Those who voted for Bush in 2004--have you become disappointed with him?

[Boris Godunov]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/

On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an ''undeleted" copy of his ''complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe.

And, surprise surprise, the records show that the Swiftboat Vets were full of complete ****.

[Ned]

He has been way to apolitical since the election. But that speech the other day where he went after the do-nothing obstructionists also known as the Democrats did a lot to restore my confidence in Bush.

[Boris Godunov]

Funny how the Repugs control all branches, yet he accuses the Dems of "obstructionism." No, the problem is that he's such a lame duck that he can't keep his own party in line, and his plummeting popularity (41-42% approval rating in latest polls) is allowing congressional Republicans to thumb their nose at his extremism, i.e. the vote to curb the Patriot Act.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Funny how the Repugs control all branches, yet he accuses the Dems of "obstructionism." No, the problem is that he's such a lame duck that he can't keep his own party in line, and his plummeting popularity (41-42% approval rating in latest polls) is allowing congressional Republicans to thumb their nose at his extremism, i.e. the vote to curb the Patriot Act.

You either absolutely do not understand how the Senate operates, or you are pointly ignoring the facts. Which is is?

[Boris Godunov]

Ned, the Repubs have a 55-45 majority in the Senate. Now, unless you're claiming the "obstructionist" Dems are filibustering everything (which they aren't), then I scarcely see that you have a point. My point is that without considerable held from the Republicans, the Dems wouldn't be able to "obstruct" much at all.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Ned, the Repubs have a 55-45 majority in the Senate. Now, unless you're claiming the "obstructionist" Dems are filibustering everything (which they aren't), then I scarcely see that you have a point. My point is that without considerable held from the Republicans, the Dems wouldn't be able to "obstruct" much at all.

They are blocking a lot, Boris. The energy bill has been pending 4 years without a vote, just for example.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Maybe if more people like Bush, the public would demand the Dems not filibuster. But Bush's approval rating is in the crapper, so they like seeing the Dems frustrate him.

[Boris Godunov]

What have the Dems filibustered, Ned?

How much have they blocked as opposed to let pass? Keep in mind Bush has gotten nearly every judicial nominee he had.

Bush's failure to get his stuff passed is his in many ways his own fault and that of his party. His "political capital," as he put it, is dead. It doesn't help that he keeps offering extreme legislation and threatens to veto it if congress even changes it some.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What have the Dems filibustered, Ned?

How much have they blocked as opposed to let pass? Keep in mind Bush has gotten nearly every judicial nominee he had.

Bush's failure to get his stuff passed is his in many ways his own fault and that of his party. His "political capital," as he put it, is dead. It doesn't help that he keeps offering extreme legislation and threatens to veto it if congress even changes it some.

Any Senator can effectively filibuster legislation by putting a hold on it. Frist has been unusually tolerant of Democrat obstructionism IMHO. I really wish we had a better leader that could take the Dems to the woodshed on a daily basis.

[Boris Godunov]

How many holds have the Dems put on Bush legislation so far, Ned?

[Ned]

Boris, I have no details. But it is true that they blocked the Energy Bill forever. We also know about the judicial nominees. Now they are delaying the UN ambassador's nomination.

But what really set Bush off is their plain lack of cooperation on Social Security. They have no plan of their own, and refuse to discuss anything with the Republicans. Given their blocking power in the Senate, Democrat support is needed to go forward.

So, here we sit. Nothing on Energy. Nothing on Social Security. And, appointments blocked.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, I have no details. But it is true that they blocked the Energy Bill forever.

That was in 2003, a different congress. And guess what? Seven Republicans joined the Dems on that, including Bill Frist. THAT OBSTRUCTIONIST!

Besides, you're wrong on "forever." I found articles from this month about plans to revive the plan:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/15/politics/main702093.shtml

Where did you get "forever?"

We also know about the judicial nominees.

Out of all of Bush's nominees, how many have been blocked, Ned? And how does that compare to the nominees or Clinton blocked by the GOP?

Now they are delaying the UN ambassador's nomination.

Hmm, and I seem to remember the concerns over him coming from Republicans like Voinovich...

But what really set Bush off is their plain lack of cooperation on Social Security. They have no plan of their own, and refuse to discuss anything with the Republicans. Given their blocking power in the Senate, Democrat support is needed to go forward.

Maybe that's because the American public, by a more than 2-1 margin, thinks W's SS plan is **** and don't want them to touch it. Why should the Dems be offering anything when it's not in the dire straits the GOP like to claim?

So, here we sit. Nothing on Energy. Nothing on Social Security. And, appointments blocked.

None of which has solely been the Dems doing. If Bush was remotely effective at producing good legislation and getting his party to cooperate with him, it wouldn't be this way. Now Senate Republicans have quietly asked the White House to plan an exit strategy for the SS issue.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

IS this polll for the 2004 or 2000 election.

I voted for him in 2000 b/c well he wasn't Gore.

I didn't vote for him in 2004, but likewise didn't vote for Kerry. Anyone but Kerry. woot woot!


And yes I would say I am dissapointed in him and would not vote for him. But it will likely be a cold day in hell before I vote for a Demonrat.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/

And, surprise surprise, the records show that the Swiftboat Vets were full of complete ****.

I'll be much more impressed when other news sources other than his local buddies are allowed unfettered access to the docs.

[Joseph]

I will not pay money to read the Boston paper.