RoR: Forum

Ed- I would hope that you could see the connection of Bush's talk to his actions. Examples are everywhere.

Max- in the recent Supreme Court decision expanding eminent domain, the Bush approved justices were the opposition to the ruling. I hope you can see that if we had a Bush court, the outcome would have been the reverse. If you can't see that, you chose not to.

Post 21

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 10:40am

Quoth James Kilbourne:

"in the recent Supreme Court decision expanding eminent domain, the Bush approved justices were the opposition to the ruling."

You are much mistaken. The current President Bush hasn't appointed any Supreme Court justices.

If you're speaking of the former President Bush, of the two justices he appointed (David Souter and Clarence Thomas), one came down on each side of the ruling.

Of the five justices who supported the ruling, three (Stevens, Kennedy and Souter) are Republican appointees. As a matter of fact, seven of the nine justices on the Supreme Court are Republican appointees.

Tom Knapp

Post 22

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 12:45pm

James,

-------------
Ed- I would hope that you could see the connection of Bush's talk to his actions. Examples are everywhere.
-------------

James, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I admit that I had a knee-jerk reaction to your article.

I admit to jumping the gun on this, but I saw it as tool (whether your intention, or not) to make the Right arbitrarily appear to be more polished -- because the Left is literally covered with smudges (which assumes the Left is a good standard by which to judge politics -- and nothing could be farther from the truth).

James, if my life doesn't get easier in this country, then I consider Bush & Co. a failure. They will -- and must -- be judged by whether or not they improve the legal-social conditions for individuals (and I have yet to see any identifiable, individual benefit -- in the last 5 years).

Ed

Post 23

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 2:32pm

Ed: "I have yet to see any identifiable, individual benefit -- in the last 5 years."

A very small, perhaps negligible benefit: No airplane has deliberately crashed into the building where you work.

Barbara

Post 24

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 2:33pm

James, sadly, I don't see much examples of his concepts of liberty anywhere. He is good at talking sentences with often repeating the words liberty and rights and democracy, but actually his achievements are not that big.

He may be responsible for the turmoil and democratic movement in the Middle East or not. We just cannot pin it down on him, because much of this was in the making for a long time and not some fast shoots. Especially a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem would be helpful.

When we look at the battlefields Bush has created, neither Afghanistan, nor Iraq look really promising. And the poor words Mr. Rumsfeld uses to describe the terrorists in Iraq as "concerened people" is laughable the least.

Now, there is much to do in the foreign department to score home a point and don't try the examples of Germany and Japan. I live in Germany and I can say that the development of Germany after the WW II was very different from Iraq in many ways...

The problem is that even he might have had good intentions in foreign policies, he has so many deficites in Republican home territory domestic fiscal policy. Not only is he a bigger spender than many democratic presidents, he also tries to trump Hoover and his magnificient secret service apparatus. This has nothing to do with domestic security, but we a constant warfare against private liberty....

No, James, you need far more convincing arguments to show that Bush is a friend of liberty, individuality and self-responsibility, the latter being not the least in this order!

Once: http://www.hnn.us/blogs/entries/12760.html
http://coldfury.com/reason/?p=758

(Edited by Max on 6/29, 2:36pm)

Post 25

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 3:59pm

Barbara, I feared that this response might come back (to bite me).

Coming from a different mindset than that which your words imply, I personally struggle with the idea of judging another's performance by virtue of a non-happening (non-event).

One way for this argument (which you offer) to have more weight to it -- would be if Homeland Security had done a good job implementing the 9-1-1 Commission recommendations. The accounts of progress I've been exposed to, however -- e.g. cargo areas in planes still not safe -- have been rather critical of the job that has been done so far. Though I admit that I'm relying on a few media reports for this opinion of poor progress.

I think that progress (or its lack) is something to both note AND explain. Explained progress is what it would take to win me over.

Progress -- that can be understood in terms of the means by which to bring it about -- are what I'm still holding on for (from Bush & Co). Not just bold statements of Ideals, but explained progress.

Ed

Post 26

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 4:44pm

Ed writes:
>Progress -- that can be understood in terms of the means by which to bring it about -- are what I'm still holding on for (from Bush & Co). Not just bold statements of Ideals, but explained progress.

I'm with Ed on this one. Inspiring ideals are one thing, being able to successfully pull them off quite another. The Bush team seem to me to be simply inept. None of their predictions come true: instead of flowers, we are greeted with suicide bombers. 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq is declared, yet more troops have died following the war than during it. The violence will stop after we capture Saddam/flatten Fallujah/hold elections/form a government and so on. My brother in law in was in Afghanistan on business just last week. He described the place as descending into anarchy through neglect. We have had the disgrace of Abu Ghraib, which Donald Rumsfeld "took responsibility" for - with what consequences? North Korea's got what, 6 nukes now? Yet all I'm hearing is just a lot of vague happy-double-talk: "we're making progress", the Iraq insurgency is in its "last throes". Yet the casualty rate is *rising*, not falling. The cost is escalating far beyond the predictions even of the skeptics, who were pooh-poohed by the administration at the time. We've got low troop numbers to because, apparently, to do otherwise would "suggest we intend to stay forever" - yet we are building 14 permanent military bases. There seems to be a basic disconnect from reality here, a disconnect echoed domestically in Bush's inept attempt at Social Security reform - his own major initiative for his second term. Like Iraq, the issue is not vision, but simple *competence*.

As Ed says: where's the actual progress, other than in the speeches?

- Daniel

Post 27

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 3:10pm

Ed: "I have yet to see any identifiable, individual benefit -- in the last 5 years."

Barbara: "A very small, perhaps negligible benefit: No airplane has deliberately crashed into the building where you work."

Not the building where Ed works, no. But a little less than four years ago, a couple of airplanes did crash into a pair of twin towers in New York called the World Trade Center. I'm not sure they did it deliberately, though. I suppose it may have been inadvertent. It's hard to tell when an airplane does something deliberately.

JR

Post 28

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 5:01pm

Jeff: NROTFLMAO.

--Brant

Post 29

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 8:21pm

Brant, quick, what does NROTFLMAO mean?

Barbara

Post 30

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 10:06pm

Mr. Knapp, he was talking about the recent judges Bush approved for the district courts, Janice Brown and the bunch. You won't find a group of judges anywhere that respect indivisual rights more then them. And when it came down to it, Bush fought tooth and nail for them.

Ya'll have to remember the biggest thing stopping us from being a hell of a lot closer to libertarianism is the socialists...I mean democrats. Yes Yes Bush has spent a lot and even though its a weak excuse, he wouldn't have if not for the dems. Fault him for compromising with them cause when you do that, they win. A lot of that spending is also going to the military which is one of the few legitimate places for it to go.

On the article, its great and i mostly agree. The democratic party is one whose leadership is full of traitor and seditious bastards who are compleatly out of touch with the American population (except the MoveOn horde). The Democratic party is dying from the bottom up. Look at the state legislatures, even blue states have republican governors and democratic governors (like mine in Louisiana) are as conservative as Republicans. Dean can yell all he want but with the exception of the core socialists and "not-republicans", people are leaving the party.

I'm honestly not sure about a time table. The Democrats do have a lot of famous people to run for them, Hillery for one, but they'll lose that capital soon. I'd say when blacks start defecting from the party in large numbers, then it would die. Like I learned, other blacks are starting to learn that the democrats are subjectivists who will do and say anything (i.e. hoar themselves out) just to get votes. But you can't please everybody all of the time but by respecting indivisual rights and beliefs, which Republicans do a lot more then Democrats, you can please a lot of people.

Post 31

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 10:23pm

Quoth Clarence Hardy:

"Mr. Knapp, he was talking about the recent judges Bush approved for the district courts, Janice Brown and the bunch."

Then he's even more out of touch with reality than I thought, since none of them were involved in the ruling at all.

"Ya'll have to remember the biggest thing stopping us from being a hell of a lot closer to libertarianism is the socialists...I mean democrats."

That claim simply doesn't stand up in the real universe. George W. Bush came into office bragging, in his first major speech, that he was going to grow government faster than Bill Clinton ever dared dream -- and, with the support of a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, proceeded to do so. Even excluding growth in defense and homeland security spending, Bush and the GOP congress have grown government faster than at any time since the LBJ administration.

The Republicans are -- and historically always have been -- the party of big government. The Democrats have occasionally been worse, and occasionally better, but the GOP has always set the standard for the expansion of state power, from tariffs to anti-trust to "progressive" regulation and on forward. They've never departed from that pattern, their occasional rhetoric otherwise notwithstanding.

Tom Knapp

Post 32

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 12:07am

Barbara: Not Rolling On the Floor Laughing My Ass Off.

--Brant

Post 33

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 10:09am

James admires his chart plotting Dubya's eventual evolution to Homo Erectus:

...it is amazing to watch the growth of George Bush as a thinker and a speaker. His "secret" , it seems, is a core set of values and a most remarkable self-discipline.

I would hope there would be some growth, I mean, who couldn't garner something from osmosis alone if they were the leader of the free world?

As far as his public speaking, stylistically, yes- and that was one hell of a job to get done, even by the best professionals and technology the world has to offer. We were talking triage here. On the other hand, he certainly seems to put out a lot of ad hominem. Maybe that's OK because he's the President, and, just like Elvis, it is a right only he and a few others possess.

I am distrustful of the integrity of his core values, because, for one thing, they are suspiciously opposite to those he showed (I am looking at values as objects of actions) in his unbridled, pre-serious-politico state. That would involve alcohol, coke, smashing cars, ruining businesses, and various other customary boys will be boys in Texas hijinks (I won't go into his academics, other than to say he wouldn't have enjoyed the ivy leage education he had were he not a Bush). Granted, values change, and in his case this would have required nothing less than an epiphany, which is something that should upset many Objectivists as much or more than the fact that this man says, and seriously seems to believe, that he is talking to Jesus from the White House. Bush is a Fundamentalist, which is no suprise to me- it is a very convenient and comfortable conversion for folks with his type of past, and more importantly, a highly expedient move in terms of the opportunity he and his handlers were looking at.

His self-discipline I will not argue with, only its application. The greater concern I look at is how wonderfully malleable he has proven to be for his handlers, men who I deeply distrust, and fear on the core value and business levels.

But all this above speaks to the how and why, which is no longer of much importance.

My question is simple: how much criteria makes enough?

He and his organization have a deep, disturbing, sick relationship with the Fundamentalist Right; there is no question of this. And, they are organized, and so effective and scary that a large section of Christian America is attempting to mobilize against the threat (plug for my friends www.christianalliance.org). Did you get that? Even the mainstream Christians are scared.

The business background of the Bush family and his staff, their ties, their relationships, are deep, connected, well-known, and have mined there way into the leadership of this country. Halliburton is a weak example, if you can stomach that.

The agendas involving homosexuality, and scientific research are primeval and appalling.

I would continue, but these are all things that are well-covered elsewhere. So, given all that, it's still better to support this administration?

Hrumph.

Post 34

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 3:35pm

Being this is a site that celebrates the philosophy of Ayn Rand, I wonder what her thoughts would have been about Dubya (hint:I don't think she would've had kind words to say about him). Seriously, the presidents that come to mind when I think about Dubya are: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson. Now, tell me how his policies are dissimilar from theirs.

Jim

Post 35

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 4:53pm

Well, I see that I was right about at least one point; the Bush administration is lousy at selling its policies. However, your answer reflect that fact, and not the true effects of his policies. Due to the fact that I have to choose between answering all of this and having a life, I hope you will accept, at least for the time being, my apology for not covering all the inaccuracies above.
Tom- I do know who appointed which Supreme Court justices. I should have been more precise in what I said. The Supreme Court is, in my opinion, made up of three basic groups today; conservatives, moderate conservatives, and moderate liberals. My reference to the Bush judges being on the losing side of the eminent domain issue was meant philosophically. When pressed as to which judges he most admired in the 2000 election, Bush named Scalia and Thomas, the two most conservative judges on the court. All of his picks for judges since then are consistent with this philosophy. I think that there can be little doubt that if a Supreme Court where made up totally of Bush appointees, the vote would have been nine to nothing against this majority ruling.

Max - to say that much of the middle east policy was in the making before Bush appeared on the scene is to have missed the last four years. Bush has changed EVERYTHING, starting with actually responding to a terrorist attack, unlike his predecessors, continuing with his refusal to deal with Arafat and actually identifying him for what he was- a terrorist, then championing a Palestinian State, winning a war in Afghanistan in weeks ( the Soviets took years, and lost it), establishing a fledgling Democracy in Iraq, ...well, on and on. You also miss the point that after WWII, the same doomsters were squealing about America's fight for democracy in those totalitarian countries of Germany and Japan just as they are now squealing about Bush's fight for democracy in the middle east. To state it simply, the Bush Administration is the most "ept". not the most inept in recent history.
Daniel- when you are the administration in power, every word you say is remembered. I don't think any of your examples are even accurate ( Mission accomplished, referred to the job done by the sailors, as memos of the time have revealed - Cheney said it was his opinion that we would be greeted as liberators, which to a large degree we were and are, and besides, it was his opinion)- when I look at the list of DECEPTIONS and LIES that are attributed to this administration, most aren't true and the rest seem pretty pathetic next to the visionary accomplishments - many of them put forth have been conscious deceptions and lies themselves. The deception in N Korea was the treaty signed by Clinton in 1994- Bush's crime was to tell everyone that it was a lie and that N Korea is "evil".

Rich - your post is not an argument; it is a rant.

Post 36

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 4:54pm

JHN writes:
>Now, tell me how his policies are dissimilar from theirs.

Better speechwriting, apparently...;-)

- Daniel

Post 37

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 5:38pm

James writes:
>Daniel- when you are the administration in power, every word you say is remembered. I don't think any of your examples are even accurate...

But you make it sound as tho I'm picking on every little word they said to prove it wrong. Rather, you're wading thru the fine print in search of justifications - an easy enough thing to do, seeing this admin has said so many vague and contradictory things.

Let's put it the other way: I don't remember them strongly predicting the prolonged and increasing violence they face in Iraq, though I do remember the opposing military opinions who did. I don't recall them strongly predicting the cost of the war to escalate to the current spectacular levels, with no end in sight, though I do recall opposing fiscal opinions who strongly did. I don't recall them (or many Democrats for that matter) strongly predicting that no WMD would be found. I don't recall them predicting that after 5 years of their foreign policy North Korea would have 6 nuclear weapons and counting. I don't recall them strongly predicting Osama to still be on the loose 4 years later. I don't recall them strongly predicting the return of the Taleban as a threat in Afghanistan. I don't recall that they had an inkling that their Social Security plan, if it could be called such, would be thoroughly rejected by the Amercian population - and rightly so, as by their own admission it did not even solve the long term fiscal problem anyway! And so on. The only important prediction they made that *was* correct is that the initial invasion of Iraq would over quickly, a fact that everyone right of Robert Fisk was somehow able to expect, given Iraq had 1/100th of the US annual military budget...;-)

Iraq seems to me to be more like the Bay of Pigs than Vietnam. Admirable goal, entirely incompetent planning and execution. And this seems to apply to so much of the Bush Administration policies - admirable goals lamentably executed.

So the issue turns in my view not on "DECEPTIONS and LIES" etc etc, but on *competence* - the ability to achieve your stated aims, not just talk about them. So far they seem so behind, it's just not funny.

- Daniel

Post 38

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 5:47pm

Rich Engle wrote: "I am distrustful of the integrity of his core values, because, for one thing, they are suspiciously opposite to those he showed (I am looking at values as objects of actions) in his unbridled, pre-serious-politico state. That would involve alcohol, coke, smashing cars, ruining businesses, and various other customary boys will be boys in Texas hijinks (I won't go into his academics, other than to say he wouldn't have enjoyed the ivy leage education he had were he not a Bush). Granted, values change, and in his case this would have required nothing less than an epiphany, which is something that should upset many Objectivists as much or more than the fact that this man says, and seriously seems to believe, that he is talking to Jesus from the White House. Bush is a Fundamentalist, which is no suprise to me- it is a very convenient and comfortable conversion for folks with his type of past, and more importantly, a highly expedient move in terms of the opportunity he and his handlers were looking at."

Rich, I think the "epiphany" you are searching for is named Laura Bush. She put her foot down and said that she and the twins would leave him if he didn't clean up his act and stop doing booze and drugs. Seems to have worked rather well. :-)

I'm a little puzzled by your comments about Bush's education, though. Do you mean that only Bushes enjoy being educated in an Ivy League college? Or do you mean that only Bushes get to be educated in an Ivy League college? (I don't think either of these is correct.) Or what? (Maybe you were just making a clumsy attempt at a sarcastic swipe at Bush?) In light of a recent comparison of Bush's and Kerry's college grades, and Kerry's howler "Jenjiss Khan," I don't think the IQ level in the White House is any lower than it would have been if Kerry had won the election.

Best to all,
Roger Bissell

Post 39

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:01pm