It ain’t rocket surgery. My grasp of economics isn’t going to impress anyone, but even I could absorb the concepts involved, and even I would know that the notion that we were “buying cheap to sell high” was like confusing Father Christmas with Mr. Burns.
Oh, please! The guy flew jet fighters, had a higher I.Q. than John Kerry, was a multi-millionaire businessman and highly popular two-term governor of Texas before becoming president. Admittedly, he developed a halting, self-conscious and clumsy way of speaking around the time the press started attacking him and insisting he admit a mistake – any mistake – with regard to Iraq. But to believe he truly was dumb or clueless just isn’t very, uh, smart.
I guess I could qualify all of that but… the guy just wasn’t that interested in policy. It’s no coincidence that the keenest insights that W displayed to Matt Latimer (former mid-level speech writer now with a tell-all book) were with regards to raw politics.
Face it, the guy was a lightweight. He was kicked off of a board of directors in the early 1990s because he had nothing substantive to say and his business adventures were exercises in cronyism. I will concede however that a rough (or sharp) understanding of policy is but one aspect of a viable political skill set.
The press was pointing out Bush’s tendency to garble phrases and certain words long before the election of 2004. Bush’s failure to think of any mistake he had made (at that point) in his presidency came very late in the campaign in 2004, during one of the three debates. As his former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill wrote in his book, Bush seemed “incurious” and “unengaged” about things. Ultimately, he sums things up by saying that the Bush presidency was a failure of leadership. Maybe he’s just a former employee with an axe to grind, but there seems to be a rough coalescing of former administration officials around this kind of idea.
Once again, what the hell does “liberals” have to do with any thing here?
Liberalism is a rection to conservatism, but conservatism is not a reaction to liberalism. Conservatism is the belief that tradtional values are God-given and therefore prefect. Liberalism is simply the process of challenging the idea that conservatism is perfect and advocating reforms.
Conservatives cannot point to liberals to shore up their credibility, because conservative credibility is measured agains standards of moral and intellectual perfection. Liberalism’s credibility, OTOH is measured against that of conservatism.
Well, Michelle Malkin’s kinda hot.
I can’t believe elucidator can’t spell maroon.
I can’t believe **kidchameleon **can’t spell macaroon.
I can’t believe it’s not butter.
Count yourselves lucky he only cost $3 trillion, two wars and a depression.
Of course you realize, this means war!
I can’t believe **kidchameleon **can’t spell “I’ll give SFG $1,000.”
“I may be a little coward, but I’m a greeeeeeedy little coward!”
Oh yeah. We are delirious with our good fortune.
…
Go for it. Lemme know how that work out for ya.
Your understanding of conservative and liberal philosophies is incorrect. Also, you fail at spelling.
Nah. Got bigger fish to fry here. But as you were so good to grant me permission to play in this sandlot, allow me to ask a few questions:
Do you think Bush did a good job as President? Do you think he performed as a statesman, with the well-being of the nation foremost in his mind and that he placed political concerns, undoubtedly a necessary evil, a distant second to our country’s welfare? Do you think he upheld the Constitution to the best of his ability? Do you think that, as Commander-in-Chief, he used his power wisely, only when absolutely necessary, when placing the lives of our nation’s troops in harm’s way? Do you think that he increased our standing among the world’s nations? Or improved the lot of the working man and working woman? Do you think his policies were designed to help the least among us, that they might improve their lot? Did he fulfill his campaign promise to be a uniter, and not a divider?
(Truly, one can say at the end of his two terms that there was a great deal of unity among the citizenry regarding George W. Bush, depending of course on your threshhold for unity, but I digress.)
What do you think, Lord Ashtar, about these questions? Will you humor me and answer them? Or would you rather just throw out lame-ass spelling flames?
Someone was sleeping for eight or so years…
-Joe
No, I don’t think GWB was a particularly good president.
Just because I’m exhausted with “OMG BUSH SUXX!!!11” threads does not mean that I am a Republican. But thank you for showcasing your partisanship.
I bet mean old Obama has one of his ACORN goons holding a gun to your head, forcing you to click on the threads. Doesn’t he? I understand if you can’t actually answer, but if they do, just make sure to work the name of a fruit into your certain-to-be-clever response and we’ll send in the Fox News Conservative Conservation Team in to save you.
-Joe
Strawberry.