George W. Bush: The Good Things (Page 2)

You forgot to add "and that Karl Rove is not orchestrating the campaign of any of his opponents." 

I don't care who you are, that's funny! 

Nice point Bear, Clinton did reap the benefits of some of Reagan's economic reforms. Many people conclude the countries economic prosperity and Clinton's time in the oval office were because of his economic policies. Wrong.

And both of them, coincidentally, have used Karl Rove to direct electoral campaigns. 

Say what you want about Karl, he's probably the most brilliant marketing mind of his generation.

I'm with ya'll--I do media work for a living and Karl Rove scares me silly. He's very, very talented and I can only wish that my side had someone like him at the helm.

That said, Jim and various other people are going to fall over, b/c I am going to say something good about the Bush administration in terms of the environment. Let me be clear that he is usually depressingly consistent in both his legislative agenda and the massive policy and rule shift that he's promoting at the bureaucratic level, all to the benefit of industries of various descriptions and to the detriment of the public good and public health.

However, his administration continues to fund the BEACH Act, which is the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act. It is what gives me employment and the money we receive every year in addition to our state funds allows us to test coastal water quality and issue public health warnings when WQ exceeds fecal contamination standards. I also get to do outreach with parents' groups, town and county managers and health departments.

This is a good thing and not just because it gives me a job.

Cannot BELIEVE I just typed that. I am a complicated woman, apparently.

This is a report sent to me from a friend at MIT.

<http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/shapiro.pdf>Click here: http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/shapiro.pdf

It makes the point that if Americans emulated Europeans in the percentage of trips taken by transit we would eliminate the need for Saudi Arabian oil imports.

And I imagine all the car enthusiasts will howl, but if we even edged in that direction and directed public funds to mass transit infrastructure without allowing transportation special interests to render it useless (sorry, we have a light rail system going in in the Triangle in NC that doesn't go to the airport and it ticks me off. Big money behind that decision), the situation would be less dire, b/c we'd have more options for our smaller demand.

Ok, time for caffeine.

Just curious why Runifyrchristian hasn't been here to Bush-bash (and tell Bush supporters how stupid they are) in over 24 hours? 

I thought he started these polls just to rant more.

Good points made (other than his). 

With all due respect, flyboy, I don't think it is consistent to exclude from this grim calculus the 2098 US soldiers killed in Iraq since 05/01/2003 (And, let us not forget the 15,800+ wounded, nor should we forget the 199 killed and 576 wounded in Afghanistan since 01/12/2003).  These men and women are victims of terrorism every bit as much as the sailors on the USS Cole or the Marines in Beirut.  The terrorists haven't attacked US citizens on US soil since 9/11 because we've given them 160,000 more convenient targets.

With all due respect Tim, you're just wrong. Servicemembers engaged in warfare (or contractors in a warzone for profit for that matter) are by virtue of their job are fair targets. Terrorist attacks are intended to have an effect on the masses (to TERRORIZE them) by killing a relative innocent few. They kill a few because they know that: A) They can and B) It will have an effect on our population as a whole. War is a completely different animal and it has been as long as there have been people and sticks & stones.  So has terrorism. But the fact that they co-exist doesn't make them the same thing. Sorry, but to say that their killing of our soldiers is terrorism is tantamount to calling our soliders terrorists as well. Some of my very good friends have given their lives in Iraq and Afganistan. Do I think it was worth it? Of course not. Would they who are dead, knowing that they would die there go anyway? Yeah they would. To say anyone knows why there haven't been more terrorist attacks is very presumptious. No one can know why. What matters though? No attacks. That's what matters. If there is another attack, does that mean all of this effort was for nothing? No. It means the fight isn't over. People don't understand that because they don't understand warfare. I promise you, if our country were invaded....we have terrorist sleeper cells from West Virginia to West Covina. It's the nature of war and terrorism to go together. It's a matter of who has the upper hand when you talk about who is a soldier and who is a terrorist.