Never liked Bush but the shrub grows on ya

[tradesilicon]

Yes, I am very aware of the fact that I can’t spell, thank you. (I know I hit preview, I know I hit preview, …)

---

Gee, all this vitriol from the left toward a supposed dumbo of a stumbler. You’d think they would show some pity, rather than this complete hatred.

You know, I can’t blame you. I remember plenty of occasions when I put down words even more harsh than yours in the direction of Bill and Hilary Clinton, and some toward Gore. I could not stand their politics and condescending attitudes towards “the people”, so I let it rip.

I don’t pretend to worship George, either. I think he is “speech making” way too much, just as I though Clinton did. And although he made a good speech, I though one was enough. I wish the speeches would stop, and we could hear some straight talk. Just exactly what can we expect? In your own words, George.

On the other hand, some of the posts in this thread, like Mr. Firefly, leave absolutely no room to maneuver (paraphrase)- can’t do this, that will surely fail, and the other option is even worse. OK, let’s see your approach - got a better idea? Of course moon is just a raving lunatic, but that’s OK, he’s entitled.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by lieu *
You’ve adopted the ravings of an internet site with an agenda?

Hey, it works for all those folks who like to cite the Druge Report, doesn’t it?

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by rjung *
**

*Originally posted by lieu *
You’ve adopted the ravings of an internet site with an agenda?

Hey, it works for all those folks who like to cite the Druge Report, doesn’t it? **

Hey, don’t you (or your friends on the left) want to be held to at least a slightly higher level of credibility than the Drudge Report?

Do you ever answer a challenge of partisanship with something besides, “They do it too!”? I mean, I called you on the Bush cocaine use thing, and you countered with the Clinton Death Squad tapes as if that was a meaningful answer. Is that the kind of lunatic fringe you want to be associated with, albeit 180 degrees in opposition politically? If so, no skin off my back, but you must realize that it lends absolutely no credibility to your arguments.

[bordelond]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
Do you ever answer a challenge of partisanship with something besides, “They do it too!”?

Thank you!

[rjung]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
Do you ever answer a challenge of partisanship with something besides, “They do it too!”? I mean, I called you on the Bush cocaine use thing, and you countered with the Clinton Death Squad tapes as if that was a meaningful answer. Is that the kind of lunatic fringe you want to be associated with, albeit 180 degrees in opposition politically?

It’s not my preferred response, but the alternative – to take the high road while your foes throw mud at you – is even more ineffective. That’s why I do not object to the Bush administration’s plans to continue bombing Afghanistan during Ramadam.

And do I really need to remind you that George W. Bush )and the Republican Party in general) ran on the promise of “restoring honor and dignity to the White House”? I would think that a critical component of “restoring honor and dignity” would be to quickly and honestly disprove any allegations of wrongdoing and misconduct. But as far as I know, Bush hasn’t given any such evidence to disprove these claims, and the evasive answers he has given (particularly on questions of cocaine in his past) tell me he doesn’t value his “honor and dignity,” either.

Bill Clinton might not be a saint, but he never advertised himself as such.

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by rjung *
And do I really need to remind you that George W. Bush )and the Republican Party in general) ran on the promise of “restoring honor and dignity to the White House”?

Hey, I didn’t vote for the guy.

I would think that a critical component of “restoring honor and dignity” would be to quickly and honestly disprove any allegations of wrongdoing and misconduct.

Any allegations? Even ludicrous ones, or allegations for which not a single piece of credible evidence, or a single eyewitness, have surfaced?

And, if an allegation is made which is ludicrous, or for which there is no evidence, is it more dignified to justify it with an answer, or to simply say, “I’m not going to answer that question?”

Should the Democrats have spent time offering evidence to disprove Perot’s claims regarding his daugter’s wedding?

Keep in mind, the Clinton Boosters Club keeps telling us all that Bill Clinton’s sexual activities in the Oval Office while President are part of his personal life and none of our business. Why, then, is the possibility of drug use 20 years ago or more our business? Even if it is legitimate fodder for security screenings and various clearances, how is it your business or mine?

But as far as I know, Bush hasn’t given any such evidence to disprove these claims,

There hasn’t been any evidence offered to prove them. Not a single witness, not a single piece of credible evidence. Nothing. There’s nothing to disprove–refer back to my horse-fucking example.

Show me the evidence, rjung. Show me the credible evidence that Bush is supposed to respond to.

and the evasive answers he has given (particularly on questions of cocaine in his past) tell me he doesn’t value his “honor and dignity,” either.

Maybe he just doesn’t think it’s any of your damned business. Or mine, or anyone else’s.

Bill Clinton might not be a saint, but he never advertised himself as such.

No, just his sycophants do that.

Hell, for all I know, George W. Bush did use cocaine 20 or 30 years ago. A lot of people did. I don’t know, and more importantly, I don’t care. I highly doubt that he uses it now, so it really isn’t relevant to anything but drug policy; and if you can find me a single drug warrior in Washington who didn’t once smoke some pot or do a line or three, I’d be pretty surprised.

I vote for Democrats, for the most part. The Republican Party is simply too mired in this ridiculous, self-righteous “family values” position for me to ever vote for one of their candidates at any significant level. But watching so many liberals, Democrats and leftists since January, engaging in exactly the behavior that they spent the last eight years bitching, moaning and crying about, has been alternately hilarious and disgusting.

All anyone heard was, “Clinton’s past drug use is nobody’s business! Clinton’s activities during Vietnam were perfectly OK! Clinton’s sexcapades in the Oval Office are nobody’s business!” Then, as soon as a Republican is in office: “Why won’t Bush talk about his coke-snorting? Why won’t bush talk about being AWOL?” The hypocrisy is nothing short of staggering. And the funny thing is, the ones doing it don’t even see it; or if they do, they simply act like four-year-olds: “They started it! They hit us first!”

Sheesh.

[december]

*Originally posted by rjung *Bill Clinton might not be a saint, but he never advertised himself as such. **

Au contraire.

He promised the “most ethical administration in history.”

[PunditLisa]

But what is really amazing here is how people rally around this extraordinarily mediocre man.

I’m amazed that YOU’RE amazed that we are rallying behind our leader after the events of 9/11. What would you have us do? Yawn? Roll our eyes because you think Bush is a mediocre man?

1. That would be a great impression to show the rest of the world, wouldn’t it? A country divided is a country doomed. Ask the Afghanis.

2. Do you think Abe Lincoln would have been deemed an extraordinary president had he not presided during an extraordinary time in our nation’s history? George Washington? FDR? I’d argue that none of these men were extraordinary PRIOR to the extraordinary circumstances which occured during their presidency which afforded them the opportunity to rise to greatnesss.

3. Is there an expiration date at which time one can no longer be deemed extraordinary? Is Mother Teresa any less extraordinary because she began her missionary so late in life?

[Alfie]

I’ve never gotten the black hate with which some on the left view W. Mind you, I didn’t vote for him, myself, but Gore. I often find myself exasperated with Bush, especially his simpleminded acceptance of almost all conservative dogma, but I reserve hatred for the knowingly malicious, those determined to violate others’ human rights, those who consciously reject the ethic of live and let live. Bin Laden. Al Qa’ida. Nazis. You get the picture. Since September 11 especially, we ought to be very careful whom we dehumanize — there’d been (and still is, to a lesser extent) a lot of loose talk among the anticapitalist / antiglobalist left (particularly in Europe) about American capitalism as rapist and destroyer of everything lovely. And what was the target in NYC? Yes, those incomparable citadels of global capitalism, the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Did the antiglobalists’ screeds serve in some small way to focus Al Qa’ida rage namely on them, and more importantly the thousands inside? I wonder. And judging by the somber quietude of formerly strident critics of the US such as French President Jacques Chirac, I wonder if they’ve a bit of a sick feeling in the pit of their stomach. You have to consider these things. I’m not suggesting that people not argue against policies they find detrimental, or those who advance bad policy, but pouring on the vitriol? What if some mad leftist assassinated W? I know most of those who spewed bile on him would be crazy with remorse. I’ve long thought the same in regard of right-wing hatred of the Clintons.

W has his personally attractive qualities — he ran a civil election campaign; he hasn’t demonized political opponents since he took office. Unlike some Republicans, he’s free of the filthy taint of racism and xenophobia; he takes the pro-immigrant view and has a genuine rapport with Texas’ Mexican-Americans. After the 11th he made haste to call for respect of Muslim Americans and Muslims generally. At the same time he’s always hewed uncritically to the business-oreiented conservative line. Absurdities such as his voluntary emissions controls in Texas. Record number of executions within his state’s appallingly inadequate public defenders system. An economic plan based mainly on tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations when the vast majority of Americans’ incomes have stagnated since the early ‘70s. Missile defense that doesn’t work save to line defense contractors’ pockets. Prior to the 11th he had no Middle East policy, and with Ariel Sharon in the driver’s seat, that amounted to a stromgly anti-Palestinian status quo — with America’s complicity. In no case do I see that it’s the obvious result of malice, but that’s small comfort when bad public policy has the same result regardless of intent. Bush exasperates me, the latest instance being his newfound soulmate, Vladimir Putin. Have you seen how Putin’s playing him like a fiddle with that touching conversation about Jesus, Putin’s cross necklace, and how he was afraid he lost it? Putin the Christian! KGB chief and architect of the war in Chechnia, which would reasonably give him a place alongside Milosevic in the Hague. No, W’s not a hateful man, but he’s putty in the hands of business lobbyists, religious conservatives, and the sly fox of the Kremlin. That’s bad enough.

[The_Great_Gazoo]

*Originally posted by bordelond *
**

*Originally posted by The Great Gazoo *
**Then we agree. realchange.org is not credible.

Neither is Rush Limbaugh.
Bill O’Reilly - not credible.
President Bush - not credible.

All these people have a political agenda and at least as strong a motivation to misrepresent the facts. A duty to remain objective? That makes no politician credible. Who can we trust? **

Straw man. But let’s look at your post anyway:

Rush Limbaugh does not have a duty to be objective. He does have a political agenda, and is up-front about it. So it’s fair to place Rush Limbaugh’s statements in the same class as those of realchange.org’s.

Bill O’Reilly, as a political commentator and talk-show host, does not have a duty to be objective. He does have a political (more like “philosophical”) agenda, and is up-front about it. However, his show actually has an air of objectivity even if O’Reilly himself doesn’t because he commonly has liberal guests on his show presenting an opposing viewpoint. Even if O’Reilly disrespects the liberal viewpoint, at leat the audience get to evaluate it for themselves. Realchange.org does not present opposing viewpoints or any facts which may compromise their opinions.

George W. Bush, as a politician, has a duty to be true to his political philosophy, but not necessarily to be objective about information presented to the public IMHO. Politicians are not obliged to make their opponents’ arguments for them – that goes double at campaign time.

However, George W. Bush does not move in a vacuum. He is accountable to Congress and to the nation at large through public opinion (as shaped by a free press). In contrast, realchange.org is accountable to no one – they may present whatever information they see fit to present without repercussion. This is true of many websites, and is a major reason that websites are an inferior source of information compared to mainstream media sources, who may not be completely objective, but are countering each other at every turn.

On a website, anyone can say what they want and present it as Absolute Truth. Political commentators can also do so, more or less – though some will offer a forum for opposing viewpoints.

As for “who can your trust”? We can only decide that for ourselves. **

If my argument is a “straw man” argument, so is yours. I purposely said the same thing you did. There are certainly other web sites that present opposing views to realchange, no? Why would realchange have to be more accountable than Rush? O’Reilly? Rush presents all his statements as fact, O’Reilly is constantly stating that he is not biased and only presents the facts, which of course, is a lot of bullshit. And George Bush has never made a partisan political statement that he knew to be false??? You would have to worship him as a god to believe that.

[Kimstu]

PunditLisa: *I’m amazed that YOU’RE amazed that we are rallying behind our leader after the events of 9/11. What would you have us do? Yawn? Roll our eyes because you think Bush is a mediocre man?

1. That would be a great impression to show the rest of the world, wouldn’t it? A country divided is a country doomed. Ask the Afghanis.*

That seems like a pretty exaggerated argument. Afghanistan is being torn apart from the effects of its decades-long struggle with invasion, guerrilla insurrection, civil war, tyrannical and repressive government, grinding poverty, and now our war. That is a far cry from mere verbal disagreement about whether a country’s leader deserves respect and deference.

I have no objection to anybody’s “rallying behind” Bush if that’s what they feel inclined or called upon to do. And I quite agree that those who feel otherwise should state their objections civilly and thoughtfully. But suggesting that failure to support Bush means that our country is “doomed” is IMHO completely unjustified, as well as undemocratic. In a free country we’re supposed to disagree and argue about things, even vitally important issues of national policy. Especially vitally important issues of national policy.

[themoon]

*Originally posted by Alfie *
**I’ve never gotten the black hate with which some on the left view W. **

I think you are confusing exasperation and frustration with “black hatred.” I hate what W and his cohorts are doing to this country. I hate his policies, and I hate his incomptence and shallowness. I don’t hate the man like I would hate a bin Laden or Hitler, simply because he doesn’t have the stature of any of these men. (I can only imagine Bush and bin Laden alone in a room together - Bush would be wetting himself.)

W has his personally attractive qualities — he ran a civil election campaign; he hasn’t demonized political opponents since he took office.

You have got to be kidding.

Bush ran the sleaziest presidential campaign since his father’s Willy Horton campaign. He constantly re-iterated snide remarks about “bringing back honor and integrity,” and avoided the details of his policies like the plague, consistently hiding in vague generalities.

[themoon]

*Originally posted by PunditLisa *

But what is really amazing here is how people rally around this extraordinarily mediocre man.

I’m amazed that YOU’RE amazed that we are rallying behind our leader after the events of 9/11. What would you have us do? Yawn? Roll our eyes because you think Bush is a mediocre man?

Who said I am surprised at that? Of course people are going to rally around their leader, that is only natural.

What surprises me are people who praise him as a man of “great vision,” and other such drivel.

2) Do you think Abe Lincoln would have been deemed an extraordinary president had he not presided during an extraordinary time in our nation’s history? George Washington? FDR? I’d argue that none of these men were extraordinary PRIOR to the extraordinary circumstances which occured during their presidency which afforded them the opportunity to rise to greatnesss.

Yeah, Washington and Lincoln never accomplished anything before they were elected president. :rolleyes:

**3) Is there an expiration date at which time one can no longer be deemed extraordinary? Is Mother Teresa any less extraordinary because she began her missionary so late in life? **

What has Bush done!?

So far, I haven’t seen him do anything extraordinary. He has never suffered through self-improvement, or enlightenment. He has never had to struggle to accomplish anything. He has simply slid into his position.

Yes, our glorious leader!

[Scylla]

moonie:

Don’t you already have your little Bush bashing thread?

Why crap up this one?

[themoon]

I feel like I have been transported to Parallel Earth

[PunditLisa]

Yeah, Washington and Lincoln never accomplished anything before they were elected president.

Let’s see, Washington was the son of an aristocratic planter who inherited his land and wealth from his dad (what were you saying about W, moon?). He entered politics in large part to protest the restrictive taxes imposed upon him by the British. He was also well-read in military arts, as is customary with aristocratic gentlemen. He ENTERED the French-and-Indian war as a lieutenant colonel.

Perhaps he even played the spinet.

Extraordinary accomplishments, no?

Lincoln was first a store clerk at a venture that went bankrupt, leaving him in major debt. Later he became a career politician in the Whig (and later, Republican) party, failing to receive the Whig party’s nomination for U.S. Congress in 1843. He was later elected to Congress but gave up the seat in order to run for Senate, in a race that he lost (1855). He was later elected President with about 40% of the popular vote.

Gee, a self-made career politician and a wealthy aristocrat. Extraordinary men, no? Let me repeat: Ordinary men. Extraordinary times.

FWIW, moon, I’d rally behind YOU if you were the President right now. Not because you’d have accomplished SO MUCH in your life and were deserving of my support, but because you were my leader during a time when your leadership was crucial to my well-being and the well-being of my country. Rather than criticize your lack of experience and flaws, I’d rally behind you and hope that you had it in you to rise to the occasion.

[elucidator]

PunditLisa: your instinct towards “pulling together” is commendable, of course. But do we really need a “leader”? Especially when that “leader” largely only reflects the popular mood back to the people.

What made Lincoln a leader was urging the people away from the popular mood. His determination to reconcile the American people after the war was his finest hour, when all the major powers of the northern establishment were arrayed in opposition, he was determined to bind the wounds of the nation and raise the South up from squalor and ruin. This is leadership. Echoing the popular mood with patriotic speeches isn’t leadership as much as it is cheerleading. Further, “Landslide” George’s cronies are determined to leverage the advantage to further thier agenda by draping a flag over every wrong-headed initiative in thier basket.

Leadership is not crucial to our well-being. Intelligent skepticism is.

[Scylla]

Leadership is not crucial to our well-being. Intelligent skepticism is.

Play sports much?

Sail on a ship?

Been in the military?

On soldier to the other: “I’m skeptical about sitting in this foxhole gettin shot at. Sure the Lieutenant’s our leader, but do we really need a leader. I say we just all go and so what we think is best.”
You’ve got to be kidding.

[elucidator]

Boy, you really got me that time, Scylla. How could I be so stupid as to ignore the crucial value of blind obedience! Why, even the most cursory examination of history will show the enormous advantages of lockstep compliance with The Leader (“leader”…in German that’s fuhrer, yes?}

If it should, God forbid, be you and I in that hypothetical foxhole, and the Lt. orders us to shove a grenade in our respective rectums and pull the pin, please understand if I move a considerable distance from you as you ponder your options.

[Scylla]

What grenades has Fuhrer George ordered you to stick up your ass, elucidator?

If you think soldiers or people on a football team are blind obediant robots, you don’t know much about it.

I’m all for skepticism, but it doesn’t replace leadership.

And, once in a while, you do have to carry a Letter to Garcia
(Oddly enough I seem to recall reading that there was an army once where the soldiers could question an order from their superiors, those superiors would then have to explain the order, and if the soldier didn’t like it, they didn’t have to do it. Don’t recall the name, but maybe somebody else will. Anyway, as you might guess, those guys lost.)