12 Comments Add your own

• 1. snuss  |  September 15th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

  Slow news day…?

• 2. Optimistic1  |  September 15th, 2008 at 5:40 pm

  Shocker.

  Careful Pat, my imagination tells me you and Cheney could be brothers looking at your cranky portrait above and knowing you tell kids to “Get the hell off your lawn”. Just because someone is a crank doesn’t mean they can’t be wise I imagine you would agree? “Cheneyham” may be your new nick name in my book.

  What we really needed was Clinton in charge during Katrina telling all the people down there he felt their pain wiping tears with one hand and holding a bowl of Gumbo Du Monde in the other to show solidarity with the folks effected. Isn’t that what the media wants? E.G. - Sean Penn in a row boat with a shotgun.

• 3. Peter Gunn  |  September 15th, 2008 at 7:48 pm

  Well now, I don’t know if this is fair Pat.
  I just read an article about old dead eye celebrating his favorite holiday.
  Seemed to really be in the spirit.

  Here it is boy’s ……

  Cheney Waits Until Last Minute Again To Buy Sept. 11 Gifts

  WASHINGTON—Busy dealing with important paperwork and other presidential duties in recent weeks, Dick Cheney was forced to put off until the last minute a cherished annual tradition: gift-shopping for his favorite holiday, 9/11.
  “I looked at the calendar yesterday, and I couldn’t believe my eyes—9/11 is almost here!”
  a rosy-cheeked Cheney said upon returning to the White House Sunday with two giant bags overflowing with gift-wrapped boxes and big red bows.

  “It’s the most wonderful time of the year.”

  http://www.theonion.com/content/news/cheney_waits_until_last_minute

• 4. Craig Knauss  |  September 15th, 2008 at 10:32 pm

  Cranky portrait? You’re kidding, right? That’s Cheney’s happy face. He probably just shot a judge or stomped on a kitten. Where’ve you been for the last 7-1/2 years?

  And how do you know what Clinton would have done? He was more responsive than Dubya ever was.

• 5. Optimistic1  |  September 16th, 2008 at 7:28 am

  Craig, I was actually talking about Pat’s Cranky Portrait up top, and what I said was Clinton WOULD have been there, no doubt about it.

• 6. Optimistic1  |  September 16th, 2008 at 7:40 am

  Craig - W’s approval went to 86% after 9/11, higher than Clinton’s ever was, so to say Bush was never responsive is incorrect.

• 7. Milton Waddams  |  September 16th, 2008 at 8:53 am

  That was before the public knew he did absolutely nothing to try to prevent it…when that came out his approval ratings started going down. By the same token, a President with 86% approval could have ushered in a new era of bipartisan cooperation to improve everyone’s lot in this country…what did Bush do? Took the country to war in Iraq under false pretenses.

• 8. Craig Knauss  |  September 16th, 2008 at 9:01 am

  “Craig - W’s approval went to 86% after 9/11, higher than Clinton’s ever was, so to say Bush was never responsive is incorrect.”

  Bush’s rating was immediately after 9/11. Until the public found out Bush didn’t have a clue on how to respond to the mess. What’s his approval rating now? Clinton’s was a lot higher when he was leaving office. In fact, Bush’s current approval rating is the lowest in history.

• 9. Optimistic1  |  September 16th, 2008 at 10:29 am

  Point being 80-90% of America approved of Bush’s handling of 9/11 4 months after attacks, so apparently we felt he was responsive and handled the situation well. Nothing more, nothing less. We liked the job he did during 9/11, but you people can’t even give him that. Bush’s numbers are obviously a joke at this point, but the Dem controlled congress also is at their lowest in history and they have had 2 years to make an impact on those and they have gone down since 2006.

  Craig- What exactly do you think Clinton doing next to nothing to prevent 9/11 would have done to his rosy polling if people had the insight to see it coming and was planned mainly on his watch? Yeah, that’s what I think too. Sandy Berger stuffing documents down his trousers and the Clinton’s blocking 9/11 documentary’s pretty much tell the story don’t they. Bush has made plenty of mistakes and I am not saying he hasn’t, but to not include in the equation that he was handed a recession as well as 9/11 is illogical, he had 180 days to put his team in place and start a war Clinton has admitted was not started in October 2000 after the Cole Bombing because he felt it would be bad timing with the election coming. Look at the short and long term impacts of 9/11. They are astounding to our economy, as was Katrina. If you are selling me Gore would have prevented 9/11, the recession starting early 2001, or Katrina, I am all ears. Clinton inherited an economy on the up and I can’t name a large disaster on the scale of the two above that Clinton had to deal with.

• 10. Pat Cunningham  |  September 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am

  Optimistic1: In times of great crisis, Americans invariably rally around the president, no matter who it is. Even if you had been president at the time of 9/11 (God forbid), your approval ratings also would have been in the 90s. By the way, Americans also tend to rally around a president who’s getting railroaded, which is why Clinton’s approval rating hit 73 percent on the very day he was impeached by the sanctimonious Republicans in the U.S. House. It’s funny how so many of the GOPers who led the charge against Clinton were themselves adulterers and fornicators. Do the names Gingrich, Hyde and Livingston ring a bell?

• 11. Optimistic1  |  September 16th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

  Invariably is the wrong word to use Pat. During Katrina there was no rallying approval bump, it actually went down for Bush. Lots of rallying otherwise and in aid giving, but nothing good for Bush. I suspect if he and others would have blown it on 911, 90% approval rating was not in the cards 4 months post attacks, recent history as my witness.

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/12/AR2005091200668.html

  What do Perjury or Obstruction have to do with Gingrich, Hyde and Livingston? Last time I checked adultery and fornication were not impeachable offenses.

• 12. Craig Knauss  |  September 16th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

  Oblivious1,

  Since you brought up Clinton, perjury, etc., I suggest you do a little research on our aid to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and Ronald Reagan and Osama bin Laden’s involvement in it. Also, since you brought up perjury, maybe you should look at the transcripts of the Iran-Contra hearings. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were anythng but truthful in response to questions with answers like, “I don’t recall” and “I wasn’t informed.” Additionally, you may want to research why Ginrich resigned. It wasn’t because of adultery.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed