Comments Posted By Jim King
Displaying 1 To 6 Of 6 Comments
BUSH & ISRAEL: SHOULDER TO SHOULDER, HIP TO HIP
Rick,
Powerful piece! Good for you.
One more thought: Could it be that those who are so "outraged" and "shocked" over Mel Gibson's unfortunate drunken anti-Semitic weekend rant ALSO quietly support Hizbullah's efforts to wipe the state of Isreal from the map?
Comment Posted By Jim King On 3.08.2006 @ 22:42
KATRINA RESPONSE: A STUDY OF INCOMPETENCE
Had John Kerry been president (thank you, Lord) the night the levee in question broke, would he or his administration have done anything different to prevent its breaking, etc.? No.
What has been constantly missed (ignored?) by all the critics of the administration's "failures," FEMA's "failures," the "failures" of all who had anything whatsoever to do with the Katrina run-up and aftermath is that this storm was a HUGE event. No amount of previous work and prep by the administration and/or various agencies, not to mention the same during the storm's aftermath, could have prevented the massive destruction and loss of life which happened.
The only way anything close to such a rapid response could occur is if every town, city, county in the country had emergency crews sitting by, 24/7, 365 days a year, with engines idling and gear on, ready to go at a second's notice. And that ain't going to happen, nowhere, no how.
Comment Posted By Jim King On 12.02.2006 @ 20:50
Hi Depleted Uranium (never theought I'd be saying "hi" to someone with that "name," but...!!),
I like your argument, but I think many Bush supporters see the Miers nomination as yet another piece of material which has been added to the Bush presidency's snowball-gradually-turning-into-a-glacier which is gaining speed, barrelling down the mountain toward the "let's get along with the Democrats" bunch huddled below in the ski lodge.
One thing about liberals. They may bend (Clinton, dragged kicking and screaming, to the welfare reform signing table)but rarely do the break to the wishes of the right. Yet, all too often, those of us on the right seem unable to muster the guts and courage to "do the right thing" on issues, even when we know to do so IS the right thing. Why? Because we are afraid the libs will call us names and not "like" us.
President Bush and the GOP won a hefty victory almost a year ago. I thought, after playing around with the Dems for four years, that Bush, given his sizeable win over Kerry, would pull off the gloves in his second term and be the conservative we on the right had hoped for all along. How's THAT working out for him and us?!!
He's out-Clintoned Clinton on federal spending (helped along by the Republican leadership in the House and Senate), has looked the other way as illegals flood our country (while repeatedly telling the country of the importance of fighting terrorism, blah, blah, blah)and now he nominates a seemingly underqualified woman who not too long ago supported Democrats to be a Supreme Court justice.
Huh??I think both the '06 and '08 elections will be big Democrat victories. Why? Bush has worked his job so that there really is no difference between Republicans and Democrats anymore when it comes to throwing dollars into the fire. Same with the very important, serious illegal immigrant debate. Dems don't want to change anything there; neither, apparently, do Bush or the Repubs. Spending and immigration issues are a wash between the two parties, what's the tie-breaker?
The war in Iraq. Dems over the next two election cycles, particularly before '08, will echo Kerry's '04 pronouncements of finding a "smarter, wiser, more mature" way of handling (ie. cutting and running)the Iraq situation. By next year and 2008, if the war has not simmered down and there appears to be no light at the end of that tunnel, watch for Democrat candidates running for the presidency on down to tell us all how they will get us out of Iraq...pronto.
President Bush, approaching his five-year anniversary in the Oval Office, has done more to elect Democrats in the next few years than Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid could ever have imagined.
And that is a terrible shame.
Comment Posted By Jim King On 3.10.2005 @ 20:12
A REAL HEAD SCRATCHER FROM THE TIMES
The Times article further exemplifies why there is a very good reason the left is called the hand-wringing segment of our political society. Trouble is, they wring their hands over those issues which most on the right consider to be proper and just for good, correct, truthful reasons.
Comment Posted By Jim King On 2.10.2005 @ 20:44
WHEN "THAT'S THE WAY IT IS" ISN'T
Interesting: Critics of the federal government's response to Katrina (mostly on the left) had no trouble with the misreporting of the events mentioned here in Rick's story, for, at the time, it furthered their Bush-bashing agenda.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs' Matthew Felling said the "gusts of a hurricane both cloud and obscure vital truths." So, too, did these storm conditions hinder and slow ANY response from ANYWHERE.
But, the above acted to cloud and obscure the truth of what really happened and, at the time, that was all just swell for the Bush-bashing bunch.
Comment Posted By Jim King On 28.09.2005 @ 08:06
Let's see if I get this straight: For eight years, Bill Clinton compiled his legacy of corruption, lying and law breaking. He, on several occasions, had the chance to capture bin Laden and he used some silly legal "reason" not to do so. Clinton spoke of the dangers Saddam posed, of Hussein's WMD's and all, yet did not act. He spoke of fixing Social Security, but did not act. And thousands of similar incidents of cheap talk and no action. For all of that, Bill Clinton is thought by many to have been "our best president." Ever!! Why, he CARED and felt our pain and he bit his lower lip when speaking of a particularly tender moment, such as when he was a child and witnessed all those churchs ablaze. OK, he didn't see them burning, but... Or, no, wait: Was he touched when Hillary announced she'd been named after Sir Edmund Hillary, even though Hillary (the mountain climber, not HER!) ascended Everest AFTER she was born? I forget, there were so many lip-biting Presidential Moments.
Now, we have George W. Bush, working on HIS eight years in the Oval Office. DEALING with all of the things (and many more Clinton did not address) Bill Clinton ignored or hoped would go away. Bush has signed every pork-filled bill that's passed his desk, he's appointed blacks and minorities, top to bottom, he let Ted Kennedy write the biggest Education Bill in our country's history.
Too, W has worked with much success toward advancing HIS and the GOP's ideas and goals. That mean-spirited Republican stuff, such as big tax cuts which have helped spur the economy and all. In short, Bush has done much to please and satisfy BOTH sides of the aisle. And what has been his reward, thus far? Scorn, hatred, rage, anger, charges of being a racist from the left. And, unfortunately, some lesser but still annoying and disappointing cat-calls from the libs in his own party.
Clinton: Great economy, no big, nasty war(by the way, just asking, but, how's that business in Bosnia coming along? Shouldn't we be out of THERE sometime soon? Hmmmmmm...??), no attempts at spreading democracy, no real heavy lifting. BUT lots of fun and adultery and impeachment by the House and.... God, it goes on and on, doesn't it? By the way, what was with that Vince Foster murder, ah, suicide, anyway?
Bush: Mediocre-to-getting-better economy, 9/11, Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, tax cuts, proposal on illegal immigrants (not a real favorite for us Repubs, but at least he's addressing the problem; the biggest influx of illegals occured under Clinton).
And which guy is a racist liar who must be impeached? Sad, isn't it? Talk about an upside-down world.
Lastly, imagine Bush's poll numbers were he blessed with Clinton's charm and fine speaking abilities? I have thought from Day 1 of the Bush presidency that his plain-spoken, taciturn mannerisms would prove a problem for him. Clinton--say what we will about him--was a masterful speaker who could make young women swoon and old ladies cry while he was describing the latest Big Mac he'd enjoyed!
In this MTV, media-splashed, pyrotechnic world of mass communication, it is almost imperative that an elected official, especially the president, be able to speak fluently and concisely. Tony Blair is another example of fine oratory prowess. So often I have cringed while watching W speak, leaning forward, staring at my TV, virtually willing that the words leave his lips in the correct pronounciation and with the proper inflection. I know it may seem trite, but if only, if only president Bush possessed what Clinton and Blair possess, he'd be forty points higher in the polls.
Yes, in this high octane world of ours, speaking is important. Lastly, speaking of speaking, I wish Bush would tout his administration's successes more. Damn it, man, you've done some good, often GREAT stuff!! TELL us and the world about it. I wonder if he and the Republicans are afraid or ashamed or embarrassed about what they have done and want to do in the future. VERY aggravating and frustrating. And all the while, the MSM and Dems have a field day, spewing their garbage. Wonder why Bush's polls are low? Because, sadly, much of the drivel being issued by the left is taking hold across the country. The president and GOP MUST answer this stuff (where appropriate) and get the TRUTH about what they are doing out there!!! Aaaarrrggghhhhhhhh!!!! Phew, I feel better...
There, I've finished. Sorry to take up so much space here. Guess I got off on a rant of my own, Rick! Was fun, though. Maybe I'll visit again sometime real soon.
Jim in Wellesley, where Hillary went to college. Barf.....
Comment Posted By Jim King On 15.09.2005 @ 00:28
