But they are the ones who know what a doctor's professional concerns &
issues are.


Maxprop wrote:
True, but the mechanics of legislative interaction, agenda planning, and the
business surrounding such issues is best left to the pros whose expertise
affords them the greatest chance for success: the executive directors.


I think you're confused between paper-pushing and deciding
what gets written on the paper. In any event, I agree with
your above statement but it doesn't do a thing to prove (or
even indicate slightly) that the office help are the people
setting the agenda and formulating policy.





Your say-so doesn't mean much, and you have done very little (other than
call names) to prove your point.


Becoming a little sensitive, Doug?

Not at all. Just making a point.



You just hate-hate-hate the AARP because they didn't roll over for
Bush/Cheney's looting of Social Security, the way they did for every other
Bush/Cheney plan.


Not even close. They've been prejudicial toward my profession for years.
They've promoted a secular-progressive agenda, but have attempted to pass
themselves off as a non-partisan organization benefitting the elderly.

Non-partisan? Shucks in the last election they were panting
& drooling for President Bush. Maybe they weren't panting
hard enough IYHO?

I think it's kind of funny, all the groups that have helped
Bush eventually get savaged by Karl Rove. There's a lesson
here somewhere.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Maxprop wrote:

Not even close. They've been prejudicial toward my profession for years.
They've promoted a secular-progressive agenda, but have attempted to pass
themselves off as a non-partisan organization benefitting the elderly.

Non-partisan? Shucks in the last election they were panting & drooling for
President Bush.

My point exactly. Non-partisan means just that.

I think it's kind of funny, all the groups that have helped Bush
eventually get savaged by Karl Rove. There's a lesson here somewhere.

It's a matter of which happened first--Rove never "savaged" anyone who
didn't deserve it in his opinion. Not likely that he applied his political
wrath against a supporter. My guess is that those whom he maligned had
turned on the President. Let's face it--it's his job. Whatever gave you
the impression that politics is a nice, pretty business?

Max

I think it's kind of funny, all the groups that have helped Bush
eventually get savaged by Karl Rove. There's a lesson here somewhere.


Maxprop wrote:
It's a matter of which happened first--Rove never "savaged" anyone who
didn't deserve it in his opinion.

Well, sure. His opinion is based on what is most likely to
help President Bush in the polls during the current news cycle.

... Not likely that he applied his political
wrath against a supporter.

Really? Guess again.

... My guess is that those whom he maligned had
turned on the President.

By his definition, failing to support the looting of Social
Security enthusiastically enough. Plus they grumbled a
little bit about the Pharmeceutical Bail-Out Bill, otherwise
known as Medicare Reform.



.... Whatever gave you
the impression that politics is a nice, pretty business?


My impression is that leadership should be leadership, not
pandering after poll numbers. Wasn't that one of the
criticisms of Clinton? That, and not committing sufficient
military force to accomplish the U.S. goals? Hmmm, where
have we seen this story before....


DSK

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:54:25 -0400, DSK said:

all the groups that have helped
Bush eventually get savaged by Karl Rove.

I like Rove. Don't know him, but anyone who can transform otherwise rational
individuals into babbling lunatics at the mere mention of his name, as I see
with my friends of the other political persuasion, must have a helluva lot
of mojo.

He's amazingly effective at what he does, but I don't believe the ends
justify the means, which is what he's all about.




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message

So, what's best for democracy and the country don't matter much to you?

OMGD...look! ....a weasel mounts the ethics soapbox.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa


CM-

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

My impression is that leadership should be leadership, not pandering after
poll numbers. Wasn't that one of the criticisms of Clinton?

Yup.

That, and not committing sufficient military force to accomplish the U.S.
goals? Hmmm, where have we seen this story before....

Nobody's perfect. Your mistake is assuming I support Bush and his
administration. For the record (for the umpteenth time) I'm no fan of GWB
or his policies. He's rear-ended his constituency, bankrupted the
government, and failed to secure our southern border. And that's the tip of
the iceberg, IMHO. Of course no Democrat will do any better. To expect any
president to actually make and execute policies which benefit the populace
is naive. The Washington Game is one of money and favors.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:54:25 -0400, DSK said:

all the groups that have helped
Bush eventually get savaged by Karl Rove.

I like Rove. Don't know him, but anyone who can transform otherwise
rational
individuals into babbling lunatics at the mere mention of his name, as I
see
with my friends of the other political persuasion, must have a helluva
lot
of mojo.

He's amazingly effective at what he does, but I don't believe the ends
justify the means, which is what he's all about.

In a perfect world, perhaps, but Washington is far from a perfect
microcosmic world. It gets very bloody there.

Max

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:28:17 -0400, Charlie Morgan said:

I like Rove. Don't know him, but anyone who can transform otherwise
rational
individuals into babbling lunatics at the mere mention of his name, as I
see
with my friends of the other political persuasion, must have a helluva
lot
of mojo.

So, what's best for democracy and the country don't matter much to you?

That is a total non-sequitur.

( . . . the scene changes to Binary Bill reaching for his dictionary . . .)

Max

That's certainly true, but just how much should be tolerate... I don't like
that kind of politics. I don't think it's healthy for us as a nation, and I
think it shouldn't be supported at all. Unfortunately, a lot of the people
respond to that kind of message.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:54:25 -0400, DSK said:

all the groups that have helped
Bush eventually get savaged by Karl Rove.

I like Rove. Don't know him, but anyone who can transform otherwise
rational
individuals into babbling lunatics at the mere mention of his name, as I
see
with my friends of the other political persuasion, must have a helluva
lot
of mojo.

He's amazingly effective at what he does, but I don't believe the ends
justify the means, which is what he's all about.

In a perfect world, perhaps, but Washington is far from a perfect
microcosmic world. It gets very bloody there.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
Nobody's perfect.

True

.... Your mistake is assuming I support Bush and his
administration.

Not at all. You've stated that you despise him. I believe
you, but I don't agree with you.


.... For the record (for the umpteenth time) I'm no fan of GWB
or his policies. He's rear-ended his constituency, bankrupted the
government, and failed to secure our southern border. And that's the tip of
the iceberg, IMHO.

Sure. He did all this before the 2004 election, and you
vigorously supported him them. So who made the mistake?


... Of course no Democrat will do any better.

So, you're just bitterly anti-Democrat? At least that's a
simple policy, easy to explain.


... To expect any
president to actually make and execute policies which benefit the populace
is naive. The Washington Game is one of money and favors.


In that case, the fools are the people who continue to vote
for it.

DSK