Re: I don't mean to get political but...

The brain droppings of peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx were posted in
news:1138710293.061765.166090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 31 Jan
2006: 

> Dann wrote:
>> The brain droppings of peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx were posted in
>> news:1138587356.440842.198390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 29 Jan
>> 2006:
> 
>> > Obviously, you do take tough and occasionally divisive stances on
>> > select issues that matter to your party. Nixon and LBJ were both
>> > hardline on Vietnam. But they were both reasonably centrist on
>> > other matters.
>>
>> "Centrist" only if one defines the term as involving an ever
>> expanding federal welfare state, wage and price controls, and the War
>> on Drugs.  IMO, two of those three items are well left of center. 
>> But then again, I like playing on a 100 yard foot ball field, rather
>> than the 75 yard long version that the left claims to be exist.
> 
> The term was "reasonably centrist." That is, centrist in the sense of
> reaching across the aisle without unreasonably alienating your own
> core constituency. I think those policies were acceptable to the
> two-thirds roughly in the center. 

And has been pointed out before, Mr. Bush has sought to reach across the 
aisle.  The result has been Democrats accepting the offer and then 
calling Mr. Bush an uncooperative idealogue for not offering more.

> Since there's no real measure of
> where the center is, it's a judgement call at any given moment in
> politics to begin with, but certainly you can't insist that it come
> down on a particular spot on your 100 yard field.

Especially if I don't want to appear objective.

>> > By contrast, the Bush White House is hardline across the board and
>> > they play the election results as if it were a mandate for that
>> > kind of policy -- Bush even bragging about his "political capital."
>> > You would think that Kerry and Gore had suffered Dukakis-style
>> > defeats, rather than barely failing to win a majority.
>> >
>> > Lincoln was right -- you can't please all of the people all of the
>> > time. It's not only dishonest to try, but futile. There were people
>> > who couldn't stand anything Clinton did, but he was elected, and
>> > re-elected, handily, because the bulk of his policies were
>> > acceptable to a large portion of the people.
>>
>> For the record. Mr. Clinton never received more than a plurality of
>> the vote.  The majority of voters voted for Presidential candidates
>> that were to the right of Mr. Clinton.  He did well in the electoral
>> college, but not in the popular vote.
> 
> I didn't say he won a majority of the popular vote. I said he was
> re-elected handily. Which you concede, yes?

You translated Mr. Clinton's electoral success with popular support.  The 
same thing that you are now castigating the Bush team for doing.

> <snip>
>>
>> > Indeed, it turned out he never was active in the Concerned Alumni
>> > group. So I'm not sure there's anything he can say to explain why,
>> > if he didn't believe in the goals of the group, he listed it in a
>> > job application.  It seems like the explanation is, "I said it to
>> > get the job. I'll say anything to get a job. I've got no problem
>> > with exaggerating or misrepresenting my personal views in whatever
>> > way it takes!"
>>
>> Nothing like setting up your own straw man, is there?
>>
> 
> He was offered the chance to comment on his listing of the group on an
> application. He said he barely remembered the group and was never
> active in it. He was asked why he listed it and he put on the tap
> shoes. However, to other questions about his statements on
> applications -- I think the same application, but am not positive --
> his explanation was that he was applying for a job and said things
> that would help him get that job.
> 
> I don't find it a reach to assume that he listed a righty group to
> enhance his employability. I do find it disquieting to have him
> distance himself from previously expressed opinions by saying he
> exaggerated his beliefs to please the people reviewing an application.
> 
> As said, I'd have accepted a statement that he joined the group
> without understanding exactly what it stood for and then never became
> active once he realized he wasn't in synch with them. But it still
> leaves open the question of his frankness when it comes to pleasing
> the people who are making a hiring decision.

You have over accentuated his "application for the job" enthusiasm and 
coupled it with your projected desire that he claim to totally discard 
any principles in order to get that job.
 
> Not a strawman at all.

Sure about that?

-- 
Regards,                                                   
Dann            detox665@xxxxxxxxxxx     
Blogging at:    http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm

3 stages of sex:  Tri-weekly, try weekly, try weakly.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Benefits of becoming a Muslem
    ... - Ian Parker ... I have also talked about the way in which Bush has been ... Why do you refuse to revise mainstream published history, ... types that I'm having my problems with accepting their ulterior ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: When even a Republican can see it....
    ... doc 2: Sept 5/72: A request for a temporary transfer to a group in ... It looks from the time line as though Bush made a first request in 24 ... Perhaps the unit in Alabama is accepting him, ... Without more evidence, one can't tell if the correction was made while ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: An interesting take on uneven coverage...
    ... that goes for the stupid BBC reporter who wrote the story as ... "Mr Bush, who played 24 times, was mocked for his fondness of the game." ... This is Bryan's original source. ... contrary evidence and accepting a source on a blanket basis for the rest ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: OT - Clinton was NOT offered Bin Laden by Sudan in 1996
    ... So this is your criteria for accepting a source? ... That's like saying ... that I should believe in something negative about Bush if it came from ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)