BoatBanter.com - A Great Weekend So Far

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

John H wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:46:56 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

John H wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:31:03 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

John H wrote:

On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:

Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and
women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers

*********

The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it
and are
now profiting from it is crap.

The young men and women who do their duty there
are heroic. Each one killed, wounded, or separated
on multiple extended tours from home and family is a national
tragedy.

Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at
once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are
forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the
war itself are all wrong.

Deliberately lied? You're turning into a regular krausite!

You seem to forget:

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant
and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

D'oh. The evidence is mounting that Bush had the "intel" evidence
"cooked" to support his positions before he had it passed along to
members of Congress.

In other words, he had the "intel" changed to support his
predisposition to invade Iraq.

There is good coming out of Bush's dirty war. He's a half year into
his term and he's becoming a lame duck. Taht's good for America and
good for the world.

Duh...bull****.

You don't believe Bush is becoming a lame duck?

I don't. According to the most accurate pollster in the last 2
Presidential elections (Rasmussen), Bush's approval rating is still at
49%. Given the margin of error of the poll, that means that he
continues to have the support of almost the exact same number of people
who voted for him last November. Nothing has changed. He was a strong
political ally to politicians in elections all over the country in
November...and will continue to be an important ally for those who are
up for reelection in 2006.

His rating now is what it was right before the election, which he won,
right?

Most legit polls show a five to seven point drop in Bush's job
favorability rating since just before the election. Then, he was about
49%. Now, he is around 42%.

According to Rasmussen:
Bush's approval rating was 52% on election day. It's at 49% now...and
has bounced around between 48 and 51% in the last week. Given the margin
of error, he's statistically where he was at when he won the general
election with 62 million votes last November.

I don't know where you're getting 42% from? Zogby? Gallup has it at 47%
and Washington Post/ABC has it at 48%.

As the midterm election nears, and that approval rating hovers near the
same number it was at in 11/04, the Republican candidates will fall into
line when they begin to remember that those numbers were good enough for
Bush to beat his opponent by 3 million votes...*and* coat-tail other
Republicans into a larger majority in the House and Senate.

Here...the Christian Science Monitor disagrees with you.

rom the June 20, 2005 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0620/p01s01-uspo.html

Bush faces a stalled agenda, as 2006 races rev up
He focuses on Social Security and Iraq as public support fades and
bipartisan talk ebbs.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - As President Bush's ambitious agenda sags under the weight of
public skepticism - and a growing willingness among some Republicans to
break ranks - political observers would love nothing more than to be the
proverbial fly on the wall in the Oval Office.

Of course, those who know what Bush and his advisers are saying to each
other aren't talking. But in public, at least, the White House betrays no
hint that it will change course on its two biggest agenda items, Social
Security and Iraq. A third priority, tax reform, has been put off until
the fall.

Only five months into his second term, Bush has already begun to abandon
talk of bipartisanship and blame the Democrats for what he calls their
"agenda of the roadblock" - a tactic that points more toward scoring
points in the 2006 congressional elections than winning converts to his
side in the current, closely divided Congress. The 2006 campaign has
already begun, creating an incentive for Republicans to put protecting
themselves ahead of loyalty to the term- limited Bush.

The White House, for its part, seems to be following a familiar pattern of
sticking to its guns until the last possible moment.

"They don't yield until it appears that all will be lost unless they
compromise," says Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University.
"They definitely play a game of brinkmanship, and that is to convey an
impression that's not just determined but pugnacious. Then, when it
appears that that kind of bluff doesn't work, then and only then do they
quietly consider compromises."

- - -

The Bush administration employs a tactic known to all great negotiators. He
hits 'em high, knowing he can always come down. He pushes the extreme,
knowing that the middle ground will prevail in the end.

Ironically, what appears as a compromise to the adversary ends up being
exactly what the President had hoped for in the first place.

The confirmation hearings on the Federal judges are a great example.
Hardcore conservatives screamed bloody murder that a "compromise" was
employed despite Republicans holding all the cards. But guess what? Bush
got his nominations confirmed...which is what he was after in the first
place.

Social Security and Iraq are issues that are being handled the same exact
way. Name one thing in Iraq that Bush wanted and hasn't gotten from
Congress.

In the end, some form of Social Security reform will also be implemented.
Perhaps it will be an older age to collect benefits. Perhaps it will be
lower benefits for the affluent. Perhaps it will be partial privatization
for people under age 35. In any case, Bush's strategy will have been
responsible for the change.