Bush: A Retrospective

While many conservatives are down on Bush and haven't been true supporters for some time, The Anchoress reminds us of his many virtues and accomplishments in a long, thoughtful essay.

It's fair to note the many ways in which he's failed us. And we do this frequently. But it's also fair to remember the ways in which he's done good, not just for us conservatives, but for the country and indeed the whole ungrateful world.

Thanks to maxxman.


Posted by: Ace at 05:56 PM



Comments

1 No, he's been a good president and a good man in a very hard time. He's got grace and dignity in a rough job and he's done well despite some bad mistakes and a few poor choices. I would vote for him again, to be honest.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 30, 2008 06:13 PM (hfyfI)

2 he is better then any of the choices that we have running for his job this cycle...

Posted by: A Arizona Republican at January 30, 2008 06:20 PM (+7oCm)

3 Bush set back the Conservative movement at least 20 years. Under his leadership the country moved further to the Left and his pro-business and pro-illegal immigration stance has grown both the upper and lower classes while shrinking the middle class, and hisgovernment agencies are out of control in every sense of the word.
Not to mention the gross mismanagement in Iraq and Afghanistan that has cost way too many lives and almost a trillion $$. Like I said, I'm glad that Bush is on our side. Or we'd be doing even worse.
Oh, and he has utterly and completely failed as the leader of the GOP. Bush hasn't lifted a finger since the '06 elections to repair the party.
Other than that, he's been a good president.


Posted by: Bart at January 30, 2008 06:23 PM (YZ/Wt)

4 George Orwell once noted that, popular wisdom notwithstanding, the good a man does tends to live on after him, while the evil he does dies with him.

With Reagan, for example, we forget the many crappy judician appointments he made, the debacle in Lebanon, the dreadful economy of his first two years, his far too frequent "senior moments", because these pale in comparison with his accomplishments: principally, bringing the Soviet Union to an end. (Yes, yes, I know, it was an accident, destined to fall on its own, etc. Spare me.)

Likewise, with Bush. Most of Bush's accomplishments are negative: the attacks that didn't happen, the wars that didn't break out, the advanced that Islamofascism didn't make, the recessions that didn't start. We forget, for example, that India and Pakistan before 9/11 were inching closer to war and, God forbid, a possible nuclear exchange, and that the Administration worked very hard to defuse that situation and improve relations with both nations - to the point where they're as good as they've been in my lifetime (I'm 55 years old). You won't see the MSM give Bush any points for this, but it's a real accomplishment and one that, I think, historians will note.

We won't know for quite a long time whether Iraq will have been successful - and that will depend in large part on your definition of "success". Likewise, Afghanistan. Time will tell.

On the judicial front, yes, he tried to put Miers on the court, but he recovered from his mistake and gave us Roberts and Alito, two outstanding jurists. His record, overall, compares favorably with Bush Senior or the Gipper, actually.

His oratorical style is pretty poor. Often, he's flannel-tongued, and he clearly doesn't think on his feet well. Witty repartee is not his forte. And he made some major blunders in his rhetoric, starting with "Axis of Evil" - thank you David Frum. But other speeches of his were magnificent - I'd put the Whitehall speech at the top of the list - and I think will be well regarded in years to come.

But regardless, here's something you can take to the bank: whether the next president is McCainiac, Hillary!, or the Obamessiah, within two years we will be pining for the good old days of Bush.

Posted by: Brown Line at January 30, 2008 06:27 PM (VrNoa)

5 Compared to what we're about to get with McCain or Hillary, he was outstanding.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 30, 2008 06:27 PM (ERV3B)

6 As much as I appreciate his accomplishments and his decency through seven years of unhinged hatred spewed by tens of millions of frothing imbeciles and their media allies, I can't forgive the whole "compassionate conservatism" slap in the face and the irreparable harm it's done to the conservative movement.He's allowedliberals to redefine conservativism in the Narrative as "whatever George Bush does that doesn't work",hanging those failures and gross excesseson "conservative" policies that were anything but conservative.
He's often acted in full accordance with their incoherent mess of an ideology, but we're the ones that are going to suffer the lasting PR hit for it because of his shallow understanding ofand consequent embarrassment by conservative principles. So now I've got to look forward to fighting charges that boondoggle fiascos like Medicare Part D, NCLB, profligate waste-aid to Africa, and other inanities are proof that "conservative" governance doesn't work. Thanks, George. Because convincing mush-headed dimwits that conservatism is a superior philosophy with an inarguably superior track record wasn't hard enough when the liberals have brochures stating how much they love fluffy bunnies and old people.
I don't consider "limited government" to be a leg of the conservative stool; I consider it the seat. Anyone who believes that government is even capable of compassion, much less the appropriate instrument for dispensing it (with my forcibly-seized assets, of course), is really just a liberal with a different set of priorities for the coercive and domineering state. And, domestically at least (I'm sparing criticism of his completely off-the-tracks foreign policy failures re: NK, Iran, "Palestine", et al. in his second term), that's what the guy proved to be more often than not.

Posted by: VJay at January 30, 2008 06:29 PM (gQ+XA)

7 The Anchoress makes some valid points, but let's be clear about what I see as her real agenda: setting us up for "See? McCain isn't so bad; vote for him!" in the general.
My response to such drivel is this: pull the other one; it's got bells on it.

Posted by: physics geek at January 30, 2008 06:32 PM (MT22W)

8 What Brown Line said.

Posted by: stace at January 30, 2008 06:36 PM (4x6iT)

9 Kos like? Me?
Yeah, I compared to Bush to Hitler and said that Bush took away all of our freedoms and is spying on us. That's me...unhinged and shrill.

Posted by: Bart at January 30, 2008 06:37 PM (YZ/Wt)

10 Axis of Evil wasn't a bad line. It was simply mocked so much by the left that even otherwise rational people like you started to swallow the pablum. It's what they're doing with "Swiftboating" and did with "Mission Accomplished." That was a glorious, powerful moment that should be up there with the Truman picture holding up the newspaper and other iconic pictures. Because it was President Bush they had to destroy it and too many people are buying into the lie

And Bart take the whole "Bush ruined everything and was a complete failure in Iraq and Afghanistan" to the Democratic Underground, please. We like reality here.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 30, 2008 06:42 PM (hfyfI)

11 I've got my own issues with Bush, but here are a few memorable Bush moments for me:

Agreeing with Cheney that NYT reporter Adam Clymer was "an asshole."

Dissing Al in 2000 when that chode tried his menacing Munster-walk across the stage during a debate.

Telling Letterman his first act in office would be to "give the Oval Office a good scrubbing."

Posted by: railwriter at January 30, 2008 06:48 PM (ACTD5)

12 Some good points in both directions, but one thing I would note- i don't see how any Republican and/or conservative will ever be able to get control of the federal bureaucracy in my lifetime. It is pretty much autonomus at this point, and it will only go along with things that it wants to. Ideally, Bush should have fired the entire CIA in the days after 9/11 and replaced the missing parts by growing various Pentagon agencies. This would likely have worked for a decade or two, until they became just like the CIA - of course, had he done that and there had been another attack, he would have been impeached.
Anyway, I don't know if any president can slay this beast, but I do wish Bush had at least tried. We are in a war that is largely composed of a battle of perceptions and ideas - and the CIA and the State Department are at best neutrel and are sometimes on the other side. The military cannot do it all - and you don't want to live in a country where it could.
I guess what I'm saying is that really the civil service has taken the nation and its policy hostage, and have declared that unless the people elect a president that they like, they will ensure that any other president will be unable to govern.

Posted by: holdfast at January 30, 2008 06:48 PM (Gzb30)

13 You guys are weak. I specifically wrote mismanagement, not failure, when referring to Iraq. I'm glad we invaded and ousted Saddam. But I'm not satisfied with 16th century barbarians being able, to this day, to kill our soldiers and Marines by the handful with crude IEDs. That is simply unacceptable.
That's on Bush and his Pentagon.

Posted by: Bart at January 30, 2008 06:50 PM (YZ/Wt)

14 The Bush legacy has a tough row to hoe. We've seen the first draft already: Katrina, the best response to a major disaster ever.EVER. becomes an example of incompetence. The Iraq campaign, a militarywin and humanitarian triumph becomes another. The narative was set by 2004 and the mass media will drive it home. Before the deciders are done, Bush will be a byword.
Sucks.

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2008 06:51 PM (evdj2)

15 I have to go pick up my brat, but I would like to know who the ideal Perfect Conservative is? Reagan wasn't any more conservative than Bush, so I'm just wondering what the Perfect Conservative is supposed to look like.

Posted by: stace at January 30, 2008 06:52 PM (4x6iT)

16 Thanks, Ace for some kind words for the Prez.
For a long time, I have had a feeling that the only people in the world who still like him are Laura Bush, Barney the dog and me.

Posted by: Tushar D at January 30, 2008 06:54 PM (IlgNp)

17 George Orwell once noted that, popular wisdom notwithstanding, the good
a man does tends to live on after him, while the evil he does dies with
him.
That's Shakespeare, numbnuts. Julius Caeser, Act III, Scene 2, Marc Anthony's funeral oration.

Your public education tax dollars at work.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 06:55 PM (VmXMe)

18 "The Anchoress makes some valid points, but let's be clear about what I see as her real agenda: setting us up for "See? McCain isn't so bad; vote for him!" in the general."
I sure didn't read it that way. I thought the whole point of the piece was a gentle rebuke of the base for allegedly turning its back on someone who, over time and in words and deeds, had earned a little loyalty and support from the base. Quite unlike the situation with McCain, who has deliberately gone out of his way, in words and deeds, to stick his finger in the eye of the base.
Anyway, if that was the purpose of the essay, it had the opposite effect on me. Reading it, I kept thinking that there is no way, ever, I could imagine anyone writing anything like this about McCain.

Posted by: angler at January 30, 2008 06:56 PM (kSuu1)

19

Namely:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 06:57 PM (VmXMe)

20 That's Shakespeare, numbnuts
Actually, no. Shakespeare informed the popular wisdom. Orwell was turning it on its head.

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2008 06:58 PM (evdj2)

21 Ace, thanks for the link! You guys can stop wondering: I am not setting anyone up for McCain - I'm not a manipulator and I'm certainly no master of the game. If you read my latest post, I don't even think he or Mitt will be top of the ticket in November.

Thanks again, Ace!

Posted by: the anchoress at January 30, 2008 06:58 PM (N0hv7)

22 Ace has turned into Hugh Hewitt and is trying to serve us a shit sandwich made by Anchoress.

I give his effort a solid B+.

Posted by: Bart at January 30, 2008 07:00 PM (YZ/Wt)

23 The Anchoress can suck my sweaty, stinking hog.

Her entire schtick is to cop an entirely-unwarranted "I am so much more adult than you shrieking imbeciles" 'tude towards conservatives who had the gall to, eventually, lose patience with a president who really hasn't been all that. She's a true-believer, and that's fine -- if there's nothing Bush could do that would alienate her, she can go right on sucking down the Kool-Aid all day long. But if she's going to jump on my shit, because I have the unmitigated audacity to exhibit some critical thinking skills and reach the conclusion that Bush has been, in many ways, a disaster for conservatives?

Fuck her.

Posted by: BC at January 30, 2008 07:03 PM (fjQUX)

24 Ace,
Thanks for posting the link, and for the hat tip.
Bart,
Somehow you've succumbed to BDS - PERIOD

Posted by: maxxman at January 30, 2008 07:03 PM (OYeDg)

25 Republicans in congress moved away from Reagan/Gingrich as much if not more than Bush did. Bush was elected, twice. Congressional R's blew it in 2006, not because of Bush, but because of immigration and pork. And then they had the gall to try to blame their own failures on Bush and Iraq, going along with the MSM message of "If someone loses, it's because of Bush, but if they win it's because of something else".

He may not be Reagan, but the essay shows that he's not a big steaming pile of hypocrisy either.

Posted by: Frank Black at January 30, 2008 07:05 PM (83yH5)

26 History will place Bush up there with Lincoln and Truman for setting a war policy in place that will lead to victory some day. The present day partisan media won't have a say in the matter. And while the domestic side of his term is definitely a mixed bag, it will fade in importance over time.

Posted by: runninrebel at January 30, 2008 07:07 PM (0n9wc)

27 It was nice to here the truth again. I still feel he's the best president in my lifetime, warts and all. The only thing I disagree with him on is immigration and I know his position on that, and everything else, is based on his beliefs, as I've commented here before.
I have no problem with Bart but that was pure drivel. Show me the perfect conservative and I will show you someone that could not get elected and would accomplish nothing if he was. Keep in mind, Reagan did not support a plan that was "essentially" amnesty. He flat out gave amnesty and he was wrong for it. Bush moved the country in the right direction; from a conservative perspective and protected every one of us along the way, as he swore to God he would.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 30, 2008 07:08 PM (DFVTW)

28
Sorry ed, not a gotcha. read the quote again.Oops, you're right. Who's the numbnuts now? Moi! Well, I'm a product of public school education too.

Apologies to Brown Line.

But did Orwell really say that? I'd like to see the quote. Not to start an argument; just curious.

By the way, I think Orwell is wrong about this, generally speaking, and Shakespeare is right--generally speaking. If Orwell did say this--and I'll take your word for it, now, that he did--it's the only he's been wrong. The only time. IMHO.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:08 PM (VmXMe)

29 I don't know if that's an Orwell quote for truth, but it is in his style. The inverting of common thoughts was one of his tics. I like it.

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2008 07:11 PM (evdj2)

30
Personally, I have very mixed feelings about Bush. Commenters here, pro and con, both have good points. I think he's done some great things; but he's also pissed me off big-time. It makes me crazy. Thinking about him--his legacy--I feel as though my head is going to explode, like those guys in "Scanners."

This must be why I mis-read Brown Line's remark. Yeah, that's it. That's the reason.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:12 PM (VmXMe)

31 That essay is just...soooooo......saaaaaad. How could anyone want to destroy such decent, god-fearing...what was that? McCain's illegitimate black baby? John Kerry's faked war wounds? Politics ain't beanbag, you say? Ah, yeah, well, never mind.

Posted by: Beloved Weaver at January 30, 2008 07:14 PM (MN3Lr)

32
Orwell was a prophet. A man of genius. One of the greatest literary figures of our age. Absolute clarity of vision. And utterly, brutally honest--with himself, with everyone else. Hence it's no coincidence that he turned against the Left.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:15 PM (VmXMe)

33 never mind.

M-Kay

Posted by: runninrebel at January 30, 2008 07:15 PM (0n9wc)

34 <i>Bush has been, in many ways, a disaster for conservatives?</i>

That does seem to rankle some, doesn't it? But he told you what he was when you elected him. And he - darn him - decided to be president of all Americans, not just of the conservatives. A man with a creed first, a president second, a republican (not - note - conservative) last.

As I've said elsewhere, Ronald Reagan, who met with the Mexican president get his views on how to make the Mexico/American border "more than a 9 foot wall" and Reagan first brought up the idea of free trade "from del fuego to the arctic circle" (now known as the "Bush North American Union.")

Bush has his faults. I wish he had not signed McCain-Feingold. I wish he had gone into Fallujah with both guns blazing. But then again I wish all the presidents before him had addressed illegal immigration instead of punting it down the field, too. We can't always get what we want.

I'm convinced that today Ronald Reagan himself would not please the folks who seem to be "conservatives first."

I'm tired of the line-drawing and I'm tired of the "everyone who doesn't think like me is my enemy" mentality. It makes enemies of countrymen and renders the nation moribund. And like Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that! :-)

Posted by: the anchoress at January 30, 2008 07:17 PM (N0hv7)

35
Re Orwell: I meant to say, also: absolute moral clarity too.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:17 PM (VmXMe)

36 Bush lost me when he allowed those two Border agents to be prosecuted and sent to jail, and when he bargained with VicenteFox in Mexico over our nation's security. (Yet Scooter Libby gets pardoned.)Why did he do it? For economic interests, that's why.
Like hell we need millions of unskilled uneducated "laborers" in this country. Jobs Americans won't do, my arse.

Posted by: Bart at January 30, 2008 07:18 PM (YZ/Wt)

37 Good lord, that was sloppy, sorry, I'm distracted, that should read: Ronald Reagan, who met with the Mexican president to get his views on how
to make the Mexico/American border "more than a 9 foot wall" was also the one who
first brought up the idea of free trade "from del fuego to the arctic
circle" (now known as the "Bush North American Union.")

You could look it up. Google Reagans 1998 SOTU address.

Posted by: the anchoress at January 30, 2008 07:20 PM (N0hv7)

38
anchoress:

I'm unclear as to the point you're making in #41. Are you saying that Reagan did the right thing re his dealings with Mexico? And that, by implication Bush did the right thing too? Or ... are you saying that Reagan made a mistake, so it's okay that Bush made the same mistake too, more or less?

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:23 PM (VmXMe)

39 Bush has been terrible for conservatives and the GOP. Peggy Noonan is right when she says GWB destroyed the republican party.

Posted by: Fred at January 30, 2008 07:24 PM (QiI7S)

40
Really, it's not very useful to draw comparisons, for good or ill, between Reagan and Bush. Times were different. Different game, different playing field, different rules.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:27 PM (VmXMe)

41 We can't always get what we want

Thank you for that banal little insight.

It's nice that you're prepared to lean back and think of England while a politician fucks you over, and then piously lecture those of us who weren't so inclined about how mean-spirited we're all being.


Oops, did I say "nice"? I meant "ridiculous".

Posted by: BC at January 30, 2008 07:27 PM (fjQUX)

42 Tell ya what, BC, why don'tcha get out in the middle of the room to throw the tantrum, so everyone can point fingers and laugh?

Posted by: irongrampa at January 30, 2008 07:29 PM (N4pK7)

43

Language, BC, language. That's anchoress you're talking to. She's civil, you can be civil too.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:29 PM (VmXMe)

44 George Orwell once noted
That's Shakespeare, numbnuts

You're both wrong!
The correct answerwas Iron Maiden.

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 07:30 PM (HgAV0)

45 What I'm saying is that many people seem to think that these ideas were "invented" by Bush, when they're 20 years old, and I'm saying that he has taken a tremendous amount of heat for "not doing" what no one else before him did. I grant you 9/11 makes the case for securing the borders more urgent, but that question has been rendered so emotional that it will be very difficult for any leader to be effective on it for a while. And the Congressional GOP deserves its share of the blame for "destroying" the GOP by being spineless and pork-hungry.

I'm saying there is plenty of blame to go around, and that too many people get hung up on their single peeve and fail to see the many good things this president has done. If you don't appreciate the gifts you get, you don't get any more.

That's all I'm saying, and I'm not going to sit here all night defending my defense of a man who has done a very good job under tremendously difficult circumstances. You're free to disagree, you're free to hate him all you want. We're all entitled to our opinions and to full respect for them. Fairness is nice, too.

And this time I really am making like Forrest Gump. Good talking to all and thanks again, Ace, for the link!

Posted by: the anchoress at January 30, 2008 07:30 PM (N0hv7)

46
Entropy, you magnificent bastard!

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:31 PM (VmXMe)

47 If you read my latest post, I don't even think he or Mitt will be top of the ticket in November.

Posted by: the anchoress
Ok, by what process does a person who isn't on the ballot, isn't running, and isn't part of the process get the nomination? Because in my world, they don't.

Which means its going to be McCain, or Romney, or Huckabee, or Paul... with likelyhood either in that order, or swap the first two. Huckabee can't get any non-evangelicals, and Paul is stuck with the crazy... So it's going to be McCain or Romney.

I can see not liking that situation, as I don't either. But pretending that somehow it'll mysteriously get fixed isn't realistically plausible.

Seriously, I don't see the point of what you even think is going to happen? Is God going to reach down and select a candidate, unknown now, from the masses and give us a good Conservative nominee? Are the mystic unicorn-fairies going to use magic to revive the ghost of Reagan and send him to committee to be elected?

Or is it going to be McCain, Romney, Huckabee, or Paul? If you think Ron Paul, leader of the crazies; or Huckabee, decider of everyone's personal habits, and self-proclaimed chosen of GOD will make anyone happier, you're in for some hard times.

When you find that you're entirely wrong, there's no chance that you can be correct, and what you claimed was impossible is what is happening, don't worry... There are ace-lifestyle tested ways to overcome this.

I recommend Bourbon.

Posted by: Gekkobear at January 30, 2008 07:31 PM (X0NX1)

48 I 'd like to thank Anchoress for the post and Ace for the link. George W. Bush has done good and not-so-good things for this country, mostly good. When he did something that pissed us off, he stood like a MAN and took his medicine without pointing fingers at others. He has stood steadfast in the face of relentless lies and smears flying at him from all directions. Who among us can say that about him/herself? The President is not a Saint and I am not trying to portray him as one, but I'll tell you one damn thing...he's a damn good man andI am PROUD to call him a fellow Texan.

Posted by: FishFearMe at January 30, 2008 07:32 PM (8nB5X)

49
anchoress:

Re #49: Okay, you've answered my question. Fair enough. I agree in part, disagree in part.

No please excuse me while my head explodes.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:34 PM (VmXMe)

50 Jonah Goldberg also wrote a retrospective on Bush.
We were warned.
I suppose it's more then you can say for most of the dipshits now who will lie through their teeth about their desires to assrape conservatives.

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 07:36 PM (HgAV0)

51 #46: "Tantrum"? Gee, I'm sorry to have offended your delicate sense of decorum by getting pissed off at the sanctimonious posturing of an individual with a profoundly passive view of politics. In the future I'll make every effort to confine myself to a frown and a stern, "Tsk-tsk."


#47: Go fuck yourself.

Posted by: BC at January 30, 2008 07:40 PM (fjQUX)

52 OT, I realize, but I want to congratulate Ace on the job he's doing here. I've been a long time lurker and infrequent poster, so I'll simply say again, great work, sir.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 30, 2008 07:40 PM (N4pK7)

53 I'm just wondering what the Perfect Conservative is supposed to look like.
Google Reagans 1998 SOTU address.
Yeah, that should be good.

Posted by: Bob Munck at January 30, 2008 07:41 PM (n0BzT)

54 Meh. I'll retrospect in the future. He performed some tasks well above my expectations, and he occasionally HUGELY pissed me off.

Right now, he's got a bad case of Lame Duck Disease -- chiefly characterized by the delusion that the Middle East is fixable, if only Israel to bends over and clutch her socks one more time.

Posted by: S. Weasel at January 30, 2008 07:42 PM (9jA8/)

55 #55--I am a rational, sane human--can you claimto be also? If i were crude I'd call you a whiny little git, but since i refuse to descend into name calling, i WONT call you a whiny little git--much as you may deserve the term

Posted by: irongrampa at January 30, 2008 07:43 PM (N4pK7)

56 I blame my grammar in that last post -- and everything else that has gone wrong with my life -- on cheap booze and loose women.

And I'm the loose woman.

Posted by: S. Weasel at January 30, 2008 07:43 PM (9jA8/)

57
Influenced by the comments in this thread, I'm inclined to think that conservatives saw in Bush only what they wanted to see. Anchoress and Goldberg are right in that respect: Bush told us what he was before he was elected. He never misrepresented himself. He was pretty consistent in this regard. He didn't lie. We (i.e., conservatives) should have known what we would get, for better and for worse.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:44 PM (VmXMe)

58 I'm just wondering what the Perfect Conservative is supposed to look like.
This.

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 07:44 PM (HgAV0)

59 #59: "I am a rational, sane human" -- doubtful. To judge by the available evidence you're a random, passive-aggressive Internet crank. Allow me to be the first to invite you to cram your head back into the filthy heat of your own ass.

Posted by: BC at January 30, 2008 07:45 PM (fjQUX)

60
#47: Go fuck yourself.

Oh, okay. I'll try. But I'm not as limber as I used to be.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:46 PM (VmXMe)

61 Peggy Noonan is full of shit. She's a fucking speech writer, for Christsake. Or she was, like 20 years ago. And Reagan re-wrote half her shit anyway. If the republican controlled congress sent Bush an immigration bill that secured the border and prevented amnesty, he would have signed it. If they passed any number of other seriously conservative bills, he would have signed them. He didn't veto a single bill sent to him while the GOP controlled the congress. So, it's his fault the party is fractured? Shut the fuck up. Those assholes deserved their beating.
Bush is a perfect example of a big boy expecting others to act like big boys too. He's only nudging them on earmarks now and he only warned them before. He shouldn't have to man-handle them. There is such a thing as the seperation of powers. The congress should un-fuck itself because that's its job.
This is what the rank and file conservative's creed should be right now:
"Elect different Republicans"
I look at the short bus full of people trying to replace Bush right now and I think of a bag of marbles trying to replace a pillar.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 30, 2008 07:46 PM (DFVTW)

62 So, it's his fault the party is fractured?
Yes.
He was the leader.
His party in Congress followed his lead.
Tell me Penn State Marine, if a bunch ofprivates are sitting around drunk playing cards when they're suppose to be on a mission, who get's blaimed?

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 07:53 PM (HgAV0)

63
"Elect different Republicans"
Indeed.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:54 PM (VmXMe)

64 In spite of all the hoopla and furor, i yet believe we'll come out of this just fine, this country has a knack for having the right person for the time, in any given situation. I further believe that the occasional stumble serves as a reminder. So take heart, the country will survive, as it has in the past.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 30, 2008 07:55 PM (N4pK7)

65
Re what Entropy said:

I believe Harry Truman had it right in his comment about where the buck stops.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 07:55 PM (VmXMe)

66 if a bunch ofprivates are sitting around drunk playing cards when they're suppose to be on a mission, who get's blaimed
Me, because they work for me and I am responsible for them.
Did you miss the part about seperation of powers?

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 30, 2008 07:56 PM (DFVTW)

67 I was accidentally watching the Daily Show, like yesterday, or something (I couldn't reach the remote and the wife was out of the room). There was another one of these gas-bag presidential expert fuck-nuts on. She did make a good point; when Harry Truman left office, his approval rating was at 27%.
Fuck punditry. History is on Bush's side.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 30, 2008 07:59 PM (DFVTW)

68 Bush is an idiot and a liberal who occasionally made some beneficial nods in a conservative direction. You take anchoress' list and put it next to the monumental failures of George W and see which side of the balance sheet is bigger.

Contra Alito, we had Meiers

Contra the Bush Doctrine, we had the Ports Deal (and the constant coddling of the Saudis)

Contra Roberts, we got No Child, Prescription Drugs, the Bailout and on and on and on and on

He even abandoned his own "Bush Doctrine"

What utter, complete bullshit. Take an isolated shot of Bush doing something decent for the goals of conservatism, and castigate actual conservatives who argue that his later reversals or other betrayals cast some doubt on his USEFULNESS as a conservative president, and viola---you have this mendacious, idiotic, fawning asslicking of a "retrospective" that feels about as genuine as a $30 fur coat.

She feeds us unmitigated emo shit like the SS agent and DANCING for fuck's sake.

Talk about getting a grip. She is to Bush what Hewitt is to Romney.

Cheerleaders are nice honey, but not especially intellectually rigorous. Bush couldn't even knock off a third world country right.

It's not "anchoress," it's syncophant.

Posted by: boulder at January 30, 2008 08:05 PM (p1s9n)

69 I believe President Bush should have vetoed several of the spending bills but it's essentially true that congress is made up of adults and have to be blamed for their own stupidity. These guys aren't servants or privates below President Bush. They're all in the same club but they are coequal branches of the government.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 30, 2008 08:06 PM (hfyfI)

70 Present circumstances considered, I would vote for him again. That would make three. And I'm looking forward to him coming back to the Republic of Texas to live. I don't know him personally, but I would bet that he is ready to get out of that stinking hole called Washington, D.C.
The man is one hard-headed dude. The amount of crap piled on him by theBDSers is unbelieveable. Yep, he made some mistakes, and he sure stepped in the cow-patty with immigration, but I have never gotten the feeling from him that hedid not believe he wastrying to do the right thing. And Laura is the best thing going as first lady.
I can't wait to see what theidiot libs do without Bush to blame every freaking disaster that occurs on. Withdrawl symptoms should start in about two months, and by January of next year, the Betty Ford clinic will be full to over-flowing with libs looking for a teat to fasten on. And just to help with balancing out the equation, recall we came within a gnat's ass of Algore being the President.

Posted by: Mikeyslaw at January 30, 2008 08:09 PM (yrptY)

71 and as for immigration, it's not that he abandoned his base, he was set to pass a law that over 75% of the POPULACE disagreed with. That's not "following his heart" or whatever craptacular phrase she uses to identify Bush's at-times incredibly poor judgment, it's tyranny.

Fawning adulation has its place, and it's not next to a president who by all accounts accomplished so little of note.

Posted by: dash at January 30, 2008 08:10 PM (p1s9n)

72 I'll take a different tack:

The fact that President Bush maintains a 30% approval rating has much more to do with the heat the Right directs at Bush -- not the hatred of the Left.

When the Left heard the "VRWC" garbage from Bill and Hillary! they lined up and marched to their leaders' music. This might be a result of good leadership by BH but I'm not willing to accept that explanation without more research. Perhaps it was the sycophantic media. Perhaps Leftists really are better lemmings than Rightists. I don't know.

But the 30% number is because conservatives wanted Bush to be more conservative. The 50% or so Bill left office with (that and some furniture from the WH) was because no liberal left their champion.

It's an interesting comparison.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at January 30, 2008 08:13 PM (ThZCx)

73 they are coequal branches of the government
That's my point. And absolutes are great at firing you up, but you can't effectively lead that way. I would love to see Bush eliminate earmarks by Executive Order. To be more precise, I would love it if that would actually work. But they would simply come up with something else.
Not too different than the retarded notion of McCain-Feingold. You're not going to stop shit. You're only going to make it worse. The only solution is democracy. Throw the fuckheads out on their ass in next cycle.
You want to talk about the base? What base? If there really was a base, immigration would be solved. The people would throw out those that weren't on board. That didn't really happen, did it?

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 30, 2008 08:14 PM (DFVTW)

74 it's tyranny
Yeah. That's balanced.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 30, 2008 08:17 PM (DFVTW)

75 Did you miss the part about seperation of powers?
Sigh...fine let's play that.
NoI did not miss that part. But apparently Bush did.
Reform of social security? No Child Left Behind? Amnesty? Those few vetos he did use? Threatening to veto the war funding bill if it included time tables was apparently, in your view, a violation of the seperation of powers.
No one said he had to write the laws and vote them in himself.
Suits him fine and dandy some of the time. What we've got here is a very selective use of seperation of powers.
If he's pushing forlegislation or a direction you like, it's peachy. But if he's not, it's 'seperation of powers'.
I do not recall you using that argument - on principle - against anything he did these last 8 years you happened to like.
Where was seperation of powers when he was trying to tell congress how to do their job and what they should be voting on, demanding they give a vote to his judicial nominees?

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 08:18 PM (HgAV0)

76 I believe President Bush should have vetoed several of the spending bills but it's essentially true that congress is made up of adults and have to be blamed for their own stupidity.
So? I agree. But Bush is still complicit as well.
I believe that there is enough blame for everybody involved, so there is no need to be stingy and start trying to ration it.
But Bush had a lot to do with this shit sandwich. A substantial meaningful role.
That doesn't mean I excuse, or don't hate congress. I have enough hate in my heart for both of them.

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 08:24 PM (HgAV0)

77 I have never gotten the feeling from him that hedid not believe he wastrying to do the right thing.
Napoleon also believed he was trying to do the right thing.
Woopdefreakindo.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 08:27 PM (HgAV0)

78 Some liberal pities got skewered duringBush's terms. I thank him for coining (popularizing?) the phrase: The soft Bigotry of Low Expectations. It pretty well sums up the institutionalracism of the Left, both at home, and abroad. .

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2008 08:37 PM (evdj2)

79 I think BC needs an enema.
You're one angry little pissant, aint ya?

Posted by: Kibbles & Bits at January 30, 2008 08:39 PM (q+HK/)

80 Bart:
But I'm not satisfied with 16th century barbarians being able, to this day, to kill our soldiers and Marines by the handful with crude IEDs. That is simply unacceptable.
That's on Bush and his Pentagon.
And, I guess, physics and biology. But I suppose Bush could have signed that Executive Order making it impossible for American soldiers to be injured or killed by freakin' explosives.
Seriously, what do you think Bush could have done to prevent this? Institute an all-robot army? Use "diplomacy" to keep terrorists from using IEDs?

Posted by: The Comish (sic) at January 30, 2008 08:48 PM (n8HhO)

81 Defying the will of 75% of the electorate in a democratic republic is tyranny, and I will make no apologies for calling it such.

Bush, on balance, has been bad for this country, bad for the party , and bad for the conservative movement.

I have given examples, what do you have, friend jarhead?

THe man had admirable qualities as a man and a Christian, no doubt. That does not necessarily translate into a good president, and certainly not one who will be "remembered fondly by history" or whatever bullshit is being pedaled by that "retrospective."

"Be grateful it's not worse" is no way to champion a political leader.

He fucked up, let loyalty get ahead of good governance, and made things worse overall for the country in the domestic sphere. He almost got it right internationally, but managed to fuck that up too. Thank God for Petraeus.

Air Assault.


Posted by: copy at January 30, 2008 08:53 PM (p1s9n)

82 I'm 48 and Bush is the best president in my lifetime. He's who everyone thought Reagan was and he'll have a great legacy.

Clinton would have never won if the right hadn't abandoned Bush senior (he wasn't half the president his son is) and now they want to do the same thing with McCain (who is much like Bush senior). We were lucky enough to have a Republican congress to control Clinton. That won't be the case if Hillary or Obama win. The mess you stay at home types look to create is what will set conservatism back 20 years. Bush has pushed the agenda forward.

Posted by: Patrick H at January 30, 2008 08:57 PM (KtNxB)

83 Threatening to veto the war funding bill if it included time tables was apparently, in your view, a violation of the seperation of powers
I'm not following your logic. A veto is part of the Constitutional process. So is the prosecution of war and the President's defense of the Nation. The funding of a war is the intersection between the two branches. I believe the time tables would not have been unconstitutional anyway.
Suits him fine and dandy some of the time
It's give and take. Of course he's going to take what they give him that suits him and choose his battles over what does not. It's called being in charge. But, for example, the fix for earmarks needs to come from the congress. And I don't mean just refraining from putting them in. They need to pass legislation banning them and the President will sign it. But jockying around with parliamentary procedure won't accomplish anything. Go ahead, give an executive order and they'll do it differently; worded differently.
Consider this: What if the President, instead of ordering his departments to not spend the earmarks, told them to spend them on his war actions? I mean, how did Kennedy fund his private little army anyway? Would that be okay? No. So how is controlling the spending from earmarks any different? You're still manipulating the system via a backdoor.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 30, 2008 09:02 PM (DFVTW)

84 Entropy:
Reform of social security? No Child Left Behind? Amnesty? Those few vetos he did use? Threatening to veto the war funding bill if it included time tables was apparently, in your view, a violation of the seperation of powers.
Wow. Talk about missing the point.
In your example, Penn St Marine could order his subordinates to stop drinking and get back to work. That's called the "chain of command." President Bush can't order the Congress to do anything. That's called the "separation of powers."
Penn St isn't saying that vetoes are a violation of the separation of powers. That's a power given to the President under the Constitution. That's an example of "enumerated powers."
Penn St is pointing out the difference between being able to order someone to do something, and not being able to order someone to do something. It's the difference between military might and "diplomacy." And we conservatives know "diplomacy" is a fancy word for "hope you agree with me."
Congress was half Democrats. What was he going to do?

Posted by: The Comish (sic) at January 30, 2008 09:02 PM (n8HhO)

85 What has Bush "pushed forward" Pat?

temporary tax cuts? judiciary picks that the maligned "base" had to fight tooth and nail to get to a vote? Two Supreme Court justices of eminent stature (one of whom is only there b/c of said evil "base", and thus doesn't count for Bush)? A war on "terror" that leaves the three or four largest terror states unchecked?

What EXACTLY has Bush done so well to warrant the Second Coming of Reagan status?

Really, what?

Posted by: copy at January 30, 2008 09:05 PM (p1s9n)

86 Defying the will of 75% of the electorate in a democratic republic is tyranny

Tyranny:
1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.

I'm sorry, but it's the republic part you're missing. This is not a democracy. If it were, then elected officials would have to do exactly what the majority of people said about everything, every single time. We live in a republic. Being democratic for us means our representatives or determined mostly based on what the majority wants. There are restrictions to the influences of democracy all over our system of goverment; put there by the founders deliberately.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 30, 2008 09:08 PM (DFVTW)

87 Congress was half Democrats. What was he going to do?

Maybe he could NOT have signed bills that radically increased the size and scope of Government.

Or is that too RADICAL for a Republican president?

Posted by: copy at January 30, 2008 09:08 PM (p1s9n)

88 is that too RADICAL for a Republican president
It is too radical for any President that is trying to fight World War 4 with almost no support. Bush got almost everthing he wanted from congess, because he bought it. You actually think anyone in congress gave him what he asked for out of a sense of duty?
I think his fiscal conservatism would havematched your wishes a lot more if he didn't haven't a global war on terrorism to fight.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 30, 2008 09:13 PM (DFVTW)

89 Like all patricians Bush is oblivious to the effects of his idiot idealism on the common herd. And yes, of course I'm talking about his active support of the Mexican invasion. What good is GDP if the streets you walk down, the people you pass, the language you hear aren't your streets, your people, your language. Thank you for destroying my world, Senor Jefe Jorge!

Posted by: ricpic at January 30, 2008 09:13 PM (+++MJ)

90 "In spite of all the hoopla and furor, i yet believe we'll come out of
this just fine, this country has a knack for having the right person
for the time, in any given situation. I further believe that the
occasional stumble serves as a reminder. So take heart, the country
will survive, as it has in the past."

I appreciate the anecdotal stumble (aka Jimmy Carter) in the God Bless America sentiment and all, but past trends are not necessarily predictive of future performance. If we make assumptions like that without actually fighting for some principles (I'm extrapolating here), we can lose the country. History indicates that we will, and on that trend, eventual loss is guaranteed. Look at Europe. That is our future just as it was our heritage.

Did Bush do some good? Sure. But he did considerable damage, too. This nation has shifted more socialistic. I consider that damage. Bush has not reigned in government. Not all his fault by any means, but he has made it worse. Titular heads have a responsibility to carry more than their weight. Bush did not because a) he could not, or b) he chose not. Sadly, we lack enough stiffened, small government conservatives and enjoy too many linguine-spined RINOs to help Bush go against his natural (or politically contrived?) "compassionate conservatism" proclivities. Either that (i.e. leadership) is missing or we, the flock, have indeed evolved to weaker characters. I'm not sure which is worse, but it's a bad sign.

We're in for a bumpy ride on history's trendline.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 30, 2008 09:13 PM (Y0gTb)

91 It's kind of a relief that the foul-mouthed personal-attack whiners all seem to be on the BDS side.

I guess you have to get pretty wound-up to join that group anyway, and once you're that wound-up, you can't address things calmly anymore.

Other parties seem to be lost to screaming brickbat-hurlers, let's hope the Republicans don't follow that path or there'll be nowhere left to go.

Posted by: Merovign at January 30, 2008 09:14 PM (IaYDo)

92 Excellent appeal to authority. I always love using a dictionary to avoid dealing with troublesome concepts too.

I guess your definition excludes "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy.

Spare me the dime store civics lesson. Defiance of 75% (plus, really) is not the stuff of "restraining the inordinate passions of the mob" that the founders were trying to get at. According to your logic, it is fine for the ruling class (.002% of the pop, let's say) to pass whatever laws it wants. We can just vote them out, right?

Blithering.

Once amnesty is granted, there's no going back. I suppose our elected officials could open all the borders (completely) tomorrow and your answer would be "vote em out"? How about you try that with all your new neighbors from around the world voting too.

Nice fallacy you got there.

You still haven't even shown one permanent (to the extent politics is permanent, meaning I don't count "temporary" measures) thing that Bush did to advance the cause Republicans traditionally espouse that isn't counterbalanced by his own actions before or after.

Posted by: copy at January 30, 2008 09:16 PM (p1s9n)

93 I think for a lot of you guys a bit of time and perspective will do wonders. Hell, Reagan signed a huge amnesty bill, signed a tax increase, huge budget increases, and shrugged when US Soldiers were killed in Beirut, responding by pulling them home. He aced the space program when one crash happened. The man wasn't perfect, in fact he did damn lousy stuff in office.


Yet we revere Ronald Reagan as a conservative paragon, because of the many good things he did. Being so close to the issue has too many of you swallowing the leftist BDS Kool Ade and time will help clear it from your system. I suspect many of you are kind of young and don't have the perspective to sit in wonder at some of the things President Bush was able to accomplish. In the end, he'll be seen as one of our best - the sheer hate of the deranged left when he's mentioned ought to give you a glimpse of that.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 30, 2008 09:18 PM (hfyfI)

94 Steve, I was quoting Orwell from memory. It was a throwaway observation from one of his "As I Please" columns that's in the four-volume collected journalism, essays, and letters. I'll have to comb through them to find it - and it's probably in volume 4, which I loaned to somebody and never got back.

I think that "Axis of Evil" was a blunder because it alienated the people of those poor countries, particularly Iran. I've read too many accounts from ordinary people who might otherwise be on our side but who felt that Bush was lumping them together with the government that, ordinarily, they would oppose. Our rhetoric should lead them to believe that we're on their side against their government; but "Axis of Evil", I'm afraid, did exactly the opposite. A better approach would have been, yes, more nuanced.

As for Bush overall, he's not the conservative I would wanted. But this is the real world: sometimes we have to govern with the president we have, not the president we wish we had. And he's a damned sight better than anyone else I see vying for the office now.

Anchoress, I'm one of those ultra-conservatives who disagree with you on Miers and immigration, and I think you're wrong on those issues; but you're right to denounce the Kos-like nastiness that's displayed by some on our side. We are better than that, and our rhetoric should show it.

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 30, 2008 09:19 PM (Efe/j)

95 Merovign,

complaining about language at AOSHQ?

Pathetic.

It's not BDS. I think the guy's a decent, honorable fellow. I also happen to think he's a horribly incompetent political ruler and has been a net detriment to the cause of limited government.

He's had to fight a war, huh? What exactly has he given Congress since the dems took over? War's still funded, right?

The brilliance behind No Child/Medicare Drugs is clear to me now.





Posted by: copy at January 30, 2008 09:20 PM (p1s9n)

96 I'm not following your logic. A veto is part of the Constitutional process. So is the prosecution of war and the President's defense of the Nation.
The logic is thus : I say 'Bush did not lead the GOP congress toward being more conservative but away from it.'
For instance, he did not veto thier outrageous spending, but begged for some of his own and just shrugged and let everyone else get theirs too. Why not pork out when Dear Leader is passing New Dealesque welfare programs, which are essentially pork writ large?
You're response to this is "seperation of powers"
Well ok, if 'seperation of powers' prevented him from vetoing egregious pork or trying (at all, not just successfully, at all) to get congress to be fiscally responsible for the first 6 years of his presidency.....well lut's just refer to your own words : A veto is part of the Constitutional process.
As far as cajolling Congress, or begging them, or embarassing them in public, trying to direct the nature of legislation? What, he's not suppose to do that?
Well they all do and so does he. He did it with NCLB and Social Security reform.
Why didn't "seperation of powers" prevent him from these things, if it supposedly is the reason he was prevented from trying to achieve other conservative agendas?
Again, I never said I expected him to write the bill, vote on it himself 50 times and then sign it. A sitting president is the de-facto leader of his political party. As the president, as the leader of the GOP, had a great deal of influence over the agenda among republicans in congress.
Everyone expects this of the President.But you, personally,can excuse him for not leading Congress because of 'seperation of powers' if you like.
But if you do take that position, sincerely, you ought to be criticizing him for all the times he violated the seperation of power himself. Don't cheer himfor trying to force congress to pass Social Security reform and then claim 'seperation of powers' excusefor him not trying to force congress to to stop spending like the money was going out of style.
If it's not a violation in the former, it's not a violation of the latter.

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 09:21 PM (HgAV0)

97 I still like Bush.

Posted by: Guy T. at January 30, 2008 09:23 PM (vA9l4)

98 Really, could SOMEONE (not "the" someone) please tell me exactly what Bush has done? Policy wise?

He started a war that he proceeded to run very, very poorly. It has since improved because he finally cleaned house at the Pentagon and got a good commander out there.

Tax cuts were temporary, the Justices cancel each other out since we had to bellow for one of them, and domestic projects have grown like mushrooms in November. What is it, exactly, that Bush has accomplished?

Anyone? Bueller?

Posted by: copy at January 30, 2008 09:24 PM (p1s9n)

99 Congress was half Democrats. What was he going to do?
Dude, talk about missing the point...
I'm not blaiming him for anything the democrats did.
I'm blaiming him for what the GOP was doing in Congress.
What, are we gonna claim the President has absolutely no influence on congress now?
He's the leader of the goddamn party. He set the agenda. The President has a tremendous amount of influence on congress.
To claim he has asbolutely no leverage on what they're doing and he can't be at all blaimed for the actions of his own party is ridiculous.
I mean...shit. It's obvious. Just.....look.

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 09:28 PM (HgAV0)

100 copy:
You still haven't even shown one permanent (to the extent politics is permanent, meaning I don't count "temporary" measures) thing that Bush did to advance the cause Republicans traditionally espouse that isn't counterbalanced by his own actions before or after.
This is actually where I think Bush excelled. 95% of a President's job --and hence, 95% of his legacy -- is foreign policy and judges. Those are the only areas that he actually has much control. Everything else relies on his ability to control the herd of cats in Congress.
I disagreed with Bush on NCLB, immigration reform, social security reform, and prescription drug benefits. But two of those were things that didn't happen. And the other 2 weren't really under his power anyway, and can always be changed by later administrations and Congresses.
What history will remember about Bush is conservatives judges, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror (which is being fought in Africa, Asia, and America, too). He also reduced our reliance on the UN. Those are his persisting contributions to policy. Those are areas where his policy was distinctly conservative. Those are areas where the conservative ideals are winning. And Bush should be remembered fondly for that.

Posted by: The Comish (sic) at January 30, 2008 09:30 PM (n8HhO)

101 I like the fact that the most vociferous arguers in the anti-Bush crowd (Entropy aside) are irregular, at best, posters here. I smell sockpuppetry and perhaps a little bit of Leftist infiltration.

Hell, the Leftists I hear calling radio shows always start with "I voted for Bush twice but... (fill in the blank pablum) and that's why I'm now against him."

Posted by: Nom de Blog at January 30, 2008 09:30 PM (ThZCx)

102 I'm a former regular but changed nics.

Haven't posted much of late, sure, but no sockpuppet.

I am a man of mystery!

those who know me, know me. (the tag hasn't changed)

Posted by: copy at January 30, 2008 09:33 PM (p1s9n)

103 Congress was half Democrats. What was he going to do?
I'd like to add, by the way, that we're all wasting our time. Seriously. Total waste.
I mean...the man had nearly unprecedented power. The GOP controlled ALL 3 major branches of government by significant margins. The likes of which we have not seen in most of our lifetimes.
You can complain Congress is 'half democrat' but, really, you'll NEVER see it have more republicans. Probably ever again. In your life.
It's never had more. If it ever gets more, it will be a historical first.
And if there'slittle we can dowith THAT, there's really nothing we can do much at all. Certainly absolutely nothing at all will be accomplished any time in the next 50 years.
I don't even know why we're bothering to discuss it.
God knows he's no FDR. Not that I like most of his changes, butFrankie got shit done. Unlike this guy.

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 09:35 PM (HgAV0)

104 copy:

I was talking about BC's vulgar personal attack directed at Anchoress, who certainly didn't deserve it. You did notice that, didn't you?

There's a difference between casual dicking-around bullshit and immediate profanity-laced diatribes at any hint of ideological impurity.

The former is what AoS is for, the latter is what DU is for. I'm all well and good with letting the left split itself because of spittle-flecked hatred over doctrinal disputes, I'm pretty un-fucking-happy when some jackass drops trou and tries a cock-slap through his keyboard on my allies.

As to what Bush has done right, did you even read the linked article? It contains a pretty fair summary.

Posted by: Merovign at January 30, 2008 09:38 PM (IaYDo)

105 Entropy:
What, are we gonna claim the President has absolutely no influence on congress now?... To claim he has asbolutely no leverage on what they're doing and he can't be at all blaimed for the actions of his own party is ridiculous.
Fortunately for me, that's not what I'm claiming.
Yes, Bush has influence on Congress. But that's all he has: influence. Other than the threat of veto, he's got no power over them.
I guess Bush could have vetoed every non-conservative bill that came before him, but doing so would havealienated Congress and made it impossibleto succeed in the areas that really mattered: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror.
To suggest that Bush could have ruled with an iron fist and gotten everything you want is naive. Bush is the leader of the country and Republican party, but he's not the king. As long as the Constitution gives the Senate and House as much power as it does, the President doesn't get to rule by dictat.

Posted by: The Comish (sic) at January 30, 2008 09:38 PM (n8HhO)

106 and I still haven't settled on a new nic. maybe I'll do BDS for fun.

I am about as conservative as they come, and yeah, I voted for Bush knowing the compassionate moniker was the kiss of death, but hell, I'm not the one saying he's the second Reagan.

Seriously, Nom, judges we had to pull eye teeth to get Alito and in foreign affairs, we still have Iran, Syria, the Norks, and Saudi to deal with. While I'm happy we stopped the Talibs for a while, they're back. We might get Iraq on course, and I'm truly grateful for the crushing of Al Q so far. But none of this smacks of fundamental change that we can look back on and note that Bush "done good."

Please tell me, precisely, what long term conservative goals has Bush accomplished?

Posted by: copy at January 30, 2008 09:39 PM (p1s9n)

107 Not a sockpuppet. Not a little bit or even a lot of Leftist, either. Vociferous? Debatable. Maybe that's where I miss the cut from BDS automaton.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 30, 2008 09:39 PM (Y0gTb)

108 Nom:

You caught me blarguing again. (slaps own wrist).

I know, I know, I'm wasting my time and the pig enjoys it.

Posted by: Merovign at January 30, 2008 09:40 PM (IaYDo)

109 The GOP controlled ALL 3 major branches of government by significant margins.


Huh, the GOP controlled the Supreme Court? And had a significant margin in both houses of congress? I must have missed those years. I agree that the GOP had the power to get the job done we hired them to but lets not exaggerate here. And remember: GOP does not = conservative. What we wanted, they didn't much care for, most of them.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 30, 2008 09:40 PM (hfyfI)

110 Everything else relies on his ability to control the herd of cats in Congress.
95% of his job is controlling the herd of cats in Congress.
And he failed at it. With his own damn party.
Clinton handled Gingrich better then Bush could manage BILL FRIST.

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 09:42 PM (HgAV0)

111 Clinton got Gingrich thrown out on his ass.
Bush......also got Bill Frist thrown out on his ass.
It's like catching the football and running the wrong way...the 70, the 80, the 90...TOUCHBACK!

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 09:43 PM (HgAV0)

112 Merovign,

Oh, that. Yeah, a bit over the line; direct attack profanity is a bit much on a non-combatant. But mine are saucy too. Wasn't sure.

As for "accomplishments", let's review the article

Stem Cells -- bully for Bush. Unmitigated good (but it's just about FEDERAL FUNDING, mind you, something he should be against as a matter of principle)

Bush Doctrine -- Abandoned. Our soldiers are DYING from Iranian weapons and soldiers(!) while we do jack shit.

US out of ICC -- Fuck, even Clinton was gunshy about that one.

AND THAT'S ALL SHE HAS

What the fuck, over?

What can you add to this list to counter Immigration, Medicare Drugs, No Child, Pork, McCain Feingold, etc., etc. et fucking cetera?

Help me out on this, really.






Posted by: copy at January 30, 2008 09:47 PM (p1s9n)

113 guess Bush could have vetoed every non-conservative bill that came before him, but doing so would havealienated Congress and made it impossibleto succeed in the areas that really mattered: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror.
Dude....fuck that.
Since when is this the United States of Iraq, Afghanistan and Terror?
Domestic > Foreign.
"What really matters" is not how fucked up the ass of the world happens to be right now.

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 09:48 PM (HgAV0)

114 I started this cat fight inadvertently in an earlier thread by posting the link to the Anchoress's post in a comment.
I mention that because when I wrote that comment I said I think we would prefer to have 4 more years of Bush than 4 years of Obama, Hillary or McCain.
And notwithstanding all of the bricks that have been thrown at Bush in this tread, I stand by that statement.
President Bush is not perfect, but he's surely a hell of a lot better than any of his (at this moment) likely successors.
And it drives me nuts that conservatives allow themselves to be come what I call 'angry Republicans' because although they loathe the msm, they are still manipulated by it. Every day, in every way NBC, CNN, nyt etc bombard us with attacks on President Bush and Republicans generally. Every day we are told we are stupid, bad, evil people becasue of what we believe.
We all reject the messenger, but somehowsome of usabsorb the message and turn onPresident Bush at the slightest provocation.Those who absorb this messageholdhim to standards that no one can meet, and the slightest slip is used as an excuse to vent all the anger that the msm has subliminally built up in them and to turn on our own.
nom de blog asked above why the left didn't turn on Clinton, even after he lied to them and stabbed them in the back over NAFTA and welfare reform, and sugested it might be the syncophatic media. And that is correct - the msm didn't tell the left to turn on Clinton so they didn't do so. The msm tells us to turn on President Bush 24/7/365. And some of us, without consciously realizing it, do what we're told.

Posted by: maxxman at January 30, 2008 09:55 PM (OYeDg)

115 max

Bush was NEVER "one of our own" and that's the whole goddamned point.

He's not CONSERVATIVE.

He's not quite Huckabee, and yes, he's better than Hillary (talk about damning with faint praise) but that's about it.

It ain't the MSM or anything else.

It's Bush.

He should have never been a Republican.

I say to this day he's the best Democrat president we've had since JFK.

Posted by: copy at January 30, 2008 10:00 PM (p1s9n)

116 I smell sockpuppetry and perhaps a little bit of Leftist infiltration.
I for one have never used anything in the Name: field other than my real name, and that's what's there now

why the left didn't turn on Clinton, even after he lied to them and stabbed them in the back over NAFTA and welfare reform
I don't recall thinking he'd lied about either of those things, and I agreed with what he did. NAFTA hasn't turned out as well as hoped, and welfare reform has been better than expected, so it's a wash.

Posted by: Bob Munck at January 30, 2008 10:08 PM (n0BzT)

117 Just for the record, in the Republican Party the extreme far-right would fall under the Ron Paulian anarchistsscattered with a bit of Buchananite isolationist; none of whom would be happy with any Conservative much less a compassionate Bush.

I do agree,Harriet Miers record provethat his first nominationchoicewas not qualified to even receive an up or down vote.
That said,in light of the current campaign processI already miss President Bush; his integrity and determination shown throughout the years while others sunk into the defeatist sewer has earned my deepest respect. Though I took many a hit defending Bush from the McBushHaliburtonoilneoconnazi crowd, I would proudly take those same hits all over again.
The one thing which makes me most proud of my president is his absolute love for America's fine military men and women who serve under his command, theyrose as strongas he has stood in our most uncertain of times; for this I am forever grateful to his service to our nation.
I will miss him dearly.

Posted by: syn at January 30, 2008 10:17 PM (6+0AT)

118
Brown Line:
His oratorical style is pretty poor. Often, he's flannel-tongued, and he clearly doesn't think on his feet well. Witty repartee is not his forte. And he made some major blunders in his rhetoric, starting with "Axis of Evil" - thank you David Frum.

I think this may be Bush's biggest failing. He made little effort to change people's minds about his policies.
When Bush was taking flack over Katrina, he didn't go on national tv and point out all the government's successes and the media's failures. Bush still hasn't rubbed the Dems' noses in the fact that they were wrong about the surge in Iraq. He just hasn't made any attempts to provide balance against the left/media's tropes.

This is where Reagan excelled, and Bush has flopped. Whether Bush wouldn't lower himself to do it, or he just didn't care about opinion polls (which I think is more likely), the end result was that he allowed public discourse take its own course. And since he's not using the bully pulpit to defend himself, the end result is thatconservative positions -- andhispositions -- arefrequently not being defended. So people are still talking about yellowcake in Africa, WMDs in Iraq, the poor economy, the failures of Katrina relief, the growing deficit, etc.

Having said that,I think "Axis of Evil" was great. I actually would have liked more of that. Huzzah, David Frum!

Posted by: The Comish (sic) at January 30, 2008 10:22 PM (n8HhO)

119 Entropy:
95% of his job is controlling the herd of cats in Congress. ... Since when is this the United States of Iraq, Afghanistan and Terror?
Since 9/11?
I guess here we've got a fundamental difference of opinion about the role of the President vs. Congress, and the importance of foreign affairs post-9/11.
I believe one of the fundamental lessons of 9/11 was that we can't just retreat behind our borders and hope the rest of the world leaves us alone. We've got to take the fight to them; cripple terrorist networks before they strike (instead of the Clintonianidea of just launching cruise missiles after they kill Americans); and protect our borders by projecting power abroad. Things that happen abroad -- like say terrorist networks planning to attack America -- have an effect on American soil.
And I believe the President's primary role is as commander-in-chief and head of foreign policy, while Congress controls most domestic policy. But you don't have to take my word on that. You can just look at the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

Posted by: The Comish (sic) at January 30, 2008 10:38 PM (n8HhO)

120 I have a mancrush onBush.

Posted by: Tom at January 30, 2008 10:44 PM (au38w)

121 But I'm not satisfied with 16th century barbarians being able, to this
day, to kill our soldiers and Marines by the handful with crude IEDs.
That is simply unacceptable.

Newsflash: soldiering can be a dangerous business. Your "solution" to this problem of low-tech weapons being able to dent a high tech force is precisely what? Please be specific.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 30, 2008 10:50 PM (ERV3B)

122 believe one of the fundamental lessons of 9/11 was that we can't just retreat behind our borders and hope the rest of the world leaves us alone.
Dude, I agree with you.
But we cannot focus on the rest of the world to the exclusion of ourselves.
The War on Terror is important, but Domestic issues > WOT. Did you forget what we were fighting FOR? Because it wasn't just about the Iraqis.
Yes, I support the War on Terror. Yes I support the Iraq war. But these issues do not trump domestic issues. They do not trump all other issues. The WOT is hardly existential.
I would say 'jihadists kill less people then drunk driving' but that would be an unfair and misleading portrayal.
Drunk drivingkills more people in a year then the jihadi's have in 30.
Seriously, it's a damn shame Allah won't let Habib choke down some scotch because it would seriously up his kill rate once he hops in his 1972Ford Pinto hatchback (Kamikaze IED was a factory option).
I believe the President's primary role is as commander-in-chief and head of foreign policy, while Congress controls most domestic policy.
You can believe whatever the hell you want, doesn't make it true.
If he's just suppose to be doing foreign policy, what the bloodyfuck is he doing with Secretaries of Education, Agriculture, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Attorney General, Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Energy, and Veteran's Affairs???
The dude ought to have only 3. Instead, we find foreign issues account for approximately 1/5th of the President's cabinet.

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 10:57 PM (HgAV0)

123 Also, I'm sure Britian and the UAE are very happy about all these foreign policy policies....NCLB, Medicaid, tax cuts, attempts to reform Social Security, McCain/Feingold, Alito, Roberts, Miers, Gonzales, embryonic stem cell research, etc.
Give me a break. He doesn't do foreign policy. Pshh. I can't beleive this.
Dude...just.....look.
Mexico's pissed amnestia failed. I guess that's sorta foreign.

Posted by: Entropy at January 30, 2008 11:02 PM (HgAV0)

124 The former is what AoS is for, the latter is what DU is for. I'm all
well and good with letting the left split itself because of
spittle-flecked hatred over doctrinal disputes, I'm pretty
un-fucking-happy when some jackass drops trou and tries a cock-slap
through his keyboard on my allies.

Oh, kiss my hairy white ass, Merovign. This isn't about "doctrinal disputes". It's about the Anchoress' penchant for copping the more-adult-than-thou 'tude at those of us who've applied some rudimentary critical thinking skills and arrived at the wholly uncontroversial conclusion that the Bush presidency has kind of sucked, all things considered.

You and she want to give George W. Bush and all his works an enormous sloppy blowjob? Fine by me. But spare me the ridiculous sanctimony. Anchoress doesn't get to cast shit on the people who are legitimately disappointed/disgusted with the Bush presidency, effectively declaring that they're selfish and unreasonable pricks for daring to expect that a Republican president would govern (a) relatively conservatively and (b) relatively competently, without opening herself up to invective. And this is notwithstanding turds like you declaring that she's a "non-combatant" who "doesn't deserve it".

Posted by: BC at January 30, 2008 11:15 PM (fjQUX)

125 It has often been said that conservatives look for converts, while liberals look for heretics.
Reading some of the comments here, I see many 'conservatives' who, by wanting to throw Bush out of the movementfor one or two 'heresies,' or using flaming rhetoric towards one or two commentors who dare say that Bush was more bad than good, areengaging in a foolish absolutism that is more 'liberal' than conservative.
There were a good numberof liberals who wantedthe perfect liberal in the White House. They voted Nader, and that worked out well for them, didn't it?

Posted by: Lee at January 30, 2008 11:34 PM (HCy0N)

126 Sorry... should say: "who dare say Bush was more good than bad."

Posted by: Lee at January 30, 2008 11:36 PM (HCy0N)

127
Wow. I just back from seeing "Cloverfield" and find the debate here is still going strong.

Speaking of Cloverfield: it's my instant guilty pleasure. I loved it. Best giant monster movie ever. In a way, brilliant.

But it reminded me of something. It reminded me of one of my best friends, who was in the first of the WTC towers to get hit. She made it out, just barely--she survived, but she's still dealing with it. When she finally ran out of the building after a very long and harrowing journey descending the stairwell from about the 40th floor, the rescue workers--firemen, policemen--told her to run, run like hell, and don't look back. But she looked back. And she looked up. And she saw people jumping from both towers. Saw people hitting the sidewalks and the bodies bursting open from the impact. Real blood and guts, folks. Blood and guts exploding.

Those rescue workers that told her to run? None of them made it. They stayed and were killed when the buildings fell.

Cloverfield, essentially a silly movie, reminded me of all that. Go figure. And I got mad about 9-11, all over again, for about the bazillionth time. And I thought: well, at least Bush took us to war, and that's important. He struck back. I don't think a Dem would have struck back. The war in Iraq? All part of the bigger war, Islam's centuries-old war against the West. Islam is the enemy. Most Muslims are our enemies--maybe not actively, but functionally so. Except for the moderate Muslims, all five of them. As Mark Steyn observed: "There may be moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam." We're at what is still the beginning of a long war and we're in a fight for our lives, our survival. I think Bush understands that. Yes, he made a lot of mistakes, with the conduct of the war and with other things. But still.

And that's what Cloverfield made me think about. I guess I'm being silly. But there it is.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 30, 2008 11:42 PM (IzYg5)

128 I can see where our intricate system of the balance of powers makes it difficult to assign blame for the conservative crackup, after 6 years of a Republican Congress and Presidency. How 'bout we split the difference, and agree that they both sucked substantial ass?
It was inevitable, though. On most issues, the electorate favors Democratic (see!) solutions, hence Bush's needing to fund prescription drugs for seniors (he loses in 2004 if he doesn't get that bill passed), andhis half-assed,quickly-droppedassault on SS (the R's lose even bigger in 2006 and 2008 if they continue to push privatization). And where the public has traditionally had faith in Republicans--on taxes and national defense--the Republican government of the Aughts substantially eroded that credibility.
You simply can't lower taxes and do nothing, but talk, about lowering spending. The deficits wind up hurting the economy more than the cuts can possibly juice it. The rational citizen sees the staggering national debt,hears crazy talkabout "drowning the baby," recognizes that most of the cuts accrued to the benefitof 1% of the population, and thinks, "these people are fucking nuts." And this perception of crazy conservatives certainly wasn'thelped by the hyper-hawkish blundering into a clusterfuck, especially as led by dicklessflag-fondlers who had dodged military service when it was their turn. The rational citizen sees lives and trillions (which could have easily gone to making SS solvent forever) squandered, to no apparent strategic advantage, and thinks, "...and they're stupid too."
The reality is that conservatives haven't abandoned Bush--the 30% dead-enders are all conservatives, and 80-plus% of registered Republicans say he's doing a good job--but the rest of the country certainly has.

Posted by: Beloved Weaver at January 31, 2008 12:04 AM (MN3Lr)

129 Let me know when they turn into fiascos.
I'm sorry; you're right. "Conservatives" should simply applaud constitutionally indefensible massive expansions of federal government, at taxpayer expense, in areas already largely screwed up by government involvement, because Bush is a nice guy with good intentions. I didn't realize that conservative ideological principles had so nicely dovetailed with the "good intentions" narrative of the left.
But I'm looking forward to your impassioned defense of the infinite promise of NCLB and the "re-animate ancient mummies drug giveway on my dime" program. On conservative grounds. Grounds that now include, apparently, any program that makes George Bush feeeeeeel compassionate and maybe some day could produce ends that justify the means of Washington's gross-and-getting-grosser invasiveness. For the children, and so forth.
Big government "conservatism" is just liberalism with a different set of priorities. Let me know when it's safe for me to qualitatively distinguish between the two again.

Posted by: VJay at January 31, 2008 12:15 AM (1efGB)

130

Beloved Weaver, meet BC. BC, meet beloved Weaver. You two have a lot to talk about.

It'll be a colorful conversation, I'm sure.




Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 12:15 AM (IzYg5)

131 recognizes that most of the cuts accrued to the benefitof 1% of the population
If you were the least concerned with facts and not the subjective feelings of the lowest common denominator, you'd know that the tax burden has shifted even more onerously onto the backs of the top 1% of wage earners since the Bush tax cuts.
Now kindly go learn the first thing about economics, sweetums. Liberals don't get to pretend to understand complex systems.

Posted by: VJay at January 31, 2008 12:26 AM (1efGB)

132 Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate),

RE: "And that's what Cloverfield made me think about. I guess I'm being silly. But there it is."

That will be the defining historical achievement of GW Bush. Frankly, I don't think he had much of a movement to start with prior to 9/11 (forgetting the BS the pro-Gore contingency carried with it before Bush could enter the Oval Office) other than a plan for more "compassion" wherever he could find it. I'm actually glad he didn't have more movement, but it's tragic that 9/11 was the event to preempt one. His response to Islamofascism, however, was sincere, pointed, and quick and deserving of praise. No matter my dislike of Bush in so many other areas, I wholly support him here, and the nation, if not the world, owes his administration some gratitude for taking on a dangerous enemy even when we weren't wholly prepared. After all, who is really prepared for such a thing?

The only caveat I have to interject here, though, is that acute defense of the nation isn't really a liberal or conservative thing - that events drive action. These particular events would have driven any President to turn hawkish. We'll all recall exactly how hawkish just about everyone in the nation was in the aftermath of 9/11 when going after the enemy was "popular." Unfortunately, disingenuous politicians broke for cover and they should be chastised no end. They won't be, but they should be. But even Al Gore would have sent the dogs of war to vanquish Al Qaeda/Hussein. The exception that proves the rule? Jimmy Carter.

I don't find your remembrance silly at all though I disagree with a part of it. I'll always respect Bush's response and stalwart defense of the nation, but net-net, he has been a drain on "conservatism." The field of potentials from the GOP camp still doesn't make me think Bush was conservative and I won't look too fondly back on his tenure as one of success. History may look back on it better than I, but history also manages to skip many contemporaneous events and never records opportunities lost. Conservatism missed a golden opportunity.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 31, 2008 12:30 AM (Y0gTb)

133 ^^^
Now that's a BDS sufferer!

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 12:35 AM (YZ/Wt)

134 #132, I meant.
I didn't know you Bush-haters and Bush-lackies would still be commenting.

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 12:36 AM (YZ/Wt)

135
AnonymousDrivel:

I agree with much of what you say. I do take mild issue, however, with your assertion that the whole nation was hawkish after 9/11 or that even Al Gore would have unleashed the dogs of war. The whole nation was angry, but not necessarily hawkish, and I remember a lot of people were not in favor of going to war--I recall that significant numbers wanted to go through the UN. And I'm not so sure that Al Gore would have unleashed the dogs of war. He might have brought out a few puppies, and he would have kept them on a short leash.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 12:39 AM (IzYg5)

136 LOL @ people thinking I had expected the perfect conservative in Bush.
What I did expect, though, was a president who had enough sense not to act like the stereotypical Republican that is sooften portrayed by the Liberals.
Dubai Ports?
Deals with Mexico?
Policies that encourage massive outsourcing and trade deficits?

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 12:48 AM (YZ/Wt)

137 Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate),

I'm recalling the all of the heated rhetoric during the time assets were being moved against the Taliban. Several weeks went by and the general response was "What's taking Bush so long? Let's get a move on, here!" To this was the "We stand behind the President and we'll make all of those SOB's pay for killing our citizens!" That was the battle cry until the dogmatic Left Berkleyites could form their drum circles chanting quagmire with an anti-GOP press champing at the bit to recreate the '60s.

Had a Donk sat in the chair, the inconsequentially small Berkleyites would have still beat their drums, but the press would have rallied around the Donks... or at least balanced their coverage enough to give latitude to a liberal to go medieval on Al Qaeda. Conservatives would not have bashed a sitting President on this war, even a Donk, so Gore/Clinton/whoever would have had the latitude to continue on with the late-90's policy of regime change in Iraq.

Yes, the U.N. bleatings, by and large, were considerably later when political capital was being calculated. Resentment over the 2000 election remained. However, acutely, the nation was unified and practically expecting nukes to be delivered.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 31, 2008 12:53 AM (Y0gTb)

138 the tax burden has shifted even more onerously onto the backs of the top 1% of wage earners since the Bush tax cuts.
The top 1% of wage earners have an average income of $1,200,000, of which they get to keep only $925,000 after taxes. I'm sure they find it extremely onerous, trying to live from paycheck to paycheck on just $18,000 a week. The poor dears.

Posted by: Bob Munck at January 31, 2008 01:05 AM (n0BzT)

139 I haven't even got into how Bush screwed us with the promise of building new refineries and nuclear power plants. All that about energy independence was just talk to pacify us dupes.
Bush doesn't give a fig about energy independence. And ExxonMobil sure as heck doesn't care either.
Remember all those nasty things they said about Bush and Cheney helping out their business associates? Funny how it just worked out that they are doing phenomenally well under Bush's presidency. Coincidence? Maybe. Happenstance? Perhaps.
Still funny, though.

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 01:06 AM (YZ/Wt)

140 Ha ha,now Bob Munck is defending Bush against the liberal troll in #132. This is crazy day at AoS.

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 01:08 AM (YZ/Wt)

141
However, acutely, the nation was unified and practically expecting nukes to be delivered.

Oh, no, I don't think that was at all the way it was.

Buy we're talking here about perceptions, which are unquantifiable.

My perception is that a lot of people were confused as to what should be done. They wanted to do the right thing, but they didn't know what the right thing was. Most Americans, quite understandably, didn't understand what going to war entailed (arguably, this is still the case). And they didn't (and, arguably, still don't) understand how to behave in time of war. They wanted justice and punishment but they didn't grasp that this meant that people, perhaps many people, would have to die, on both sides; and that great destruction might be wrought. Or, if they did grasp this, it made them indecisive and hesitant to the point of paralysis. Which led many to advocate what were, in essence, half-measures to going to war. This attitude--the failure to understand when war is necessary, what it will entail, and how to behave--was not Bush's fault, not anyone's fault. It was and is a sign of cultural decay, or decadence in the classical sense of the word.

As for the Donks going to war, prosecuting it vigorously, and implementing a policy of pre-emptive war in Iraq--we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I was scarred forever by Jimmy Carter and the Iran experience. Hell, I remember the Cuban Missile crisis: the placing of nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba was a clear act of war against the United States and we should have responded to it by invading that country. I just don't trust the Dems on national security issues. If Gore was president, Saddam would still be in power and probably armed with WMD. That's my opinion, anyway.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 01:15 AM (IzYg5)

142 Ha ha,now Bob Munck is defending Bush against the liberal troll in #132.

Bart, I don't think you're comprehending the discussion.

Posted by: Bob Munck at January 31, 2008 01:17 AM (n0BzT)

143
Sadly (for me), I don't trust the GOP on national security either. Not anymore.

But here's the thing. If Bush were running against either Hillary or Obama -- I'd vote for Bush. Again. I don't know if I'll vote for McCain,though.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 01:22 AM (IzYg5)

144 I haven't even got into how Bush screwed us with the promise of building new refineries and nuclear power plants. All that about energy independence was just talk to pacify us dupes.
No shit! I forgot all about that.
I had high, really really high expectations from Bush after all the hype I heard, for a really innovative energy policy back in, what was it, '05, since he had a sparkly new GOP majority to push it. And what with him being a goddamn oil exec and all.
What a disappointment that was.
We were hearing in like '02 what a great plan he had but couldn't get the liberals to pass it. Then in '05 they passed it..and it wasn't really much of anything. Same old shit, no new energy,pork, 'alternative fuel' pipedreams, econutism,tax credits that even the relevant regulatory agency responsible for did not understand (SERIOUSLY!) further screwing up our tax code, yadda yadda.
Then the bastard went around for 3 years muttering something about ethanol and moaning 'more gassified coal' like some kind of fossilized-carbon-eating zombie.
Gah.

Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2008 01:27 AM (HgAV0)

145 Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate),

"But here's the thing. If Bush were running against either Hillary or
Obama -- I'd vote for Bush. Again. I don't know if I'll vote for
McCain,though."

I'm with you there even knowing what I know now of a Bush Presidency. I'm not generally fond of Bush, but he'd be considerably better than Hillary or Obama. That I'd say without reservation. (Still, I find that a bit discouraging.) McCain on the other hand... he's not getting my vote. No way, no how. At this point, I think I should include that last part as my sig.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 31, 2008 01:39 AM (Y0gTb)

146 Oh shite, me and Entropy are two peas in a pod!

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 01:45 AM (YZ/Wt)

147 ...you'd know that the tax burden has shifted even more onerously onto the backs of the top 1% of wage earners since the Bush tax cuts.
Yeah, sure, Milton Friedman. Assuming one with your keen economic mind can read a friggin' table, try Summary Table 1, on page 6 of the CBO's Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979-2005 (published in 2007).You'll see that in 2004, the percentage of federal taxes paid by the top 1% was 31.4. In 2005, it was 31.2. That's what we non-economists refer to as a less-onerous shift. Too, it'sa commonly observed affliction of Conservatives, knownas talking out your ass on obvious matters about which you are apparently clueless. And yet another reason for the estrangement of Conservatives from the rest of us, and from reality.

Posted by: Beloved Weaver at January 31, 2008 01:53 AM (I/Cn3)

148 I give him a C+.
I doubt that Iraq had any chance of working as a country, but the civilian side in post-war Iraq was unacceptable. Bremer and Browniehad to answer to Bush, had problems they didn't really create and failed in a bad way. I don't blame bush for sectarian violence in Iraq or deaths in N.O., but the response in N.O. was pathetic (fema, people whowaitfor helpetc) and the occupation of Iraq was botched.
Maybe a C- would be better. It is okay, but you don't get credits.

Posted by: bleh at January 31, 2008 01:56 AM (/InkS)

149 Wow, they only have to give up 31.2% of their money? Those rich bastards!

I'm not rich, I'm middle class, and I'm quite happy with that. I certainly don't stay up late gritting my teeth in anger because Bill Gates is richer than I am. Coveting your neighbors' possessions is no recipe for happiness.

Seriously, there's something pathological about liberals and taxation.

Posted by: sandy burger at January 31, 2008 02:21 AM (HD5je)

150 I'll put this simply and then shut up:
Honestly, I didn't vote for Gore in 2000, I voted against Bush.
I voted for Bush in 04.
Truth be told, there's no such thing as a perfect politician--and guys, really, take a breath and calm down a little.

Posted by: nudge, nudge at January 31, 2008 03:55 AM (6BtMV)

151 The War on Terror is important, but Domestic issues > WOT.

O RLY? To you and the rest of America bleating at their computers when they're not at the mall. I don't suppose you're risking your life to pound on that keyboard, are you?

God, that sorry ass attitude pisses me off. Show some respect for your betters.


Ditto what everyone else who still likes Bush said. I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to vote for him again.


Oh, and BC: Die in a fire. Seriously. Not even because you have severe BDS and ought to be put out of your existential misery, but because you're a pathetic, ugly loser.

Posted by: Beth at January 31, 2008 04:47 AM (yqiXY)

152 I think Bart wants to do a reach around on BC.
Just sayin'

Posted by: Kibbles & Bits at January 31, 2008 08:34 AM (q+HK/)

153 Beloved Weaver,
Do you hate the rich so much because you're a pathetic loser?
Or just a fat lazy bastard who doesn't have the fortitude to make his own money?
I love morons with class envy.

Posted by: Kibbles & Bits at January 31, 2008 08:37 AM (q+HK/)

154 i don't see how any Republican and/or conservative will ever be able to get control of the federal bureaucracy in my lifetime.
The problem is that government spnding has become a huge percentage of GNP. If you eliminate it, you damage the economy in the short term. IN the long term, things would be better, but politicians can't afford to live on long term solutions. They have to balance long term gains with short term solutions. If they don't do that, they are not long for office. The greatest visionary in the history of the conservative movement won't last long in office is he makes his constituents lives' worse in the short run.
Everyone gripes about earmarks and rightfully so. However, they are a small percentage of the budget. Eliminating them will help a small amount, but realistically, it serves as a punishment for greedy legislators. Maybe they need smacking around, but all it tends to do is it angers people who you may need as allie later on.
In reality, true conservatives are a small part of the Republican base, just like the Kos Kidz and their ilk are actually a small, but vocal, part of the Democratic base. IF either group were significant, every politician would pander to them at every turn. The fact that you don't see that tends to show their relative importance.
I think that most of the anger toward President Bush comes from te fact that he doesn't fight back when attacked the media and the Left. Even when he has a totally defensible position, he avoids a public pissing match. Conservatives would like him to fight back sometimes. When Ted Kennedy criticizes him, Conservatives would like to see him respond with " Chappaquidick." Instead, he turns the other cheek and avoids confrontation. His recent tough talk has been a welcome relief, but it is probably too little, too late.

Posted by: Steve L. at January 31, 2008 09:22 AM (hpZf2)

155 O RLY? To you and the rest of America bleating at their computers when they're not at the mall. I don't suppose you're risking your life to pound on that keyboard, are you? God, that sorry ass attitude pisses me off. Show some respect for your betters.
This lovely bit here makes me wish I wasn't being so reasonable and deleted a few of my comments before posting.
Hey Beth, you think you're better then someone? Join the club.
Or get over yourself.
Why don't you try telling me _why_ I'm suppose to care about Iraq more then I care about Illinois? Or would that be too hard?

Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2008 09:45 AM (m6c4H)

156 GW Bush is a great man and History will win out over the spineless pigs.

Posted by: btesh at January 31, 2008 10:52 AM (XfbyH)

157 Barts right - Bush was a terrible president.

The only good thing i have to say is that i think he will be better than who ever we get next.

But its what we deserve.

Posted by: Amish at January 31, 2008 11:29 AM (BkAfO)

158 #158 Steve L: I think that most of the anger toward President Bush comes from te fact that he doesn't fight back when attacked the media and the Left.
Fuckin'-A right!
His loyal supporters (like us) have been left holding the bag for the Bush admin who doesn't give a damn to defend itself. We've looked like fools for a man (and a party) who won't respond to his attackers and those who attack Republicans.
History has already been written for Bush and the people who supported him. In this day and age where information moves at the speed of light, people's minds have already been made up about today's history. All the lies and accusations have been repeated so much they are now engrained as facts. It's too late now to do anything because Bush wasn't out there making his case to the people.

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 11:51 AM (ls2yX)

159 #84 Comish: Seriously, what do you think Bush could have done to prevent this? Institute an all-robot army? Use "diplomacy" to keep terrorists from using IEDs?
Almost a 500 billion $$ defense budget, the most powerful and technologically advanced military force in the history of the world has its troops on the ground being blown up by crude roadside/carexplosives?
This has been going for years. YEARS. How about having enough sense to change the plan after, I don't know, the first few months, to change tactics when patrols are returning to camp in bodybags?

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 11:58 AM (naQcs)

160 How about having enough sense to change the plan after, I don't know, the first few months, to change tactics when patrols are returning to camp in bodybags?
To what exactly? The non-patroling sallie forth from the base tactic was thereaction to the sniping and IEDs, and it was losing the war.

Posted by: toby928 at January 31, 2008 12:05 PM (evdj2)

161
Doom and gloom, gloom and doom.

You all should have been tax-paying, property-owning adults during the Carter years. That was truly awful. Stagflation, double-digit interest rates, military defeat, moral hectoring from the White House: I could go on. Those of you who were also adults during that time know what I'm talking about. Compared to Carter, Bush's presidency is halcyon.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 12:15 PM (IzYg5)

162 Compared to Carter, Bush's presidency is halcyon.
word

Posted by: toby928 at January 31, 2008 12:20 PM (evdj2)

163 Compared to Carter, Bush's presidency is halcyon.
Woohoo!
Err...
Compared to, uh... SATAN, Teddy Kennedy is a pretty upstanding and principled guy.
Ahh, the many wonders of relativity.
Talk about a 'glass half full'. Or 'damning with faint praise'.

Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2008 12:22 PM (m6c4H)

164
Entropy,

You wanna talk bad government? You want glass half-empty, doom and gloom? Let's talk government in Illinois in general, and Cook County in particular.

On second thought: don't get me started. Suffice to say that Illinois is an object lesson in what happens when you only have, effectively, one political party.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 12:42 PM (jNINY)

165 Sure, Steve. I don't know what that has to do with anything but OK.
What is it now, 6 out of our last 8 or 7 out of our last 8 governors that have gone to jail? And Blagojevich will make for another soon enough. Him an Ryan can play pattycake.
You know who one of the cleanest guys in the state was?Peter Fitzgerald. And Ryan drove him out, and destroyed the state GOP tofacilitate his RINOtastic corruption. Olberweis might get into the house now with Hastert's seat - this will be the first time of about 8 tries they let the bastard run for a general instead of sinking him in a primary.
Yah, I know all about corruption. 2nd most corrupt state in the union. The land of Al Capone and John Dillenger.
So what's the operative point? Bush is not only better then Carter, he's better then Ryan?
Carter was better then Ryan - because he was a democrat, at least. Blago is better then Ryan. I'll takeBlago over Judy Barr Topinka. Better a democrat.
So...more faint praise for Bush. We've got "he was better then the worst democrat president ever" and "he's better then a republican governor who was worse then the worst democrat ever". I don't disagree, I'm just not impressed.
2004-2006 was probably the best opportunity we'll ever have had to advance the conservative agenda and improve the sorry state of this country's governance. It just gets tougher from now on. If this is the best we can do, under the best of circumstances, fuck me. There's really no point in trying. Let's just embrace Chairman Hillary and get it over with. Sell while our votes are still worth something.

Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2008 01:13 PM (m6c4H)

166 "Bush is better than Carter"
Fan-fucking-tastic. You should do PR.

Posted by: Fred at January 31, 2008 01:28 PM (ESiy4)

167 "Bush is better than Carter" Fan-fucking-tastic. You should do PR.
Bush is WAY better than Carter.
That has the ring

Posted by: Acme Public Relations at January 31, 2008 01:35 PM (evdj2)

168 Unfortunately for Bush, this country went back to fat, happy and stupid a short while after 9/11. And another thing: How was Bush supposed to control this bunch? McCain, Voinovich, Specter, Snowe, Collins, Chafee. Whatever majority we had in Congress was thwarted by the vicissitudes of these assholes, so guys like Estrada and Bolton couldn't even get a real vote.

Posted by: John F Not Kerry at January 31, 2008 01:44 PM (HF2US)

169 Christ. This is still going on?

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 31, 2008 02:10 PM (DFVTW)

170
So what's the operative point?

No point whatsoever. Just gasbagging. You're such a serious fellow.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 02:11 PM (jNINY)

171 You guys still don't get it. Most of us will agree that Bush was a far better president than Clinton, and better than Gore and Kerry would have been.
But he's a GOP failure. And that'sa fact, jack.

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 02:12 PM (v9J9Q)

172
Christ. This is still going on?

Yes. Zombie-like, it refuses to die.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 02:14 PM (jNINY)

173
I don't get it. I just don't get it. Oh, wait ... I just read Bart's latest.

Now I get it!

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 02:16 PM (jNINY)

174 Until I traded in my '96 Impala SS, I drove it around with a W'08 sticker on it. If I could find another one, I'd proudly put it on my gas-guzzling '07 Avalanche.
Suck on that, bitches.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 31, 2008 02:20 PM (DFVTW)

175 I like eggs.

Posted by: Eleven at January 31, 2008 02:39 PM (7DB+a)

176 How was Bush supposed to control this bunch? McCain, Voinovich, Specter, Snowe, Collins, Chafee. Whatever majority we had in Congress was thwarted by the vicissitudes of these assholes, so guys like Estrada and Bolton couldn't even get a real vote.
Well, shit, maybe (just maybe) he could have started by not fighting his ass off to get half of them reelected in competitive primaries? He could have been RID of Specter in '04. He's the naive nitwit who thinks he can make nicey nice.
He could have tried taking their pork away. God knows everyone got their pork! RECORD LEVEL expenditures. Exponential increases in earmarking.What the bloody hell did he buy with all that? Not a whole lot.For god's sake don't let him negotiate with Korea, he'll give Kim Jong Kentucky in exchange for an eggroll.
Along with hooking up loyal squishes of his own like Martinez. Effective difference between Martinez and Voinovich? Martinez is loyal to Bush. Hurrah.
You want to blaim the squishy senators? Every damn time you turn around he's fighting to keep them, and fighting to fill the party up with MORE of them.

Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2008 02:53 PM (m6c4H)

177 You are all still unaware.

Become aware!

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 02:56 PM (v9J9Q)

178 Pie

Posted by: Eleven at January 31, 2008 03:06 PM (7DB+a)

179 I left, the comments raged and STILL not one of you Bush asshole-lickers have come up with ONE THING that isn't counterbalanced by some egregious instance of asininity by Bush ON THE VERY SAME TOPIC.

Beth, get over yourself. The Chickenhawk argument isn't made any more valid when you do it. It just makes you look like an ass. No one knows anyone's background here, so just for fun, call me General Copy and tell me why Bush's incompetent running of his signature issue didn't on balance result in a net detriment to conservatives and the Rep party.

He's better than Carter and better than Obama/McCain/Hillary?

Wow.

Phenomenal.

Fucking addlebrained sycophants




Posted by: copy at January 31, 2008 03:23 PM (p1s9n)

180 Copy,
Because it wouldn't convince you. We "asshole lickers" aren't calling the guy even close to perfect, yet you and othersthink it necessary to keep throwing bombs. That's great. Let me know how it works out for you.

Posted by: John F Not Kerry at January 31, 2008 03:42 PM (HF2US)

181 STILL not one of you Bush asshole-lickers have come up with ONE THING
Sorry, hob, I'm not at your beck and call. I hearyour anger but I can't figure out what you want out of this? Your ...disagreement ... with Bush hs been obvious from the first. Will you continue to curseus until we agree with your foul mouthed exhortations to deny the good of Bush?
You'll wait long.
Cheers.
Tob

Posted by: toby928 at January 31, 2008 03:43 PM (evdj2)

182 Awww, you guys are ruining the fun.

You're not the rabid Bush-heads. My sincere question (setting aside the AOSHQ style manual chapter on profanity) is whether or not Bush was on balance better or not as anchoress suggested.

She said he was a man unfairly rejected and scorned for his gifts. I'm asking "What fucking gifts"?

No one whats to give a good answer. I suppose we'll see, but there is very little by way of the record to go on. It's like an Obama rally in here on the substantive points. I just don't see what ABush has done for the movement or the party.

And, yeah, for that I'm pretty pissed off.

Posted by: copy at January 31, 2008 03:59 PM (p1s9n)

183 Hey copy, thanks for making me look tactful and grounded!

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 04:14 PM (UkeDS)

184 By the way, anyone else notice the irony in Beth's comment?
Hard to miss, really.

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 04:31 PM (UkeDS)

185 Are you guys STILL going at this? Sheesh! Detach, men, disenthrall! :-)

I just don't see what ABush has done for the movement or the party.

That's really the problem for a lot of people on the right. They want
to know what Bush did for "the movement or the party." The answer is:
nothing. He didn't take office for "the party" or "the movement." He
took it for America. And you'll excuse me, but talking of fealty to
"the party" and "the movement" sounds like a historical mistake we
should not want to embrace.

Not to argue - because I never argue with zealots - they are like the fanatics that Churchill said "can't change their minds and won't change the subject," but allow me to say that Bush's "gifts" are is will, his vision, his tenacity and his willingness to go it alone in a world that lives and dies with the polls. He may be the last such pol we'll ever see. Does that mean he's done everything right? No. Is it true that he's failed as often as he's succeeded? Probably. So what? Who succeeds all the time - even 70% of the time - at anything in life? He's stayed in the game and played it as best he could according to his lights and I think that's pretty much the most we can ask of any president.

In scanning the thread I note someone expressing frustration that Bush wouldn't "fight back" against the distortions and false narratives. It's pissed me off, too. But I think he decided somewhere along the way that he would never play the game at its lowest levels, and figured the truth would eventually out. MLK said, "a lie can't stand forever," and I think in the end we'll see that that is true. Someone made the wise comment that Bush did not seek to "win" a news cycle - it would have been easier for us (and better for him) if he had, but he didn't. Maybe because that's not what leadership is about. That's what politics is about.

Anyhow...this is all just a difference of opinion. People are allowed to have them, still. :-)






Posted by: the anchoress at January 31, 2008 04:36 PM (N0hv7)

186 They want to know what Bush did for "the movement or the party." The answer is: nothing. He didn't take office for "the party" or "the movement." He took it for America.
Which is why he spent half his time in power squanderinga moment of rareopportunity trying to make nicey nice with Specter, Kennedy, and hispandering.
Which, obviously, wasn't going to work anyway.
It's the same dynamic by which he stands by Rumsfeld through great electoral pain, stands by him, stands by him, then the day after the election - shitcans him. (Ditto Gonzales)
He allready wanted to go in another direction. One that happened to be far more popular to boot, coincidentally.
But he figgured cluing the electorate in to a change in his strategy, informing their votes, especially when you're changing to something that's popular, would have been just too darn...unfair. To the democrats.
What a rube.
Well here's the thing - conservatives are conservatives because they believe conservatism is what's best FOR AMERICA. And Bush? Notsomuch.

Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2008 04:55 PM (m6c4H)

187 The vitriol is a result of disappointment of exactly the kind mentioned above: We elected a GOP president, and a GOP Congress, and got...tax cuts.
Which are nice. But hardly what I wanted.
We didn't get limited government. We didn't get SS reform, or tax reform, or anything else that would prevent us from bitching about high taxes in the first place.
Yeah, and so what? Aren't we being babies? Well, no. Because the Donks are going to nationalize health care if we give them enough chances, and handing them Medicare Part D and NCLB make the grooves for Hillarycare that much easier. When does the damn nanny-state, fascist-lite, cash-hoovering whore factory on the Potomac get reversed? When does the government get smaller? If a GOP Congress and a GOP President won't do it, who the fuck will?
Answer: God, or entropy, or the invisible hand, call it what you will. Because the Machine is rapidly becoming un-sustainable. It'll all happen when the pain of not doing it hits home.
In the meantime, sorry Anchoress, but I gave Bush my Loyalty when I voted for him twice. This isn't a damn monarchy, and no one has a claim upon my opinion. Stupid is stupid is stupid, whether its Harriet Miers or immigration amnesty or any other RINO goofiness. I have the right to say so, and I'm gonna. Otherwise, we're no better than the clowns in DC.

Posted by: Andrew at January 31, 2008 05:07 PM (c767D)

188 Well here's the thing - conservatives are conservatives because they
believe conservatism is what's best FOR AMERICA.

Yes. And liberals are liberals because they believe liberalism is what's best for America. And Centrists are centrists for the same reason.

Do you seriously think that President Bush has not done what he thought and thinks is best FOR AMERICA (I copy your caps, to capture your meaning and passion)?

When did doing the best thing for America become all about fealty to a party over the larger, broader concerns of the whole nation and all of its citizenry?

I think all of that - Bush's "failure" to serve "the party" first - and daring to reach out in the other direction is simply about his being open-minded, and giving people a chance to change (or hoping that they might change.)

Some of the things that are so troubling about Bush's behavior may well spring from the fact that he - as a drunk who was given another chance - sees it as only fair that he extend that benefit of a doubt to others. So he gave Teddy a chance. Didn't work. As a Christian I suspect Bush believes God isn't done working on anyone, yet, so he is "naive" as someone said. Perhaps. I don't know - none of us do - all of the whys and wherefores of each of Bush's decisions. Much of what he has done has been (with the help of the press) <a href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/06/06/part-ii-bush-betrayal-the-nations-soul/">pretty much forgotten</a> and people seem to be grumbling about with a general feeling of disappointment. But interestingly, we see it in this thread, and I see it in my email - for all people are "disappointed" in Bush or hate him...they're saying if the choice was W or any of the folks running in '08, they'd vote him in again.

Of course, that could simply be a case of "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know." Or it could be because - for all his failures and disappointments - you know Bush is going to do what he thinks is right, and that is a quality that is becoming rarer and rarer.

I think about 3 months into the next president's term, we're going to miss the guy.

Posted by: the anchoress at January 31, 2008 05:07 PM (N0hv7)

189 Andrew- when did I ever say you shouldn't express your opinion? Or that anyone shouldn't disagree? All I've ever said is - in our myriad "disappointments" with this man, we've managed to lose sight of the good things he's done, and this thread has pretty much proved my point. It is amazing to me that so many seem to think the "increase in govt size" and "illegal immigration" situations did not exist until Bush got into office. Every president - including Reagan - enlarged government. I'd like to see it substantially curtailed, too. But I'm trying not to get stuck on this issue or that, and keep my eye on the big picture. And the big picture is that this guy has kept us safe, he kept the economy roaring until its hit a predictable, cyclical short. He protected American sovereignty when a Gore or a Kerry would gladly have handed us over to the UN. He came down on the right side of heavy moral issues like Embryonic stem cells. These are good things.

Anyone is welcome to say, "well, screw it, those were good things, but there weren't enough of them, he didn't address MY good things etc..."

But before doing that...at least acknowledge the good. Is that really too hard?

Maybe I'm Pollyanna.

Posted by: the anchoress at January 31, 2008 05:13 PM (N0hv7)

190 Entropy, wasn't it nice how Bush let Gonzales swing in the wind for months and then finally when Gonzales' reputationwas thoroughl ruined, he cut him loose? Not to mention the months of defense offered by us, the Bush dupes, for yet another Bush non-scandal.
Good times, good times.
Look at how many of Bush's former cabinet members can't show their face in public. It's like people such as Colin Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, etc., have disappeared from the face of the planet. Their good names were dragged through the mud for Bush's policies and Bush never lifted a finger to defend them.
Poor Tony Snow -- his brief stint with Bush nearly killed him. We'll never hear from Tony Snow, a popular and successful radio/tv personality, again.

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2008 05:20 PM (UkeDS)

191 Actually, Snow is out there all the time - almost every week - talking, making speeches, etc. I just saw him defending Bush last week to someone, I forget who.

And Bush's cabinet members have not "disappeared" from the face of the earth. They simply don't get invited on the gasbag shows the way the Clinton's cabinet has endlessly been invited. And the truth is as soon as any of Bush's cabinet members decides to criticize him, they will be invited to every show.

You know that's true.

Posted by: the anchoress at January 31, 2008 05:28 PM (N0hv7)

192 But you're right. Bush DID give Tony Snow cancer!

:::rolling eyes:::

Posted by: the anchoress at January 31, 2008 05:30 PM (N0hv7)

193 Oh Bart.

Posted by: Eleven at January 31, 2008 05:39 PM (7DB+a)

194 When does the damn nanny-state, fascist-lite, cash-hoovering whore factory on the Potomac get reversed? When does the government get smaller? If a GOP Congress and a GOP President won't do it, who the fuck will?
PRECISELY!

Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2008 05:42 PM (m6c4H)

195 Answer: God, or entropy, or the invisible hand, call it what you will.
I'm willing to do it, but I'm going to need a lot of guns.
And I need you to sit around and drink beer until you're loyal enough to die pointlessly for me.

Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2008 05:43 PM (m6c4H)

196 Do you seriously think that President Bush has not done what he thought and thinks is best FOR AMERICA (I copy your caps, to capture your meaning and passion)?
I don't care what his intentions were, I care what his results were.
Like you said, Liberals think liberalism is what's best. They are wrong.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
daring to reach out in the other direction is simply about his being open-minded, and giving people a chance to change (or hoping that they might change.)
Also Known As: being incredibly naive.
Look where it got him.
You seem to like the fact he's open minded about reaching out to Teddy Kennedy. I think it makes him f'n daft.

Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2008 05:49 PM (m6c4H)

197 Well, you're perfectly entitled to think that, Entropy. My tea cup is empty and my throat is sore, so I'm done, here.

Gents, it's been a pleasure.

Posted by: the anchoress at January 31, 2008 05:51 PM (N0hv7)

198 Anchoress with the 24 hour thread. Not bad.

Posted by: Eleven at January 31, 2008 05:55 PM (7DB+a)

199 Entropy, wasn't it nice how Bush let Gonzales swing in the wind for months and then finally when Gonzales' reputationwas thoroughl ruined, he cut him loose? Not to mention the months of defense offered by us, the Bush dupes, for yet another Bush non-scandal.
Dude ought to have shitcanned Gonzales 3 years ago anyway.
But the total pisspoor defense against the non-scandalous scandal demonstrated utter unforgiveable ineptitude. Basically, it demonstrated that, while he did not do anything wrong persay, Gonzales is a retard.
I would have fired him for his congressional testimony. For being dumb.
Congress: "Why did you fire 6 people?"
AG: Uhhh. I dunno.
Congress: "We'll give you 2 months to figgure that out or make something up."
-----2 months later-----
Congress: "Why did you fire 6 people?"
AG: Well, we think we know why we fired 2 of them...
He can fire whoever he wants, but my god, how much stupider could he make himself look?

Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2008 06:02 PM (m6c4H)

200 Last.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 31, 2008 06:15 PM (DFVTW)

201 Last.est.

Posted by: Eleven at January 31, 2008 06:22 PM (7DB+a)

202 Last
I thought that was Bob's job.

Posted by: toby928 at January 31, 2008 06:43 PM (evdj2)

203 Last again.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at February 01, 2008 01:19 AM (UK1DK)

204 It's obvious which sidewon this debate.

Posted by: Bart at February 01, 2008 04:20 AM (H6s2X)

205 Sorry I've come in so late...can't sleep
If you want to know what George Bush has done for the GOP and conservatism
and the populace. Go back and read the GOP platforms for 2000 2004. No
I'm not going to read it to you...but W's accomplishments are quite numerous
and striking when compared to what he set out to do.

Posted by: jaycee at February 01, 2008 05:15 AM (N8LK4)

206 Jaycee

What utter bullshit.

What, ctrl + c too fucking hard for you?

Lame wanker.

Please do enlighten us as to the myriad accomplishments of Bush.

Particularly those accomplishments that aren't offset by backtracking/incompetence/conservative-effort-to-correct-a-bad-decision on the very SAME issue

Pathetic

Posted by: copy at February 01, 2008 03:37 PM (p1s9n)

207 سعودي كول












سعودي كول 6666

























توبيكات سعودي كول














منتديات سعودي كول












وهم كام , شات وهم كام












غنج كام , شات غنج كام




سعودي كام

Posted by: سعودي كول at October 07, 2010 08:34 AM (tTNe1)

208 ugg boot, ugg boot Australia, classic ugg tall, cheap ugg boot discount ugg boots sale,save off 40%-60%

Posted by: emu ugg at December 07, 2010 10:49 PM (ajaN6)

209

Normal
0

7.8
0
2

false
false
false














MicrosoftInternetExplorer4






/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:ͨ;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}








Doudoune Moncler Femme
jackets are your best friends in this cold winter. If the weather is bad, you
can wear Doudoune Moncler
Homme Coats to keep yourself warm; when the weather is warm, you can choose
Doudoune Moncler Gilet as
a decoration to help you to define your stature. In a word, we could say that
Doudoune Moncler Femmes jackets are the best gifts for you in winter.

Posted by: doudoune moncler femme at December 21, 2010 02:41 AM (/JGOI)

210
best place to stream movies online

Download iPad eBook

music folia mp3 downloads

forexvps hosting reviews

ps3 games for download

download wii game

xbox360 games downloads

download games for psp

Wood work projects Plans

Download TV Shows

Full Movies Download

12500 Shed Plans
I really enjoy your blog. Intelligent and to the point.

Posted by: Free plans for shaving horse at January 17, 2011 03:19 AM (JPs1v)






Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0453 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0169 seconds, 219 records returned.
Page size 172 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat