I'm new to this board and would like to ask you an unbaised question. Why do you continue to own a "substantial amount of ASCL shares" if you think the co. is going bankrupt by the end of this year? This really makes no sense to anyone in their right mind. Please explain your rationale.
Bush's snide remarks today, which have been replayed on TV numerous times, are actually insulting to the U.N. and to Annan, who ALSO gave a great speech (but whose motives are clear). If Bush has no confidence in the U.N. doing anything, then why did he do it? Short answer - he was forced into the appearance by public opinion, not HIS agenda, which at this point wants Congress to just capitulate and leave.
Bush's remarks, hurtful to all of the U.N. participants, even our allies, are really a jab at a couple of Democrats, in terms of their needing to "wait" for the U.N.
I saw references to taped appearances by BOTH Trent Lott and John McCain, a few years back on the same situation, saying that we HAD to wait for U.N. support. The public polls are also overweighted in the same direction. U.N. support becomes an affirmation of our direction, and also provides material support. Otherwise, we go it alone, like Bush's hero John Wayne, and alone take the blame when things get screwed up.
Bush's speechwriters (plural), including Mike Gerson, understand that Bush has a VERY hard time focusing on more than a few things. This results in VERY focused speeches (topics), and Bush, to HIS credit, has gotten over some stage fright in front of crowds. Like Linus, he has a blanket - the teleprompter. Without that prepared piece of paper, he is dead meat. Clinton, on the other hand, could think on his feet (and, in fact, out loud, and what he did not say, his aides said). This group, on the other hand, acts like a secret society, who occasionally pulls back a curtain.
Fleischer, on the other hand, simply revels in turning the press room into a tennis match, and I love watching Ari work the room. This guy swings at ALL of the pitches. Bush uses a pitching machine, so it always comes down the middle, where he's waiting for it.
When was Bush's last really open press conference, freewheeling on a range of issues?
I just saw an extensive discussion on "Washington Week" by over 20 journalists, including David Broder, who has an excellent handle on this, so the timing of your comment is interesting.
Ever get graded on a curve? Bush gets, so to speak, a starting handicap. If you played golf with Nicklaus, you'd get one. It�s a combination of admiration of the fact he�s held on, and indeed grown in office, while under a severe handicap in seeing any shades of gray, whatever. At this moment, it�s not hurting. He�s not talking about Afghanistan anymore, because the outlook is cloudy, and it does not fit his limited mold set. A real leader talks about outcomes, as well as principles.
Bush's speech was designed IMO to energize the U.N. into doing something, and Powell, not Bush, is making the most of it.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell gained diplomatic support for the strong U.S. stand against Saddam Hussein, winning approval Friday from all members of the U.N. Security Council for President Bush's assertion that the Iraqi leader poses a threat to international security..."
(That does NOT cover military force)
The real work is "backroom", not out front. What I can't figure out is why Bush bothered, and what HE wanted to get out of it.
You may be right about what you say, but the liberal press and several liberal congressmen and congresswomen are saying it was a brilliant speech.
You just aren't accoustomed to a REAL leader.
Bush had no real content, leaving it as yet another speech with no impact on anything. He did not say anything new, and it was a total disappointment, on those terms. The real work is backstage, as it always is.
One more gesture on the world stage by Mr. Photo-Op.
It's the ignorant ass-kissers like you who make him think that he's actually doing something, even INSIDE the White House.
If he was held to some kind of standard of performance, perhaps he'd wake up.
His entire management style is to avoid conflict, so he never gets all of the facts from those who know. They tone it down, in order to have a "calm" meeting.
Greenspan made a very pointed case yesterday about Congress controlling "spending", which is always appropriate ahead of an election.
If Bush had proposed a higher loss limit, and some exemption for dividend taxation (also on the table), EARLIER in the year, investors would have had time to reposition. Of course, at that point, the election was not a factor.
Since it's already September, and there's no time left, if it passed in "lame duck" (which it would not), everyone would be selling at once.
The REAL point that Greenspan was making was about revenue neutrality. Since he refused to play politics, and say (this time) that the proposed tax cuts would decrease revenue, at least over the foreseeable future, he asked Congress to control spending. This would mean that there would have to be an offset against the lost revenue from allowing increased loss-taking by investors. The partial erasure of double dividend taxation is kind of like the tax rebate - a small amount for a lot of people, but a high overall cost. It's a gesture, and while I agree with the concept, we can't afford it, facing likely $100 bil in war expenses over the next couple of years. The 10-year surplus is shot.
The Republicans are very concerned about losing "investor" votes, and are looking for a sop to hand out, regardless of the health of the overall budget.
That's been the problem all along - Bush sees the economy as a vote-getting issue, not the health of business. That's why business stinks, as does the market. Voters want their representatives to spend on their behalf.
Meanwhile, LA County has a shortfall of $750 mil for health care, and is closing 10 clinics, which overloads the ER's, which now have an estimated wait of 6 hours to get seen.
It seems as though it was the word "Georgiepoo" that got your angry inch doing whatever it does.
How about this Georgiepoo, Georgiepoo, Georgiepoo, Georgiepoo, Georgiepoo.
Did that do it for you?
God Bless George Bush
I had you on ignore , but Yahoo screwed it up.This dolt we call Pres is a perfect Georgiepoo--fits like a glove.
Regards--Gala--God bless the reformed(?) rummy.(remember the choke on the pretzel)ROFLMAO