[QUOTE=DSeid]
While the partisan tendency to support ones own in the face of evidence of incompetence sufficient to cause those unaffiliated to become disgusted does lean more heavily on Republicans overall, this particular Rovian era has exaggerated it far beyond any historic norm.
It honestly scares me.
[/QUOTE]
Do the words “Cult of Personality” (with all their attendant negative connotations) mean anything to you?
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
“Your protected. So shut up.”
[/QUOTE]
Your protected what?
[QUOTE=DSeid]
Cardinal, Sam is on target. It really depends what kind of conservative your Dad is.
Did he do right by the libertaian side? Nope. Many intrusions into our personal spaces.
The fiscal conservatives? Nope. A spendthrift.
The neocons? Well he followed their playbook and proved how wrongheaded that playbook is.
The Religious Right? I do not think that they feel that the Supremes they got were hardline enough or that they got enough out of him either.
The Big Tenters? He has fractured what looked like a Republican lock on Congress that would last forever. They are now as splintered as the Dems have always been.
He has failed as a Conservative on every count. Except maybe protecting the interests of Big Business. And that is highly debatable.
“Has he done anything right from a Conservative POV?” is the discussion that you want to have with your Dad, not what I or anyone else from the center or points left of it disrespect him for.
[/QUOTE]
Also defense. Remember when Conservatives were on the side of a strong national defense? Well, Bush fouled that up too.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Your protected what?
[/QUOTE]
I know - isn’t that beautiful?
A Bush-bashing thread. How refreshing.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
A Bush-bashing thread. How refreshing.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
A Bush-bashing thread bashing. How predictable.
No backs.
Regards,
Shodan
How refreshing. A post devoid of any content.
Now a comment explaining why there is such a clear break with history, why Republicans are left so alone in approving of this obviously compentent President, why so many independents have been fooled into seeing him as incompentent along with the partisan Democrats, much more so even than for previous unpopular Republican administrations, that would be content.
Please explain why those unafiliated voters, many who voted for Bush twice, are now, along with the Dems, stupid well beyond any historic norm leaving only Republicans in unprecedented sole possession of the realization of how wonderful of a job Bush is doing.
Regards to you too.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
How refreshing. A post devoid of any content.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t complain, it could have been full of his usual content.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
No backs.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
I gotta admit, I don’t understand this one.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I gotta admit, I don’t understand this one.
[/QUOTE]
It’s grade school terminology. Imagine that.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
A Bush-bashing thread. How refreshing.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
What’s wrong with bashing Bush? He’s a terrible President. What should we do, praise him? The OP was looking for possible arguments to convince his Dad of Bush’s overall crappiness. That’s what we’re trying to give him (At least before the thread was sidetracked.) What did you think the thread was going to be about.
Related: Kucinich is calling for the impeachment of W. I know the idea of “the illegal war”, but what seriously would be the best bet for an impeachable offense? I know that Ford said that “high crimes and misdemeanors” are whatever the House says they are, but is there something that’s spot on, on-the-books illegal that Bush can be personally tied to, like perjury for Clinton?
[QUOTE=Cardinal]
Related: Kucinich is calling for the impeachment of W. I know the idea of “the illegal war”, but what seriously would be the best bet for an impeachable offense? I know that Ford said that “high crimes and misdemeanors” are whatever the House says they are, but is there something that’s spot on, on-the-books illegal that Bush can be personally tied to, like perjury for Clinton?
[/QUOTE]
The US Attorney thing has the earmarks, in some cases, of obstruction of justice. I’m fairly sure that, barring a resignation in the next few weeks, Gonzales, at least, will find himself up against The Big “I”. Whether Congress can winkle anything incriminating out of this administration’s concrete wall of secrecy that could take it higher is a crapshoot, though.
In reference to which, I just found out from the liberal blogs this morning something I did not know…neither Bush nor Gonzales use e-mail for internal communications. Probably for exactly this reason.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
What’s wrong with bashing Bush?
[/quote]
The first forty-five thousand times? Nothing.
The same thing every political thread is about on the SDMB - unfortunately.
I realize you folks never tire of the endless, circular, repetitious channeling of that voice that seems to be whispering in some posters ears. You’ll have to pardon me if I pop in occasionally and interrupt it.
And if you don’t want to, oh well.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Cardinal]
Related: Kucinich is calling for the impeachment of W. I know the idea of “the illegal war”, but what seriously would be the best bet for an impeachable offense? I know that Ford said that “high crimes and misdemeanors” are whatever the House says they are, but is there something that’s spot on, on-the-books illegal that Bush can be personally tied to, like perjury for Clinton?
[/QUOTE]
The argument I like is that the State Of The Union speech is a constitutionally required duty of the President. If Bush deliberately conveyed information to Congress that he knew to be false (e.g., the infamous “16 words”), then he has violated his oath of office and his constitutional duties.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
You’ll have to pardon me
[/QUOTE]
Scooter first. 
[QUOTE=Shodan]
The first forty-five thousand times? Nothing.
The same thing every political thread is about on the SDMB - unfortunately.
I realize you folks never tire of the endless, circular, repetitious channeling of that voice that seems to be whispering in some posters ears. You’ll have to pardon me if I pop in occasionally and interrupt it.
And if you don’t want to, oh well.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
The OP–who, IIRC, is a moderate conservative himself–asked for specific arguments to make to his Dad about why Bush is bad. Saying “It’s been done” wouldn’t be that helpful to him.
I can’t speak for other posters, but there ain’t no voices in my ears. Just the accumulation of awful facts.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
The argument I like is that the State Of The Union speech is a constitutionally required duty of the President. If Bush deliberately conveyed information to Congress that he knew to be false (e.g., the infamous “16 words”), then he has violated his oath of office and his constitutional duties.
[/QUOTE]
Good luck with that. The sixteen words you mention are literally true.
I realize that “high crimes and misdemeanors” can mean whatever Congress says, but then the Dems will have to deal with the fall out of “lying under oath is OK, but saying the truth, not under oath, is a crime.”
And not even with a lot of “that depends on what the meaning of is, is”.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
I realize that “high crimes and misdemeanors” can mean whatever Congress says, but then the Dems will have to deal with the fall out of “lying under oath is OK, but saying the truth, not under oath, is a crime.”
[/QUOTE]
So what you are saying is, if Clinton was guilty so is Bush? I agree.