In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:54:49 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

Calling Bush "mediocre" gives him entirely too much credit. And, yes, we
*can* be critical of him - that's the first step of holding him accountable
for his actions.

I'm not sure why the Kunich wants a president that can't handle
criticism (OK, other than it would be a president much more likely to
be just like the Kunich). Last I heard, it comes with the territory.
If you want to be the controller, you answer to the board of
directors. If you want to be CFO or CEO, the same but more so. And if
you want to be POTUS, you answer to the citizens of the U.S. first and
the world second. You don't get elected to the head of the most
powerful country in the world to get a free ride for your actions and
miscarriages.

If you can't handle that, then stay home and ride your bike.

All true. But GWB sure doesn't seem to think that's the case. I think that's why
his administration has such a heavy emphasis on the political end of things, rather
than the policy end.

Sounds like the Kunich worries overly much about us hurting GWBs
feelings.

One of the most amusing aspects of TK getting all up in arms about people
criticizing Bush came about a while back was the same thing as "stealing from your
employer." Of course, he forgets (as I pointed out at the time of this thread) that
he spent the stretch from '93 to '01 criticizing the administration, or, to use his
terminology, stealing from his employer.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...b5d16040467?hl

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?