A Question, To Those So Inflamed By Last Night’s Speech
More than one, actually:
(1) Was the border controlled at this time last year? Two years ago? Six?
(2) Did the President do anything about it? Did Congress?
(3) Did you scream bloody murder and threaten impeachment then?
(4) What exactly changed between then and now?
I don’t care whether my readers support or oppose the President on this or any other issue – it’s a free country, after all, and we disagree civilly here all the time…but the shrillness from certain quarters elsewhere is certainly over the top…and this feels like a bit of a ginned-up issue at this point…
Surely there was nothing in the speech to get ‘outraged’ over one way or the other; you either support the President’s plan or oppose it. Either way, let your Congressman know…then take a couple of aspirin and call me in the morning…I’m all immigrationed out…
As an outsider, it seems to me that there are two causes for the hard right’s anger to Bush’s immigration plan.
The first is that a lot of these guys throw a hissy fit whenever things don’t go their way. After six years of getting nearly everything James Dobson could ask for – an FDA which makes political and not medical decisions, strict limits on stem cell funding, Terri Schiavo, arch conservative nominees to the Supreme and appellate courts, faith-based initiatives, the fight to ban gay marriage, etc. – the guy is steaming mad because we’re not rounding out illegal aliens and throwing away the key. He and his ilk seem so dogmatic and inflexible that any deviation from their orthodoxy is seen as treason. No wonder “Al Qaeda” roughly translates as “the base.”
The second reason is that this episode is like when there are simmering and unresolved tensions with your spouse which end up erupting over a relatively trivial event. The argument may be about the dishes left in the sink, but it goes much deeper than that. I think that many on the right are too embarrassed to admit that they strongly supported Bush and the rest of the F Troop in his administration, and hence they use an avoidance mechanism and blame Bush instead of themselves. It can’t be their fault for electing this nincompoop – it’s Bush’s fault for betraying them. Hence, given the opportunity to seize on an issue which – let’s face it – pales besides the war, the fiscal deficit, the trade deficit, Iran, and North Korea, it becomes the casus belli instead of other problems where the right was more complicit.
Jeez – I’m sorry I asked…just joking…
Well, that’s definitely not the answer I would come up with, but then again, the differences in your opinion and mine regarding this President are vast, indeed…
A good lawyer will tell you never to ask a question unless you already know the answer — it was too fat a pitch not to take a swing at it –
Peter, you’re walking a VERY fine line by mentioning Al Qaeda and James Dobson in the same context. Dr. Dobson has never called the President a traitor, nor do I believe that Focus on the Family would ever advocate the overturn of anyone’s right to scream when policy in Washington doesn’t go their way (including those who disagree with them). Screaming’s the name of the game. With all the voices out there anymore, if you don’t scream loud, you’ll be lost in the mix. Besides, what was the alternative in 2004? President John Kerry? NOT an acceptable alternative.
Screaming with rhetoric is not screaming with bombs and bullets.
Well, the Al Qaeda thing was a joke: I’m not a big fan of James Dobson, but he’s no Osama bin Laden. Also, Al Qaeda does translate as something like “the base.” If you don’t think he’s livid, read the piece in the Journal yesterday.
More importantly, John Kerry would have made a far better President than the one we’ve got. Obviously, there is no way to prove it, but given everything that has gone on in the past several years, it’s hard to imagine anyone doing a worse job.
Wednesday Specials
…
Peter, I’m curious. You say you value coming here because you like the exchange of ideas, yet you grace us with near daily one-note diatribes against the administration and now extend that to argue that those who supported Bush (and by extension, those of us who still support him) are essentially stupid, or at least guilty of knowingly voting for stupid people.
I mean, we get it – you’re dead certain Bush and everyone connected with him are doing a horrible job. Yet somehow there are people who frequent this Web site who are still Bush supporters, including myself. Are we all just dumb? Stubborn? Insane? Furthermore, how did you get to be so lucky that you have such clear views of the universe while we poor benighted souls obviously do not?
Sometimes you make some very powerful arguments, but just sitting around and insulting people is unlikely to bring folks to your side. That’s true whether you’re running around and using terms like “El Presidente” or “F Troop.”
I don’t think that those who voted for Bush are stupid for doing so, and I don’t think that I said anything which could reasonably be construed in that way. Nor do I think that those in the Bush administration are stupid (or evil) people. (Also, I never used the “El Presidente” label, which in itself is stupid and insulting). Maybe calling Bush a nincompoop was over the top. Too strong a word. There are a lot of adjectives I would apply to Bush (misguided, arrogant, stubborn, inarticulate) but stupid is not among them. So if you think that I’ve been insulting to those who have a different opinion, or if you think that I consider myself to have a clarity of thought which others don’t have, please forgive me and know that it is not intentional.
There is a difference between competence and stupidity. One might think of the Bush administration as a modern-day F Troop or the Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight (Cheney, anyway). But I don’t think they are stupid.
However, I do think that one of the reasons that Bush is losing the support among Republicans is that many people who voted for him have come to realize that this emperor has no clothes. Given how divisive the last election was – families were torn asunder over this – I think a lot of people who voted for him are too embarrassed to admit that they were wrong, similar to someone who bought pets.com stock for $100 and refused to sell it because it would be tantamount to admitting a mistake. I think that a natural human reaction would be to find something to fault Bush with and not the vote which elected him.
I recognize that there are intelligent people who still think that Bush has done at least a good job in the service of his country. Mark, for one. However, there have been several times when I have challenged other posters to come up with a reasoned argument why the Bush administration has been at least minimally competent. Nobody has taken the bait. Last week I asked if anyone could name three major policy achievements of this administration. This got nowhere. Given that the vast majority of Americans has written off this administration, I think the burden of proof is on those who still support the administration to show why everyone else is wrong. If you can make a case in support of the Bush Presidency, I’m eager to see it.
Peter, I’m glad the Al Qaeda reference was not serious, but I am often in agreement with your so-called Dobson “ilk”, so excuse me for not laughing.
The problem with the “too embarrassed to admit they were wrong” line of reasoning is that it assumes John Kerry is an acceptable alternative to Republicans who are currently unhappy with the administration. Even as unhappy as I am with some of the President’s policy directions, in no way do I think I voted for the wrong man when we are talking about the 04′ elections. The assumption of Kerry as a viable alternative was not, is not, and will not be an acceptable proposition with most conservatives.
Let’s follow your line of reasoning. I voted for Bush, which means I made a mistake. I got it wrong, because in this line of logic, there is a right candidate and a wrong candidate. Because I made a mistake, I had two other courses of actions which would have avoided this error – 1) Vote for Kerry (if I wanted my vote to count) or 2) Not vote at all (an irresponsible course of action for those of us who care about the direction of this country). Therefore, the only way I could have got it right was to follow option 1. This, quite frankly, for the person voting according to what they believe and what is important to them, is absurd, and you, I’m confident, would tell me the same if I told you that Clinton’s impeachment proves you made a mistake in 96′. I voted with my beliefs and I did not get it wrong.
Wait a minute – buying pets.com was a mistake? NEVER!!!!
I thought some more about Dennis’s post, and I would also respond thusly:
Over the past several years, those of us who opposed invading Iraq have had our patriotism and masculinity impugned on a regular basis. (Example: Karl Rove lecturing us on how Republicans responded to terrorism with manly assertiveness, and liberals responded with “tea and sympathy.”) We saw John Kerry get slimed by the Swift Boaters, as well as the disgusting spectacle of delegates at the RNC Convention giving out purple band-aids. (Let me get this right: Dick Cheney avoided military service because he had “other priorities,” George Bush pulled strings to get a National Guard assignment, John Kerry is a decorated war veteran, and somehow Kerry is the coward?). More importantly, we saw the country we love (just as much as you do) held in disregard by the rest of the world because of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, sending people to Syria and Egypt to be tortured, the sight of people stranded by Katrina who couldn’t be rescued, and so forth.
Now we have a situation where 75% of Americans think that we are on the wrong track and a majority have described the Bush administration as a “disaster.” Is there an element of “I told you so” — as well as schadenfreude — in all of this? You bet. I’m only human.
Evan: your points are, of course, well taken. (Although you left out option three: voting for Ralph Nader. Now those people really are stupid.) However, since Kerry wasn’t elected, we’ll never know. Perhaps you would have been pleasantly surprised. After all, even Bill Clinton did things which conservatives like, such as running a budget surplus and being supportive of free trade.
I think that John Kerry is an intelligent and decent man who probably would have been a good President. Regrettably, there are no do-overs in politics, so debating this is like arguing if Babe Ruth was a better ball player than Hank Aaron. I have no way of proving that Kerry was the “right candidate.” However, by “voting your beliefs” and electing Bush, you did give a second term to someone who has had something of a reverse Midas touch lately. Whether that means you “got it wrong” is for others to judge — if we were to enter the world of speculation, however, I think that if things worked out otherwise things would be far different (and better) today.
I don’t really know what James Dobson has to do with any of this.
It is sad, indeed when our President is met with ridicule for any move he makes. I worry for our country (whoever our leader is).
What ever happened to Republicans and Democrats and all being people, instead of each being the hated people?
I agree with Mark. It is sickening that President Bush can’t win no matter what.
My mother, as much a Democrat as Mark and I are Republicans once said that Clinton was the most criticized President ever. I wonder what she would think now!
In case any newcomers don’t know, Martha is my mom, and yes, my Grandmother, rest in peace, was as Democrat as Democrats get. We learned to not talk politics when Granny was around…
Thanks for the comment, Mom!…
peter,
You just lost what little credibility you have ever had with me. John Kerry was the worst choice for a Presidential candidate by either major party in my lifetime, and I’ll turn 40 this year. I can understand people voting for Gore. I don’t like him, but I realize that many of my issues with him are personal and subjective. With John Kerry, it’s quite simple and objective. John Kerry is uniquely unqualified to be President of the United States. Anyone who would support him is either a) a relative, or b) so firmly entrenched in the Democratic party or Bush hatred that they’re blind to his inadequacies. In 20 years of public service the man has done nothing noteworthy to distinguish himself for election to the highest levels. He’s never been Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minory Leader, Senate Majority Whip, Senate Minority Whip. I don’t believe he’s ever Chaired or Vice-Chaired a committee. He’s sponsored 3 bills in 20 years that became law.
Look at that last sentence and do some simple math. There have been over 2000 bills introduced by the Senate in the current session. If you multiply that by 10 sessions, you get 20,000 bills. Divide by 100 Senators, and you get 200 bills/Senator. Now each Bill typically has a Sponsor, and one or more Co-Sponsors. Let’s say on average it’s one Sponsor and two Co-Sponsors. Frankly, from my experience that number seems low, but I don’t have any empirical data to go on, so I want to be conservative. That means that in 20 years, his name should’ve been on about 600 bills. And yet, only 3 with his name on them became law. He either has one of the worst batting averages in history, or he’s not doing his job. Either way, it adds up to the same thing. This man has not shown any leadership qualities at all during his time in public office. And yet, somehow he’s qualified to be the “leader of the free world”????? I’m sorry; I really try to keep these discussions at ideas and not insults, but if you honestly believe that, then you’re insane. Do you give your car keys to your five year old? Same thing.
Frankly, as I’ve said many times before, John Kerry is the perfect example of why Senators make poor Presidential choices. Give me a (southern) Governor every time!
Now, there are numerous reasons to not like Bush. I can give plenty that aren’t even typically mentioned on the evening news. But in 2004, the Democrats nominated a “I’m not George W. Bush” candidate, rather than someone who was actually qualified for the job, and that’s why they lost. Just about any of the other people running would’ve been better choices. My advice to the Democrats in ‘06 and in ‘08. Give me a reason to vote for you, not reasons to vote against your opponent. If you can’t accomplish that one simple goal, then I’m going to keep pulling that “Republican” lever.
“Anyone who would support him is either a) a relative, or b) so firmly entrenched in the Democratic party or Bush hatred that they’re blind to his inadequacies.”
Geez, considering that the election was very close to a tie — and we didn’t know the winner until hours after the last poll closed — that would have to be about half the electorate….
Peter, to start with, the reason I don’t bother to make a case to you for the administration’s competence or policy successes is because you’ve proved time and again resistant to all argument. Stubborn pride or principled opposition? That’s all subjective, but either way it’s clear there’s no convincing you, so I’m not going to bother wearing out my keyboard trying to do so.
Now you make a fair point that it’s too broad a brush to paint the nearly half the country who voted for Kerry as all relatives or people suffering from BDS. But you still haven’t explained why you use a similar broad brush for those who voted for President Bush and still support him. You’ve said we’re not stupid. So what are we? Just crazy? Given that you have never given an inch in your views of the administration being horrid beyond compare, and given that you’ve chalked up the president’s slide in the polls among conservatives over immigration as a case of people feeling embarrassed to admit the same, I’m still lefting finding your views as brash, nasty and unconvincing as you find criticisms of Bush opponents.
If you’re angry at Karl Rove for saying mean things about you, don’t take it out on everybody else. And you might recall that even if you think the administration started the name-calling, the left has more than caught up, and then some.
I would like the president’s polls to be higher, but the mere fact that he’s down in the polls no more makes me question my principles than you questioned yours when he was up and your candidates were losing.
Peter: I agree with the others in that there is no “right”/”wrong” objective answer (and hence disagree with Mr. Breisch since that was the crux of his “argument”) to who should have been president. Of the 29% who still approve of Bush, I think there are some people who have genuinely thought about the alternative (John Kerry) and thought about what policy differences would have occurred had he been president. I’m not quite sure what logic train they went down when deciding “no, the country under Bush would have been better”, but I’m sure there were value judgments made that differ from ours. I do agree that there are some people in the 29% who are so stubborn that they have not even considered the alternative because of their party loyalty. Of course, the same thing would occur on the left (i.e. if Kerry had been elected and his poll numbers were really low, they, too would bottom out at some point where blind party loyalty would win out when answering a poll question on the phone). I don’t know why it’s necessary to call the right out for it when the left would do the same.
My general point though is every so often, take a look at the alternative and try to decide if he would have done a better job. Peter’s point seems to be “how could he (Kerry) have done any worse?” What possible policy decisions do the 29% fear Kerry would have made? Is it all related to the tax cuts?
Mark: I agree with the point of your post wholeheartedly. People that get worked up about one issue are just plain poor political minds, especially when for no apparent reason whatsoever the issue becomes thrust upon the public with little substantive discussion (yes, I’m suggesting the MSM are full of poor political minds).
‘“Anyone who would support him is either a) a relative, or b) so firmly entrenched in the Democratic party or Bush hatred that they’re blind to his inadequacies.”
Geez, considering that the election was very close to a tie — and we didn’t know the winner until hours after the last poll closed — that would have to be about half the electorate…’
And your point is?
“I do agree that there are some people in the 29% who are so stubborn that they have not even considered the alternative because of their party loyalty.”
Certainly there are those who will always support the President, absent any truly egregious failing or other malfeasance – Clinton got that sort of support too. But the 29% positive rating is based on a broad and general “how is the President doing” poll question. Here are a couple of examples:
“How would you rate the job President George W. Bush is doing as president – excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?” – Harris Interactive (29% excellent)
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?” – CBS News (31% approve)
So, on balance I would answer that I approve of the job the President is doing. But I also have issues with many of his policies, particularly around the prolific growth in government spending, government size, and government activity.
Thus I would argue that the poll number is realy an index, like the unemployment rate, rather than some absolute measurement of the President’s popularity.
Seven of ten people polled report dissatisfaction with the way the President is doing his job, overall. But many may be happy with the WOT, the economy, immigration, judicial nominations, and international relations. Extrapolating that into whether John Kerry would have been a better President amounts to averaging averages. He isn’t, won’t be anytime soon, and, if god is on our side, never will be.
To Dennis: I think you are wimping out here. I think the reason that you are not making an argument for Bush as a good President is that there is no argument to be made. It is presumptuous and incorrect for you to assume that I am a rigid and dogmatic ideologue who has no interest in seeing where the truth will lead. In fact, I have voted for Republicans (Jacob Javits, Rudy Guiliani, all of Swarzenegger’s propositions this year, and next year for Arnold himself) and there are things Bush has done which I think are good things (I think John Roberts was a first-rate choice. I think giving diplomatic recognition to Libya is a good thing. I originally supported the war in Iraq based on the information which the administration communicated at the time.) I think Bush I was a good President and there are things I admire about Reagan. Nor do I bang a drum for the Democrats, who I think are flaccid and uninspiring. However, I think that Bush and Cheney are off the charts awful. So if you want to avoid defending Bush, fine, but don’t use my putative inflexibility as an excuse.
Also, I don’t “use a similar broad brush for those who voted for President Bush and still support him.” There are too many millions of people who voted GOP to characterize them in any single way. I certainly don’t think they are crazy. I think they made an error in judgment, just as I think the French are making an error in judgment by keeping Chirac in control.
You are correct that Bush’s standing in the polls does not in itself mean that those who really support him should abandon their principles. I wrote earlier that Churchill had low approval ratings at the end of his administration. However, the fact that Bush is about as popular as avian flu does suggest that being (nearly) consistently opposed to his policies might be based on something besides being “resistant to all argument.”
Mike: agreed.
Chris: my point is that it is preposterous on its face that nearly half of the electorate is either related to Kerry or “so firmly entrenched in the Democratic party or Bush hatred that they’re blind to his inadequacies.”
to Steve: combine the approval ratings with “do you think the country is on the right/wrong track” and I think you have your answer
“To Dennis: I think you are wimping out here. I think the reason that you are not making an argument for Bush as a good President is that there is no argument to be made.”
Thank you for proving my point, Peter. You’ve already decided the end result. For whatever reason, you have become quite doctinaire about this administration and will accept no argument. You may claim you’re not, but I think you’re fooling yourself.
I think the question needs to be more specific. I place a lot of value on national security – because I think without it nothing else matters – and so will give Bush a positive overall rating despite my huge concerns and displeasure with his spending and government role/responsibility policies. Asking if the country is on the right/wrong track still leaves us with an analysis that is too general.
But, there is no doubt the numbers have trended negative for a long time now. Does that mean we give him points for doing what he thinks is right regardless of the impact on his popularity?
I can’t bring myself to get too torn up one way or the other, but I’ve noticed what Mark noticed, as well. The outrage over immigration seems to be somewhat manufactured, at least since there wasn’t any galvanizing event to bring it to the national attention. Nothing’s any different than it was a year ago, when it wasn’t on the radar like it is right now.
Dennis, if you can convince me that the moon is made of green cheese, then I’ll believe it if you can present facts to support it. We’ve had six years of the Bush administration, which is plenty of time to form a judgment. If you want to argue that the first six years have been hunky dory – or that the next two will be so good that it will make up for the first six – or that there is something future historians will point to which is not evident today – then fine. I don’t think that argument can be made.
Steve: I would give Bush some points for doing what he thinks is right regardless of polling, but I would also draw a distinction between his popularity (i.e., his approval rating nationwide) and what is popular among his base. Faced with the choice, Bush will nearly always do what his base wishes him to do. The exceptions (Miers, the ports deal) were because he miscalculated how the base would react. With immigration, he is caught between the base and losing Hispanic voters, so he came up with a plan which was in the middle. I think there is something to be said for having a vision and sticking to it. Regrettably, in this instance I think it is the wrong vision.
Chris: Just curious, but what exactly were Bush’s qualifications for becoming president? What accomplishments (besides getting elected governor and being a republican) made him a good candidate?
TMS: I agree now. I was thinking that somehow the question of “Would Kerry have done a better job?” was somehow embedded in “Is Bush doing a good job” but that really isn’t the case. I would like to see a poll explore this though as the recent polls about Kerry are only favorable/unfavorable, not Bush vs. Kerry.
But, the question “how is the president performing?” has to include some frame of reference. I mean, “poor vs. excellent” are relative terms, so, relative to what, their expectations of the president or relative to the alternative (i.e. Kerry/Nader/whoever they wrote in)? I think it’s mostly relative their expectations, but there might be some people who think about the alternative, and perhaps that is why dems think so poorly of him, because they are comparing to what they think Kerry would have done.
peter:
Chris: my point is that it is preposterous on its face that nearly half of the electorate is either related to Kerry or “so firmly entrenched in the Democratic party or Bush hatred that they’re blind to his inadequacies.”
Then how else can you possibly explain someone voting for a man that had no qualifications for the job whatsoever?
I stand by my statement, regardless of how preposterous you believe it may be.
Actually, I can add a third and category: un-informed. There really aren’t any other options. If you think there are, then you’re plainly in denial, and I can’t help you.
mikebdot: I couldn’t care less whether Bush is a Republican. But you hit the nail on the head with the other. Becoming a Governor (two terms mind you) allows a person to demonstrate or hone leadership skills. Being a do-nothing Senator does not. When I look at Presidential candidates, one of the very first things I look into is finding out who is a proven leader, and how they have proven themselves. Since you’re entrusting this person to be the most powerful person on Earth, and trusting him with the leadership of, if not the free world, at least your country, it would be the height of foolishness to do otherwise. Furthermore, it would be borderline sociopathic to knowingly vote for someone for this position who has demonstrated no leadership qualities whatsoever. Clinton was a Governor, as was Jimmy Carter. I disagree with many of their positions, particularly Carter’s, but they at least pass the first test. By being leaders in their states, they become worthy of further examination. Kerry fails at step one, and there’s no need to even continue to step 2. Remember, it’s not just that Kerry is a Senator (which already weakens him), but that he’s a do-nothing Senator with no noteworthy accomplishments of any kind other than managing to contine to be re-elected in Massachusetts. Given who the senior Senator from that state is, even that’s not much of an accomplishment.
Chris: You didn’t answer my question…
mikebdot,
Actually, I felt like I did. Being a two term governor is already a specific qualification, and a big one in my mind. However, if you want further information, I’ve never been overly impressed with Bush’s qualifications. I’ve never said that he’s the best qualified person for the job. What I did say, and frankly this is indisputable, is that John Kerry is uniquely unqualified to be POTUS. You would be hard pressed to find a person with as long a public service career at his level who is less qualified. Frankly, Gore was more qualified than Bush, and I don’t deny it. However, we’re not comparing Bush’s qualifications to Gore at the moment, but rather an incumbent President’s qualifications over a do-nothing Senator. The incumbent President wins every time.
Chris: What is the difference between saying “anyone by Bush” and “anyone but Kerry”? So are you saying you voted “against Kerry” and not “for Bush”? Otherwise, you are guilty of the same sort of activities as the democrats (who you accused of Bush hatred or Democratic Party Loyalty). Could there be a third possibility that they thought Kerry was more qualified, even with his mediocre Senate record (I believe his investigations of the Iran Contra affair and BCCI were more than adequate, and the rest of his career is adequate in my opinion, also, isn’t the definition of “good government” by the right less government? It’s a wonder more righties didn’t like him if your statistics are correct [which, according to dailykos, they aren't - 4784 is their number...with 85 sponsored bills actually passed]). In any event, your broad brush “either-or” comment was intended to be a joke and was almost funny, but it tainted the point of your post a little by showing your clear anti-Kerry tendency.
Chris: In fact, if you go here, you can see for yourself Kerry has sponsored 111 of the 2000 bills this session, which is just over 5.5%. So, just by your logic, he’s doing better than average actually (should be 2%, right?). George Allen has sponsored 49. Lincoln Chafee has sponsored 12. Bill Frist 130. Kennedy 175. They all introduce a lot and only a small percentage are actually passed or end up on another bill.
Well, by Chris’s criteria John Kennedy should never have been elected. He had poor attendance in the Senate, did not have a lot of bills to his name, and got his brother a job on the McCarthy committee (and refused to criticize him during the Army-McCarthy hearings because of the cronyism). He also had very poor health (JFK received last rites four times before 11/22/63).
If the only criterion for selecting a President is executive experience, then Bill Gates should be elected. A nominee’s philosophy, character, intelligence, leadership qualities, and physical/emotional stamina are important criteria as well. You may find Kerry lacking in these areas, but to say that he is “uniquely unqualified” because there was a relatively few bills with his name on them is ludicrous.
mikedot: Kerry is on a bill sponsorship tear of late, but that’s only after his Rip Van Winkle-esque record in the prior 20 years in the Senate because a source of criticism on the campaign trail.
mikebdot:
I never said “Anyone But Kerry” or even implied it. I didn’t say I voted “against Kerry”. I voted for Bush. I would’ve probably voted for Bush against any of the Democrat choices, but not necessarily. I said that just about any of the other Democrats who ran would’ve been better choices and would’ve at least deserved a 2nd glance. Kerry deserved none and got none. And no, there couldn’t be a 3rd possibility. Kerry doesn’t have a mediocre record. He has a pathetic one. BTW, dailykos’s stats include Resolutions, Joint Resolutions and the like. My stats on bills are correct. As for Kerry doing better. Yes, he’s certainly doing better because he’s trying to show people that he can, in fact, be a leader. However, if none of those bills get passed, he’s still not improving his batting average.
peter:
I also never said that the only criteria is executive experience. You and mikebdot apparently aren’t happy unless you’re putting words in my mouth. But, you have to have shown me that you are capable of being a leader of some kind before I’m going to put you in the Oval Office. And, honestly, if you think that it’s ok to actually vote for someone for President who has shown no ability to lead anything in 20 years of public service, then I’m wasting my time here. That thought is so alien to me that I can’t even begin to comprehend how someone could come to such a conclusion.
As for Kennedy, he probably shouldn’t have been elected. However, Kennedy in 1960, like Bush in 2004, faced a pathetically weak candidate. It was a different type of weak candidate in that Nixon was loaded with experience on a dozen different levels, but he didn’t have a clue on how to run a national campaign. Actually, Kennedy v. Nixon might be more like Bush v. Gore in that Gore was also a terrible campaigner. Interesting, too, since many advised Nixon to contest that election but he decided against it for the good of the country.
And I will say it again, since you keep not getting it. I state this as objective fact and not subjective opinion. Kerry is uniquely unqualified to be President of the United States given the length of his public service. I don’t state this because of the number of bills with his name on it, but rather use that as supporting evidence that he has no leadership credentials whatsoever. This is indisputable. The only two leadership positions he has held in his entire life that I can find are: Lieutenant in Vietnam and Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts. Neither of these rise to the level of being a Governor of a large border state like Texas, or California, or even Georgia. It’s not even comparable to being Governor of Arkansas. Governorship isn’t the only way to display leadership, but it’s a good way. Tip O’Neill was a great leader. But he was Speaker of the House and worked with quite a few Presidents and attempted to get meaningful work done. He was not just “one of 435″, but one of very few extremely influential people in the House. Kerry has never displayed either leadership or influence. He is merely “one of 100″, and there’s nothing that’s good that distinguishes him from any of the other 99.
You want to know who I like on the Democrat side for ‘08? Bill Richardson. Yes, I know, he’s another Governor (from another southern border state), but he also held a leadership position for Clinton. He’s strong on border security, is affable, seems trustworthy and intelligent and is definitely an idea person. He would get not only a 1st and 2nd look from me, but a 3rd and 4th as well.
The assertion that “Kerry is uniquely unqualified to be President” is not “objective fact and not subjective opinion.” 2+2=4 is an objective fact. “The greatest song ever written is ‘God Didn’t Make Little Green Apples’” is a subjective opinion. There may be nobody on Earth who agrees with that statement (except maybe Roger Williams’s mother), but there is no objective way to prove or disprove it. So is whether Kerry would have been a better President than Bush. That is entirely within the realm of speculation, and reasonable people can disagree.
Not to go in circles, but (as noted above) there are many criteria for the Presidency besides executive experience on your resume. Getting elected to the Senate is one example of leadership: you have to manage a campaign organization and get elected. I would far rather have a President who is right on the issues and light on executive experience than the other way around.
Put me in Chris’ corner!!!
Mark, like you I find it interesting. But as pointed out by someone above, perhaps the rage is really over what a disappointment Dubya turned out to be. Using the immigration issue to beat him over the head for wimping out and not pushing harder on privatising SS, abolishing Dept of Ed, for waffling on some judges, for not vetoing a single damn bill . . .. Afterall, this is pretty much the last chance to “punish” him for caving in on the very things we put him in place for.
Reaganesque? Certainly not.
In the 2k election I abstained from voting cause I thot he’d be a chip off the old block. Altho the debates changed my mind, I felt he would win anyway, and I’d nonetheless withhold my vote just the same.
I was moved to vote for Dubya in ‘04 for 2 primary reasons — hold the course on WOT, and anybody but incompetent sKerry — come to think of it, anybody but the “9 Dwarves”. Can you believe I thot seriously about Dean until he wigged out? Nonetheless, I was po’d that Bush didn’t push hard enough on the aforementioned issues.
I also didn’t vote in ‘96 because Dole left me cold, even tho I respected his service and Perot was in full tin-foil mode — Clintons? give me a break. In ‘92, I went with Perot for the shock/protest, better that than Daddy Bush or a pair of Clintons.
With talk of boycotting this and ‘08. I say take heart in what’s happening in PA & MN. The way to win this is vote the incumbents out and replace with conservatives who share my fiscal & social views.
As for the actual issue of immigration, whatever the people want. I can see both sides of the issue. But which ever way we go, it needs to be fair for any and all immigrants, not just Mexicans. If we’re going to give Mexicans a break, then give the Romanians, Chinese, Cubans a break as well. All the same, the in-your-face attitude of the illegals makes my blood boil. If you want US citizenship, speak/learn English and be assimilated.
We need to lean on the corrupt governments to our South to straighten their act. I’d also see no problem annexing the whole lot of them and becoming 60 or 75 States. hehehe
BTW, 8 weeks and counting till I get back home from this God-forsaken Babylonia. Yippe-kai-yeah
peter,
You’re so blindly stubborn it’s funny. Getting elected to the Senate is not an example of leadership. Doing something while there is. Kerry has no demonstrable leadership skills, which is frankly amazing given how many years of public service he has. If you can find someone who has more years of public service at that level who has been less of a leader, then I withdraw the “uniquely” from my statement. Until then, I stand by it.
Chris: I’m sorry you feel that I was blind to my democratic loyalty or hate Bush so that I voted Kerry and the third possibility which I mentioned could not possibly have occurred in my case.
Where did you get your stats? I think you are incorrect. I see the argument that Kerry’s sponsoring of bills is only because he was criticized. Ok, let’s look at the 101st congress (’89/’90). Kerry sponsored 79 bills/resolutions/joint resolutions. McCain sponsored 63. Conrad Burns 32. Kennedy 192. Dole 180. There is a wide range. I mean, you say 2000 have been introduced in this session and then do all the “simple math” to prove he was not only mediocre, but “uniquely unqualified”. Does this 2000 number include “resolutions and joint resolutions and the like”? I would assume so and if so then why are kos’ numbers not adequate for your viewing pleasure? If not, then, ok, where did you get your numbers?
In our form of government (democratic republic) any citizen beyond a specific age is eligible and qualified to be POTUS given that he or she receives the proper number of votes of the Electoral College. How effectively a person will execute the duties of office are another matter.
I would argue that predicting the likely effectiveness of a given candidate is most accurately accomplished by examining their experience and work credentials. Experience that is similar to the duties required of POTUS will carry more weight than experience that does not. Experience as governor of a State, or as CEO of a corporation, or head of a large government agency are an excellent indicator of the likely success as POTUS. Congressional duties and responsibilities are quite dissimilar from those required of POTUS, so experience in that capacity is less valuable as a predictor of future success.
Which, I think, is why former governors have been more frequently selected over former congressmen for POTUS. At least in the past 30 years.
Of course, none of this is a guarantee of success.
I think that managing state governments is a helpful but not essential requirement. Managing people and organizations is something which can always be delegated. Of equal or greater importance is vision, character, integrity, physical/emotional stamina, and the ability to inspire others and use the bully pulpit. These traits are not limited to state governments or corporate boardrooms. I don’t see anything wrong with having a President chart the course and his Cabinet executes the plan.
As for Governors vs. Senators: a governor is unlikely to have much exposure to foreign policy, military affairs, the federal budget, or any of the many other national issues which Senators work with on a daily basis. A governor’s time is largely spent with issues which are more local in nature (education, bond issues, state criminal and civil law, etc.) There are advantages of either type of experience, but I don’t see why one should trump the other.
mikebdot,
I was quoting from memory of several articles posted in 2004. I looked it up, and I misremembered. The real count is ‘5′, not ‘3′. If you count House Bills that were passed that were essentially the same as Senate ones that he sponsored, you get to ‘7′. And if you count Senate Resolutions, and Joint Resolutions, you get to ‘11′. I don’t think that it’s significant to count resolutions, even if they are signed by the President, as very few of them have the effect of ‘law’, and are typically of the nature of ‘recognize Jackie Robinson as a great human being’. Also, resolutions of these typically list as sponsors every single person in the House and Senate (or pretty close–anyone who votes for it wants their name on it).
Here’s one article: Just How Many Bills Has Kerry “Passed”?. Obviously, this data would be a year and a half out of date as well.
As for the count of 2000, I simply went to http://www.senate.gov and noticed that the highest numbered senate bill that is currently active is S.2769 (that’s the highest I saw anyway). The count resets with each congressional session, so that means that 2769 bills have been written and introduced for this sesion.
peter,
You’re correct, in that there are different types of experience, and that Senators may have more experience in certain areas, but experience isn’t the factor I’ve been discussing. It’s leadership. Experience is also a big factor, but demonstrable leadership trumps non-demonstrable leadership every single time.
Chris: So, of the 2769 bills, how many of them actually will become law? What is the batting average for the rest of the senators? What is the frame of reference. It’s all well and good to say 11 laws in 20 years is piss poor, but how many laws are passed in a given year by people in the senate?
According to this, in 1997 and 1998 (105th congress), of the 13,882 pieces of legislation, only 354 of the bills actually became a law, so, that’s 0.66 per member of Congress (354/535) per 2 year session. So, 10 sessions * 0.6 = 6.6 laws. He passed 11 according to the site…if you want to use 7, that’s still batting average in my eyes. Where are the numbers on other senators?
I’m silly, should be twice as much, so, 20 sessions should have been 12.2 laws. Still not awful with 11. But if you use 7, then, whatever. No big deal. I’m still trying to find how many laws were passed each year…
Or was I right? It’s been a long day…
Anyone know of year by year or session by session stats on bills that actually became laws? That thomas site is not user-friendly in any way, shape, or form.