response by each person was an example of alpha-male types playing dominance games. I'm sure Bush was taken aback.

If I had a child serving in Iraq, and someone asked me how he was doing, I would think it entirely human to say I'd want him or her back home. That's not an alpha-male thing -- what parent would feel differently? And it's not a dominance game, since it acknowledges the fact that Bush, not Webb, is the CIC.

etfg

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If I had a child serving in Iraq, and someone asked me how he was doing, I think it is entirely human to say I'd want him or her back home. That's not an alpha-male thing -- what parent would feel differently? And it's not a dominance game, since it acknowledges the fact that Bush, not Webb, is the CIC.

Please. Bush reportedly can be a twit in such settings (rubbing bald guys on their heads, etc.), but I don't think that he was this time. He was making polite small talk, no different then the way I do with opposing counsel I dislike prior to a hearing. Webb was semi-rude in response, and Bush handled the response with somewhat less grace than he should have. Both of them ended up looking bad.

Here's what should have happened:

"Senator, how's your son?" (Allen practically handed you that seat, you lucky bastard. Macaca, indeed.)

"He's fine, Mr. President, but his mother and I would love to have him home safe and sound. And soon." (You fucked up Iraq, and my boy better not come home in a bag.)

"We all would. Thanks for coming by." (Bite me.)

"Thanks for inviting us." (Back at you.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Please. Bush reportedly can be a twit in such settings (rubbing bald guys on their heads, etc.), but I don't think that he was this time. He was making polite small talk, no different then the way I do with opposing counsel I dislike prior to a hearing. Webb was semi-rude in response, and Bush handled the response with somewhat less grace than he should have. Both of them ended up looking bad.

Here's what should have happened:

"Senator, how's your son?" (Allen practically handed you that seat, you lucky bastard. Macaca, indeed.)

"He's fine, Mr. President, but his mother and I would love to have him home safe and sound. And soon." (You fucked up Iraq, and my boy better not come home in a bag.)

"We all would. Thanks for coming by." (Bite me.)

"Thanks for inviting us." (Back at you.)

When Bush asked about Webb's son, he was trying to make polite small talk. When Webb said that he wanted his son back, he was saying what many parents would say under those circumstances, and a sentiment that I've often heard from people in similar circumstances. The reason you can't say "he's fine," which would be a nice thing to be able to say, is that the family member is in constant risk, and you don't know whether he's fine unless you just talked to him. You spend a lot of time worrying about what's happened since you talked last.

Bush should have said something like, "I'm sure you do," and then he would have pwned Webb and showed some grace.

Webb should not have responded as he did per S_A_M. Apparently he has a temper. Which should be entertaining over the next six years.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The source I read (Stan Collendar in the National Journal, if I didn't say that before) suggested that it was atypical for the appropriations bills to be punted in this way, and suggested that it would start the next Congress is a particularly contentious way. Perhaps he's wrong on both counts, and it's atypical. I didn't read any Democrats complaining about it.

Looking at his column, I think you're extrapolating from a point I don't contest. To be sure, the usual tradition is to get budget bills done before the pre-election recess. The Rs didn't do that, and that reflects poorly on them.

One cannot from that extrapolate anything further about what should be done if they fail in that. Collender doesn't make the point that what they're doing is abnormal once a budget is lacking.

I think you're trying to have it both ways. If the Rs worked on getting the budget bills done now, the Ds would squawk that they ran through a budget with lots of cuts during a lame-duck. And if the Rs don't, they're shirking responsibility. Now, I realize it's a DC parlor game to set up such damned-if-you-do scenarios, but it's not particularly useful beyond entertainment while drinking a nice Zin.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The response by each person was an example of alpha-male types playing dominance games. I'm sure Bush was taken aback.

[BTW -- A slightly puzzled, polite tone by Bush, as if he truly didn't understand Webb's nonresponse or the point of what he said, would have been appropriate and at least, not jackassian.]

S_A_M

fuck Webb. He pulled that shit on me, I'd send his kid on a Saving Private Ryan-style death mission. "Son we need you to go into Iranistan, and steal me the baklava recipe from the Great IAtollie."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Looking at his column, I think you're extrapolating from a point I don't contest. To be sure, the usual tradition is to get budget bills done before the pre-election recess. The Rs didn't do that, and that reflects poorly on them.

One cannot from that extrapolate anything further about what should be done if they fail in that. Collender doesn't make the point that what they're doing is abnormal once a budget is lacking.

I think you're trying to have it both ways. If the Rs worked on getting the budget bills done now, the Ds would squawk that they ran through a budget with lots of cuts during a lame-duck. And if the Rs don't, they're shirking responsibility. Now, I realize it's a DC parlor game to set up such damned-if-you-do scenarios, but it's not particularly useful beyond entertainment while drinking a nice Zin.

In other words, the Rs have shirked their responsibilities for years, so why stop now.

I buy this. That's why the Dems were elected to clean up the mess.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think you're trying to have it both ways. If the Rs worked on getting the budget bills done now, the Ds would squawk that they ran through a budget with lots of cuts during a lame-duck. And if the Rs don't, they're shirking responsibility. Now, I realize it's a DC parlor game to set up such damned-if-you-do scenarios, but it's not particularly useful beyond entertainment while drinking a nice Zin.

I posted about it because it was germane to the question you raised about which issues hit the table first. I took Collender's point to be that these budget issues are going to be presented early, and that they were deferred to permit conservatives to beat up on Dems. You are surely correct that Dems would be unhappy about the particulars if the GOP leadership had dealt with appropriations back before the elections. OTOH, having to make those hard choices might have cost them some votes, too.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought Bush's response ("I didn't ask you that") made him sound like a jackass.

I thought Bush was trying to be nice an cordial by asking about Webb's son. He was trying to smooth things over after the election. All Webb had to do was tell the President how his son was doing and inquire into the well being of Bush's family. Instead Webb used the question to try and make a political point, or get into a political argument. Bush pointed out how inappropriate Webb's comment was. From my perspective, Webb was the clear jerk in this exchange.

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
Basically.

My understanding is that it was one of those semi-mandatory events for all incoming members of Congress.

S_A_M

Didn't former NOI member, now Representative, Ellison also miss this so he could go speak at that CAIR meeting?