Do you support Bush?

[andyfox]

"I'm not talking about the Reps doing the same thing to Clinton or claiming one action is more justified than another. You're making the assumption that what I would condone for Bush I would condemn for Clinton. I'm not partisan enough for that to be the case."

I wasn't talking about your personal viewpoint. I was addressing your surmisal about why Bush might have chosen to handle things the way he did.

"HA! Yeah, because the wake of 9/11 has really stopped them in the past...."

In the wake of 9/11, the president had a 90% approval rating. The initiative authorizing the use of force breezed through Congress. The Patriot Act went through easily as well. Had Bush called in the Democratic leaders and said here's what I'm going to do, he wouldn't have had any trouble at all. It's only in the wake of the invasion of Iraq that his troubles in the polls have mounted. His 90% approval rating tumbled and he would have lost the election if John Kerry could have walked and chewed gum simultaneously.

"I realize, and as far as my personal interpretation goes, Bush didn't violate the spirit of the law."

Which law are we talking about here, FISA?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
In the wake of 9/11, the president had a 90% approval rating. The initiative authorizing the use of force breezed through Congress. The Patriot Act went through easily as well. Had Bush called in the Democratic leaders and said here's what I'm going to do, he wouldn't have had any trouble at all. It's only in the wake of the invasion of Iraq that his troubles in the polls have mounted. His 90% approval rating tumbled and he would have lost the election if John Kerry could have walked and chewed gum simultaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? What you said was that the Dems wouldn't play politics with these wiretaps "in the wake of 9/11". I took that to mean that you consider us to still be in the wake of 9/11. Regardless of why he has lost bi-partisan support, the fact remains, and you admit it here (right?), the Dems are not unwilling to play politics with something like this. I don't really see what you're trying to say, the "wake of 9/11" was your comment, not mine - my original point was that by going around the courts it's more likely that the Bush administration was trying to dodge the political heat than that they actually feared the court would reject their request.

What exactly do you think Bush was trying to hide? Do you think he was eavesdropping on teenage girls and wacking off? I'm serious though, what are you actually getting at?

I don't mean to sound confrontational, I'm just confused what your point is.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? What you said was that the Dems wouldn't play politics with these wiretaps "in the wake of 9/11". I took that to mean that you consider us to still be in the wake of 9/11. Regardless of why he has lost bi-partisan support, the fact remains, and you admit it here (right?), the Dems are not unwilling to play politics with something like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF is "playing politics", anyway? I really have little to no conception of what this means, despite how much I hear it.

...okay, that's not entirely true; I think I know what people mean when they say it, but someone humor me anyway and explain what 'playing politics' is. Feel free to PM me if this is an inappropriate thread hijack (not that this thread was very narrow to begin with, though).

[ALawPoker]

When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a fine definition.

Let's just to be clear, though: why then, do Democrats 'play politics' with the War on Terror?

Perhaps you have a different response; but the seemingly obvious answer is, of course, their base demands they oppose President Bush's policies -- that's part and parcel of legitimate politics, right? We elect leaders to enact our will? Isn't that what we hope our elected leaders do? I'm generally assuming we could cite polling data which shows an uber-majority of Democrats strongly oppose most, if not all of President Bush's policies.

So, I assume when we're eventually done with this conversation, we'll discover that the charge of 'playing politics' is esentially legitimate politics, as I have yet to hear a charge of 'playing politics' that had much substance to it -- at least, in the way that those who levy such a charge want it to; as the charge of 'playing politics' is an attempt to some attach nefarious motives to what is an essentially legitimate action.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a fine definition.

Let's just to be clear, though: why then, do Democrats 'play politics' with the War on Terror?

Perhaps you have a different response; but the seemingly obvious answer is, of course, their base demands they oppose President Bush's policies -- that's part and parcel of legitimate politics, right? We elect leaders to enact our will? Isn't that what we hope our elected leaders do? I'm generally assuming we could cite polling data which shows an uber-majority of Democrats strongly oppose most, if not all of President Bush's policies.

So, I assume when we're eventually done with this conversation, we'll discover that the charge of 'playing politics' is esentially legitimate politics, as I have yet to hear a charge of 'playing politics' that had much substance to it -- at least, in the way that those who levy such a charge want it to; as the charge of 'playing politics' is an attempt to some attach nefarious motives to what is an essentially legitimate action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said, but I disagree. Let me make sure I understand your point by putting it in simple words: Playing politics results in doing the will of what the people you represent would want done anyways, so even if it's just a game to the politicians, they end up doing what's expected of them regardless.

Is that basically what you're saying?

I would disagree with you on the basis that an elected official's job is (well, should be) to do more than reflect the raw will of the people he represents. There's a reason we don't simply have a national vote on every issue -- we didn't have a national vote to decide to go to war -- we elect officials because it is impractical for every citizen to be fully informed on every issue. Dems would oppose Reps (and vice versa) on just about everything, even without putting much thought into the issue at hand; for our elected officials to do the same thing is to surrender to partisanship. Ideally our elected officials would critically analyze each issue, but the reality is they have to stay fairly loyal to their base even when their base is in the wrong. It's too bad, because more good could be done if there wasn't partisan dead weight pulling on every issue.


This may be getting off topic now, so PM me if you see fit.

[andyfox]

No need to apologize, let me try being clearer.

I originally said, "As for the phone tapping, the administration could have accomplished whatever it wanted going through the FISA court, which has approved tens of thousands of wiretaps while rejecting only a handful. The fact that they didn't lends one to believe they have something to hide."

You replied, "Most likely it was that they knew the Dems would play politics with it if they found out the administration was requesting permission to spy. So they hoped they could get away with it."

The policy of wiretapping without getting FISA approval started, apparently, directly after 9/11. Directly after 9/11, the president got whatever he wanted. Had he gone to the congressional leadership and said, listen guys, I'm afraid we're gonna get hit again if we have to keep going to the FISA court, I'm gonna bug some guys who we know are terrorists without getting FISA approval, I'll keep you posted on what's happening, my sense is they would have gone along. The administration claims they kept the congress informed, but it's hard to tell exactly what they told them and how honest they were. Even Frist said he was told what was appropriate for him to be told. I interpret that somewhat enigmatic comment to mean that Frist knows they didn't tell him some things.

I have no idea what Bush was trying to hide. What I do know, from his comments about the wiretapping, from the attorney general's comments about inherent presidential power, and from the vice president's comments about restoring the presidency to its rightful position of power, it that they feel they can interpret the spirit of the law without honoring the letter of it.

I don't see how going around the court would be dodging political heat. There would have been no heat had they gone to the court. It's SOP, done by presidents of both parties for a long time. The only heat that would be generated would be if they didn't go to the court.