"Starbuck's Words of Wisdom" wrote in message
...
Bill,
If you read rec.boats you will see that many politicos like to use
anything for political gain. It is understood by all, that a disaster
visit is a political photo op to show the world the politician "feels
their pain". The photo op does come at a substantial cost in diverted
resources when they are desperately need to protect and save lives.

A leader does not need to make the visit to understand the magnitude of
the problem. When you read rec.boats you see there are people who turn
anything the political opponent does negatively. If the president does
not visit the disaster, he doesn't care, if he does visit the disaster
site, it is a photo op for political gain. .


"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:
Former President Clinton has spent more time in Louisiana and
Mississippi meeting with storm victims and officials than Bush did on
his five or six separate visits to the same area.

Kind of interesting, since Bush does very little actual "work" as
POTUS.


Too busy handing out untendered contracts to Haliburton & friends.

Worse thing, other than a photo op is for a POTUS to arrive in a disaster
area. All the security, traffic problems, etc that are caused. What the
hell is Clinton doing, except photo ops? He using a shovel, hammer?


Lots of people in this (and other newsgroups) are a prime example of why
politics is so F&^&%&^_up in the USA. All the grousing about the
opposition, but no solutions for their own party. Reason Al Gore lost.
Twice! Just attack the oppositions stance. No constructive criticism to
show that they have a clue. The Dem's have not learned. As Reagan said
when he changed to the Republican party. 'He did not leave the Democratic
Party, they left him.'. The people who have wrested control of the
Democratic party have not a clue about most of the feelings and worries of
the people of in this country. There have projected themselves so much into
the mix, they have lost most of the seats of government in the country, that
are not safely a huge Dem majority. Use Harry as a prime example. He does
nothing but attack Bush. When has he said what the Dem's should do other
than attack Bush? I use Harry as an example, only because he is the most
vocal, but there are many more here.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:
Former President Clinton has spent more time in Louisiana and
Mississippi meeting with storm victims and officials than Bush did on
his five or six separate visits to the same area.

Kind of interesting, since Bush does very little actual "work" as
POTUS.


Too busy handing out untendered contracts to Haliburton & friends.

Worse thing, other than a photo op is for a POTUS to arrive in a disaster
area. All the security, traffic problems, etc that are caused. What the
hell is Clinton doing, except photo ops? He using a shovel, hammer?


No, he was appointed to find areas where the money can be best spent. I
can't resist grin Something the democrats are known for, spending money.

Anyway good for him as he, I'm sure has more energy than 80+ year old
former president Bush. I'm sure he will probably do a better job that the
Federal government. And that statement is not political, just facing
facts...no matter who controls it the Federal government is not designed
to be efficient.


And Clinton was not very efficient when he was POTUS. Why do you think he
will be efficient now?

Bill,
I think the Repub's need some good competition. the Dems are not giving them
any. As long as the Dem's have vocal supporters similar to Harry and field
lackluster candidates, and fail to move towards the middle, they will
continue to lose power.


"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Starbuck's Words of Wisdom" wrote in message
...
Bill,
If you read rec.boats you will see that many politicos like to use
anything for political gain. It is understood by all, that a disaster
visit is a political photo op to show the world the politician "feels
their pain". The photo op does come at a substantial cost in diverted
resources when they are desperately need to protect and save lives.

A leader does not need to make the visit to understand the magnitude of
the problem. When you read rec.boats you see there are people who turn
anything the political opponent does negatively. If the president does
not visit the disaster, he doesn't care, if he does visit the disaster
site, it is a photo op for political gain. .


"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:
Former President Clinton has spent more time in Louisiana and
Mississippi meeting with storm victims and officials than Bush did on
his five or six separate visits to the same area.

Kind of interesting, since Bush does very little actual "work" as
POTUS.


Too busy handing out untendered contracts to Haliburton & friends.

Worse thing, other than a photo op is for a POTUS to arrive in a
disaster area. All the security, traffic problems, etc that are caused.
What the hell is Clinton doing, except photo ops? He using a shovel,
hammer?


Lots of people in this (and other newsgroups) are a prime example of why
politics is so F&^&%&^_up in the USA. All the grousing about the
opposition, but no solutions for their own party. Reason Al Gore lost.
Twice! Just attack the oppositions stance. No constructive criticism to
show that they have a clue. The Dem's have not learned. As Reagan said
when he changed to the Republican party. 'He did not leave the Democratic
Party, they left him.'. The people who have wrested control of the
Democratic party have not a clue about most of the feelings and worries of
the people of in this country. There have projected themselves so much
into the mix, they have lost most of the seats of government in the
country, that are not safely a huge Dem majority. Use Harry as a prime
example. He does nothing but attack Bush. When has he said what the
Dem's should do other than attack Bush? I use Harry as an example, only
because he is the most vocal, but there are many more here.

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 02:21:30 +0000, Bill McKee wrote:


And Clinton was not very efficient when he was POTUS. Why do you think he
will be efficient now?

He has always been one hell of a fund raiser.

Starbuck's Words of Wisdom Oct 6, 9:35 pm Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: "Starbuck's Words of Wisdom" - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 22:35:06 -0400
Local: Thurs, Oct 6 2005 9:35 pm



Bill,
I think the Repub's need some good competition. the Dems are not giving them
any. As long as the Dem's have vocal supporters similar to Harry
and field
lackluster candidates, and fail to move towards the middle, they will
continue to lose power.

What do you mean? at least, Kerry had a "plan".

I really don't think even he knew what it was, but a "plan" is a "plan"
LOL

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 02:21:30 +0000, Bill McKee wrote:


And Clinton was not very efficient when he was POTUS. Why do you think
he
will be efficient now?

He has always been one hell of a fund raiser.

Rather than getting permission for the FBI to investigate the Kobar Towers
incident he put the squeeze on the Saudi's to make a sizable donation to his
Presidential Library.

The only thing Clinton cares about is himself.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:
Former President Clinton has spent more time in Louisiana and
Mississippi meeting with storm victims and officials than Bush did on
his five or six separate visits to the same area.

Kind of interesting, since Bush does very little actual "work" as
POTUS.


Too busy handing out untendered contracts to Haliburton & friends.

Worse thing, other than a photo op is for a POTUS to arrive in a
disaster area. All the security, traffic problems, etc that are caused.
What the hell is Clinton doing, except photo ops? He using a shovel,
hammer?


No, he was appointed to find areas where the money can be best spent. I
can't resist grin Something the democrats are known for, spending
money.

Anyway good for him as he, I'm sure has more energy than 80+ year old
former president Bush. I'm sure he will probably do a better job that
the Federal government. And that statement is not political, just facing
facts...no matter who controls it the Federal government is not designed
to be efficient.


And Clinton was not very efficient when he was POTUS. Why do you think he
will be efficient now?
Looking fairly at his presidency, the problems he had were in what he did
while fundraising for the democrat party.

On 7 Oct 2005 01:01:06 -0700, wrote:

Starbuck's Words of Wisdom Oct 6, 9:35 pm Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: "Starbuck's Words of Wisdom" - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 22:35:06 -0400
Local: Thurs, Oct 6 2005 9:35 pm



Bill,
I think the Repub's need some good competition. the Dems are not giving them
any. As long as the Dem's have vocal supporters similar to Harry
and field
lackluster candidates, and fail to move towards the middle, they will
continue to lose power.

What do you mean? at least, Kerry had a "plan".

I really don't think even he knew what it was, but a "plan" is a "plan"
LOL

He had at least a *hundred* plans.

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan