No, really!
Bush:
Bushco Spokesman:
So Kerry’s position is identical to Bush’s - that is, to advocate retreat and defeat in the face of terror!
These guys really are stranger than fiction.
And dumber than even the worst fan fiction.
Yeah, but it’s Kerry. He’s probably adopted both positions: exactly what Bush is doing and also not what Bush is doing. And he has 3 purple hearts! 
*"These guys really are stranger than fiction.
And dumber than even the worst fan fiction."*
Yet obviously they are smarter than their opposition, else they couldn’t be leading in the polls.
Too bad the Dems didn’t pick a presentable candidate…
Okay, let me preface this by saying that I’m having trouble thinking in sentences more complex than the first few lines of your average Dick and Jane book (don’t let the long sentence here fool you).
For the life of me, this is how it boils down:
Bush folks: “Kerry’s plan is like ours, except not. Because.”
Please tell me I’m missing something really crucial. My head already hurts enough from encountering some really bizarre shit tonight.
So RTFirefly purportedly has a Phd in something? And these posts are what he comes up with? Color me unimpressed.
Dude, Reeder may be giving us a respite from these types of threads, but that doesn’t mean that you’re obligated to pick up the ball and run with it.
Seriously. You’ve even been using the same descriptors (Bushco., Bushies). Please stop.
If we are to believe the administration’s leaker-in-chief, Robert Novak, it’s worse than that RTF. Bush plans to cut and run, negating the noble sacrifice of our troops and handing al Qaeda a major victory:
Quick exit from Iraq is likely
Novak was the first to hear about Valerie Plame. Who’s to say he’s not also first to hear about Bush abandoning his only serious effort in TWAT?
If that’s what Iraq was.
RT:
Schmidt is referring to Kerry’s “cut and run” argument.
Bush is referring to Kerry’s “Stay and fight” argument.
It’s not Bushcos fault that the official Cola of the Kerry campaign is Coke and Pepsi.
In the field of mathematics, and IIRC something to do with statistics, though I could be completely wrong. He does work with stats, though.
Do you honestly equate intelligence with the ability to do well in polls?
Moreover, which Democratic politician/candidate do you think would be more presentable than Kerry?
Megadittos. 
Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t vote for Bush even under threat of teabagging a wolverine, but I gotta say, I’m pretty fucking sick of these stupid little Bushco-type shots. They lower the tone of the debate and make it impossible to take seriously either the argument or, more importantly, its source. Y’know how stupid the people seem who think “Algore” is clever? Bushco is the same thing, from the other side. Knock it off or sacrifice your rhetorical cachet.
Yes, I get what is implied by the epithet, and yes, I agree with it completely. But I think “Bush and his big-money, big-corporation political base” is a much more effective mantra, because it conveys the same idea by, oh my God, check it out, actually conveying the idea! Imagine that.
Snark is for talk radio. We’re better than that here. Or we should be, anyway.
Oh, you’re just angry because they’ve gone stale. Here, I made some new ones, just for you guys!
Bushwaffe - HaBushan - Bushinni - Angry Bush Mainyu.
Well, I think they’re good.
I always thought “Algore” was sorta funny. “I am Algore! Of the Forests! Elrond is my second cousin. Now let me tell you about my plan for putting The One Ring in a lockbox…”
Bushwaffe has a certain appealing ring to it!
I agree. This is as stupid as any **Reeder[/ b] thread. At least his were pure rants. This is so easily debunked, the rant dissipates like a flea’s fart.
You’re welcome to debunk it. Fire away!
I can’t argue about whether it’s stupid. That’s obviously in the eye of the beholder.
Both comments were about Kerry’s Iraq speech yesterday, which everybody in the media and the political world had been told was coming. Team Bush was even alerting the media to their upcoming response before Kerry gave the speech that they were responding to; none of this was particularly off-the-cuff, even.
So when Bush says, ‘Kerry’s Iraq policy is the same as mine,’ and his campaign spokesman says, ‘Kerry’s Iraq policy is one of retreat and defeat,’ I do in fact regard it as fair game.
Dunno about Novak - he may be right, but who’s to know? But I’ll make one prediction: if Kerry wins, Bush won’t bring the troops home in any major way. I’m open to a friendly bet or two on this one.
Re ‘Bushies’, ‘BushCo’, ‘Team Bush’, and the like, they’re shorthands for ‘Bush and the people who are on his team.’ Feel free to suggest better ones. Awhile back, people were getting irritated by all the derogatory terms for Bush himself (‘Shrub,’ etc.), so I’ve been using them a lot less. (I think I’ve more or less cleansed them from my vocabulary here, but I won’t swear to it, and I don’t feel like making the hamsters search just for that.) I’m getting to the ‘can’t please everyone’ point here. ‘BushCo’ is certainly legit for the CEO President, without any implied snark; anyone who complains about that should direct their mail to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington D.C.
Not sure where my education and credentials sneaked into this discussion (and another one yesterday); it seems kind of irrelevant in both instances, since neither mathematics nor statistics was particularly germane to either discussion.
And Scylla, I’ve yet to see a good dissection of Kerry’s supposed multiple positions on Iraq. (The snarky quips - speaking of snark - by the frickin’ President of the United States, don’t count.) You want to actually make a case that Kerry’s contradicted himself over time, go for it. Start a thread, and I’ll see you there. But what you have is an unsubstantiated claim, AFAIAC.
How about “the Bush administration”?
RTF: So when Bush says, ‘Kerry’s Iraq policy is the same as mine,’ and his campaign spokesman says, ‘Kerry’s Iraq policy is one of retreat and defeat,’ I do in fact regard it as fair game.
I agree. I usually ignore snarky “Bush-is-so-bad” threads, but this doesn’t seem to be one of those (though the title does kinda give that impression). Rather, it’s a perfectly legitimate beef about a particularly glaring example of political doublespeak.
You cannot simultaneously accuse your opponent of having a shitty policy and of slavishly copying your own policy. Not without implying that your own policy is in fact, shitty.
I’m quite sure that this isn’t what the Administration meant to imply, but it seems that that’s what they did imply, so I don’t see anything wrong with calling them on it.
How about “Shitheads ‘Is’ Us”?
It’s the Pit, dagnabit. Get offa me!
Not correct in this instance. Schmidt is a Bush campaign spokesman.
There are other problems with “the Bush administration”, such as exactly who the term includes. The entire Executive Branch? Just the White House political appointees? I’m not sure. But it probably is a term of art, with a firmly-established meaning. I sure don’t want to use a term that includes every GS-7 in the government, and I also don’t want to use something so restrictive that it excludes spokespersons for officials high up enough that they can be presumed to represent the official Administration line.
At any rate, late yesterday, Bush himself turned around and attacked the position Kerry laid out yesterday, despite its being his own:
Bush says Kerry’s taken a position identical to his own, but he couldn’t disagree with it more.
Needless to say, nobody’s calling him on a flip-flop.
In the words of Prof. Quincy Adams Wagstaff, “And I’ve been saying ever since I first commenced it, I’m against it!”