Bush has gotten more of his legislative agenda passed into law in two and a half years than Clinton managed in eight. It may be destructive, divisive, and short-sighted policymaking, but Bush and his team are damned effective at it.
Underestimate the “boob” at your peril.
People who think Bush is some kind of lucky retard need a reality check. Bush is running circles around a multitude of politically sophisticated opposition groups. By nature Bush may not be an academically oriented policy wonk or a particularly compelling public speaker, but he is one of the most focused and effective politicans to come down the pike in some time.
His past opponents who have contended with him and proceeded on the presumption that Bush is a some kind of an idiot usually wind up wearing their ass for a hat, and if that is a comforting notion to those opposing him I’m sure he wouldn’t mind you rolling around that assumption all you want. Having the highest IQ or GPA does not necessarily have a direct linkage in the real world to being an especially effective and practical leader of human beings.
What’s the matter? did a Rush clone hurt your feelings today? Sounds like you’re looking for a verbal binky to restore that lost feeling of superiority.
But from a Freudian perspective, you might have other issues that need fulfiling.
Turn the radio off, stop reading the paper, and give someone a hug.
Two things. I agree that Bush scores time after time from those who underestimate him.
Next, don’t use retard as an insult. As the parent of a mentally retarded child I find the usage to be very ugly.
Y’know, I’m generally pretty fond of Americans, but I thought you were a bunch of savages long before the 2000 election.
Get a grip.
How is this kind of thread any different than the Clinton bashing threads that the Dems deplored?
It isn’t. The amount of hatred a President inspires in a portion of the American population is stunning and sometimes entertaining.
>>>Y’know, I’m generally pretty fond of Americans, but I thought you were a bunch of savages long before the 2000 election.
Get a grip.<<<
Funny coming from a Quebecker. But as an aside, I never said I thought the US was fine before George II, I simply said he would be the poster-child of savagery to which future peoples will refer.
And for me, it’s nonpartisan, and really, quite a-presidential. I think our country needs some serious work, irrespective of its titular head.
Yeah, and don’t use “boob” as an insult, either. Boobs are very wonderful objects.
If I were forced to choose between voting for Bush and a head of lettuce, I would choose the head of lettuce.
For all of you “W” folk out there who do not see a need for a president to be articulate and educated, I wonder if Dubya may have been more convincing to France & Russia about the need to take Iraq if he were able to present an argument other than “We gotta shoot first and ask questions later!”
I see a decent enough but profoundly mediocre man, surrounded by men who flatter his vision and his leadershp while spoon feeding him opinions and sound bites. In that regard, he is not so much a repeat of his father as he is a repeat of Reagan.
If I had to pick, life depended on it, I’d say he really believed it when he told us that Iraq was a desperate, immediate threat. When he blathered on about tons of this and massive stockpiles of that, he believed it. He’s not lying, he’s being lied to.
If he was smarter, he’d catch on.
** Y’know, I’m generally pretty fond of Americans, but I thought you were a bunch of savages long before the 2000 election.
Get a grip.**
Watch your tongue, Canadian, or we’ll sell your little frozen frenchie butts to the russkies who we kept from comming over the poles during the last go around.
Get a gut.
Y’know, I was generally in favor of making Canada the 51st state but now I feel that you green folks need a little more time to ripen.
George W Bush : The first great american of the Twenty-first Century.
Hey, I meant savages in the nicest possible way.
Actually, the savagery you practice against each other (including hurling vitriol at your own President, whoever he may be at any given moment) just tells me you should relax more.
Smoke some quasi-legal Canadian pot and chill out, man.
Maybe because Clinton was the victim of the Conservative Right’s incessant efforts to destroy his presidency, while Bush has been voluntarily running the country into the dirt and lying to the world to justify an invasion of Iraq?
I used to think we were pretty good at that, too. Then I read Mark Steyn ranting about Jean Chretien!
Eh, you don’t know what you’re talkin’ aboot.
The day Canadians grow decent reefer the Mexicans will have a serious hockey team.
Oh, Bush the father was much better than his son. He had an understanding of international relations which his son lacks. The father was a cosmopolitan statesman, the son is a yahoo.
I agree with elucidator, as do many conservatives. We consider this praise, rather than criticism.