Righties: Time to Justify Your Thug

The Right has a strange way of dealing with the Bush administration. They are part ostrich and part hawk. When it comes to the war on terror, the handling of the budget, cronyism, corporatism and corruption, they stick their head in the sand and defend Bush with cult-like enthusiasm. But every once in a while the Righties get a glimpse of what the rest of us see and they become hawks.

Harriet Miers, the border and now this port deal have the Rightie hawks up in arms. Let me tell you guys something that you may not know. President Bush does not believe in Conservatism. He believes in corporatism. In every policy he puts forth, all one has to do is follow the money. When it comes to his appointments, all one has to do is follow the money.

Lets run down some of the facts:

The Port Deal: President Bush didn't know it existed until it was approved. Donald Rumsfield didn't know anything about it until this past weekend. You would think a deal so important to national security the Secretary of Defense would have at least been told a deal was pending. But guess who did know about this deal. Secretary Snow. Let's look at him and his pals.

Treasury Secretary John Snow chairs the "Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States" (CFIUS) which made the decision for the administration. John Snow was formerly CEO of CSX, which - among other things - owned CSX/Sea-Land.

A former director for CSX/Sea-Land, David Sanborn, left and became a director for Dubai Ports International. He was responsible for South American operations when CSX sold its port operations in Sout America to Dubai Ports in 2004.

Former Snow employee Sanborn left his gig at Dubai Ports two weeks ago to accept the job as Assisstant Secretary of Transportation - Maritime Administration. Introduced to the Senate, by the way, by his good buddy, Senator George Allen.

Then just two-weeks hence, this decision is made which will undoubtedly enrich all current stockholders in CSX/Sea-Land and Dubai Ports.

Does that make you go hmmmmmmmm...

What about the mining accident that happened in West Virginia. Let's take a look a cronyism in action.

Bush hired former coal company executive, Richard Skickler to run mine safety.

Mine safety enforcement is reduced.

Sago, who's execs gave to Bush, racks up numerous violations. Miners die.

Crazy, don't you think? I don't even have to go into Mike Brown of FEMA and Dick Cheney connection to Halliburton. Do I have to mention the secret panel of energy company executives Cheney got together to write energy policy? Oh, and what about the threat to a low level accountant that he would lose his job if he revealed the real cost of the prescription drug bill. One that started out consting $395 billion that is now estimated to cost around $700 billion. This is your Bush administration in action. He makes decisions and appointments - people die.

Ok, ok, I what you Righties are going to say... Democrats do it too. Hillary Clinton... Bill Clinton caused 9/11. Liberals are the anti-Christ. Blah blah blah.

Whatever. George Bush is preparing to sell control over US ports to a foreign government. Not that port security is great but I'm coming down on the side of being against it. Especially since supporting it would mean that I would have to trust the judgement of this administration... which I don't.

Ok, Righties, on the Blackout album, Jay Z wrote a song justifying his thug. Now, I'm wondering if you all could justify yours. (There's a clever play on words, huh?). I've tried to excuse the man because of his diminished capacity due to years of alcohol and drug abuse. Add to the fact that he was never treated for either, I can overlook his intellectual shortcomings at times. But this is getting out of hand. Thank God he's a lame duck.

Discussion Starters:

1. Is Bush an idiot?

2. Is Bush a damn fool?

3. Is Bush out of his dang mind?

4. What do you think of the corporatism and cronyism of this administration?

5. Do you think it has cost American lives?


16 Responses to Righties: Time to Justify Your Thug

  1. TheOneandOnlyInsanely Says:
    Idiot is an understatement......

    DICK WAD is more like it.
  2. Drew Says:
    Bush isn't stupid, he is just possesed by a retarded ghost.
  3. Timmer Says:
    Gloriously brilliant. Excellent post. I like to consider myself a moderate, but I lean to the left as a reaction to my upbringing, which was as a staunch conservative...I was raised in West Michigan after all...Nevertheless, I work and live with a great many conservatives. True conservatives around here like Bush less and less as the months go on. The die hards who still love him usually claim that his reputation is tainted by the all-knowing 'liberal media.' But what follows are some justifications I have heard as to why the prez is nowhere near conservative...

    Further ammunition they use...Republicans believe in the sovereign right of individual states, it's at the heart of their collective platform: smaller federal government, larger state governments. So many ask: Why would the head of the Republican party try to push federal amendments prohibiting abortion and gay marraige?

    Conservatives, likewise, are traditionally against any large body that exerts control over it's members or subjects...examples include the Roman Catholic Church, and traditionally, large corporations. They tend to push individual sovereignty. Of course, we all know Bush's record that tends to be supportive of large corps...enough said.

    Let's talk about border control...most righties love having their gun nuts guarding the fence against hispanic hoppers. It makes perfect sense then, that the prez granted all illegal aliens amnesty a few years ago...great way to get votes from hispanics, not a great way to make your conservative base happy.

    Harriet Meirs...don't need to say anything else.

    Just a few examples of why Bush is a terrible conservative. I will not even go into the "they may not understand me now, but they will in the future" God complex he has...that's for another day, and is quite in step with conservativism, actually.
  4. James Manning Says:
    Right on timmer. The results speak for themselves. I think Bush administration knows that all they have to do is throw a couple of bones at their base and they are free to do whatever. Except, now he is a lame duck and the Righties know that it is they who will have to answer for his blunders.

    I use to be just left of center until this administration and their zealot minions came to power. I'm still not a fire breathing liberal but I got smoke. So, I make my decisions on this president with one clear pinciple in mind: Bush is the spawn of the devil and the truth ain't in him.

    All conclusions arise from there.
  5. Timmer Says:
    I think the cartoon 'The Boondocks' said it best:

    "Jesus was black, and Ronald Reagan was the Devil."
  6. Robosquirrel Says:
    I reject the premise. You assume this deal is important to national security. It's not. Your conspiracy theorizing is interesting, but as productive as Su|Do|Ku. I can do it too, look:

    George W. Bush was in Last Party 2000 (2001) with Tim Robbins (I)
    Tim Robbins (I) was in Mystic River(2004) (TV) with Kevin Bacon

    Can you believe it? George Bush has a Bacon Number of 2!

    You exaggerate the nature of the business deal in order to ram home your point, a shaky tactic for a debate, but since you're not looking for one based on your discussion starters...

    War on terror - I'm on board. Hell, I'm fighting it. Terrorism is a complex system which doesn't get eradicated by a surgical TLAM strike in Afghanistan. It (the war) is naturally ill-managed, as it would've been regardless of who is in office because the world hasn't made the leap of logic required to understand the threat, due to it's asymmetric nature. I think it'll happen eventually. These are long-term actions to solve long term problems.

    The budget - the tax cuts would be even better had they been accompanied by a decrease in spending. Part of the problem with politicians controlling the purse strings is that none of them have a really good grasp on economics (or perhaps it just appears that way because of the collective decision-making). I'm thrilled with my pay raises and increased quality of life, which, unfortunately, is difficult to reconcile with my distaste for subsistence off of taxpayer dollars.

    Cronyism - Dude, would you like the President to put a help-wanted sign outside the White House when looking for a SECDEF? Maybe a classified ad? Part of leadership is knowing your weaknesses and compensating by having people with the strengths to back you up. This is going to result in hiring a lot of people you know, and a few mismatches. When Bill Clinton put Hillary in charge of reforming health care, that was cronyism (maybe nepotism, or just basic favoritism, hard to tell the relationship there, but I'm guessing it's a business one). She hadn't the foggiest idea what she was doing. Bush at least has picked (most) people based on qualifications. I don't know what was up with Harriet Miers, but I suppose a case could be made there.

    Corporatism - I had to look it to be sure waht I was talking about: "the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising some control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction". Are you serious? I don't know, this guy says it's more akin to Mussolini's government (whoever THAT guy is). I think what you mean is that Bush has business-friendly policies, which I think is great because that's where jobs come from. Notice the government bailing out GM? No? I guess they didn't contribute enough to the Republican Party this year. Or they just make crappy cars.

    corruption - I haven't really been following the various "scandals", so I'm not sure I could make an informed comment. Are you talking about Tom Delay getting railroaded or the actual convictions that have been handed down? All of the above? The convictions are disappointing, not because I gave two shits about Abrahmoff or that other fella, a congressman, right? Disappointing because it confirms my cynicism about politicians in general. They're a necessary evil, but rotten to one degree or another, every single one of 'em.

    I don't usually get into this stuff because, as I've said, the Story of the Week generally bores me. It doesn't mean I don't have an opinion or I'm "sticking my head in the sand". But that's just me.
  7. Robosquirrel Says:
    By the way, where did your quotes come from? I can't find them on that ridiculous Wiki site you linked. My personal opinion is that it's not much of a reference, but then, I never checked out anything else on that random dude with the Mussolini stuff. I guess we all do it sometimes.
  8. James Manning Says:

    The political game surrounding this deal is not lost on me. I'm simply defaulting to the position that Bush is an idiot and I don't trust anything this administration does. With that said, yeah, I know that the UAE company will pull a shell game and they'll run the port even if is through another corporation.

    No onward:

    Cronyism: No, I don't expect the President to place a help wanted ad but I do expect him to hire competent people for very sensitive roles. The fact of the matter is that Bush has hired people based more on affiliation than talent - and that has cost American lives.

    Corporatism: I use this term to mean that corporations are writing legislation to benefit them and at times to the detriment of the American people. There is a reason the lobby industry is so big. It's not like they are looking out for our interest and a lot of times what is good for business is not necessarily good for the average joe. Why do you think there are 12,500 corporations sharing an address to a Caymon Island building? And why do you think they support the laws that allow them to avoid taxes and safety laws while at the same time getting tax breaks? That's not for our sake and it is not good for the American worker.

    corruption: this is easy. Our legislators are taking bribes. Oh, they call them campaign donations, but I like to call a spade a spade. They're bribes. And what Tom Delay did was corruption and I'm sure there is a lot more of that going on in Washington. I don't believe that politicians have to be crooks but the way the system operates now, you have a point with the necessary evil. But we could change with the public finance of elections and banning some forms of lobbying.

    sourcing: I'll do a better job with sources in the future. sometimes I'm just too lazy to make the link.
  9. Robosquirrel Says:
    See I default to the position that no one in government can be trusted, regardless of political affiliation. I also don't think you can get yourself elected to public office without having some degree of intelligence. Wisdom is quite a different thing.

    Your default position makes it really difficult to have a dicussion. "Bush is an idiot", where do you go from there?

    Bush has hired people based more on affilitation than talent? What an uncommon practice in government! At least he's not trying to fill artificial quotas (at least not since Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination).

    The way you use the word corporatism is incorrect, then, but for the sake of argument... I think corporations use off-shore accounts to protect those funds from oppressive taxes on business. Corporate taxes are a significantly different thing from personal income taxes, I'm sure you know. They can be upwards of 50% of Gross Profit. When half of your personal income goes to pay your taxes, maybe you'll start looking for an offshore account, too.

    For every law on the books desiged to help a business out, there's another one designed to screw one over. The bottom line is the bottom line. When businesses succeed, America and Americans succeed. Taking money from people who've earned it to give to people who earned nothing is immoral and to the detriment of the long-term welfare of the State. Companies that founder and go bankrupt are also not good for the American worker. After all, the worker need somewhere to work... I suppose he could just get a government job.

    The lobbying industry isn't looking out for your interest unless you pay them to do so. That's what they do. Why should anybody but you be responsible for looking out for you?
  10. Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden Says:
    02 25 06

    WEll this is an interesting discussion, and I am late. But I am a bit of a protectionist on this topic. I don't think that any foreign entity needs to have administrative power in our ports, especially during wartime. We need to keep everything as tight as possible and I don't think it is beneficial to the morale of the American people and I do think that possible holes can be exploited in port security. Why not make the deal with an American company if the responsibilities should best be handled in the private sector? That is what I don't understand. I am all for free trade, but I still think that certain things should be exclusively run by Americans.

    You are a hater James, but I don't know what is up with the guy. I think the timing is all off. Perhaps we wouldn't even be having this conversation if 911 hadn't happened. But I think that changed everything and the majority of Americans, from what I saw on some news programme, aren't on board with this plan!
  11. Robosquirrel Says:
    So why wasn't it problem when P&O operated the ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, and New Orleans, Mahndisa? Why wasn't it a problem? Shoe-bomber Richard Reid was a British citizen, after all.

    The majority of our port operations is run by foriegn-owned companies; there aren't American companies that do what Dubai Ports World, P&O, Port of Singapore Authority or any of the other multinational port opertors do. So what it seems to me you're saying is that companies should or should not be allowed to conduct business based on who is best at it, but rather on arbitrary superficial demographic qualities. This whole CYA publicity-grabbing, keystone-kops reaction by pretty much the entire government is nauseting beyond description.
  12. Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden Says:
    02 26 06

    I think I stated my opinion quite clearly in the previous statement. During times of war, I think that Americans should have control over vulnerable points. I don;t care if it is a Canadian firm, or British or whatever I have a problem with foreigners controlling valuable resources during wartime. As I said, call me a protectionist in this regard. I think that wartime changes everything and who is trustworthy is hard to divine. The examples you bring up, which I was unaware of similarly bother me. I don't relegate my feelings of uneasiness to only certain corners of the world.
  13. Dave Miller Says:
    Robo, allow me to add my two cents, albeit a little late. And I hope someone, perhaps yourself, can give me a reasonable explanation.

    Here is the problem with the port deal. The "company" is owned by a foriegn government. It is not an independant company, it is in fact an arm of the UAE Government.

    Is this not troubling? As a matter of economic policy, the US does not even believe in nationalized industry.

    So the question is not why was it okay for a company based in Great Britain to run the ports and not one based in the UAE, the real question is as follows:

    Do you believe it is in the best interests of the United States to have foreign governments (not businesses) running businesses in the United States that are involved in sensitive and strategic areas?

    And if so, are there some countries that you might allow to do so and others where you might say no thank you?
  14. Dell Gines Says:
    I think it is pretty much the same across the board in terms of politics and corporatism now. Both parties are two sides of the same coin, with the differences primarily being on issues of social values, but not economic ones.

    With that being said, the fact is Bush is becoming more and more difficult to support by real conservatives, and even conservative pundits. But hey, he is lame duck, he can do what he wants. Its our own fault anyway.
  15. James Manning Says:

    I think my definition of corporatism is right on. I threw in that tax thing because I think there is something wrong with that. Anyway, when corporate money creates legislation and that legislation at times is detrimental to the "average joe", then I have a problem with it.

    And the problem with cronyism is that Bush placed incompetent people in very sensitive situations. I know it happens all of the time in politics - but the person should be qualified for the job - and that doesn't happen a lot with Bush.

    @ Mahn - you are right... I hate Bush with a passion.
  16. Anonymous Says:
    Excellent, love it! Cubic zarconia engagement rings Ronaldinho football tricks Amateur wrestling news Sexy blonde women free pics roses on a vine propecia generic xenical busty amateur lesbian Blowjob puke movie Discount ionamin uk Pen prozac Webcams lesbian the advantages of stamp duty land tax Zithromax is it good for strep throat tattoo removal oklahoma city blow job oral sex sex Ford freestar custom car seat covers 1 advertising internet search Adderall 2band 2balcohol