One year later, right-wing media still mourn the loss of Bush
One year after the inauguration of President Obama, right-wing media -- in particular Andrew Breitbart's Big Government, Big Hollywood, and Big Journalism -- marked the anniversary with a series of articles fondly reminiscing about the Bush administration, in which they often attempted to rewrite the history of Bush's policies and also attacked Obama.
Right-wing media celebrates, rehabilitates Bush
Hoft: "One Year Ago- The World's Greatest Liberator Since World War II Leaves Office." In a January 20 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft called Bush "The World's Greatest Liberator Since World War II," claiming that "George W. Bush liberated 60,000,000 Muslims from tyranny." Hoft linked to a U.K. Telegraph article, which he called "an honest review of the Bush years." Hoft also posted a "tribute" to Bush that he posted last year and said, "Don't expect to read anything this honest in the US papers." Hoft also linked to a post by the Boston Herald's Jules Crittenden that, according to Hoft, "[A]dds that it is also with tremendous grace that George Bush has accepted his designated role as villain, fall guy, punching bag."
Fox Nation: "Miss Him? 1 Year Later, Bush Still Stands Proud." From the Fox Nation, accessed on January 20:

Andrew Breitbart: "Rethinking Bush: After the MSM's Relentless Assault, the President Still Stands Proud." In a January 20 post on his blog Big Journalism, Breitbart linked to his 2008 "heartfelt thank you to President Bush." He called media criticism of Bush "Goebbels-like rants from the media," adding that "the simple fact was that media deliberately and malevolently sustained a false caricature of Bush in its pages and on its broadcasts in order to bog down the leader of the free world when he needed all the help he could get, and a time when the country was in great danger." Breitbart ended by saying, "A year after he left office, it looks more and more like others will now not only start appreciating our 43rd president, they might start wishing they helped him when he had the toughest job in the world and they could only wish him ill."
Adam Baldwin: "ONE YEAR GONE: President George W. Bush Answered the Calling of Our Time." On January 20, Big Hollywood blogger Adam Baldwin thanked Bush "for his honorable service, for his dedication and strength in leadership, for his goodness and decency as a man, our nation owes him a debt of gratitude that it can never repay." Baldwin called Bush "a great American individual to whom tens of millions of your fellow citizens will long extend their own goodness, grateful remembrance and love," adding, "You are indeed truly missed."
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "America Betrayed President Bush." On January 20, Big Government blogger Jeffrey Scott Shapiro compared Obama's foreign policy decisions to Bush's and claimed, "Americans who chastised President Bush for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq should apologize and show him the same respect they are now showing President Obama as he neutralizes the Taliban in Afghanistan." According to Shapiro, Bush "seemed to have an almost mystical understanding of what the American people needed when we needed it most. He reminded all of us of why we should be proud to be Americans at a time when there was a whisper that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks upon ourselves for promoting democracy abroad," adding, "President Bush deserves our respect, not our betrayal."
Gary Graham: "ONE YEAR GONE: The Death of Class." In a January 20 Big Hollywood post, blogger Gary Graham called the transition from Bush to Obama "not so much as the grand event of inaugurating our first black President, as it was a societal harbinger of ominous times ahead." According to Graham, the criticism of Bush at the time marked "the death of class." After speculating about the cause of the criticism, Graham concluded that the cause of all of it was "George Bush is openly Pro-Life."
Paul Rahe: "George Bush Revisited." In a January 20 Big Government post, blogger Paul Rahe asked, "What, in retrospect, should we think of George W. Bush?" According to Rahe, "The first thing that needs to be said is that he meant well. He is not a vindictive man, and he sought to put behind him the controversies and turmoil of the Clinton years. He thought that his focus would be domestic policy, but, as tends to happen, events intervened." Rahe said of Bush's invasion of Iraq, "Given the information available, it was the right thing to do." Rahe reserved some criticism of Bush; in particular, Rahe chastised "Bush's failure as President to do what he knew to be his constitutional duty" by signing McCain-Feingold.
Pam Meister: "I often wonder how serious President Barack Obama is about keeping Americans safe." In a January 20 Big Hollywood post entitled, "ONE YEAR GONE: Hope and Change -- Miss Bush Yet?" blogger Pam Meister compared Obama's policy toward terrorism unfavorably to Bush's. According to Meister, "I truly believe that national security was a high priority for President Bush. President Obama? Not so much." Meister called Obama a "devoted Alinskyite" who has "appointed more 'czars' in one year than the Romanov dynasty produced in three centuries."
Doug O'Brien: "Bush Administration Saw the Market as Key to Health Reform." In a January 20 Big Government post, blogger Doug O'Brien compared the health care policies of Obama and Bush, claiming that Bush's policies would have "result[ed] in improved national health, better access, and enhanced cost effectivenes." O'Brien called the Bush administration "forward looking in its promotion of prevention and wellness programs" and "a pioneer in harnessing information technology to improve the quality of care." According to O'Brien, the Bush administration "knew an empowered and informed consumer would make cost-effective choices for themselves and their families and that the resulting competition and improved quality would lead to more manageable costs and better overall health."
Andrea Shea King and Dave Logan: "GW Bush: Rock Solid Under Fire." In a January 20 Big Government post, Andrea Shea King and Dave Logan declared that "when it came to supporting our military and their loved ones, President Bush was rock solid." They described Bush as having "irrefutable resolve ... in defending our country, supporting our military, and staying the course. He had his heart in it." King and Logan attributed Bush's low approval rating to the media's "full-scale attack to discredit" him, "wasting no opportunity to malign and discredit President Bush," and "willfully ignor[ing] the successful troop surge in Iraq."
Leigh Scott: Under Bush, the "country felt safer. Morale was higher. And there wasn't this sinking feeling that freedom was being sold out." In a January 20 Big Hollywood post, Leigh Scott called Bush an "idiot" but not in "the traditional definition ... I'm using the current, leftist lexicon in describing the man." According to Scott, Democrats classify Bush as "a clown, buffoon, and utter retard" because "they call a bunch of snotty, elitist, knuckleheads who are completely clueless about economics and foreign policy 'smart power.' And they refer to their leader, famous for dodging responsibility and voting 'present,' as 'pragmatic.' " Scott praised Bush, claiming he "naively saw himself as a public servant, and not as the 'ruler' of the masses who are incapable of self-governance. He understood that sometimes America's interests conflict with those of other countries, and winning the adoration of foreigners isn't always good for America." Scott claimed Bush's "greatest sin, of course, was attempting to lead by principle and not by the whims of the polls and the influence of his financial supporters." Scott also said he "miss[ed] having my fellow simpleton in the Oval Office. The country felt safer. Morale was higher. And there wasn't this sinking feeling that freedom was being sold out to the interests of unions, community organizers, and a network of government parasites."
















I guess that leaves the rest of us who have moved on.
I understand why you would prefer that we all just ignore the right wing's effort to rewrite history, but try to make an argument that makes at least a little bit of sense.
So you're wrong, the truth may win out in the end. :)
So if you're trying to push some nonsense about you not being partisan, save it. That is even more hollow.
Actually, you and Andrew and the others deserve each other, enjoy.
Then I said you are free to lie if you want to because you hold yourself ("I don't happen to be writing a history of the Bush presidency") to lower standards.
If you want to live in your own fantasy that your very strong political affiliations wouldn't taint your historical portrayal of a president you most likely detest, or least dislike, then fine. Frankly, I don't care.
You are free to be delusional.
I never said anything like that. That's just you being either dumb or dishonest.
"Let me just say if I want... an accurate historical depiction of the Bush presidency, I won't go to either Andrew Breitbart or Clams Casino" - me.
"I don't happen to be writing a history of the Bush presidency" - your direct response.
In other words, in Clams Casinospeak, that means the standards for judging your accuracy, or lack thereof, should not be the same as those writing histories of Bush. Or, I should be judging Breitbart differently than I should you, for the explicit reason you gave me.
Look, if you're not going to stand behind your own words, then what good are any of them?
And I'm still waiting for you to come up with even just one example of me being dishonest or inaccurate about anything I've ever said about Bush. I won't hold my breath.
And for the umpteenth time, I never said you lied about Bush, I said you obviously feel you are free to do so because you aren't writing a history of him.
So frankly, I don't care what you try and wiggle out of now, your words are here, even if your honesty peels away like a banana.
What a hypocrite.
Should you begin to write a blog, let me know and I will check it out.
I'm not trying to put Andrew Breitbart or whoever on the same level as Katie Couric, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point here. I'm sorry, but as a journalist, one has a more significant obligation to truth and accuracy than some random individual venting on an online forum.
That's like expecting Saturday Night Live to be held to the same standards in accuracy as the NBC Nightly News or something. Those two programs are completely different in nature. Or expecting your plumber to be as smart as your president.
There are different sets of standards, because there are a different set of consequences. If clams casino (or anyone for that matter) came on here and posted something factually inaccurate, it would be wrong and it would make them, at best, uninformed and, at worst, a liar. But how many people are going to read those comments and put absolute trust in their statements? When someone who calls themselves a journalist and who has a national platform from which to reach and influence thousands or millions of people, there are far more serious repercussions when that person distorts the truth. Precisely because of the fact that there is a greater fallout as consequence, there is a greater responsibility and a more rigid set of standards.
Would you teach your children that there are different sets of standards for truth telling based on their possible consequences? Of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't say "it's ok to lie to your sister or a friend, but not to your parents"
I'm not saying that there is a different definition of truth from one person to the next. A lie is a lie is a lie. But journalists are held to a higher standard than random anonymous message board posters. The American public expects journalists to be more accurate in their statements than someone who posts comments on media matters. I'm going to be far more disappointed and outraged to see a public figure lie on a national stage than I will be disappointed or outraged to see someone lie on the comments section on media matters.
I hold my doctor to a higher standard than my plumber, because if my doctor makes a mistake, I could die because of it.
Which is itself an obvious lie. So let me get this straight. You start out by attempting to equate Breitbart and myself, but now you've been forced to admit that I've never lied about Bush, while Breitbart plainly has. So you're furiously typing up a smokescreen to hide the fact that you don't have an argument anymore.
Keep typing. It's very entertaining.
Being the drama princess that you are, you keep getting your pants all bunched up because you think I accused you of lying, which I never did. So calm down.
"I don't happen to be writing a history of the Bush presidency, so again your argument makes no sense" - you earlier.
"I said nothing about my standards being any different than anyone else's" - you now.
And your first comment to me was about rewriting history and the truth. Lol!
Again, you attempted to equate Breitbart and myself by saying that you wouldn't turn to either of us for an accurate historical depiction of the Bush presidency. I pointed out that this argument makes no sense, because (a) I'm not writing a history of the Bush presidency, and (b) I've never written anything dishonest about Bush. Andrew Breitbart does both (a) and (b). Therefore, you have no argument.
Nowhere in that exchange did I say anything about differing standards of honesty. That's just something that you made up.
"If all you've got are hollow insults and gibberish then just give up now" - you earlier.
"Now you're just being willfully stupid. I don't see any reason to explain it to yet again. Anyone with a few working brain cells can see that you're just making things up" - you now.
Enjoy your evening.
He also needs to change direction on Iran and Israel/Palestine.
If he doesn't get us out of Iraq soon he will be nearly as bad as Bush.
Don't worry, though, if Obama doesn't get us out of Iraq he will likely be a one term president, and you will give another republican another chance to destroy this country.
Meanwhile, the right is judging Obama harshly RIGHT NOW while espousing your ridiculous nebulous mischaracterization of history as it applies to Bush.
Two standards for the same office. SSDD in GOP-ville.
Randy
:)
Bush (and to some degree Obama) not only protect the Corporations but allow them easy access to our tax dollars.
I am willing to spend tax money (either now or at some future point when Inflation comes back) if I get something for it, like better health care. However, the result of rescuing the failed banks with tax money (which was a Bush plan - don't kid yourself) is that they can continue to speculate (being assured of another bailout).
Come to think of it, I am getting something for my tax dollars going to bail out the banks; higher credit card interest rates.
Legacy of Bush.
I disagree. Bush did hold to conservative principles. High deficit spending and growth of government are conservative principles. So is talking about fiscal responsibility. That just means that conservative principles involve talking the talking, but not walking the walk.
The history of conservatives in control of government supports that position.
http://gvdc.googlegroups.com/web/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg?gda=7XzZHkUAAAC8Pk_GnGps-09DGs3rXexQtd3ApuAt_rOY1oiq86FzjTv04YtL14J-o1n7HJVRnUdzlqnWZQD3y6jZqCMfSFQ6Gu1iLHeqhw4ZZRj3RjJ_-A
I think we all know what would really happen if the teabaggers formed a party, nominated a Presidential candidate and got him/her elected along with a compliant Congress. *shudder* They would grab power, exercise as much social influence as they could and put in governmental programs to advance their favorite goals. In other words, deficits and government growth. They might end some worthy social programs they don't like, but it wouldn't be more than a fraction of what they'd put in place.
http://www.snipurl.com/debtchart
However, even more important is the fact that the debt load, the ratio of debt to GDP, was about 120% at the end of WWII. The debt load went down every administration after that, until 1980. Republican or democrat, recession or prosperity, war or peace, the debt load went down.
Under Reagan the debt load started back up. It went down again under Clinton, then back up again under Bush II.
Notice that the debt load only went up under anti-tax presidents. Even though the debt went up under preceding republicans, the debt load did not. Only Reagan and both Bushes.
That is the key.
And trying to reserve credibility by starting off saying "I despise GWB" doesn't get you any credibility here.
The Bush administration almost destroyed America and yet the media and Republicans supporters treat them like they have our only hope for the future.
These (Republicans)are the same people who wanted John McCain to continue Bush failed policies.
Something is seriously wrong with the American people. Hell awaits those who learned nothing from the past.
----------------------
LOL
lynn swann
j c watts
thomas sowell
walter williams
clarence thomas
still not many high profiles there... even when you add,ugh, alan keyes (cringe)...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Still... There are probably 10,000 white liberals for every black conservative. LOL
Either obama will learn like JFK or go down the hole like carter... I'm betting he dives down the hole.... along with all you left-wing nuts?
But, as is so often common from people of his ilk, he's portraying his side as a victim of liberals who just can't figure out what they should be doing.
Again, please learn how to properly use ellipsis.
Ellipsis how to guide, please read.
as for mourning bush, i mean (excuse me), mourning the loss of bush, uh... you know, there's just no uncreepy way to say that!...
And what you were attacked for was claiming that your use was proper since you INTENDED to use them. Your intent to use them, however, doesn't make your use the proper grammatical use of them!!!!!!!!!!! It wasn't that it was totally egregious either. Nice strawman, trying to make yourself into the victim here, but it was YOU who victimized the English language. You weren't a victim at all!
What we TOLD you was that your use of them was grammatically incorrect.
And thanks for again showing us how rarely people of your ilk can admit your errors. There were two points raised by Magnolia, and you failed to address either one of those in any way!!! And no, making a dirty joke about the last name Bush doesn't qualify as addressing the issues Magnolia raised.
as for the rest of your diatribe, there is no new ground covered here so it's pointless to continue dot dot dot
except for the bush joke, dot dot dot it was tacky and i shall apologize dot dot dot but not to you dot dot dot
Mookington "Mookie" von Zipper
And that assessment holds whether you look at it from the POV of a flaming liberal or a steeping tea-bagger!
He did nothing to prevetn 9/11. He used 9/11 to chip away at our freedom and liberty. His budgetary policy (less taxes, more spending) caused record deficits, even in times of growth and fails to stavce off TWO recessions on his watch. His repsonse to Katrina was as bad as the hurricane. (Worse, seeing as how it was deliberate.) He started one unecessary war, and one necessary one, neither of which he even TRIED to pay for. He created huge gov't bureacracies, that were largely uneccsary. And the terroist threat now is every bit as bad, if not worse, considering how far it's spread aroudn the world, than it was the day he took office. He belittled amd alienated our allies, and in taking out BOTH Saddam AND the Taliban, made our enemies more powerful. The Global Warming problem got WORSE. The Economy got WORSE (wiped out every bit of growth that happened, in fact!). The HEALTH CARE problem got WORSE. Soc Sceurity, Medicare, etc... all in worse shape now than in 2000.
What got better? What?!
I defy ANY conservtative to tell me what that Texas $#!t-kicker did right. NAME. ONE. GOTT. DAMNEED. THING.
--------------------------------------------------
Even the one's who sing his praies in teh PRESS can't point to a single, tangible achievement!
GWB was the first president in our history to fail on all measures.
The Washington Monthly had an article about it near the end of 2009. The facts don't lie.
The problem is that some members of the MSM don't report information of this sort, and rw bloggers don't want to hear it, so Fuchs Noose viewers and readers of rw blogs never hear/read it. This MMFA post is an example of this denial of reality.
And (being no Left-Wing diehard myself) I didn't "say he did everything wrong." I SAID everything that he DID wrong!
If a RW'er can claim with any kind of a strait face that "did everything right," then I'm sure a principled centrist (ha!) such as yourself (HA!) should be able to name at least ONE THING.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And... I notice you DIDN'T.
My point is that partisans will battle this out until they can find something else to humor themselves. In my opinion, Bush's presidency left us in far worse shape than we he took office, most notably economically and our stature in the world because of his Iraq folly. I am not invested in praising him more than he deserves, or dumping on him more than he deserves. History will judge him far better than any of us, so let that happen when it happens.
I prefer to deal with what is on our collective plate now, with those in charge at the moment. Revisiting, or rewriting Bush is delicious for those who have their partisan agendas either way.
I don't find it as appetizing.
LOL
I had no idea you were such a die-hard lefty!
Oh well. By posting the wishy-washy, pseudo-idealistic nonsense you did, avoiding my challeneg, rather than answering it, you've certainly, clearly conceded the point. THANK YOU, though you could have saved everyone a lot of time by just agreeing with me. (...And and those 'Left-Wing Die Hards!' LOL)
----------------------------------------------------------
And if you think I couldn't man-up to my own challenge, let me say that I could easily name something I liked, and something I didn't, about every president, or what they did, since TR and probably 3/4 of the ones before him! And that's regardless of party, or even my overall judgement of them! EVERYONE... Except George W. Bush. He is the greatest complete and abject total failure since Fanklin Pierce and James Buchanan.
I challenged (any conservtive) to tell me ONE THING he did right. ONE issue that got BETTER form 2000-2008, that we two, very reasonable people, can look at objectively, and agree that, yes, progress was made.
I don't see why this should be so hard for you. If you 'don't want to argue' or whatever, just name ONE THING!
What's the problem with that?
And BTW: You do this ALL THE TIME, dude! It's getting old.
This is your typical MO - Someone asks a simple question, and you spend thrity seven posts avoiding the question, without even realising that in doing so, you are proving the point!
All I asked for was ONE EXAMPLE. That's all. Not a frickin' thesis, just one example. But you've now posted three times since my initial thread and have yet to prove me wrong! You say I'm just a "die-hard lefty" who's just prone to judge him harshly? OK. Proove it. Give me ONE EXAMPLE of something he did right! Lowest possible bar I can set!
You do realize that every post you make that fails to do this, just further convinces everyone here that you CAN'T, right? Hey - it's not your fault: Bush was a complete and utter failure. That's not a "LW talking point," it's an historical fact that you are clumsily trying to avoid either confirming or attempting (in vain?) to refute.
So either admit he was just a garbage president all around, or give me ONE EXAMPLE of somethng he did right. I'm not asking you to prove he was a GOOD president, just for one example to show that wasn't a COMPLETE failure.
----------------------------------------------------
Why is that SO HARD for you?
That's about it but it is one thing.
Because in your black and white partisan world if you're not trashing him 12 months after he left office, then you must be a Bush lover and then by golly tell me what he did right!!! I don't need to repeat your eloquence "So either admit he was just a garbage president all around" in order to justify why I have moved on and away from Bush. Apparently you are still invested in dragging him around, as are these right wing bloggers in propping him up.
Which is why say essentially you are all the same.
Of course it is, to you. Thank you for proving that you are nothing but a self serving partisan. For someone who is not, knows better.
Both sides are guilty of it, for you to suggest that the "other" side has a cornered market on it is the absolute definition of a hardline partisan. But you are too simple to realize it because you in it.
And anyone that attempts to point that out drives people like you bonkers, you don't want to hear, you won't believe it, you can't hear of it.
Being an entrenched useful idiot may be fine when you are at some cocktail party with other liberals discussing what a "garbage" president Bush was, but in the real world those of us who have moved on and don't immerse ourselves in petty partisan score keeping, you are obsolete.
Enjoy your little place in the world.
Here's the thing: You say we're worse off, net and net in 2008 than we were in 2000. Fine. I agree. Not really going out a limb there.
I say that doesn't go far enough. I say he's a complete failure. 100%. Everything he touched turned to $#!t.
You then accuse we of being a black-and-white, lefty Bush-Hater. IOW, you dismiss my opinioon as just one of the crowd, and in doing so imply that we're all exagerating; that my/our judgement is somehow flawed or biased.
So I asked you to give me just ONE EXAMPLE. ONE EXAMPLE would be enough to blow up my whole argument here.
So how is that BINARY?! How is that "either love him or hate him?" Even someone who admits that were worse off net-and-net should be able to find ONE GOOD THING he did, just to prove their point that the liberals are being absurd in judging him SO HARSHLY. (Which is EXACTLY what you're claiming!)
I never said you loved him. I asked [any con who disagreed with me] to give a SINGLE EXAMPLE of something good. If you think that's "banary thinking," (1) It reveals that YOU are the one with the binary thinking and (2) you're projecting BIGTIME.
So either tell me one thing he did right or STFU. If you're going to DISagree with me, at least have the courtesy do so in a way that doens't distort what I'm arguing.
----------------------------------------
Or... CONCEDE THE POINT! As I would do if you had ONE. SINGLE. EXAMPLE.
Not unusual though, you contribute nothing but meaningless drivel.
he made it safe for america to butcher the english language and make up new words... so he has contributed to the lexicon as much, if not more, than most presidents...
the tv generation was already stupid, so no harm, no foul...
This is what you call moving on? Interesting definition.
Sorry, but market-based reforms are not, never have been and never will be the answer to health care.
Let's see, 60% for Gore in 2000. VS 33% for George W. Bush
Let's see, 62% for Kerry in 2004. VS 37% for George W. Bush
Let's see, 52% for Obama in 2008. VS 38% for John S. McCain
Yep, they must have really missed Bush, considering they never voted for him, nor McCain.
Even chris matthews is saying the democrat party leaders are "whistling past the graveyard". Don't worry though, America is getting the picture now....
Speaking truth to/about progressives with a shout out to the curling irons waiting to be prosecuted by the losing senate candidate after being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the courtroom to bring charges against her pals.
A noun, a verb, a love affair with a recycled trite saying.
For a change, please use "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" or "whistling Dixie", just to prove you can organize an original thought that doesn't include WPTG, which, by the bye, makes you sound like a minor character from a Mark Twain novel.
Randy
Another example of how the media is actually against Health Care Reform when it offers any opinion at all.
The Media is *NOT* liberal.
They are already trying to rehabilitate his image. Right-wing pundits are already saying idiotic things like: "There were NO terrorist attacks under Bush's watch!" Unbelievable! I am sure my wingnut co-workers will start parroting that pretty soon. You see, wingnuts have the brains of gnats and believe what they want to believe--facts be damned! So soon we will see Bush talked about as if he were almost as Godlike as their hero Ronnie Reagan. They will make up stories about how "wonderful" Dubya was and how he brought peace and prosperity to America--blahh, blahh, blahh. Excuse me while I go barf.
------------------
LOL
Was nowhere near the White House before or AFTER 9-11 because he was too scared. Also did whatever he could to avoid combat, Heck he did whatever he could to avoid even fulfilling statewide drills.
He made a mockery of the presidency with his slumping at the presidential podium like he was too drunk to stand when he spoke. didn't respect anyone enough to remember their name.
For a guy who you say loved America, He sure as hell did whatever he could to destroy it.
His shadow is anyway.
But where is the fine group at air america, formerly a progressive radio station.
as for post 9-11 america, the cries of "impeach der fuhrer" fell on deaf ears... cry all you want about being lied to, the dems were just as complicit as bush so if he's a war criminal they all are... these bozo's have been propping each other up for decades under the guise of a 2-party system with superficial ideological distractions while they both plunder and rape the country...
one valid, sure-fire impeachment charge against bush should have been his complete and utter lack of serious border security in the wake of 9-11... the dems would float just about any other charge than that so as not to upset their latino voter block... now obama can continue to pander to them by making security-minded people on both sides of the aisle, who broach the subject of a sensible border policy, out to be racists... and since bush got a pass on this issue, so will obama, even if the worst horror of horrors happens...
many of my fellow conservatives will tell you "bush kept us safe"... i say he totally lucked out and felt a great sense of relief once obama took his oath of office...
reporting from murderland ranch,
i'm mookie von zipper
massmurdermedia
Good points on no one really WANTING the job! Even with all the perks, it still is a basically thankless one. At BEST, half of the people with think you were "OK" while the others will think you were a doofus. And I have to admit: I'd don't think I'd want the job either!
But I have to take issue with some of the other stuff there... George W. Bush is the most Right-Wing President we've ever had. Dick Cheney is the most RIght-Wing Vice President we've ever had. (Not to mention by far the most influencial one that didn't finish out someone else's term!) The modern Republican Party is as afar Right as it's ever been. They're (ALL) to the Right of Dole, to the Right of Reagan, the the Right of GOLDWATER for cripes sake!
And correct me I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're saying their biggest failure was that they weren't Conservative ENOUGH!
Now... maybe that's oversimplifying your point a bit, and let me know if if it is, but: Most conservtaive administration... Worse failure, pretty much ever... (OK... ahead of only Hoover and Buchanan) I'd don't see how not only "more of the same" but "A LOT MORE of the same" would somehow have made anything better.
And I'm sorry, but... MEXICANS do not represent the biggest problem facing our country. There are plenty of other ways for radical muslims to get into this country; apparently now even including BEING BORN HERE. So all this "southern border" talk strikes me as no more than an incredible amount of money being spent to (for lack of a more tactful description) keep Texas WHITE, rather than to keep America SAFE.
----------------------------------------------------------
But hey... I never voted for the man, so what do I know? ;)
as for mexicans, i have no problem with legal immigration, although i do not blame someone for trying to get here any way they can if things at home are desperate... i live in a section of houston that one would think, if blindfolded and dropped off here from out of town, was actually in mexico... for the most part i find it quite appealing: great food, cantina's, music and hot latina's... the majority of the signage, other than street signs and chain outlets, is in spanish... and while the 2 break-ins to my pickup truck in the last year could have been done by losers of any race (seriously, how much are stolen radios worth these days, $20 maybe?), you don't have to tell me that the vast majority of mexican illegals are honest and hardworking, because i drive by scores of latino men every morning lining the steets looking for day labor, often eying me in my white truck hoping i'll pull over and hire them... but there is no question that a significant amount of crime, particularly in arizona and california, is committed by illegal aliens... street crime wasn't the point of my argument, but it's precisely because of the porousness of the southern border that i believe a significant amount of the budget spent on airport security should be redirected there and to our sea ports... there may be other ways of getting in the country, but i wouldn't describe land, sea, air, and as you suggest, birth, as "plenty"... pandering for the mexican-american vote by accusing conservatives of wanting to keep texas white is insulting, offensive, irresponsible and dangerous to legal citizens, but quite appealing to al-qaeda...
but my convictions will soon be put to the test... it's governor time in texas this year... last time, i voted for kinky friedman, running as an independent, over republican rick perry, who won a second term... this year, kinky is running as a democrat... i'm interested to see just how i perceive his campaign vs 2006...