A retrospective look at President Bush

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:18 pm

One can blame it on many things:

1. The failure of the Democrats to nominate an appealing candidate
2. The undue influence of South Carolina's Bob Jones University crowd in the Republican nomination process
3. The political genius/disgusting culture of fear mongering and personal attacks of Karl Rove
4. The gullibility of the electorate (I meekly raise my hand in accepting my share of the blame)
5. The inability of old Jewish people in southern Florida to figure out a use a ballot so they could register their vote for the guy they were trying to vote for as opposed casting a vote for an anti-Semite
6. The two party system
7. Ralph Nader
8. The electoral college system

Regardless of how it came to pass, it is truly astounding to now look back and realize that this guy was elected President of the United States. In this country full of success stories and brilliant and ambitious people, this is who we came up with to be the most powerful person in the world.

I can only hope we have learned our lessons well, and that we apply higher standards the next time we have a chance to vote for a President.

http://www.slate.com/id/2143250/

Post by **kmax** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:23 pm

I am not a complete GW hater, but I am by no means an apologist either. The scary thing to me is that we RE-elected him.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:23 pm

I don't have a problem with Bush really at all. I would like him to be more forceful in his responses to some of the left-wing attacks on him, but there's nothing I can do about that.
I hope for '08 that the Republican party selects Rudy Giuliani. I would like to see him replace Bush. As far as "learning a lesson" is concerned, I don't regret voting for Bush one bit. And I would do it again had I had the chance to go back and vote a second time.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:28 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:I don't have a problem with Bush really at all. I would like him to be more forceful in his responses to some of the left-wing attacks on him, but there's nothing I can do about that.
I hope for '08 that the Republican party selects Rudy Giuliani. I would like to see him replace Bush. As far as "learning a lesson" is concerned, I don't regret voting for Bush one bit. And I would do it again had I had the chance to go back and vote a second time.

Did you read the article? It seriously kind of freaked me out ... especially the part about him not knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites as he was preparing to invade Iraq.

Going forward, the lesson I certainly have learned is to not assume anything about a candidate. I thought Bush's dumb act was just that when he was first campaigning. Had I realized that he sincerely had very little knowledge about anything that a President needs to know, I hope that I would have voted differently.

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:36 pm

I'm not an avid Bush supporter. But given the choice, he was the one I voted for both terms.

I think he has done a lot of harm, No Child Left Behind being one. I'm not sure I agree with their claims he's created more global warming and AIDS in Africa. He refused to sign Keyoto because it only held industraized nations to higher standards. I think signing it would have caused more global polution issues, and he was right not to sign it. How many companies would have RUN to those countries with lesser standard because it would be cheaper to operate there?

And AIDS in Africa. I'm sorry, but bottom line is abstinance can help more than any government aid plan. Yes, the people that have it need to be helped, and Bush has done that.

Ooops, off track

The article has a lot of truth. I really think it's next to impossible to get a decent candidate into the running the way our political system has evolved. You have to be wealthy, and in some way corrupt to make it that high.

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:58 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote: 8. The electoral college system
]

Without the electoral college system, the election of national officials would rely on the whim of LA, NY, and the addition of a couple more metropolitan areas. I am glad for the college otherwise my midwestern vote would be worth less than nothing

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:01 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote: Did you read the article? It seriously kind of freaked me out ... especially the part about him not knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites as he was preparing to invade Iraq.

SOURCES????????

Anyone can go on the internet and write a blog with no documentation, but that doesn't make it true.

For being generally very objective, I'm surprised that you take this blog to be fact.

As for the blame you seek, your answered it with number 1. 2, 5, 6, and 7 have nothing to do with anything.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:17 pm

I can't believe BAC didn't closely examine the backgrounds of the authors

Plus, how could he not give equal billing to the other side?

http://www.cafepress.com/progopgear

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:21 pm

Ponycat wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote: Did you read the article? It seriously kind of freaked me out ... especially the part about him not knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites as he was preparing to invade Iraq.
SOURCES????????

Anyone can go on the internet and write a blog with no documentation, but that doesn't make it true.

For being generally very objective, I'm surprised that you take this blog to be fact.

As for the blame you seek, your answered it with number 1. 2, 5, 6, and 7 have nothing to do with anything.

I actually had looked it up before I remarked about it to make sure that there was a transcript of it somewhere. This is quoted in DailyKos, which is of course biased, but it references the source:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/8/215257/257

And how can you suggest that 5, 6 and 7 have nothing to do with it? In an election that was decided by about (less than?) 100 votes in Florida, each of these factors was huge. Ralph Nader alone pulled thousands of votes in Florida that certainly would not have gone to Bush, but rather would have gone to Gore. It is the exact same thing that gave Clinton the Presidency (although it was Perot that was the wildcard that time).

I certainly agree that Gore was not an appealing candidate, and his own personality (the sighs alone were enough) cost him a runaway victory, but I would argue that most of my options were unquestionably factors that led to the Bush Presidency.

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:39 pm

An election year piece written before the 2004 presidential election is a retrospective look at the President? Certainly you come up with fresh stupid things Bush has said and done since May of 2004 to stir up anti-republican fury in this congressional election year instead of retreading this dreck.

BAC I thought you read Slate religiously, didn't you read this and learn your life's political lessons back when it was written in 2004?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:43 pm

grizbeer wrote:An election year piece written before the 2004 presidential election is a retrospective look at the President? Certainly you come up with fresh stupid things Bush has said and done since May of 2004 to stir up anti-republican fury in this congressional election year instead of retreading this dreck.

BAC I thought you read Slate religiously, didn't you read this and learn your life's political lessons back when it was written in 2004?

I didn't vote for Bush in 2004, so I learned my lesson ... others have since joined me as well ... the article is being reposted as part of Slate's 10th year anniversary, and it is just as relevent now as it was then. We simply have a few more years of retrospection under our belts.

My point was not to rip on Bush. The secret is out -- the guy just isn't very good at his job. I'm sure he is a nice guy and a very decent human being. My point was that when I read through that piece, and filtering through what is unquestionably fact and what is suspect, it blew me away at how unqualified this man was to be our President. Sometimes you just need to step out of the current context and take a completely new look, and that's what this article did for me.

And looking back over GWB's life ... how did this man come to be President of the United States? Does anybody really and truly believe he is the best we can do?

I'm not saying Gore is any better, or Kerry ... but they probably are. But neither of them is inspiring to me, either. We can do better, and I hope that one day we will.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:00 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote: I'm not saying Gore is any better, or Kerry ... but they probably are. But neither of them is inspiring to me, either. We can do better, and I hope that one day we will.

I bet most prospective candidates are chomping at the bit. Think how good they'll look after Bush.

I think Reagan was great but he had a free pass the first couple of years becasue he was following the most incompitant president we'd had (up to that point.)

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:45 pm

Interesting thread. I thought longhorn22's response was priceless. I think his post tells a story in that no matter how wrong you think the other party is, there is someone on the other side that feels the same way about yours. He still likes Dubya and you have to admire his loyalty.

I think this is a good time for Americans to ask themselves what their country is and what they want it to be and what kind of condition is the world in and how can we effect it. It's like you just went into a bar in NYC and mouthed off about the Yankees with Bosox t-shirt on and got your ass handed to you. Now you're in the taxi and after you tell the driver what happened he (some guy from the middle east) doesn't even feel sorry for you. It's time to check ya-seff, befo ya reck ya-seff. We've all been there before.

We went to Iraq and got Saddam and most of his party outta there. The Bathe Party is still working with the insurgents, but they're considerable weakened. It's a civil war, which at some point was bound to happen. Hindsight being 20-20 maybe that's the best would could've hoped for. Of course, we couldn't just go there with the intent of starting a civil war, but is a civil war in Iraq better than a dictatorship in Iraq? If it was bound to happen, then maybe sooner is better than later. The catch is that now the history books will show the the U.S. started this civil war.

But back to the Bush being a bad president analyis. Certainly for every democrat that's a Bush hater, there's a republican (insert name of Dem. prez here) hater on the other side. For every republican that resembles a Nazi, there's probably a democrat that resembles a socialist.

I think Dubya is water under the bridge, much like Kerry and Gore losing (being cheated) to him is. Except with Bush we all just have to bide our time until he and his people leave DC or are run out.

Even though people seem very right wing in Montana, the historic pattern of what party holds a Senate seat, or Gov. seat, or Repr. seat in Montana, and most states for that matter, is pretty balanced. People consider Montana a 'red' state, but it looks pretty purple. Since 1972 we've had three Dem. Governors (Judge, Schwinden, and Schwietzer), 16 of 36 years. Baucus has been in there forever and then there's the great Mike Mansfield. On the R side people have a hard time imaging that Jeannette Rankin was a republican and I'd certainly give her my vote if she were around today, regardless of pary. California, which many consider a blue state, has a strong conservative past. Reagan came from there and Arnold is in charge right now. That doesn't look too left to me.

So it's pretty even. Imagine if it weren't. If the election is tomorrow and Dick Cheney is running do you vote for him?

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:33 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:One can blame it on many things:

1. The failure of the Democrats to nominate an appealing candidate
2. The undue influence of South Carolina's Bob Jones University crowd in the Republican nomination process
3. The political genius/disgusting culture of fear mongering and personal attacks of Karl Rove
4. The gullibility of the electorate (I meekly raise my hand in accepting my share of the blame)
5. The inability of old Jewish people in southern Florida to figure out a use a ballot so they could register their vote for the guy they were trying to vote for as opposed casting a vote for an anti-Semite
6. The two party system
7. Ralph Nader
8. The electoral college system

Regardless of how it came to pass, it is truly astounding to now look back and realize that this guy was elected President of the United States. In this country full of success stories and brilliant and ambitious people, this is who we came up with to be the most powerful person in the world.

I can only hope we have learned our lessons well, and that we apply higher standards the next time we have a chance to vote for a President.

http://www.slate.com/id/2143250/

BAC, I expect better from you from now on--not that I agree with anything in Vanity Fair or the New Yorker because, you know, I'm just a hick from Montana

It's getting to be as bad as when I did my really, really big "term paper" in graduate school and had to do the inevitable review of the literature and got caught in the Pygmylian Effect and the ongoing fued between Columbia and University of Chicago professors spitting journal article after journal article refuting what the one school publish on the matter. Check out what this review of these authors published.

http://www.slate.com/id/2143234/

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:22 am

iaafan wrote:Interesting thread. I thought longhorn22's response was priceless. I think his post tells a story in that no matter how wrong you think the other party is, there is someone on the other side that feels the same way about yours. He still likes Dubya and you have to admire his loyalty.

I think this is a good time for Americans to ask themselves what their country is and what they want it to be and what kind of condition is the world in and how can we effect it. It's like you just went into a bar in NYC and mouthed off about the Yankees with Bosox t-shirt on and got your ass handed to you. Now you're in the taxi and after you tell the driver what happened he (some guy from the middle east) doesn't even feel sorry for you. It's time to check ya-seff, befo ya reck ya-seff. We've all been there before.

We went to Iraq and got Saddam and most of his party outta there. The Bathe Party is still working with the insurgents, but they're considerable weakened. It's a civil war, which at some point was bound to happen. Hindsight being 20-20 maybe that's the best would could've hoped for. Of course, we couldn't just go there with the intent of starting a civil war, but is a civil war in Iraq better than a dictatorship in Iraq? If it was bound to happen, then maybe sooner is better than later. The catch is that now the history books will show the the U.S. started this civil war.

But back to the Bush being a bad president analyis. Certainly for every democrat that's a Bush hater, there's a republican (insert name of Dem. prez here) hater on the other side. For every republican that resembles a Nazi, there's probably a democrat that resembles a socialist.

I think Dubya is water under the bridge, much like Kerry and Gore losing (being cheated) to him is. Except with Bush we all just have to bide our time until he and his people leave DC or are run out.

Even though people seem very right wing in Montana, the historic pattern of what party holds a Senate seat, or Gov. seat, or Repr. seat in Montana, and most states for that matter, is pretty balanced. People consider Montana a 'red' state, but it looks pretty purple. Since 1972 we've had three Dem. Governors (Judge, Schwinden, and Schwietzer), 16 of 36 years. Baucus has been in there forever and then there's the great Mike Mansfield. On the R side people have a hard time imaging that Jeannette Rankin was a republican and I'd certainly give her my vote if she were around today, regardless of pary. California, which many consider a blue state, has a strong conservative past. Reagan came from there and Arnold is in charge right now. That doesn't look too left to me.

So it's pretty even. Imagine if it weren't. If the election is tomorrow and Dick Cheney is running do you vote for him?

Great post, very accurate and very civil.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:47 am

...how come ya'll forgot to mention Huck Finn, er... Wheeler

We all know Samuel Clemens went to Butte on a regular basis to visit him...and it bugs me to continue to see anyone in the media portray any of our elected officials as morons--especially if any of them are spinoffs of the Hearsts...ala Esquire or any other superiority complex publication...

BOISE_CAT · Post by **BOISE_CAT** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:08 pm

Instead of citing the Electoral College, why not point more specifically to Al Gore and the voters of his home state in Tennessee?

Even Al Gore's home state of Tennessee didn't want him for president.

Forget about blaming Florida or the Electoral College, all that Airhead Al had to do was win his home state.

I had friends in Tennesse who during the 2000 election were sending out plenty of newspaper articles and "top 10 reasons not to vote for Al Gore lists.

If the candidate's home state doesn't want he (or she) to be President, then I don't that person to be President either. THANK YOU TENNESSEE!!!

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:18 pm

BOISE_CAT wrote:Instead of citing the Electoral College, why not point more specifically to Al Gore and the voters of his home state in Tennessee?

Even Al Gore's home state of Tennessee didn't want him for president.

Forget about blaming Florida or the Electoral College, all that Airhead Al had to do was win his home state.

I had friends in Tennesse who during the 2000 election were sending out plenty of newspaper articles and "top 10 reasons not to vote for Al Gore lists.

If the candidate's home state doesn't want he (or she) to be President, then I don't that person to be President either. THANK YOU TENNESSEE!!!

Why couldn't Gore have studied the Nixon-Kennedy outcome? After being told to "challenge" Kennedy's win, Nixon's response was "The country needs a president more than I need to be president."

bobcatgrad2005 · Post by **bobcatgrad2005** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:30 pm

Regarding Guilianai (sp), wasn't he a democrat who switched to republican after he looked at the NYC mayoral ballot and found multiple democrats running (and splitting demo votes), and no republican? Not that there is anything wrong with being smart enough to play the game...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:39 pm

BOISE_CAT wrote:Instead of citing the Electoral College, why not point more specifically to Al Gore and the voters of his home state in Tennessee?

Even Al Gore's home state of Tennessee didn't want him for president.

Forget about blaming Florida or the Electoral College, all that Airhead Al had to do was win his home state.

I had friends in Tennesse who during the 2000 election were sending out plenty of newspaper articles and "top 10 reasons not to vote for Al Gore lists.

If the candidate's home state doesn't want he (or she) to be President, then I don't that person to be President either. THANK YOU TENNESSEE!!!

Isn't this just a sub-argument of #1?

A retrospective look at President Bush

A retrospective look at President Bush

Re: A retrospective look at President Bush

Re: A retrospective look at President Bush