How many more legs will Rove find to stand on?

[Mister Bushice]

Gray Davis is a great example, the best being the prison guard contract. But I tend to think he's an exception to the rule and exception don't make rules.

Sudden Sam didn't qualify his take. He specifically identified Bush.

Bush was elected by primarily elected by the religious right, and he has pursued their causes as a follow up, aka abortion rights, gay marriage amendment, and funding churches with tax dollars for faith based programs.
Then there's the haliburton rebuild in Iraq, which has made his daddy and many oil associates very wealthy. Then there are the gas prices, which he has done nothing about but have also made his associates very wealthy.

Also, your explanation fails to take into account true policy preferences that result in some winning and others losing.

Bush didn't get jack squat from organized labor prior to his bullshit steel tariffs, let alone from steel labor. Nor did he get jack squat from domestic textile businesses prior to enacting tariffs on specific Chinese textiles. yet, in both instances he implemented protectionist trade policies despite not having the political support of the groups the policies were intended to help.

How do you account for these types of actions?

Organized labor is not a major election factor for the repubs, it's the Dems mainstay, and they just took a major hit this week with the splitting of the AFL Cio Unions. Bush ignored them just like he ignored california. He rarely stumped out here, because he didn't need the electoral votes, He was leading in enough states for his entire run. Kerry was a hapless opponent. Bush had the strength of the RR on his side, and it was known up front that he really only need a couple of states to get enough electoral votes, so he hit those heavily.

Also, the education lobby was especially hostile towards Bush, though his educational bill significantly rewarded the teacher and school admin bureaucracies.

There are tons of examples like these.

So your explanation doesn't help to explain much more than your personal opinion that all politicians are crooked and on are on the take.

Yes, and Bush loosened up drilling rights and access to protected forests, as well as instituted a new clean air act that is not an improvement over the old one. NO ONE gets to the top of the political heap without favors and deals.

Besides, it's not just MY opinion. A lot of people feel the same way about our representatives.

But feel free to just jump in right here and pull the "why do you lie? "Idiot", Moron" card, as per usual.

[DrDetroit]

Bush was elected by primarily elected by the religious right, and he has pursued their causes as a follow up, aka abortion rights, gay marriage amendment, and funding churches with tax dollars for faith based programs.

Okay, first, relying on something as amorphous as the "religious right" to make your point is a little dishonest. Secondly, what part of the majority of American voters who voted Bush represent the "religious right?" This is rather weak and I'd like to see the data on this.

Third, are you arguing that Bush's advocacy of policies re: abortion rights and gay marriage was determinant upon political contributions from the "religious right" and were not personal political policy preferences even before he ran for President? I doubt it. He was pro-life as Governor in Texas. Like Clinton he supported the Defense of Marriage Act and wants to protect that legislation.

Re: church funding...that's not what he proposed. It was not intended to funnel money to churches simply because they were churches, but because those very successful social organizations were discriminated against regarding the receipt of federal dollars. And I do recall that both Gore and Kerry campaigned from the church pulpit unlike Bush, though Bush was the only candidate being slammed for having the support of the overtly religious.

Then there's the haliburton rebuild in Iraq, which has made his daddy and many oil associates very wealthy.

Do you have a point? Halliburton has made many people rich, including Al Gore, who was the VP in the administration that awarded Halliburton the huge LOGCAP contract.

What's your point?

Then there are the gas prices, which he has done nothing about but have also made his associates very wealthy.

His associates? Can you make it appear any more suspicious? Hardly. But so what? Do you have a point?

Are you arguing that Bush policy directly impacted gasoline price increases? Which policies and how so?

In fact, we know that US gas prices are being driven by three things, none of which Bush can be reaosnable held accountable for: a) security premium related to the threat of terrorism; b) expanding global energy demand; and c) limited refining capacity in the US.

So what is Bush supposed to do here? He's fighting terrorism, unlike much of the world community. Is he supposed to stomp on global economic growth? And its liberal environmental laws that have resulted in reduced refining capacity in the US.

What do yuo have to say about that? Probably nothing because your argument is nothing but a reductive fallacy.

Organized labor is not a major election factor for the repubs, it's the Dems mainstay, and they just took a major hit this week with the splitting of the AFL Cio Unions.

No shit, sherlock. However, in two instances he enacted broad economic protectionist policies to protect labor in the US, in the steel and textiles industries.

Why did you ignore the question?

Bush ignored them just like he ignored california. He rarely stumped out here, because he didn't need the electoral votes, He was leading in enough states for his entire run. Kerry was a hapless opponent. Bush had the strength of the RR on his side, and it was known up front that he really only need a couple of states to get enough electoral votes, so he hit those heavily.

That's your response to my civil question regarding the adequacy of your explanation to explain certain Bush policies???

Yes, and Bush loosened up drilling rights and access to protected forests, as well as instituted a new clean air act that is not an improvement over the old one. NO ONE gets to the top of the political heap without favors and deals.

Your assertions of bribes and failures as absurd.

You still have failed to explain how these policies are not personal policy preferences. We know why and it's because you know that Bush advocates a diminshed regulatory structure.

And despite this new clean air act (which doesn't exist on its own) that you say is not an improvement, air quality continues to improve, along with water quality.

Can you explain this?

Besides, it's not just MY opinion. A lot of people feel the same way about our representatives.

They certainly do and they rely on bogus arguments like yours. That doesn't make them right.

But feel free to just jump in right here and pull the "why do you lie? "Idiot", Moron" card, as per usual.

I didn't have to and my arguments NEVER rely on that anyway.

The funny thing is that you ignored the central point of my last thread. i wonder why?

[Mister Bushice]

Bush was elected by primarily elected by the religious right, and he has pursued their causes as a follow up, aka abortion rights, gay marriage amendment, and funding churches with tax dollars for faith based programs.

Okay, first, relying on something as amorphous as the "religious right" to make your point is a little dishonest. Secondly, what part of the majority of American voters who voted Bush represent the "religious right?" This is rather weak and I'd like to see the data on this.

Look at the fucking states that he won! what more data do you need?

Third, are you arguing that Bush's advocacy of policies re: abortion rights and gay marriage was determinant upon political contributions from the "religious right" and were not personal political policy preferences even before he ran for President? I doubt it. He was pro-life as Governor in Texas. Like Clinton he supported the Defense of Marriage Act and wants to protect that legislation.

I'm sure it was both. He broadcast a promise to go after Roe v Wade to the anti abortion crowd at a rally during the campaign.

Re: church funding...that's not what he proposed. It was not intended to funnel money to churches simply because they were churches, but because those very successful social organizations were discriminated against regarding the receipt of federal dollars. And I do recall that both Gore and Kerry campaigned from the church pulpit unlike Bush, though Bush was the only candidate being slammed for having the support of the overtly religious.

I was lazily broad there. I know it was not "church funding", but it was funding faith based programs with tax dollars, which is a very shaky idea at best, given the difficulty in determining who gets the money and what the money will be used for.

And Bush was slammed because he claimed to represent the majority of the American people when he was really representing the religious right.

Then there's the haliburton rebuild in Iraq, which has made his daddy and many oil associates very wealthy.

Do you have a point? Halliburton has made many people rich, including Al Gore, who was the VP in the administration that awarded Halliburton the huge LOGCAP contract.

What's your point?

The way it was done. And I don't mean just Logcap. We''ve discussed this already.

Then there are the gas prices, which he has done nothing about but have also made his associates very wealthy.

His associates? Can you make it appear any more suspicious? Hardly. But so what? Do you have a point?

Yes. Bush has a lot of oil friends that contributed to his campaign. Bush has done nothing substantive to control rising gas prices. Bushs oil friends have made a ton of money on the rising oil prices. Do you need a diagram?

Are you arguing that Bush policy directly impacted gasoline price increases? Which policies and how so?

Insert "lack of" and you'll get it.

In fact, we know that US gas prices are being driven by three things, none of which Bush can be reaosnable held accountable for: a) security premium related to the threat of terrorism; b) expanding global energy demand; and c) limited refining capacity in the US.

I'm not blaming him for the rise, just for the total lack of action.

So what is Bush supposed to do here? He's fighting terrorism, unlike much of the world community.

Spoken like a true parrot.

Is he supposed to stomp on global economic growth? And its liberal environmental laws that have resulted in reduced refining capacity in the US.

He's had six years to introduce legislation. How much legislation has he introduced to improve the situation?

What do yuo have to say about that? Probably nothing because your argument is nothing but a reductive fallacy.

Conjecture and hyperbole on your part again.

Organized labor is not a major election factor for the repubs, it's the Dems mainstay, and they just took a major hit this week with the splitting of the AFL Cio Unions.

No shit, sherlock. However, in two instances he enacted broad economic protectionist policies to protect labor in the US, in the steel and textiles industries.

So why should that matter? He didn't do it to protect the workers, he did it because his advisors told him it would benefit the economy.

Why did you ignore the question?

This is one of the things you post too frequently that is exceedingly annoying because you don't get the answer you want.

Bush ignored them just like he ignored california. He rarely stumped out here, because he didn't need the electoral votes, He was leading in enough states for his entire run. Kerry was a hapless opponent. Bush had the strength of the RR on his side, and it was known up front that he really only need a couple of states to get enough electoral votes, so he hit those heavily.

That's your response to my civil question regarding the adequacy of your explanation to explain certain Bush policies???

No, that is my response to the question of why bush wasn't worried about recruiting the labor movement or the teachers union. He didn't need them.

Yes, and Bush loosened up drilling rights and access to protected forests, as well as instituted a new clean air act that is not an improvement over the old one. NO ONE gets to the top of the political heap without favors and deals.

Your assertions of bribes and failures as absurd.

I never said bribe. Have no idea what you mean by "failures"

You still have failed to explain how these policies are not personal policy preferences. We know why and it's because you know that Bush advocates a diminshed regulatory structure.

And despite this new clean air act (which doesn't exist on its own) that you say is not an improvement, air quality continues to improve, along with water quality.

Air quality is NOT improving because of his act. Air quality is improving because of the previous clean air act. The new one has wacky guidelines that don't improve, and in some cases allow for companies to pollute more by buying pollution dollars <my term, meaning if they are over the limit in one coal burning facility and under the limit in another, they can buy the extra from the under so they can continue to pollute in the one that's already over. Fucking moronic.

Besides, it's not just MY opinion. A lot of people feel the same way about our representatives.

They certainly do and they rely on bogus arguments like yours. That doesn't make them right.

This is exactly what I meant. Because there are people who disagree with your point, they are "Bogus" and you are not. Wrong.

But feel free to just jump in right here and pull the "why do you lie? "Idiot", Moron" card, as per usual.

I didn't have to and my arguments NEVER rely on that anyway.

Yes they do. You use it all the time.

The funny thing is that you ignored the central point of my last thread. i wonder why?

I did not. You just want the answers to every one of your questions worded exactly to show that you are right and everyone else is wrong. I address all of your points, you just don't agree with the answers so according to you automatically they are wrong.

And you wonder why arguing with you is so tiring and useless.

[Cuda]

Except for the Beltway and other isolated CantMoveOn.org sleeper cells, NOBODY REALLY GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE ROVE STORY

[Mister Bushice]

Bush was elected by primarily elected by the religious right,

This is the type of stupid bullshit that gets you branded a stuttering dumbfuck all the time.

Dude, you call EVERYONE who disagrees with you that.

Bush was elected because he captured a larger portion of the center than the Democrats. The religious right didn't have shit to do with that and, in fact, might have been more of a liability in that respect.

That's crap. Bush only had to win a few key electoral votes states that were swing states, and he won those. His prime base was conservative religious america. He increased his "moral" voter turnout by 20%, and the Fear that Kerry would roll over on the whole terror Issue also swung voters, but the mainstay of his voter support was the evangelical Christians.

[DrDetroit]

How could you say that, Mvscal? A majority disagrees with gay marriage? Say it ain't so....lol.

[BSmack]

but the mainstay of his voter support was the evangelical Christians.

Horseshit. Fag marriage has nothing to do with the evangelical wing. The polling on that issue shows a very decisive majority against.

Bush won because he won the center. Nobody wins the Presidency these days without it.

Period. End of Fucking Story.

Those moved to vote against a candidate because of a pro gay marraige stand are not in the center.

Period. End of Fucking Story.