TPS Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 The effective joint liberal and media PR campaign to take down Bush and Cheney is a meaningless battle victory; Bush is not running in 08. I doubt that the attacks on Bush will bear any fruit in the 06 elections for the simple reason that Democrat’s have no message or plan other then the anti-Bush theme. The conservatives have won the war in the Supreme Court with two new conservative members. I see this as the most important legacy of the Bush administration effectively putting and end to the far left designs of judicial activism and the living constitution concept. Ahhhh I can breathe easier. . 613851[/snapback] Geesh! Thank you Hillary Clinton. Bush is going down because it's a conspiracy of the liberals and media....good one! If only we could all think for ourselves.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 If only we could all think for ourselves.... 615183[/snapback] But we can't because we can only think reactively, because nothing's proactive unless it's instinctive, like spwaning salmon or a clown balancing on a beach ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 Geesh! Thank you Hillary Clinton. Bush is going down because it's a conspiracy of the liberals and media....good one! If only we could all think for ourselves.... 615183[/snapback] Look dude if you don't think the press is gunning for Bush then you're out of your mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Look dude if you don't think the press is gunning for Bush then you're out of your mind! 615291[/snapback] Where was the press in his first 4 1/2 years? Where were the attacking liberal democrats? Do you seriously believe he's been a good president or this has been an outstanding administration? Or is it just a witch hunt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Where was the press in his first 4 1/2 years? Where were the attacking liberal democrats? As I recall, with the exception of 9/11 and the immediate afterward, they were all over him. I hasten to add, though, that the press goes after everyone. The press went after Clinton with wild abandon, too. They'll no doubt go after Bush's successor. It has nothing to do with liberalism (and the press is generally liberal, I beleive), but ratings. Do you seriously believe he's been a good president or this has been an outstanding administration? Or is it just a witch hunt? 615396[/snapback] I fail to see how those are mutually exclusive, frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Where was the press in his first 4 1/2 years? 615396[/snapback] Reading 1960s TANG documents that just happened to be typed up using Microsoft Word for one..... People don't remember this crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Reading 1960s TANG documents that just happened to be typed up using Microsoft Word for one..... People don't remember this crap? 615767[/snapback] Whatever, he was an idiot out of the gate, the Press was hard on him, then 9/11 happened and they backed off like the cowering sheep they are and he got a relative pass for 2 years, heck as hard as we tried, we couldn't even pin any of the Enron crap on him, kinda like Whitewater, only there was no fake investigative group to waste tax payer dollars. More recently, Iraq has beeen falling apart and though the country's economy is growing, the middle class is feeling squeezed...a "general malaise" has set upon the country and the press like any good hound is no longer buying the threats to stay away and has finally gotten hungry enough to plow through to get to the red meat. But a pass Bush did get, and for a variety of reasons including Democratic ineptitude, even their sincere desire to have a strong leader after 9/11 that brought us in a sensible direction. Clinton never got that kind of honey moon from the right. Although it can be said until 9/11 Bush did not get one at all. Come on, a little honesty from the right here, or is that too much to ask. Rhetorically, I just answered my own question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Whatever, he was an idiot out of the gate, the Press was hard on him, then 9/11 happened and they backed off like the cowering sheep they are and he got a relative pass for 2 years, heck as hard as we tried, we couldn't even pin any of the Enron crap on him, kinda like Whitewater, only there was no fake investigative group to waste tax payer dollars. Not quite two years. Maybe 18 months or so. And Enron couldn't be pinned on Bush for the same reason Whitewater couldn't be pinned on the Clintons: neither actually did anything wrong. (Or at least Clinton didn't until he banged a fat broad...and lied about it...and got caught...and got impeached for it...which somehow fell under the Whitewater investigation. "Vast right wing conspiracy" my ass, that farce was a bad Monty Python skit.) But a pass Bush did get, and for a variety of reasons including Democratic ineptitude, even their sincere desire to have a strong leader after 9/11 that brought us in a sensible direction. Clinton never got that kind of honey moon from the right. Although it can be said until 9/11 Bush did not get one at all. 615893[/snapback] Thus, the key difference. Clinton didn't have a 9/11. Bush did. American nature is to rally to support the office of the President regardless of the idiot occupying it in such times. And for all the Bush-bashing from the Democrats (and just considering the legitimate bashing - Bush is such a fool, I don't see why the Democrats insist on embellishing), it doesn't say a hell of a lot that they couldn't find a candidate to beat him. Bush and Kerry made Carter and Ford look appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Not quite two years. Maybe 18 months or so. And Enron couldn't be pinned on Bush for the same reason Whitewater couldn't be pinned on the Clintons: neither actually did anything wrong. (Or at least Clinton didn't until he banged a fat broad...and lied about it...and got caught...and got impeached for it...which somehow fell under the Whitewater investigation. "Vast right wing conspiracy" my ass, that farce was a bad Monty Python skit.) Thus, the key difference. Clinton didn't have a 9/11. Bush did. American nature is to rally to support the office of the President regardless of the idiot occupying it in such times. And for all the Bush-bashing from the Democrats (and just considering the legitimate bashing - Bush is such a fool, I don't see why the Democrats insist on embellishing), it doesn't say a hell of a lot that they couldn't find a candidate to beat him. Bush and Kerry made Carter and Ford look appealing. 615902[/snapback] Yeh, I am sorry can't argue with that one, knew when Kerry didn't respond to the Swift boat ads that we had lost, then he gave the GOP a pass during its convention and went wind surfin. Shoot, I was madder then #%#@!, stayed home and didn't even do my usual GOTV volunteer work. We had two idiots from Yale, what does that say about an Ivy League education. They used to say that A students at Harvard become Supreme Court Justices, B Students Became Attorney Generals and C students ran fortune 500 corps, what about D students at Yale...they become President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 The effective joint liberal and media PR campaign to take down Bush and Cheney is a meaningless battle victory; Bush is not running in 08. I doubt that the attacks on Bush will bear any fruit in the 06 elections for the simple reason that Democrat’s have no message or plan other then the anti-Bush theme. The conservatives have won the war in the Supreme Court with two new conservative members. I see this as the most important legacy of the Bush administration effectively putting and end to the far left designs of judicial activism and the living constitution concept. Ahhhh I can breathe easier. . 613851[/snapback] You must be referring to the video showing Bush meeting with FEMA, with the words of warning going in one ear, and out the other! You're right. Don't blame Bush for being a borderline retard. Blame the media for exposing him! If they really loved America, they would ignore the clusterf**k the White House has become, and just tell people everything is fine...or at least Ted Kennedy's fault. Is it so important for your side to be right, that you're willing the flush the country down the toilet? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 For your info, Bush had better grades than Gore, who dropped out of school twice (divinity and law). His test scores (did they have the SAT then?) were better than Kerry's. Kerry couldn't respond to the Swift Boat ads because they were true. Still hasn't released all his military records. One second , Bush is an idiot chimp and the next he is the mastermind of a great conspiracy. mkre up your minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 You must be referring to the video showing Bush meeting with FEMA, with the words of warning going in one ear, and out the other! 615945[/snapback] Looks like it's time to raise the terror alert level to orange to call off the dogs. Or, maybe they could tell us that they couldn't concentrate on NOLA and Katrina because they were foiling a terrorist attack at a mall in Southern California that they uncovered with the illegal wiretaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Is it so important for your side to be right, that you're willing the flush the country down the toilet? 615945[/snapback] Sounds like both parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Sounds like both parties. 616000[/snapback] I just got done watching some of the Congressional "Port Hearings". Is it physically impossible for ANY of them to ask a question without making a 5 minute speech first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I just got done watching some of the Congressional "Port Hearings". Is it physically impossible for ANY of them to ask a question without making a 5 minute speech first? 616006[/snapback] Nope, because it is not about the ports. It is about campaigning for re-election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I just got done watching some of the Congressional "Port Hearings". Is it physically impossible for ANY of them to ask a question without making a 5 minute speech first? 616006[/snapback] I just thought they were just having a very bad go at a "let's see who can channel William Shatner" contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I just thought they were just having a very bad go at a "let's see who can channel William Shatner" contest. 616181[/snapback] I'm glad that I'll never be in a position to sit before one of those panels. I wouldn't get much past "Bite Me", and walk out. What a farce. I was especially touched when a couple Congresscritters clearly impled that the people who did the work didn't know what they were doing, and shame on the political appointees for not checking up and correcting them. Oh, in one hour I counted 5 "illegal wars" too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I'm glad that I'll never be in a position to sit before one of those panels. I wouldn't get much past "Bite Me", and walk out. What a farce. I was especially touched when a couple Congresscritters clearly impled that the people who did the work didn't know what they were doing, and shame on the political appointees for not checking up and correcting them. Oh, in one hour I counted 5 "illegal wars" too. 616188[/snapback] Yep, the old dog and pony show as staffers used to call those types of hearings, working there you knew the personalities and could predict the questions and styles, half the time we used stand the back of the hearing room and mimic even our own bosses, some folks actually listen but congresscritter from under the rock Missouri gets so little national air time, usually they figure it is their 15 minutes of fame time. Usually it is pretty obnoxious for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I'm glad that I'll never be in a position to sit before one of those panels. I wouldn't get much past "Bite Me", and walk out. What a farce. I was especially touched when a couple Congresscritters clearly impled that the people who did the work didn't know what they were doing, and shame on the political appointees for not checking up and correcting them. Oh, in one hour I counted 5 "illegal wars" too. 616188[/snapback] The other thing is, you usually know the responses ahead of time and if there is nothing of substance, hence the dog and pony show for most of these event, why congresscritters feel they are not doing anything important there and why not waste a little time, usually becomes a partisan pissing match when this happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 Do you seriously believe he's been a good president or this has been an outstanding administration? Or is it just a witch hunt? 615396[/snapback] For me it’s too early to tell if Bush is a good president. I’ll reserve judgment for after his term to see how his policies worked out. Sure Bush and Cheney deserve press scrutiny but a lot of if is just absurd like the Cheney shoot out incident coverage for one, what a no story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts