Rate Bush? Hows he doing>

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 2 Sep 2005 18:27:49 -0700, "ed kyle" wrote:

I think that the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
will be a watershed event in U.S. politics.

I doubt it. Seriously doubt it. If this were the summer of 2004, I'd
say that the Katrina fiasco and the rising fuel prices would have
great impact on the election. But this is 2005. The next President
won't be elected for three more years and the current guy isn't
eligible anyway. Will the White House change hands? Maybe, but that's
frequently the case after two-termers anyway. And in a peculiar way,
Katrina might actually help the Republicans in 2008. How many times in
the last few days have you heard someone say "Ray Nagin sure isn't any
Rudy Giuliani" or "where's Rudy Giuliani when we need him?" And guess
who's probably going to be running for President in 2008? Bingo...
Rudy.

That would be a historic change. Rudy would represent
a big shift in power from the Conservative to the
Moderate. But I suspect that the Conservatives will
sink their party rather than surrender to the Moderates.
That is what they did here in my home state of Illinois
when they ran out-of-stater Alan Keyes, rather than the
several moderate Illinois Republicans who offered to
run, against Barack Obama when their first candidate
was forced out by a sex scandal. Alan Keyes, for those
not familiar with him, comes across to the average
listener as a raving lunatic.

- Ed Kyle

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 22:11:59 +0200, nmp wrote:


I'd say that's true of somewhere over 90% of all politicians. Do you
honestly think Hillary gives a hoot about space?

Shouldn't there be more than just two choices available during elections?

There are more than two parties in the U.S., (Reform, Green,
Libertarian, even moronic Communists, etc.) but after the Republicans
and Democrats, support falls off drastically. Third party candidates
and Independents are around and do make news now and then. George
Wallace in 1968, John Anderson in the 1980, Ross Perot in 1992 come to
mind. The Perot fiascos of 1992 and 1996 seem to have put off a lot of
the general public from supporting third parites, at least on the
national level.

Brian

ed kyle wrote:

...Alan Keyes, for those
not familiar with him, comes across to the average
listener as a raving lunatic.


Alan Keyes comes across to all but a few on the far distant
right as a raving lunatic.

You guys dodged a big bullet on that one...

JazzMan

--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

On 2005-09-03, ed kyle wrote:

That is what they did here in my home state of Illinois
when they ran out-of-stater Alan Keyes, rather than the
several moderate Illinois Republicans who offered to
run, against Barack Obama when their first candidate
was forced out by a sex scandal. Alan Keyes, for those
not familiar with him, comes across to the average
listener as a raving lunatic.

I think he comes across to most of the rest of his listeners, too. Mind
you, the alternative choice was a woman who'd been determined to have
been sexually offensive to her staff with a kaleidoscope. They really
seemed to be drawing every short straw going as far as finding a
candidate went that year...

(But, damn, you have to admit it was funny to watch. Real political
farce, there for our delectation...)

--
-Andrew Gray

He will be remembered as an aberation in the Presidency. A basicly
illiterate, fantacist, living in a world of myths and religious dogma. He a
man who "feels and believes" rather than thinks. He squander world support
after 9/11, he lost track of bin Laden in oder to settle a family score for
his father, he promised the moon (literally) but failed to deliver, he made
the mega-rich even richer, he allowed his friends in big oil to profit
obsenely off the misery of the rest of the United States. His morality
allowed thousands of young US service people to die, and mulitiple thousands
to be crippled, blinded, burned, and scarred in an unwillable war, but at
the same time, tried to bar stem cell research that would save lives and
perhaps repair the damage his war has caused.. He allowed global warming to
go unchecked while proposing to rape the last reasonably unscathed regions
of the earth. He blundered American prestige around the world and shamed
his country.
In short, scholarly ratings will put him down as the worst President this
country has ever had.

Brian Thorn wrote:
Obviously, well over half the country
couldn't stomach a President Kerry, either.

0.73% over half is "well"?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_2004

"Although Bush received a majority of the popular vote: 50.73% to
Kerry's 48.27%, it was —percentage-wise— the closest popular margin ever
for a sitting President; Bush received 2.5% more than Kerry; the closest
previous margin won by a sitting President was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson
in 1916. In terms of absolute number of popular votes, his victory
margin (approximately 3 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting
President since Harry S. Truman in 1948."

JazzMan wrote:

ed kyle wrote:


...Alan Keyes, for those
not familiar with him, comes across to the average
listener as a raving lunatic.




Alan Keyes comes across to all but a few on the far distant
right as a raving lunatic.

You guys dodged a big bullet on that one...

JazzMan


Not much to dodge, actually. Barack Obama is an exceptional person. He
was an outstanding candidate, and, so far, a very impressive senator.
Keyes never stood a chance, although he is very articulate. It was his
ability to clearly articulate his views that most definitively separated
him from Barack.

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:50:12 -0400, John Doe wrote:

Within 3 weeks, the media will have forgotten about New Orleans, within
2 years, americans will have forgotten about his initial mishandling of
the job.

Actually, haven't the scientists who track these kinds of things been
saying that there's some kind of 40 or 50 year cycle and, based on
historical data, we're probably in for several years of bad
hurricanes.

Personally, I can't see how they keep allowing people to get insurance
on houses and businesses that are in areas which get flooded every few
years.

-- David

In message
David Ball wrote:

Personally, I can't see how they keep allowing people to get insurance
on houses and businesses that are in areas which get flooded every few
years.

By adjusting the premiums to suit. If a place gets flooded every 5
years, the premiums are going to be around 25% (yes, but underwriters
aren't charitable institutions) of the possible payout per year.

Anthony

Bob Haller wrote:
What do all of you think of Bush? With Iraq, gas prices, storm response
and everything else....

How do you rate his job performance?

Well Bob, President Bush is doing about as well as can be expected what
with the Crabs and other bottom feeders nibbling about his toes not to
mention the fact that he's not up for re-election so he really may not
feel the need to directly answer his detractors. Doesn't it seem a
little strange that the only part of your question that President Bush
had any direct responsibility for was the War in Iraq.

Now, you can speculate that gas prices escalating is his fault too or
that he controls FEMA and other relief organizations Directly, which he
doesn't but if you do your bias will show.

I don't know about the decisions you are required to make on a daily or
even yearly basis but I will be willing to bet that they don't require
a staff of advisers, a staff by the way who may not be aware of every
single piece of information necessary for the head man to make the most
accurate decision, the decision that will relieve or support the most
needy in any given circumstance.

Since making decisions is something every one in my acquatiance must do
daily, sometimes wrongly, there is no doubt in my mind that the
decisions the President must make, decisions that affect most if not
all Americans, are made after weighing the plus' and minus', as they
are known to him, before he makes that decision. Can you say the same?

Have you ever heard the phrase, "made in haste, regretted at leisure"?

I am not qualified to "Rate The President" and I don't think any of the
readers of your question are either, not without being privy to all the
info that he is.

JohnD

P.S. No one's perfect but he did win the popularity contest that gave
him the office he has today! Maybe if he had been elected by a panel of
judges who were qualified to pass judgement on the Chief Executive of
our country, a judgement based on psychological profiling as well as
background, etc. we may have ended up with a different HEAD MAN. But
since we have a popularity contest instead of a more rational means of
selecting our leaders we will get a mix of good and bad/unsuitable
running for every elected office in our country. Go figure!