SOB:

While I hope the Democrats will do everything to stall and thwart this agenda, I am okay with Bush trying to still be Bush.

Apparently he hasn’t figured out that America has rejected the same old Bush. That’s fine. There’s another election coming up in 2008 and I don’t want the electorate to get any false ideas about who these people are, what they really intend to do.

No doubt it gets him accolades from his base, but playing to his base is a losing game, now that reasonable moderates have woken to his schtick.

SOB: Same old bastard.

Spot-on Luis! I was disgusted when I heard Bush reading his list of all the things to be done–the same old rip-off we:ve been getting these past six years. Where does he get the brass? I know ‘the Presisdent proposes’ but I couldn’t help but note the complete lack of humility, not to say apparent incomprehension of the changed order. As many people have noted, he’s really not smart enough to be President. We’re on a roll–let’s go for impeachment.

What is he lying about???

There’s no point in disagreeing some of the agenda that still needs to be resolved are Republican initiatives. You’re absolutely right about that. That doesn’t mean the parties can’t work together on them. So Bush reaching out is not a lie. Boy, you people blasting Bush every chance you get must be the most unsympathetic bunch around. You have no reverence for the difficulties the job holds for a President.

Just today, a supposed al-Qaida tape is threatening to blow up the White House. The British Intelligence have found at least 30 plots. With all of these things going on, I think President Bush knows when to play politics and when to bury the hatchet. Hopefully you who Bush can try to follow in Pelosi’s lead and do the same. This country needs real action. Divisive politics is only a distraction.

What is he lying about???About being bipartisan. Duh. That’s the whole point of the entry.
There’s no point in disagreeing some of the agenda that still needs to be resolved are Republican initiatives.You are assuming here that the things Bush is trying to get passed are inarguably reasonable and should be passed, like needlessly subverting the Constitution or appointing an irrational, U.N.-hating hothead to be our international representative and ambassador. I beg to differ.
That doesn’t mean the parties can’t work together on them. So Bush reaching out is not a lie.Are you not paying attention to what this is all about? Bush is not “reaching out” by trying to get a collection of conservative issues passed in the lame duck remainder of the session. He’s trying to get the Republican congress to pass his partisan agenda before the Democrats take over. That’s not “reaching out,” that’s trying to cut the Democrats out. He’s trying to force through his nth ultra-conservative agenda package before the will of the voters aces him out.

Were Bush truly bipartisan, he would not be attempting to cram through a host of issues he knows will piss off the other side, just moments after he met with the other side and promised to work hand-in-hand with them. Instead, he would be bringing forth these issues directly with both sides respectfully, and working out compromises and agreements that would fully represent the will of the people–not just a plate full of right-wing delicacies that anger 57% of the voters. He would be presenting a sheaf of issues that both sides could agree on, not his pet projects he knows he’d have to fight tooth and nail for, and would have to make concessions for if he wanted them passed in a bipartisan atmosphere.

You might claim that Bush is acting on his concerns or even doing what he thinks is right or best–but to claim he is being “bipartisan” or that he is “reaching out” with a blatantly right-wing last-minute lame-duck agenda push is laughably wrong.

“What is he lying about?”

Howabout “the United States doesn’t commit torture.” (maybe he hasn’t seen the photographs yet). Or howabout “Rumsfeld will stay on until the end of his term” or “The prescription drug benefit will only cost $250 billion dollars” or the 23 different official excuses for invading Iraq.

Uhm, the only time Bush lies is when he exhales. When he inhales, he’s telling the truth, but when he exhales, he lies.

Boy, you people blasting Bush every chance you get must be the most unsympathetic bunch around.

About as sympathetic as ‘swiftboating’ Max Cleland, a triple amputee, or making fun of Michael J. Fox. What republican’s lack in honesty they more than make up for in sympathy.

Yeah, “duh”. I gotcha.

That “U.N. hating hothead” is the best thing this country has going for it right now. We need someone who can stand up to the U.N. so we can actually get things accomplished. The U.N. is notorious for wishy-washy mixed signals, like agreeing to resolutions condemning rogue nations and then not following through on their promises to take action. They don’t follow through. They’re good for spotlighting humanitarian issues, and that’s about as far as they should go.

The United States supports the U.N. quite well, and so we should have good representation there. Bolton is the sort of ambassador who will fight ongoing corruption there. If Bolton receives a second recess appointment, he won’t get paid. Nonetheless, if the Democratic congress blocks confirmation, I hope the president does it.

I have never said Bush’s policies and initiatives are “inarguable.” But I do think most are “reasonable.” The detainee policies and the NSA program are necessary to make sure we are all safe, and to get as much information about our enemies in order to find them and prevent attacks. What’s the alternative? To let them plot, to let them be free to mock civilian courts and kill more of us. Obviously, that’s what you advocate. If you think such a policy would make us safer, then you’re delusional. You may say “But we need proper oversight.” And you’d be correct. You may say “I take issue with certain details in these policies.” Fine. But to claim these tools have no positive impact is to deny that there are enemies who want to attack us again. Maybe you’ll call that a scare tactic. Well, that’s true only if there isn’t a threat out there. And it’s true if you believe leaving Iraq will bring immediate and lasting peace. But you’d be twice wrong.

Bush saying he wants to work with the Democrats and his urging legislation with congress at this moment does not necessarily mutually exclude each other. When the Democrats get in, he’ll have to work with them. But they’re not in yet, and this will probably be his last chance to get certain bills passed. He’s just being practical and smart, that’s all. And why not? All accounts indicate he is going to have problems with this incoming congress. Nancy Pelosi promised we’re going to have the least corrupt congress in history. So then why is she endorsing the corruption-embattled John Murtha for Number 2 Democrat? Who, by the way, said he wanted to withdraw troops _yesterday_ from Iraq. Incredibly irresponsible, Murtha and Pelosi both. Even some Democrats were quoted as saying they were “puzzled” (not my word, that’s the Wash. Post) by her decision.

But once the new congress is sworn in, the president and the Democrats will have to work hand-in-hand. The Dems can’t override any vetos, but Bush will likely face resistance against his agenda. They don’t WANT to work hand-in-hand, but they’ll have to. Thanks, very much, duh. I thought I was being civil.