Cracks in the Façade of Bush Inc.

» BuckyRea - Re: So Much to Say...

Vincent, you never disappoint. Truly another over the top performance.

Brian, I heard something in the news about a guy who accidently brought a loaded gun onto a plane recently this week. It was just a single incident that I'm aware of, but my confidence in the press's ability to cover important national security issues isn't very high right now. Anyway, he didn't hijack the flight (he feigned ignorance), but the security lapse was still pretty serious. Here's an account of it.

I really wish it were so that the House of Reps were only hashing over the details about how to implement long term airport security. But what appears to be happening is that the House GOP leadership (mostly DeLay and Armey) is philosophically opposed to federalizing this industry, which in the light of things seems to be a not terribly smart policy choice on their part. The Senate of course voted 100-0 to federalize airport security. A few GOP conservatives are joining DeLay & Armey temporarily in hopes of getting the new agency put under the supervision of the A-G, rather than it becoming a new Post Office-like bureaucracy. That's a little saner than DeLay's notion that private firms are better able to handle this matter with only a little federal oversight, but still not the sort of thing you'd normally want to play politics with.

From what I understand, only three countries in the world don't have government security forces handling their airport security details: Canada, US, and the Bahamas. What's interesting is that only the US is under attack by terrorists, and one of their main points of access here is Canada. So far as I know, the Bahamas is only a security sieve for the drug trade.

I'm not sure I'd agree with the statement that Senate Democrats are "holding up" Bush's nominees to judicial slots. Daschle's position is that there ought to be full hearings on all nominees. They're certainly moving faster than the Judiciary Committee did when Jesse Helms was chair. If there's a critical need for judges now, it's only because Helms bottlenecked Clinton's nominations for years while he was in charge, leaving the federal lower benches woefully undermanned.

I'm not sure why we should expect the House to spend time deliberating on airport security bureaucracy (an important matter, but one subject to annual review by Congress), but expect the Senate to simply rubber stamp Bush's lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary.

You must have major withdrawals or nervous difficulties if you go 24 hours straight of not being able to criticize Mr. Bush.

Ha!! I got a kick out of this! It's a little bit true for all us Democrats, but bear in mind that we've been cold turkey for 45 days; and a healthy partisan criticism is needed with some regularity if a democracy is going to function.

Vincent isn't by any means alone in the world in being concerned about the administration's performance of late. There truly seems to be a lack of initiative and a couple of serious missteps of late. We want to win this war and we want our president to lead. It wouldn't take a lot of steps for him to fully restore the confidence he held in the first couple of weeks of this crisis. But it is perplexing that he and his subordinates are simply not taking those steps.

-- posted by BuckyRea

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» Brian Tubbs - Follow up on Vincent

I neglected to add to my earlier email that I have learned a lot from this site and hope to learn more in the future. Vincent brings an important and worthy perspective to public policy debates. I admire his passion and his intelligence.

That compliment does not negate my sincere disappointment with how Vincent seems to lose all sense of objectivity and temperamental balance when discussing President Bush. Again, it's not that I can't read criticisms of Mr. Bush. Heck, I'm a regular reader of The Washington Post. But I see too much anger, bitterness, and even viciousness when Vincent starts writing about our President. This is why I think it best that I pass on those particular articles.

But, again, I like and respect Vincent, and want him to see my criticism in that light.

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» Brian Tubbs - Airport Security & GOP Leadership

In response to message posted by BuckyRea:

I stand corrected on the firearm incident. The fact remains, though, that no one has hijacked a U.S. domestic flight with a firearm in a long time. And this particular incident wasn't triggered - pardon the pun - by the fact that airport security personnel aren't federal employees.

It never ceases to amaze me that the knee-jerk reaction on the part of Democrats, when they see a problem, is to federalize it. I just don't get it. This is a definite philosophical difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, but it's unfair for you and Vincent to accuse conservatives of "playing politics" when they have an honest difference of opinion on this very issue. If conservatives geniunely believe that airport security is better enhanced without incorporating airport security personnel into the civil service, then their views deserve to be heard.

My father worked for the government for years, and had a number of horror stories to tell about bureacatic laziness and inefficiency. Since I live in the metro DC area, I know many other federal employees with other horror stories as well. Many conservatives are honestly concerned that federalizing airport security merely expands a bureacracy that is sorely in need of reform and accountability. One very valid point they raise is that it's extremely difficult to fire federal employees. When you're dealing with something as sensitive as security, that's an obstacle you shouldn't have.

To be honest, Bucky and Vincent, if you really want to federalize airport security, then I'd go even one further. I'd militarize it. If airport security personnel absolutely have to be federal employees, then make them military personnel. They'll have better training, stronger discipline, and will generally meet higher standards of physical and mental criteria. A variation of this is that you could expand the National Guard programs of each state, and put airport security under the governor of each state. Airport security personnel could then be trained Guardsmen.

Whatever the specifics, I'm not necessarily against federalizing airport security, but I do share with House conservatives a concern that expanding the civil service bureacracy to include airport security personnel should not be seen as the quick-fix, "magic bullet" solution to all our airport security problems.

As for the Senate stonewalling judicial nominees, Bucky, consider this one statistic: In 1993, the 103rd Senate approved 57% of President Clinton's nominees in his first year in office. So far, in 2001, the 107th Senate has approved a mere 13% of Bush's nominees. That's 8 out of 60 submitted. That's pitiful.

You say that the Democrats want full hearings. Well, call for the hearings. And don't use this war as an excuse. Your party has been sitting on those nominees for months now. They could've been dealt with long before now.

Between you and me (and anyone else that reads this), I've never been a big fan of EITHER party sitting on presidential nominations. That's a dereliction of responsibility under the "advise and consent" clause. There should be some kind of deadline or moratorium in place. Give the Senate six months to act on a nomination. Under certain circumstances, that could be extended to nine months. But a vote must be held.

If the Democrats feel Bush's nominees are too ideologically conservative, then fine. Vote them down. Bring them to the floor and vote them down. But they won't do that.

-Brian

p.s. You all won't have Jesse Helms to make excuses about or kick around anymore. He is thankfully retiring at the end of this term, as is Strom Thurmond (if he survives). Two senators that honestly should've left the Congress years ago.

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» vemartin - Re: So Much to Say...

In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:

Brian,

“Anyone who has read your columns on a regular basis can easily see you are no "moderate" when it comes to our President. You hate the man. Your virulence and repeated denunciations of him speak volumes. It's almost as if you're obsessed with hating him, with using every opportunity to undermine and attack him.”

Seems to me the same statements could be made visa-via the relentless, senseless, and of-times vindictive attacks made on President Clinton be Republicans! An impeachment because he had an affair, come on; thank god the Senate had some men and women of sense in their ranks!

I make no apologies for my treatment of George Bush within the confines of my editorials; I call them like I see them. And what I see for the most part is a man in way over his head. If you read the Post as you claim (and you might want to try Salon.com; I have nothing on them), then you know I am not the only one who feels this way. And I would feel this way about him, no matter his Party affiliation. It is unfortunate for us all that Bush lacks the intellect, wisdom, and vision to successfully prosecute this war; it is a rare man indeed who can lead a nation like the United States in wartime; Tony Blair is such a man George Bush is regretfully not. I at least am willing to admit it, you (despite your obvious intelligence and foresight), however remain enamored with the man because of his Party affiliation; what else could explain your almost Pavlovian devotion to his Presidency, in light of his shortcomings?

And for the record I do not hate Dubya Bush, I do not know the man. Do I loath his behavior as our President? You bet, for in the end we all loose, Independent, Democrat, and Republican alike.

Vincent E. Martin
Contributing Editor
Politics & Minorities

-- posted by vemartin

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» Brian Tubbs - Point taken

In response to message posted by vemartin:

Can't dispute your argument that many Republicans hated (and still hate) Bill Clinton. You're right about that, and I will simply concede that your repeated attacks on Bush are very similar to the repeated attacks that the Right launched against Clinton.

I disagree that the impeachment of Clinton was merely about his "affair." There was a lot more to it than that, and you know it. Clinton had, by his own admission, "hundreds" of affairs during his marriage. That makes him an unethical, dishonest philanderer, but it doesn't by itself make him unqualified to be President. (Although, some of our earliest Presidents may disagree with me there). So, there was more to it than that. But that's for another debate.

As far as Bush is concerned, I grant that he's not as intellectual or as savvy as Clinton, nor was he anywhere near as experienced as his father upon entering office. But the guy does have an MBA and he was a trained fighter pilot. He's also had many years of experience in corporate America. He's not the shallow dummy that people like you say he is. Far from it. But as I know you're unwilling to waver on that opinion, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The lion's share of your virulent attacks on Bush seems to be centered on his ideology. George W. Bush is a conservative Republican. You are a liberal Democrat. (Yes, I know you claim to be a "moderate," but I'm a regular reader of yours, Vincent, and I know a liberal when I read one). You attack Bush regularly as stupid, simply because you disagree with him. That is insulting and elitist.

You seem to believe that people who disagree with you are either evil or ignorant. And it's this tone of your writing that I find the toughest to take. There are many decent, honorable, very intelligent people out there who see things fundamentally different from the way you see things. I rarely see this concession in your articles, certainly not when it comes to our President or the Republican Party.

Don't take my words as a defense of relativism. I do believe that certain opinions are wrong and others are right, but I approach debate in a polite and humble fashion. Yes, I'm passionate on many things, but I rarely unleash vicious personal attacks on my opponents. I find that type of debate unnecessary and counter-productive. Basically, I believe in the Golden Rule. I treat others, including those who disagree with me, the way I would want to be treated.

At any rate, that's where I'm coming from. Like I've said many times, I am glad to be one of your regular readers and will continue to be one. I've learned a lot, and hope to learn more. But I hope you can understand how some of what you write is over the top and can be offensive. And you're at your worst when you write about George W. Bush.

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» grandma_spider - Re: So Much to Say...

In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:

GEEEZZZE MR. TUBBS,
ARE YOU JUST A GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT...YOU SAY YOU DON'T LIKE TO READ ABOUT YOUR PRES. BEING PUT DOWN, BUT YET I NOTICE YOU CRAVE MORE...WHICH IS IT? OR DO YOU CONTINUE TO RETURN FOR MORE, JUST SO YOU CAN ____?

-- posted by grandma_spider

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» grandma_spider - Re: Follow up on Vincent

In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:

HEY TUBBS,
MAYBE VINCENT IS A MAN OF PASSION. I WOULD HATE TO SEE YOU TRY TO REMAKE HIM. I FIND A MAN OF PASSION TOTALLY SEXY, AND FINE. A MAN WITHOUT EMOTIONS, AND PASSION IS ONLY A SHALLOW EMPTY SHELL.

-- posted by grandma_spider

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» grandma_spider - Re: Airport Security & GOP Leadership

In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:

HERE GOES...ON THAT MILITARY STATEMENT JUST READ THIS. AND I HAVE A SON-IN-LAW INTHE MILITARY, AND I WOULDN'T LET HIM LEAD ME TO THE LATRINE. HE'D GET YA KILLED BEFORE YOU GOT THERE.

http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/g...

THIS IS ABOUT A AIRPORT INCIDENT...WE DON'T HERE ANYTHING ON THE NEWS ANYMORE EXCEPT GARBAGE IN...GARBAGE OUT...

POLITCIANS THESE DAYS ARE ONLY ACTORS, AND THEY HIRE THE BEST PR, AND MARKETERS TO PROMOTE THEM...SAME AS PRODUCTS, AND MOVIE STARS...IT'S ALL FLASH,ALL SHOW, AND ALL FAKE. JUST KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN AS IT ALL FALLS APART, AND UNFOLDS
SOME ARE STILL IN DENIAL, BUT EVENTS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN THAT WILL AWAKEN EVEN THE DEAD. IT ISN'T OVER, YOU CAN BET YOUR BOOTY IT HAS JUST STARTED. YOU WON'T FEEL IT TILL IT EFFECTS YOU ON A MORE PERSONAL LEVEL. AND IT WILL SHAKE YOUR FOUNDATIONS. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OF THE PROPHECIES, YOU SHOULD TAKE A LOOK...SEE IF THEY DON'T START COMING TRUE. AND I DON'T JUST MEAN THE ONES IN THE BIBLE. VERY SYMBOLIC THERE...TRY THE NATIVE AMERICAN ONES, AND OTHERS, AND MORE RECENT ONES.

-- posted by grandma_spider

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» BuckyRea - Senate Confirmation of Judicial Appointees

Brian writes:

In 1993, the 103rd Senate approved 57% of President Clinton's nominees in his first year in office. So far, in 2001, the 107th Senate has approved a mere 13% of Bush's nominees. That's 8 out of 60 submitted. That's pitiful.

I thought those numbers sounded a bit spun, so I finally got around to looking them up. Here's what I found, information current as of November 8th:

This year (2001) there have been 72 nominations made to Judicial offices, 8 of which were made by Clinton and subsequently withdrawn by the Bush Administration. Of the 64 Bush nominees (4 more since Brian's Oct 26th post), 18 have been approved, 6 since Oct 26th (all by unanimous or near-unanimous votes). So it was 12 out of 60 then, which is 20% not 13%, and it is now 18 out of 64 (or 28%).

Of the 64, 28 (44%) have gotten hearings from the Judiciary Committee. All of these hearings have been held since the Democrats took over the Senate this summer. During the 4 1/2 months that the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Judiciary Cmte, they didn't manage to bring a single Bush nominee up for even a hearing.

But we shouldn't blame former Committee Chair Orin Hatch for this. If the process is going slow, it's because the Bush nominees were so slow getting out of the gate. From January 20th (when he took office) until June 5th, when the GOP lost control of the Judiciary Cmte, Mr Bush had sent over exactly 17 nominations--every one of them during the month of May. Of those 17, seven were noncontroversial enough to warrant the unanimous approval of the Senate (under Democratic control).

Another 34 were nominated between June 6th and September 11th, when the Committee got somewhat distracted by other legal matters. Nine of these were on Monday, Sep 10th. Of these 34, 11 were noncontroversial enough to get unanimous approval.

Of the 9 nominated since mid-September, one has had a hearing and the rest are still in the investigatory pipeline.

Ten of the nominees who got hearings between Oct 18th and Nov 7th were still waiting for a committee vote as of Nov 8th. Everyone else is still waiting to be called up for hearings, presumedly pending the obligatory background checks (which I assume we'd all like to have for these lifetime appointees).

In fact, if you look at the turn around time from nomination to confirmation as found on this page, you may note that the timeline for the approval process isn't really all that bad. You can blame the administration's slowness in getting its nominees to the committee, the relatively controversial nature of a number of those nominees, the midsummer shake-up in Senate control, and of course the rush of business following the start of the war for these matters--particularly as it affects available time for FBI agents to conduct their background checks.

It is not, as Brian's post suggests, a policy of slow-down on the part of the Democrats. Don't get me wrong, Brian. I enjoy a good spin and that 13% number certainly caught me off guard. But as with most anecdotal use of statistics, an examination of the full facts tends to wipe out the partisan spin (which I hope I have done).

Speaking of stats, the extraordinarily high rate of approval under Clinton (57%) is the result of a number of factors. He was quicker to make his nominations, he made fewer controversial nominees, he inherited a federal judiciary that was far more under-staffed. Bush Sr left office with over 100 vacancies on the federal bench and by mid-July that number had climbed to over 120. When Clinton left office 8 years later, there were about 80 vacancies even though there were more bench positions to fill and even though the GOP Senate had been quite deliberate about slowing up the nomination process.

Of course whenever there's a change in administration, the number of vacancies creeps up. As of Nov 8th, that number had moved up to 101 vacant bench slots in the federal judiciary. Mr Bush as if that date had yet to make appointments for 55 of them--more than half.

To be fair, the president's been pretty occupied of late, too (far more than the Senate). But of course if we were interested in being fair, we wouldn't be having this debate.

-- posted by BuckyRea

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» BuckyRea - Grandma Spider

Grandma Spider, you should know that typing in ALL CAPS is generally considered in internet discussion boards to be the same as screaming at someone. On the internet, as in the real world, I have found that people who scream at me are generally not worth paying attention to. If you would like to be heard, turn off your caps lock.

Sincerely yours,


The Manners Police

-- posted by BuckyRea

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion