New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...

John P. Mullen wrote:
wrote:

Grey Satterfield wrote:

On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
s.com,
" wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:

spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party.


It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.

The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
the long term doesn't involve them.

Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
consensus on the issue affect them.


The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.



Doh!


The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.

I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
As did you.


A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
government more control over a process that could easily be abused.

The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
sure it passes next time by voting for me!"


Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.

Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
you
don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.

--

FF

wrote:
John P. Mullen wrote:

wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:


On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
ups.com,
" wrote:



Grey Satterfield wrote:


spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party.


It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.

The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
the long term doesn't involve them.

Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
consensus on the issue affect them.



The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.



Doh!


The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.


I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
As did you.


A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
government more control over a process that could easily be abused.

The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
sure it passes next time by voting for me!"



Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.

Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
you
don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.


That is the part *you* don't get. His constituents will understand him
and are likely to not be fooled by so simple a ploy.

John Mullen

John P. Mullen wrote:
wrote:
John P. Mullen wrote:

wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:


On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
ups.com,
" wrote:



Grey Satterfield wrote:


spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party.


It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.

The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
the long term doesn't involve them.

Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
consensus on the issue affect them.



The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.



Doh!


The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.


I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
As did you.


A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
government more control over a process that could easily be abused.

The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
sure it passes next time by voting for me!"



Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.

Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
you don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.


That is the part *you* don't get. His constituents will understand him
and are likely to not be fooled by so simple a ploy.


Huh? No ploy from him. From you, yes, from him no.

He voted the way a majority of his constituents wanted him to.
Nobody's
fooling anybody, especially you. You're not even from wherever it
is he's from. Nobody there gives a damn about your opinion and
Senator Snort isn't trying to get your vote. Or mine, for that matter.

--

FF

wrote:

John P. Mullen wrote:

wrote:

John P. Mullen wrote:


wrote:



Grey Satterfield wrote:



On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
roups.com,
" wrote:




Grey Satterfield wrote:



spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party.


It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.

The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
the long term doesn't involve them.

Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
consensus on the issue affect them.




The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.



Doh!


The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.


I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
As did you.



A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
government more control over a process that could easily be abused.

The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
sure it passes next time by voting for me!"



Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.

Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
you don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.


That is the part *you* don't get. His constituents will understand him
and are likely to not be fooled by so simple a ploy.



Huh? No ploy from him. From you, yes, from him no.

He voted the way a majority of his constituents wanted him to.
Nobody's
fooling anybody, especially you. You're not even from wherever it
is he's from. Nobody there gives a damn about your opinion and
Senator Snort isn't trying to get your vote. Or mine, for that matter.



Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.

Such a simple trick would not fool any one.

Except maybe those damn newcomers.

:-)

John Mullen

On 8/19/06 8:49 AM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:
Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.

That's a really good idea. I believe that incumbency is a serious problem
and that the old rascals should be thrown out regularly so that the new
group of rascals will have not steal too much during their period of on the
job training.

We have term limits for governors and legislators in Oklahoma and the system
works well, it seems to me. I was sickened when the supreme court on a 5-4
vote held unconstitutional state constitutional provisions that term limited
congressmen and US Senators. I'll never forgive Justice Kennedy for his
vote in that case. It was a BIG mistake, it seems to me.

Grey Satterfield

Grey Satterfield wrote:

On 8/19/06 8:49 AM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:

Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.


That's a really good idea. I believe that incumbency is a serious problem
and that the old rascals should be thrown out regularly so that the new
group of rascals will have not steal too much during their period of on the
job training.

We have term limits for governors and legislators in Oklahoma and the system
works well, it seems to me. I was sickened when the supreme court on a 5-4
vote held unconstitutional state constitutional provisions that term limited
congressmen and US Senators. I'll never forgive Justice Kennedy for his
vote in that case. It was a BIG mistake, it seems to me.

Grey Satterfield



Well, I'm a member of the Faculty Senate in my 12th year. We have a
provision that a senator can only serve for two terms of three years
each, then has to stand down for at least one year. However, once a
person is out for at least a year, he or she can run again.

The problem with absolute term limits for legislators is that there are
a few people who really do a great job. Most people in New Mexico are
fans of our two Senators, one from each party. Both have good support
in all parties.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Poll...2-8db9a3e3054a

However, limiting the number of consecutive terms does have its merits.
That way, if a person is really a great legislator, he or she will be
able to win the seat after sitting out a term without the incumbent's
advantage and those that don't just won't be able to come back.


John Mullen

On 8/19/06 11:09 AM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:

Grey Satterfield wrote:

On 8/19/06 8:49 AM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:

Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.


That's a really good idea. I believe that incumbency is a serious problem
and that the old rascals should be thrown out regularly so that the new
group of rascals will have not steal too much during their period of on the
job training.

We have term limits for governors and legislators in Oklahoma and the system
works well, it seems to me. I was sickened when the supreme court on a 5-4
vote held unconstitutional state constitutional provisions that term limited
congressmen and US Senators. I'll never forgive Justice Kennedy for his
vote in that case. It was a BIG mistake, it seems to me.

Grey Satterfield



Well, I'm a member of the Faculty Senate in my 12th year. We have a
provision that a senator can only serve for two terms of three years
each, then has to stand down for at least one year. However, once a
person is out for at least a year, he or she can run again.

The problem with absolute term limits for legislators is that there are
a few people who really do a great job. Most people in New Mexico are
fans of our two Senators, one from each party. Both have good support
in all parties.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Poll...4168-be92-8db9
a3e3054a

However, limiting the number of consecutive terms does have its merits.
That way, if a person is really a great legislator, he or she will be
able to win the seat after sitting out a term without the incumbent's
advantage and those that don't just won't be able to come back.

I agree that the downside of term limits is that it forces the rare great
elected official from office. But I decided long ago that this was an
acceptable price to pay in order to insure that politicians were citizens
first and politicians second.

Grey Satterfield

John P. Mullen wrote:
wrote:

John P. Mullen wrote:

wrote:

John P. Mullen wrote:


wrote:



Grey Satterfield wrote:



On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
roups.com,
" wrote:




Grey Satterfield wrote:



spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party.


It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.

The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
the long term doesn't involve them.

Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
consensus on the issue affect them.




The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.



Doh!


The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.


I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
As did you.



A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
government more control over a process that could easily be abused.

The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
sure it passes next time by voting for me!"



Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.

Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
you don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.


That is the part *you* don't get. His constituents will understand him
and are likely to not be fooled by so simple a ploy.



Huh? No ploy from him. From you, yes, from him no.

He voted the way a majority of his constituents wanted him to.
Nobody's
fooling anybody, especially you. You're not even from wherever it
is he's from. Nobody there gives a damn about your opinion and
Senator Snort isn't trying to get your vote. Or mine, for that matter.



Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.

Such a simple trick would not fool any one.

Its not a trick. What you suggest, that the Dems coudl claim he'll
change his vote, that's a trick.

--

FF

wrote:

John P. Mullen wrote:

wrote:


John P. Mullen wrote:


wrote:


John P. Mullen wrote:



wrote:




Grey Satterfield wrote:




On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
egroups.com,
" wrote:





Grey Satterfield wrote:




spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party.


It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.

The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
the long term doesn't involve them.

Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
consensus on the issue affect them.





The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.



Doh!


The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.


I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
As did you.




A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
government more control over a process that could easily be abused.

The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
sure it passes next time by voting for me!"



Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.

Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
you don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.


That is the part *you* don't get. His constituents will understand him
and are likely to not be fooled by so simple a ploy.



Huh? No ploy from him. From you, yes, from him no.

He voted the way a majority of his constituents wanted him to.
Nobody's
fooling anybody, especially you. You're not even from wherever it
is he's from. Nobody there gives a damn about your opinion and
Senator Snort isn't trying to get your vote. Or mine, for that matter.



Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.

Such a simple trick would not fool any one.


Its not a trick. What you suggest, that the Dems coudl claim he'll
change his vote, that's a trick.


People around here make it a point to know more about their
representatives than their voting record. They have established track
records. They all lie like rugs, so what they say is not that
important, but what they do, people notice. If a representative votes a
certain way for coverage, but as a track record of supporting an
opposite position, people are not usually fooled.

What amuses me is the amazing amount of money outsiders pour into the
state in an attempt to influence races. Sometimes, it works, but with
spending ratios of over ten to one. I remember in a recent issue that
we got inundated with all sorts of high-cost glossy pamphlets, automated
telephone calls, and really high-tech ads. The guy on the other side
mailed out a single xeroxed page, stating his position and listing the
funding sources for all the fancy pamphlets, etc. He probably spent
less than 2% per voter than the opposition. He won.

The old-timers in New Mexico get really ****ed off when they think
someone is trying to pull one over on them.

John Mullen