The Wall Street Journal published pro and con commentaries on President Bush this week from two conservative Republicans. Joseph Bottum, editor of First Things, blasted Bush for hurting conservatism by being so incompetent.
“In all that he has tried to do — reform education, fix Social Security, restore religion to the public square, assert American greatness, appoint good judges — Mr. Bush has proved himself a conservative. Of course, along the way, he has also proved himself hapless. The problem isn’t his lack of conservatism. The problem is his lack of competence.”
Bottum also faulted Bush for many of the problems in Iraq, both perceptions and realities. He wrote: “Iraq is not America’s failure, and it is not conservatism’s failure. We are where we are because of George W. Bush’s failure.”
But Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute responded that Bottum is using an impossible standard to judge Bush, given the inertia of the federal bureaucracy.
“By no means should President Bush get a pass for his errors and misperceptions, or his slowness in correcting them,” he wrote. “Still, one ought to use standards that are cut to the cloth of human nature.”Novak also contends that the war in Iraq isn’t nearly as bad as it is portrayed, and that Bush deserves credit for his work on AIDS and human trafficking and for being the most openly pro-life president ever.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- RightAngle on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
84 Comments
Some ask why I hate Bush, for starts many of the reasons were listed in the article. He has hurt America as much as he has hurt the Republican party and I feel he cares little for either. His desire to be a war time President clouded his judgment, his wanting to be remember in history I think will come true though.Yes to be honest how Iraq finally works out will be the deciding factor in just how bad he is thought of through history. Sadly it has taken our attention away from those that are a real enemy, there was no need to go after Saddam at this time. Now the outcome of Iraq may just be the deciding factor in when the next terrorist attack will come. Al-Qaeda is known to plan for several years before carrying out their attacks.Iraq is nothing more then a game to watch while they plan, certainly not demanding that much of their attention as some have said.
But demanding most of ours, that is why a solution is needed soon so we can focus on the enemies of this country.
You are right Writerdog but lets be fair about it, Bush had a lot help from all the other idiots in D.C.The Presidential office held by one person, supported by the many.
Bottum makes a valid point with the issue of the corrupt seventies following the Vietnam War era.
But how to stop this from occurring again?
The responsibility lies in MORE than trashing the President, but this has become such a pastime that many now see only the President as the man to hold accountable.
There are many uncertainties in our political future, but one thing seems glaringly clear – future Presidents, whether they are Republican or Democrat will be literally ROASTED on a public spit for the entire world to see….by the members of the opposing party.
And it will weaken the United States further.
We’ve never had a perfect President, but in the past two terms we’ve begun to blame them for everything we perceive to be wrong under the sun.
After the far-right went after Clinton on his lack of morality, the Dems came back with a vengeance after GWB.
Victories, when playing this game, are short-lived since paybacks are always Hell.
And make no mistake – it is the United States that pays the most for this game.
Unfortunately GSheridan I think your are right. The despicable way Democrats have piled on G W Bush will become the standard of how Presidents are treated. The Democrats have gone so far over the top on anything in the Bush administration they can’t even think rationally anymore. A dog peeing on a tree in a park is Bush’s fault now.
If the Democrats win, their duly elected candidate will probably suffer so many investigations and probes they will end up withdrawing into a cocoon.
This won’t be from the Republicans of the American people. This will be from the hard corp insiders of DC who want payback in a huge way.
Sad, but I can see it coming.
That is so true wiseman, LoL if anything I could give credit to what has been happening it is that I finally cracked a book in over ten years! In the last five months I have read four and I am on my fifth. If I have learned anything it has been that President Bush was not alone in the missteps and faulty thinking.Not only did the intelligence community let him down but let this country down MISERABLY!
I am currently reading “STATE OF DENIAL” by Bob Woodard, the third in a series of book about Bush at war. Army Major General James “spider” Marks was put in charge of planning for the WMDs that would be found in Iraq after it was invaded. He called upon a group that has the nic-name of the “Smart guys” these were said to be the experts on just about everything. When asked about what they knew about Iraq’s WMDs, they gave a list of 948 sites where WMDs were at, but when the General asked for details such as what kind of WMDs were at the sites, how many and the danger at each site” their answer was that they did not know. He asked them then how did they know for sure that there were even WMDs there? They said they did not, the list had been done in the middle 90s. There was no on the ground Intel available, nor information that was newer then five years old. After that all that was available were satellite photos, this bothered Marks to no end. He was responsible for planning for the actions taken after the WMDs were found. But could not find anyone that actually knew what kind of WMDs he would have to plan for and where? The only kind that was the general consensus that Saddam did not have were Nuclear.
It did not help the General when the U.N. inspectors were allowed back in and went to several of the sites and found nothing. There was an incident were satellites were focused on one of the sites and captured the Inspectors coming in the front while several people were moving something out the back of the Building. But no one could tell what was being moved out the back. As the General is quoted, “we can not tell if it was WMDs or Bicycles!”.
This also confirms what was in the book “The secret history of the Iraq war”, the author states at the end of the book that it was the intelligence communities failure to provide President Bush with proof of either there were still WMDs and any information that could have convince him to not invade Iraq.
There were many that though fault logic or failed intelligence lead to the Iraq war. This does not totally excuse President Bush from blame, he did have a desire to right what he perceived as a wrong done to his father for not going all the way to Baghdad during the first Gulf war.
A interesting note at least for me, I understood why Bush Sr. did not go in. Under the U.N. mandate the U.S. was not legally covered to enter Iraq. As soon as we would have the coalition would have been broken and we alone would have been responsible for the outcome. In a bit of Irony, G.H. Bush explained his reasoning at a speech he gave where he was being honored. He stated that he did not consider going to Baghdad as it would have put the U.S. in a war against a insurgency and we would have been fighting it alone for over ten years.
I will have to go back into the book and search for the date of the above mentioned speech. As soon as I find it I will give it here so others can check out the details for themselves. But like reading on any controversial topic. It is best to do your own research and not take the word of only one person.
“The despicable way Democrats have piled on G W Bush will become the standard of how Presidents are treated.”
No, The despicable way Republicans piled on Bill Clinton HAS become the standard of how Presidents are treated. Remember the 90s?
I agree 100 precent with you G and Republican. And yes it is the American people that pay for such actions.
On his second journey across the Atlantic to serve as ambassador to France, John Adams (with two young sons in tow including John Quincy) found himself in Spain when his ship – leaking to the point that when finally in port and they stopped operating the hand pumps it was six feet under water within two hours – blew off course.
When he was informed that it would take several months to get another ship in place to take them up the coast to France, he made the decision to walk overland, a journey of roughly one thousand miles over several ranges of mountains.
How many of us would be willing to make this kind of sacrifice for something in which we believe? Not many I would guess but it is just the sort of commitment we need to public service and we are very shy.
We are more akin to the Romans toward the end of their empire; willing to set aside duty for pleasure.
“No, The despicable way Republicans piled on Bill Clinton HAS become the standard of how Presidents are treated. Remember the 90s?”
Clinton brought it on himself. Remember all the “gates”? Travel office, file, Whitewater, cattle futures…
And Bush is bringing this all upon himself – Iraq, WMDs, Walter Reed, Gonzales, Libby …
Both good observations, but I might point out that the disagreement with Bush has been on Policy.
The thing with Clinton was on his personal choices and suspect dealings for his own personal gain and at the expense of others.
Both can be complained about and protested against, but the Democratic Party has brought us a whole new level of dirty politics and finger pointing.
And the Democrats are proud of this?
“And Bush is bringing this all upon himself – Iraq, WMDs, Walter Reed, Gonzales, Libby …”
Iraq- approved by CongressWMD’s– Sure looked like itWalter Reed- Welcome To HillaryCareGonzales- No there thereLibby- TBA
For reasons I don’t understand, Bush has evoked a visceral hatered from the left like no other before him.We have seen it on this blog site, in the media, etc.Something about him really, really, angers Dems, and has from day 1.Why?
It’s a pissing contest neither side can win…
When Clinton was in office, the Republicans went after anything and everything they could find or make up on him. To this day, in an argument on politics, nine times out of ten, it will come back to being “clinton’s fault”. That is a LARGE part of the Democratic party’s problem with the Republican Party – at least in as much as I have read – that they never accept culpability for anything – it is always someone else’s fault.
But honestly, the democrats aren’t any better. They have automatically jumped the bandwagon into “bush sucks” (and yes, I admit I have been there myself, but then, I honestly feel that way) without looking at further information…
My issues with Bush are this: in his zest to retaliate against Iraq for percieved wrongs against his father (and possibly for further oil profitability) he based his decision to go on on what he KNEW was outdated, faulty information… and he knew BEFORE the actual invasion that there were no WMD’s (his basis for invasion) but failed to release this information to decision makers ahead of time. He has repeatedly offended major world players with statements and actions against other countries, and when confronted, takes a “we are the most powerful nation in the world, we can do what we want” stance – well great Ace, yeah right now we are the most powerful nation in the world, but we didn’t get that way on our own and we sure as hell won’t be able to stay that way on our own, so why don’t you quit alienating people who are willing to help us? Because if you don’t, in 20 years, we are going to be screwed – literally and figuratively. Not to mention the fact that every time the man opens his mouth, I swear my IQ drops 20 points – he certainly isn’t helping the US look intelligent on an international front… And for all of you “but look at what he did with 9/11″ fanatics – yeah, look at what he did! six years later, He tells the PRESS that he doesn’t even remember who Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind SEVERAL US attacks and quite possibly our most dangerous enemy, is!!!!! Yep, that inspires a lot of confidence… And before you jump on me about not supporting the war – no, I don’t support the war IN IRAQ – we went there under false pretenses, we have made a mess we will never be able to fix, and we have lost thousands of american lives in the process… the war IN AFGHANISTAN i do support, and i do feel that is where we should have been fighting all along…
Iraq – Congress mistakenly relied on what Bush told themWMDs – not to me – inspectors were looking at itWalter Reed – Hillary NOT in charge
Whitewater – no there thereTravelgate – no there thereCattle – no there there
why sanford? Maybe because of what he has done to our country. And maybe some of it is “what goes around comes around” after the previous 8 years. Why YOUR visceral hate of Clinton?
In the time before Iraq the media fawned all over Bush – hardly visceral hate. And the dems were pretty much passive for almost 4 years.
There WAS a bit of an additional ‘hangover’ from the 2000 elections – questions about FL and the first minority-vote president since Harrison (I think).
“Why YOUR visceral hate of Clinton?”
Chill out, Hardly. I never expressed that sentiment. I defy you to prove otherwise.
Me thinks the venom-spewing boy-cotters are signing back on under new names and resuming past behaviors.
Generic “you” – and, by the way, I have no visceral hate for Bush. Just what he has done to my country.
I have to wonder about anyone who can blame Walter Reed on Hillary. Not you Sanford but check 8:50 above.
GS put things in good perspective above: “After the far-right went after Clinton on his lack of morality, the Dems came back with a vengeance after GWB.
Victories, when playing this game, are short-lived since paybacks are always Hell.
And make no mistake – it is the United States that pays the most for this game.”
And wendy also added a lot.
Hardly~ By definition, “YOU” is specific, not generic. “They” or “Many” or “Some” is generic.
I didn’t interpret the 8:50 as blaming Hillary, more in line with Fleets previous statements, it meant Hillary-care will produce those results nation-wide. But, I will let him/her defend themself.
“I have to wonder about anyone who can blame Walter Reed on Hillary.”
It was not an attempt to blame Hillary. It is a preview of what Govermant Health Care looks like.
“And the dems were pretty much passive for almost 4 years.There WAS a bit of an additional ‘hangover’ from the 2000 elections – questions about FL and the first minority-vote president since Harrison (I think).”Posted by: HardTruth | March 16, 2007 at 08:58 AM
I remember in one of the Presidential debates of Gore v. Bush, when it was Bush’s turn to respond to a question, Gore…instead of standing where he was supposed to and giving Bush a chance to speak…walked up to Bush very closely and rocked up on his toes to show he was taller than Bush and somehow superior.
I and millions of others got a very good insight into what Gore was really like. An egotistical person whose attempt at Sophomoric showmanship somehow would display his “superiority” by violating Bush’s response standing extremely close and rocking up on his toes during a debate.
I thought to myself, what an embarrassment to the Democratic Party that must be and how ridiculous for anyone to do that during a professionally held debate.
Many people formed their opinion of Gore when he did that. He showed his butt big time.
As far as the vote was concerned, liberal newspaper spent their own money and investigated the “Chad” affair. Guess what? They found more votes for Bush than the election officials had.
End of story.
Gee, Sanford, and you harp on the “boycotters” for their vile behavior – I haven’t seen anyone else on here change bloggers names to deragatory nicknames but YOU since all of this started – and FYI, HardTruth was posting on here long before said “boycott” ever went into effect, he is NOT one of the boycotters… Seriously – you want them to act like adults, perhaps you should take a look at your own actions first…
HardTruth is another name that one of the boycotter’s has always used.
This is another example of their hypocrisy.
We are not stupid, we just never complained about it like some.
Republican – I remember that also. Gore looked like an idiot. And I didn’t say the FL vote was wrong – just that it was “hot”. And, as noted, Bush is the firsy minority-vote president in modern history. While we have had several without an absolute majority of the popular vote they all had a plurality. Bush did not.
As for invective against Bush – I defy sanford to prove any of that against me prior to Iraq. I supported going into Afghanistan.
Any word on when the “Fisting with Fury” bunch might come back?Are the editors looking at their complaints?
Oh gawd fleettwood, you just make me laugh out loud so much…(wipes tears from eyes)
“I defy sanford to prove any of that against me prior to Iraq. I supported going into Afghanistan.
Posted by: HardTruth | March 16, 2007 at 09:33 AM”
Huh?? Prove any of what?
If you’re referring to my post regarding Bush hatred ……I did not accuse you, or anyone specifically.I did, and am, posing an observation (hatred towards bush). I am curious why he evokes such a response.
And, HardTruth, my use of ‘Hardly’ was/is a friendly poke. Not meant to be ‘defamatory’ as Wendy thinks.
HardlyTruth is much better that AssTampon
“Oh gawd fleettwood, you just make me laugh out loud so much…(wipes tears from eyes)
Posted by: Republican | March 16, 2007 at 09:36 AM ”
Fleet~ ditto for you last post.Or, should I call you AT?
As wendy noted at 9:26 fleettwood …
Sanford – I took your earlier one as only friendly too.
And my (perhaps badly used) attempted generic “you” was not directed at you. Like you, I was simply observing so much visceral hatred of Clinton. And, like you, I am curious as to why.
See, the thing is Republican, I have to take statements like the fact that HardTruth is just another name for one of the posters with a grain of salt – because I have been accused, on MANY an occasion, of being political_mom – Which I am NOT – she knows it and I know it and anyone who wants to try to email me knows it… so I just pretty much don’t listen to ANYONE’s accusations that they are using a different name, because I am fully aware of how easy it is for people to be WRONG….
Visceral hatred – sanford, I have given it some thought. We HAVE seen a very simialar thing before – LBJ. He was not hated when he took office (although there were many who didn’t fully trust him). However, by about 65 or 66 he was really getting there. The reason? VietNam.
Nixon picked up a lot of that after a couple of years in office when his “secret plan” failed to materialize. But, I don’t think he ever got it as bad as LBJ.
Competence? Yup that goes to the core of it.
I was a Republican once. I gave up on that party, It has no principles. It has phony causes at which it pretends to work. But at the base of it is a party that is about getting the rich richer. The rest is all window dressing.
bush. I started hearing that name in 1997. I remember saying “bush? bush who?”
Then I found out. Oh my what an epitome of what I see in the Republican party. bush was selected to be a cardboard cut out, an empty suit that would “preside” as his masters worked to destroy all the economic and social progress of the last 60 years. His very CANDIDACY I found insulting and offensive. But this was not enough. No the forces that would make this mockery had to smear and stain John McCain to get their puppet the nomination.Then they stole the election.
THEN that sonofabitch had the GALL to stand and brag “A President of the United States is a President of all the people” in other words “suck it! I’m President!”
Not of me he aint. I hate that vile smirking little (*&^(&^*(.
Wendy, I am 99.999999 percent sure I know who HardTruth is.
To me, it doesn’t matter and I’m not going to out him. If he wants to post under HardTruth or GeorgeWashington, that’s fine with me.
I just don’t like double standards that the Fist folks layed on certain people; when they are doing now and have always done on this Blog – multiple nics etc etc
“Not of me he aint. I hate that vile smirking little (*&^(&^*(.
Posted by: J R | March 16, 2007 at 10:34 AM”
Visceral hatred.
HT~ I know all public figures, especially Presidents, inspire the opposition, but, Bush has seemed to struck a nerve of the left.
One could say the same for Clinton (from the right), but, Bush seems to set a new standard.That is why I chose the word ‘visceral’, because it seems to come from a depth that I don’t understand.
Republican: Where I think the “Fists of Freedom” went wrong, was in making it a partisan matter. No attempts to get right of center folks involved and thereby making it more than something to poke fun at.
Well that and the stupid name.
sanford – I don’t know if you are old enough to remember LBJ but I would say he had the same level of visceral hate. And Clinton did too – just for very different reasons. Remember, the Republicans set aside all real work in Congress to carry out their partisan impeachment.
In some ways the impeachment of Nixon might have some similarities – however it was sufficiently bi-partisan that he could see 67 votes in the Senate to convist.
“carry out their partisan impeachment.”
I don’t want to rehash a dead old argument, but, I must clarify. Obstruction of Justice is hardly a partison affair (no pun intended)Hell, he was dis-barred in his own home State!! These weren’t just fabricated charges.
Nobody cares what goes on under the Presidents desk, just don’t point that thumb on national tv, or in front of a Federal judge and deny that it ever happened.
And here is the rub sanford. We on the other side see what Bush has done (WMDs, outing Plame, etc etc etc) as being as bad or worse than lying about a BJ.
I didn’t say they were fabricated; just that they were partisanly blown out of proportion.
So, some on your side viscerally hated Clinton for that; some on my side viscerally hate Bush for Iraq.
And many in BOTH parties visverally hated LBJ.
I had a Visceral hatred for Clinton, it has carried over to Hillary though she maybe a stand alone hatred.My opinion of him lighten up after reading “Against all enemies”, but honestly the name does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I have stated why it was a personal matter to me, it at times was really unreasonable.Much like some have for Bush, but as to Bush there are many thoughts that lead to my hatred for G.W. that one day, if I am feeling in a real mean mood and wanting a good spat. I will list in full, but to be honest it is so out there that even I at times wonder how I could actually believe as I do. In part there is a part of me that really would rather not believe it. But that is for another day….
Outlander, a point of order, I was invited too join the boycott but like JR I saw this as something that would be a form of censorship. Along with there would be a real danger in some of the request that the striking bloggers have.Who would decide what is over the top? We, me included lose my tempt and say thing I might not say otherwise say. I at time have mistaken humor for a slam, misunderstood what someone said and found it offense.
Right now I am some what offended by what JR said of the republican party, if it took money to join I could not be a Republican. I was once told that it is an oxymoron to be poor and call oneself a Republican. I took it with a grain of salt because it was a Democrat that said it of me. At least in principal the republican party see that it take a strong business to provide good jobs for the American people. Good jobs are better then being on welfare. I am strongly pro-gun and for years had seen that the Republican party was safeguarding my rights under the second amendment.
Am I so offended by JR comment that I will call him names and mock his party? No I believe I have taken the right steps above! Some of what he said is true and the truth does hurt at times. I am sure that in the past my saying that the Democratic party has a talent for pulling a defeat from a victory. Has offended some, I was meaning no offense just stating what I see as a fact. The same as JR was stating as to the reasons he is not longer a Republican.
Writer Dog you have hit on some very good truths. I feel that some have came back under different nics. That is their perogative. I feel it is a little bit intellectually disingenuous. But that is my opinion.
Wendy I haven’t figured out yet. She definitely feels she has a bone to grind with me about something. My thoughts are that she sure has a lot of spare time with a two year old in the house. Mine at that age wanted lots of my undivided attention.
I have stated in the past that I don’t approve of all Bush has done. I have serious disagreements with some of his policies. Lack of border control is the biggest of these. The Iraq war will be his shining beacon or not. History will judge that I am sure.
I am a republican because I feel they have policies that encourage business owners to expand and hire more workers. I think that the free market will drive itself. When the dems start putting mandates on business owners without the incentives to fund these. They have done two things. Products produced will increase in cost to the consumer and if this doesn’t help enough workers will be laid off.
We see inflation creeping up because of high fuel cost right now. (I thought the dems were going to fix that when they were elected). This in turn drives up the cost of food, clothing, anything that has to be transported to retail outlets. Higher interest rates will follow and the investment by business owners will slow down. This in effects will slow down the entire economy.
Just my humble opinion and a lot of what I learned in Econ101.
Honestly, I dont have a bone to grind with you, but go ahead and think that if it makes you feel better. I just happen to disagree with a LOT of what you say.
And by the way, whether or not I have a lot of spare time is frankly none of your business – for several reasons, not the least of which being you will notice that I only post during certain hours of the day, which would be when my son is in daycare, thank you very much. I take much offense, as a single parent who is working hard to take care of her child, of you even IMPLYING that I am doing any less than my best… and yes, before you go getting all defensive, you did imply, and I am reasonablye certain you did so intentionally… I can certainly turn that in to a bone to pick with you if you like…
And when have I EVER come after in anything other than a response to a statement you made? My right to my own opinion as well, remember? Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t get to respond to your statements – just as you get to respond to mine… Just a little bit hypocritical……
2 years old? they are still cute at that age. Just you wait …
;^)
“We on the other side see what Bush has done (WMDs, outing Plame, etc etc etc) as being as bad or worse than lying about a BJ.”
HT~ Ok, I’ll try this again. I’m not one to produce long scroll-over posts, ergo, I confine my posts (hopefully) to specifics.
Specifically: Bush has not lied to a Federal Judge, under oath, trying to manipulate the outcome of Federal charges against him. Yes or no?I maintain, and history proves that Clinton did. It ain’t about a bj.
(WMD’s): Bush may have been incorrect while drawing some of the same conclusions based on ‘evidence’ that Clinton/Gore and Congress also saw and beleived to be true. But, that is mistaken, not perjurious. Yes or no?
(outing Plame): 2 things here~ 1) you may think, but, there is no evidence that Bush did any such thing. Yes or no? 2) Visceral hatred for Bush pre-dates Plame by several years. Yep or nope?
Ksgrm has hit on the theory of Republicans, however, what he didn’t hit on is that it doesn’t work that way MOST times. In short, help the business succeed, then it hires people, the people succeed, we are all happy. How does it really work? Give the businesses big tax breaks, they keep the extra money, there is no trickle down effect, and the economy suffers anyway because the money was never given to the workers who would have spent it.
Besides, who here REALLY believes that the oil companies don’t have their hands down the Republican party’s panties?
And, last of all, how many men here can truthfully say they (as moral, upstanding citizens, of course) would turn down a BJ, especially having a wife like Hilary? Yeah, probably none, so try to step down from your self righteous high horse.
IT AIN’T ABOUT A BJ.
Ok, ok, so if it’s not about a BJ, let’s put it in better perspective. Clinton getting a BJ and lying to a judge didn’t raise gas prices, cause inflation, or make the economy suffer.
Chy.. Not going into the BJ part of your thread above ..
But your thread say’s above that businesses pay taxes. What you need to learn is that businesses don’t pay taxes. you do.. they will charge customers enough for every product they sale to cover there taxes.. you raise taxes on products sold and they just raise the price if the product..
“Clinton getting a BJ and lying to a judge didn’t raise gas prices, cause inflation, or make the economy suffer.”
Oh, boy. So much to type, so few fingers……………..I’m not sure how you took the exchanges between HT and I, and made that broad, sweeping jump, but,,,, whatever.
Right on, BG.Nor do Corp’s make profits. Shareholders do. Who are shareholders, well, that would be Unions, retirees, the general public, etc.
“Visceral hatred for Bush pre-dates Plame by several years. Yep or nope?”
I’d have to check the dates. As I see it what you call the visceral hatred got going with the Iraq invasion.
The Republican and talk-show visceral hatred of Clinton started before his inauguration.
“lying to a judge didn’t raise gas prices, cause inflation, or make the economy suffer.
Posted by: Chy | March 16, 2007 at 02:37 PM ”
HT~ this is a good example of the irrartional, visceral hatred of Bush. Everything that happens in this Nation is blamed on Bush by the bush-haters. It’s irrational, the hatred for this man.
I’m not saying he’s a good (or bad) Prez. We haven’t even delved into that.
That could be because before he was elected he had already been involved in 3 sexual harassment cases.. which I believe cost him allot of money..
Still don’t know how he was elected with that on his resume..
should have been a sign what would later come to pass.
I agree that Clinton received his share of viscerl-oscity (a new word), but, Bush has sent it over the top.
JM . . . er. . . republikant . . . er republican brings Gore into the picture? And that adds something to this thread? My how the neo-nuts are reaching into their bag ‘O bones to find something to shield their lord and master, herr bush, from any attempt to show what an idiot he really is.
Ya, moron, you vote the party line: look where it’s got us. like Iraq for instance?
As is routine in this forum, the original topic has been left behind so the Right Wing Circle jerks can snark about liberals in general and the Clintons specifically.
The issue at hand is, or was, the utter incompetence of George WMD Bush’s administration of the United States government. Even if there are valid reasons for supporting conservatism, Shrub is a lousy champion to back. It’s like advocating professional football excellence and rooting for the Arizona Cardinals.
“ksgrm” talks about the power of the free market. Okay, there’s a case to be made. But it doesn’t include no-bid contracts to Dick Cheney’s political cronies.
Illegal immigration is an economic and, potentially, a national security threat to the United States. But the only-est reason people sneak into the country is to get jobs from corporations that contribute massive amounts of money to Republicans in return for lax enforcement of “oppressive” employment regulations.
Petroleum is an important, perhaps even essential, element of 20th Century economics. Slavery was an important, even essential element of 18th Century economics. But ya know what? Civilization outgrew slavery (for the most part) and civilization will one day realize it has to outgrow dependence on crude oil. Gasoline became the fuel of choice for automobiles at the beginning of the 20th Century because it was a by-product, a leftover of then-contemporary oil refinement. In a couple of hundred years (if we survive) people will look back on us and wonder how primitive we are to simply *BURN* a precious resource that is the basis for plastics and lubracants and chemical polymers. “They *BURNED* it!!” The current “conservative” attitude toward oil will be looked upon the way current medical science looks back at leeches and bleeding.
The reason I’m a liberal is because conservatives have always, consistantly, predictably, and so thoroughly, been wrong.
Butcha know something? Even as they’ve been wrong, conservatives have somehow helped progress along the way. Conservatives on the Supreme Court slowed down some of the revolutionary advances advocated by FDR in the face of capitalism’s most notable fiasco, the Great Depression. Instead of a fascist or communist reform of 19th Century Gilded Age capitalist triumphs, conservatives molded an *American* way to create a government that serves the needs of people (Social Security for the aged and infirm; medical care for everyong…although the financing for healthcare still needs some work; environmental protection of the earth, the air, and water…which is still a problem; etc). And that’s what our form of government is supposed to be about.
Republicans lately have figured out a way to distort the way government was designed to work in America. The Founding Fathers contrived some basic rules in the Constitution that limited government from the whims of theology and ideology. Republicans have lately figured out a way to manipulate the Constitution toward the fundamentalist “Christianity” flavor of the day. Forget for a moment that the current Republican coalition depends on utterly non-conservative, but autocratic, issues.
Today’s Republicans depend on selfishness. “I got mine; the rest can go to hell,” should be the GOP motto. They revel in all of the benefits of American society but rail against the consequences. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but everyone wants the fire trucks. Republicans tend to live their lives as if *they* will never catch fire.
Libertarians go through life thinking the Interstate Highway System is a natural stone formation.
Only the “liberals” recognize that we’re all in this together and must share the cost and the benefits of people working together.
Ah, but “conservatives” have chosen George WMD Bush as their champion! He’s their prophet, their champion, their “decider!”
Under the guise of “conservatism” the Republican Party achived a decade’s worth of unmitigated power in the United States. Did they eliminate abortion? No, they needed the issue on election day more than they wanted the policy. Did they reduce the size of government? No, they increased government spending and directed those dollars to their corporate pimps. Did they “return integrity to the Oval Office?” No, they screeched, “Clinton did it, too!” Even when he didn’t. Even when, if he might have, it was 10 or more years ago and *the very things Republicans claimed they were outraged about!*
There is a valid place for conservative thought in the American political process. It represents a legitimate minority, one which should be considered in the making of public policy. But the administration of George WMD Bush should be a lesson to conservatives that their short-term political gains will destroy the ideals they claim to advocate.
If Shrub is the answer, it’s the wrong question.
monkeyhawk,Thank you.My scroller was getting was getting rusty.
Yeah, that’s right…if Democrats would have been elected Gore after Clinton, we would be towel boys for the Osama crew now.
“The reason I’m a liberal is because conservatives have always, consistantly, predictably, and so thoroughly, been wrong. ”
So, MoneyHawk … How’s that “War on Poverty” working out for ya?
And, isn’t “always, consistantly, predictably” a bit redundant x 3 ??
Is $$Hawk another fister that has come crawling back to the crack? Or, is he a pre-fister rebellion?
Monkeyhawk..You state above that Republicans don’t like to pay taxes.. well you are wrong, they just don’t want to pay all.. we don’t believe in earned income credits or single head of household tax redistribution.. some people pay nothing, we pay our taxes every year.. and every year the government sends it back out to people that don’t pay for the Firetruck at all.
Repub,
Stick to Bush failing in Iraq. Mission Accomplished.
Cheney for “dead enders”, our soldiers will get hero’s welcome in Iraq and his thoughts how easy to take the oil from Saddam.
Unknowing the cultural differences inside Iraq. Shooting a friend in the face. Haliburton profiteer and more access for them to get no bid contracts.
Go back and stick it to Reagan for sending Rumsfeld offering a warm handshake for Saddam.
Rumsfeld failed his duty, go to war with what we have. Not enough armor on trucks or people. Too few soldiers causing redeployments. Too much on the National Guard.
Don’t you know Reagan is the fault for Iran today, the world still has to deal with.
Plenty of wrong exists, than thinking Gore would be worse.
It’s fine to be Republican. Don’t be Repuglican.
Oh my Mrage, “shooting a friend in the face.” Too bad his friend even said it was an accident.
But I guess the Democrats never, ever, ever forgive anything as long as they get venomous spew out of it.
Yep, Democratic talking points.
Repub,
Yeah, keep blaming others.
Who says you should forgive Cheney for failing to handle his shotgun.
Kids get hunter safety training every year and they should have a poster of Cheney with his shotgun, DON’T SHOOT LIKE HIM!
Mrage if we are going to think like that we should probably have some bumper stickers printed up “Don’t Drive Like Teddy” afterall it is still safer to go hunting with Dick that riding with Teddy.
Historically,The British and the French are responsible for much of the Middle East problems and readily admit it.
And whatever Mrage, send other candidates like Gore or Kerry to the polls so they can “snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.”
Still awhile for the Democratic candidates for them to stick their collective foots in their mouths and turn off the American Public once again.
How Teddy got away with that, is unforgivable. Don’t drive like Teddy bumperstickers are fine to me.
Others in the Kennedy clan have crimes against them and they get off.
Politics is one thing, personal responsibility is another. Some personal actions can’t be covered by the political party.
Repub,
Gore wasn’t my favorite, nor was Kerry. They lost. Doesn’t mean Bush has been great to have as President.
You can’t forgive some decisions he’s made.
We don’t know what staff Gore or Kerry could have had. Many others would be better than having Cheney as Vice President.
I’m for cross party White House in future years. President should pick the best staff in all agencies from either party.
One party administration’s causes the fraud. Along party line voting in Congress harms legislation. Majority has to compromise.
Oh my, what a Democratic Love Fest on CSPAN… or maybe it should be renamed CSPIN…(cough, hack)
“I’m for cross party White House in future years.”
That sounds all wonderful and all, but Repubs and Dems are different for a reason. Both sides want more or less the same thing, the difference being how one goes about it. Those differences are stark.
Fleet,
The military is full of cross party believers. Why does it work there and not on the political side. Republican and Democratic Generals have jobs to do.
It’s when one party politics corrupts the military and we have problems maintaining war.
Problems within the soldiers when they don’t believe the mission because of one party rule.
Soldiers like to hear about Karl Rove being an important White House decision maker? It’s the Republican ideal to wage war this way? That makes this a political war in Iraq. How Afghanistan was abandoned.
Soldiers don’t deserve that political treatment.
That’s why citizens have to bust the political parties as less important. It’s not worthwhile to promote either party over the other. We have to devalue the political parties.
Sorry for the inconvenience, Fleet.
Bet your lips got tired as you read it, too.
When I was in the military, we could care less who the White House Chief of Staff was, did or would do. We looked to our Commanders and the President and sometimes the occasional Congressman that came to visit.
So, to answer your observations Mrage, most in the military could care less about the political stuff, there simply wasn’t time for it.
And just like any other worker, they payed close attention when the Congress talked about pay raises or other military benefits.
You wanted to know what was on the minds of the military for the most part, there it is.
BG –
You’ve got a legitimate gripe against earned income credits if you really believe “some people pay nothing.”
But, of course (predictably and consitently), you’re wrong.
The poorest of the poor pay a far higher proportion of their incomes in, for example, sales and property taxes. Earned Income Credits merely attempt to balance the discrepancy.
Don’t be so naive.
Republican -
Thanks for the insight as to how the military regards the politics du jour.
You’ve just exposed Dick Cheney’s “undermining the troops” meme as self-serving political tripe.
I support the troops with all my heart and soul and the best way to do that is to advocate getting them out of the crossfire of an Iraqi civil war. Y’know, the George WMD Bush Administration wouldn’t have to outlaw photographing the caskets of returning American heroes if we just got our troops out of the crossfire. There would be no Walter Reed scandal if Shrub had thought about the consequences if his war of choice that had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda. Scooter Libby wouldn’t have had to obstruct justice if there’d been no trumped up “justifications” for waging war aginst a nation that had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attack.
On September 10th, 2001, George WMD Bush had the world at his back. He squandered the world’s support by vectoring the “war on terrorism” into Iraq. If FDR had been as incompetent as Shrub, the United States’ reaction to Pearl Harbor would have been to attack Brazil.
Before Bush, before Rumsfeld, before Cheney, one of the strengths of America was a military that knew its capacity and could muster its resources to achive American goals.
The goals of George WMD Bush are decidedly un-American. An aggressive, un-provoked war halfway around the world? That’s not the American way. Never was. Never should be.
How come I’m not waving my flag after your speech MoneyHawk?
I feel no inspiration, no patriotism.
I tell what I see; self-serving statements to shine up the brass buttons on your threadbare political uniform. :)
HA! We (the government) are going to pretend we aren’t taking money away from you for social security. Instead, we’re going to pretend it’s still your money and we’re just forcing you to save it for your retirement.
Yeah. Government telling you what to do with your money. That’s _reeeeal_ conservative. NOT!
2 years old? they are still cute at that age. Just you wait …
;^)LOL my oldest grandson just turned three. He went from getting into everything to getting into every and then just standing there looking at me! I love that boy….
Hey, is GWB trying to do that Ronnie Regan thing? CAN’T hear you….so sorry!
One thing that always separated Democracy from communism was that we never launched wars of aggression to spread our form of government. That was a sad change for America, as well as a futile one as our society will not stand for the kind of treatment of a country that would be necessary to make it effective. We’re better than that.
Yeah, he has his moments :) He is starting to talk back – the other day, he told me “no!” and I asked him “are you supposed to tell mommy no?” and he says, “No, I not.” So I asked him “then why did you” and he replied “Because!” And the whole time I am thinking to myself – you are WAY too young to be pulling that one already!
I digress however… You know Republican, I like how so many in your political party like to play the “liberals don’t support our troops” game… it isn’t a matter of supporting our troops, at least for me. it’s a matter of not feeling like I should support a war we never got in. I don’t hold our troops responsible for that decision – I know they are doing their job, risking their lives for us, and I cannot express my gratitude enough for them. That doesn’t mean that I can’t feel like it is a WASTE! We should NEVER have gone into Iraq, and I think that is something that is becoming more and more apparent as the days go by – and I am sorry, but poor decision making like that on that part of Bush is just part of the problem… I agree that what would best serve this country at this point would not be to worry about whether someone was republican or democrat, but to choose based on what they have done during their time in office… too many people blindly vote along party lines without checking to see who and what they are voting for first!!
And BG – I pay plenty in taxes every year – roughly 20% of my income goes to paying taxes – and I recieve EIC and head of household status on the years I claim my son – as a single mother, who does NOT recieve child support because my ex just doesnt pay it and the court system leaves a lot to be desired in my ability to collect it, I NEED the money I get from those tax breaks to get me through the year – and you think that just because “I don’t pay taxes” (WHICH I DO THANK YOU VERY MUCH) I shouldn’t get that help? I don’t qualify for public assistance (and I wouldnt’ want to use it even if I did) so tax breaks like that are really the only way I can afford to get through the year without getting myself further into debt… maybe you should think about those of us who work our butts off and still don’t make enough money due to the amount of taxes we pay…
Wendy – I am one of those in a rather higher tax bracket than you and who does not get the tax breaks. I am thankful that we have the income that we have that results in that. On the other hand I am fully in support of the breaks that you can get to help you keep your head above water and to provide for your child. Hang in there and next time he say “no” give him a ‘gentle’ pop on the butt to ‘get his attention’! ;^)
Oh believe me, he gets disciplined! (I try to save “spanking” for the serious offenses, ones where he would be in danger) But time-out has been pretty effective for him – he has to sit there until he apologizes for whatever he has done wrong, and if he throws a fit when I put him in time out, he sits there until he is done crying and yelling (which can be a while) He is mostly a well-behaved child, but he is two, and he has his moments…