ten most awesome moments of the bush admin.

[DougieZero]

Originally Posted by sleeper

look, corganist, just accept it already: you failed. you helped elect, and tirelessly defended, this monster. 8 years have been lost. the only consolation is that, by being so horrible, bush maybe helped breathed political life into a tired democratic party and bequeathed us a guy like obama.

Bush has been a bad president. I don't think he was a misunderstood genius who was slandered by the liberal media. I'll say it again, he was a really bad president.

After years of Clinton leaving his pizza boxes laying around the oval office, this was supposed to be the CEO administration.

We elect a president to represent us, our spokesman to the world. When I see people say we can't talk to Iran, I wonder... WHY THE HELL DO WE VOTE FOR A PRESIDENT?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by sleeper

i think the ideological hiring at the justice department is a good example of one of the many galling things of the bush era that its easy to lose track of. its "small" in one respect (if you measure relatively -- something like iraq makes the most vile misconduct seem like a trifle), but its not at all inconsequential or unimportant. there are a zillion of these things, most of them relating to this administrations bad habit of placing ideology/partisanship over sound policy/reality.

I just don't see how any of that is any different than what every other administration in history has done. Republican administrations like to hire republicans? Democrat administrations like to hire democrats? Shock of shocks!

Face it, ideology and partisanship goes hand in hand with the perception of what one's idea of what "sound policy/reality" is. You act almost like when the Bush administration hires more republicans, it's just to stick it to the democrats. In actuality, they want policies to be enacted a certain way (because, ostensibly, they think it's the "right" way) and so they hire people who are inclined to do so. I don't see anything particularly galling about that.

dont know how you can say that second paragraph with a straight face. by all accounts, bush's second term was even more of a disaster than his first (or at least his disasters were better acknowledged). god could only know what wouldve come of his second term had his political capital not been squandered so fantastically on his social security plan, katrina, the spiraling war in iraq, gonzales, etc. the democrats winning in 2006 is what realyl staunched the wound once and for all.

So you're justifying all the unnecessary hand-wringing about Bush's being re-elected by pointing to how bad things could have gotten hypothetically...even though they didn't? Maybe you had really low expectations for this term, but Bush really hasn't done enough of anything, good or bad, to justify them. The fact is that he never had enough political capital to do any good or ill even if he had wanted to...what with the panty-waists making up the GOP majority from 2004-2006. The Dems mid-term wins were more a reaction to the failure of the GOP to seize the moment of Bush's re-election than it was any kind of left-wing stake to the heart of Bush. Bush was a lame duck long before the midterms.

look, corganist, just accept it already: you failed. you helped elect, and tirelessly defended, this monster. 8 years have been lost. the only consolation is that, by being so horrible, bush maybe helped breathed political life into a tired democratic party and bequeathed us a guy like obama.

It's not about winning and losing. I've never been out to say Bush has been a great president by any stretch of the imagination. All I've ever said is that being ineffectual or incompetent doesn't make the man a monster who is endangering the livelihood of the nation and the free world. And I think time has borne that out. Despite all the gloom and doom predictions and general hopelessness and negativity of four years ago, the country has gone on and everyone is at least cautiously optimistic that the next guy will be better. The fact that you have to fish and reach for what you were so angry about Bush before just bears out that things weren't near as bad as you were making out.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I just don't see how any of that is any different than what every other administration in history has done. Republican administrations like to hire republicans? Democrat administrations like to hire democrats? Shock of shocks!

what do you mean? the justice department is supposed to be apolitical, hiring "your own" there is completely inappropriate, not to mention expressly forbidden. this isnt classic party insularity, this is the underhanded politicization of an apolitical institution. and this is just emblematic of the kind of irresponsibility and misplaced priorities of the bush admin

Face it, ideology and partisanship goes hand in hand with the perception of what one's idea of what "sound policy/reality" is. You act almost like when the Bush administration hires more republicans, it's just to stick it to the democrats. In actuality, they want policies to be enacted a certain way (because, ostensibly, they think it's the "right" way) and so they hire people who are inclined to do so. I don't see anything particularly galling about that.

no. what "sound policy" is is debatable on one level, but that doesnt mean obvious things cant be eliminated from play. there was a blatant disregard for making things work on a policy level, and a maniacal focus on making things work on a polticial level. again, misplaced priorities. even at their worst, other administrations took things like, i dont know, "basic competance" into consideration when hiring or appointing people. instead you have an andalusian horse trader running (sorry, a LOYAL andalusian horse trader, my bad) the nations disaster managment agency. its this kind of almost comic negligence that really leaves the bad taste in peoples mouths.

and why is "galling" banned anyways? what kidn of stupidity is this?

So you're justifying all the unnecessary hand-wringing about Bush's being re-elected by pointing to how bad things could have gotten hypothetically...even though they didn't? Maybe you had really low expectations for this term, but Bush really hasn't done enough of anything, good or bad, to justify them. The fact is that he never had enough political capital to do any good or ill even if he had wanted to...what with the panty-waists making up the GOP majority from 2004-2006. The Dems mid-term wins were more a reaction to the failure of the GOP to seize the moment of Bush's re-election than it was any kind of left-wing stake to the heart of Bush. Bush was a lame duck long before the midterms.

no, i said they went plent bad ("worse," i said). i was just saying "wow, imagine how worse still it couldve gotten if bush actually got to use his last two years and wasnt a lame duck."

what the fuck? what kind of world are you living in. he had plenty of political capital. he won in 2004 by a large enough margin, both houses were repubican... you'd think he'd run amok over america. that capital was lost due to repeated failure and a string of scandals.

It's not about winning and losing. I've never been out to say Bush has been a great president by any stretch of the imagination. All I've ever said is that being ineffectual or incompetent doesn't make the man a monster who is endangering the livelihood of the nation and the free world. And I think time has borne that out. Despite all the gloom and doom predictions and general hopelessness and negativity of four years ago, the country has gone on and everyone is at least cautiously optimistic that the next guy will be better. The fact that you have to fish and reach for what you were so angry about Bush before just bears out that things weren't near as bad as you were making out.

what youve said about his greatness/lack of is one thing, and what youve done is another. youve defended the man like he's some innocent victim for 8 years running now.
even now: can you seriously paint a picture of bush as this mere "dud" figure, just ineffectual? i pray nightly that thats all he would be.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by sleeper

what do you mean? the justice department is supposed to be apolitical, hiring "your own" there is completely inappropriate, not to mention expressly forbidden. this isnt classic party insularity, this is the underhanded politicization of an apolitical institution. and this is just emblematic of the kind of irresponsibility and misplaced priorities of the bush admin

Where do you get the idea that the Justice Department is supposed to be apolitical? It's a Cabinet department of the executive branch of government (which is a political branch). The Attorney General is hand picked by the President to oversee the department, and all members of the DOJ report to the AG...who in turn reports to the POTUS. Why would the President get that power if he and the people he appoints and/or hires are expected to not wield any influence over the department's business? That makes zero sense. It'd be a different thing if we were talking about the courts or something like that, but I don't see what's wrong with the head of the executive branch exerting influence on who works in the departments he has exclusive power over.

no. what "sound policy" is is debatable on one level, but that doesnt mean obvious things cant be eliminated from play. there was a blatant disregard for making things work on a policy level, and a maniacal focus on making things work on a polticial level. again, misplaced priorities. even at their worst, other administrations took things like, i dont know, "basic competance" into consideration when hiring or appointing people. instead you have an andalusian horse trader running (sorry, a LOYAL andalusian horse trader, my bad) the nations disaster managment agency. its this kind of almost comic negligence that really leaves the bad taste in peoples mouths.

True enough, but I wouldn't call any of that a problem of this administration over-politicizing things and leaning too much on partisanship and politics as much as it is a problem of putting too much emphasis on friendship and loyalty. There are plenty of dyed in the wool partisan republicans out there who could have been attorney general, supreme court nominee, or head of FEMA and been eminently qualified for it. But we didn't get (or almost get) Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales, and Michael Brown because it did wonders for the GOP or right-wing political goals.

and why is "galling" banned anyways? what kidn of stupidity is this?

Probably because it's a little too close to the last name of a certain former mod on this board who insisted any reference to her be tossed down the memory hole.

no, i said they went plent bad ("worse," i said). i was just saying "wow, imagine how worse still it couldve gotten if bush actually got to use his last two years and wasnt a lame duck."

I still don't see what sets off the last three years as being particularly worse than the first four. To the extent that things have gotten worse since Bush's re-election, it's mostly been just residual consequences from his first term. I can't think of any new fuckups in term two nearly on the level of say, Iraq. Katrina, maybe...but overall, Bush's MO this term has been inaction over action. To me, I'd say that's been a bit safer bet.

what the fuck? what kind of world are you living in. he had plenty of political capital. he won in 2004 by a large enough margin, both houses were repubican... you'd think he'd run amok over america. that capital was lost due to repeated failure and a string of scandals.

He never got out of the blocks after the win in 2004. He and the blockheads in the GOP congress got totally the wrong signal from the election results. They figured the win meant that they had the political capital to do whatever they wanted, hence we got slaps in the face like Harriet Miers, supreme court nominee. In actuality, whatever political capital Bush and the GOP may have had was capital do what the conservative voters who turned out in 2004 wanted. Instead, they decided they could take those voters for granted as soon as the election was done, and in so doing they lost them.

what youve said about his greatness/lack of is one thing, and what youve done is another. youve defended the man like he's some innocent victim for 8 years running now.
even now: can you seriously paint a picture of bush as this mere "dud" figure, just ineffectual? i pray nightly that thats all he would be.

It's not as though I've been continuously making uninvited assertions of Bush's greatness for eight years. The extent to which I've defended him has only been to temper the insane vitriol spewed at him here. I've never proclaimed him an innocent victim. I've just asked that his mistakes be viewed in their proper perspective.

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by DougieZero

So hated he was elected twice?

Those same people who defended him, defended the war... they are still out there. It's like the fallacy of the American people being against the Iraq War now. The American public isn't against the war... they are against losing the war.

There hasn't been a war we haven't liked (at first) yet.

It can all happen again.

"The war" is an invasion meant to make money for defense contractors and oil spectators. Any argument for "the war" based on the premise of spreading freedom or protecting America is a bold-faced assault on critical thinking.

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

Democrats have no balls. It's that simple.

It's time we broke away from the two party system.

[ravenguy2000]

Here's a fun one to add to the list!

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2...rsons_reli.php

Hat tip to Sandefur for catching this. President Bush was at Monticello for a 4th of July celebration and he delivered an address. But it's quite telling that his speechwriters, in quoting Jefferson, cut out an anti-religious statement from a long and famous quote. Here's the way Bush put it:

Thomas Jefferson understood that these rights do not belong to Americans alone. They belong to all mankind. And he looked to the day when all people could secure them. On the 50th anniversary of America's independence, Thomas Jefferson passed away. But before leaving this world, he explained that the principles of the Declaration of Independence were universal. In one of the final letters of his life, he wrote, "May it be to the world, what I believe it will be -- to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all -- the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government."

Now let's look at the full quote, including the part that was cut out. This is from a letter he wrote to Roger Weightman reflecting on the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (which, it turns out, was the day both he and John Adams died):

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.

Jefferson made many such statements, of course. Clearly they are best edited out by those who advocate nothing if not monkish ignorance and superstition.

[Travis Meeks]

del

didn't want to take away from ravenguy's post

[Starla]

I like how bush has given up playing golf out of his deep concern and compassion for the soldiers fighting in this war against terrorism, and all of the veterans. I know giving up golf must say alot to these people. When a soldier is on his death bed, he feels better just knowing his commander and chief gave up golf for him. What a wonderful thing.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by sleeper

god could only know what wouldve come of his second term had his political capital not been squandered so fantastically on his social security plan, katrina, the spiraling war in iraq, gonzales, etc. the democrats winning in 2006 is what realyl staunched the wound once and for all.

please keep your bible-thumping religious zealotry out of this thread

[sega genesis]

Originally Posted by sppunk

And you can't unfortunately impeach a president from being dumb and stubborn.

but you can for violating the constitution 33 times

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by killtrocity

It's time we broke away from the two party system.

Nonsense.