Senator Byrd's 2003/05/06 speech

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by jeff

George Bush has failed at the economy,

Really? How so?

It were tedious to demonstrate, yet again, how Presidents do not and cannot control anything so enormous, multivarious and perverse as the national economy, especially given the many impediments placved in their ways in this regard by Congress and the Courts, to say nothing of the bureaucracy. It were tedious to reiterate that the business cycle often has a periodicity of decades, and not of two four years terms. We've had that discussion many times. So can we just agree that Bush is not the author of the current downturn, any more than Clinton was the author of the previous upturn, or Carter was the author of the "stagflation" of the seventies, or that Reagan "won" the Cold War?

They have all merely ridden enormous trends and undercurrents in world and economic events, and dipped an occasional paddle into the waters. But they have not parted those waters, Moses-like, as most people seem to prefer to believe....

both Iraq and Afghanistan are in chaos (Kharzai can barely leave the capital, and the country is again ruled by warlords), Osama and Al Queda are still threats,

Once again we see the impatience that has been bred by the shrinking of the world, by technology and the resultant "instant gratification culture. We haven't managed to solve generations-old problems in a few months or years, so it's a disaster.

Twelve years of Saddam's shenanigans were not enough---"Give the inspections more time!"----but two months is too long to wait to sort things out?

I suppose that today we'd insist that Rome MUST be built in a day, as well.

turn this around, since you've brought up things like stage fright, nervousness, etc. Why don't you provide evidence that his fumbled speaking is the result of a speech problem, fear, stress levels, nervousness, etc. Since nobody else has suggested these maladies, the burden is on you to support your suggestion with some evidence.

Sorry, but it is not. It is only up to me to demonstrate that there are alternative possible explanations than "He's stupid", "He's dim-witted", etc. It is only up to me to remind you of the saying about judging a book by its cover. Or a man's intelligence by his glib speech or lack thereof.

Even that doesn't relate to the ultimate issue: it affects his job performance, so it is relevant. He communicates poorly. He says silly things. It's embarrassing and a detriment to the interests of our country.

It is only relevant and only affects his job performance if you truly believe that the President's job consists wholly or in the main in making speeches and that nothing he does behind the scenes matters in comparison. And if you really believe that, then you are right and I am wrong. But you will have to demonstrate that that is in fact the case, I think. For my part, I tend to think that his public statements are rather the tip of the iceberg of a President's business, decoration rather than substance...

[jeff]

Those mentioned were not the authors of each of the cases cited, but certainly contributors. In the case of Bush, he has Republican control of the White House, both branches of Congress, and Supreme Court, so the excuse of partisan obstruction doesn't play. Can we just agree that if the economy was great the Republicans would be claiming credit for it? (No more so than Dems would do in their place). If it happens on your watch, you get to take a big hunk of the credit or blame.

The current Iraqi and Afghanistan problems are certainly ones that the administration has substantial responsibility for: there are power vacuums and resulting chaos. Note that we just had to replace our ex-general in Iraq and put in a new team. Hardly a vote of confidence for winning the peace. Bush repeatedly derided nation-building as a candidate, and now he's got a snootful of it to do. I was not among those saying "Give the inspections more time", BTW - I supported the invasion and just wish that we'd done it in 1991 so we wouldn't have had to do it now. More to the point: you asked for failures, and I named some.

I disagree also about the burden of proof for reasons for poor communications skill. You've repeatedly brought up these excuses; there should be some basis for them besides idle speculation. I could suggest that aliens are taking over his body when he makes a faux pas.

I didn't say he's stupid or dim-witted. I said "One the many reasons I don't support Bush is his inability to frame and speak complete, coherent, English sentences." That has nothing to do with being glib (which implies insincere or superficial); it has to do with thought. Recall that the surrounding text was about whether his speeches were as good as the classic ones. So, my initial post clearly stated that his verbal skills are only one of the factors. We could have a totally separate thread on what we all think of his policies on health care, tort reform, tax, environment, reproductive and gender issues, separation of Church and State, relationships with Europe, the North Korean situation, AIDS, veterans benefits, SEC oversight of the markets, the World Bank and IMF, and anything else. We might even agree on some of 'em, too...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by jeff
Those mentioned were not the authors of each of the cases cited, but certainly contributors. In the case of Bush, he has Republican control of the White House, both branches of Congress, and Supreme Court,

More hyperboly!

If he "controls" Congress, then why can't he get the judges he wants appointed? If he "controls" the Supreme Court, why is Roe v. wade still the law of the land?

Takes 60 votes in the Senate to do a lot of things. 60 republican seats there are not. You do the math.

Things in government are never as clear-cut as they may seem.

Can we just agree that if the economy was great the Republicans would be claiming credit for it?

Oh, absolutely! One of my biggest pet peeves is that it is SOP in both Parties to claim sole credit for anything good which happens whilst they are in power ( and sometimes even when they aren't ) and to blame all bad things which happen on the other side. Worse, the vast majority of the people are credulous enough to believe them...

The current Iraqi and Afghanistan problems are certainly ones that the administration has substantial responsibility for: there are power vacuums and resulting chaos.

Sure. I just decry the tendency to overblow the "problems" and dismiss the successes. It's just as bad as the obverse.

As to the "power vacuums", again, of course there are power vacuums. Both of these places have been ruled by despots and entrenched warlords for generations if not centuries. And naturally we cannot fill the vacuums resulting from their overthrow ourselves---that would be "imperialism". ( Horrors. ) So we can only try to shape matters out as best we can with the imperfect clay of the surviving native leaders without being too peremptory ourselves. I suspect that Moses would have the same sort of difficulties.

[jeff]

Hey, we actually agreed about a few things! I knew it was possible.

I don't think repealing Roe v. Wade is GWB's top priority (hmmm... where I live, GWB means "George Washington Bridge". Ooops, off-topic!), and I think he's reached unexpected resistance to his judicial appointments. All to the good, in my opinion (I support abortion rights. I also suspect that it's just too hot a topic to debate, not to mention fruitless since nobody would change their position. If we disagree on this, I think it safer if we just "agree to disagree"). I'm very unhappy about his judicial appointments: in addition to the white-hot issue above, there's one nominee who has made extremely anti-consumer and anti-privacy decisions (overturned), and another who says women must be subordinate to men. Yikes!

Anyway - you're right - there is still a two-party system, thank goodness. Bush can't get _everything_ he wants without resistance, even letting go of the fact that not all Republicans go with his more conservative policies. But, he's been able to essentially get what he wants on foreign and economic policy (like the massive tax cut), to an extent of Presidential power not seen for a very long time.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by jeff
If we disagree on this, I think it safer if we just "agree to disagree").

Luckily, then, we DO agree. I am "pro choice" on most social issues, including both abortion and gun ownership. ( Hey, at least I'm consistent! ) My conservatism emerges mostly on economic and foreign policy issues...

[jeff]

Then, fortunately, we probably agree on a lot more than we had thought (and can discuss the differences with less aggravation)!