"Obama will be tested".....Biden

Pastor Larry, while I've been pretty negative about President Bush, still I think there is much which you've said which is true..... and given the choices which we had at those times, the best one went into office. I do believe the office of the Presidency has many pressures put upon it to conform to the advice and plans of others, less known, but more established in positions of influence, power and finance and no President today has the freedom of choice and the backing of people in quite the same way that history has me believing our early Presidents had.

Who President Bush might appoint is one example: No matter who he appoints..... the Congress doesn't just approve based upon preparation and qualification for office, but often exercises its powers by acting as the gatekeeper screening for differences in policy or agreement in values with the collective values of those, first in the screening committee....which controls whether or not an appointee comes to a vote.... to the moderation of the whole body which must also pass agreement.

We give much blame to the President for decisions which result from the actions of Congress: I feel blessed to be living in a congressional district in which both parties are active, but not nearly as established in power and influence over the values of those in the district..... thus, the representative of my district is frequently not as dependant upon being a political patsy to the organization, and the representation is more in line with the opinions of the people. Not all representation is as close to the people because the ones promoted in elections are already agreed with the established influence of party leadership within their district instead of agreement and closeness to the people....and are dependant upon the activism within their party both for funds to run and promotion ....which the latter is purposely slanted to win the vote. Every 2 years, a representative is elected to office, and once sworn, starts getting indoctrinated into the mores of that body, and learns quickly, that to get anything done for his district and state, he must reach points of agreement with others, often with compromise.

Every 6 years we send two senators to office...... by the popular vote in the state. The newbie in the Senate, especially if without prior experience in either body of Congress, comes under the similar processes in orientation and blending in as did our representatives..... but have longer to carry forth their function.

But our orignial constitution required that it was the State Legislatures who were to elect the Senators and not the popular vote of the people. Our forefathers recognized that a body in the Congress whose office was under the control of the leaders within each state, would be more answerable to the people of the state in their dependance, and more protective of the powers which belong to the state or they would be removed by the oversight of the body which put them there in the first place.... Thus their loyalty was subject more to the state and its people than to a particular party or other influences. It was a very good plan...... but that plan was changed..... and now we have what we have.

Sorry, but I guess I got off topic.raying:

 

To make a broad point, and not be negative personally against you, but what are your qualifications to judge a presidency? Probably the same as mine ... None. I don't think most citizens have any clue as to how to judge a presidency, just like I think they don't have any clue about how to run a country. That is why polls on most public policy issues are meaningless. There is no way to expect the majority of this country to have an informed opinion on these issues.

It depends, to a large degree, on what happens in the middle east. If, in 50 years, the Middle East has thriving democracies, Bush will be viewed as a great leader. If the Middle East returns to its previous state, he will be viewed as a failure.

 

You both make good points about Bush. He is really a curious mixture. Truman is a good example of history changing his standing. Truman had a 23% approval rating when he left office. I believe over time, Nixon's standing will greatly improve. It could be in the future, Bush will have a better standing than now. I have never seen the American people as a whole so angry at a President. It is the only reason Obama, who is a radical liberal, has a chance of winning.

 

Emphasis mine

I personally believe that the reason for the above (bolded) is the absolute negative media coverage Bush has had to endure during his term. And one of the biggest reasons the media has been against him is because he has been successful in some areas, so they have concentrated on his blurbs.

This present congress that was going to set new standards "in political ethics" (HA!!!!) has bucked him at every turn, and in turn blamed him and the Rs for everything bad but the mange on Pelosi's dog. (I have no doubt she would try that, if she tho't she could make it stick!!)

Until we get back to journalists REPORTING, rather than editorializing and opioniating, and printing ANYTHING just so they can scoop the competition, we are going to have this whopsided view by Joe Sixpack since he depends on others (mostly) to do his thinking for him. :BangHead::BangHead:

 

How do you know that? I would have felt safer if we had concentrated on Afghanistan and captured bin Laden and most of his associates, wouldn't you?

 

The current policy of trying to force the Israelis to agree to a craved up Israel/Palestinian State is a disaster waiting to happen.

The war in Afghanistan has not been "neglected." We've gone over this time and time again. The U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan have remained pretty much the same from 2002 to the present. We had a thread on this issue that listed US troop levels for each year and there was little if any fluctuation. However, you keep trying to push the liberal Dem talking point.

This liberal Dem talking point has likewise been debunked and refuted so many times in this forum it is almost ridiculous for you to mention it here yet again.

Really, how so? How is it President Bush's fault that an oil/gas wealthy Russia is now starting to try to flex its old Soviet muscle?

Didn't the N. Koreans do a bit of "caving in" regarding their nuke facilities in order to bring about some of these changes?

No US President has directly "talked" to Iran since Jimmy Carter. What potential Iranian "disaster" has suddenly come about that is wholly President Bush's fault?

Specifics with evidence and sources please. Otherwise it is just you blowing heated rhetoric trying make your argument sound better...:tonofbricks:

 

Feeling safer is irrelevant. Being safe is relevant, and since 9/11 the policies of Bush have prevented another attack on US soil. We have captured a number of Bin Laden's associates and there is no guarantee that we would have captured Bin Laden had we not been in Iraq. So your position is faulty on a number of fronts, both emotionally and logically as well as militarily. You are evidence of the fact that common people shouldn't be making military decisions.

 

Biden also said, "Gird your loins." I wonder what THAT is supposed to mean? It sounds like something out of the KJV....

:tonofbricks:

 

It is and it refers to the way men used to dress with long robes over a tunic (long-tailed shirt). In biblical times when men had to either run or fight they would reach down between their legs and gather up the long ends of their robes, pull them up around their thighes, and tuck the ends into their belts. Thus, girding their loins. Joe, being part of the wave the white flag of surrender gang, likely used the biblical quote as a way of letting everyone know that they need to get ready to run away.:tonofbricks:

 

Yep, with Biden on your team, you can run against yourself and loose. He's more than a gaff machine, he's a self defeating enemy in his own camp.

 

Perhaps.

But McCain was at least astute enough to select a running mate that would actually help his campaign.

Obama...Biden?

 

It was not a "foreign government" that murdered 3000 Americans in New York.

 

Primarily he tried to put American interests first.

That's a sure fire way to anger most of the world along with the "hate America first" liberals here at home.

 

:laugh: :laugh: I guess that means all the Obama supporters will be joining the rest of us who already ran away on that fateful day in January 2009, lol.

 

Yep, and a reminder that Carter wasn't taken serious by them at all, but now when Reagan got into to office the Iranians were like, "Nevermind, you can have the hostages back."

WE don't need a president right now that the terrorist dogs will test to see if he will tuck his tail.

 

If he has to it's because Bush rode the military like a step child. Some of those folks are on their 4th and 5th tours in to combat. Some are showing signs of battle fatigue. We never should have invaded Iraq with a war going on in Afghanistan.

@Rev.. That was Bush Foreign Policy blunder, he never should have invaded Iraq without the UN support.

 

You and I know both know that was coincidence, the release for the hostages was negotiated before Reagan took oath.