What's so great about GW?

[Roy Wilson]

Showdown Time for the Bush Haters

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

By Bill O'Reilly



Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight and happy new year from everybody here at “The Factor”. We wish you happiness, good health, and prosperity.

Well, it is showdown time for the Bush haters — that's the subject of the year's first "Talking Points Memo". As you may know, President Bush is taking a more aggressive posture towards critics of his administration. And they are legion in the media. My column posted on billoreilly.com pinpoints the problem. Some media are no longer just scrutinizing the Bush administration as we do. They are now actively trying to undermine it.

The New York Times may be suspect number one, with four rabid anti-Bush columnists, including the hateful character assassin Frank Rich. The Times has staked out a very tough position for itself. Its own public editor, Byron Calame, wrote yesterday that the paper's reporting of the NSA eavesdropping situation is questionable said, "For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor [of the Times] and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related
decision-making.I e-mailed a list of 28 questions to Bill Keller, the executive editor.He promptly declined to respond to them. I then sent the same questions to Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the publisher, who also declined to respond."

Now the controversy is over why The New York Times held the NSA story for more than a year, and why it published said story despite requests from President Bush not to.

But far more dangerous to The Times and criticism is the new Justice Department investigation into just who leaked the NSA story. If the Valerie Plame guidelines are followed, Times reporters and editors might have to give up sources or go to prison, just as Times reporter Judith Miller did in the Plame fiasco.

"Talking Points" understands the NSA story is exceedingly difficult. And it deals with your right to know about how the Bush administration is waging the war on terror versus national security.

In the weeks to come, we'll cover the story in a fair and balanced way, even giving the benefit of the doubt to The New York Times.
But there is no doubt, ladies and gentlemen that The Times has been unfair in its coverage of the Bush White House. And the paper also routinely uses personal attacks to hurt people with whom it disagrees. If that does not stop, Bill Keller and Frank Rich to name the two main culprits, will not have a happy new year. As they say in the auction world, fair warning.

As far as the NSA story is concerned, there seem to be valid arguments on both sides. And I don't know at this point who's right. I do know the debate is important.

So summing up for 2006, robust debate is in, personal attacks are out.

And that is "The Memo."

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

As you know, my bloviation quotient is off the chart. I do three hours of analysis every week day: two on the radio, one on TV. With that much verbiage I'm going to make mistakes and misstatements. And when I do, the far left smear Web sites are going to headline them. That's the game they play. But mistakes are mistakes, and they must be corrected. A couple of weeks ago I said the unemployment rate in Mexico is 40 percent. That's wrong. The poverty rate is 40 percent. I misspoke.

Now, The New York Times was kind enough to point out the mistake and then reporter Simon Romero wrote the Mexican unemployment rate is, "closer to four percent". That, of course, is nonsense.

The Mexican government puts that [statistic] out, neglecting to define any standards of the stat. The truth is, the Mexican economy is a disaster, with per capital income a quarter of what it is here in the USA, which is why millions of Mexicans are willing to come here illegally and work brutally hard.

Mr. Romero printed Mexican stats without context. Might be ridiculous but so was my mistake.

[goldeneye]

Here's another headscratcher courtesy of the Bush administration...

IBAF threatens to revoke sanctioning of Classic

NEW YORK -- Baseball's world governing body has threatened to withdraw its sanctioning of the World Baseball Classic unless the Bush administration allows Cuba to compete...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2283232

Participants:

Australia
Canada
China
Chinese Taipei
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
Panama
Puerto Rico
South Africa
USA
Venezuela

Chinese communist / authoritarian government = good

Cuban communist / authoritarian government = bad

[Roy Wilson]

US has sanctions on Cuba , not China. Even a 6 year old knows that.

[JBG]

US has sanctions on Cuba , not China. Even a 6 year old knows that.

Based on Goldeneye's posts directed at me, maybe IT doesn't.

[goldeneye]

US has sanctions on Cuba , not China. Even a 6 year old knows that.

My 6 year old just told me to ask why the US does not have sanctions on China.

[Roy Wilson]

US has sanctions on Cuba , not China. Even a 6 year old knows that.

My 6 year old just told me to ask why the US does not have sanctions on China.

Tell him/ her to look it up for you.

[goldeneye]

US has sanctions on Cuba , not China. Even a 6 year old knows that.

My 6 year old just told me to ask why the US does not have sanctions on China.

Tell him/ her to look it up for you.

Not to worry. He told me to tell you it was a rhetorical question. Can you spell rhetorical, kids?

R - H - E - T - O - R - I - C - A - L.

Tomorrow's word of the day:

Doublethink:

D-O-U-B-L-E-T-H-I-N-K.

"the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies"

[Nemo2]

Realpolitik.

[Roy Wilson]

Go





Somewhere else

[goldeneye]

Realpolitik.

We already have a word for tomorrow, Nemo. And for the most part, they mean the same thing.

[Red Green]

The Cuban embargo dates back to the Kennedy administration and not one administration since then has sought diligently to revoke the sanctions against Cuba. Now there can be something said for the double standard that the US has used on Cuba vs. other communists countries, but in reality this is a legacy that will probably only die with Castro.

I guess what I am saying is there is a lot of negative things you can say about the Dubya administration, this situation is not particularly unique to his administration, nor is it that important in the grand scheme of things.

[goldeneye]

The Cuban embargo dates back to the Kennedy administration and not one administration since then has sought diligently to revoke the sanctions against Cuba. Now there can be something said for the double standard that the US has used on Cuba vs. other communists countries, but in reality this is a legacy that will probably only die with Castro.

I guess what I am saying is there is a lot of negative things you can say about the Dubya administration, this situation is not particularly unique to his administration, nor is it that important in the grand scheme of things.

Actually, not allowing Cuba to participate seems consistent with current U.S. policy. Allowing China is not. Both in, or both out I can reconcile. However, allowing one but not the other reeks of double-standards and political cowardice.

Ironic that baseball, America's game, would choose to take a stand against this ruling.

[Roy Wilson]

Transcript: Bush's Weekly Radio Address

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Good morning.

As we begin 2006, we are hearing more good news about the American economy. This week we learned that our economy added 108,000 jobs in December and has added over 400,000 jobs in the last two months. Our unemployment rate is now 4.9 percent, lower than the average rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

Our economy grew at more than 4 percent in the third quarter of 2005, and it has been growing at nearly that rate for two years. Productivity is high, consumers are confident, and more Americans now own their homes than at any time in our Nation's history.

To keep our economy strong and secure the American Dream for future generations, leaders in Washington must make sound decisions. And one of the best decisions we made since I took office was to cut your taxes, so you could keep more of your hard-earned money to save and spend as you see fit.

We lowered tax rates to let workers keep more of their paychecks. We doubled the child credit. We reduced the marriage penalty. We also cut taxes on dividends and capital gains, and we created incentives for small businesses to invest in new equipment so they could expand and create new jobs.

Some people in Washington said these tax cuts would hurt the economy. The day the House voted for tax relief in May 2003, one Democratic leader declared it a "reckless and irresponsible tax plan that will undermine opportunity in our country." Since those words were spoken, our economy has added more than 4.6 million new jobs for the American people.

Unfortunately, just as we're seeing new evidence of how our tax cuts have created jobs and opportunity, some people in Washington are saying we need to raise your taxes. They want the tax cuts to expire in a few years, or even repeal the tax cuts now.

In either case, they want you to get a big tax hike. If we allow that to happen, a family of four making $50,000 would see their federal income taxes go up by nearly 50 percent. Inaction by the Congress will mean a tax increase on the American people.

When you hear people in Washington say we don't need to make the tax relief permanent, what they're really saying is they're going to raise your taxes. To keep our economy growing, we need to ensure that you keep more of what you earn, and Congress needs to make the tax cuts permanent. Our economy is also strong because we've been wise with taxpayers' dollars.

We've now cut the rate of growth in non-security discretionary spending each year I've been in office. Working with Congress, last year we ended or reduced about 90 low-priority or poorly performing government programs, cut non-security discretionary spending, and stayed on track to meet our goal of cutting the federal deficit in half by 2009.

The bigger challenge to our budget is long-term deficits driven by mandatory spending or entitlements.

We can solve this problem: We do not need to cut entitlements, but we do need to slow their growth. When Congress returns from its recess, it has an opportunity to show its commitment to controlling entitlement spending.

Before members of the House and Senate left Washington, they agreed to rein in future spending on entitlements by nearly $40 billion. Now Congress needs to finish its work on this important bill. By passing the first reduction in the growth of entitlement spending in nearly a decade, Congress will send a clear signal that the people's representatives can be good stewards of the people's money.

As we work to keep your taxes low and restrain federal spending, we have other challenges to address. A growing economy requires secure and affordable sources of energy, free and fair trade, legal reform and regulatory reform, and a health care system where workers can find affordable care. And we must ensure that all Americans get a good education, so they will have the skills they need for the jobs of the 21st century.

In the months ahead we will work on all these issues. By making choices that reward hard work and enterprise, we will keep the American economy prosperous and strong and guarantee opportunity for generations to come.

Thank you for listening.

[JBG]

The Cuban embargo dates back to the Kennedy administration and not one administration since then has sought diligently to revoke the sanctions against Cuba. Now there can be something said for the double standard that the US has used on Cuba vs. other communists countries, but in reality this is a legacy that will probably only die with Castro.

I guess what I am saying is there is a lot of negative things you can say about the Dubya administration, this situation is not particularly unique to his administration, nor is it that important in the grand scheme of things.

Actually, not allowing Cuba to participate seems consistent with current U.S. policy. Allowing China is not. Both in, or both out I can reconcile. However, allowing one but not the other reeks of double-standards and political cowardice.

Ironic that baseball, America's game, would choose to take a stand against this ruling.

For whatever reason, I suppose the "realpolitik" that prevailed from approximately 1970-80, the PRC is a country we recognize and have diplomatic relations with. Cuba is not.

Similar to Canada's recognition of Israel. The government, on an official level, despises Israel, but Israel gets "country treatment" by Canada, as does China.

[J.B. Stone]

The Cuban embargo dates back to the Kennedy administration and not one administration since then has sought diligently to revoke the sanctions against Cuba. Now there can be something said for the double standard that the US has used on Cuba vs. other communists countries, but in reality this is a legacy that will probably only die with Castro.

I guess what I am saying is there is a lot of negative things you can say about the Dubya administration, this situation is not particularly unique to his administration, nor is it that important in the grand scheme of things.

Actually, not allowing Cuba to participate seems consistent with current U.S. policy. Allowing China is not. Both in, or both out I can reconcile. However, allowing one but not the other reeks of double-standards and political cowardice.

Ironic that baseball, America's game, would choose to take a stand against this ruling.

For whatever reason, I suppose the "realpolitik" that prevailed from approximately 1970-80, the PRC is a country we recognize and have diplomatic relations with. Cuba is not.

Similar to Canada's recognition of Israel. The government, on an official level, despises Israel, but Israel gets "country treatment" by Canada, as does China.

Who gives a big rat's patootie if Cuba plays baseball or not...????

As for China...it DOES seem pretty STUPID for us to be financing their military buildup and selling our "debt" to them so that they can use the two effects to ATTACK us at some point in the near future.

The HELL with wearing Nikes.....

I just wish WalMart would stock their shelves with AMERICAN goods....even CANADIAN [in a pinch].

~~~~~

The "blame it all on Bush" crowd is exceeding near sighted in this respect.

It's as if no "back door deals" were ever initiated with ANY country prior to 2000.

????????

I can't even "entertain" the crapola from THAT quarter....except to observe that the folks in that mindset actually BELIEVE the BS they spew without end.

We have who we have.

I thank GOD every time I consider what kind of straights we'd be in NOW if Al Boregasm or John Effing Kerry had been elected.

Now...if we could just plug up our borders for a week or two......