Fifty wasted breaths
"These are friendly questions." Wow, must be close friends then, as he can ask some very personal questions.
"Are you married?"
"How much money do you have in your bank account, stocks and investments?"
"What's your partner's favorite sex position?"
Um, yeah. Right.
Anyway, Philip Winn of Blogcritics decided that he should answer Elisberg's questions. He starts by noting something that myself and other Republicans have known for a while, yet many Democrats cannot seem to comprehend.
The ability to see the negative points of someone and still support them is a valuable one, and the only way to ever cast a vote for anybody — rather than casting a vote against somebody else. In 2004, I didn't vote against John Kerry, I voted for George Bush. I rather get the idea that a lot of people who picked Senator Kerry's name on their 2004 ballot may have done so to cast a vote against George Bush, which doesn't seem to me to be a great way to accomplish anything in politics.Seems to me that motivation behind supporting a candidate generally gets more people to the polls than motivation against one.
Certainly, Winn did not seem to expect Democrats to get the answers he provides, but he still makes an attempt, giving his opinion as one one right-of-center representative, and he gives some good answers, even to some poor questions, and provides a few counter-questions of his own.
For his part in the event, how would you rate the job the President did protecting New Orleans from devastation?This is one of the reasons we have a federal set-up for our government; states are more than capable of taking on more localized matters. Oh, that's right, what am I thinking? Democrats know that the national government is supposed to hold our hands through everything.
I don't think that the President of the United States has any business protecting New Orleans or any other American city from natural disaster, so the question is not applicable. His response after the fact was very solid, even if he was a little too easy to give away tax dollars to solve a local problem.
Is it a good thing when a President engages in political pandering, as President Bush did in allocating billions for reconstruction in New Orleans, and President Clinton did in releases a large amount of oil from the National Petroleum Reserves in an election year?
Since getting elected, do you think the President has been more a uniter or a divider?I'd like to offer a counter-question. Can the Democrats name a true uniter amongst United States Presidents? Certainly, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and Nixon all were very divisive, amongst others, and I suspect Democrats did not feel united with the first Bush or Ford. The president's job is not to be a uniter, but to lead the nation. Political divisiveness was not addressed in the Constitution, nor has it been judged by the Supreme Court. The president has more important things to do than sway with the political wind or attempt to appease everyone.
I do not believe that the President of the United States has any ability to unite the parties, and it was naive of President Bush to believe that he could. The two parties are intractable on most issues even without terrorist attacks and war.
Would you want Donald Rumsfeld to plan your daughter's wedding?Please, please, tell me Elisberg is not serious. Did he really need that round 50 so badly that he would list this same question four times? Should I ask Democrats four times if they think a wedding planner should give us her plan for the War in Iraq?
Elisberg not only listed off 50 easy questions, but 50 easy to answer questions. It's true. Democrats are out of ideas and are simply running on negative emotion. Rather than giving us more questions, perhaps Democrats should be looking for solutions to their perceived problems, though I will not complain if Republicans continue to win.