34%

[Irvine511]

Eh, the Glass-Steagall laws had been increasingly relaxed for 20+ years in financial services before President Clinton signed the act overturning it. No need to blame a single political party on the accounting shenanigans of a few renegade companies. The Republican Congress and Clinton were both right, Glass-Steagall was outdated.

To me, it was the blurred line between audit/compliance and "consulting" services provided by accounting firms like Arthur Andersen that allowed Enron and WorldCom to cook the books. I absolutely agree with your first point about overzealous investors, large and small alike. When people like you and me quit our jobs to day-trade, that was a disaster waiting to happen.

fair points -- but it was the repeal of Glass-Steagall that opened the floodgates. i think i'd point to the joining of Citibank and Salomon Smith Barney is what gave us WorldCom.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Oh those crazy blue staters

by Kathleen Burge, Globe Staff | June 1, 2006

BROOKLINE -- He was irked when Town Meeting members voted against pledging allegiance to the flag more than a decade ago because they found the oath coercive. He was vexed three years ago when they called the USA Patriot Act an assault upon civil liberties. But Tuesday night, as Town Meeting members were poised to vote to seek impeachment of President Bush, Seymour Ziskend and about a score of others walked out in disgust.

``It was once a conservative town," Ziskend said yesterday. ``Now we have people coming in from all over. They get involved in Town Meeting to a point where they want to change the town."

Brookline followed the lead of Cambridge and a handful of communities in Vermont when Town Meeting members voted, 104 to 52, to call on the state's congressional representatives to impeach President Bush. In the final minutes of the fourth night of Town Meeting, on the last of the articles, they supported a resolution declaring that Bush has ``repeatedly violated his oath of office" by purposely misleading the country as he launched the war in Iraq.

The vote is the latest reflection of Bush's declining popularity and of growing unease about the war, in which there have been more than 2,400 US deaths since it started in 2003.

While Brookline doesn't have the same ultraliberal reputation as places such as Cambridge, Bush has drawn less support there than in the state as a whole. In 2000, he won 17 percent of the vote in the town, compared to 32 percent statewide. In 2004, Bush won 19 percent, compared to 37 percent statewide.

The resolution was sponsored by Jonathan J. Margolis, a lawyer who says that if other towns follow suit, they could persuade US Representative Barney Frank of Newton, whose district includes Brookline, to support impeachment. Margolis successfully opposed an effort Tuesday night to change his resolution to seek merely a censure of the president.

But Frank said that even if other towns in his district follow Brookline's example, he would be unlikely to support the president's impeachment. ``I don't think this is something you decide by public opinion," he said.

Frank argues that Congress should focus on changing Bush's policies, for instance, by passing a binding resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. There is no chance an impeachment vote would succeed in the Republican-controlled Congress, he said, and the effort would divert too much attention from other issues .

Margolis said he was motivated to draft the resolution and gather the 10 signatures required to get it before Town Meeting by reports late last year of the administration's domestic spying program.

Although he once struggled with the notion of whether the town should address national issues, he eventually decided that such advisory resolutions are appropriate.

``I finally decided that if Congress can express the feelings of Americans on issues around the world, like fighting AIDS or the slaughter in Darfur, or, years ago, the genocide in Bosnia, then why shouldn't Brookline's legislature, which is what Town Meeting is, do this?" he said.

In Coolidge Corner yesterday, most residents interviewed had not heard about the previous night's vote. But many said they supported the effort.

``I think that, more than any other president, [Bush] seems to be completely off the mark from what the country needs," said Jessica Binder, a graduate student who lives in Brookline. Still, she said she was surprised that the issue was debated at Town Meeting. ``It just seems like a personal view," she said.

But Bush supporters said the Town Meeting members had erred. ``Very tacky and very crass," said Stephen Johnstone, a salesman in town. ``He's not Richard Nixon. I think the fellow's done a decent job under the conditions."

And, like Ziskend, some were frustrated that town representatives had spent time weighing in on national affairs.

``I don't believe the Town Meeting has jurisdiction over something that I believe belongs to the House of Representatives," said Robert Sherer, who said he voted for Bush in 2004. ``Anybody can send a message. You don't need a Town Meeting to do that."

Michael Selib, a Town Meeting member, was in the minority that voted against the resolution.

``I feel that resolutions that don't pertain to the government of the town of Brookline and the operation of the town of Brookline really do not belong in the Town Meeting warrant," he said.

 

[Irvine511]

man, you know you're in deep shit when Katherine Harris (!!!) doesn't want to be associated with you:



[q]Harris: Lack of support because I can't be controlled

Brian Skoloff
The Associated Press
Posted June 5 2006


WEST PALM BEACH -- Katherine Harris thinks she knows why she's been shunned by her party leadership and shirked by big donors, and it has nothing to do with political platforms.

"Perhaps in some elite circles, the reason I have not gotten more support...is because they don't believe I can be controlled," Harris said today during a speech to the nonpartisan Forum Club of the Palm Beaches.

Harris, a two-term congresswoman who as secretary of state gained national notoriety for her role in the 2000 presidential recount that handed the race to George W. Bush, said she would not "kowtow" to the administration or her party.

"I will be beholden to no one but the people, not the party elite, not the press and certainly not even doing what's popular," said Harris, who is seeking the Republican nomination to run against Democratic incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson. "I'm going to be doing what's right.

"I'm not part of that club," she said, referring to what she called "the Beltway boys."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/lo...052006,0,2042110.story?coll=sfla-news-florida

[/q]

 

[STING2]

The recent Gallup poll taken between June 1 and June 4 has the Presidents approval numbers bolting from its historical low of 31% in early May up to 36% now. With Zarqawi taken out on June 7, a new gallup poll could show his approval numbers to be at 40% or more.

 

[deep]

Keep hope alive.

 

[anitram]

The recent Gallup poll taken between June 1 and June 4 has the Presidents approval numbers bolting from its historical low of 31% in early May up to 36% now. With Zarqawi taken out on June 7, a new gallup poll could show his approval numbers to be at 40% or more.

So according to you now the polls matter all of a sudden?

Hysterical!

 

[STING2]

So according to you now the polls matter all of a sudden?

Hysterical!

I've never stated these telephone polls of 1,000 people were relevant. But other people including yourself have, and now those numbers are moving away from the direction that people were celebrating as some type of victory.

The elections are what matters. But its interesting to see what some people saw as some type of victory could quickly dry up.

 

[U2democrat]

The recent Gallup poll taken between June 1 and June 4 has the Presidents approval numbers bolting from its historical low of 31% in early May up to 36% now. With Zarqawi taken out on June 7, a new gallup poll could show his approval numbers to be at 40% or more.

As if we weren't expecting a bump from that It'll be back down to its record lows in a matter of time

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

The recent Gallup poll taken between June 1 and June 4 has the Presidents approval numbers bolting from its historical low of 31% in early May up to 36% now. With Zarqawi taken out on June 7, a new gallup poll could show his approval numbers to be at 40% or more.

You were almost right. Gallup just took a new poll from June 9-11, after Zarqawi was killed. The President is up two more points to 38%. So, he has gone up 7 percentage points in one month. But, this could be easily reversed. If he keeps rising though, then perhaps he could stay in the 40s without dropping back into the 30s.

 

[U2democrat]

Approval ratings 40s---wow now THAT'S impressive!

 

[Irvine511]

a one week bump is far less significant than a continuous, steady drop starting in December 2004 into some of the lowest approval ratings in history, and then staying there for months.

yes, Zarqawi's death is good news, but it's not going to do much to stop the violence.

consider:

[q]Attacks in Iraq kill at least 14
12/06/2006 - 18:47:59



Two separate parked car bombs detonated today in Baghdad’s Sadr City and in western Baghdad to kill at least 10 people and wound 51, police said.

The first explosion occurred in Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite district of the capital and killed four people and wounded 41, said police Lt. Ahmed Qassim.

AP Television News footage taken in the minutes following the blast showed a minivan in flames, bodies on the street and wounded being rushed to hospital in pickup trucks.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/06/12/story263066.html

[/q]



it's the constant stream of blood flowing from all corners of Iraq, and the inability of the Bush administration to appear as if they have even a clue as to what to do about the situation, militarily or, more importantly, politically, that has lead to Bush's abysmal approval ratings (well, that, combined with an inability to govern, the embarassment of the "response" to Katrina, and the overwhelming stench of scandal that surrounds the WH and the GOP in general).

ultimately, it's hard to be too optimistic, despite Zarqawi. due to Rumsfeld, the US simply does not have enough fighting troops in Iraq to impose a purely military solution and we therefore must find a political solution, but that in turn would require the kind of willingness to compromise that the Shiites and the Kurds have so far rejected.

 

[U2democrat]

I don't know who's scarier, Rumsfeld or Cheney.

 

[deep]

but he went to Iraq

without holding Dick Cheney's hand


never-mind he had to sneak in

and he did not tell Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki until 5 minutes before he met with him

also, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki probably was not please to be used as a photo op
for this sorry sack of a leader, when he is trying to get some credibility with the Iraqi people

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

a one week bump is far less significant than a continuous, steady drop starting in December 2004 into some of the lowest approval ratings in history, and then staying there for months.

yes, Zarqawi's death is good news, but it's not going to do much to stop the violence.

consider:

[q]Attacks in Iraq kill at least 14
12/06/2006 - 18:47:59



Two separate parked car bombs detonated today in Baghdad’s Sadr City and in western Baghdad to kill at least 10 people and wound 51, police said.

The first explosion occurred in Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite district of the capital and killed four people and wounded 41, said police Lt. Ahmed Qassim.

AP Television News footage taken in the minutes following the blast showed a minivan in flames, bodies on the street and wounded being rushed to hospital in pickup trucks.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/06/12/story263066.html

[/q]



it's the constant stream of blood flowing from all corners of Iraq, and the inability of the Bush administration to appear as if they have even a clue as to what to do about the situation, militarily or, more importantly, politically, that has lead to Bush's abysmal approval ratings (well, that, combined with an inability to govern, the embarassment of the "response" to Katrina, and the overwhelming stench of scandal that surrounds the WH and the GOP in general).

ultimately, it's hard to be too optimistic, despite Zarqawi. due to Rumsfeld, the US simply does not have enough fighting troops in Iraq to impose a purely military solution and we therefore must find a political solution, but that in turn would require the kind of willingness to compromise that the Shiites and the Kurds have so far rejected.

Well, if things were really that bad, I don't think there would be any Iraqi government. Seems like they have made a hell of a lot of compromises to get to where they are now. I also think the United States military would have been pushed out of several towns and parts of Iraq and would be thinking about a retreat into Kuwait, not as a matter of choice but one of necessity if things were really so dire.

Sure, people are dying and getting killed everyday, its a war. Most wars last for years, not 6 weeks or 6 days.


In any event, this thread is about Bush's poll numbers, and I agree being down below 40% for four months is more significant than this recent 7 point surge. But what goes down can go back up, and if George Bush is in the low 40s in July and stays there into August or even goes up more, this could rob Democrats of one of their talking points.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

but he went to Iraq

without holding Dick Cheney's hand


never-mind he had to sneak in

and he did not tell Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki until 5 minutes before he met with him

also, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki probably was not please to be used as a photo op
for this sorry sack of a leader, when he is trying to get some credibility with the Iraqi people

Is it customary for the President to announce his arrival, in a war zone, well in advance?

 

[Irvine511]

Well, if things were really that bad, I don't think there would be any Iraqi government. Seems like they have made a hell of a lot of compromises to get to where they are now. I also think the United States military would have been pushed out of several towns and parts of Iraq and would be thinking about a retreat into Kuwait, not as a matter of choice but one of necessity if things were really so dire.

well, things are quite dire.

some progress has been made, there's no question, but much of this progress has come at a tremendous and what i believe to be a very unnecessary cost. this entire operation, since 2002, has been bungled, badly, by this administration in so many ways that has resulted in so many unnecessary deaths, both American and Iraqi.

i might even be inclined to say that George Bush got the big picture right -- the Arab World needs democracy (though this begs the question as to whether nor not democracy is a good thing, as democracy could lend legitimacy to the most unimaginably repressive Islamist theocracy imaginable should it be elected), though how he has gone about doing this has been a tragedy from start to finish, and no accomplishment necessarily makes all the tragedies "worth it" in my opinion.

getting one thing right does not negate the dozen things that have gone horribly, horribly wrong, and we could also argue that the occupation of Iraq has done such long-term damage to the credibility of the United States -- from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to Haditha to no WMD's -- that future missions that might be of greater moral imperative will be that much harder to pull off.

i think the invasion has done much to bolster Iran's position in the Arab world as well as introduce a murderous religiosity in parts of Iraq that was absent before the fall of Hussein.

ultimately, we are not any safer, in fact, we might be less so.

i support the taking on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, convincing Pakistan to change its policies, and reconstructing Afghanistan after overthrowing the Taliban. this, done correctly, is a tough enough job.

instead of seeing the job through, Bush ran off to Iraq almost immediately beginning preparations during Operation Anaconda in the spring of 2002. Iraq has consumed money that might have been spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan.

basically, the Iraq debate is so over, and the interventionist argument has lost. at best, Iraq will be an Islamist, theocratic, Iran-dominated state, even with the insurgency suppressed. women will have far fewer rights than they had under Hussein. once the U.S. leaves, i would imagine that much of Iraq's oil revenue will be diverted to support Hezbollah and Hamas under Iran's influence.

in sum, Bush was wrong to go in as quickly as he did, and without international support. once again: it was NOT a coalition even remotely comparable to 1991. it was an embarassment, and we are now seeing its consequences. to make matters worse, after the WMD embarassment, the post-war has been shockingly mismanaged, in part because the war had to be sold as a low-cost operation to gain public support, but mostly because George Bush is one of the most mediocre, unimaginative, bored presidents to ever hold that office.

what scares me most, though, is the extent to which he has followed a 'narrative' that is simply not supported by any empirical evidence and, more importantly, that he has not been interested in empirical evidence or expertise, period. it's as if the discussion about the Iraq war, and how to wage it, has been a private conversation between Bush and his "higher father."

i feel torn, in many ways. of course I want the United States to succeed. losing the war in Iraq will have horrendous consequences. yet, do we want to win a war that was won because Bush 'listened to God'? what consequences would arise should US foreign policy be cut free from its traditional basis of rational assessment and empirical evidence, 'guided' by a president who thinks the rest of us should just 'trust him,' since God is whispering directly into his ear?

 

[U2democrat]

Exxxxxxxxcellent post Irvine

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

well, things are quite dire.

some progress has been made, there's no question, but much of this progress has come at a tremendous and what i believe to be a very unnecessary cost. this entire operation, since 2002, has been bungled, badly, by this administration in so many ways that has resulted in so many unnecessary deaths, both American and Iraqi.

i might even be inclined to say that George Bush got the big picture right -- the Arab World needs democracy (though this begs the question as to whether nor not democracy is a good thing, as democracy could lend legitimacy to the most unimaginably repressive Islamist theocracy imaginable should it be elected), though how he has gone about doing this has been a tragedy from start to finish, and no accomplishment necessarily makes all the tragedies "worth it" in my opinion.

getting one thing right does not negate the dozen things that have gone horribly, horribly wrong, and we could also argue that the occupation of Iraq has done such long-term damage to the credibility of the United States -- from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to Haditha to no WMD's -- that future missions that might be of greater moral imperative will be that much harder to pull off.

i think the invasion has done much to bolster Iran's position in the Arab world as well as introduce a murderous religiosity in parts of Iraq that was absent before the fall of Hussein.

ultimately, we are not any safer, in fact, we might be less so.

i support the taking on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, convincing Pakistan to change its policies, and reconstructing Afghanistan after overthrowing the Taliban. this, done correctly, is a tough enough job.

instead of seeing the job through, Bush ran off to Iraq almost immediately beginning preparations during Operation Anaconda in the spring of 2002. Iraq has consumed money that might have been spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan.

basically, the Iraq debate is so over, and the interventionist argument has lost. at best, Iraq will be an Islamist, theocratic, Iran-dominated state, even with the insurgency suppressed. women will have far fewer rights than they had under Hussein. once the U.S. leaves, i would imagine that much of Iraq's oil revenue will be diverted to support Hezbollah and Hamas under Iran's influence.

in sum, Bush was wrong to go in as quickly as he did, and without international support. once again: it was NOT a coalition even remotely comparable to 1991. it was an embarassment, and we are now seeing its consequences. to make matters worse, after the WMD embarassment, the post-war has been shockingly mismanaged, in part because the war had to be sold as a low-cost operation to gain public support, but mostly because George Bush is one of the most mediocre, unimaginative, bored presidents to ever hold that office.

what scares me most, though, is the extent to which he has followed a 'narrative' that is simply not supported by any empirical evidence and, more importantly, that he has not been interested in empirical evidence or expertise, period. it's as if the discussion about the Iraq war, and how to wage it, has been a private conversation between Bush and his "higher father."

i feel torn, in many ways. of course I want the United States to succeed. losing the war in Iraq will have horrendous consequences. yet, do we want to win a war that was won because Bush 'listened to God'? what consequences would arise should US foreign policy be cut free from its traditional basis of rational assessment and empirical evidence, 'guided' by a president who thinks the rest of us should just 'trust him,' since God is whispering directly into his ear?

So you think the Iraq war could have been a "cake walk", but Bush bungled that opportunity?

 

[Irvine511]

So you think the Iraq war could have been a "cake walk", but Bush bungled that opportunity?

the war itself was always going to be a cake walk since Saddam's forces were pretty decimated after 1991.

the post-war was always, always going to be extraordinarily difficult -- Westerners occupying an Arab country? just when in history has that ever gone well?

 

[U2democrat]

the war itself was always going to be a cake walk since Saddam's forces were pretty decimated after 1991.

the post-war was always, always going to be extraordinarily difficult -- Westerners occupying an Arab country? just when in history has that ever gone well?

As far as I can recall, never.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

the war itself was always going to be a cake walk since Saddam's forces were pretty decimated after 1991.

the post-war was always, always going to be extraordinarily difficult -- Westerners occupying an Arab country? just when in history has that ever gone well?

Well, then how can you say Bush had done such a terrible job when you admit it was always going to be extraordinarily difficult?

On the other hand, Afghanistan is not an Arab country, but it is a Muslim country, and the occupation there has gone comparitively well. Jeez, just look at what happen to the Soviets in Afghanistan compared to the current occupation there.

 

[deep]

An Iraqi Shiite cleric walks across a series of British and American flags painted across a street in Karbala in Iraq Tuesday, June 13, 2006. The flags are painted on the ground in order that passers-by step on them, which is considered an insult. (AP Photo/Alaa al-Marjani)

 

[Irvine511]

Well, then how can you say Bush had done such a terrible job when you admit it was always going to be extraordinarily difficult?

On the other hand, Afghanistan is not an Arab country, but it is a Muslim country, and the occupation there has gone comparitively well. Jeez, just look at what happen to the Soviets in Afghanistan compared to the current occupation there.

the administration never thought it was going to be difficult -- look at Cheney's quotes about greeting us as liberators with roses, calling to mind the Dutch greeting the Americans in 1944.

it was willful self-delusion from the beginning, which i thought i had made clear in my earlier post.

yes, Afghanistan has gone *comparatively* well, but you've given us two disasterous occupations as points of comparison, and it's currently undergoing it's worst surge of violence since 2001, and we still don't have OBL. and the Soviets were in Afghanistan for 10 years, it's only been 4 for us.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

the administration never thought it was going to be difficult -- look at Cheney's quotes about greeting us as liberators with roses, calling to mind the Dutch greeting the Americans in 1944.

it was willful self-delusion from the beginning, which i thought i had made clear in my earlier post.

yes, Afghanistan has gone *comparatively* well, but you've given us two disasterous occupations as points of comparison, and it's currently undergoing it's worst surge of violence since 2001, and we still don't have OBL. and the Soviets were in Afghanistan for 10 years, it's only been 4 for us.

I never said the administration said it was going to be difficult, you said it was always going to be an extraordinarily difficult task. In light of that then, how can you say Bush has done such a terrible job when you admit it was always going to be extraordinarily difficult?

 

[A_Wanderer]

the administration never thought it was going to be difficult -- look at Cheney's quotes about greeting us as liberators with roses, calling to mind the Dutch greeting the Americans in 1944.

it was willful self-delusion from the beginning, which i thought i had made clear in my earlier post.

yes, Afghanistan has gone *comparatively* well, but you've given us two disasterous occupations as points of comparison, and it's currently undergoing it's worst surge of violence since 2001, and we still don't have OBL. and the Soviets were in Afghanistan for 10 years, it's only been 4 for us.

You know the concept of disaster seems to be a victim of hyperbole in the modern world, one wonders what you would think of the Battle of the Bulge or Okinawa - that had genuinely military blunders.

The persistent threat posed by Saddam Hussein is permanently gone, the ethnic tensions in Iraq would have occured after any power shift and in the absence of the coalition the forces most likely to step in would have been Iran, Syria and Turkey. Iraq now has a democractically elected government that is allied with the United States in the GWOT and has an army that is getting stronger and more self-sufficient every day - the best course to get US troops out is supporting the elected government of the Iraqi people. Saddam has WMD programs which were ready for the time when sanctions were lifted, he was buying banned weapon systems up to the start of the war with money scammed from oil for food such as the North Korean missiles,.

The "narrative" that the stoppers are pushing don't gel with their own predictions pre-war , namely those of mass casualties (tens of thousands coalition troops, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's), mass exodus (millions of refugees) and inability of the Iraqi people to vote in elections because "it isn't in their culture". This coupled with a severe case of Vietnam attatchment syndrome which declares any foreign action a Vietnam-redux regardless of the actual conditions or forces has resulted in consistently wrong predictions (e.g. the actual time it took to topple the regime, taking Baghdad, casualties, elections, ratification of constitution, cabinets).

Furthermore right on Europes doorstep NATO still hasn't caught Radko Mladic or Radovan Karadzic - is the inability to capture OBL in the desolate terrain of the Afghan-Pak border really that much worse?

 

[anitram]

Furthermore right on Europes doorstep NATO still hasn't caught Radko Mladic or Radovan Karadzic - is the inability to capture OBL in the desolate terrain of the Afghan-Pak border really that much worse?

Like they've really been trying to catch them? For political reasons they've been waiting for the government to hand them over.

NATO is just sitting around. Mladic was essentially walking around Belgrade openly a couple of years ago and nobody did a thing.

Not a good comparison, IMO.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Like they've really been trying to catch them? For political reasons they've been waiting for the government to hand them over.

NATO is just sitting around. Mladic was essentially walking around Belgrade openly a couple of years ago and nobody did a thing.

Not a good comparison, IMO.

Given that Bin Ladin is likely in an area of Pakistan where the local population supports him, its not as bad a comparison as you may think. NATO is not going to invade Serbia just to get Mladic, and the United States and NATO are not going to invade Pakistan just to get Bin Ladin. They are working with the governments of Serbia and Pakistan in order to get these people.

 

[anitram]

NATO doesn't need to invade anywhere since they are in Bosnia already which is where these thugs were for years.

Last I heard, the US didn't have thousands of troops in Pakistan.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

NATO doesn't need to invade anywhere since they are in Bosnia already which is where these thugs were for years.

Last I heard, the US didn't have thousands of troops in Pakistan.

Mladic is in Serbia, not Bosnia. The US and NATO do not have any troops in Serbia just like they don't have any troops in Pakistan. Mladic likely either moved across to border into Serbia prior to the first NATO troops setting foot in the country, or had an easy plan to get across the border if he got into trouble.

 

[anitram]

He was crossing the border back and forth, according to local media reports.

Karadzic is still believed to be in Bosnia. Why isn't NATO picking him up?