I’ve heard the democrats say that Bush is a better candidate than he is a President (susanestrich).
I agree to some extent. If I was Karl Rove, I would remind him of how well he does when he reaches out to the people. Bypass the nyt/npr cabal and talk to the people. Remove the liberal “we have to regain power and are willing to do anything to get it” filter.
I think that W. needs to remember that there are a large number of apathetic fools in this country (the democrats count on it with their little slogans). He needs to remind people of the obvious every fifteen minutes.
That is the world we live in and the media should have been used much more effectively by this White House.
W. needs to remind people of the risks of an openly terrorist supporting regime like hussein. He needs to speak openly about deterrance. He needs to lay out both successes, failures, and hardships. He DOES NOT need to give ammo to the liberal blowhards by apologizing for everything. However, he does need to say, “Here is what went right, here is what is not going as well, and here is what we are going to do about it.”
I agree with irish, it isn’t the people on this board he needs to reach (most of us are already hardened partisans), it’s the guys who think about politics once or twice every four years that he needs to reach.
If he took this approach, the pollsters would be relegated to trolling in berkley to make their little headlines.
Bush said himslf that the War on Terror was going to be a long one. Some estimates have put this at as much as 30 years - quite a bit more time than the current video game mentatlity of the anti-war crowd.
[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a video game mentality so much as the recognition and realitization that force, in and of itself, cannot stamp out terrorism. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be trying to stamp out terrorist leadership and prevent them from getting the raw materials to do harm. Of course we should. But it’s quite a more difficult proposition to defeat a diffuse network of zealots willing to die for their cause (thought their leaders might not be) than defeating a brutal dictator of a single country.
Zeb, I don’t consider the fact that poll numbers being down the hallmark of a bad presidency. In this case, I feel that Bush has made many poor decisions and executed them poorly, and current poll numbers are just a reflection of that. As far as intelligence goes, it’s not something that’s possible to prove.
I personally wouldn’t call Bush stupid. But I do think Bush is one of the stupider presidents. Based on academic performance and the way he speaks. At the least, he’s pretty damn inarticulate. That’s not necessarily a measure of intelligence. There are intelligent people who can’t speak well. But I do think it’s somewhat indicative. As far as his record goes, I wouldn’t say it so much labels him as stupid as having made poor choices for the wrong reasons, in my opinion.
[quote]alstan90 wrote:
Why do the training threads always get 2 responses and the political ones 100000000000000000000000000?
Sorry to go off topic, it just amazes me, here we are on T-Nation and people only want to discuss politics.
Is it a testostorone building activity?[/quote]
Might be because most T-Nationers don’t really have much to ‘debate’ in terms of training. Oh, there is some contrasting ideas here and there, but most everyone is at least in the same room.
Here, you get to go at it where there is never a shortage of disagreement. I suspect most T-Nationers find competition in some form appealing, and so the Political thread gets a good workout.
It’s WAY too early to get excited by polls – even the next Congressional election is almost a year away yet.
However, that said, with all the focus on Bush’s low poll numbers lately, one should note that they’ve been trending upwards recently (not coincidentally in my opinion, as gas prices have been falling and the administration has been making its own positive cases for the economy and Iraq):
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
alstan90 wrote:
Why do the training threads always get 2 responses and the political ones 100000000000000000000000000?
Sorry to go off topic, it just amazes me, here we are on T-Nation and people only want to discuss politics.
Is it a testostorone building activity?
Might be because most T-Nationers don’t really have much to ‘debate’ in terms of training. Oh, there is some contrasting ideas here and there, but most everyone is at least in the same room.
Here, you get to go at it where there is never a shortage of disagreement. I suspect most T-Nationers find competition in some form appealing, and so the Political thread gets a good workout.
[/quote]
I agree. I love the nurtition and training resources here at T-Nation. But they are all pretty solid and different different approaches will work to lesser or greater degrees for different people. I absorb all the info that’s out here but find I don’t have that much to comment on it.
In his first watergate speech Nixon said “I will not place the blame on subordinates?on people whose zeal exceeded their judgment and who may have done wrong in a cause they deeply believed to be right. In any organization, the man at the top must bear the responsibility. That responsibility, therefore, belongs here, in this office. I accept it.” To Nixons credit he did the honorable thing while today politicians do place blame on subordinates. So why the big deal about watergate? My opinion is that Nixon was breaking free of jewish control. Look at the nixon tapes and you will see that he certainly was aware of their role in national politics. He says “Basically, who the hell are these people that stole the papers? It’s too bad. I’m sorry. I was hoping one of them would be a gentile. [laughter] [unclear] The three Jews - Gelb - the three suspects… All Jews.” And Bernstein, Woodward, Deep throat (Mark Feldt)are all Jews. They were out to get him, thats why they made such a big deal of it in the media (which they own or control nearly 100%). At least Nixon saved his life by resigning, Kennedy wasn’t so lucky.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
gojira wrote:
But Nixon definitely tops LBJ. He lied and lied and lied again. We are just now finding out the depths of his deceit.
I don’t think Nixon lied more than anyone else - he just got caught more than anyone else, and had an unhealthy fascination with tape recorders.
The SNL sketch where Dan Akroyd(sp?) plays Nixon in the Oval Office with a tape recorder was one of the funniest things I have ever seen.
Come to think of it - if were are supposed to be listing the dumbest presidents of all time - I agree that Tricky Dick should be on the short list.
But I really don’t think Nixon was as bad as a lot of folks make him out to be.
[quote]Loyal_Soundwave wrote:
And Bernstein, Woodward, Deep throat (Mark Feldt)are all Jews. They were out to get him, thats why they made such a big deal of it in the media (which they own or control nearly 100%). At least Nixon saved his life by resigning, Kennedy wasn’t so lucky.
[/quote]
I guess part of the issue comes from the fact that the war in Iraq is not exactly the same thing as the war against terrorism.
Victory in Iraq is not victory in the war against terrorism.
Anyway, yes, the word “redeclare” was just there for effect. If you remove the “re” I suspect everything I stated still stands… and as I said, there are other scenarious, just the two I stated are the ones that I think will be hardest to avoid.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Loyal_Soundwave wrote:
And Bernstein, Woodward, Deep throat (Mark Feldt)are all Jews. They were out to get him, thats why they made such a big deal of it in the media (which they own or control nearly 100%). At least Nixon saved his life by resigning, Kennedy wasn’t so lucky.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I guess part of the issue comes from the fact that the war in Iraq is not exactly the same thing as the war against terrorism.[/quote]
The problem to me seems to be that a lot of folks are making an either/or decision on Iraq and its place in the GWOT. Iraq is not THE War on Terror, it is a part of the War on Terror.
Claiming victory over Iraq has been bastardized by the anti-ar crowd to mean that the President had declared victory in the GWOT.
I think of it as Iraq being a battle in the bigger war, not the war itself.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Loyal_Soundwave wrote:
And Bernstein, Woodward, Deep throat (Mark Feldt)are all Jews. They were out to get him, thats why they made such a big deal of it in the media (which they own or control nearly 100%). At least Nixon saved his life by resigning, Kennedy wasn’t so lucky.
Unbelievable.
I agree! WTF?[/quote]
This guy’s just trying to get a rise out of people. I suggest no more comments about it. Don’t give him the satisfaction
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
I guess part of the issue comes from the fact that the war in Iraq is not exactly the same thing as the war against terrorism.
The problem to me seems to be that a lot of folks are making an either/or decision on Iraq and its place in the GWOT. Iraq is not THE War on Terror, it is a part of the War on Terror.
[/quote]
Well, I’m note even sure that it’s part of the War on Terror. Getting rid of Saddamn is POTENTIALLY a good thing. But for it to be one requires follow-through. And it’s not follow-through we’re not necessarily prepared to make as it’s prohibitively expensive and also costly from a non-monetary standpoint to make that kind of investment. And those Iraquis who DO want democracy are likely not capable of succesfully instituting it on their own. And as far as the terror front goes, I’m not sure how a country is disarray and civil war would be any less of a hotbead of terrorism than rule under Saddam. Maybe more.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Loyal_Soundwave wrote:
And Bernstein, Woodward, Deep throat (Mark Feldt)are all Jews. They were out to get him, thats why they made such a big deal of it in the media (which they own or control nearly 100%). At least Nixon saved his life by resigning, Kennedy wasn’t so lucky.
Unbelievable.
[/quote]
Loyal Soundwave, get over to the Illuminati thread, you might enjoy it because I am sure you are aware the Illuminati control the Jews.
[quote]alstan90 wrote:
Why do the training threads always get 2 responses and the political ones 100000000000000000000000000?
Sorry to go off topic, it just amazes me, here we are on T-Nation and people only want to discuss politics.
Is it a testostorone building activity?[/quote]
Actually, asltan, I think it probably is. Stay with me for a moment. Did you read TC’s “Things that Suck You Dry” article a few weeks back? He made the point that two factors lower testosterone levels: losing and humiliation. Well, I propose that the converse is true: that by humiliating other people and making them…and everyone who thinks as they do…feel like losers, one can boost one’s own T-levels while lowering the other fellows’.
Thus religion, politics and sex are the three most hotly debated topics in the world:
“Jesus could kick Muhammad’s butt with one hand nailed behind his back…while walking on water!”
“Yeah, well Shiva could kick both their butts! Four fists, baby!”
“You liberal wiener!”
“You right wing nut job!”
“Oh yeah, well I got a bigger dick than you do, you little pussy!”
“I am what I eat!”
And so on and so forth. It is a highly androgenic activity.
