The Bush Years Compendium

[snuffbox 0]

Remember when Lyndon Johnson didn't get re-elected in 1964? Served him right for those Civil Rights bills he just had to get passed.

[SuperJerk 0]

Post-mortems on the Bush Presidency are trickling out, this one courtesy of next issue of Vanity Fair...

 

 

All you have to do is look at the history of Mr. Bush's poll numbers to know this one is true...

 

Hurricane Katrina not only pulverized the Gulf Coast in 2005, it knocked the bully pulpit out from under President George W. Bush, according to two former advisers who spoke candidly about the political impact of the government's poor handling of the natural disaster.

 

"Katrina to me was the tipping point," said Matthew Dowd, Bush's pollster and chief strategist for the 2004 presidential campaign. "The president broke his bond with the public. Once that bond was broken, he no longer had the capacity to talk to the American public. State of the Union addresses? It didn't matter. Legislative initiatives? It didn't matter. P.R.? It didn't matter. Travel? It didn't matter."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081230/ap_on_...isers_speak_out

 

And interestingly...

 

Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said that as a new president, Bush was like Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee whom critics said lacked knowledge about foreign affairs. When Bush first came into office, he was surrounded by experienced advisers like Vice President Dick Cheney and Powell, who Wilkerson said ended up playing damage control for the president.

 

On a subconscious level, I think people recognized the similarities between Bush and Palin once those damaging interviews came out.

 

 

But, to be fair...

A Newsbusters.org blog response to the Vanity Fair article.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I don't remember Obama making gay rights that big of a platform issue. I thought Joe Biden pretty succinctly talked about their views on the issue during his debate with Gov. Palin.

 

I think people just figured this young non-white Democrat was going to be a huge progressive once he took office, even though he is more of a moderate than a screaming liberal like people on the left wanted.

[snuffbox 0]

Um, the fact that he won't fight for human rights for gay people, along with the Warren thing, is why I've made my complaints about him. Not wanting to do anything in thefirst place doesn't really help him on the rights front.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I'm just asking why it's worth complaining about something he never really promised in the first place. It's pretty darn low on the list of priorities anyway, given all the problems he's going to immediately be faced with upon taking office. At least it should be...I think about 99% of Americans would rather see him tackle the Iraq and Afghan Wars, and the current financial crisis, then make sure gay people can get a piece of paper.

[snuffbox 0]

It's worth complaining because he's WRONG. Should Strom Thurmond be given a free pass in history because he was never going to do anything about civil rights in the first place?

 

You show your ignorance when saying it's just about a piece of paper. Not only have the reasons why they want to be married been listed repeatedly before, I've also enumerated them here. You're either deaf, blind, can't read, or are just plain dumb if you haven't caught any of them yet.

 

And, not enough time? "I will never sign a bill that allows the federal govt to deny rights to anybody based on their differences to others. Period." Was that too long? I guess I just don't know how busy the president-elect is.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I guess I just don't know how busy the president-elect is.

Very, incredibly busy.

[At Home 0]

Saw Obama a couple days ago. I'm back in Hawaii for Christmas break. He was eating a big hamburger.

[snuffbox 0]

With this news, I feel I must apologize to Invader. A one sentence answer to a proposed law of oppression just could not conceivably fit into that kind of schedule.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

It's not that simple. He has to go through a lot of hoops in the country in order to get something like that passed. Considering how the proposition in as liberal a state as California did not too long ago, it's a lot harder to pass something like this then you'd think. I think it is fair to say that with all the other far more pressing issues like the financial crisis, the war in Iraq and the lack of initiative taken by George W. on climate change, and with all their implications, that Obama would be justified focusing elsewhere before looking at gay rights.

[snuffbox 0]

Read what I wrote. At no point did I say he should drop everything else and singlehandedly force through a law mandating gay marriage. First, that isn't possible. He's president elect, not Senate Majority Leader. What I said is that he could come out and say, in ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE that he would not, ever, under any circumstance, SIGN a passed bill that outlaws rights to certain individuals based on thier differences to others. In doing so, he will have spent all of about 8 seconds and could give the message that, 'try all you want to drive the wedge through America and deny more rights to more people, but that bill will stand ZERO chance of being signed into law as long as I am president of the United States.'

 

If his administration will collapse under the weight of one pro-active sentence, he should still be at the state legislature level.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Being able to get married isn't a human right either.

 

Correct, it's just some government bullshit.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Okay, so then that's an even weirder request. Why does he HAVE to speak on the subject? Why can't he just not sign a bill if it comes to him? You're asking him to make a pre-emptive strike here, which I don't think is entirely necessary.

 

You're criticizing him for not going out of his way here, there are a million things he could talk about but hasn't. The man isn't even in office yet! Let's criticize him based on what he does rather than what he says he'll do. I think that's fair.

[BruiserKC 0]

As long as the gay community works within the system while trying to change things I don't have an issue with it. The thing I'd be concerned about is the judicial system legislating from the bench. With the comparisons to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, people like Dr. King worked within the system and helped get the votes needed to pass such legislature such as the Civil Rights Act. Plus much of what Jim Crow laws were doing was illegal as they violated the U.S. Constitution and denied them rights.

 

Another thing going back to this being a clobbering of the Dubya...a local conservative talk show host hammered Bush for being an apologist for radical Islam (in spite of Bush realizing what a threat Islamic terrorism is to the world). He mentioned the fact he entered mosques and refused to change the name from the War on Terror to the War on Radical Islam. I just found it funny that while most of the world sticks their heads in the sand to this threat the way they did to the Nazis that some of Bush's supposed own ilk accuses him of being an apologist or appeaser.

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Don't forget those judges legislating from the bench in Brown vs. Board and Loving vs. Virginia!

[CBright7831 0]

Tragedy at the White House during Bush's final days

[SuperJerk 0]

Add Dick Cheney's name to the list of people unhappy with George Bush:

 

Former President George Bush should have pardoned Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney said after stepping down as vice president this week.

 

"He was the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice, and I strongly believe that he deserved a presidential pardon. Obviously, I disagree with President Bush's decision," Cheney told Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard, a leading conservative Washington magazine.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/che...ibby/index.html

 

[snuffbox 0]

Weekly Standard is as far from conservatism as it gets

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, but since it's a neo-con publication....that fits under the umbrella of conservatism.

[snuffbox 0]

They can say whatever they want, but there's nothing conservative about it.

[SuperJerk 0]

Explain.

[snuffbox 0]

Biggest spending ever, biggest deficit ever, numerous proposals and drives for more new laws that restrict peoples' lives, one of the widest expansions of government in American history (both in power, reach, and financial burden), and a foreign policy that branched away from imperialism to attempt the even more costly idea of coerced nation-building...this was the neoconservative philosphy and results, as carried out by the Bush Jr administration and espoused by the Weekly Standard.

 

I guess it just depends on whether or not you believe that saying something makes it so.

[SuperJerk 0]

All that un-conservative stuff you are saying they did were unintended consequences of their failed conservative tax and military policies.

 

When you look at the massive military spending, foriegn invasions, restrictions on civil liberities, xenophobic immigration policies, tax cuts for the rich, state sponsorship of religious charities....that's a pretty conservative administration.

 

The reason they didn't get the results they wanted wasn't because they weren't conservative enough, but because conservatism doesn't work.

[snuffbox 0]

Or, you think that all it takes is to say something to make it so. Facts are stubborn. You can't have the biggest government ever and call it 'conservative' just because you want to. Conservative = small govt, liberal = big govt, those are definitions...you cant just say something is one or the other just because they're your 'enemy' or whatever.

[SamoaRowe 0]

lib⋅er⋅al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]

 

–adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.

13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.

15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Origin:

1325–75; ME < L līberālis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al 1

 

 

 

Can anyone point to a liberal politician or ever a blogger who actively seeks big government or pouts that the conservatives might shrink it?

[snuffbox 0]

Mitt Romny.

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

Limbaugh yesterday "Obama will ruin this country, Bush had us going the right direction"

[SuperJerk 0]

Or, you think that all it takes is to say something to make it so. Facts are stubborn. You can't have the biggest government ever and call it 'conservative' just because you want to. Conservative = small govt, liberal = big govt, those are definitions...you cant just say something is one or the other just because they're your 'enemy' or whatever.

I don't think your definitions are accurate.

 

 

[snuffbox 0]

If you think that 'conservatism' just means whatever you don't like, that's cool, I guess. It follows the trend of somebody who relies on high school textbook narratives for historical knowledge so it seems about right for you.

[SuperJerk 0]

You seem confused.