MasterShake69
Posts: 752
Joined: 11/30/2005
Status: offline
|
and the left wasnt attacking bush after his first day in office???? Hell they were attacking him even before that.
Bush reaching out to the other party putting democrats in his cabinet....and what did bush get for his trouble???
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-will-name-his-cabinet-in-time-for-christmas-627635.html
An intriguing rumour also has Mr Bush inviting the current Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, to stay on. Appointed by President Clinton last year, Mr Summers would expect to be looking elsewhere for a job, but Mr Bush will be trying to demonstrate his commitment to healing by bringing at least one Democrat into his Cabinet; holding on to Mr Summers - as a Clinton appointee - might help.The president-elect could also look to Democrats in Congress. Those he knows best include Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, who has been tipped as the next Energy Secretary.Who will go to the Pentagon and the desk of Secretary of Defence is also a hot point of speculation. Some had expected Mr Bush to recruit the former Democrat Senator Sam Nunn to the post, but Mr Nunn, an Atlanta native, has indicated his unwillingness to take it, so eyes have turned to another former member of the Senate, Dan Coats of Indiana, who served as a Republican.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-39166006.html Bush Cabinet Appointee Linda Chavez Heavily Opposed By Democrats, CBS From: CBS Evening News with Dan Rather | Date: January 8, 2001| Author: document.write("Dan Rather, John Roberts"); Dan Rather, John Roberts
DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: President-elect Bush`s skills at damage control and managing controversy are being put to the test, after new disclosures about one of his most heavily opposed cabinet choices: labor secretary- designate Linda Chavez. CBS` John Roberts has the latest questions about Chavez and how team Bush is handling them.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/01/08/camp.2.t.phpDemocrats Turn Up Heat on Bush's Conservative Appointments : Senate Confirmation Fight Looms  By Brian Knowlton Published: MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 2001 WASHINGTON: President-elect George W. Bush and his congressional allies continued to work through the weekend to put in place an administration and a legislative leadership with strong focus on achieving the goals on which he campaigned, headed by a sweeping tax cut. But Democrats made it clear on Sunday that they will closely question, and possibly even fight to block, some of Mr. Bush's more politically conservative cabinet nominees during Senate hearings. Depending on how strenuous that resistance is in confirmation hearings, the incoming president's early efforts to pursue bipartisan cooperation could be compromised. "Today it's an open question about whether some of these nominees will be confirmed," the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, said Sunday in a CBS television interview. That comment raised doubts about what had been a widely accepted assumption that the Bush nominees, however philosophically objectionable to some Democrats, could expect Senate confirmation. Mr. Daschle would not even rule out the possibility that the nomination of Linda Chavez as labor secretary, which is bitterly opposed by the union groups that supported Vice President Al Gore, would draw a Democratic filibuster.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-02.htm
As Kerry must know, those are fine distinctions that will be lost in any real political battle. He and others should weigh their fear of being cast as liberals against the benefits. For one thing, the Bush victory fired up the Democrats' liberal base and not just in Massachusetts. Voters, especially in minority communities, are angry over the process and the outcome. Next time, they will be primed and ready to vote for those who stand up for them. For another thing, Al Gore won the popular vote on the basis of a campaign that ran true to liberal causes. He got as many votes as he did because traditional liberal constituencies - labor, minorities, and women - supported him. Who wouldn't want their support in the future? Maybe Democrats can't defeat these Cabinet nominees. But a spirited opposition, rooted in liberal principles, can lay the groundwork for the next critical battlegrounds, including the US Supreme Court. Besides, conservatives are not afraid to Bork the opposition, so, why should liberals shy away? Standing against something or someone for the right reasons is better than standing for nothing for the wrong ones.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2001/01/14/story171699928.asp
Bush has constructed a Republican cabinet with just as much claim as Bill Clinton's Democratic cabinet to "look like America". Round the table will be six white men, two black men, three white women, one Asian American man, one Hispanic man and one Hispanic woman. Whatever else he can be accused of, Bush cannot be charged with the traditional Republican vice of choosing a row of white men in suits. In addition, it is worth noting, Bush has struck a blow for grey power. Clinton's outgoing cabinet was strikingly young, reflecting the "New Democrat" claim to represent a new era in progressive government. Bush, on the other hand, has gone for a team with an average age of 58, and has named men of pensionable age to head the three key departments of state, defence and the treasury. The new president may be politically inexperienced, but he has indisputably sent for the grown-ups. It has also been assembled remarkably quickly. It is barely three and a half weeks since Al Gore finally conceded, and in that time, Bush has put together a cabinet totally plausible in party and governmental terms. Yes, there were arguments about the Pentagon and about the justice department, of which more in a moment, but they were quickly solved and without an atmosphere of leaks. Compared with the Clinton transition of 1993, this has been a conspicuously professional job.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june01/cabinet_01-08.html
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaineD
Well see MasterShake69, Bush deserved all the criticism he got from the left. That's the difference.
We're about a month into Obama's administration, and we have republicans on this very forum placing the blame for the current economic mess squarely at Obama's feet...
Bush waged an illegal war under false pretenses, his administration IS largely responsible for our current economic mess, and he was abusing the rights of the people by spying on them without warrents.
Don't play the "you lefties do it too" card because it doesn't stick.
|
Does the Republican party need to change? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread