Two New York Times Columnists-Bush And Dick Should Resign Now.

[Mitchell]

Two columnists in the New York Times suggested extremely radical ideas to aid the economic crisis. Two links were posted on Electoral Vote.com today with suggestions. One column, by Gail Collins of the Times, suggested that Bush and Cheney should resign now, and that Nancy Pelosi should assume control of the government until January 20th, until Obama is sworn in. Essentially, if this was to happen, Obama could begin his work now, because is it likely that Ms Pelosi is going to go against the wishes of her incoming president?

Another article, by Tom Friedman of the Times, didn't go quite as far, but still offered a rather radical suggestion. Mr Friedman's suggestion implied that while Bush should stay, Bush should also fire Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson immediately, and appoint Obama's pick, Tim Gethner, to the post, to allow Gethner a head start, on working to solve the economic crisis.

Neither suggestion will ever happen, as both Bush and Obama have confirmed that all policy decisions are in Bush's hands until noon on January 20th. I will say that both columnists do have valid points, considering the severe state of the economic crisis, and Mr Bush's performance during his presidency so far.

Has anyone else read these articles? What are the thoughts?

Mitch

[badreligion]

Not gonna happen .

[Mitchell]

I know that, bad. I just find it amazing how things like this were written in probably the most credible newspaper in the world, the NY Times. In all the years of presidential transitions, I dont ever recall a suggestion such as this one being made.

Mitch

[badreligion]

I know that, bad. I just find it amazing how things like this were written in probably the most credible newspaper in the world, the NY Times. In all the years of presidential transitions, I dont ever recall a suggestion such as this one being made.

Mitch


well to be fair the most credible liberal newspaper

[milagros317]

I just find it amazing how things like this were written in probably the most credible newspaper in the world, the NY Times.
Mitch

This statement I can not let pass. The New York Times is a 100% partisan rag. All of its news is slanted Democratic, just as the Wall Street Journal slants its news Republican. Neither can be believed on any political issue; they are purely partisan and in opposite camps. Both have zero credibility with me.

Politics aside, the New York Times has exactly zero credibility in the post-Jayson Blair era anyway.

[maniactickler]

The only thing id use the NY Times for is to wipe my ass. thats about all its good for.

[Cy/MiG]

Two columnists in the New York Times suggested extremely radical ideas to aid the economic crisis. Two links were posted on Electoral Vote.com today with suggestions. One column, by Gail Collins of the Times, suggested that Bush and Cheney should resign now, and that Nancy Pelosi should assume control of the government until January 20th, until Obama is sworn in. Essentially, if this was to happen, Obama could begin his work now, because is it likely that Ms Pelosi is going to go against the wishes of her incoming president?

That's just not going to happen. And I don't believe it should.

The current administration is far from competent, but they're not purposely trying to sabotage our country or anything.

Besides, Pelosi has not been elected President, Bush and Obama have. Therefore they are obligated to fulfill their duties, IMO.

When Bush is gone in Jan, Obama will take the torch. That's the way it should be.

Another article, by Tom Friedman of the Times, didn't go quite as far, but still offered a rather radical suggestion. Mr Friedman's suggestion implied that while Bush should stay, Bush should also fire Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson immediately, and appoint Obama's pick, Tim Gethner, to the post, to allow Gethner a head start, on working to solve the economic crisis.

That actually seems productive and constuctive to me (or a less radical idea for sure). He's going to take charge soon enough anyways, perhaps that'd give him a 'leg up' on the current situation.

[taptoematt]

I think its just fear at work
The country is in a free fall.
President Bush is trying to go home and President-elect Obama is still powerless to lead.

[jaba]

This statement I can not let pass. The New York Times is a 100% partisan rag. All of its news is slanted Democratic, just as the Wall Street Journal slants its news Republican. Neither can be believed on any political issue; they are purely partisan and in opposite camps. Both have zero credibility with me.

.

You are not alone in your perceptions, Mils….

Last months Pew research poll of the America revealed voters overwhelmingly believed that the media wanted Barack Obama to win the presidential election. By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists wanted to see Obama, not John McCain win.


Republicans, Democrats and independents all feel that the media wanted to see Obama win the election. Republicans are almost unanimous in their opinion: 90% of GOP voters say most journalists are pulling for Obama, but more than six-in-ten Democratic and independent voters (62% each) said the same.

The media partisan perception this election year was particularly wide. During the 2004 campaign, 50% of voters said most journalists wanted to see John Kerry win the election, while 22% said most journalists favored George Bush.


Any national perception of media objectivity which remained was tossed in the trash this presidential election year, but the media got their man, which probably mattered more to them than their national reputation, anyway.

[simulated]

The current administration is far from competent, but they're not purposely trying to sabotage our country or anything.

Oh, if only that were the case. Sadly, the same political shennanigans that occur at every transition of the oval office are going on at the moment, with the administration pushing their people into hard to remove career positions in order to make it more difficult for the new administration to get stuff done. Keep your eyes open.

[punkrockergirl]

The only thing id use the NY Times for is to wipe my ass. thats about all its good for.

lolz

[jj82277]

Two columnists in the New York Times suggested extremely radical ideas to aid the economic crisis. Two links were posted on Electoral Vote.com today with suggestions. One column, by Gail Collins of the Times, suggested that Bush and Cheney should resign now, and that Nancy Pelosi should assume control of the government until January 20th, until Obama is sworn in. Essentially, if this was to happen, Obama could begin his work now, because is it likely that Ms Pelosi is going to go against the wishes of her incoming president?

Another article, by Tom Friedman of the Times, didn't go quite as far, but still offered a rather radical suggestion. Mr Friedman's suggestion implied that while Bush should stay, Bush should also fire Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson immediately, and appoint Obama's pick, Tim Gethner, to the post, to allow Gethner a head start, on working to solve the economic crisis.

Neither suggestion will ever happen, as both Bush and Obama have confirmed that all policy decisions are in Bush's hands until noon on January 20th. I will say that both columnists do have valid points, considering the severe state of the economic crisis, and Mr Bush's performance during his presidency so far.

Has anyone else read these articles? What are the thoughts?

Mitch

1.) this i silly

2.) i am still waiting for the left to give a detailed account of the specific policies they demonize bush for.

3.) all these companies aren't going out of business because their taxes were too low.

[Mitchell]

jj, you want "specific policies" that the "left" demonizes Bush for. I can give you more than one right off the bat.

1. His 2001 gigantic tax cut, which, according to financial experts that I know, both middle class, and wealthy, served to blow a hole in the deficit. Essentially, the tax savings allowed middle class folks to buy a new muffler with their savings, while a millionaire tax payer saved enough to buy a new luxury car each year.

2. The War In Iraq. Who were we bombed by at the WTC on 9-11-2001? Was it Saddam Hussein, or Al Queda? To be clear, the war in Afghanistan, I felt, was the absoulute correct move. We had no cause to go into Iraq. Saddam was not bothering us. Bush went into Iraq for two reasons. One, to seek vengenace for his father, who did not finish the job with Saddam the first time, and, who little Bush admitted, Saddam wanted to kill. Second, Bush wanted to get his cronies in Halliburton Corp multimiilion dollar contracts to rebuild Iraq. Who ever heard of a "no bid contract" to rebuild a country?

JJ, answer me this: If Bush should not be "demonized", as you say, why does he currently have a 25% approval rating? (Latest poll I read, not Mitch's numbers) The answer is: The American people have suffered due to his policies. 4,000 plus soldiers died in a country that has nothing to do with 9-11, our image around the world is deplorable, and our economy is in shambles. You cant tell me that 75% of the American people are wrong in their assessment, about Bush being a dismal failure as a president.

Sorry, jj, Bush's policies have not worked, and at least 75% of the American people know it. I have a feeling that come January 20th, the country is going to have a whole new outlook, about Barack Obama. While it will take time, I have complete confidence that he will take the needed steps to restore our economy, and repair our image, around the world. Two areas that have been destroyed by Bush, over the last eight years.

Mitch

[Cy/MiG]

Oh, if only that were the case. Sadly, the same political shennanigans that occur at every transition of the oval office are going on at the moment, with the administration pushing their people into hard to remove career positions in order to make it more difficult for the new administration to get stuff done. Keep your eyes open.

Nobody was complaining at the end of 00 when the economy was in a 'downturn' and Clinton was still in office...

[tcklft]

The only thing id use the NY Times for is to wipe my ass. thats about all its good for.

Yes, but then you'd have newsprint on your fingers. :scared:

[MrMacphisto]

Yes, but then you'd have newsprint on your fingers. :scared:

and newsprint on your ass.