Conservative Website: Speaks to Bush Official:

[Guest BlackJesus]

[color="red"][b]From a Conservative Newspaper ..... Doesn't look good for Bush [/b][/color]



[url="http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8762"]http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8762[/url]


[quote][u]
That Sinking Feeling
By The Prowler
Published 9/19/2005
American Spectator[/u]

Publicly, the White House will tell you that it intends to push ahead with two of its big legislative issues throughout the fall: making permanent the first term tax cuts and Social Security reform.

Even privately, with the political and policy debacle that the White House created with its Clintonian response to Hurricane Katrina, policy and political types at 1600 Pennsylvania insist what's left of an agenda is still viable.

But at this stage of the game, barring some imaginative political moves that bear some resemblance to the Bush Administration circa 2002, [b]Republicans on Capitol Hill and even some longtime Bush team members in various Cabinet level departments say this Administration is done for.[/b]

"You run down the list of things we thought we could accomplish and you have to wonder what we thought we were thinking," says a Bush Administration member who joined on in 2001. [b]"You get the impression that we're more than listless. We're sunk."[/b]

Too pessimistic? Maybe not. [b]Rumors are flying through various departments of longtime senior Bush loyalists looking to jump[/b], but with few opportunities in the private sector to make the jump look like anything more than desperation. Almost daily, complaints from Cabinet level Departments come in to the White House about lack of communication coordination on even basic policy matters.

"What happened was that [b]some of the best people who were working in the Administration during the first term[/b], but who weren't necessarily Bush campaign members or weren't particularly close to the White House, [b]jumped when they saw opportunities being filled by under-qualified but more politically connected people[/b]," says a current Administration senior staffer in a Cabinet department. "In this department we lost three quarters of the people who should have been encouraged to stay, and most of them left simply because they had received no indication they would be considered for better or different opportunities. And many of these folks would have stayed."

But enough about the lack of a team to implement a message. Let's look at the mission.

Congressional committee sources on both sides of Capitol Hill predict tough slogging on anything of policy consequence. [b]"Social Security is dead as far as my chairman is concerned. So are the tax cuts,"[/b] says a Ways and Means staffer of Chairman Bill Thomas.

Before hurricane season wreaked havoc on the Gulf Coast and in Washington, the thinking was that Thomas was poised to take up a major tax bill that might feature several critical components of the Bush Administration's Social Security reform. Now those plans appear to have dimmed considerably.

According to one school of thought, some GOP tax policy changes might have contributed to a more market-oriented approach to reconstruction efforts in the Katrina recovery. [b]Instead, Republicans were stunned to hear about programs that read as if cribbed from the Clinton Administration.[/b]

Although Republicans on the Hill are left with a bit of wiggle room to make adjustments to the Bush proposals, they will need political cover if they are to successfully navigate a path made difficult by the Bush team's allowing the media and Democrats to paint the GOP into a corner.


[u]COURTING PRACTICES[/u]
Changes in the political landscape do not appear to have dramatically changed President Bush's views on a Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

As of Friday, sources close the White House said the long-standing favorite of conservatives to replace O'Connor, Judge Edith Jones, had not yet met with the President to discuss the opportunity.

When asked about the seeming lack of consideration of Jones, a White House source counseled against reading too much into it. "There have been plenty of opportunities in the last few weeks for the President to meet with people under the radar. We've done it before, we're doing it now."

Bush has met with at least one women, federal appeals Judge Priscilla Owen, though insiders say there are doubts she has the personality to accomplish the kind of PR blitz successfully undertaken by Judge John Roberts.

One reason Owen maybe be given greater consideration is the G.W. Bush's history with her, compared to G.H.W. Bush's history with Jones.

"Owen is tied to this President Bush. He fought for her, and she stood by him during that fight," says another White House source about Owen's long confirmation ordeal. "Jones is tied to the first President Bush. She was perhaps the alternate pick to [David] Souter. For this President Bush to pick the woman everyone now knows played second fiddle to his father's greatest mistake might be too much to ask for."

Another name that has moved quickly forward is former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, who would be nominated having served not a day on the bench. Thompson, though, is almost universally liked by the Bush Administration, worked closely with the President on the Corporate Fraud Task Force, and has no paper trail to speak of from his time in government.

However, Thompson, according to current and former associates, is believed by many to be a moderate Republican, with pro-abortion leanings. And while people point to his time as a scholar at the Brookings Institution after leaving the Department of Justice in 2003, there was no liberal like-mindedness in that move, according to Brookings sources. "We wanted a conservative, and Larry was someone we had targeted, particularly because of his ties to business. We thought he'd be good for fundraising," says a Brookings scholar[/quote]

[Guest ONYX]

"There's no more money to spend. You used up all of that. You can't start another war because you also used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people."
------Bill Maher

[Guest bengalrick]

we'll see about that... the bush admin is far from over imo... about 3 years to be exact

his agenda that he had from his state of the union speech is probably close to being over (SS mainly) but he is far from over... did you hear dick morris's take on bush's "war on poverty" speech... he thinks that his approval numbers will start to soar in a week or so...

like i said, we'll see...

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Sep 20 2005, 10:46 AM']did you hear dick morris's take on bush's "war on poverty" speech... he thinks that his approval numbers will start to soar in a week or so...

like i said, we'll see...
[right][post="153404"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

probably more like a dead cat bounce...

[Ben]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Sep 20 2005, 10:46 AM']we'll see about that... the bush admin is far from over imo... about 3 years to be exact

[right][post="153404"][/post][/right][/quote]

Damn you!!! Ya beat me to it.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Sep 20 2005, 10:52 AM']probably more like a dead cat bounce...
[right][post="153408"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

his explaination made sense though...

first of all, off the top of your head, who was the president during the great fire in chicago?

who about the earthquake in san francisco??

he even through in the heat wave in chicago, but since we are sort of talking about that right now in a thread, we probably all know that... but to be honest, i didn't remember it much until it was brought back up, and i wouldn't have been sure if it was bush 1 or clinton...


YOU may know who it is homer (not sure) but most people don't... the key is that in the next 6 months and continuing, only good news will be coming out of NO, if bush sticks to his agenda there...

it does make some sense, you haev to admit...

[Homer_Rice]

Questions too easy

Who put the "ram" in the "rama-lama-ding dong?"

I think that the populace has mostly soured on these folks, to the extent that polls can be considered. (I've long thought that polls were better at strongly suggesting [i]how[/i] people should think than at accurately reflecting how people actually do think.)

I still haven't seen anything concrete with respect to the programs intended for the rebuild, so I'm still in the same frame of mind as before. We'll see, and we'll see in the context of a continuing decline of our economy. This could be the beginning of a turnaround or it could be the another nail in the coffin, depending upon the approach.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Sep 20 2005, 11:14 AM']Questions too easy

Who put the "ram" in the "rama-lama-ding dong?"

I think that the populace has mostly soured on these folks, to the extent that polls can be considered. (I've long thought that polls were better at strongly suggesting [i]how[/i] people should think than at accurately reflecting how people actually do think.)

[b]I still haven't seen anything concrete with respect to the programs intended for the rebuild, so I'm still in the same frame of mind as before. We'll see, and we'll see in the context of a continuing decline of our economy. This could be the beginning of a turnaround or it could be the another nail in the coffin, depending upon the approach.[/b]
[right][post="153425"][/post][/right][/quote]

nor have i... some good news for both of us though, is the rumor is, karl rove isn't going to be leading the rebuilding... i agree about the "beginning of a turnaround or another nail in the coffin" comment... though, i would have less nails in that coffin, i presume

[-Dan_Bengals_FL-]

Right now Bush's ratings and the country's money are going


[img]http://www.worth1000.com/entries/119000/119124msUR_w.jpg[/img]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Sep 20 2005, 11:14 AM']I think that the populace has mostly soured on these folks, to the extent that polls can be considered. (I've long thought that polls were better at strongly suggesting [i]how[/i] people should think than at accurately reflecting how people actually do think.)
[right][post="153425"][/post][/right][/quote]


i did a post about this site called [url="http://www.intrade.com/"]intrade.com[/url] which goes along w/ what you said... i agree that people say what they want to think, instead of what they really think in most polls... this poll is much more accurate imo, b/c it works like the stock market, except the numbers can't go over 100, b/c they equal percentages... the reason it is more accurate imo, is b/c it doesn't ask "what do you think" but it asks "who/what would you put your money on"... money usually brings out a lot of truth... btw, this is teh same website that predicted every single state for the presidential election and only lost 1 senate seat...

some examples as of now:

iraqi constitution (yes) - 69.0 (%)

SS reform by dec 05 - 1.0 / by jan 06 - 5.0 / by dec 06 - 10.1 (not looking good for me on this one)

palestinian state by dec 05 - 1.2

roberts confirmed - 98.1

next supreme court nominee - edith jones at 15.6 / pricilla owen at 12 / edith clement at 11.6 / michael luttig at 10.2 (it goes on for a bunch of people)

democratic nominee for 08 - hillary at 45.5
republican nominee for 08 - mccain at 19.0 / allen at 19.2

dem winning in 08 - 48.1
rep winning in 08 - 50.1

where will rita hit? - texas - 76.0



now the important stuff :

bengals over 7.5 wins - 75%
bengals total wins - 8.5 (steelers at 10, bal at 8, cle at 4.5)

bengals are at around 2% to win the superbowl





its a very interesting site...

[Homer_Rice]

Part of my objection to polls (as a matter of principle) is similar to one of my objections about economic theory (as a matter of premise): i.e., the concept of marginal utility is not necessarily a reflection of reality; in fact, it probably is not, though it may [i]seem[/i] like it.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility"]Wikipedia on marginal utility[/url]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[color="blue"][b]GOP disharmony has started [/b][/color]


[quote][u]Katrina's Cost May Test GOP Harmony
Some Want Bush To Give Details on How U.S. Will Pay
By Shailagh Murray and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post
September 21, 2005[/u]

Congressional Republicans from across the ideological spectrum yesterday rejected the White House's open-wallet approach to rebuilding the Gulf Coast, a sign that the lockstep GOP discipline that George W. Bush has enjoyed for most of his presidency is eroding on Capitol Hill.

Trying to allay mounting concerns, White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten met with Republican senators for an hour after their regular Tuesday lunch. Senators emerged to say they were annoyed by the lack of concrete ideas for paying the Hurricane Katrina bill.

"Very entertaining," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said sarcastically as he left the session. "I haven't heard any specifics from the administration."

"At least give us some idea" of how to cover the cost, said Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), who is facing reelection in 2006. "We owe that to the American taxpayer."

The pushback on Katrina aid, which the White House is also confronting among House Republicans, represents the loudest and most widespread dissent Bush has faced from his own party since it took full control of Congress in 2002. As polls show the president's approval numbers falling, there is growing concern among lawmakers that GOP margins in Congress could shrink next year, and even rank-and-file Republicans are complaining that Bush is shirking the difficult budget decisions that must accompany the rebuilding bonanza.

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) said he and other fiscal conservatives are feeling "genuine concern [which] could easily turn into frustration and anger."

Congressional Republicans are not arguing with Bush's pledge that the federal government will lead the Louisiana and Mississippi recovery. But they are insisting that the massive cost -- as much as $200 billion -- be paid for. Conservatives are calling for spending cuts to existing programs, a few GOP moderates are entertaining the possibility of a tax increase, and many in the middle want to freeze Bush tax cuts that have yet to take effect.

The resistance suggests that Bush's second term could turn out far rockier and more contentious than his first. One indicator many Republicans are watching to gauge whether Bush is becoming a liability for the party is in Pennsylvania, where Rick Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, is trailing state treasurer Bob Casey Jr. by double digits.

"My caucus would do anything for Senator Santorum," Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) said of his colleague. Chafee, who himself faces a tough reelection battle next year, predicted Republicans will increasingly be faced with the choice of propping up Bush or protecting their own. "I think they're going to collide," Chafee said of the two options.

Asked whether Bush's problems were a factor in his slump, Santorum responded, "That may be."

The White House is aware of the growing political problem and has moved on several fronts to pacify Republicans -- with decidedly uneven results. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, in a speech yesterday, said the White House will be forced to put several plans on the "back burner," including changes to the estate tax and permanently extending first-term tax cuts. "It's taken over the national agenda, and I think it will for a while," he said.

This prompted protests from one of the White House's closest allies, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who said waiting on taxes was unacceptable. But White House officials said Snow was accurately reflecting Bush's intentions.

Amid this friction, top White House officials told Republicans the relief and recovery package could come in much lower than widely quoted projections of $200 billion. Some House GOP leaders also are urging their colleagues to cool off, reminding them that the true cost of the relief effort is not yet known.

"There are tough choices that are going to have to be made," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "We're going to have to cut unnecessary spending elsewhere in the budget to offset some of the cost with Katrina."

House conservatives are particularly riled. Unhappy about spending growth during Bush's first term, they thought they had slowed the pace when Congress passed a relatively austere fiscal 2006 budget this spring.

A group of these conservatives, including Feeney, plans today to present to the White House a proposal to cover the cost of the entire Katrina relief and reconstruction package. Dubbed "Operation Offset," it will include repealing many of the pork-barrel projects stuffed into the $286 billion highway bill that Bush signed into law a few weeks before Katrina struck.

McCain called on Bush to undo the Medicare prescription drug law, while a number of lawmakers said the costly benefit should at least be postponed from its January starting date. Republicans are pressing ahead with the Medicare changes, even as the White House spreads the word it is opposed to such a move.

In one of the most unexpected proposals to cover the reconstruction costs, Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) raised the possibility of raising taxes. Other Republicans say that while a tax increase is unlikely, Bush tax cuts that are scheduled to take effect in coming years may be in serious jeopardy.

Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) said he will even comb through the Pentagon budget for cost savings. "Many of us think that we need to step back and look at what we're doing and reevaluate it," Voinovich said. But he added that "someone has to look at the big picture" -- and that someone should be the president. "The vision is missing," Voinovich said.

A new Gallup poll shows a majority of Americans believe the mission in Iraq should be cut to cover the recovery costs, while only a small fraction support slashing other domestic programs, raising taxes or increasing the deficit to finance it. New Orleans also has emerged as the chief target of angst. "The question is do we really want to flood New Orleans with money," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.).

Kingston said he has detected a building hostility toward New Orleans among his constituents, based on reports that local officials mismanaged the crisis, along with federal dollars that had previously flowed the region's way. "What we are hearing from constituents is: 'Wait a minute, slow down on this,' " Kingston said.

Deficits have rarely emerged as a potent political issue, with the exception of Ross Perot's independent bid for the presidency in 1992, but some worried Republicans believe the deficit may soon reach an untenable level, especially if Democrats can link it to Republican mismanagement.

"I don't know that anyone ever lost a race because of the deficit, but there is concern" that it could happen this time around, said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), the former head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "You can't just keep piling up debt."[/quote]

[Guest bengaljet]

HELL, don't worry about debt-keep spendin' W just like a "good" fiscal conservative that you are. Debt won't hurt-if you don't mind ,it don't matter.
The economy is going great.What's a little debt going to hurt? So we borrowed a little on your watch-don't change now W---keep up your plan.Lead us out of the wilderness or is it "into the wilderness"?
Those damned ungrateful Repubs that don't think debt is good-what the hell are they thinking? Get back to the flock!!!!
It's Clinton's fault.
Spend a lot more than you take in-now that's "real" conservatism.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/050919/huffaker.gif[/img]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/050920/ohman.gif[/img]

[Guest bengaljet]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Sep 21 2005, 02:03 AM'][img]http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/050919/huffaker.gif[/img]
[right][post="154030"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Sounds like some of these "former"supporters of W are starting to see the cliff as well. They don't give a shit about the country,but are worried about "their" election.Fuck 'em all, but 6. We'll use them for pall bearers.

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='Sep 21 2005, 03:10 AM']Sounds like some of these "former"supporters of W are starting to see the cliff as well. They don't give a shit about the country,but are worried about "their" election.Fuck 'em all, but 6. We'll use them for pall bearers.
[right][post="154035"][/post][/right][/quote]
Ramble, ramble, ramble.

Truth is, I don't mind BJ. I know that he thinks outside the box and doesn't assume that a Democrat in office is just going to make everything all better. You, on the other hand...

[Guest bengaljet]

[quote name='steggyD' date='Sep 21 2005, 02:20 AM']Ramble, ramble, ramble.

Truth is, I don't mind BJ. I know that he thinks outside the box and doesn't assume that a Democrat in office is just going to make everything all better. You, on the other hand...
[right][post="154039"][/post][/right][/quote]

Steggy,I could care less what you think-you NY asshole. Assume all you want,but your asshole in office fucks up about everything that he's come in contact with. And now the sheep are starting to ???
You definitely don't have answers ,just little BS jabs.
Give us answers why the sheep are questioning the brilliance of your asshole buddy ,W?
I could give a fuck what your worhtless ass thinks of me.
Funny you should talk about thinking outside the box.Sell some of your wife's stock to keep your worthless ass warm this winter,DA.
And I am sure that you don't have the brains or the guts to look outside the flock. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//30.gif[/img]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='Sep 21 2005, 02:36 AM']Steggy,I could care less what you think-you NY asshole. Assume all you want,but your asshole in office fucks up about everything that he's come in contact with. And now the sheep are starting to ???
You definitely don't have answers ,just little BS jabs.
Give us answers why the sheep are questioning the brilliance of your asshole buddy ,W?
I could give a fuck what your worhtless ass thinks of me.
Funny you should talk about thinking outside the box.Sell some of your wife's stock to keep your worthless ass warm this winter,DA.
And I am sure that you don't have the brains or the guts to look outside the flock. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img]
[right][post="154048"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

it always cracks me up when you talk about the sheep, considering all you do is what for bj to post something, and then you talk about the sheep following the leader...

and your the one that is showing your ass AGAIN, like usual...

by reading your posts, anyone that knows anything about the economy, knows you have no fucking clue what your talking about... and since most people that don't know about the economy don't give a fuck about it really, you always come off as a prick that thinks he knows everything, but really knows diddly shit...

keep up your attacks... they make you look like your 13....

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='Sep 21 2005, 01:36 AM']Steggy,I could care less what you think-you NY asshole. Assume all you want,but your asshole in office fucks up about everything that he's come in contact with. And now the sheep are starting to ???
You definitely don't have answers ,just little BS jabs.
Give us answers why the sheep are questioning the brilliance of your asshole buddy ,W?
I could give a fuck what your worhtless ass thinks of me.
Funny you should talk about thinking outside the box.Sell some of your wife's stock to keep your worthless ass warm this winter,DA.
And I am sure that you don't have the brains or the guts to look outside the flock. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img]
[right][post="154048"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



Why so hostile ?
Steggy didn`t call you any names.

I am so sick of this partisan shit.
I don`t blindly follow anyone.
I am not and will never be a "sheep".
You come off as someone that keeps bitching
about Mike Brown...even though the facts say different.
Most of the shit BJ posts is from rags or websites that actually
make FOX News look "Fair and Balanced".

Don`t get your hopes up. It isn`t fact as much as it is
wishful thinking.

And quit calling people sheep. It makes you look like a jackass.
Oh wait...Democratic symbol is the donkey. Donkey= Jack-ass.
Oh well....carry on then...

[Homer_Rice]

[url="http://www.badmash.org/videos/videos_flv.php?v=george_bush_512K_Stream"]Hilarious[/url]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Sep 21 2005, 09:45 AM'][url="http://www.badmash.org/videos/videos_flv.php?v=george_bush_512K_Stream"]Hilarious[/url]
[right][post="154145"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

that is freakin hillarious...

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='Sep 21 2005, 03:36 AM']Steggy,I could care less what you think-you NY asshole. Assume all you want,but your asshole in office fucks up about everything that he's come in contact with. And now the sheep are starting to ???
You definitely don't have answers ,just little BS jabs.
Give us answers why the sheep are questioning the brilliance of your asshole buddy ,W?
I could give a fuck what your worhtless ass thinks of me.
Funny you should talk about thinking outside the box.Sell some of your wife's stock to keep your worthless ass warm this winter,DA.
And I am sure that you don't have the brains or the guts to look outside the flock. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//30.gif[/img]
[right][post="154048"][/post][/right][/quote]
NY asshole? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]
For one, I'm from many places, I just happen to reside in NY at the moment.
The brilliance of my buddy? I didn't even vote for GW, thank you very much.
I didn't sell off the stocks, I have other ways to get money.

What I was trying to say is that BJ does not think that the Democratic party is the answer to all of the solutions. I agree with that thought. Of course, he obviously doesn't agree with the Republicans either. I concur. He is looking for a change in the entire system, which I also believe is the answer. I think we have slightly differing views in the final solution, but at least he realizes that the answers don't lie entirely in one political party over the other.

Take it how you will, but you're still

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Sep 21 2005, 10:45 AM'][url="http://www.badmash.org/videos/videos_flv.php?v=george_bush_512K_Stream"]Hilarious[/url]
[right][post="154145"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

That was good, I loved the ending. "hold it, hold it. Now blink."

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

[Jamie_B]

You guys are still taking bengaljet as a serious poster?


[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]