Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

It’s not the way he speaks that bothers me. Or his supposed intellect of global affairs. It’s his frat boy smirk and “heh, heh” forced laugh that grates on my nerves. It’s his “hey, I’m the g*^#”!d president of the USA!” attitude.

He must be smart. He graduated from Yale and has a Harvard MBA. That really helped him lose millions for the oil companies that he owned.

What he’s smart about George Bush is his ability to gather sycophants and loyalist around him and Bush Inc. People who are “loyal to all Bushes” and know on which side their bread is buttered. This regime goes far back into the bureaucracy of Us government.

Yes, the public is eating it up. He’s a cheerleader. Most of his appearances are with the military or supporters paying $2000 a head for burgers and chips. That’s why it looks like everyone loves him. The cheering crowds we see on Fox and all the rest are hand picked. The adoring crowds of Bush faithful are yet another photo op to advance the neocon’s agenda.

But as Bill Clinton said, people would rather follow someone who’s “wrong and strong” than someone who’s “weak and right”. Bush sounds strong, But I think he’s very wrong.

So one can rescue Bush’s dumbness by transferring it to the “average American”? If you got any more patronizing, we’d all be shining your shoes.

I love listening to Republican apologists. They seem so adoring of money wealth and power.

Adoring of money, wealth, and power…? So we should adore poverty and weakness? Follow that line of thought and neither you or I would be having this conversation.

I think the problem that most on the left have with President Bush is primarily all his actions and political movement come from his beliefs and not some pie in the sky relativism.

As with most apologists, you try to make the converse of my statement a truism. Well, it won’t stick, Kav.

Poverty and weakness exist and nobody with any kind of compassion, conservative or otherwise, can say it isn’t so. The difference is that some people do something about it, some just pay it lip service. Some people like to give a lift to the wealthy and cut services for the middle, working and lower class and explain that it’s being done to cut the deficit (because of the tax cut for the wealthy.

Like most conservatives Bush see issues in stark black and white, simple answers to complex questions. And saying it’s so, does NOT make it so.

I see. Bush’s beliefs are hegemony, imperialism, limiting constitutional rights, hyperbole, indebtedness, an inablity to compromise and seek consensus, the ends always justify the means, but mostly his belief in advancing the neoconservative political agenda regardless of what anyone else thinks or what long term damage it may have on the the US or the planet.

What happened to “a uniter not a divider”? Conservative compassion? What happened to WMD’s? Saddam and Osama? What happend to CO2 emissions and arsenic in our water? What happened to his claim of not wanting the US to be arrogant or a bully around the world? What happened to the global good will that he squandered in the aftermath of 9/11?

It’s the classic bait and switch.

No one adore poverty and weakness, Especially the poor or the weak.

There’s an age old argument here, Rick. Why should I have to pay any more tax than someone less fortunate? Is it my fault? Hell no. Those that have not will always desire from those that have. But you’re off topic here.

What gets to me is your point about Bush’s adoring fans being hand picked. Do you honestly believe that this is something new? I’m sure you believe it’s something only Republic presidents have done in the past. Just so you know, Bill Clinton did the same thing.

Let’s not pussyfoot around the issues here, Rickster. It’s your given right to have an opinion and if you believe Mr. Bush is wrong, that’s all well and good. Personally, I’m glad we have someone in the oval office who isn’t afraid to make decisions. And before you disagree, think to yourself… “What would Al Gore have done in these situations?”

Scary isn’t it?

There, but for the grace of God, go you or I.

I can only imagine what the conservative anti tax crowd would do if they were on the losing end with no place to go and no one to help them. The tax cuts shift the debt burden to our children and will result in service cuts many middle and working class Americans depend on like Medicare, Social Security and public education. In the end all the services that the Federal government cuts will be paid for by our State taxes or they will go away. Which, BTW, is the stated strategy of the anti-tax, smaller government crowd.

Al Gore would not have squandered the good will that flowed to the US after 9/11. I don’t believe he would have put soldiers in harms way on trumped up claims like WMD’s, a non-existent nuclear threat or revenge. I don’t believe he would have insulted our global neighbors.

Bush isn’t afraid of making decisions. For him, it’s damn the torpedos, full speed ahead regardless of the consequences.

Take the economy. Your kids are gonna pay the debt from the tax cuts and military expansion, even after he stated that he wouldn’t have a deficit that was passed on to future generations.

Consider rising health care costs because of profits demanded by big Pharma, Insurance and HMO’s who have and are contributing mightily to his campaigns.

When he deregulates and defunds the EPA and FDA and slashes other agency budgets, the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water that sustains us will suffer and so will our health, costing millions more that we cannot afford. Only the wealthy will be able to afford clean water or get a good education.

The way he treats our global neighbors sets a poor example for the rest of the world and will result in the US becoming more isolated. For Bush, might makes right, and the US is always right.

There will be more unwanted children and injured women when abortion is illegal.

We cannot be a nation of unconnected individuals nor can any one of us be in it only for themselves.

Let me bring it back to the topic. Too Smart To Be Dumb? Crazy like a fox. The situation we’re in today is what he had in mind all along. War, joblessness, tax cuts, deficits, corporate deregulation, and a sorely divided nation.

Joe Engles should be a dance instructor:

“What Bush doesn’t have is contempt for the average American’s intelligence, as the intellectual bullies seem to. Their language may be fortified with concern for the ordinary among us, but it’s phony—a paternal concern, not a fraternal one; they’re sure they know better what’s best for us. And that, ultimately, is what they dislike most about the president. It’s not so much that he’s stupid. It’s that he doesn’t think we are.”

Good god, that man can cut a rug. Instead of addressing honest criticism with a thoughtful and reasoned response, the right simply attacks the messenger. The irony of GOP apologist labeling “the intellectual bullies” as contemptuous haters with questionable “phoney” motives is breathtaking.

Joe Engles article borders on Right-Wing propaganda. Suggesting that then Presidents Carter and Clinton were unable to foresee the Afghanistan invasion, and the breakdown of the Oslo accords respectively; that somehow these mishaps are attributed to them is downright disingenuous. I cannot speak for Carter, but as intelligent as Clinton is (He is a Rhodes Scholar), he is not a clairvoyant, nor should he be expected to be.

Furthermore, the Oslo Accord signings were seen as the first true steps toward peace in the Middle East. Had Clinton not been there, it is doubtful that such an agreement would have ever been signed. Violence would have occurred anyway and the Middle East would have been farther from peace than they are today.

By Joe Engles own criteria for “Bad” Presidents, the article should have mentioned George W. Bush’s failure to stop September 11th from happening. Had he been clairvoyant like Carter and Clinton -should- have been, then 3000 people would never have needlessly lost their lives, and we would not be living in a State Controlled state of fear. Thanks Georgey!

A couple of comments from a “ordinary citizen”
I support the Republicans because they are the lesser of two evils. At least they are honest about their wealth and don’t make false claims about caring for the needy or minorities. Yes I am unhappy with allot of things the Republicans are doing, but what is the alternative? I suppose you really want me to believe that the Clintons are concerned with my problems? Al gore never worked a day in his life, as far as I can tell he has been leeching off of the ordinary citizen for far too long. Clinton spent more time chasing women and covering up his other questionable activities to do me any good. The bottom line is all of the democratic leadership is just as wealthy as the republicans are. Their kids all go to Ivy league schools or their equivalent. Hmm let me see if I can afford to send my kid to Stanford NOT! The only difference I see between a democratic candidate and a republican is one is admitting his wealth and the other one is trying to blow smoke up my behind telling me he is “concerned ” about me. When the Democrats start coming up with their own ideas not just revamping others policies. The rash of so called New energy policies come to mind and at least come across as genuine with their concerned for me the ordinary citizen I will register as a Democrat and never look back. I just don’t see it happening .I am a Sergeant First Class in the US Army.I have to say I have never been more proud to be an American and I have enormous respect for President Bush and his Father. I would follow them both through Hades with gasoline drawers on to defend our great country .I shudder to think what would have happened if Al gore would have been president during the last few years of the most trying times we have faced since I can remember. I apologize for my lack of writing ability but I just hate to listen to the folks slamming the president and throwing the turd in America’s punch bowl without offering a viable alternative instead of just criticism.

Danno,

The problems with supporting the lesser of two evils is that we still have evil.

The alternative is to not believe all the hype and posturing of any candidtae until you believe in what they say. I know I’ll never convince you to support a Democrat, but why would you support someone who you don’t agree with on the issues that really matter to you? Like a decent job, a good education, a free and open government and a clean environment.

Bush has a horrible record on all of those.

You may admire someone for telling you the truth about whether they are wealthy or whether they give a rip about the poor, but why would you respect and follow someone to the gates of Hades who is not only honest enough to tell that thay are wealthy AND don’t give a rip about the poor? They may be honest, but their heads and hearts are in the wrong place. It’s like you are saying you don’t agree with everything they say, but that’s ok because they are being honest about it.

As far as criticising the President, It’s my patriotic duty to call ‘em as I see ‘em. As far as I can see the Emperor has no clothes.

The problem is not that he doesn’t read thick books or fine print. The problem, really, is that he has not taken advantage of an education that other would do wonders with.

Yale, for heavens sake, and he half brags about having opened ONE book his whole time there.

Now, some of you might say, experience counts for more, but three objections can be raised.

The first, is that no man can experience enough to deal with a world as broad and wide and deep with facts and information as ours is. That is the world the president confronts, so one would hope that he deigned to crack open a book and get a broader picture than what his own life could provide him with.

The second is: What experience? Being the executive of a state where the governor has to get a constitutional amendment passed to scratch his nose is not good preparation for handling the reins of a country of our size and complexity. Besides that, he’s been a failed oilman, businessman, and briefly owned a part of the Texas Rangers, using that ownership to make obscene amounts of money at real estate speculation. Compared to his father’s resume, that’s pretty poor.

Third, experience is worthless without discernment about events in one’s life. If you’ve had plenty of experience, but have little context to understand how your actions truly mattered in the rest of the world, all you bring to the table is bad habits and worse ideas.

Some people would like to believe that a person can just magically rise to the occasion, given the chance, and a great many would like to portray Bush as just such a man. But the steel that gets refined must start with the iron that is fed into the furnace.

Can he learn? I hope so. But I would have prefered that our president have started doing so when American lives did not depend upon his decisions.

It just struck me that the comment “Can he learn?” is a bit unfair as well as I think most people seem to miss the sly wit that Bush conveys - honesty.

First, none of our presidents have had enough experience to become president whether elected or not. Are we going to criticize George Washington because his resume wasn’t long enough? Right. I think most people would agree that he is a man who supports the beliefs that “a person can just magically rise to the occasion, given the chance”. The presidency is a unique job and I personally do not think that any job really compares in either the stress level or the responsibility. It is a job that you need to learn and that process is essential to our country. Why do you think we elect/change/relect our presidents every 4 years? So they can rise to the once maybe twice in a lifetime opportunity and learn. We know that things change if they keep up with it thats good but if they can’t relate chuck them out.

Secondarily, being President doesn’t mean you can change anything. The only position that can magically change this country is actually being a citizen. Clean up after yourself and if your fellow man sees the benefits to themselves through your actions then most likely they will emulate you. The same on almost anything. Sure it isn’t a quick easy change but it is rock solid change. But frankly, if you think that you are blameless for the ills of society and you think that protesting helps the world more than tutoring a child who needs help, using an unemployeed person for their skills and investing in them, you simply will not have the world that you want. You can’t force people to change - it won’t stick. I mean unless you are Saddam Hussein of course and kill them. Change public opinion through simple action and sooner or later you will get the president you want despite the party.

A note: Bush may have a horrible record, but really who are you comparing him to? You? What is your record? What have you done?

Lastly, character does count for something. The ability to laugh at yourself which Bush does, usually means that a person is highly self critical. While he may not have the highest credentials or support what you do or how you do it, he seems to make decisions upon his own morals and tries to be consistant according to those morals. He is honest with us when he can be and avoids questions otherwise. Look at his approach to the media and you will find that he doesn’t give us lies if he knows better, rather he avoids the question. Why do people like George Bush? Simply because he doesn’t B.S. us. This means for those people who equate the presidential election to choosing the lesser of two evils at least they know where Bush stands.

Just some thoughts.

Oh I forgot, have you guys heard of sarcasm or joking? Where is your sense of humor. “He half brags about having opened ONE book his whole time there” I doubt that this is literally true … not because of his intellegnce but you couldn’t get through any educational program without at least opening a book to see where you were. Exaggeration = joke. Wow a President with a sense of humor… who would have thought?

First, I think you’re being awfully presumptuous to say that none of our presidents had enough experience to become president. That’s quite a generalization. What constitutes “experience”? Balancing a budget? Deciphering military intelligence? An ablitity to find consensus? Able to shoot straight? Thoughtfulness?

I suspect that some of our chief executives are faster learners and have abilities that suit the job better than others. Like the ablity to listen to others,find consensus and seek solutions that benefit everyone.

I suspect that many people(as evidenced by the polls) mistake strength as the ability to talk strong, cajole, and intimidation to make progress. Some people perceive traits like listening, compromise, consensus and consideration as weak. Bush demonstrates much of the former and little of the latter.

Bush is the kind of person convinced of his rightness. I doubt he will ever admit it, much less apologize, when he makess a mistake or is wrong on any issue of importance. He strikes me as incredibly conceited and convinced of his own moral certitude. It seems many people see this personal attribute as strength. Some might take his open conceit as a sign of honesty and integrity, I see it as a sign of a lack of humility and arrogance.

Secondarily, presidents of the US have immense capability to effect change here and abroad. Be it war, the economy or what ball team they root for.

What have I done in my life? I go to work everyday and earn my living by my own physical efforts. I pay taxes, am considerate of my neighbors and volunteer to help senior citizens buy their groceries. I try live in harmony with others.

Lastly, Bush doesn’t laugh at himself. He smirks at how no one else gets the joke. He seems to think that no one else gets the joke or is blind as to how simple everything is and how problems can be solved by sheer force of will or just sheer force.

Bush is the no BS president? Give me a break. When has there EVER been a no BS president? He’s so full of hot air he almost floats. He’s a cheerleader.

The only true statement you make is that we know where he stands.

PS. So Bush is making jokes? In every jest there is a kernel of truth.

The funny thing is that you stereotype him to stupidity, you underestimate him, and you simply miss that 1) he can rise to the occasion despite or perhaps because of what you think of him 2) you assume of him beliefs you demonstrate in your post - stubborness and ramming an issue through. You have not thought about the fact that he does have strengths and you are underestimating him and that I could be right. Not that I am but that I could be. You do the same to him you misread what he is doing. You reject any and all arguements he makes because it is from him rather than evaluating the arguement devoid of party or person and you have no idea what is going on because of it. Where is “compromise, consensus and consideration” in your post? You simply seem to be blinded by your beliefs and in doing so you miss the point and revert to a subjective arguement rather than one based on fact, statements, or context. Reread my post and you will find that I only gave the devil his due. Perhaps you could do the same?

All I said it seems that the Left doesn’t know or deal with Bush’s strengths. He did beat every other canidate by our system of government, the REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, so he must have some strengths other than just riding roughshod over his opponents (kinda makes you win enemies and dissuade people). I simply think you underestimate him and his ability to rise to the occasion despite his resume, his insight to himself and how valuable it is to him, and the reason why people like him, all valuable info if you actually want to elect someone other than him - that is if you do not like his policies. If you can’t win however you can actually not be a hypocrite, which in some degree you seem not to be (“I go to work everyday and earn my living by my own physical efforts. I pay taxes, am considerate of my neighbors and volunteer to help senior citizens buy their groceries. I try live in harmony with others.”). However there is a difference in enforcing your opinions which you seem to do through badmouthing and actually having a logical discussion. Just be consistant. Live your life in harmony, but also try to see the other side of an arguement and don’t presume that your opinion is the only grain of truth out there - that is where your hypocracy is.

As a last note I just said that everyone is challenged by the presidency and their experience no matter what it is can fully prepare them for the job or compare to the duties they are asked to make. They Have to Learn. It doesn’t mean they do not rise to the occasion. I meant that previous experience at times has no bearing on actual performance and this may be the case in the presidency case in point George Washington.

I didn’t sterotype him to anything. I only pointed out the the same criticisms that’s we’ve all heard before and by plenty of people around the world. Are the majority of the world all wrong and Bush is the only one who is right?

I don’t understimate him one bit. His administration has hoodwinked the US public by making all kinds of unsubstantiated claims of WMD’s, nuclear programs and terrrorist ties to advance their political agenda. And they make no bones about it. It’s common knowledge. Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld made the evidence fit their premise and rammed their war down the throats of the rest of the world. Regardless of what anyone else in the “irellevant” (bush’s claim) UN thought about going to war. Bush acted similarly at home with his borrow and spend tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent scheme, and restictions of constitutional rights of habeas corpus.

I know what his strengths are. They are his ablity to tell people what they want to hear. And people want to hear about getting even and our moral, political and cultural superiority. People will always follow someone who’s wrong and strong instead of someone who’s weak and right. He plays to people’s fears for his own political gain and the economic gain of his corporate masters.

Bush has run roughshod over his enemies, claiming them to be unpatriotic for criticising him. He plays uncompromising hard ball in the Republican led congress backed up by a conservative led Supreme Court. In fact he sees that as a strength. You seem to see his stubborn and uncompromising nature as a strength (and yet criticise me and claim I do the same). Have you ever heard Bush talk about compromise? Seeking common ground? He sees those traits as weaknesses and has made a point of telling us that people who might do things differently are weak, unpatriotic and “only following the polls”.

I don’t understand why you’re damning me and my style of writing. But that’s alright. I can handle criticism. Which is something Bush cannot seem to countenance.

Your post was more about attacking me than defending Bush. You’re the one in the subjective territory, William. I’m not “enforcing” my opinions on anyone. I am plainly stating my and many other people’s common and easily understood opposition to Bush’s policies. I see the other side of the argument and I disagree with it. Where does that make me a hypocrite?

Bush did win an election. He won it on a highly controversial court decision, which was necessary because the margin between him and gore was in the hundreds. In the hundreds. We have a population that is hundreds of thousands if not a million times greater than the margin of bush’s victory.

Ever since he got into office, though, he’s been acting like he won by a landslide.

As for his honesty, just what mistakes has he ever admitted to, concerning stuff he’s done in office? Has he been forthcoming about the energy policy, especially in the aftermath of Enron? Has he been forthcoming about this administration’s intelligence screwups, leading up to 9/11? No. And he’ll give you all kinds of reasons, but what they amount to is that they are afraid of losing political points. They coast by on the image of the honest, plain-speaking cowboy, when what he really is is an old money scion from Connecticut. He’s been rescued from any number of bad investments and failed businesses by his father and his friends, and has many times profited on things like this, the way the Clintons profited on Whitewater. If you really want some dinner reading that will make you lose your appetite, try the Texas Monthly article on him. It details how he and his partners in the Texas Rangers (baseball team) forcibly bought up and sold land around the new stadium they built, making Bush the profit that got him the Governor office.

Factor in that you have Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, two of the biggest opponents of the Freedom of Information Act in his administration, and you’ll see a presidency with a lot to hide, and a bunch of people willing to do so.

In the meantime, you have Bush’s people and Gov. Rick Perry trying to stuff a monumentally unbalanced redistricting plan, which has been rejected by the federal courts, and which caused the famed walkout. It’s another symptom of a larger issue: That Bush and the Republicans are willing to do anything to take democrats out of office. You should be concerned. The only president ever to resign office, did so over the actions of a group of people whose only job was to make sure that Democrats didn’t get into office.

The Clintons lost money on Whitwater.

I read something similar the other day about Bush not putting on intellectual airs, but just cutting through the bull to tell it like it is:

From http://www.sabot.bloggedup.com

“Bush, for all his lack of sophistication, has a much more worldly-wise viewpoint than these alleged experts. He said this on Sunday: “It is clear that the free world, those who love freedom and peace, must deal harshly with Hamas and the killers. And that’s just the way it is in the Middle East…”

He recognizes that religion isn’t just a mask for economic or political impulses. He understands that the culture of the Middle East truly is different than ours. Fanatics with a medieval mindset don’t see concessions made to them to be an incentive to compromise, but rather a reason to push for further concessions. The relativists at the State Department can’t understand the absolutist mindset. Bush does. “

I just think it’s funny that someone actually said Bush doesn’t B.S. us. I’m thinking “Patriot Act”, “We know where the WMDs are”, “The US economy is strong”, “these measures will keep us safe”…
How come we knew where the WMDs were before we got there?
Honestly, my respect for the guy would go way, way up if he just admitted that he says whatever he thinks will play best, all the time, completely regardless of fact or truth. If he just stood up and said “Dammit, I’m a crooked liar from Texas and I’ll just kill any person, group, or country I dislike, and if you don’t like that, just don’t vote for me next time!”
But more voters choose to believe the lies, even though they must know deep down that it’s a complete load. And since there are more sheep out there than thinking, aware individuals, playing politically to the sheep is a feasible means of election. So he’ll just keep lying, and he won’t EVER admit it.
Countdown to war in Iran: 6 months. Maybe less.