T1B

I predict that Bush steamrolling ahead with his agenda will not win him any support for his pet projects later on, or his nominee suggestions.

It doesn't matter if he had the legal right to do it, that isn't the point. To waste his good will on this guy was a mistake that will cost him later.

It's not as if the UN does anything of consequence, and Bolton had enough shit going on from his past that his nomination was held back.

Bolton has criticized the United Nations in the past, has publicly expressed doubt that that the Euros and some Asian allies could be counted on to back U.S. positions and is an outpoken advocate of advocate of agressive American global leadership, and we all know how popular that mentality is.

I also predict he will alienate himself at the UN to the point that he himself will become the prime reason that the Euro and Asian allies won't back U.S. positions because other countries will dislike his style.

and also, because the UN is a useless body that can't accomplish jack shit.

Nice waste of your senate goodwill dollars there, georgie.

Not at the moment. :)

His re-election gained him some momentum and the ability to garner support for his stuff, but its actions like this that turn the tables. He's made endless speeches about being a uniter not a divider, and how he would bring people together. He has not.

They're the ones who felt Bolton was not fit to be the ambassador to the UN, and Bush offered no other nominee choices, because as usual, it is his way or the highway.

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:They're the ones who felt Bolton was not fit to be the ambassador to the UN, and Bush offered no other nominee choices,

Was he obliged to? Or should a squirming partisan minority be allowed to hijack the entire process?

because as usual, it is his way or the highway.

Translation: Cave in to Democratic demands no matter how hysterical or unreasonable.

Nice try though.

I don't think they were hysterical or unreasonable. He's not a great candidate for a job like that.

And so what if they hijacked it? Bush just hijacked it back. That wasn't the point.

Here's an idea, don't nominate anyone and leave our seat at the table open.

The UN just wants us to pay the bills. They didn't care for us with Bubba in the Whitehouse and they don't care for us with W in the Whitehouse.

No, in my opinion. The only one that matters to me. :)

The fallout - The Democrats, again, look like the do-nothing obstructionists. From Pickering to Estrada to Bolton...the American people recognize what's going on.

Bushice:

I predict that Bush steamrolling ahead with his agenda will not win him any support for his pet projects later on, or his nominee suggestions.

1) He has little to no support from Dems on any part of his agenda. The Dems have flipped on both the Patriot Act and NCLB and they opposed Bush on tax reform, energy, social security, bankruptcy reform, i.e., the major issues he ran his 2000 campaign on and partly his 2004 campaign.

2) Nominee "suggestions?" WTF is that? His nominees are not mere suggestions, they are constitutional appointment nominations.

To waste his good will on this guy was a mistake that will cost him later.

What goodwill? Mvscal asked you this before and you ducked it.

It's not as if the UN does anything of consequence, and Bolton had enough shit going on from his past that his nomination was held back.

Sorry, there was nothing in his past that should have kept him from being appointed. The problem was that Bush won the election, that the Democrats are in the minority, and that Bolton would have actually represented the US at the UN and not been a representative of the UN to the US.

Bolton has criticized the United Nations in the past, has publicly expressed doubt that that the Euros and some Asian allies could be counted on to back U.S. positions and is an outpoken advocate of advocate of agressive American global leadership, and we all know how popular that mentality is.

1) The criticism was reasonable and valid and correct. Was that a complaint on your part or are you merely making an observation?

2) His doubt re: our so-called "allies" is well founded. Just see France and Germany and Russia all working prior to 1441 to have the sanctions on Iraq removed and the weapons inspections regime dismantled while they, on the backside, took bribes and negotiated weapons deals with Saddam. All three were also involved with weapons deals with Iran while the US was trying to pressure Iran to shift away from nuke development.

3) Outspoken advocate of aggressive global leadership...so what? It's better than the alternatives we see from your side of the fence, i.e., bringing down terrorism to a mere "nuisance," deference to UN authority, deference to Europe...

I also predict he will alienate himself at the UN to the point that he himself will become the prime reason that the Euro and Asian allies won't back U.S. positions because other countries will dislike his style.

Sorry...but the US has had little support from any of them regarding much of anything. Only Britain and Australia should be considered "allies." The rest, as they should be, merely pick and choose when to support the US as it suits their interests. Why you have such a problem understanding this is beyond me.

Mister Bushice wrote:Not at the moment. :)

His re-election gained him some momentum and the ability to garner support for his stuff, but its actions like this that turn the tables. He's made endless speeches about being a uniter not a divider, and how he would bring people together. He has not.

This is rich, Bushice...just bear in mind that it is the Democrats who are being the obstructionists...

Goodwill? WTF Congress have you been following? The Democrats have done nothing but slow down government operations since Bush's re-election.

mvscal wrote:What goodwill? Are you high?

What mvscal said. Congress ain't Dubya's close friend anymore. Distancing yourself from this war and such glorious Dubya pronouncements like the Social Security Changes is good practice for re-election. Bush will get small things through but any major changes he planned on doing ain't gonna happen.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

mvscal wrote:What goodwill? Are you high?

What mvscal said. Congress ain't Dubya's close friend anymore. Distancing yourself from this war and such glorious Dubya pronouncements like the Social Security Changes is good practice for re-election. Bush will get small things through but any major changes he planned on doing ain't gonna happen.

And actions like this make it even less likely for some of his religious agenda to get passed.

I think he still had enough support from Republicans to push some things through, but any of those people on the stem cell fence, or on the gay marriage amendment fence, or on the faith based initiative fence won't be there any more.

You don't think he still had enough support in Congress for some things?

What fucking religious agenda are you blathering about??

Sorry, you're not on the list.

Exactly ... bye-bye...
Per the usual, you have nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole that you plagiarized from Democratic Underground.

No, I am just tired of dealing with your crap. It really is that simple.

DrDetroit wrote:Per the usual, you have nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole that you plagiarized from Democratic Underground.

This from Mr. Talking Point.
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It just amazes me how many arguments on constitutional principle a simple dumb monkey of a president can inspire. Or it could be that folks are just easily angry these days? And I thought conservatives were supposed to be the mean and angry folks...silly me :)

Ang wrote:It just amazes me how many arguments on constitutional principle a simple dumb monkey of a president can inspire. Or it could be that folks are just easily angry these days? And I thought conservatives were supposed to be the mean and angry folks...silly me :)

Well, he's a pathetic example of a uniter not to mention the leader of the greatest country in the world.

Maybe that's where the anger comes from, out of frustration. You'd think we could have done a better job of choosing our representative to the world, even choosing someone who actually had a clue would have been preferable.

He's an embarassment, but at least everyone with a clue knows it. They just won't say anything until after he's out of office.

You say that our President is an embarrassment, so what do you call the folks that opposed and blocked the vote for our ambassador to the U.N.?

I mean, really...what is that? The best they could do is avoid a vote and then complain when they know the guy could be installed when they went on vacation. Nice fucking move.

Even all the Senators or Reps...most have little to say other than...we hate W. A real vacuum of ideas...sort of sucks.

Just an example of what the Democrats are doing lately. For nothing and complaining about everything. Call me crazy, but I keep waiting for someone, anyone, on the Democratic possible ticket to come up with a good thing to say about how this country can go forward. I'm waiting......

and I see a lot on many fronts, but not on the front that is traditionally Democratic. Maybe you guys need to get out more.

Ang,
http://www.hackettforcongress.com/
too bad he lost. he may still get his chance though

Nice. Thanks for the link to a well written article on a guy who had something to run for instead of against. Very nice. I hope he keeps going and doesn't give up. Our country needs more folks like him.

Ang, the guy ran on a record of calling the President of the United States a "son of a bitch." That was the only notable about the guy.

Mister Bushice wrote:

Ang wrote:It just amazes me how many arguments on constitutional principle a simple dumb monkey of a president can inspire. Or it could be that folks are just easily angry these days? And I thought conservatives were supposed to be the mean and angry folks...silly me :)

Well, he's a pathetic example of a uniter not to mention the leader of the greatest country in the world.

Ironic that you call the US the greatest country in the word. Never expected to see you say something like that.

Also, I can only presume that you will similarly criticize the Democrats for their inability to unite???

Well?

Maybe that's where the anger comes from, out of frustration. You'd think we could have done a better job of choosing our representative to the world, even choosing someone who actually had a clue would have been preferable.

Who are you talking about?

Your blathering is insane. Here you are criticizing the President because he's not popular among those that supported Iraq, support Iran, refuse to do anything about genocide in their own backyard, etc. This is absurd.

He's an embarassment, but at least everyone with a clue knows it. They just won't say anything until after he's out of office.

Yeah, that's it...

An embarrassmant?? Hardly. He sure has embarrasses you lefties, though. Three election cycles in a row and a fourth to come.

He's left you idiots to calling him an idiot, loser, liar, etc., and yet, you guys have not come up with a single piece of important legislation not to mention that your platform is completely lost.

If there is an embarrassment here, it is you guys who are left only with slandering the President as you obstruct the administration of the federal government.

DrDetroit wrote:Ang, the guy ran on a record of calling the President of the United States a "son of a bitch." That was the only notable about the guy.

I'd take his resume over that of a bitter HR wench.

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Ang, the guy ran on a record of calling the President of the United States a "son of a bitch." That was the only notable about the guy.

I'd take his resume over that of a bitter HR wench.

And you're saying what exactly...

Yes, you may have another when I feel like giving it to you.