Added: Camilia Mccaskill - Date: 25.10.2021 21:39 - Views: 46376 - Clicks: 2779
Card will be replaced by budget director Josh Bolten. And is this just the first step in a larger White House shake up? What does this mean? I mean, is this just one man, tired and stepping aside? Or is it a harbinger of something else to come? I think the president has clearly got the message. I think the way he handed it today with Andy Card was very gracious, as it ought to be.
That chief of staff job is an hour a day job. And I thought the transfer of power was pretty gracious. But again, the president went inside his home family. Because your chief of staff is the fellow sitting between the staff of the president and the president himself. People that work at the White House like him. I think he was transportation secretary under his father.
No one has ever associated, in my mind, Andy Card with being a powerful ideological force or someone with his own agenda. You rarely see him. He certainly is not the major public figure, for example, that Karl Rove is. People are, frankly, laughing at Bush. That pains me just as an American. You hate to see the president of the United States mocked here and abroad. Is this going to be enough? I mean, what does Bush need to do to stop this never-ending slide in public opinion? Because whatever you say about the economy -- 4. Things seem to be going pretty well. And then to have the president of the United States have his ratings down where they are, I think Iraq pervades everything.
There are a of things that can happen. Two I can think of. One is another Supreme Court appointment, which would be a godsend to George W. I think he could make history with it. Secondly, Tucker, on the back burner is this Iran situation, where the president and Cheney have painted themself into a corner. They say Iran is not going to be allowed to continue with its nuclear program. And so—and something big happening there, I think, could move Iraq off the front s.
Tell me, what do you know about Josh Bolten? I interviewed him once, and he came off as unusually smart. I mean, even for an intellectual, this guy seemed like a highly intelligent person. What do you know about his politics? What kind of effect is he going to have on the way the White House is run, do you think? He goes back to his Texas days in the campaign of And this fellow is going to be talking with him one, two and three hours a day. And the president—my guess is, this was strictly a George W. Bush appointment. Unlike, for example, Howard Baker when he came in when I was there.
Or some of the other changes that were made in—even when Don Regan came. It was Jim Baker and Don Regan changing chairs. Who are they pushing him to move out, do you think? And I would say probably those two. Therefore, you start a fight on your strongest issue: taxes, national security, and they want to impeach me. I totally agree with you. Pat Buchanan in Washington. Thanks a lot, Pat. After the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would grant legal work status to millions of immigrants who entered this country illegally, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo did not remain silent.
The congressman wants to crack down on American employers who hire illegal aliens. He also wants to build a mile fence on the U. We welcome now the original anti-immigration crusader, one of the most straight talking members of the House of Representatives, Tom Tancredo of Colorado.
I thought Republicans, the people who vote Republican across the country were opposed to illegal immigration. Seventy percent of America wants an end to illegal immigration. A majority want a reduction in illegal immigration. Who are these guys listening to? Who are the members of the Senate who voted for this and who will vote for it, by the way, when it gets to the floor? Who are they listening to? Could it possibly be business interests? Could it possibly be big labor? It sure as heck is not the American public.
They are people who really want to be here and will wait, you know, for years to get their visas in some cases and in many cases are skilled. They actually are bringing knowledge that we could use to this country. Why not increase their s? Because in a short period of time, those folks become a cost to society, not a contributing factor. I mean, if Microsoft and other big American companies are clearly going to be building more and more manufacturing plants in, say, India which has a very highly educated population.
People I think would be contributors to American society. I think most other Americans agree. Why not structure the immigration rules such that well educated people from Ethiopia and India and Korea, you know, people who have high-tech skills could move here. But in reality—you know, being just a little facetious there. In reality, what we are hooked on is cheap labor. Cheap labor, and I mean millions and millions of people who provide cheap labor. They come to the United States. They start—they do menial jobs and work hard.
God bless them. And believe it or not even with the low wages they get, they send billions of dollars back home. That creates all of these lobbying entities out of these countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and the rest to come here and pressure us to keep those borders open to allow cheap labor. Not high-tech labor. They have no interest in exporting that to the United States. There are foreign interests at play here. There are American business interests who have a financial interest in keeping a serf class, basically. Even people who are hiring nannies and gardeners and they know it.
And you know, Tucker. We do not have to pass another single law. What we need desperately is a president who will enforce the law. It depresses me. I think you. Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado. We appreciate it. Should schools be teaching our kids about sex in the first place? Is it time for that show to sleep with the fishes? Plus, we raise the issue of asexuality with the red-blooded man who swears by it. Stay tuned. The American Civil Liberties Union is sticking its nose in sex education. They pulled the program from public schools this week. Here to tell us why schools ought to be teaching sex ed of any kind, Air America radio host Rachel Maddow.
Well, the whole thing is creepy. I think we can all agree on that. I think that by the time you get out of school, you ought to know how to balance a checkbook. Like you ought to understand how sex works. You ought to understand how people get pregnant, how people get STDs and how to avoid them. MADDOW: Giving people information about how you get pregnant is basic biological information about how human bodies work. I mean, why—why not tell kids how to have the best sex they possibly can? Why not technique? Once you raise it, like, why stop with how to prevent pregnancy?
Why even start is my question. Parents—every kid knows how you get pregnant. Come on, everybody. How many of them want to be getting pregnant? MADDOW: And these abstinence education programs, we spent somewhere between a half billion and a billion dollars on, as taxpayers. And by the way, if you do drive, the seat belt is not doing to save you. You can get pregnant while wearing a I condom and you can get an STD. They and they alone have the right to talk to their kids about that kind of stuff.Sweet women want sex tonight Tucker
email: [email protected] - phone:(479) 409-7202 x 8964
Blondes wives want love