Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

Bush's worst week, just the beginning?

By Lelon in Op-Ed
Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 08:19:50 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)

Love him or hate him, this has not been a very good week for President George W Bush.

After 50 days of relative success, the Bush Administration had more than a few sorry moments this past week, some of which you may have missed.

While we have come to expect "miscommunications" between a newly elected president and his cabinet members during the first 100 days, the different messages we're getting from Colin Powell and President bush are down right frightening, not because of the disagreements themselves, but because it actually appears Bush is calling the shots when it comes to foreign policy, despite a recent poll where a majority of Americans believe someone else is running the country. The administration's 180-degree turn on North Korea makes one wonder if he's alienating the rogue nation for the sole purpose of pushing through a missile defense plan, since North Korea is the one and only country a missile defense shield could ever be effective against. It doesn't look like the possibility of peace will stop Bush from pushing through a payoff to the military-industrial complex that got him elected.

Later in the week Bush reneged on his campaign pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, as if fate itself were out to get him, scientists found direct evidence that greenhouse gases are building up in Earth's atmosphere and allowing less heat to escape into space. All this after his own chief of the Environmental Protection Agency assured our allies that he would keep his commitment, forcing her to eat more then her fair share of crow.

Lets not forget his big payoff to the airline industry that contributed so much to his campaign. Or how about the payoff in the form of a Bankruptcy Reform Bill. Anyone notice that MBNA America Bank was Bush's number one contributor.

With McCain breathing down his neck on Campaign Reform, a looming energy crisis as OPEC prepares to cut production, and a tax cut that will require major concessions before it will ever see the light of day, Bush very well may be in for a tough few weeks. Has his honeymoon simply worn out? Or is this a slight stumble in what will turn out to be an unusually effective session of Congress?


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


How do you feel about Bush's performance so far?
o Better than I expected. 12%
o About what I expected. 49%
o Well below my expecations. 19%
o I don't care. 19%

Votes: 163
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o different messages
o North Korea
o Bush reneged on his campaign pledge
o direct evidence
o more then her fair share of crow
o big payoff
o payoff
o number one contributor
o Also by Lelon

Display: Sort:
Bush's worst week, just the beginning? | 88 comments (66 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden)
Problems started long ago (3.88 / 9) (#6)
by RangerBob on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 08:36:46 AM EST

I think he began going wrong when he decided to open up the gates to funding religion. I believe in my separation of church and state, that's one of the big reasons we split from England. I also worry about the precedent it sets. By doing this, ANY religious group should be able to get money, from your "normal" religions right down to cults.

And yeah, so what if the poster is biased? All it means is that he has an opinion. You can't have a discussion unless people have differing opinions to talk about. Otherwise, the conversation is really boring and becomes nothing more than preaching to the choir.

Separation of Church and State (none / 0) (#85)
by eofpi on Fri Mar 23, 2001 at 06:14:06 PM EST

Not only would ALL religions need to receive unbiased funding, but something would need to be done for people that are agnostic and/or athiest as well (if you think agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive, the Jargon File requests to differ).

[ Parent ]
You mean Pres. Bush had a good week? (2.61 / 13) (#13)
by TheSpiritOf1776 on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 09:38:41 AM EST

I mean, this is the guy that right from the start wanted to give the federal government even more control over education, an area that the federal government has absolutely no authorization over (see Article 1, Section 8 and Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution).

I was surprised that the various socialists (Sen. Ted Kennedy and his ilk along with the like minded mainstream media) opposed Bush's voucher program. With federal money comes federal control, and socialism is all about control. They should have been drooling over Bush's plan.

Uh... (3.00 / 1) (#56)
by ghjm on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 03:34:43 PM EST

Yeah, but the Dems aren't socialist.



[ Parent ]
Why Is Bush Doing So Poorly? (3.10 / 20) (#16)
by Signal 11 on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 11:28:45 AM EST

His killing blow was not any of what you mentioned, but instead the florida elections. Gore won the popular vote, and despite confirmed improprieties in the vote, Florida was still allowed to be counted. Bush won by a supreme court justice against almost 200k of votes across the country saying he was not the legitimate president. THAT is why Bush is faltering - people don't think he's legitimate. And rightfully so - he isn't.

Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
Odd. (4.00 / 7) (#20)
by br284 on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 12:19:45 PM EST

I was under the impression that there was a study that showed in the counties where Gore was supposed to pick up the votes he needed to win the election, he did not. But then again, I'm probably just thinking of the undervote. Can you give me a bit more information that supports that Gore won the popular vote in Florida? These days, it's all so confusing.

I like Nader's idea: since the totals were well within the margin of error, the candidates should have just flipped a coin to see who won.


[ Parent ]
Bush was elected (3.25 / 4) (#30)
by Wah on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 02:49:50 PM EST

by a bad UI and one black man. Here's some more evidence.

And this only goes to show that there is evidence the "will of the people" was confused, or at least warped a bit. So we ended up with Bush, who really liked the 80's. I didn't, so I don't like Bush.
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]

military ballots (3.40 / 5) (#36)
by blp on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 04:30:37 PM EST

And what about the absentee ballots from US military overseas that Gore was trying to keep from being counted? Bush and Gore were both guilty of trying to work the system in their favor Bush just ended up succeeding. I think we should have just taken four years off of having a president. Maybe we could contract out our government to another country to save money. I hear Great Briton has some extra government they don't need (Both a queen and a parliment/prime miniter) they could just loan us the half they aren't using.

I can no longer sit back and allow: Communist Infiltration, Communist Indoctrination, Communist Subversion and the International Communist Conspiracy to sap and inpurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
[ Parent ]

Florida (2.75 / 16) (#23)
by MrAcheson on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 01:04:49 PM EST

Sorry Signal, but presidential elections are not decided by the popular vote. Grow up and deal with it. Also while you say that there were improprieties, the only documented cases I have seen of actual tampering were by burly democratic staffers who were in the polling places telling people how to vote. As for faltering, last time I checked Bush's approval rating wasn't too shabby...

These opinions do not represent those of the US Army, DoD, or US Government.

[ Parent ]
Dismissive statements. (3.75 / 16) (#32)
by Signal 11 on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 03:03:27 PM EST

Sorry Signal, but presidential elections are not decided by the popular vote. Grow up and deal with it.

Every problem with america should just be accepted. Grow up and stop complaining about everything and just be happy mindless productive workers! Social change is impossible, and how dare you even think about it. Stagnation is doubleplus good!

Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

Hmm. (2.80 / 5) (#45)
by vectro on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 12:55:09 AM EST

Your sarcastic tone is rather antisocial. Perhaps you need a good game of electromagnetic golf, or even a VPS? Or, for that matter, maybe some soma. After all, evil's an unreality if you take a couple of grammes.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
RE: Dismissive statements (3.00 / 5) (#52)
by Colonel hacker on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 01:45:11 PM EST

Or we can whine about how unfair it is on Kuro5hin and keep repeating the same, tired line about how Bush isn't the legitimate president. I have to agree with the other poster: Grow up and deal with it. That may mean just accepting it, or it may mean working to change the system. It doesn't mean spouting unfounded accusations of electoral theft over and over again, which seems to be the only thing those unhappy with the results are doing.

[ Parent ]
Documented cases (4.37 / 8) (#34)
by Wicket on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 03:40:05 PM EST

Check out this site for a real eye opener.
intune.org - music discussion for the soul...
[ Parent ]
The real news. (4.60 / 5) (#65)
by erotus on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 06:40:25 PM EST

Wicket, thanks for that link. I heard about that BBC report before from a friend of mine. He has satelite and was able to actually watch the BBC report as it was aired. He watched as the politicians who were questioned got angry and demanded that the reporters leave. He and I wondered why a story of such magnitude would not be aired in the US. After all, the media is always looking for a good scandel to report. Why not this? I find it interesting that Greg Palast calls American reporters "docile sheep" and I think he is correct.

Not only are the journalists docile sheep, so are the majority of Americans. Not that Americans would not want to hear the story... they would, it's just that the media doesn't report it and we are left living inside of a box. Great, how can the truth ever be told if reporters in this country don't have any balls. Are they scared of what their parent companies might do? I just find the whole situation hypocritical. The media is more than willing to report a sex scandel in the white house, but is unwilling to report a story that would shake the very foundation of our democracy. Are we as Americans really this stupid and feeble that our fragile worldview has to be protected? Are the big media corps really not broadcasting this story so that we can continue to believe that our system works and is without flaws?

Whatever the reason is, I'm appalled that the truth is not told and the big media houses did not carry this story. I understand now what many foreigners tell me when they say our news is only catering to us. He said, "when you step into America, you step into a box." Having done a bit of travelling and living outside of the US myself, I can also confirm this. We live in a box, we are content to live in a box, we want to believe that we are free, and we will convince ourselves that our way is right no matter what.

So don't watch stations like the BBC that report what really happens. Watch American news and believe everything they tell you. Just say "God Bless America", repeat the pledge of allegiance, wave the flag, and let big corporations and the government run your life because they know what is best for you. How dare any of us think any different.

[ Parent ]
Fuck. (3.50 / 8) (#55)
by ghjm on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 03:28:43 PM EST

I'm a Clinton supporter. Eight years now I've been listening to Republicans go on about Clinton not being a legitimate President because he didn't win a majority - there was a third candidate in both votes, Clinton clearly won but only achieved ~ 45% of the popular vote.

Now you guys want to get all pissed off that your candidate LOST the popular vote and won on what can only be described as a series of increasingly bizarre technicalities?

Payback's a bitch. Fuck you.


[ Parent ]
In a word... (3.11 / 9) (#41)
by darthaggie on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 09:57:20 PM EST

people don't think he's legitimate. And rightfully so - he isn't.


In how many of the states that were decisively won (either way) did they bother to count the absentee ballot? can you say "none"?

But this is all nit picky, 'cause it comes down to this: if Al Gore could have won Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

He couldn't even carry his own home state. How pathetic.

Al Gore lost. Get over it.

I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
[ Parent ]

The true problem (at least in the U.S.) (3.00 / 13) (#19)
by regeya on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 12:04:42 PM EST

The reason we hear mostly negative news about Dubba in traditional mass-media outlets is because (and I realize I sound like Rush Limbaugh, sorry; hey, he lived across the river from me. I can't help it.) mass-media's darling didn't win. Simple as that.

Think that mass-media doesn't have an effect on elections and public opinion? Perhaps not, but I'm reminded that news outlets were in the habit of running a blurb every time George Bush (the other one) went to Kennebunkport during the 1992 campaign. Sure, you heard negative things about Bill Clinton. Wouldn't be right if they ignored everything negative, right? :-) (Notice how that "Ah'm proud to have come from a little town called Hope" garbage got swept under the rug?)

And it seemed so odd in the prior election that Gore had been virtually ignored. Sure, you saw speeches. You saw Tipper and Al on the campaign bus giving an interview. Did you see anything at all, even a smidgen of dirt, about Al Gore's past? Well, I saw a little, but the negative reports were disproportionately about Dubba. I found Gore's flip-flop stance on abortion more interesting than Dubba's cocaine habit 20 years ago.

And now, we've got a President that was not the li'l media darling. Look out, because he's going to be under the microscope even more than Clinton was.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]

Actually, the media lost it twice. (3.00 / 5) (#21)
by br284 on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 12:22:11 PM EST

Not only was Gore the media's darling, so was Mr. McCain, who the media adored so much more than any of the other candidates at the time. So, I guess that they are probably justified for picking on Bush for not just beating their second most favorite candidate, but also their first.


[ Parent ]
Now we see the violence inherent in the system! (3.80 / 5) (#22)
by 0xdeadbeef on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 12:59:35 PM EST

Gee, I don't think waffling on abortion and having a racist father with ties to oil companies really compares to the fact that the leader of our government incarcerates, and sometimes murders, honest people for the same sins he has himself committed. Remember, it's all about character...

[ Parent ]
Oh yes, of course. (3.11 / 9) (#28)
by regeya on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 02:41:05 PM EST

No other president in the history of the United States, of course, is guilty of that.

Oh, and Spendocrat, do be good enough to rate this down since you seem so keen to rate all my comments at 1.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

What planet are you from? (4.33 / 12) (#27)
by The Cunctator on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 02:04:38 PM EST

Gore, the mass-media's darling? Are you kidding me?

The media never liked Gore, and still doesn't. Bush was cream-puffed the entire campaign, while Gore was knocked. Interestingly, that's not because of any conspiracy: the older, more experienced reporters who had been covering the White House covered the Gore campaign, while new and younger reporters were sent out to cover Bush.

Bush's team perfectly handled those reporters. Bush managed to give the same speech the entire campaign, never deviating, while refusing to give any other information at all to the reporters. And they lapped it up.

Gore's reporters, however, had been around the blocks a few times, and wouldn't stand for such uncritical coverage.

The critical eye the media is putting on Bush isn't because of ideology or because they love Gore; it's because now those same experienced reporters who had been covering Gore and Clinton (and ripping them apart) are now covering Bush.

U.S. media these days is essentially moderate-conservative, as reflects their parent companies. They do, however, want to be popular, and the American public is essentially moderate-liberal, in that they (as a whole) favor the Democratic platform over the Republican platform (e.g. if asked if they want tax cuts, they'll say yes, but they'd rather increase education spending/pay down the debt/protect Medicare/SS etc. first than cut taxes).

[ Parent ]

Open question for Spendocrat (2.28 / 7) (#29)
by regeya on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 02:43:57 PM EST

If you disagree, could you tell me what you disagree with rather than simply rating my comment at 1? I'd appreciate it if you'd do that rather than abusing the rating system. Thank you.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

Way to go! (1.33 / 3) (#48)
by regeya on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 09:00:24 AM EST

I got another taker on the rating abuse train! Woohoo! Way to go!

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

w00t! (1.50 / 4) (#49)
by regeya on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 10:05:16 AM EST

C'mon, you can do another! Show what big people you are! Go ahead, rate it down!

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

heh (3.50 / 2) (#58)
by el_guapo on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 03:47:56 PM EST

they even bit again....
mas cerveza, por favor mirrors, manifestos, etc.
[ Parent ]
gore's past? (3.83 / 6) (#40)
by delmoi on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 07:47:33 PM EST

Did you see anything at all, even a smidgen of dirt, about Al Gore's past? Well, I saw a little, but the negative reports were disproportionately about Dubba. I found Gore's flip-flop stance on abortion more interesting than Dubba's cocaine habit 20 years ago.

Well, maybe gore just didn't have that kind of past? It is possible to go through life and not be a scumbag, you know.
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Bush bad press (4.00 / 6) (#50)
by JonesBoy on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 10:09:37 AM EST

GW had a lot of material against him, while his rival Gore didn't. Sure, gore stomped on the environment several times in office (remember the million-gallon-gore thing), but in his past he was just as he is now. Boring. Oh, he was a pothead in college. GW led an interesting life filled with social promotion, alcoholism, cocaine addiction, abortions, and failed buisness ventures. You should be blaming the media for the job they did on Dan Quayle. He was actually an intelligent, well meaning VP. Needed a little public speaking practice, but he in no way deserved the torture he took while in office.
Speeding never killed anyone. Stopping did.
[ Parent ]
On keeping his CO2 promise (3.66 / 6) (#37)
by Strick on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 05:23:19 PM EST

For all the flak he's been taking for backing of on his promise to curb CO2 emissions, I believe that, for the time being, it's a good decision. With California being the land of the rolling blackouts, it's just not prudent to start forcing more regulations on a currently pressed industry. I agree that it needs to be done and that it doesn't need to be postponed without reason, but until this energy crisis is over, we should probably let things ride for now, and afterward we should do something about the pollution. But now is not the right time to be puttimg more pressure on energy suppliers.

CO2 has little to do with CA (3.66 / 6) (#38)
by The Cunctator on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 07:04:17 PM EST

I have a feeling this is a deliberate troll, but color me hooked.

California's energy problems largely involve natural gas; the CO2 regulations would largely affect coal-powered plants. The connection between CA's energy crisis and CO2 regulations is tenuous at best.

The only energy suppliers who are having problems in California are the ones who engaged in idiotic business practices, or the ones who are owned by even larger energy suppliers, who are raking in the profits.

For some reason I worry less about some potential bankruptcies of poorly run govt-subsidized utilities (and the rising energy rates are guaranteeing thousands of personal bankruptcies) than the potential destruction of the global climate. But that's just me.

[ Parent ]

Currently pressed industry? (3.75 / 4) (#54)
by MarkCC on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 03:05:23 PM EST

I hate to burst your little bubble, but there are a couple of facts that you might want to consider.

  1. CO2 emissions have nothing to do with the CA situation. In CA, the power plants are either natural gas or nuclear, neither of which are significant offenders when it comes to CO2. (In fact, the proposed CO2 regulations would have required changing many coal-fired plants to switch to natural gas.)
  2. The power generating industry is hardly "hard-pressed". If you look at what's really going on in CA, you've got a bunch of extremely wealthy companies (including Enron, owned by a dear friend and compaign contributor of our beloved president), which are actively gouging the poorly deregulated California market.

    The power producers that provide electricity to CA are making a killing. The utilities, which were required by law to purchase power on the spot market are getting screwed. (But are carefully shielding their assets.)

The real reason for opposing the CO2 levels is because a lot of Bush's contributors are connected to the coal industry in some fashion. There are a lot of extremely dirty coal-fired power plants in the midwestern US. Under the new regulations, they'd need to clean up, which would mean switching to gas for many of them. That means that the coal producers lose a lot of money - and they give to Bush. And the guys who own the coal plants need to spend money to meet the regulations - and they give money to Bush.

As usual, it's just another example of the reality of the american political system: one dollar, one vote.

[ Parent ]

I would like to point out the ironic cycle here... (3.80 / 10) (#42)
by slakhead on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 10:38:52 PM EST

1. Greenhouse gases cause the climate to warm noticeably

2. The increased temperature means lower water levels in the West.

3. Lower water levels mean less power and higher power prices.

4. Bush refuses to prevent production of greenhouse gases because that could raise power prices.

5. Repeat.

Say what? (3.66 / 3) (#59)
by nstenz on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 03:49:09 PM EST

2. The increased temperature means lower water levels in the West.

An increase in temperature = melting ice caps, glaciers, ice sheets, etc. = higher water levels.

Something isn't computing here.

[ Parent ]
Sorry I forgot to clarify (4.00 / 2) (#66)
by slakhead on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 07:32:38 PM EST

Lower water levels in the rivers. The rivers start to dry up and there is less water to move the turbines at all the major dams.

Bad times for we Washingtonians and other Western folk

[ Parent ]
Browne (2.87 / 8) (#43)
by rawg on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 11:10:06 PM EST

This is the reason that I voted for Harry Browne. Both Gore and Bush are idiots.


Neither Bush nor Gore won (3.00 / 2) (#57)
by imperium on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 03:38:31 PM EST

Nor Harry Browne for that matter. Nobody won. End of story.

[ Parent ]

Not really a bad week... (3.33 / 6) (#44)
by rilke on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 12:51:36 AM EST

It's just the regular media cycle. After a couple of months of purely laudatory coverage, the press needs to turn something into a story.

In fact, one easily could have taken 3 or 4 stories out of any week of the Bush presidency, pushed them hard in the press, and then claimed he had a "bad week". He certainly didn't have a bad week this week in terms of getting things done (he got a couple of very large bills passed and snuck a few major executive orders through that nobody noticed), he just had a bad media week.

A few things set off this particular turn in the media. First, of course, was the stock market crash. The second was the total media blackout of the civil rights commission report on the Florida election. Reporters felt guilty about missing the story, and reacted by giving Bush a hard time this week.

This happens both ways. For example, during the campaign the press pushed the RATS story beyond any reasonable point, then felt guilty and gave Gore two weeks of bad press in response.

In about two weeks, the press will feel guilty about the hard time they're giving the administration and they'll turn around and submit a slew of stories about Bush's leadership and power.

This week, the conservatives will complain about the liberal media, in a couple of weeks the left will be louding complaining about the corporate-controlled media. Some of us would prefer the news to this soap opera, but that's becoming harder and harder to find these days.

Regular Media (4.50 / 2) (#73)
by ZeeDraak on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 07:07:37 AM EST

The corporate media has been covering for their new massah ever since the election, from rephrasing bushisms to hardcore censorship; so everything's quite regular.

[ Parent ]
Bush ISN'T President - Texas shouldn't have voted. (3.46 / 13) (#46)
by Blarney on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 02:02:54 AM EST

Bush and Cheney are both Texas residents. The Constitution quite particularly states that the electors of each state shall decide upon and vote for a President and a Vice President, who are not both residents of that state. Texas could have voted any way they wanted, maybe voted a different Veep, but voting Bush-Cheney was definitely illegal.

Don't believe me? Check out Article II, Section 1, third paragraph: "The electors shall meet..."

Yeah, it was nice of Cheney to sell his shares in Halliburton Oil and abandon his Dallas office for that company. It was to avoid conflict of interest, right? Nope, it was a sorry-assed attempt to cover up his residency. Not that he needed to bother - after all, how many people know what Article II says? Not enough.Take away the Texas votes, and they lost. Nevermind Florida, that's not the REAL scam.

Bush has a rough week? Boo hoo, I'm a rich bastard who stole the presidency of a great country, my life sucks. Boo hoo.

Yes he is (3.50 / 6) (#51)
by Colonel hacker on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 11:36:33 AM EST

You might be able to make the argument that Cheney isn't the legitimate VP on that basis, but Bush would have gotten those votes regardless.

"...[He's] a rich bastard who stole the presidency of a great country..."

No, he didn't. Get over it. It gets old hearing this lie repeated day in and day out. I'm not by any means a Bush fan, but there are too many people fooling themselves into thinking that just because they don't like the way things went in Florida, the election was somehow stolen.

[ Parent ]
Florida (3.40 / 5) (#60)
by Wicket on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 03:51:29 PM EST

Things definitely still don't smell right in Florida, read this story for a look into why people feel Florida was "stolen".

intune.org - music discussion for the soul...
[ Parent ]
Florida (3.66 / 3) (#61)
by Colonel hacker on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 04:11:46 PM EST

Thank you. I saw that link in another one of your posts. Certainly informative. My problem isn't so much with people who think something isn't right with the whole Florida deal as it is with those who just repeat the tired "Gore really won, Bush stole the election, blah blah baaaa" without really having a clue as to what they're talking about. I go to a fairly liberal university, so I hear this constantly. Problem is, most don't want to be bothered with having to back their statements up.

The original poster had a fairly good comment going on the issue of the Texas vote, and should have left it at that - or at least supported his accusation of theft. As it is, it came across as quite childish.

[ Parent ]
Boy George (3.00 / 1) (#72)
by ZeeDraak on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 06:46:11 AM EST

Check out this page for more stuff:


[ Parent ]
Not really (3.33 / 3) (#68)
by Delirium on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 12:02:02 AM EST

All well and good, except that Cheney is a Wyoming resident (who also owns a house in Texas).

Or are you claiming that when Wyoming lists him as being a legal resident and Texas does not (check the voter registration rolls if you wish), the two states err?

[ Parent ]

Yes, really (none / 0) (#84)
by rossz on Fri Mar 23, 2001 at 03:15:15 PM EST

Cheney is a Texas resident who happens to own property in Wyoming. Look at where he was living up until he started running for office. The day before he announced his VP candidacy, he went to Wyoming and registered to vote (thus establishing residency).

Although an obvious (and successful) attempt to circumvent the Constutition, this move worked well enough to fool the less intelligent.

What this proves to the more intelligent minority is Constitutional limitations don't apply to the rich.

[ Parent ]
hmm (none / 0) (#86)
by Delirium on Fri Mar 23, 2001 at 11:03:00 PM EST

Well I'm curious as to how you would propose to fix that loophole then; it's not that Cheney didn't move legally, but that you claim he shouldn't have been able to move legally that easily/quickly. However, freedom of movement is a very fundamental freedom in the U.S., so one shouldn't have to go through a lengthy process to move to another state.

More importantly, is this restriction against two people running from the same state even necessary these days? Perhaps instead of closing loopholes it'd be better to just do away with it entirely.

[ Parent ]

Fixing or losing (none / 0) (#88)
by rossz on Mon Mar 26, 2001 at 05:09:14 PM EST

If it were up to me (if I were evil emperor of the world), I would require a person to maintain a presence in the state at least 184 days out of the previous year. That's slightly more than half a year to prevent a person from estabilishing residency in two states. No requirement that the days be continuous. It's quite possible for someone, under this rule, to live in one state, move to another, then switch back to the original state just before an election. I have no problem with this. I have a problem with Bush/Cheney using their money to bypass the Constitution simply by being filthy rich.

Alternately, whatever state is listed on the Federal income tax return should be used.

You bring up a good point about whether the seperate state Constitutional requirement still makes sense. However, I don't wish to allow the politician scumbags to ignore a single part of the Consitution. Once they get started, who knows if they could stop.

Oops. Too late. :(

[ Parent ]
Slight problem... (4.00 / 4) (#47)
by sec on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 02:16:57 AM EST

Later in the week Bush reneged on his campaign pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, as if fate itself were out to get him, scientists found direct evidence that greenhouse gases are building up in Earth's atmosphere and allowing less heat to escape into space.

If you look here, you find out that the wavelengths of energy that were reduced in fact correspond to the wavelengths that are blocked by _methane_, and not CO2.

There was no statistically significant reduction in the wavelengths blocked by CO2. In fact, there was a slight, albeit statistically insignificant increase in the CO2 bands.

Now about the kindest thing I can say about Bush is that I'm glad he's not the leader of my country, at least not directly. Still, twisting the facts in order to make him look worse than he already is doesn't strike me as being a very nice thing to do.

That's not necessarily right either... (3.50 / 2) (#62)
by nstenz on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 04:20:15 PM EST

The article you link to says there's a decent possibility that innacuracies in the study and the different sensitivities in the instruments of the two satellites makes the data practically useless. Yes, the pretty colored graphs show what appears to be an increase in radiation transmission due to increased methane levels, but the article states later on that the methane readings appear to be innacurate, or merely less precise to match up the two data sets. The whole sunspot thing just throws everything out of whack too. I don't think we can get much of anything out of this study.

Thanks for the link though - It made for interesting reading. I appreciate it.

[ Parent ]
Slight correction (3.00 / 1) (#63)
by nstenz on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 04:22:28 PM EST

The study was about radiation reflection, not transmission... Small oops.

[ Parent ]
Wrong-O (4.33 / 9) (#53)
by Bob Abooey on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 02:58:38 PM EST

For the life of me I don't know why anybody would want the job of President. It's really no wonder the quality of person who applies for the job has dropped off through the years. Quite frankly I don't know of a single human who could live under that microscope and come out looking like a rose.

I think the best one I saw was some schmuck on a Yahoo stock message board pointing out how far the Nasdaq has gone down since dubya took over. Sheesh, haven't we evolved beyond that third grade mentality. Why is it that politics turns us into spitefull irrational angry little adolescent soldiers? I'm no Bush fan but i have enough of a clue to know enough to give him a chance before passing judegment on him. It's all pretty new stuff for him and also for some of his people. It's sad really, that the things which make America great are also the things which make it suck. I guess we are destined to be a country of third graders forever...

Comments on politics from a man whose life seems to revolve around his lunch menu just do not hold weight. - Casioitan
It's kind of funny (4.00 / 1) (#82)
by weirdling on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 06:23:01 PM EST

It seems, almost without fail, that the country elects a liberal before a period of economic growth, and then a conservative before a period of contraction. I think the two issues are related; electing a conservative indicates a more conservative mentality, which is what happens when the society as a whole fears the future.
There is correlation, but GW hasn't had nearly long enough to actually cause any of the things he's accused of, but these accusations come from the same people who think lowering taxes will cause inflation in a recessionary market.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
I agree with the schmuck (1.00 / 1) (#87)
by bjrubble on Sun Mar 25, 2001 at 05:40:41 AM EST

I think the most irresponsible political move I've ever seen was Bush talking down the economy before the election.

You think words don't make a difference? How about "irrational exuberance?" Sure, Bush is no Greenspan, and in the end I doubt he did as much with his hundreds of words as Greenspan did with his two, but if you think the stock market doesn't run on perception you must have had your head under a rock the past five years.

[ Parent ]
The Wise Popeye (3.44 / 9) (#64)
by slick willie on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 06:12:40 PM EST

Popeye once said, "I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more."

First point. It looks like Colin Powell is having to deal with some conflicts with other cabinet members, and other members of the party. How do you extrapolate from there that it is frightening that Bush is making foreign policy decisions? Making the policy decisions is his job. The cabinet, and other folks are advisors. They give advice, based on what they know, and the president can take it or leave it, because, as Harry Truman stated, "The Buck Stops Here." Also, if you could provide a link to the recent poll that you cite, it would be much appreciated. Also, please clarify the reason you mentioned that poll. Do you think that it's good that people think that GWB is not running the country? I don't see why this is mentioned, other than as a gratuitous jab.

Let's have a list of nations that could potentially launch nuclear strikes against the US, shall we? China, Russia (quite possibly any of the former Soviet Republics), Iraq, North Korea (gasp!), among others. To assert that North Korea is the sole potential agressor is ludicrous, and to further assert that this further ties in to a "payoff to the military-industrial complex" is a step beyond that. I will grant you that the administration doesn't seem to have a fully formed policy toward North Korea, however, that doesn't lead me to your conclusions.

Bush changed his mind on a campaign promise. STOP THE PRESSES! Someone reneged on a campaign promise? Guess what? That has been going on since time began. No news there. "But wait," you say, "what about Global Warming(tm)? There's evidence now!" There is an increase in greenhouse gases, but no evidence of causality. It could be due to the presence of over 6 billion O2->CO2 converters. And, he hung Christie Whitman out to dry. That has never happened in politics, either.

The payoff to the airlines? It's the same thing that Clinton did to United in 1997. What was the payoff there, or is that different?

Bankruptcy Reform has been badly needed. For many, it has been a "Get out of Jail Free" card. Too much debt? No problem, here's do-over. Ever wonder why the interest rates on credit cards is so high? Your claim that MBNA, as an entity, is the largest contributor is specious at best. Employees of MBNA, yes. It may be a fuzzy distinction, but it is important. Bob Jones, an employee of MBNA, chose to donate money to the Bush campaign. I wonder who we would find on the other side of the aisle? Big Labor, perhaps? I wonder where that money came from, and if it was voluntarily given. Show me a banker who doesn't support Republican candidates, and I'll show you where we buried Hoffa.

Wait a minute, I just re-read the list! I've got it all figured out now. Bush intervened with the airlines so that Enterprise Rent-a-car, could make more money on folks keeping their cars for extra days becase their flights were indefinitely cancelled due to the strike! After all, Enterprise is right up there after the banks on the list.

Looming energy crisis? I'd say we're smack dab in the middle of it already, and have been since late last summer, wouldn't you? I'm so thankful that those 50 million barrels of oil were released from the strategic reserves, otherwise my heat bills might have quadrupled instead of only tripling.

There ya go, have at it.

"...there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit."
--Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address

Missile Defense (4.00 / 3) (#75)
by tympanic on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 09:59:58 AM EST

Most of the nations you name have enough missiles to overrun the missile defense system that is being planned. Thus the system would be ineffective against attack from those countries. N. Korea is one of a very few countries that the system would actually be effective against.


"I've noticed success tends to mean making sure people's expectations are low and then exceeding them" -David Simpson
[ Parent ]

also (3.33 / 3) (#76)
by alprazolam on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 10:31:53 AM EST

iraq lacks the ability to launch a nuclear weapon into united states. (i think, until i see evidence either way)

[ Parent ]
Re: Missile Defense (3.33 / 3) (#77)
by slick willie on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 10:55:54 AM EST

I don't consider myself an expert in international relations by any stretch, but to my way of thinking, these "rogue nations" cause more concern than, say, China, Russia, and so forth.

Why? Because they have nothing to lose.

Having grown up during the cold war, (and being relieved beyond belief when it ended) I may be a relic of that age, but it's not hard to imagine a scenario like this:

The leader of Elbonia, tired of sanctions, and the general scorn of the world, lobs a missile into the US. (Pick a target.) Immediately, the launch is noted and counterstrikes are being dialed in. The red phone rings, and it's Russia on the line, warning that a retaliatory strike so near to their border could be seen as an agressive act. China gives the same warning. So, in the remaining minutes left, what happens?

I don't know. This scenario may not even be plausible.

I also realize that NMD is likely perceived around the world as a shield, from behind which we could potentially launch an offensive strike.

The thought that really gives me the creeping terrors is bio-warfare. How do you defend against that?

"...there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit."
--Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address

[ Parent ]

Possible... (4.00 / 1) (#78)
by tympanic on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 02:52:30 PM EST

I think your scenario is very possible, but I am more worried about a slightly different threat. I am worried about some terrorist organization, sponsored under-the-table by the government of somewhere like Iran or Libya, smuggling a nuclear device into this country and detonating it. I have a feeling that this is more likely, and probably more effective, than launcing a missile from some other country. As you said, we would be able to track it from launch, and probably would retaliate.

What do you think?

"I've noticed success tends to mean making sure people's expectations are low and then exceeding them" -David Simpson
[ Parent ]

Re: Possible... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by slick willie on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 04:17:43 PM EST

My hunch is that your scenario is much more plausible (and likely), especially with the apparent willingness of some of those folks to sacrifice themselves for a greater good.

To me, the most frightening thing is that with the advances in technology, coupled with the demise of the USSR, J. Random Madman (Osama bin Laden, anyone?) can obtain these materials much easier than he could have 20 years ago.

Not only that, but recent events have shown how easy it is to smuggle the bare necessities into the US.

It might be a strange (or bad) allegory, but I remember when I was in middle school, there was an awful bully who had been held back into our grade. A friend of mine and I, even though we were scared of the kid, extended him the hand of friendship, and we ended up with a great friend.

However, he could have just as easily punched us both in the nose, and laughed at us for being such geeks.

What I guess I'm getting at is that nation-states generally behave like human beings -- they're unpredictable as hell!

BTW, I assume from the scenario that you described that you have read some Tom Clancy? Good stuff, but he's been slipping lately. I thought I was a cold war relic!

"...there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit."
--Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address

[ Parent ]

Good call (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by tympanic on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 04:36:49 PM EST

Indeed I do read Tom Clancy, although I have gotten stuck about halfway through Rainbow Six. I think I have to be in the right frame of mind to read his stuff, and I haven't been lately.

From the conversations that I have had with my father (retired Air Force), these scenarios are much more likely than the all-out-warfare business of the Cold War. That idea scares the hell out of me a lot more than the USSR ever did.

"I've noticed success tends to mean making sure people's expectations are low and then exceeding them" -David Simpson
[ Parent ]

OT: Bear and the Dragon (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by slick willie on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 08:03:43 PM EST

I enjoyed Rainbow Six, and hope that Clancy continues in that direction, rather than with Jack Ryan. To me, The Bear and the Dragon was disappointing, but I don't want to give anything away for you.

My buddy's dad is a retired USAF colonel who used to work in the missile bases. He's got some pretty interesting stories to tell, and not all of them are about chasing girls in Minot, ND! :)

To be honest, though, I think we're in far scarier times now, and I don't see them getting any better...

"...there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit."
--Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address

[ Parent ]

More fun fucks this week... (2.69 / 13) (#67)
by VValdo on Wed Mar 21, 2001 at 07:33:13 PM EST

Fuck #1: Bush Agrees w/ Corporate Campaign Funders-- Arsenic in Water Not So Bad

Fuck #2: Bush Agrees w/ Corporate Campaign Funders-- Patients Don't Deserve Privacy

(free registration requied)

I just can't believe it. They should just run the following summarized headline for the next month:

"Pro-Evil Bush Undoes Good"

This is my .sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.

Heh heh... (3.00 / 1) (#74)
by Rocky on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 09:22:43 AM EST

Sounds like an "Onion" headline...

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
- Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
[ Parent ]
An interesting quote... (1.91 / 12) (#69)
by nickb on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 12:02:23 AM EST

I found this on another site (i.e. /.). It was posted anonymously and no one took the credit for it so I'll post it here without asking for a permission.


GWB was installed. Okay. So, basically, because the liberal scum weren't allowed to re-write the election laws after the election to effectively count all ballots for Al Gore regardless of what the actual ballots actually indicate (or not), GWB was INSTALLED. Democrats send a pack of known criminals, headed by the son of the guy who fucking STOLE chicago for Kennedy, and when their plans go awry, somehow this means GWB was INSTALLED. Please, try to stop hugging trees and hating people with money enough to pull your head out of your ass for just two seconds.

The Democratic party in this country today is run by the most disgusting, ethically devoid bunch of scum to grace the political theatre in centuries. To the ultra-left liberal nuts running the Democratic party of today, the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS, and laws ONLY apply when it BENEFITS THE POLITICAL AGENDAS of the DEMOCRATS. If you can say with a straight face that somehow this is "better" or "more acceptable" than anything your political opponents stand for, you're a complete fool.

Most liberals are totally brainwashed into thinking that a lot of the nice, warm, fuzzy feeling themes that seem to go hand in hand with Democratic politicians, (environmental friendliness, pro-choice stands, giving the poor and middle class basically everything for free, punishing the evil rich people for DARING to have more than you) are things you are actually going to GET from electing liberals. Uhmm. Wrong. At least, wrong in today's world. While I do acknowledge Democrat politicians in the 60's and 70's did some great work in giving the country civil rights reform, the only interest in the current Democratic party is: Lock up the votes of ALL minorities and poor by race and class-baiting, and then lock them into DEPENDENCY on Democrat politicians by giving them money, shelter, and benefits galore, for free or almost nothing. Have you EVER honestly heard a Democrat espouse the concept of personal responsibility? Of COURSE NOT! If Americans developed a sense of pride, personal responsiblity, and willingness to earn a living instead of sucking at the teat of the government, there would be virtually NO need for Democrats!

I realize that most conservatives have flaws. I realize there is room for more compassion to those who are truly disabled and need help. I realize that we shoot ourselves in the foot by mixing moral issues (abortion) with politics, when really, the government should have ZERO business having anything to do with such issues.

But as much as this probably SICKENS liberals to hear, the kind of deep, utter corruption, and CONTEMPT for country and doing what's right to preserve the sanctity and respect for the highest institutions in the land is something that is almost EXCLUSIVE to the Democrats in today's society.

Yeah, we needed Al Gore running the country like we all needed to get AIDS. Al Gore would have dismantled the Constitution, (another thing liberals HATE and wish would just quietly go away) and sent this country into near-total socialism inside of 8 years. If you're content just sucking off the teat of someone else and not being a productive member of society, I guess this WOULD have been your dream. But it ain't mine.

And about this "Bush tanked the economy" bullshit. That is clearly the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. Have you actually DONE any research into the various economic factors that cause an economy to rise and fall? DO you honestly suggest that this current drop in the economy HASN'T been going on for almost a year and ONLY began with GWB being sworn in? Are you THAT brainwashed to the inane liberal dogma? Sheesh.

Popeye.... (3.00 / 3) (#70)
by Lelon on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 12:52:23 AM EST

1.) Why am I afraid that Bush is making foreign policy decisions? Because he has zero expeiernce. None. Zip. Zilch. ZERO. Powell does. Powell's decissions are based on whats right, Bush's decisions are based on political gain. Simple as that.

2.) Missle Defense is not designed to stop large-scale nuclear attacks from Russia or China. Iraq does not have nuclear capability, and even if they did, their method of delivery would not be an ICBM, it would be a briefcase smuggled into the US (or built in the US!) North Korea is the one and only nation that missle defense would be effective against.

3.) I only pointed out his number 1 contributor, for those of you that read the article, good for you!!! You surely notice that many of his top contributors are credit card companies. (Credit Suisse First Boston, Citigroup Inc, Bank of America, etc etc etc etc)

4.) By "looming" energy crisis I'm simply saying "You ain't seen nothing yet". This summer is gonna tough for the entire west. High gasoline prices, while a very important issue, is not an energy crisis. An energy crisis is when we don't have enough energy.

As for your argument that we should expect politicians to go back on campaign pledges, your own pessimism does not excuse GW's actions.

This sig is a work in progress.
OK... (none / 0) (#81)
by slick willie on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 05:16:42 PM EST

1.) My reading of the citation of your article is that there appears to be a Cheney vs. Powell struggle in the cabinet, and that Cheney has GWB's ear. Now, I ask you this: Cheney and Powell both have foreign policy experience. What makes Powell more correct than Cheney? I'm just curious as to how you base your assertion that Powell is "right."

2.) I will concede that the most likely attack is going to be a smuggled bomb, or bio-device. However, I would hate to bet the safety of the entire nation on various shades of likelihood. NMD done right is not a bad idea. When I go out on the shop floor, the likelihood of a metal shaving piercing my eye are pretty slim, but I wear my safety glasses anyway.

3.) I read the CNN article, and the link you provided to supposedly bolster that, contrary to your insinuations. I would suggest that you go back and re-read their methodolgy for compiling the data. Your suggestion is that the corporations themselves made the contributions. The way I read the methodolgy is that the corporations and employees were both taken into consideration. I went and looked at Mr. Gore's top contributors, and here are the conclusions I would draw. Hey, the DMCA must have been the Democrats payoff to the music industry, since there are many entertainment interests on that list. Specious claim? Sure, but no more so than yours. Not only that, but the bill went through both houses of Congress. 80-19 in the Senate, for crying out loud. Explain to me how Bush is responsible for that.

4.) Thanks for turning pedantic mode on. Otherwise, I would have thought that fuel oil, propane, natural gas, and the like had nothing to do with energy, and that they had no place in electrical generation plants. Yes, this summer is going to be damn tough, and not only in energy terms. I am going to be surprised if the Pacific and Inland Northwest don't go up in flames this summer, but I don't blame GW, or Clinton for that matter.

I wasn't excusing his actions on going back on a campaign pledge. I was saying that it happens, regardless of who it is, and that it's not even newsworthy.

FWIW, I don't think that GWB is the be-all, end-all president, but I do get tired of seeing these dead horses get trotted out on a weekly basis to get flogged here.

"...there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit."
--Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address

[ Parent ]

A more complete picture... (4.66 / 3) (#71)
by The Cunctator on Thu Mar 22, 2001 at 02:00:35 AM EST

This was originally posted as an editorial comment, but I want to keep the conversation rolling and point out some interesting links for those of you who don't set your Comments to All...

A better-written version of the same op-ed appeared in the New York Times on St. Paddy's Day (aka Evacuation Day) by Frank Rich, entitled, The Slumber Party. It points out Bush's missteps and also the Democratic Party's inability to capitalize on them, or even stand up for anything.

To those who complained that the article had nothing to do with technology or the rest of the world, Bush's policies regarding global warming are of utmost concern to the world and are certainly technologically related, assuming you aren't one of the bizarro people who disbelieve global warming or its CO2 connection. Still, as that wasn't the main thrust of the article, I admit it's a somewhat tenuous connection.

The article would be better if it took the entire system to task: the majority of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the bankruptcy bill, including Sen. Clinton, whose husband vetoed the equivalent bill. And this is Bush's bad week for another reason entirely: a president who doesn't want to even think about foreign policy is spending this whole week on foreign policy (realaudio): Mori, Sharon, etc.

The big payoff to the airline industry mentioned is the emergency order to avert a Northwest Airline mechanics strike; Clinton did the same thing to avert an American Airlines pilot's strike in 1997. Both parties are more interested in protecting corporations than workers.

I admit, it probably isn't that interesting to the non-Americans to read about the abject corporatization of the U.S. government, or the profound mediocrity of our appointed leader. I don't much enjoy reading about it either, but I hold out hope that the oldest government (excepting perhaps the Vatican, the Isle of Man, the Six Nations of the Iroqois, the Order of Malta, and Iceland; certainly the oldest constitutional government) isn't breathing its last.

Bush's worst week, just the beginning? | 88 comments (66 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!