Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Winners need not concede

Some folks in the media think that President Bush should be more inclusive and offer an olive branch to the democrats after he soundly defeated them in the presidential race. I think this si the wrong way to handle things. Remember when he first became the Commander in Chief in 2000 he offered overtures to the democrats, even allowing senator Kennedy to write the "no child left behind" bill which was supported by the president, even if it was not supported by many republicans, and the results.....not thanks, not a working relationship, nothing but grief. The democrats attacked the president on his every decision, even those they originally supported, like the power to use force in Iraq. The democrats have shown time after time that they want absolute power, not concessions. I think the president should do what he wants this term and let the democrats eat crow since they have a history of not working with republicans, even after an olive branch is offered.


At 12:07 AM, Blogger SheaNC said...

Bush is the most divisive president of this century, he won't offer anything (except rhetoric offered for news soundbites). He'll demand democrats do exactly what he wants without compromise, and if they don't he call them obstructionist or question their patriotism for not letting him have his way. "[Democrats] have a history of not working with republicans"? The opposite is also true; republicans have a history of not working with democrats, neither more so than the other. You think the republicans don't "attack" the democrats? If so, then you're only hearing one side of the story. Besides, bi-partisan legislation has been achieved before, whether good or bad (NAFTA, etc). Bad politics is a two-way street.

At 8:33 AM, Blogger Richard Nixon said...

Bush won with a majority. That has not been done since his dad ran. As I stated in my original post, Bush let Teddy (hiccup!) Kennedy have a large role in the education bill and then Keneedy did nothing but attack and criticize Bush. Bush has also done more for civil rights than any other president in history, as I wrote in my "ironic" post. In addition he has removed Ashcroft from attorney General, and is replacing him with another minority, an olive branch if I have ever seen one. Thanks for stopping by and posting here.

At 2:22 AM, Blogger SheaNC said...

Well, first of all, it's quite a stretch for most of us to believe that those votes were legitimate, considering that he had to CHEAT to win this election (through voting machine fraud, etc.), as well as cheating to become installed (not elected) for his first term. Also, even if the vote were an honest one, that majority was the slimmest margin since 1916... hardly a mandate. And anyway, the votes weren't even counted, so it's moot at this point. He won by concession, not by election.

Second, it is racist of you to assume that the appointment of a minority cabinet member, simply because they are a minority, should somehow be received by liberals as an "olive branch." There are a lot of qualities to consider in a prospective cabinet appointee, but race-religion-gender should not be one of them. A corrupt liar is unwelcome in our government regardless of race (except to the Bush administration, to whom corruption is a prerequisite for success). Of course, the Bush administration shares your racist view that the appointment of a minority should appease the Democrats by "throwing them a bone".

Third, your reference to "Ted (Hiccup!) Kennedy"... is that meant to be a swipe at his drinking? Glass houses! George Bush is not only an untreated alcoholic, but the first President to reach that office with a DUI on his record (Cheney shares that distinction as well).

Finally, you can't possibly be serious that Bush has done more for civil rights than any president in history. Perhaps you meant to say he has done more TO civil rights than any president in history, since he is actively opposed to the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us in what is, for now, our constitution (although the patriot act is swiftly bringing that to an end).

At 3:34 PM, Blogger Richard Nixon said...

Your first point is 100% inaccurate. Even the DNC lawyers spread across the country said there was no fraud. If the RNC had that kind of power then we should never have a democrat in office again and I doubt that will happen.
Your second point is confusing as it is always the democrats that claim republicans are trying to keep the man down. As I have pointed out in another post, Bush has nominated more minorities, the backbone of democratic support, to positions of power than even Americas first "black president", Bill Clinton ever did.
My hiccup was meant to be humor. You have none. Ted killed a woman while drunk and got away with it. You are spouting unfounded rhetoric about a Bush drinking problem, I wish I knew where you got your news.
And lastly the Patriot act....tell me, how many times have the police kicked in your door? None, well then its not as bad as you make out. Actually the Patriot act expand powers already in use to combat drug dealers, and applies them to the search for terrorists. Thanks for stopping by.

At 6:09 PM, Blogger rokkgod said...

I was surfing around and found another George Bush site.George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People This place has a ton of funny videos and mp3s.

At 6:02 AM, Blogger HiiFii Webservices said...

I wanted to show you some superb resourses on the net.
Learn to earn 90000$/Month
For which you may also see my Personal Website
and for a Personal Education Career Tools
free Study Database.
This site is for seeing the
Hifi Electronics.
And this is for
World Class Gadgets


Post a Comment

<< Home