Thank you for your retraction.
Thing about Reeder is he’s so polite . . .
I’m just expressing a personal, visceral opinion. I didn’t mean to give the impression that I was asserting it as fact and certainly wasn’t trying to belittle your own view. Let me rephrase myself thusly:
I don’t buy “protecting privacy” as the reason for banning the photography of coffins. I think you have a more charitable disposition in regards to Bush’s motives in this than I do. That doesn’t mean that I think my opinion is any more valid than yours it’s just different. I am a Cynic after all. 
Well, I’m not a support of Bush. For one thing, I voted for the Democrat’s electors last time & I’m going to vote for the Democrat’s electors next time. What I’m not going to do is blame Bush for things that are not his fault nor accuse him of stuff he hasn’t done.
Bush is guilty of the same thing that plagued many Presidents before him: being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and listening to the wrong advisors.
He dealt with 9/11 well, we sent our troops out to capture Bin Laden…
And perhaps it should have stopped at that point. At this time, I don’t see an opponent that can win against Bush in the upcoming election, though. Isn’t that the scariest concept? We’ll elect him for a second term because we just don’t know much about those other guys?
Can you give me an example of an administration that wasn’t politically calculating in everything it did?
:::raising hand:::
Me! Me!
Clinton: Wasn’t he too busy calculating how long it would be to the next BJ?
Carter: still out there, writing books and serving as our best example of how to maintain post-Presidency dignity.
Blonde, you must be kidding…right?
AQs a matter of fact, Clinton did make some decisions that ran directly counter to his political well-being. His military action against Haiti, for one, welfare reform for another.
Is it Clinton or Carter you’re saying threw us into a war we had no chance of winning?
Stay focused much?
You claim that Clinton and Carter were not politically calculating in everything they did. If you ever followed that crazy thing called ‘news’ much, you would certainly know that Clinton was nothing if not a creature of pure political calculation. Carter couldn’t calculate his way out of a wet paper bag, but that certainly doesn’t mean he didn’t try.
It is safe to say that all politicians, especially at the national level, are extremely ‘politically calculating’.
Well, thanks, Brutus, I stand corrected.
If you understood the concept of “irony” –
Ah, never mind. You wouldn’t get it.
JHC on a sidecar - it’s late on a nice November night. Stop debating about conditions you can’t change.
Good Night,
I understand ‘irony’ just fine, thank you. I recently had a halberd made, and the head is all ‘irony’. So there.
Um, actually Carter was a nuclear engineer in the Navy, IIRC.
Not that sort of calculate…But I do believe he was some sort of nuclearologist.
Bloody hell, the UK police have upped the allocation of cops from 5,000 to 14,000 for the visit.
And all of it for a few cosy re-election ‘world stateman’ photo ops with Queenie.Will it be the Ronnie Reagan shot (also nice in a silver frame back at the ranch) or will he go with a little staged ‘confrontation’ with ‘protesters’ cos, ya know, he’s a real conviction politician.
Or maybe it’ll just be the families gathered around the fireplace.
The man and the cynical manipulation makes me sick, and Blair’s not far behind, either.
And to think his security people wanted to close the Tube for this.
Wankers.
One wonders if Tony Blair is all that happy about George’s visit as it is just going to point out the whole WMD fiasco again. I know ole Tony wants to change the subject away fromanything Iraq related.
Now George shows up and dredges up that whole disaster, then makes a ham-fisted attempt at stifling protests against him. Smoooooooth.
And some politicians do make decisions based on what they think is right, even if it does piss off the “wrong” people. John McCain would be the closest person I can think of now. In many ways he is the Anti-Bush. Smart, decent, motivated by a strong vision not tied to the highest current bidder, an actual Veteran who went to war and suffered for his country rather than hide behind his daddy’s governors desk. Even though I certainly don’t hold all the same positions as McCain, and think he is flat wrong on a few issues, you can see the personal intregrity in him that is sorely lacking in most of the current executive and congressional branch politicians. Since the rise of big money donations controlling elections too many of the wrong people with the right connections (and loose, if non-existant morals) are getting elected.
Just think how much better the Country would be right now if McCain, and not Bush, was elected. International relations, the economy, the budget deficit, the outright pandering to extremist groups, the lack of vision, the lack of honesty, the appointment of the worst of the partisen hacks like Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfled. How much might have been different. . . .
And my answer to the last question- IMHO:
George Washington. Practically had to be drafted into the job. Could have been King if he wanted, many have said. Did the job as long as he had to, and not a minute more.
T. Roosevelt. He did it his way- right or wrong. Had a strong sense of doing what was best of the country out of a sense of duty. A noted reformer.
Sorry to all the U.K. Dopers for foisting Curious George on you, but you had it coming after that Spice Girls thing.
Alright, not an administration… but someone else tossed in McCain.
Russ Feingold, nearly lost his senate seat to keeping to his beliefs on campaign finance reform, then was the only senator to vote against the u.s.a.p.a.t.r.i.o.t. Act. As he goes into an election cycle in an increasingly conservative state.
CC
Wierd that Bush Jr. last talk to families was back in april… quite a long time…
As for talking to British families… I doubt it. Bush has been isolated from criticism for so long… why risk it now ?