No vetting of him as a potential leader. In any case, I was more referring to the unquestioning and adoring support from his faithful (after Hilly had been whacked on the head). I cheerfully grant, the Republicans went digging for dirt on him simply because he was the opposition.
I live in Portland and never saw what you describe.
Well, it must never have happened, then. (CITE!!! HOW DO WE KNOW YOU LIVED IN PORTLAND???)
I have been to several Dopefests in this area, and other posters(and the Mods and Admins on the board) know where I come from.
edited to add: Why are you shouting?
If you say so, of course. (Don’t want you all tripped up by facts and cites and such, I see you’re very sensitive about that!) But they did do several events together none-the-less.
What more is required, exactly? A chest X ray?
Four years later, and willing to vote for him, you’re still hot about his ‘not being vetted for leadership’? You must have something in mind, that didn’t getting checked or addressed, to still care all this time later, what is it?
I wasn’t shouting; in fact, I wasn’t even speaking. I was typing. Caps=shouting is yet another internet trope, but that doesn’t equate to reality.
It seems that the irony of my “shouted” question escaped you utterly. If you live in Portland and never saw something, does that mean it never happened in Portland, let alone in Oregon? With everybody here wanting FACTS to support everything said (by others, not by themselves), the FACT that you live in Portland neither supports nor denies my original contention. Thus, my demanding that you PROVE you live in Oregon was an ironic reference to board denizens shouting, “CITE! CITE! CITE!”; who, in fact, cares that you live in Portland, for the sake of argument?
In point of fact, I did attend two Obama rallies in the fall of 2008, both NOT in Portland, and they did resemble rock concerts more than anything else. Though you probably won’t believe me unless I CITE someone saying, “Wow, that Obama rally was like a rock concert!!!”
I’d say Bush the Lesser was the worst President since Carter and the worst Republican since probably Hoover but at the same time a President Kerry if elected in 2004 would still have stayed the course in Iraq (or risk a Vietnam II), did little to avert the Great Recession (Glass-Stengall was repealed in the '90s), and couldn’t have reformed FEMA meaningfully.
As for Constitutional rights violations Bush was far better than Presidents generally considered great or at least good including Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR.
No, just something more than a single term in the Senate.
I didn’t say that I was currently concerned about his lack of experience in 2008. So no, I’m not “still hot,” as you put it, about that. Do I still care that we hustled into office a populist, charismatic leader without any consideration of his lack of qualifications for the most important job in the country? You bet. It’s a mistake that has destroyed other societies.
Certainly, Obama is now the candidate with the experience and for that reason alone, should be re-elected. Romney has business experience, but the country isn’t run like a business.
You asked if he had been to Oregon; he said he lives in Portland and hadn’t observed what you saw in your “neck of the woods”. You’re the one who took the response to a very bizarre conclusion.
Frankly in my neck of the woods, I didn’t see the Obama hero worship, great savior trope that you are referring too. Simply, I saw people inspired by a candidate, which was a refreshing change and something worth cheering about.
Yeah, but that was because he was overshadowed by Clinton, not because he was embarrassed by him.
Also, Clinton warned Bush about bin Laden, one of Bush’s first acts was to order the hunt for bin Laden called off, and later on after 9-11 he again called off the hunt until forced to restart it by Congress. Bush was running interference for Osama bin Laden; the success of 9-11 and his survival throughout the Bush Administration isn’t surprising when he had what was for all intentions a President who was his patron.
No. It was the Lewinsky affair.
Slate article: Why Gore (Probably) Lost
You won’t find any political analysis from the time to support your claim.
greenslime1951, I admit some bafflement. Claims of disputed veracity form the lion’s portion of your argument; you seem to think that those who disbelieve those claims should accept them for no other reason than your say-so. But you don’t have that kind of social capital around here (and arguably no one does). If you want someone to believe that Obama has been using the shadow of George W. Bush in his 2012 electoral campaign you’ll have to do better than “buh-buh-but nu-uh, I’m not going to do your work for you! I don’t see why I can’t make whatever statements I like and be believed!”
If that bothers you so much, well, that’s the environment around here. You’ll have to get used to it.
He didn’t need to reform FEMA. FEMA was an example of a government agency that was doing things right. Clinton appointed James Lee Witt, someone with emergency management experience and elevated FEMA to cabinet status.
Bush dropped it from cabinet level and filled it with cronies. Remember Michael Brown and his background as a failed leader of an Arabian Horse Association?
Google FEMA under Bush for a bunch of first hand accounts of what happened to that agency.
You’re right; I should have reduced it to, “So f***ing what?”
I had thought that it would be obvious that Obama is using GWB as a passive meat shield to anyone who had listened to any of his recent please-reelect-me-oriented speeches, without my having to post links to videos or any nonsense like that. In any event, people will believe what they want to believe, so even if I found and posted thirty-seven such references, people would say they were taken out of context or something.
In addressing an irrationality, in other words (GWB=Satan incarnate), it’s futile to offer PROOOOOOF or CITE! CITE! CITE!
But you asked the question??? If the answer was meaningless why’d you ask?
Your debating style leaves much to be desired. It’s pretty devoid of genuine interest in sharing ideas.
You are seriously suggesting that GWB kept Bin Laden alive all those years, when he supposedly could easily have killed him, for political advantage?
This is a perfect example of the rabid anti-Bush raving that I’ve been talking about!
Keeping him alive was a political advantage; alive he was a bogeyman. And Bush said, repeatedly, that he didn’t care about bin Laden or catching him.
How can someone be a bogeyman if you say you don’t care about him?
Some of us do.