In my book, the fact that the Republicans in Congress even used an argument along the lines of “we can support our troops without supporting the President” speaks volumes. Such cherry-picking of support is borne of nothing other than partisan pettyness, IMO.
“The right wing of the Republican Party, of course, is the group that always likes to loudly proclaim its patriotism. But if they had a patriotic bone in their body, which they do not, then, for example, they would want the president of the United States, even though he’s a Democrat, to do well. Why? Because if the President does well, the entire country does well. But they only want the country to do well if one of their own people is in office. If not, they’ll do everything to destroy the President, whether he’s Clinton or any other Democrat.”
–Vincent Bugliosi
Did I even claim to be a spokesman or model member for the Democratic party? No?
Hey, what’s that sound I hear – oh, it’s Freedom’s “argument” shriveling in the sun…
Well stated, rjung. I have been reading a biography, “Regan, the Role of a Lifetime”, and shuddering at the stupidity, greed, arrogance, intellectual laziness, and total ambivilence regarding the responsibility of office that typlified that administration.
[quote]
Saith rjung:
**“The right wing of the Republican Party, of course, is the group that always likes to loudly proclaim its patriotism. But if they had a patriotic bone in their body, which they do not, then, for example, they would want the president of the United States, even though he’s a Democrat, to do well. Why? Because if the President does well, the entire country does well. But they only want the country to do well if one of their own people is in office. If not, they’ll do everything to destroy the President, whether he’s Clinton or any other Democrat.”
–Vincent Bugliosi
How much of a break did Ronald Reagan get during the Grenada invasion? How about the Libya bombing in 1986?
My guess would be “not much.” Unless you can specifically refer to
A) Democrats acting in a wholly different manner during military conflicts equal to the low-level conflicts that you’re referring to, or
B) Republicans opposing a Democratic President during a time equivalent to this one,
…you’re blowing partisan smoke, and partisan smoke is always used to obscure.
It seems rather obvious to me that neither Republicans NOT Democrats give the President a free ride just because U.S. troops are in combat. Democrats certainly did not give Reagan a free ride during the aforementioned conflicts, nor did they give Nixon a free ride while U.S. troops were fighting in Vietnam. Republicans didn’t give Kennedy or Johnson a free ride during Vietnam, either, and there was plenty of partisan politics during Korea.
There have been damned few times when a direct threat to the United States has caused the temporary abandonment of partisanship and opposition to the President; this is one of them. The beginning of World War II was another. I can’t think of many others. Comparing this conflict to the various little conflicts of Clinton’s administration is just crazy; they aren’t remotely comparable, adn the reactions to them cannot be fairly weighed as equivalent.
Jesus, what is this, “John defends dead Presidents Day”? Having already stated in another thread why the impeachement of Johnson was a horrible transgretion, let me now come to the defense of Arthur.
Became President by accident, yes. Corrupt doofus? Not as President. While head of the Port Authority of New York, Arthur was certainly mired in corruption, bribery, and skimming off the public till, once Arthur became President, he worked hard to pass Garfield’s reforms of the Civil Service, making it much harder for future civil servants to be corrupt and misuse public funds. While his private social life might have been scandalous (as a widower, Arthur ‘entertained’ many young ladies in the White House) for the times, there is no hint of his being corrupt or misusing public funds as President.
Still, if Stoid thinks that Bush is the scariest person we could have as President, she has a very limited imagination. Harding was getting blowjobs in a closet while his subordinates sold off public lands to private interests for a cut of the take; Grant was an uncouth binge drinker who pretended to be President while his subordinates raided the public funds; Buchanan twiddled his thumbs while his own Secretary of War transfered government rifles and ammunition to the militias of the newly formed Confederacy.
Well, I take back my short at Pres. Arthur. A little more research indicated you are right; I wrongly confused his corruption at the Port Authority with his term in the White House. Sorry, Chester.
However, I stand by Nixon, Jackson, and Harding as being worse presidents than Bush could ever possibly be. (How hard is it for someone, even someone who claims to have a limited imagination, to imagine Nixon as President? He WAS the President!) I give Grant a break because he’s my favourite general.
I hope this sheds some light on the debate at hand. I fully expect to be lambasted as these sources are not from ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN (much less the ultra liberal Fox Network!) However, please give these a read as there is certainly some very interesting info contained there.
Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents about why you (Stoid) get the label “partisan” assigned to you so commonly and also why I, in my attempt to be objective, am already biased against your statements.
People tend to desire to be correct. This holds true whether it be about politics, religion, the appropriate way to word a memo, the rules of etiquette, whatever. In this desire people tend to reinforce their existing worldview by looking for things which prove their viewpoint to be correct. In other words, if you look for the best in people, you’ll find it. Conversely, if you look for the worst in people, you’ll find that too. People in general find what it is that they’re looking for because it reinforces their perspective. Why do creationists have such a hard time accepting a scientific explanation of the Earth’s creation? Because it goes against their years (or sometimes lifelong) view. It’s hard to admit that the basis of one’s perceptual framework is incorrect.
In a previous post, you (Stoid) said:
Nothing has ever come across as good. Never read or heard anyone say anything about him that impressed her. At his very best he seems insincere to you. It seems pretty clear that you see no redeeming qualities in GWB at all. The only way that this could be so is if
He truly has no redeeming qualities
or
You simply refuse to see anything good about him
Since many posters have expressed their admiration for certain things they think he has performed well at and since I the only opinions expressed by you (Stoid) about GWB I have ever read have been negative I’m inclined to believe #2. In my eyes, this information posted by you suspect. Requiring independent confirmation from someone else whose opinion I respect. I am already biased against you as I do not believe you’re objective. Note, this has nothing to do with your having differing opinions, there are plenty of Left leaning posters who I disagree with but who I have no trouble believing. Now, you may say “I have no care whether you believe me or not and have no intention of changing my posts, nor examining my perspective in order to satisfy some arbitrary requirement of objectivity”… but IMHO the point of a debate is to (hopefully) get closer to the truth by reasoned dicussion and argument. If you truly wish to convince people of the truthfulness of your stance you would do well to revisit your bias regarding GWB. If, however, you have no desire to convince people that your viewpoint is closer to the truth… why post at all in a GD?
I don’t recall any major organized Democratic opposition to either of those events – and I certainly don’t remember offhand anything comparable to the “yes, our troops should go out and kick ass, but the President is still a jerk” that Clinton got.
No disagreement from me here. However, I still maintain that if Clinton (or any other Democrat) was President when the events of 9/11 occurred, the Republicans would be far quicker to return to their obstructionist ways. And since this is all hypothetical and unprovable, it will have to remain a personal opinion.
Geez. Being very much a newbie, I loitered in IMHO and
MPSIMS for a few months to get my feet wet. There is a lot
of energy and fierce intelligence on these boards. Finally get the courage to venture to GD, and I get the OP who is
-clearly jealous of the kids who got more candy (he should
hang out with js247-whatever it is, the poster who hates
people with big bathrooms)
-asserts that Bill Clinton lives the American Dream. Wow. His public lifestyle was one hell of an interpretation of the American Dream!
and his sidekick supporter Stoid, who
-Thinks Bush is a “bad man” ( nanny nanny boo boo!)
-Cites “actual events” from Snopes. SNOPES? I spit out
my tea laughing at that one.
Gotta tell ya I’m a little surprised and disappointed.
Anyway, I’m realizing that I didnt even add anything to the debate, so I’ll shut up now. The ease with which the OP could be dismantled has been displayed, by those far more eloquent than I.
I appreciate it, and were I not agnostic I’d say that Chester probably appreciates it as well. I apologize if I jumped on you a bit, there.
I’m not real convinced on Jackson being an awful President; certainly, there were some good things he accomplished, such as the introduction of real democracy into presidential politics, the opposition to a government-run Bank, and the quick destruction of the Nullification argument in South Carolina. I’m ambivalent on the Trail of Tears- certainly, it was a horrific tragedy in American history; but Jackson’s actions were popular and well-supported, so to condemn Jackson for it- well, one must also condemn every pre-1861 President for allowing slavery to continue, and condemn FDR for the interment of Japanese-Americans. So I think it’s a bit much to put him down under the “bad” Presidents for that.
But if you’ll allow me to give Jackson a break, I’ll allow you to give Grant a break.
Well, Grim, you make a good case for why you believe my bias makes me blind.
However, it is not true that “the only way this could be so is if 1 & 2”. #3 is that I’ve just not seen it. I am not in close personal contact with GW, I don’t have any opportunity to directly observe what may be his good qualitiies. They probably do exist.
Just because other people see something as admirable doesn’t mean that others who don’t are blind. Offhand, I cannot think of a single time that he has received universal praise, either here or in the world at large. And if you write off anyone who doesn’t agree that he deserved praise for X as biased…what does that say about * your * bias?
And #2 implies willfulness, which is wholly unfair. What you are accusing me of is seeing the good, then denying it exists just because I hate him. Which is simply not true.
The fundamental flaw in what you are saying is this: it presupposes that I arrive at the table with an already established bias that makes me unable or unwilling to see the good in him, for whatever reason, and the reason I’m guessing you’d supply is that I’m partisan so I’m going to view any Republican this way. But that is simply not the case. I keep using Reagan as my example. Couldn’t stand his policies, believe him to be not especially bright. But I think he was (is? It’s so sad…it’s like he’s dead already…) a truly good person who really did mean well. I think he was a nice man. He was obviously a deeply sensitive, loving person, which is evident in his relationship with his wife. He was kind and thoughtful. I think if I’d ever met him I would have liked him very much personally. I think he was also a fantastic speaker, and I thought so before he was elected. Which drove me nuts of course, because I hated what he said.
I can see the good in Nixon; I think that Nixon had some real gifts as a politician and statesman, but he gave in to his paranoia and turned to the dark side. (FTR, I hated him anyway, and I was just a kid).
I even kinda like Bob Dole!
I do * not * automatically hate anyone who is my ideological opposite. I do not automatically hate anyone who beats my guy. Despite some people’s opinions of me, the fact is that I am not a stupid woman.
If what you are saying about me is true, then I have to ask you to explain why I would have come into it with this bias against him that makes me so blind to his goodness, when I did not do so with other Republican presidents.
GWB just creeps me the fuck out, and he has since the first moment I laid eyes on him. Haven’t you ever just not liked someone, Grim? They just get under your skin and give you the crawlies? Well, that’s what GWB does to me. The fact that someone who made me feel that way back when I didn’t think he had a chance in hell of becoming prez actually ** did **, and did so the ** way ** he did, and then went on to be even ** worse ** than my worst fears, well, yeah, it’s hard for me to brim with praise when he manages to get through a press conference without making an ass of himself! He’s my nightmare.
And finally, while you may still believe that my feelings about him are completely unfair and blind me to any ability to be rational about him…that doesn’t mean that I am blind on all political topics.
Back to this part of the O.P. for a second. Do you have any idea of how absurd this position is? He went to Yale then Harvard. He ran several high profile businesses. And became Governor of Texas and then president of the United States. What really do you want from someone to try to better themselves. Using your families name and power to get into Yale when you might not otherwise be academically gifted enough to is the very definition of using your advantges. Taking the easy path through life would be to take your million dollar trust fund, buy a house on the beech and never work a day in your life. I just can’t get my mind around the concept of how anybody could hate Bush for not taking advantages of his privledges. The exact oposite argument could at least be feasibly made.
You wanna talk about lazy leaders, Ghandi has Bush beat by a mile. That guy was too lazy to even eat. :rolleyes:
He is proving to be “even worse than your worst fears?”
This is an incredible statement. You keep saying things like this, but you don’t ever specify. So now, for the record:
What are the things that George W. Bush has done since his inauguration as U.S. President in January of this year that have proven him “worse than your worst fears?” If his summary rejection of Kyoto actually goes beyond your worst fears, then you have a shockingly limited imagination. There must, surely, be other actions he has taken as U.S. President that justify this statement. Specific actions, not just the “feel” you get from him. So, please, tell us. Tell us about these crimes against freedom, decency, and humanity. Give us something other than an unsubstantiated “feeling” that you have about this man.
I don’t agree with all of the things Bush has done while in office. However, he didn’t overreact with nuclear weapons or massive restriction of civil liberties in the wake of September 11, he made what I consider to be a reasonable stand (given the demands of his political party) on the subject of stem cell research, and he’s been solid if unspectacular as a leader during the last few weeks.
So tell me, please. What specific actions have led you to consider George Bush to be an evil person, the worst president behaving in the worse way imaginable? And please, leave out the rumors from Snopes and a whispered “asshole” comment - because, honestly, if you’ve never called anyone an asshole, you’re a better person than I.
Out of idle curiosity, exactly what are Stoid’s worst fears anyway? I mean, they could just be that she fears the price of Classic Coke is going to rise by a penny next week. If so, then maybe Bush being prez is worse than that.
So I keep getting accused. I accept the charge. What else do you want?
The problem, Frank, is that I am not sitting here trying to convince everyone else to feel as I do. I don’t believe your inquiry is idle curiosity, I think you are trying to convince me that I am somehow wrong to feel as I do about him, and you are challenging me to somehow convince * you * that my opinion is valid. That’s not my agenda. My agenda is really to be allowed my opinion without constantly being told that it can’t possibly really be my opinion!
The opinion is sincere. I have explained it from several angles in rather great detail in this thread. You don’t feel the same way, that’s your right, I’m not here trying to convince you, am I? No. Can you do me the same favor? * I dislike and distrust him completely. I’ve disapproved of or been outright enraged by every single thing he has done and said (that I know about) since entering the Oval Office, with the possible exception of his actions in reference to the terrorist attacks, about which I have reserved judgement. I am terrified of what effect he and his policies will have on global politics, the environment, and our judiciary. * I thought it would be bad, but I was mortified, absolutely mortified, by his behavior upon taking office. His behavior, his priorities, and what he said. He joked about how much easier it would be if he could be a dictator…and I believe that all humor springs from a grain of truth. His attitude was imperious, his goals are anathema. And now it’s worse, because thanks to OBL, he’s getting as close to a blank check as an American politician will ever get.
I’m fatigued with having ** my ** personal opinion challenged on every front. I feel the way I feel: the man who is supposed to be my leader scares the shit out of me, and pretty much stands for everything I hate. It’s my burden, don’t you worry about it.
stoid
If this is simply IYHO, and you’re going to stick you’re fingers in your ears and sing “nyah nyah nyah” every time someone presents arguments contrary to your view . . .
. . . deep breath . . .
THEN WHY ARE YOU WASTING OUR TIME HERE IN “GREAT DEBATES”?!?!!??!!!?!?
Please forgive my shouting, but I remember Harry Truman had a saying, something about heat and the kitchen . . .
What are you talking about, Reilly? Did you just read my last post, or did you read the whole thread?
I’m thinking you didn’t read the whole thread, because you would have seen all my other posts about why I feel the way I do about Bush, AND you would have seen my post (I’m pretty sure it’s Page 2, haven’t doublechecked) about what Great Debates is.
This thread is “Why I hate George Bush”. I’ve said why. Instead of badgering me about how I can’t possibly hold the opinion I do…why doesn’t someone else step up to the plate and tell us all why they think he’s so great? Easiest way to replace a negative is with a positive…
