Bush Shooting Blanks?

Cancel7

Banned
Let's just forget the back and forth over whether the radical Christians are out of their minds on birth control. It doesn't matter. Let's get to something else that I'd like to see the MSM have the balls to pick up.

The President appoints a man who considers contraceptives to be demeaning to women and harmful to "human happiness". And his spokes person says that though he will work with dems when there is room for agreement, he will not "compromise his principals".

So Bush's "principals" are that family planning programs should be adminstered by men who are against contraception. How has Bush lived up to these "principals"?

President Bush and his wife have exactly two children. They are twins. That means he impregnanted his wife exactly ONE time.

The question is, after that one succesful impregnation, did the first couple stop having sex for the rest of their marriage? Or, was President Bush shooting blanks for most of his life?

And those are the only two possibilities, if, we are to take the President on his word that he will not "compromise his prinicipals." The only other possibility is that this guy has no principals, is a big fat lying hypocrite, who plays to what he calls the "whackos".

What a guy.

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 17, 2006; A01



The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."

Eric Keroack, medical director for A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit group based in Dorchester, Mass., will become deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the next two weeks, department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday.

Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, will advise Secretary Mike Leavitt on matters such as reproductive health and adolescent pregnancy. He will oversee $283 million in annual family-planning grants that, according to HHS, are "designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons."

The appointment, which does not require Senate confirmation, was the latest provocative personnel move by the White House since Democrats won control of Congress in this month's midterm elections. President Bush last week pushed the Senate to confirm John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations and this week renominated six candidates for appellate court judgeships who have previously been blocked by lawmakers. Democrats said the moves belie Bush's post-election promises of bipartisanship.

The Keroack appointment angered many family-planning advocates, who noted that A Woman's Concern supports sexual abstinence until marriage, opposes contraception and does not distribute information promoting birth control at its six centers in eastern Massachusetts.

"A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness," the group's Web site says.

Keroack was traveling and could not be reached for comment. John O. Agwunobi, assistant secretary for health, said Keroack "is highly qualified and a well-respected physician . . . working primarily with women and girls in crisis."

Mark Conrad, president of A Woman's Concern, said Keroack would be able to make the transition to leading a federal program in which provision of birth control is an integral part. "I don't think it's going to be an issue for him," he said.

The group helps women in unplanned pregnancies but discourages abortions, Conrad said. He said the decision is the woman's but "we do want to give her the opportunity to have all the information and the support necessary to choose life."

Marilyn Keefe, interim president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents 4,000 family-planning clinics, said Keroack's work "seems to really be geared toward furthering anti-choice, anti-contraception policies." She added that despite the congressional election results, the appointment "goes to show you the importance of controlling the White House and how important federal agencies are in the delivery of health services."

The federal family-planning program, created in 1970, supports a network of 4,600 family-planning clinics that provide information and counseling to 5 million people each year. Services include patient education and counseling, breast and pelvic exams, pregnancy diagnosis and counseling, and screenings for cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called Keroack's appointment "striking proof that the Bush administration remains dramatically out of step with the nation's priorities."

Taken together, Keroack's appointment, the Bolton push and the judicial renominations suggest that although Bush may work for consensus with Democrats on selected issues, he does not plan to avoid decisions simply because lawmakers will disagree, and he may in fact seek fights in some instances when he feels they may be useful politically.

Confirmation of Bolton and the judicial nominees are popular causes with Bush's conservative base, and a family-planning chief from an organization that opposes contraceptives may appeal to disaffected social conservatives.

White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino cautioned against reading a larger pattern into the recent moves, saying, "You have to look at these things in isolation."

She added: "The president has said we will look to reach common ground where we can find it. However, he's not going to compromise on his principles."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601929.html
 
The President appoints a man who considers contraceptives to be demeaning to women and harmful to "human happiness".


WTF is this? The United States, or theocratic Iran?
 
The President appoints a man who considers contraceptives to be demeaning to women and harmful to "human happiness".


WTF is this? The United States, or theocratic Iran?
LOL. Yeah, just by this appointment and opinion of one guy it magically makes it into law! Clearly we are living by Sharia law now! Get your woman covered!

Just a little fearmongering there, Chicken Little?
 
What year is this again? 1850? How on earth do this guy and his pals justify that notion that contraception is demeaning to women when nearly all women of childbearing age choose to use some form of contraception? The rest of it is also sheer horsepuckey.

Clearly the prez is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Cooperation and bipartisanship on the one hand to appease probably the voters, who spoke loud and clear last week, and his unfathomable theocratic agenda on the other.
 
The President appoints a man who considers contraceptives to be demeaning to women and harmful to "human happiness".


WTF is this? The United States, or theocratic Iran?
This is business as usual at BushCo, Inc.. Appoint an unqualified or, better yet, actively hostile administrator to those agencies of which the CEO doesn't approve.
 
LOL. Yeah, just by this appointment and opinion of one guy it magically makes it into law! Clearly we are living by Sharia law now! Get your woman covered!

Just a little fearmongering there, Chicken Little?
Damo, would you nominate a committed believer in non-violence to head the DoD? I'm talking about someone who truly believes that violence is never justified, even in self defense: a Jayne, say? I doubt it. Not even I would do that. Such a person, while undoubtedly of stronger stuff than I, would be totally unsuitable to run Defense. He or she would be actively hostile to the function of the department.

Same principle here.

The place to honestly contest these programs is in Congress. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to implement the policies approved and mandated by Congress. It does not have the right to sabotage such programs by infiltration, simply because a particular president doesn't happen to care for some of them very much.
 
It does not have the right to sabotage such programs by infiltration, simply because a particular president doesn't happen to care for some of them very much."

He does have the right to appoint whomever he wants. I like sabotaging departments. Even if I don't agree with it in this case. It's one of the best ways to fight government, by making government useless and ineffective.

Why wouldn't conservatives want to do that?
 
It does not have the right to sabotage such programs by infiltration, simply because a particular president doesn't happen to care for some of them very much."

He does have the right to appoint whomever he wants. I like sabotaging departments. Even if I don't agree with it in this case. It's one of the best ways to fight government, by making government useless and ineffective.

Why wouldn't conservatives want to do that?
Why do you hate America, Grind?

:rolleyes:
 
It does not have the right to sabotage such programs by infiltration, simply because a particular president doesn't happen to care for some of them very much."

He does have the right to appoint whomever he wants. I like sabotaging departments. Even if I don't agree with it in this case. It's one of the best ways to fight government, by making government useless and ineffective.

Why wouldn't conservatives want to do that?

"Why wouldn't conservatives want to do that?


So they don't lose elections.

The american people might not like bureacracy. But they absolutly detest incompetence. And particulary incompetence that gets people killed.

Do the names "heck of a job" Brownie, and Rummy ring a bell?
 
"Why wouldn't conservatives want to do that?


So they don't lose elections.

The american people might not like bureacracy. But they absolutly detest incompetence. And particulary incompetence that gets people killed.

Do the names "heck of a job" Brownie, and Rummy ring a bell?
One thing that many anti-government conservatives tend to forget is that, while it's true that Americans genuinely dislike bureaucracy and bureaucrats, they also genuinely *do* want the programs that these agencies administer.
 
One thing that many anti-government conservatives tend to forget is that, while it's true that Americans genuinely dislike bureaucracy and bureaucrats, they also genuinely *do* want the programs that these agencies administer.


there's no doubt that a general sense in the public's mind of sleaze, incompetence, and corruption helped throw the republicans out of power.

If they want to continue running government incompetently, fine. 2008 is right around the corner.
 
LOL. Yeah, just by this appointment and opinion of one guy it magically makes it into law! Clearly we are living by Sharia law now! Get your woman covered!

Just a little fearmongering there, Chicken Little?

He's been appointing these freaks every chance he gets, so don't make it sound like one. It's only thanks to Patty Murray and Hillary Clinton that we got the morning after pill over the counter, because the freak he put in charge of that tried to block it, and in fact did block it, until they kicked his ass for him.

And, if I'm not mistaken, that's not the point of my post.

Did George and Laura stop all sex after their one pregnancy? Or is Bush shooting blanks? Or, is he a big fat phony liar?
 
Damo, would you nominate a committed believer in non-violence to head the DoD? I'm talking about someone who truly believes that violence is never justified, even in self defense: a Jayne, say? I doubt it. Not even I would do that. Such a person, while undoubtedly of stronger stuff than I, would be totally unsuitable to run Defense. He or she would be actively hostile to the function of the department.

Same principle here.

The place to honestly contest these programs is in Congress. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to implement the policies approved and mandated by Congress. It does not have the right to sabotage such programs by infiltration, simply because a particular president doesn't happen to care for some of them very much.

The President has made his "principals" an issue in MY life. He has appointed a man who wants to take birth control away from ME, because those are the President's "principals".

So since the President is shoving his "principals" down MY throat, I want to know, WHEN DID HE AND LAURA STOP HAVING SEX???

Why did Laura only get pregnant once?

I demand to know. And I want the media to find out. That's their job. God knows they weren't delicate about who was putting what where when Clinton was President. And Clinton wasn't trying to tell ME what to do about my reproductive choices. Bush is. I want the answers.
 
Damo, would you nominate a committed believer in non-violence to head the DoD? I'm talking about someone who truly believes that violence is never justified, even in self defense: a Jayne, say? I doubt it. Not even I would do that. Such a person, while undoubtedly of stronger stuff than I, would be totally unsuitable to run Defense. He or she would be actively hostile to the function of the department.

Same principle here.

The place to honestly contest these programs is in Congress. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to implement the policies approved and mandated by Congress. It does not have the right to sabotage such programs by infiltration, simply because a particular president doesn't happen to care for some of them very much.
Except it isn't even close to the same thing. That is exaggeration, truly. The DOD is quite a bit more powerful than this guy will ever be.
 
Except it isn't even close to the same thing. That is exaggeration, truly. The DOD is quite a bit more powerful than this guy will ever be.
In your opinion, perhaps. In my world, this "guy" is far more important than . . . what the hell's the name of that twat Bush is installing in "Defense"? Oh well, what the hell. He's undoubtedly a twat: consider the source.

Domestic policy trumps foreign policy, as far as I'm concerned. It also has far more real impact on real Americans than foreign policy does -- which is, in turn, why it's the trump suit. The Department of Defense is a money laundering operation, for the most part. As far as I'm concerned, you could cut it's budget by 80% and still be overspending.

You seem to be in favor of plutocratic creep here, Damo. That's exactly what the framers of the constitution feared most.
 
The President has made his "principals" an issue in MY life. He has appointed a man who wants to take birth control away from ME, because those are the President's "principals".

So since the President is shoving his "principals" down MY throat, I want to know, WHEN DID HE AND LAURA STOP HAVING SEX???

Why did Laura only get pregnant once?

I demand to know. And I want the media to find out. That's their job. God knows they weren't delicate about who was putting what where when Clinton was President. And Clinton wasn't trying to tell ME what to do about my reproductive choices. Bush is. I want the answers.
I expect that Laura's been holding out. Wouldn't you? ;)

I thought that the Republicans were against all this "social engineering" stuff. They do seem to have lost that particular plank somewhere along thee line.
 
Except it isn't even close to the same thing. That is exaggeration, truly. The DOD is quite a bit more powerful than this guy will ever be.

You consider yourself a sociallly progressive, libertarian conservative, right?

So, instead of running interference for bush, don't take our word for it. Take the word of one of the most respected and prominent libertarian conservatives in the country, Andrew Sullivan:


"The theocon right absolutely believes that contraception is just as immoral as gay sex. If they could ban it, discourage it, prevent its availability, they would. And with the appointment of Eric Keroack at HHS, we have new evidence they are." -- ANDREW SULLIVAN
 
The strange thing is when Bush first got into office I felt one of his strengths will be to delegate responsibility.... great leaders know how to do this.... boy was a I wrong. Hey..maybe he'll appoint Matthew Lesko to run the IRS!
 
Back
Top