Launchpadding one's resume

"jonathan" wrote in message
...
The Bush administration does this with almost every govt agency.

Which makes it no different than any other administration. Why do you make a
special point to identify the Bush administration?

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...
The Bush administration does this with almost every govt agency.

Which makes it no different than any other administration. Why do you make
a
special point to identify the Bush administration?


Goldin was a Clinton hack? The repubs have taken what both
parties have been doing for ages, and run with it to new levels
of abuse. An order of magnitude more.

Whether in earmarks/pork, up ten times, to letting big business write
their own legislation. Whether in new heights in gerrymandering
or lobbying or deficits.

And it's catching up with them. Bush is already a lame duck.
The republicans run both houses yet both are pretty much
paralyzed. They're getting indicted even though they control
all three branches of govt...and...have loyal hacks running
about everything. That's not easy to do! Under those conditions
you really have to try to get people indicted.

The last two years for Bush is going to be one scandal after
another with nothing getting done. I can't think of a single
piece of legislation coming from the repubs to be proud
of.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:34:34 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The Bush administration does this with almost every govt agency.
They push aside career specialists with their 'true believer' team
players. Yes men. They take over and make messes wherever
they go. Just today State Dept employees are complaining that
the career diplomats are being sidelined for party hacks.
Same thing in the EPA, the Justice Dept and so on.

The whole WMD fiasco came about from the same thing.
Only party hacks deciding and the career professionals
are ignored.

Many career professionals believed there were WMD, and as far as I
know, more did than didn't.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 21:29:43 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .

"jonathan" wrote in message
...
The Bush administration does this with almost every govt agency.

Which makes it no different than any other administration. Why do you make
a
special point to identify the Bush administration?


Goldin was a Clinton hack?

He was a Democrat, that Clinton allowed to remain in office throughout
his entire term (mainly because Clinton didn't give a damn about
space, and couldn't find a qualified woman with which to replace him).

Whether in earmarks/pork, up ten times, to letting big business write
their own legislation. Whether in new heights in gerrymandering
or lobbying or deficits.

Do you really believe that Democrats would have been any better on
these issues had they remained in power?

Really? Do you remember why they were unelected twelve years ago?

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"jonathan" wrote in message
. ..


The Bush administration does this with almost every govt agency.



Which makes it no different than any other administration. Why do you make a
special point to identify the Bush administration?



Because this one has a real knack for putting incompetents in positions
of power, as the FEMA director and New Orleans fiasco showed.

Pat

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 21:29:43 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .

"jonathan" wrote in message
...
The Bush administration does this with almost every govt agency.

Which makes it no different than any other administration. Why do you
make
a
special point to identify the Bush administration?


Goldin was a Clinton hack?

He was a Democrat, that Clinton allowed to remain in office throughout
his entire term (mainly because Clinton didn't give a damn about
space, and couldn't find a qualified woman with which to replace him).

Whether in earmarks/pork, up ten times, to letting big business write
their own legislation. Whether in new heights in gerrymandering
or lobbying or deficits.

Do you really believe that Democrats would have been any better on
these issues had they remained in power?


If they held all three branches, I bet they'd be as bad. But you
have to admit, the repubs have elevated the term 'towing the line'
to new heights. The dems could never control their party like that.



Really? Do you remember why they were unelected twelve years ago?


Yep, they held all three branches and mucked it up with a hard turn
to left. I don't like the hard right either. Do you remember Pres
Clinton's approval rating during his last four years?

Notice the trend, Clinton +66% -31% (+35%)
http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm

Notice the trend Bush +42% -55% (-13%)
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm


And Congress, notice the trend +35% -61% (-26%)
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob1.htm


And the real scandals have yet to play out.
The Senate majority leader is biding his time
until he goes away for committing insider trading
to the tune of fourteen million dollars. Delay
is likely to be convicted of a crime. And all the
indictments from Abramoff...naming names are
yet to unfurl. But no one is talking about those
things now, they're too busy getting angry
about the NSA spying.

I remember the Clinton years rather fondly, as the
stock market went from 5000 to 12000 in his
last term. As soon as Bush came into office it
dropped like a rock back to 8000, you do
the math.



Jonathan

s

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

There's something wrong with party discipline?

Yes, there is.

In countries where party discipline is much tighter than it is in the USA,
it stifles debate and bars parliamentarians from acting according to their
own consciences and according to the best interests of their constituents.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:44:10 +0800, in a place far, far away, "Neil
Gerace" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

There's something wrong with party discipline?

Yes, there is.

In countries where party discipline is much tighter than it is in the USA,
it stifles debate and bars parliamentarians from acting according to their
own consciences and according to the best interests of their constituents.

Even granting your premise, that assumes that there are no differences
between parliamentary systems, and that of the US.

No, it assumes they are similar, which is true.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:01:52 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


Whether in earmarks/pork, up ten times, to letting big business write
their own legislation. Whether in new heights in gerrymandering
or lobbying or deficits.

Do you really believe that Democrats would have been any better on
these issues had they remained in power?


If they held all three branches, I bet they'd be as bad. But you
have to admit, the repubs have elevated the term 'towing the line'
to new heights.

I've never seen that term (at least as spelled, except by
illiterates).


A spelling flame! How sixth grade. Perhaps my illiteracy is due
to the three daytime cold tabs, two hits of nyquil, four hits
of decongestent and half a joint I just scarfed down.
Maybe not.



And curruption. Remember the Congressional Post Office?


Another teapot in a tempest, which would describe pretty
much every Clinton scandal. Do you have any idea how
much taxpayer money the repubs used to investigate
Clinton? Gingrich sealed the audits after Congress
had spent some 140 million dollars. And that was
only half way through. Ken Starr's 25 million was
but a drop in comparison. Or was it 40?

They were accusing him, with a straight face, of
murdering people, ordering hits and stuff.
The repubs embarrassed the country.



I don't like the hard right either. Do you remember Pres
Clinton's approval rating during his last four years?

What in the world does an approval rating have to do with whether or
not someone is corrupt?


Huh! In general corruption drives the numbers ....down.
The big drop is due to the recent scandals....corruption.
Hell, I'm the biggest supporter of the Iraq war that
can be found, still am. But it's becoming pretty
dismal in DC these days.


Particularly when the press is in the tank
for him?


He's gotten a free ride until recently, with the war the
press backed off for fear of being pegged traitors.



I remember the Clinton years rather fondly, as the
stock market went from 5000 to 12000 in his
last term.

Yes, that was the bubble that his policies created, and which this
administration had to clean up.


Oh well you see, that bubble was the fault of the first
Bush, or was it Reagan or FDR? The explosion of
the internet caused the boom. Bush caused the bust.
Look at the charts more carefully. The boom leveled
off until...literally..the day Bush won the election.
Then crash, bang ....plop.




As soon as Bush came into office it
dropped like a rock back to 8000, you do
the math.

You have a poor memory. The bubble popped in 2000, before Bush was
elected.


But the recent trends are clear, when democrats are in the
White House it's peace and prosperity. With the Bush's
it's wars and stagnation. But maybe Bush can get his
latest dream passed. Allowing unlimited 'guest workers'
in to help keep wages /as low/ as possible.

This country has been flooded with illegal immigration since
Bush took office. And because of his consistent position
that the more immigration the better.

Anyways, maybe the next election will be Hillary vs Rice.
That might be fun!

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
...
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:44:10 +0800, in a place far, far away, "Neil
Gerace" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

There's something wrong with party discipline?

Yes, there is.

In countries where party discipline is much tighter than it is in the
USA,
it stifles debate and bars parliamentarians from acting according to
their
own consciences and according to the best interests of their
constituents.

Even granting your premise, that assumes that there are no differences
between parliamentary systems, and that of the US.

No, it assumes they are similar, which is true.


There's some substantial differences. Why do you think it
is the US favors parliamentary systems when it helps
rebuild a country? Think about that for a minute.

It's so they don't become competitors in foreign affairs.