You should know that I have no problem with your steering the conversation...anywhere you want, in fact. I like you behind the wheel just fine. :)

What I said, though, is that I am getting tired of your constant and unending attribution to everything that is said by everyone as nothing but partisanship.

Can we not have a conversation anymore without it coming down to a comparison between how the Bush and Obama administrations have acted or would act? Can we say one word without it being deemed 'partisan'?.

It's not too hard to misconstrue what people are saying when EVERYTHING they say is put through your prism of partisanship.

liz and michale: i think it would be fair to say that the bush administration proved themselves utterly incompetent, while the obama administration has yet to prove much of anything.

I disagree.

8 years without a terrorist attack on US proper in spite of overwhelming desire by terrorists to do so, is evidence of great competency by the Bush Administration. Many thousands of people are alive today that would not have been, if Bush et al were truly the incompetents that many on here would like people to think.

On the flip side, Obama's inability to harness and control the HealthCare debate, despite overwhelming majorities in ALL aspects of government shows an level of incompetence by the Obama administration that is very surprising.

Not to mention Obama's total blunders in handling of the CIA/Torture issue.

The Bush administration got things done. In hindsight, some of the things done were not the best things to do, but you cannot argue that the Bush administration flailed around in a morass sea of indecision and incompetence.

Liz,

Blanket assessments of competency solely based on political party SHOULD be surprising, coming from me…should they have actually come from me.
..which they have not.

Then maybe I misunderstood you would you said;

"And, you must know that your comparisons between the Bush administration and the Obama administration are extremely hard to fathom for any logically thinking individual, based on the competence factor alone."

I took this to mean you are saying that, based on competency, one can't even compare the competency of the Bush Admin with the competency of the Obama Admin.

That, on the surface, appears to be completely partisan assessments of the two administrations. For I have shown, beyond any doubt, in at least ONE area, Bush's competency far FAR surpasses Obama's. Further, as CW does in his commentary, if you do agree with and support the TARP program (I don't, but you apparently do) then you must concede that it was BUSH, not Obama, who started the program and you must give credit to Bush moreso than Obama. Anything less is the afore mentioned partisanship.

I have to tell you, Michale…the way you have been steering the conversation around here lately - with EVERYTHING being attributed to partisanship, without exception - I've been downright nostalgic for our torture debates! And, I mean that most sincerely.

hehehehehe :D

Fair enough..

Could you give me an example of anything coming from the commenters (excluding CW) that is NOT based on partisanship?

One only has to look at NYpoet22's post before yours to see partisanship.

Ink's claim that everything is hunky dorky in Liberal Land defies all evidence that the Obama Administration is punch drunk and on the ropes..

So Obama and Democrats will return from vacation wounded, divided and uncertain of the best way to turn things around.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26672_Page2.html#ixzz0PwUnt3S7

THAT is the reality.

"Everything BUSH did was bad and everything Obama does is good" seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst most commenters here. That is partisan in it's base, illogical in the extreme and 100% factually incorrect.

As for me steering the conversation, what can I say. I am prolific. If anyone wants to wrest the steering wheel from me, feel free. :D I'de be happy to let someone else drive for a while. :D

It's entirely possible that I have misconstrued comments to be partisan based when they were, in fact, not.

If I have done so, I sincerely and humbly apologize.

OK, OK..

I SINCERELY apologize.

I don't do 'humble' well. :D

Seriously though, if I have misconstrued any comments and labeled them as partisan when they were not, please correct me.

Michale.....

Blanket assessments of competency solely based on political party SHOULD be surprising, coming from me...should they have actually come from me.
..which they have not.

I have to tell you, Michale...the way you have been steering the conversation around here lately - with EVERYTHING being attributed to partisanship, without exception - I've been downright nostalgic for our torture debates! And, I mean that most sincerely.

Danke...

Yer my hero... :D

Michale.....

Um, I think I fixed the one you were talking about. You're welcome.

-CW

For example.....?????

The only disjointed-ness I can see is where I forgot to close my BOLD attribute.. (CW, would you be so kind?? :D)

And, you must know that your comparisons between the Bush administration and the Obama administration are extremely hard to fathom for any logically thinking individual, based on the competence factor alone.

Oh, come on. That's simply partisanship talking.
To claim competence or incompetence solely based on which political party is in power is ludicrous.

I can point to many aspects whereas the Bush administration was VERY competent. Just as I can point to many aspects where the Obama administration is utterly INCOMPETENT.

Blanket assessments of competency solely based on political party is actually surprising coming from you, Liz... :D I had always considered you more even-handed in most areas, our torture discussion notwithstanding. :D

Michale.....

Your arguments are anything but logical and, in fact, extremely disjointed...it pains me to say.

And, you must know that your comparisons between the Bush administration and the Obama administration are extremely hard to fathom for any logically thinking individual, based on the competence factor alone.

To quote Jeff Foxworthy (re Rednecks):

"We just can't keep the most ignorant and moronic amongst us off the TV."

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BA144_OVERLO_G_20090831184054.jpg

Not that I am saying that the woman is ignorant or a moron. But jeeze louise, she sure looks the part. :D

Michale.....

Because it injected the government into something the government has no business being in.

Ya'all complained about how the Bush Administration was taking over every facet of our lives with the counter terrorism policies and such. That was nothing but hysterical hyperbole.

The Obama Administration *IS* trying to take over aspects of our lives, in areas that have always been the purview of the private sector.

I think we all can agree that less government is better government.

Yet, how can that be reconciled with the support ya'all have for the Administration's policies?

Wall Street, Banks, Auto Companies and now Health Care.

If Bush had tried getting control of all those normally private sector endeavors, the Left would have gone ballistic.

It's been proven beyond any doubt that bailing out businesses that are dying simply doesn't work and wastes money.

Obama bailed out the banks. Thousands of banks have still failed.

Obama bailed out the auto industry. Chrysler and GM still went bankrupt. The only auto maker that DIDN'T go bankrupt is the auto maker that DIDN'T take any bailout funds.

So, what can a logical and rational person conclude from these facts.

That bailouts are simply a waste of money. The object of the bailout still fails and the taxpayers are billions and billions of dollars poorer.

"Let them die."
-Captain James T. Kirk, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

Of course, Kirk was talking about Klingons and we're talking about dying businesses but the point is that, with businesses that are dying, the more logical approach is to let them die and then rebuild a new and better business. The very first rule when you are in a money hole is to STOP DIGGING.

Apparently the Obama Administration does not understand that one very simple and very basic concept.

Michale.....

So, why don't you agree with the TARP? Seriously.

Until then, it's simply the government taking my money (AGAIN) to use for something that I don't agree with..

Unless, of course, it's used to fund the troops.. :D

Michale.....

The monies that flow back into the TARP fund as banks make repayments with interest, may be re-distributed to wherever they may be needed to shore up one financial entity or another. This is a good thing since it may prevent having to ask Congress for more TARP funds.

:-)