GOP Giving up on George Bush?

[SLCPUNK]

First indication: John Gibson, the pencil-headed dipshit who runs a rightwing attack show on Fox lets Bush have it:

Thursday, October 27, 2005
By John Gibson

Have the Republicans given up on George Bush ?


I think there is a reasonable case to be made that the president is done. He's a lame duck. He's a caretaker until the country elects somebody else.

I saw one of the grandees of the Sunday morning political talk show business Thursday saying Bush has a bunch of bad news this week, and next week he can start his second term fresh.

Wow. And this particular grandee is a liberal.

Maybe he's right. But I think W. has been hurt and hurt bad.

I've said this before, so I'll repeat it without belaboring it.

Bush should never have stopped talking about the war. Even after the election, he should have kept it up. Instead, he started talking Social Security and that rated lower than a White Sox World Series.

When he was talking about retirement, the Dems went on complaining about the war and peeled off a bunch of Bush's war support.

Then there were the hurricanes named Katrina, Rita, Harriet and Karl. All bad stuff.

Maybe it does end this week with Friday's indictments of whoever.

But maybe it doesn't. Maybe the political enemies have the chance to get in close now and really land some blows.

If Karl Rove (search) is gone all the time meeting with his defense team, maybe Bush is left exposed.

And the real question is, which Republican candidates in '06 are going to want a campaign appearance with the president?

Frankly, I can't think of any. I could be wrong but it seems to me the Republicans all want daylight between them and the president on something: the war, gas prices, drug benefits. Something.

I'm also having a hard time imagining someone running for the Republican nomination for president by standing next to George W. Bush and saying, "I'm going to continue the Bush era. I stand with the president on the conduct of the war in Iraq. I am for the things he was for."

If the president is going to be president, he has to reassert control over the political agenda and give Republicans a good reason to be back on his side ? really on his side.

That's My Word.

Watch John Gibson weekdays

[D]

So now u like John Gibson?

U are right though, whoever the Republican nominee is better stay as far away from Bush as he can.

I kind of hope they dont cause Id really love to see Hillary become president and she can use all the help she can get, so I hope some dipshit republican comes out and supports Bush 100 percent.

I am a democrat, Ive voted Democrat every election, only thing I disagree with other democrats about is the war.

Not that it was a bad war from the beginning, only that its now an obligation right or wrong.

Ill never agree with left wingers about O Reilly either but I dont like Bush, I think he has been a horrible president but the only thing thats gonna stop Bush is his term ending.

[Booker Floyd]

the only thing thats gonna stop Bush is his term ending.

Most likely.  However the possibility of something major endangering his presidency, however unlikely, is possible.  If this president was investigated as intensely as President Clinton was, I suspect bigger issues than this leak would be uncovered.

[Walk]

Fixing social security is probably Bush's best agenda. Axe that program and let the people choose how to invest their own money! I can't believe how unpopular this seems. Most people want the government to handle their money instead of themselves! 

Liberalism is a contagious disease that needs to be disinfected. It's no wonder basic economic ideas aren't taught in public schools, or else the average citizen might realize how big of a rip-off social security is. Liberals want consumerism so more Ipods and designer clothes can be sold. We conservatives want personal responsibility and independence. Social security's rate of return won't even beat inflation, and people who die before they retire don't get what they saved up their whole life for. It's a negative rate of return; that's a failure in investment.

Bush will be recognized for his great foresight and wisdom in about 10 years when the oil crash starts to really heat up. Without our oil, we're hopeless. Democrats could earn an ounce of respect from me if only they encouraged nuclear power as an alternative. But no, they want solar power and other pipe dreams that will never happen. Bush is actually giving us an energy resource for the future of this nation. He might face low poll numbers now, but history is on Bush's side.

[SLCPUNK]

So now u like John Gibson?

U are right though, whoever the Republican nominee is better stay as far away from Bush as he can.

I don't care for the guy no.

But the article is important because it shows his "base" getting fed up with Bush.

Most likely. However the possibility of something major endangering his presidency, however unlikely, is possible. If this president was investigated as intensely as President Clinton was, I suspect bigger issues than this leak would be uncovered.

The investigation is on going. Fitz does not seem like the sort of guy to launch something without having all his bases covered. Listening to him was like watching an episode of Dragnet; clean, thorough, and to the point.

Do I think Bush is "on the way out"? Of course not. Do I think the liars in the White House are being rounded up? Yup.

[D]

I dont like his social security policy at all.

It befuddles me how the US cant afford healthcare or Social Security, but can come up with Trillions of dollars for whatever war they wanna go to.

Just makes no sense at all.

I say leave Social Security like it is, I mean its hard enough for people to get as it is and do something about the healthcare.

My dad has no blood circulating to his feet, he needs stints put into his thighs so he can get blood flowing down there BUT he cant afford it.

What kind of country do we live in where we can help with trillions of dollars to other countries but yet cant provide for our own.

Makes me sick

Ill vote for whoever is for this democrat,republican,independent,whoever.

[RichardNixon]

Social Security shouldn't be touched! What if you invest your money poorly? Elderly people and people who are retiring need something that they can count on.

[Walk]

Did you catch the bit where I mentioned the negative rate of return? A simple savings account would be better. Leaving the money in a hole somewhere would be better! Social security takes more than it gives.

[Booker Floyd]

Did you catch the bit where I mentioned the negative rate of return?

Did you catch this bit, out of curiosity?

[Prometheus]

Democrats could earn an ounce of respect from me if only they encouraged nuclear power as an alternative. But no, they want solar power and other pipe dreams that will never happen. Bush is actually giving us an energy resource for the future of this nation. He might face low poll numbers now, but history is on Bush's side.

ok first and engery resource for the future.....oil I take it. That is the engery resource of the past and the present, but not the future! Now i do agree on you with the nuke power, there should be more plants in the design phase now and ground breaking in 2yrs..... but there are not, however on this note I would rather not build based on current technology for Nuke reactors, and take a page from India and assist in investment with them on there new reacotrs they are designing and building over the next 15yrs. these are very very very clean. The first commercially operated reactor will be online in 2-3 yrs, so a best bet would be to allow this to operate for 2 yrs and then build your own because then some of the kinks will be worked out of the process and the next generation designs will be coming through research, and build them. (i have posted on this type of reactor b4 cant remeber the name of the thread but if you want you can look it up).

Now onto solar power; it is one of the less effective engery production technologies that are currently being deployed as "green" engery. However the standard '90s era photoelectric cell is no longer the main stay in production. This style is expensive to make and is only 25-45% effecient at best. There is a new production technique that costs only 30% of the amount it would take to create teh former photoelectric cells. This new design is actualy "printed" on fabrics and are 45-55% effecient, as you can see you can use the same funding and create the 70% more cells with a 10% boost in effcienty.

Tidal and wind generation is really where we should be looking for intern steps for agumenting current power production. If this was done then current plants can maintan operation untill the new techs come down the pipe and are comercial capable.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Social Security shouldn't be touched! What if you invest your money poorly? Elderly people and people who are retiring need something that they can count on.

By 2041 there will be nothing left to count on if Social Security isn't touched, thats the whole point! It was set up in the 1930's when people were not living as long as they are today. Giving people the option of investing part of their earnings in a safe investment is not a bad idea.

[Walk]

Now onto solar power; it is one of the less effective engery production technologies that are currently being deployed as "green" engery. However the standard '90s era photoelectric cell is no longer the main stay in production. This style is expensive to make and is only 25-45% effecient at best. There is a new production technique that costs only 30% of the amount it would take to create teh former photoelectric cells. This new design is actualy "printed" on fabrics and are 45-55% effecient, as you can see you can use the same funding and create the 70% more cells with a 10% boost in effcienty.

That's not a 10% boost, man. ~30% to ~45% is a 50% improvement. If this is true (I doubt it), it's good news. A 50% improvement is very significant. Still, there's a limit to how much energy we can get out of the sun. This would only be useful in the future when energy prices get extremely high.

Tidal and wind generation is really where we should be looking for intern steps for agumenting current power production. If this was done then current plants can maintan operation untill the new techs come down the pipe and are comercial capable.

Tidal generation sucks. It impacts the environment negatively, if that bothers you, and it doesn't generate much power at all. It generates very, very little power compared to the cost. Hydroelectric power isn't good at all in general because it hurts the immediate environment (costing fishing jobs, for example) and the power could just as easily come from coal plants. Coal > water.

Wind power's the interesting one. However, windmills are noisy and some people think they're somehow ugly. They're expensive, too, at current energy prices. We can't really use windmills effectively yet, but they're the best looking alternative for the far future. Not for this generation, though.

[*Izzy*]

I thought this said GOD Giving up on George Bush

[SLCPUNK]

Social Security shouldn't be touched! What if you invest your money poorly? Elderly people and people who are retiring need something that they can count on.

By 2041 there will be nothing left to count on if Social Security isn't touched, thats the whole point!

This is a false statement sold to you by the neo cons. That is the point.

[SLCPUNK]

Social Security shouldn't be touched! What if you invest your money poorly? Elderly people and people who are retiring need something that they can count on.

It's what the fat cats want you to do: give them your money.

You think the average person has any fuckin' clue how to invest their money in this country? Nearly one million people had to pay their income taxes with credit cards last year.

They are gonna watch MSNBC in their underpants and try to time the market....yea right!

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Social Security shouldn't be touched! What if you invest your money poorly? Elderly people and people who are retiring need something that they can count on.

By 2041 there will be nothing left to count on if Social Security isn't touched, thats the whole point!

This is a false statement sold to you by the neo cons. That is the point.

That is what I am hearing and it makes sense. If the ratio of working people to retirees increases, the money will run out. Pretty straightforward. Can you show proof this is not the case?

[SLCPUNK]

Social Security shouldn't be touched! What if you invest your money poorly? Elderly people and people who are retiring need something that they can count on.

By 2041 there will be nothing left to count on if Social Security isn't touched, thats the whole point!

This is a false statement sold to you by the neo cons. That is the point.

That is what I am hearing and it makes sense. If the ratio of working people to retirees increases, the money will run out. Pretty straightforward. Can you show proof this is not the case?

I'm asking you to read more.

Even if the Social Security trust would be drained down to zero, the revenues alone would cover 80 % of the benefits (Congressional Budget Office is my source.) It can't just simply go "bankrupt" as he would like you to believe.

The private sector is drooling at the very prospect of getting their hands on this money. If they took over SS now it  their operating costs alone would eat up a nice portion of it. What is in Social Security funds now? Maybe 100 billion? As soon as wallstreet gets a hold of that, you are talking about 5 billion going in their pockets for mgt fees etc. This is a big fuckin' lie to help nobody but insurance companies and bankers. Not to mention current retirees would have their money cut drastically to cover these expenses.

Congressional Budget Office (bipartison I may add) also stated that to continue Social Security into 22cd century would equal .50 of GDP, which would be a helluva lot less than we are spending in Iraq! I can tell you that much right now.

You are going to tell me that after 60 years plus of trouble free operation that all of a sudden there is a "crisis"?

Just like there was WMD huh?

[Doc Emmett Brown]

Do I think Bush is "on the way out"? Of course not. Do I think the liars in the White House are being rounded up? Yup.

But my worry is that Libby will take the blame for Cheney, and Rove will manage to slime away.

You can read the official indictment of Libby here: http://www.antiwar.com/rep2/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf - it's mentions the Office of the Vice President numerous times, but Libby is taking the heat.

The funny thing to me, is to search the backwaters of The Jungle for previous threads about the Nigerian/Iraq uranium scandal in light of the current indictment of Libby.

In this thread: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=13827.0, there was a link to a Washington Post article about Nigerian yellowcake.  It is dated July 10 2004.  When I read it, it was confusing because it would see-saw between saying that the alleged documents were false and saying that Wilson did find evidence of Iraq wanting to buy uranium from Niger.

Well today I read the same article again, and there is a Correction on the side (undated).  It says:

In some editions of the Post, a July 10 story on a new Senate report on intelligence failures said that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV told his contacts at the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that was interested in making that purchase, but no contract was signed, according to the report.


Even if the GOP drops Bush, and resort to the "In hindsight, this was a bad idea" schpiel, it doesnt hurt them IMO.  They just have to find a new man to annoint, and another bad guy.   Iran is definitely a worrisome country, so all they have to do now is find a replacement for Bush.

[Prometheus]

Well Walki spent the last 30 mins searching for the particular site that i had found this info from ages ago to no avail. the numbers that were used were based on reduced manufacturing costs from new techniques used in the process, and the way that the PV cells are made them seleves. The remainder of the effeciancy that I was speaking of was based on cost break downs of water heating, where the electricty production of the cell may only be up to 22% the remainder of the loss is in heat engery which is used to heat the household water or the structure itself. here is a link to somethigns that have been looked at in Alberta in regards to structural heating by solar engery. http://www.arc.ab.ca/Index.aspx/ARC/7195


Now for the wind Power side; I did find an article from 2 doctors concerened about the effects of the low freq sound on the human body. I was aware that there had been a few studies though I was not aware of any long term studies in a controled enviroment to show that it is this and not some other enviromental aspect which causes it. http://pei.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=pe_wind20030106 .

I was rather curious of your statement about how the price of wind power is far too high for this generation, yet $2.00/gallon is not too high? or here $1.07/Liter is not too expensive? if you really look at it, wind power generation has dropped from 25 cents per kWh to approx 4-6 cents in the last 10 years (canadian funds). In Prince Edward Island there is currently a Wind project underway which has a total of 8 mills and it produces enough power for 2,500 homes, and over and above the normal rate, it costs customers an extra $7.50/month for clean engery or $90.00/yr or $72.00 USD/yr. Cost prohibations are hogwash and being as you are, and wanting to see more onous being placed on the individual citizen wouldn't a program such as what is being done in "Liberal" Canada something that would intrest conservative US?

We also know that in a free market economy like yours and ours as production increases then the cost starts to fall so if a continent wide program was introduced the cost of wind power would most likely become cheaper then that of standard power production. Even without this as more and more areas of canada start to branch out and grow this industry the costs will slowly fall for the US. For that matter for an extra $6.00USD / month a cleaner engery source could be had.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2002/01/04/Consumers/PEIwindpower_020104.html


http://pei.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=pe-wind200411220

these above links are for the current and expansion project taking place in PEI.


and a little pause for you. In the US if every home had its area covered by phot cells that alone would account for 70% of the nations current engery needs. If you are to include every building as well, then there would be a 15% surplus in engery. really should make ya think

[Walk]

Wind power unhealthy? Come on, those doctors are probably just glorified NIMBYs who don't want the "pristine skyline" "defiled" by windmills.  Besides, wind power would be used in windy states that tend to have low population density anyway. It's worth the "danger", since the pollution from coal plants probably kills more. But with long term effects, it's kind of hard to really know... 

I'm still skeptical on solar. Supposedly, solar power got like 30% cheaper in 2002 or so, but that's only because surplus silicon that would have otherwise been used in dot-com company computers was used in photocells after the bubble burst.  Since energy has gotten pricier, demand has gone up, and solar is expensive again. Hopefully the breakthrough you mentioned would be useful, but remember it would still only be mostly useful in the Southwest. Wind power would be more useful in more areas; it's more scalable than solar.

Thank you for spending time for researching this type of stuff.  It's very interesting. If Canada's socialist windmills work fine, then some free market entrepreneurs here will take them on, as well. The problem is unfortunately a catch 22. When the economy is good, investors take more risks, like with renewable energy technology. Of course, the economy is good when fossil fuels are cheap, and no one cares about renewables! Heh, that's life. 

And remember, coal and oil are useful for so much more than just power generation...

PS- I wonder why windmills are set up in straight lines instead of a "V" formation. The V gives a leverage advantage to the two ends, which is why birds fly that way. I'm not an engineer, just a curious scholar.