Now it comes out! Where was this guy --and others like him, over the last few years?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id= 1003567882

I'm not posting this to hammer on the (P)resident. I know he sucks, am not afraid to say it, and am hearing about it regularly, from a pretty diverse set of people.

If you need to say it, and it feels good, by all means go ahead, but that's not the point.

The point is the GOP in general, and more specifically the divisive issue of foreign policy.

So the question is this: Should the interests of the people wait for some slow grind process? I'm pretty sure our founders would have said "no", which is why they balanced the government in the way they did.

Got a solid justification for "yes?"

"...and am hearing about it regularly, from a pretty diverse set of people."

Demonstrating the disconnectedness of the liberal mind from mainstream America is Pauline Kael, who said on the 1972 electoral victory of Richard Nixon over George McGovern, "How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon!"

Herb

I know more people that voted for Bush than I do people who voted for someone else.

All but two regret it.

I'm afraid you are the one who is disconnected, Herb, if you think Bush's 30% popularity ratings aren't real. He would not be re-elected today - no chance in hell.

Andrew

and Bill Clinton would be re-elected today . . . in a second.

Again, I'm a Nixon man and voted for Alan Keyes in the primary. Mr. Bush wasn't my first choice.

However, whenever I observe liberals piling on in the same fashion they decried a few years ago, I speak up.

He's president until 2008. Hating the guy won't change that. Don't curse the darkness. Light a candle.

Herb

No, Herb, you're the one who implied that people who dislike Bush are out of the mainstream, whereas people who still SUPPORT Bush are out of the mainstream. If we had impeachment by popular vote in America, both Bush and Cheney would be gone.

Andrew

"If we had impeachment by popular vote in America, both Bush and Cheney would be gone."

That's fine and you may be correct. Point conceded: IF we had impeachment by popular vote. Does that make you feel any better?

But given our system of government, until you get the votes, that isn't going to happen.

Again, hating the guy is a problem of both the left and the right. I disagreed with Mr. Clinton, but I never hated him. I'm not disagreeing with the impeachment premise, only questioning the point of it.

Herb

Thanks for conceding the point, Herb. I know Bush isn't going to be impeached (unless something horrendous pops up in the next year), although I think he and Cheney deserve to be. Oh, well. I look forward to January 20, 2009.

Andrew

HerrB

Maybe you should do a little fact-checking before trotting out your little Pauline Kael trump card.

"Nixon "quote""

In the wake of Richard Nixon's landslide victory in the 1972 presidential election, Kael is frequently quoted as having said that she "couldn't believe Nixon had won," since no one she knew had voted for him. The quote is usually cited by conservatives (such as Bernard Goldberg, in his book Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News), as an example of allegedly clueless New York liberal insularity. No positive primary evidence exists that Kael, or anyone else, made the statement. In addition, there does not seem to be agreement as to the exact wording, the speaker (it has variously been attributed to other liberal women, including Katherine Graham[1], Susan Sontag and Joan Didion[2]) or the timing (in addition to Nixon's victory, it has been claimed to have been uttered after Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984)[3].

The origin of the meme is unclear. According to Fred Shapiro of the American Dialect Society, the quote is derived from an address Kael gave to a Modern Language Association conference on December 28, 1972, during which The New York Times quoted her as saying, "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them." [4]"

Do you have any actual-factual nuggets other than something that 'may' have been said by a dead New York(er) film critic?

If Mr. Goldberg cited it, I would ultimately defer to his source. He is an Emmy award winning journalist.

Herb

"If Mr. Goldberg cited it, I would ultimately defer to his source. He is an Emmy award winning journalist."

As is Dan Rather.
And I know how you respect his work.

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/rat0bio-1

From your other thread, HerrB:

"...I don't readily roll over for inaccurate points..."

Yeah, especially when they're YOURS!

Go check your Goldberg book and his actual source/footnote and get back to us. I'll wait.

I don't see anyone jumping up to change that entry in Wiki, maybe you should do it, since you have the proof.

"As is Dan Rather.
And I know how you respect his work."

Mr. Rather is a recognized liar who knowingly used suspect documents.
Herb

Can you name one thing Rather lied about, specifically? (And no, he didn't lie about the documents in the "AWOL" story; he simply used poor judgement in using them for the story. The most curious thing about those documents is that their actual source has never been determined.)

Andrew

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/324nfvwe.asp

Herb

the troll said: "Mr. Rather is a recognized liar who knowingly used suspect documents."

If this is true, then the following statement is also true:

"Mr. Bush is a recognized liar who knowingly used suspect documents."

IMHO, this is a case where we've got one incident that is being used to color the perception of a persons career.

Used them in bad judgement.

Considering scope: Big freaking deal.

And Skep is spot on too.

That focus on the little detail, just like the scratch on what is otherwise a fine car, gets us nowhere.

Herb, on second thought, I'm not sure if you're praising Dan Rather or criticising him for supposedly being a liar. After all, try as he might, Dan Rather's head would spin if he tried to lie as much as your hero Richard Nixon did. Since you seem to admire liars, what's your problem with Rather? That he didn't lie enough? Or do you hold people in the media to different standards than your personal heros?

Andrew

". . . some people are wondering if their president is a crook . . . well, . . . I'm NOT a crook."

Richard M. Nixon on national televison addressing the nation from the oval office.

Does anyone anyone else notice Herb's slick dodge from Nixon and Pauline Kael to Dan Rather?

HerrB sez "Look kids, quick! Over here!"

I'm waiting for an answer, Herb, or at least the acknowledgment that you don't have the facts and might be wrong.

"Herb, on second thought, I'm not sure if you're praising Dan Rather or criticising him for supposedly being a liar."

Wait a minute. You asked for another case, besides the AWOL accusation, where Mr. Rather lied. I gave it to you. Then you brush it aside.

And you accuse me of breezing past the facts?

Herb

You used the right-wing Weekly Standard - an extremely biased "newspaper" that presumably hates Dan Rather - as your source, Herb. That's like me using Mother Jones as a source. Would YOU take it seriously?

And again, do you dislike Rather because he didn't lie as much as Nixon did? Or do you worship some liars (Nixon) and then like to criticize people as "liars" because you happen not to like them?

Andrew

Politicians are newsmakers.

Mr. Rather was in a position to report the news, not make it.

I don't excuse any of Mr. Nixon's misbehaviour and have said it here many times. If I must say it again, presidents should be held accountable for their misdeeds. Feel better?

I also expect journalists to be as unbiased as they insist they are. Since approximately 90% of reporters vote democrat, that's no easy feat.

Herb

Herb, can't you see that criticizing one person (Rather) for being a liar and then alternately worshipping another person (Nixon) who is known as probably America's most famous liar makes you look like a flaming hypocrite?

Journalists are human beings and cannot be completely unbiased. Sometimes they compensate for a perceived bias by tilting their coverage THE OTHER WAY ("See? I'm no lefty journalist; I just slammed Bill Clinton and Al Gore!") and that's hardly fair either. Meanwhile, we have a whole crew of so-called journalists over at Fox claiming to be "fair and balanced" who are clearly biased to the right. When Dick Cheney travels, he insists that *EVERY* TV in his relaxation suites be pre-tuned to Fox News - wonder why that is?

Andrew

"90% of reporters vote democrat"

I suspect that's because they're educated, and know Bullshit when they hear it.

"I suspect that's because they're educated..."

Talk about a ham-fisted generalization.

Mr. Bush holds degrees from Yale and Harvard.

I'd love to compare the education of republicans like our president, William F. Buckley and Michael Medved with the democrats on this board.

Herb

And he took the bait...

Getting into Yale and Harvard because your Daddy went there and was a Republican Big Shot isn't much of a personal achievement. It would have been an achievement had Bush gotten somewhere because of his intelligence and ability, the way Bill Clinton did, coming up from lower middle class to be President of the United States.

You think George W. Bush hit a triple because he was born on third base.

Andrew

"Mr. Bush holds degrees from Yale and Harvard."

Then why does he SEEM do dumb? There is no PC way to put that question. I know that calliing him a name ( dumb ) may be off-putting to some. So you can insert any other word like that you want if it makes you feel better.

I mean, he says really dumb things. Maybe he WAS smarter then he used to be ( sometimes I feel like I am the same way about myself - anyone else terrified of what your SAT math score would be these days vs. when you were in high school? No thanks ).

"Mr. Bush holds degrees from Yale and Harvard."

You say that as if that makes him smart. I mean, you could have said " He has a college education." But no. You took the time to say he holds degrees from Yale and Harvard. As if someone that has those could not possibly be lacking serious thinking or communication skills.

Does just having a degreee from those schools automatically mean that he is educated in the way that you admire?

I have a degree from Multnomah School of the Bible. Where do I fall on that scale?

But I digress - we ALL know that Bush doesn't act smart. He doesn't speak smart. He has made non-smart decisions. The closest thing you can point to as a smart thing for him is " He was smart enough to know that he wasn't smart so he has surrounded himself with much smarter people." He is tough and stubborn and has been afforded a different set of opportunities that others. That is ALL he is.

Unfortunately, those people have completely taken advantage of him. I think he has been painted into a corner so substantial that just about any human being would have a hard time coming clean about it all. He's in WAY too deep. I blame him for some - but not all of these problems. You can still see...

...ahh forget it. I'm rambling.

I just feel sorry for Bush sometimes. He didn't lay down enough of a good foundation in his life to be a good leader. And for THAT, yes, I blame him.

But let's not pretend that he's smart in the way counts for the rest of us. He's smart in the way that counts for him and his buddies. That is all.

There are probably too many typos in here to make it worth editing. Sorry.

For the record.
There is a difference between intelligence, and intellectual dishonesty.

As there is between ignorance and willful ignorance.

The question was about education.

I provide proof, and you change the subject. If you want to talk about something else, then ask about something else.

"Then why does he SEEM do dumb?"

What does that say about Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore, if someone who seems so dumb beat BOTH of them?

Every time you belittle Mr. Bush, remember that not only did he defeat both of your 'intellects' but he also had better grades than they did.

You guys keep going there, and you remain provably wrong. I expect the name-calling now at any time. All because Mr. Bush "Seems so dumb."

Herb

You're missing the point, Herb. Some very bright people graduate from Harvard and Yale, obviously, but just GOING THERE and getting a fancy degree that says "Harvard" doesn't make one particularly smart, considering that family tradition and money can get one into those institutions (more so in the past) not just merit.

Or do you think John Kerry and Al Gore were a lot smarter than Richard Nixon because Nixon had to settle for Whitter College before making it to Duke law school?

You keep brandishing Bush's Yale and Harvard degrees as if that alone is supposed to make us think he's a smart guy. It doesn't.

Andrew

His education level is not proof of anything, and that's the point!

You didn't offer proof of anything, just more fodder for distraction.

Ones intelligence and character are primary. Formal education provides lots of facts, food for thought, contacts, etc...

Everybody knows that person with a degree that essentially paid for it. Does that make them better somehow, compared to other people? Of course not! To think otherwise is foolish.

Tell you what. Put President Bush up for a debate against several members of this board and he would get his degreed ass kicked sixteen ways to sunday! The rest of us would hold our own, and a few of us would have trouble.

Given the sample here, that's not saying much about the (P)resident.

...what it says about the other two, is that we are suffering a less than stellar President who got selected, not elected. Knowing the right people can get you far --really far, even if you don't deserve to be there.

"You keep brandishing Bush's Yale and Harvard degrees as if that alone is supposed to make us think he's a smart guy."

No, honestly I'm not. Read the comment:

"I suspect that's because they're educated..."

I'm not a Bush man and disagree with plenty of his policies. For someone who can determine shades of grey, you're missing my point. Education is trotted out as a reason to belittle the president. I address the concern with provable information, and suddenly it isn't enough.

I disagree with the president on the border, on big tobacco and didn't even vote for him in the primary. I'm merely addressing what appear to be unsubstantiated ad-hominem attacks.

Who's using minutiae here?

Herb

Personally, I think the education was wasted.

Yep.
He's a smart one alright.

Credit Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally with saving the leader of the free world from self-immolation.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070407/AUTO01/704070338/1148

So Ford builds an automobile with 2 connectors, and if you get them mixed up, the car explodes?
Should make for a few law suits. There is nothing in the article that says the president even picked up the connector.

(Same comments I made in the other thread about this story)

OK....My turn to call BS on this story.

First off (think about it) how could you get hydrogen, a gas, to flow down wires?

Second, being that hydrogen is a gas; the connector wouldn't even be close to being the same.

People have come to the point that they will print anything about the President, especially if they can slant it in a bad way against him, and there are enough people who dislike him so much that it has clouded their thinking to the point that they will believe it.

Oh nooooo.....the press isn't liberal or anti Bush. Refer back to the second line...BS

Which is worse, being Unfit To Lead or being Unfit For Command (John Kerry)?

Remember when the secret service had to save Carter from the killer bunny.