With Watergate (at the start, and the enemies list etc. that were revealed later), Nixon showed that he was indeed willing to “keep the office through illegal, questionable, or unusual means”. The fact that it later became clear that the Watergate burglary hadn’t been necessary doesn’t excuse it; it just makes it pathetic as well. If the election had been closer, then Sofa King’s statement would be more exactly correct (and he could have worded it better, certainly), but unlike the rest of us, Nixon didn’t have that knowledge at the time. As a moral judgment about Nixon (and others), Sofa King’s statement is correct already.
December, that was a nicely flippant answer to a serious question about what a “compassionate conservative” is. But unfortunately, that answer gives the impression that even Bush’s own supporters think it’s a load of crap. If that isn’t the case, could you please enlighten us with a serious answer? Thanks.
UncleBeer, surely you’re aware that passing legislation and confirming judges involve both the Executive and Legislative branches. If they don’t work with each other well, those things don’t happen as easily. Capisce?
Yes, Elvis, I’ll be happy to. My answer was flippant because it wasn’t a serious question. If all Reeder wanted was to know what W meant by “compassionate conservative,” he could have looked at W’s campaign material.
Reeders question was meant to be some sort of subtle criticism. If you you or Reeder will share your real complaints, I’ll be happy to respond.
I don’t remember offhand- were you one of the folk that used that brilliantly, stunningly, overwhelmingy witty (not to mention non-silly , non-repititous, and non-perjorative [sp?]) nickname: Algore? JDM
W’s campaign material, such as it is, seemed never to address the definition directly, but left it as an inference from the same familiar set of right-wing agenda items, as if calling it “compassionate” changed their substance somehow.
My “real complaint”, since that for some reason remains unclear to you, is that the term has no apparent meaning other than to put a softer image on a noncompassionate agenda.
I invited YOU to offer a nonflippant definition. Since you say you’re happy to respond, even though you haven’t yet, please do so and, as I said, enlighten us all.
I think it’s safe to say everyone here is using “lame duck” in a metaphoric sense, not literally.
I.E. Jeffords told Bush in his meeting that if Bush doesn’t moderate his positions, he will be a one-term president, or “one whose position or term of office will soon end.”
Of course, Mr2001’s post makes my ramblings irrelevant (I started typing before he posted).
At the time UncleBeer’s post, I could only count four bastardizations of his name, (that’s including the title of the thread). And I’m counting “Dubya/W.” which I don’t think is too perjorative since George W. seems to like it as his nickname. So I’m not sure that is a valid complaint.
Hmm. While I certainly cannot quarrel with your choice not to engage persons who use any pejorative terms for George W. Bush, o ryour choice not to engage anyone you simply don’t feel like engaging, I do take issue with your assertion about what the use of such pejorative nicknames * means *
I cannot speak for the OP, but so far as I’m concerned, I find it virtually impossible to speak of George W. Bush in any manner that even hints at respect. Normally, I would probably show respect for the office, even when I have none for the person who is holding it… But I sincerely believe that his occupation of the office is not in any way legitimate. I have nothing but contempt for him. I had plenty for him when he was merely a right wing moron puppet candidate. But now he’s a right wing moron puppet * thief *, and that’s simply more than I can stand.
If I was alone in my beliefs about this situation, I might force myself to move beyond it, recognizing that it’s my own emotional inability to accept it. But I’m not alone. Many, many persons, far more learned than myself, believe pretty much what I do. Including at least one Supreme Court Justice… Not to mention at least one or two of my fellow dopers.
All this to say, none of this means that we who use these pejorative names are uninterested or incapable of legitimate debate in matters involving the Great Pretender.
Having others share one’s negative feelings is comforting, but isn’t sufficient evidence. We have seen widespread, emotional opposition to Communists, Jews, Blacks, racists, gays, etc. That’s why they call them “hate groups”
I fail to see any evidence of bigotry in Stoid’s post; saying she’s a bigot doesn’t make her one. Bush lost the popular vote; the majority of voters (who made it to the polls, as opposed to those who got turned away in little brother Jeb’s state) did not want Bush as President; monkey business ensued in Fla.; SC justices installed by Reagan/Bush the Elder made sure that Bush was declared President; Stoid (and I and a helluva lot of people) think Bush is a whacking great ball of shit for these reasons as well as differences in political philosophy.
A debatable point, irrelevant to this discussion. We were talking about one human being, and our feelings about that human being based entirely on his actions, his speech, his character, his philosophy, and the manner in which he came to power. All supremely legitimate reasons for hating any one human being. Bigotry as you have defined it here (or even by its actual definition) has less than zero to do with it.
I know, it really sucks when people say bad things about racists. (???)
Fortunately for non-bigots everywhere, W is an individual and not a group. And Stoid uses “right-wing” as an adjective, modifying the phrase “moron puppet thief.”
Your mix-n-match game to test for bigotry doesn’t work very well because it uses the interest group only as an adjective, and consistently makes the likes of Dr. King and Cesar Chavez into moron puppet thieves. Sort of like a choose-your-own-adventure that always turns out the same way (at least that’s how I see it).
(I don’t think moron puppet thieves are much of an established interest group, historically, and so probably don’t get persecuted by hate groups in the same way that blacks and gays do - many times, strangely enough, by individuals and groups associated with the fringe right wing.)
A simpler and more appropriate mix-n-match game to test bigotry is to use the “All X’s are Y” test: for example, “All Southern Republicans are inbred cannibals” would be a bigoted statement, as would “All Latvians are shoplifters” or “All teenagers are pubescent idiots” or “All bureaucrats are moron puppet thieves”.
So let me get this straight. If the president’s party does not control both houses of Congress, he is essentially powerless? Yes, it makes things tougher. But really, how many new laws do we really need? The LESS Bush accomplishes the more popular he’ll be. If the Democrats think that they can remain popular just by opposing Bush, they’ll find out that it doesn’t work that way, just like the Republicans did against Clinton.
Now, “compassionate conservatism”. Did anyone miss the “conservative” part of the statement? I think Bush was trying to say that he was a moderate conservative, not a moderate. Which is true…remember how he said that abortion legislation was off the table, since it couldn’t pass anyway? “Compassionate conservative” means, “I’m right wing, but not as right wing as Trent Lott.”
Yes its far easier to see stoids bigotry when you go back into the past and see all the times she has claimed Republicans were “bad” in some way or another. Really its obvious that they have no serious wanting of rational debate. So much so that suddenly its ok to hate anyone who is right wing. Just look at the OP.