NY Times: Ex-Aide Says White House Puts Politics before Policy (subscription req'd.)

Washington Post: Ex-Official Blasts White House

Politics???? In the White House??????? Get out!!!!

Don't Republicans control the media? How did these stories get out? Off with their heads!!!!!!

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

I don't see anything in either article that says he was in the Clinton administration. Since he's a professor at Penn, when he first took the job with the Bush administration it was written up in the Phila. papers. That was the first I'd ever heard of him.

And the fact that he even took the job in the first place indicates that he must have thought that Bush was sincere about being a "compassionate conservative," so his criticism ought to have a bit more validity than criticism from a Democrat outside the administration.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
Gee, a Democrat, a Clinton Administration holdover, blasts the Bush Administration. What a shock.

Really, fantomas. You could have found an article a little less biased. The title alone is quite misleading.

---

He wasn't a Clinton holdover, as Joe in Philly states. Where did you get that? He is a conservative Democrat and former professor at Princeton University who has caused quite a stir among liberals for his articles on criminality and the issue of superpredators, etc. Also recall that Bush was not elected in 2000, he was appointed, so DiIulio, like Transportation Secretary Mineta, was supposed to be an attempt to reach across the aisle, so to speak. Before you criticize me for bias, please get your facts straight.

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

But DiIulio wasn't a Clinton appointee...why do you keep saying this? He was teaching at the University of Pennsylvania, and before that at Princeton University, which, from any vantage point, cannot be construed as branches of the federal government. In fact, both existed BEFORE the U.S. government was established, as I'm sure you're aware.

Clinton also DID install Republicans in key positions--William Cohen, the former Republican Senator from Maine, I believe, was the Secretary of DEFENSE. Have you forgotten that? Colin Powell, another Republican, headed his JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF. He also repeated worked with Republicans BECAUSE HE HAD TO, and his triangulation strategy hurt his own party. Even Ronald Reagan, who won by the largest popular vote margin in our history, worked with Democrats in a bipartisan matter on more than one occasion. Bush has yet to demonstrate that he will even work with moderate members of his own party if they differ from him.

Also, Clinton also won pluralities in both 1992 and 1996, while Bush neither won a majority of the popular votes nor a plurality. In fact, we will never know the exact count because he was installed by the Supreme Court....

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
In fact, we will never know the exact count because he was installed by the Supreme Court....

---

Also from FT: "Also recall that Bush was not elected in 2000, he was appointed. . ."

From Wm1865: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Also from FT: "Also recall that Bush was not elected in 2000, he was appointed. . ."

---

I'll stifle the impulse to write something like "that horse is dead, stop beating it" and point out that after the Florida recount that was paid for by a consortium of media outlets was released, the NY Times summarized the findings by writing that "under none of the recount scenarios put forward by supporters of Al Gore would the former Vice President have surpassed Bush." (I'm paraphrasing; it's so long ago).

Every administration I can remember has had to endure this sort of stuff. An ex-aide to the president states the administration is interested in politics more than policy. Big deal. Sorenson and Sallinger said it about JFK, Moyers said it about LBJ, someone MUST have said it about the cancer on the office that was Nixon, Ham Jordan said it about Carter, etc. I'm sure if we go back far enough, we'll see that Oliver Woolcott said it about Washington's administration.

~Adam

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

To get this thread back on track, consider this recent development in THIS story:Link to DiIulio apology

I'm sure it was politically wise to issue that apology and he most likely was pressured into it. He said what he felt and it sounds like that was what his experience was with the Bush gang. It can be disputed and apologized for and debated about endlessly, but his original statements to the reporter are pretty clear and hardly surprising.

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:


But he had fewer votes than Bush did, did he not?

---

Not George H. W., or have you forgotten the results of the 1992 election already?

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
I'll save you the trouble of having to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

---

Ump: Have I told you lately you're a total badass? I adore you. Just FYI.

Ump & William, you guys make me purrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[voting machines tabulating ...]

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:

As I asked, did Clinton have more votes than GW (since YOU were the one who brought GW into this)? You still haven't answered this question; but you don't have to. I'll save you the trouble of having to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

---

BTW, I didn't reply because I have been offline for a few days. You ought to try it--it'll make you much happier and less prone to misstatements (DiIulio as a Clinton appointee--proof please?)

Back to your point, Clinton didn't RUN against George Walker Bush--but you're so busy talking out of both sides of your mouth YOU obviously don't realize this.

My points were clear, the analogy turned on your vague mention of "Bush". Clinton got more votes than George H. W. Bush, or Bob Dole--did he not? Obviously, because he served for two terms.

Gore, BTW, got more votes THAN ANY OTHER candidate in American history EXCEPT FOR RONALD REAGAN, and over 500,000 more than George W. Bush. Check the rolls--it's all there for the viewing.

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

You still never addressed the whole Clinton-DiIulio tale you concocted. Talk about Clintonesque...pick whatever fell on the floor up and go find that bit of info you have hidden somewhere. It's been days now....