Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Preach it, Brother! Tim Mohler of Perrysburg ~ John Edwards' Town Mtg.Proves his points

Why can't liberals work with Bush?

From the Blade letters forum, April 4, Tim Mohler of Perrysburg writes:

Finally the President has realized that the liberals' agenda is to personally destroy his presidency and our nation as well. President George W. Bush has spent most of his terms giving Ted Kennedy an education bill ladened with money, increased social spending on every front, and seeking bipartisan Democrat support in hopes of generating good will.

While being called various names by Democrats and charged with trumped-up scandals, President Bush has responded with open humility and generous terms to his enemies. George Bush has drawn the line with his unwavering support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against recent attacks. The liberals will not stop with Mr. Gonzales but will, like sharks, continue to seek blood from Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, etc.

The Democratic Congress has decided once again it has the right to undermine executive privilege, knowing that many Americans understand very little about the separation of powers as stated in our Constitution. Presidents Clinton and Carter routinely fired their appointed attorneys as well.

Instead of offering the positive agenda promised with their new leadership, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seek only to further their lust for power by character assassination. I hope we will see more of President Bush's fighting spirit against these liberals.

I had hoped that the new Congress and Democratic leaders would work with the President for what is best for our nation. Instead they undermine our soldiers and economy with calls to redeploy (surrender in the war on terror) and invest more (increase taxes) and using other "terms" designed to cover their socialist anti-American agenda. author: Tim Mohler


I don't know Mr. Mohler, but I couldn't agree more with his view of Pres. Bush as a good president, unfairly maligned. It irritates me that some conservatives have distanced themselves from Bush because he DID SPEND like a democrat, and not just on the war on terrorism. He sought consensus with democrats by allocating monies for social programs like No Child Left Behind and African AIDS relief as part of his compassionate conservatism.

Some conservs have listened to polls and comedians--(whom do they poll? not me or anyone I know)--and reversed themselves on Iraq, fearing they can't get re-elected. We need better publicity on the good things in Iraq. We need eloquent people to get out there and make the case for staying the course. Instead, media focuses on a veterans hospital situation that historically has not been as good as private --because it IS gov't. -run. (Yet, even with Bush as president, there seems to be no expense spared to help our veteran amputees, et al, with high tech equipment and remedies --such that their spirits seem upbeat despite their injuries --many hoping to rejoin their units.) Conservatives need to pull together and stop taking seriously the skewed polls and comedians who comment on politics. We are not getting the facts.

I heard John Edwards speak at a town meeting on tv last night. I surely do feel sorry for his wife, having to place her health on the back burner while he runs around as glory boy--the guy who made all his millions from doctors in malpractice cases he should not have won, thus causing doc shortage in his state.

It would make a conservative gag to hear him promise that he as leader of the democrats could solve every problem in the world after blaming Geo. Bush and GOP for those problems. Edwards, like Gore, is a big energy consumer and contributor to global warming --every time he opens his mouth. He can't solve the doc shortage problem and malpractice crisis he caused, however, without tort reform, opposed by attornies like him. Instead, he wants a gov't run system with their tendencies toward problems like the VA hospitals, their need to ration as in Canada, and their 2 tiered welfare system in Europe --where you pay privately if you want the best health care.

I'm not up on the energy issues --but understand that engineers believe nuclear power is the best option--and note that other nations are going for it. A friend of mine says it was Gore (as senator? or what) who led in shutting down our nuclear power proliferation --for fear of harm to the environment --and that friends says coal burning is worse when it comes to global warming theory. He thinks there are solutions for nuclear waste managment.

In the Edwards forum, an engineer brought up the issue of nuclear energy, and Edwards blathered away about nuclear waste. You could tell the engineer wanted to enlighten him, but wasn't given another chance.

As I've said before, the liberals are maniacal about getting the presidency back, for fear of judicial appointments that will support states' rights or even federal legislation on matters of gay marriage and abortion, primarily. Affirmative action is their issue for votes from the racial minority communities.

As for IRaq: FACT--TIME magazine said 70% of the Iraqis want us to stay there, according to a poll. That's the poll we should heed --our country is under another impression based on liberal hysteria about the military deaths. (Yet, you hear them say nothing about the fact that we lose nearly as many of our youth annually to alcohol-related driving than we lost altogether in Iraq in 3 years. Liberals won't protest college-age drinking, being former MJ-smoking hippies themselves.)

I've mentioned before my nephew in Iraq --who says one Iraqi either did or wants to donate his farm, complete with camels and sheep, to the U.S. for a permanent base there. My nephew is a college grad, a writing major, and he feels progress is being made against the rebels. My neighbor's grandson is there and says the Iraqi army surely does need our help and training. Another neighbor who worked in Saudi Arabia for years said even THAT country was glad we toppled Sadam.

Iraq does need external policing because of their sectarian violence and the inexperience of their new gov't army. They also need to hear appeals regarding the value of peace and forgiveness for their children --a little more from their prophet Jesus than their prophet Mohammad.

Our departure will not bring them peace --but another Darfur for the democrats to blame on GOP. Ironically, Dems suggest we should be helping Darfur with THEIR sectarian violence --that would be like helping Iraq, I should think. We can only handle one mess at a time; a democratic, peaceful, prosperous Iraq would be an oasis in a political/religious desert.

The more I consider the long range implications, Bush's Iraq strategy could turn out to be a real blow to terrorism --if only the democrats would unite --as they promised to be uniters. We need to stay and impose order --and let them experience what it's like to live in a peaceful and free country. Otherwise, the Iraqiis will want to immigrate here in droves --from all three sects --and they'll bring their strife with them! if they don't kill each other off first --and yes, THEN ALL THE MUSLIMS WILL THINK THEY HAVE EVEN MORE REASON TO HATE US --instead of seeing that their failure to get along with their religious brothers is entirely their fault --or the fault of their inadequate religious beliefs which justify enmity and hatred and wanton killing of people just because they have different beliefs. Yet many of these Muslims rejoiced at Sadam's downfall because of his threat and cruelty to fellow Muslims.


steve said...

“Bush as a good president, unfairly maligned.”

Bush is the worst president since Herbert Hoover, incompetent and stubborn… a deadly combination.

Instead, media focuses on a veterans hospital situation that historically has not been as good as private --because it IS gov't. -run.

Walter Reed was, and is in the process of being privatized. Which is the major problem. Privatization places the welfare of shareholder profits above the needs of the troops the company is serving. As a United States Marine Corps veteran, I am very upset about this issue and I would encourage anyone thinking of joining the armed forces to seriously reconsider their decision. This country obviously thinks of you and your honorable service and sacrifice as mere chattel. This is another example of the Bush administrations incompetence. They never planned for the amount of casualties they are now dealing with, and the poor veterans are bearing the brunt of this administrations incompetence. It’s not a big deal to the average American, but I’m sure it is a very big deal to a legless, armless veteran who is suffering in some mold infested hell hole.

Personally I’ve about had it with privatization. My wife works at a nursing home, and they are constantly trying to squeeze as many people as they can into that place with minimal cost and staffing. The result is these poor old folks sitting for hours, and I mean HOURS on end in their own crap and filth because the company refuses to hire more aids because that would cut in to their profits… The VERY same dynamic that is in play at Walter Reed. Privitization isn’t all that it is cracked up to be. When the public good is at stake, in an issue such as the care of our nations veterans, then the State is in a much better position to take care of it because they will put the needs of the veterans above the need to make a profit. The only people the privatized company is accountable to is its shareholders. The state is accountable to each and every one of us because we can throw the bums out of office if they fail us, or our veterans.

“federal legislation on matters of gay marriage and abortion, primarily.”

Gay marriage and abortion… Gay marriage and abortion… When will the religious right wake up and smell the coffee and realize that the GOP is just paying lip service to your pet issues of Gay marriage and abortion. They have no plans whatsoever of challenging or legislating these moral issues. Heck, half of them are gay pedophiles anyways. Read David Kuo’s “Tempting Faith” and realize that Karl Rove and his GOP machine think you people are a bunch of “kooks” (Rove’s words – not mine).

Barb said...

He's a good, honest, and moral president. Serious in his role --unlike Bubba, the lady's man, he's no slick willie who was surrounded by death of colleagues and secret service folks --100 people in plane crashes and suicides by gun to the head --he hobnobbed with his brother's drug king pin from Arkansas; he could talk himself out of everything with bold-faced lies and accusations. His prosperous era, which was due to GOP's Contract with America accomplishments, ended in a market crash and recession due to his taxes.

Bush just lacks eloquence, and isn't good at "thinking on his feet" under the pressure of media who distort everything or take things out of context and like to magnify his verbal errors. what errors has he really made? Don't say going to Iraq because everybody had the same sources of info and thought there were WMD --knew Sadam did rejoice over 9/11 --and so the majority voted to go expecting Sadam would turn on another neighbor --and he swore to get back at us for Kuwait --so why wouldn't Sadam be expected to support terrorism every way he could? 9/11 was a terrible blow to us --why wouldn't Sadam want to get in on more such acts with Bin Ladin? Weren't they both also Sunnis? Besides, a big segment of Iraq wanted us to come sooner and deliver them from this Muslim Hitler, after Desert Storm but we decided not to go. MANY TALKING HEADS SAID THEN, that GW's father should've finished the job --finished Sadam --that we had only ignited a powder keg by leaving him in power in the middle east. sO MANY SAW invasion of Iraq as unfinished business.

Bush has surrounded himself from the beginning with many experienced people --maybe his attorney general was less so. And originally he and the military were in sync. on this mission.
Many were not new to White House governance. Most errors, however, seems to me, have been made by others, not him. And they are mostly errors magnified by the Left making mountains out of mole hills--like the attorney general firings. And blaming every GoP politician's misdeeds on the president

Plus, we are at war with some bad guys in Iraq --but have the lowest mortality rate for any war involving U.S. --not many more young adult deaths in 3 years than die of alcohol crashes in 1 year here at home. Each one a tragedy, to be sure, but that's war. We ignored terrorists before 9/11 to our detriment. Now the dems want us to be isolationists again and wait for the next attack.

As regards Iraq ahd afghanistan: the best defense is a good offense.

The biggest threat of modern times is the Fundamentalist moslem mind set. Being over there is a start at cracking their prejudices --even as a sort of occupying army. 70% are said to want us to stay and help them get on their feet --protecting them from the radicals among them.

Competition among hospitals makes them strive to be good. Profit motive means they'll want to attract patients in order to do well. Public-run institutions become ineffective bureacracies like the public school systems --another example: our state colleges with cheaters galore and people getting their research papers off line --and partying excessively --and yet graduating, supposedly equipped to do something --but so many can't find jobs for which the colleges have "prepared" them.

As for nursing homes --I don't know where your wife works, but my husband is med. director at a nursing home that is rated tops in the state and it is privately owned. rated highly by residents' families.

The ones that may be warehouseing and doing a poor job are largely taking patients for medicare alone because the patients have no money --to survive, they pack em in --if what you say is true.

Believe me, VA hospitals have a history of not being good --I heard they were getting better --private is almost always better than public --because they are competing for business.

Granted, insurance companies want to profit and sometimes do at patients' expense --and I would favor a limit on elected CEO ins. company salaries --and u. football and state school presidents' salaries. We over pay some of these heads of companies and institutions, both private and public. But the public has almost NO incentive to run itself well. Profit motive is an incentive for the private institutions.

steve said...

"what errors has he really made?"

Bush bashing is pretty pointless, but since you asked:

I believe the President is an "honorable man" just like you. But I also believe he is completely incompetent and has harmed this country almost beyond repair. Bush's main error, in my opinion, is his lack of leadership in taking hold the reins of state. He mainly delegates all responsibility to underlings who enact these disastrous policies which Bush approves of with out any foresight, governing just by "gut feeling" and knee jerk reaction. He has even said so himself how he governs: “I’m the decider”. He may be the decider, but what we need in a president is a leader, a visionary, a head of state. Not someone who merely decides and approves what other people present to him, like some kind of figurehead CEO. One of the other problems with Bush, is that he doesn’t fill his administration with people best suited to do the job in the countries interest, but with political loyalists and hacks that put the goal of maintaining political power above the best interests of the country. This sort of cronyism has proven disastrous. After the Civil war, Ulysses Grant, one of the greatest generals this country ever produced, became president. But Grant’s presidency was a failure, mainly for the same reason Bush’s presidency is a failure, because Grant packed his administration with corrupt cronies who put self interest above the countries interest during reconstruction after the civil war.

Here’s a laundry list of area’s I feel President Bush has failed the nation in no certain order:

Iraq War – a strategic blunder, which will be felt for generations to come
Abandoning the just war in Afghanistan to fight the unnecessary Iraq war, of which the President weaseled us into, because he knew the majority of Americans would not support a war on such frivolous grounds.
Outsourcing the hunt for Bin Laden during the battle of Tora Bora, allowing him to easily escape.
Tax cuts during a time of war for selfish ideological reasons, which has caused budget shortfalls that our great grandchildren will be paying for.
Not firing Rumsfeld when it was obvious his policies were counter productive in Iraq.
Allowing Cheney to take us down the moral low road with such things as: Abu Graib, Guantanamo, CIA prisons, marginalizing the Geneva conventions, allowing Torture.
The totally un-American Patriot Act, NSA Wiretaps, suspension of Habeas Corpus for American citizens found in the Military Tribunals Bill. Bush (Cheney) is basically trying to throw out the Bill of rights because it’s not convenient to his idea of a “robust executive”, or whatever the term he’s coined for it.

Conservatives always like to uphold the ideas of the ‘founding fathers”, well, here’s an idea of Benjamin Franklins which has become cliché, but is still relevant: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” How many men have given their lives for this country for the ideas of freedom? The same oath that a soldier or Marine takes is the same oath that the President takes, and that is to “support and defend the Constitution”… But President Bush has said about the constitution, “it is just a G-damn piece of paper”… A G-damn piece of paper that countless Americans have given their lives for…

Whew… Well, I’m starting to rant, so I need to take a breath and chill…Sorry about that.

steve said...

BTW, isn't John Edwards a born again believer? I think he's a United Methodist, just like president Bush. And if I remember correctly, he refused to come out and support Gay rights because it went against his personal beliefs.

Barb said...

I'll start with Edwards. Being United Methodist can mean anything --depending on the individual church. Their headquarters people have been quite liberal, skeptical of the bible, putting out material for their Sunday Schools which questioned scripture.

My church started from theirs --because of the slavery issue. They kicked out a minister who protested the slave-holding by bishops and he and those who agreed with him started a church much like the Weslyan Methodists called the Free Methodist (affiliated colleges are seattle pacific U. (WA), Greenville (IL), Spring Arbor (MI), Azusa Pacific (CA), Roberts Weslyan (Rochester, NY), Central (in McPherson, KS) --and Asbury Seminary (which is shared by conservative United methodists --their school, but FM's are very prominent there).

Some of the UM congregations were formerly the more conservative Evangelical United Brethern (Otterbein College and ?) but EUB's were already the more liberal split-off from the United Brethren in Christ (Old Constitution--Huntington College)-of which church the WRight Bros father was a bishop (as was my grandfather.) anyway, these more liberal branches of Methodist and Ev. United Brethren combined --but some of the congregations retained more allegiance to their conservative, Biblical roots than others. Joining the World Council of Churches, as UM's have done, is usually a bad sign. The Nat'l Ass'n of Evangelicals is the more conservative, bible-believing body to which the conservative, believing churches belong --those who believe in the bible, and in religious experience, the born again conversion experience.

I can never understand how a Bible- believing Christian can be a Democrat --because the party takes stands that are indefensible by the Book. To the extent that the ACLU and People for the American Way and Planned Parenthood, and Gay Lesbian Sex Education Network, No. Am. Man-Boy Love Ass'n., Hollywood hypocrites (the worst polluters via movie industry who are also those who lead our youth into temptation by their advocacy of sex and cohabitation before marriage, homosexual acts, etc.) --and also Abortion action league and Emily's List --all of these and some others dictate the agenda of the Democratic party, and I don't see how a Bible believer could vote their way.

so Edwards' testimony is compromised by his political affiliation --not to mention the way he made his money at MD's expense, driving docs and their insurance companies out of his state.

I can't understand how a woman with recurring breast cancer would want her husband on the campaign trail instead of being home holding her hand.

Bush's UM church in texas is apparently conservative in that he expressed how he BECAME a CHRISTIAN by a "change in his heart" --which made him a new person in Christ who had gotten over a drinking problem --he was attender of Bible studies.

UM aren't known for Bible studies in which they actually believe the Bible to be historically accurate--evangelicals are. So we see Bush as an evangelical, born again, Bible-believing United Methodist.

Edwards, in contrast, is a fence rider who says he personally would not condone various lifestyles, but he thinks they have a right to do wrong things in their pursuit of happiness. He thinks he can get votes from both sides that way, but it usually doesn't work.

He had a laundry list of everything that is wrong in the world and implied he could fix them by simply saying they oughtta be fixed. We ought not have failing schools, poverty, AIDS, war, risks to our privacy to fight terrorism, federal spending (HA!), lack of federal health insurance for all, threats to social security --why, just by being president, he'll make those problems go away! Never mind that his solutions are vague to non-existant.

I confess, however, I really am prejudiced against those oily southern accents of politicians --but I'll get over it with Fred Thompson.

Barb said...

I think Bush HAS led --and surrounded himself with experienced, upper level people with previous administrative and cabinet level experience --who could give experienced counsel --including Rove,Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice. Karen Hughes he brought from Texas for a term. His speech writer Mike Gerson was a Christian grad of evangelical Wheaton College(as was Billy Graham). Time or Newsweek said bush had daily Bible devotions in the white house for any who wanted to come.

Clintons, on the other hand, brought nearly their whole crew from the failed state of Arkansas and even the secret service in the White House said his adm. seemed to be in disarray all the time -with people coming and going without clearance --terrible security --disrespect for the proper decorum and dress for working in such a place --renting out the Lincoln Bedroom in exchange for campaign contributions --rose law firm files showing up in the first lady's quarters --FBI files on site that Clintons should not have had access to, firing the career travel office employees in order to bring in Arkansans. Stealing the furniture on their way out, messing up the computers and removing keyboard keys, etc. on their way out (no regard for gov't waste) Chaos --amatuer hour --and Carville, Ol' Snakehead, out there as Clinton's defender and mouthpiece. Gssssh! Not to mention all of Clinton's sordid activities --defended by his party, retaining him in office --when had they let Gore step up, he'd probably be president now.

I don't think any of Bush's cronies can be said to be corrupt --at the cabinet level. I don't think anyone intended to out Plame, e.g. Someone just meant to explain to the press how her husband happened to contradict the story about Sadam's uranium search in Africa? Did he intend, perhaps, to defend the CIA who was blamed for faulty intelligence--since she was one of them? So he says, "after all, his wife works for the CIA." I don't think there was an intention to out anyone --but to explain why Plame's husband might have contradicted the uranium story.

Whatever, I don't think anyone meant to ruin her career or cause a problem abroad with other agents. It was a bad judgment revelation to a media person --that would not have been given to the public if either the newsman or the informant had realized what was involved. An accident, i believe. Sometimes we tell things we do not want to go further --but we tell them to explain a situation so someone will understand how we see it.

Some of you wish Bush HAD been more like Powell (more liberal than Bush) --on the social issues --they parted company, so I don't think you can call him a puppet of his advisors. I think he listened a lot to the women Hughes and Rice, who are both very respectable thinkers, strategists who don't seek power for themselves--no male ego. : D

As for Rumsfeld --the call for his resignation was just Democrat strategy to blame Bush for Iraq by blaming Rummy -- Abu Graib wasn't the administration's fault. These things happen in war. I never heard for sure --DID they torture anyone to death in that prison? --or was it just extreme version of freshmen initiation, Animal House, Mad TV vulgar and coarse (unacceptable )idea of humor, all the worse for being imposed on religious fundamentalists --stooped to by troops whose immediate supervisor was either blind, absent, or stupid --which kind of people can get into military authority and commit abuses no matter whose party is in charge. That female officer looked like a dominatrix (sp?) herself.

What "frivolous grounds" took us into Iraq? --that Bush knew the people would not approve? Answer: removing Sadam, suspected by all of having WMD, the biggest threat, to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and our oil supply --which oil supply is necessary for our defense against terrorists. If they cut off our oil, I dare say we'd be crippled for awhile. It would destroy our economy.

I'm sure that Bush is as much a military strategist as most presidents who never were military heads --and relied on generals --as most presidents would.

Clinton first let Osama get away --had he captured him when he could have, there would have been no 9/11 and no us in Iraq.

Tax cuts pulled us out of recession --and thus generated MORE tax revenues than before. Granted, the war is terribly expensive --but 70 per cent of our federal spending is for ever-increasing social programs here at home, the entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, disability and Social security primarily --which neither party wants to take the blame for "fixing" because no matter what we do, it will be unpopular.)

bush has tried to fix the S.S. and Medicare problem by shifting more of it onto the seniors of the future themselves --but everyone wants the freebies that must inevitably dwindle as more and more people retire and live longer --and qualify for expensive surgeries and meds --and cost of living increases in the S.S. -- in part because our birth rate dwindles, we abort millions, and thus we lack workers and various creative types who would start new businesses and employ people to support S.s.

half a century ago, they said the defense budget was 60 or 70 % of the federal expense --and 20 percent was social programs. Now it's 70 percent for the social programs and 20 per cent for national security --yet, the latter is what the constitution says is the primary function of federal gov't.

when did bush say that about the Constitution just being a piece of paper? sounds like a dem. myth to me. I can't imagine him saying that --I CAN imagine someone saying that's what he THINKS --just because they don't like the Patriot act, etc. Show me a source for that quote.

None of the founding fathers intended that we would tie our hands such that we couldn't ferret out criminals or the bad guys in a war. Would you rather be blown up --or let the feds snoop into the activities of people who fit a certain profile for terrorists? We are into a fight for survival of our nation, i believe. And Geo Bush is far-sighted enough, also, to see what we are up against --say if Sadam would go after his neighbors and cut off our oil --if any of these nations starts major war with Israel whom we are sworn to defend --if we ignore the little boys bobbing and weaving in fundamentalist schools like the one attended by Barack Obama as a child of 2 Muslim fathers.

Do you really trust Hillary and bill with national security --when his main interest is women and hers is domestic socialism --big gov't solutions for every problem --big dependent bureaucracies sucking the life out of American business and stifling the economy?

spare me!