President Bush's approval rating just took another step down. Less than one third of the nation approves of his natural born decidership. Gee, what a surprise.
To the eighteen-plus-percent who have swung to this side of the fence in the last two years: welcome, we're glad you have come to your senses. Many of us (forty-nine percent) wonder why you re-elected this boob in the first place, but all is forgiven, we're glad you could make it.
Now, what do we have to do to get this approval ratings number lowered, or is that the sole responsibility of the President?
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
He's approaching Nixon numbers, which is impressive, considering no indictments other than Libby have been handed down (yet). I think Iraq, the coming hurricane season, and gas hitting $4+ a gallon is all the numbers are going to need to keep dropping -- the real question is will the Dems feel like they can nominate a bowl of fruit in 2008 -- hopefully not. This morning's news that Bush & Co. are going to "investigate" gas price-gouging is a belly-laugher. These guys *are* the oil industry. And their leadership is spot on for the energy sector: incompetance, arrogance, greedy, and pretend-what-you're-saying-is-the-truth and stick to it, even when all evidence points to the contrary. Think where we could have been now if 6 years ago a president said that the biggest threat to our long term economic and national security was our dependence on foreign oil? Maybe we'd really have alternative fuel solutions. Maybe we wouldn't have idiotic mega-SUVs clogging our highways. Maybe we could tell the Saudis and the other Arab dictators to have fun in their sandboxes, alone.
Was Kerry really a better alternative?
It is unfortunate that people link gas prices to the president. Really? People think Bush is tied to the price of gasoline? Sure, folks can discuss wars and international politics, but gas? I have gas, and I don't blame the president.
Kerry sucked, but was he a better choice? Yes. He wasn't a delusional idiot convinced he's annointed by Jeebus to spread democracy with the business end of a rocket-launcher. Both parties have issues, both parties have dinosaurs, both parties embrace and support a corrupt system, but Bush is a serious contender for WPE (worst President ever) and we're likely going to be living with the damage he has done to America's worldwide reputation for the rest of our lives.
And I'm not linking gas prices to the presidency, but most voters will. As the cost at the pump goes up, his numbers will go down. People driving Sequoias and Expeditions are going to start feeling more and more like the idiots they are and look for someone to blame for the $100 pain they feel filling up their gas tank, and Bush will just be in a convenient spot. The total lack of *any* initiative from this administration to seriously pursue an alternative fuel agenda, or mandate that Detroit get competitive on mileage, is where some blame lies -- and it's going to crush the American auto industry in the years to come, when if we had been proactive, we could have been leaders. Instead we drive Hummers. Sad.
Hmmm..not sure WE could do a better job than he's already doing. That's a toughy. Think I'd stick to my grandfather's adivce - Never kill a man who's committing suicide.
This worst President ever is a bunch of hogwash BS! I am not saying Bush has done good or bad. Only history can tell if a President is/was bad or good. And judging ANY sitting president as the best or worst is pure folly. And just plain stupid. Look at Reagan, he was villified, still is in some circles. The Sleeping President. The blind leading the blind. But look what happened on his watch. Was he personally responsible for it all? Probably not....but for Presidents, they get the credit whether it is deserved or not, if it happens on thier watch. And remember...they get blamed if it happens on their watch also.
Bush II, for better or worse, has not just had things "happen on his watch" -- rather he's proactively, pre-emptively, and purposefully directed and misdirected agressive action and non-action during his reign. He's ignored advice which didn't jibe with his pre-formed mini-thoughts, and considered himself chosen to fulfill a God-given mission. In short, he's a dangerous man, who's too beholden to his benefactors and too fond of his toadies. He has little respect for reasoning and logic when they don't agree with his gut and his imagined answers to his prayers. He's a fundamentalist in the worst sense of the word, just as our enemy is. With any luck, we'll escape his era without doing any more harm to ourselves.
WOW...When was it you sat down for this heart to heart with Bush II? I bet it was great having a long uninterupted chat about life and philosphy. Your the kind a person I want in my MySpace friends list! OHHH.....I must have been blinded for a second, that was just the same political bullshit thrown out since the first election...Oops..I mean the stolen election!
The record and statements are plainly there for anyone who chooses to see them. I well understand that some choose not to.
Speaking of hogwash, BS, and pure folly:
Only history can tell if a President is/was bad or good.
So, by that logic, it would be impossible to determine whether re-electing a sitting president was a good idea.
This may answer Greg's question of why this boob [was re-elected] in the first place.
And yes, some of us still vilify Mr. Reagan. Now that we have the benefit of historical perspective, we can see that selling guns to an avowed enemy (Iran), and using the proceeds from the sales to illegally fund a right-wing guerrilla group (terrorists) is illegal and immoral.
My only comment on Reagan:
Reagan is the Republican's Kennedy — by which I mean he's most fondly thought of by those who weren't adults during his actual presidency, but who rather have their total knowledge of him from a highlight reel with a telegenic haze. Both men where charming, photogenic, and had the gift of wit and the ability to project sincerity. Both men have become more popular and iconic as time has worn on, but the glow of their post-mortem presence doesn't really map too accurately to the way it really was. Take it from one who wasn't in grade school during the Reagan years.
Since Bush said during his 2000 campaign that the president could "jawbone OPEC members to lower the price," isn't it fair to criticize him for gas prices? He made a claim, if not a campaign promise, that he could do something about it.
Also, worldwide terrorist incidents more than tripled in 2005, and there were nine times as many terrorist attacks in Iraq in 2005 as there were in 2004, depite President Bush claims that we're winning the war on terror and we're stabilizing Iraq.
What's wrong with evaluating his performance based on the criteria that he himself has claimed to be doing well on?
What I'm really curious about is people who voted for him in 2004 and disapprove of him now. What made them change their minds?
Since when did it become acceptable for a president to lie AT ALL?
Whether Reagan sold guns to Iran, or Clinton got a BJ, or Bush lied to America about his reasoning behind invading Iraq, why has the American public allowed our presidents to sink to these standards, or lack thereof? Toss partisanship and politics aside for a second and tell me, is it too much to ask for a president to speak the truth to his country, regardless of how hard the truth is for the people to handle?
Additionally, I am frustrated that the only candidates who we have to pick from are either politicians or fortunate sons. What ever happened to the Dwight D. Eisenhowers, the Ulysses S. Grants, the Andrew Jacksons? The ability to attain such a high rank in the U.S. military shows that one has the capacity to be Commander-In-Chief. How can some punk who made junior-grade lieutenant in the Navy ever be expected to handle such a task?
I don't blame Bush for his approval rating. Similar to this gardener I used to know who got a job managing an internet department, these guys just got jobs that they weren't qualified for.
Well..thank god i live in Canada. Ain't it just a beaut up here folks, eh?, come on..look at the sky!
BTW: Gas prices have nothing to do with it.. right now in BC we are approaching 1.20$ a litre.
Perhaps presidents have always lied, it's just now that the 24-hour news media have such little restraint that they're ready to run with anything that spills blood in the water. There's conspiracy theorists who argue that FDR new about Pearl Harbor in advance, that the moon landing was on a soundstage in Burbank, and that LBJ knowing let his underlings invent the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It's never been "acceptable" — but it's likely always happened. What's different with Bush II is his sniveling, smirking, I-get-it-and-you-don't attitude, when it's becoming plain that the reverse is the case: 67% of America gets it and he doesn't. Word to the GOP: Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Like David Mamet said, "These guys could fuck up a baked potato."
Good to see people are finally opening their eyes. Too bad it took 6 years, an utterfailure of a foreign policy, the spent goodwill of the rest of the world, and, sadly, the deaths and maiming of thousands upon thousands of innocent humans.
as far as alternative fuel options go, i heard there were patents in the 70's for alternative fuel engines that were bought by the gas companies and then destroyed. maybe that's an urban legend, but wouldn't it make sense? i mean, just think of a different transportation device other than an automobile and how hard that would be to develop with an entire world-wide industry looking to destroy you because it's creation would herald the end of their empire.
and, yeah, i voted for Bush and now i'm regretting it. but, i was on the fence, one way or the other at the election time and if the democrats had chosen someone better than Kerry, who didn't flip flop all over the place, it wouldn't have been a hard decision for me. and besides, Kerry looked like a skeletor.
Since the day after the election, I've been in a mode of depression over the continued ineptitude, corruption and general ridiculous nature of this administration. What they couldn't corrupt, they screwed up; what lies they couldn't force feed us they used deception to cover up.
They say that history will decide whether he was a good president, but I think that the Rolling Stone article (Worst President EVER?) says a lot as to why he is definitely gunning for one of the worst - if not the absolute low-point - of the executive branch of the United States. Additionally, I would like to point out that we often find out about most of the dirt on a presidency after they've left office (Nixon and Clinton notwithstanding). If that's the case, based on what we already know, how bad is he going to look later in history?
I could go on for days ... but instead, I'll just secretly hope that someone realizes that illegal wire-tapping and leaking confidental CIA information is much more of a reason to impeach than getting nooky from an intern and lying about it.
Does anyone believe that we will see a man of integrity, honesty and "for the people" again? Is Mr. Smith really coming to Washington?
Funny you guys label him the worst president in history...
The Rolling Stone has an article in the latest issue just on that topic.
According to the Rolling Stone, 80% of historians in a survey has labeled him the worst president in history. Historians have a history of not being biast because they want to be completely accurate. They want to be respected by their peers.
This same survey was taken over a year ago, before the CIA leak and hurricane katrina. So its probably worse now.
They also compare him to other bad presidents like Herbert Hoover and Andrew Johnson.
Yea its only one article, but regardless its a good read.
Marek, glad to have you on our side, but I can't let this one go
didn't flip flop all over the place
Bush's decisiveness is one of his "qualities" that is the most overrated and irritating. Decisiveness in an intelligent and well-rounded thinker is an asset; decisiveness in a stupid and myopic autocrat is a menace. Mr. Bush's mulish arrogance in the face of his own idiocy and failure is shameful at best, disasterous at worst.
For the record, I didn't vote for Kerry (and certainly not President Smirky), but his failure for me was his inability to admit he was wrong about the war. Changing one's mind may be "flip-flopping" to some, but it to me it signals an open mind that is more interested in finding truth than saving face.
The problem with Kerry's flip flopping wasn't a learned change of heart. Or admitance of having made a wrong decision. It was based on that days polls fo 1542 "randomly" selected homebodies that are the cream of the welfare crop. One day the polls like the color blue for the sky, the next they liked green. And it was like watching the puppeteer stick his hand up Kerry's a**, and watching those lips say, "We think the sky is green today!"
Kerry was simply too nuanced for the media and the American public, who like their choices limited to things like "large" or "super-sized." Kerry's always been an opportunist, a sly advantage-taker, and a subtle negotiator — as are most senators — which is what makes them so unelectable to the presidency. It's a lot easier to brand a candidate in a way that Joe six-pack understands if you limit things to clearing brush and talking about evil-doers. Say whatever bad things you want about Kerry, he's not a dope, and he knows what a war gone awry looks like. A willingness to actually listen to anything other than the most rosy scenarios might have come in handy three years ago — but I guess that would have been too wimpy and pragmatic for the Tom C's of the world.
I actually wasn't talking about Kerry's opinion on the war when i refered to him waffling around, but his willingness to affiliate himself with anything that would get him votes, like saying his daughter was a lezbo and wanting to be accepted by everybody. the whole i'm-all-things-to-all-people rant is great when you're trying to find common ground, but when i look at someone who's going to be running the country, i look at where they stand with the issues. having said that, i was on the wire, because both Bush and Kerry had highs and lows. it was too hard to tell back at election time and i think Bush has changed considerably since election time.
honestly, nobody really knows if Kerry would have been better or not, but it wouldn't have been hard for him, or anyone for that matter, to do a better job than Bush is doing right now.
Before the 2004 election, Bush flip-flopped on having a 9/11 Commission, having a Homeland Security Department, getting a 2nd UN resolution before invading Iraq, same-sex marriage, steel tariffs, nation building, whether or not it's possible to win the war on terror, and whether he wanted bin Laden dead or alive or wasn't that concerned about him.
Kerry didn't say his daughter was a lesbian, he said Cheney's daughter was a lesbian, which is true. Mrs. Cheney, a writer of lesbian novels, was upset with Kerry even though both Vice President Cheney and John Edwards had mentioned Mary Cheney's orientation during the campaign. (Kerry's mention of Ms. Cheney's orientation was cynical, but so was Mrs. Cheney's fake outrage.)
Cheney's daughter is a LESBO!?
(Sorry, had to do that.)
Not too impressed with Bush, but John Kerry a better president? I don't think that's a given.
I don't think any of you really know what you're talking about. Better yet if you do know, and I'm the idiot, then get your ass in office and fix things rather than butting heads on some random blog. You guys judge the president as if he weren't human and wasn't vulnerable to the same kind of bad judgment everyone else is. We are where we are, because we, the people if you will, allowed it.
Not too impressed with Bush, but John Kerry a better president? I don't think that's a given.
I don't either, nothing is guaranteed but I saw him as the lesser of two evils and not a man servant of the oil industry.
I don't think any of you really know what you're talking about.
Mike, I guess you're not a fan of our right to freedom of speech. Don't like it, move to North Korea.
You guys judge the president as if he weren't human and wasn't vulnerable to the same kind of bad judgment everyone else is.
The difference is that when I make a mistake people don't die. You bet your ass we judge the President differently, he's accepted the responsibility to run the worlds most powerful nation. With said responsibility comes expectations and less than 33% of the United States doesn't think the President has met those expectations.
"Mike, I guess you're not a fan of our right to freedom of speech. Don't like it, move to North Korea."
Of course I am a fan of free speech. It's what allows me to tell you what I think. Your response to my exercising my freedom of speech is to tell me to move to North Korea if I don't like what you have to say. Nice thought process.
"You bet your ass we judge the President differently"
I'm not saying the President shouldn't be held accountable for rights and wrongs. I am saying people are quick to point a finger when things don't go the way they like, but they aren't so quick to actually do anything about it besides bitch and whine.
I don't think anyone involved in this discussion could run this country any better than Bush, though most probably feel they could do much better. All we really see is what has the most impact on us currently--gas prices, terrorism, increased security (or loss of freedoms), war, religion, employment, ethics, morality. We can't see how these things will play out 20 or 30 years from now.
I think Bush is an idiot just like most other people, but these types of polls are even more idiotic. Maybe they should ask real questions rather than bullshit about the price of gas.
You called Bush "a man servant of the oil industry", yet what can he really do about the price of gas? This country consumes over 21 million barrels of oil per day. 21 million barrels per fucking day. Is that Bush's fault or our own? Did the problem start when he took office or has it been an issue for decades? Are we standing in line to give up our gas guzzling SUV's? Should Bush step in and regulate the price per gallon? What happens if he does? Are there other markets where the government should regulate prices? Where do we draw the line at government price regulation?
I'd go even further — it's not that anyone is judging the president "like he's not human" — it's almost the exact opposite: I wish he was more open to being human. Instead, like most bullies, it seems that he has some deep insecurity or inferiority complex that prevents him from admitting mistakes, re-examining decisions, and questioning his faith in his own decidering. Just like our fundamentalist enemies, he's convinced himself that God is on his side, so whatever he decides to do can't be profoundly wrong. It's not bad judgement, it's a myopic decision-making and issue-evaluating perspective where facts that don't match the desired outcome are ignored. He's (again, like most insecure bullies) surrounded himself with an ever shrinking circle yes-men and ass-kissers, all seemingly afraid to tell his highness that his perception doesn't map to reality. This administration has come closer to the Stalinist "big lie" philosophy as any presidency in the last 50 years — meaning whatever we say is true, and the more outradgeous the whopper the harder it is to disprove. 67% of America has finally figured it out, We're sick of being lied to and talked down at like we're three-year-olds. We're sick of the incompetance, the lies, the corruption, the fakery, the backroom deals with the energy industry that's gouging us, the slimeball cronyism, and the abandonment of the ideals of doing what's right that's at the heart of all things that are righteously American. A change cannot come soon enough. Viva the 67 percent!
Of course I am a fan of free speech. It's what allows me to tell you what I think. Your response to my exercising my freedom of speech is to tell me to move to North Korea if I don't like what you have to say. Nice thought process.
I keep trying to get someone to move to North Korea but have yet to succeed. It's supposed to be a beautiful place if you like concrete and oppression but I digress.
Mike, here's a simple for-instance:
Imagine if even just 2 years ago someone other than Bush/Cheney were elected — imagine an administration not beholden to the energy industry, not filled with veterans of the oil industry, and not interested in helping that sector reap obscene profits that they can pour back into party coffers through Tom Delay style PACs. With me so far?
Imagine instead an adminstration that said, "We believe that America's dependence on foreign oil is the single greatest threat to our long term economic and political independence. We believe that encouraging and rewarding private sector development of alternative energy can make us a world leader in this emerging science, can help improve the environment, and can create hundreds of thousands of jobs and perhaps save the American auto industry."
That's just a for instance &mash; it's not about regulation. It's about encouraging private sector industry to move in directions that benefit the long-term health and security of all Americans, not just looking the other way and rewarding your energy industry cronies who pour millions into your party's cashbox.
So do tell, if it were Kerry 2 years ago or Gore 6 years ago. Would we be hearing about all the cronyism of all their Cabinet members about whichever industries they were working in prior to working in government? OR are only Republicans ever guilty of cronyism?
One day your friend from college becomes President, and he has to choose between someone he knows and someone he has never met with. Both are qualified for the job. Which one gets picked?
It boils down to we only having ourselves to blame. We vote. or don't. I'm not saying just a Presidential election. It's the Congressional races that make or brake. They won't change elections laws and lobbying laws unless the people vote accordingly. Because most of them are there to make sure they can get an actual well paying consultant gig after they loose re-election.
I think I might be agreeing with Tom C for the first time. However — "cronyism" isn't just about hiring people you know. It's about giving jobs to people who aren't the best candidates, or aren't even remotely qualified, just for purposes of rewarding past favors or putting a yes-man in place. Think Harriet Myers or Michael Brown if you need an example. Bush II didn't invent cronyism, and it won't go way when he slinks out of office, but it's a core philosophy of how he does business — which has been counterproductive at best, and disasterous in a disturbingly repetitive manner.
I don't forgive them.
I think I might be agreeing with Tom C for the first time.
Airbag, the great uniter. *sniff*
You guys judge the president as if he weren't human and wasn't vulnerable to the same kind of bad judgment everyone else is.
Well, you must also take into account that when we, as "normal" people screw up, it's generally all on our judgement call, whereas a president has legions of advisors and aids and the like to present him with all the options and maybe even every now and then tap him on the shoulder and say "um, doing that might be a colossal blunder, sir."
As comedian Mike Birbiglia puts it: Bush is kind of like the guy you invite to the barbeque because he's fun and he's the kind of guy who'll start the whiffle ball game. He's Whiffle Ball Tony. But then someone decided to put him in charge of everything, including the burgers and the potato salad. Then suddenly Whiffle Ball Tony starts egging on your neighbours, challenging them to whiffleball games and calling them names. Then he starts throwing hamburgers at the neighbours... "But they were going to throw hamburgers at ME!" But it turns out they don't even have hamburgers... they just have hotdogs, but they only throw them at each other, so it's cool. At the end, everyone wonders "Who put Whiffle Ball Tony in charge?"
I think Scott Baio should run for president, 'cause I want Charles in Charge of me.
If John Kerry is the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
I love bumper stickers. They exemplify the sort of logic that many of you are employing...pack mentality, finger-pointing, and oversimplification.
While it may or may not be true that Bush is a moron, let me give three words to those of you who feel smug for voting Democrat: Carter's Misery Index. The truth is that most of us (myself included) have no idea what it takes to be President of the United States. I dislike Clinton as much as most people, but I respect what he had to go through as 'leader of the free world'. He's a total dickhead in my book, but he's got knowledge and experience that I couldn't touch in my wildest dreams (no, not Monica...I wouldn't touch that even in a dream).
Here's what I know...the American public doesn't have the whole story. I hope that means that there are some good reasons behind some of what's called 'stupid' in the press and on designers' blogs.
Even if Bush II isn't the WPE, you have to admit he's easily in the bottom 10%. I'm not exactly sure how anyone could think or beleive otherwise.
As for Gene's comment: "The truth is that most of us (myself included) have no idea what it takes to be President of the United States."
Speak for yourself. I know what it takes to be President, or at least one that is relevant and competent. And very much high on that list is a desire to serve your country.
Bush's entire life has been anything but that, from not serving in Vietnam to riding the coattails of his father for pretty much everything in his life. Failed businesses and barely managing a baseball franchise. I went to boarding school with guys like him. Born into money and with a worldview that is small and petty. The fact the GOP bamboozled so many to vote against their interests these past ten years will studied by future generations with fascination. I just wish I wasn't living through it.
If John Kerry is the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
Zing! Good one Gene.
It just goes to show you how much of a douchebag Kerry really was. With all of W's "faults", Kerry STILL couldn't win the election. Maybe if he stood for SOMETHING instead of pandering, he would be president. Good luck in '08.
Well maybe if that 49% stopped making keeping blogs complaining about everything the President does and actually went out and voted then the world would be a better place.
But wait, then what would all the librals have to complain about?
"Was Kerry really a better alternative?"
A rock would have been a better alternative.
How very profound Darrel. I look forward to more of your comments.
Hmm, now i always thought starting a falsified war, cutting social security, lying to the american people and plummiting the nation into a huge deficit raised approval ratings
who would have thought...
Andrei, you need to start blogging again..
Andrei, you need to start blogging again..
That's what I keep telling him but he says something about being too busy with his company, "with employees." Pfffttt.
I love the comments political posts get. They're both entertaining and somewhat scary at the same time. The only way you can beat a political comment fire fight is make a post dissing Christianity.
...yeah. Christianity or Apple.
Andrei — "Even if Bush II isn't the WPE, you have to admit he's easily in the bottom 10%. I'm not exactly sure how anyone could think or beleive otherwise."
Matt Tavares — "Hmm, now i always thought starting a falsified war, cutting social security, lying to the american people and plummiting the nation into a huge deficit raised approval ratings"
I forget... Who was it that launched attacks on Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Who committed troops to the Balkans, promising a one year mission, which ultimately resulted in a nine (9) year US military action?
In 1998, who was it that accused Saddam Hussein of possessing and providing terrorists with "weapons of mass destruction", launched operation Desert Fox, and authorized the assassination of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden?
Who let North Korea stuff the Nuclear Accords up our collective American asses?
Who was it that ignored, despite prior intelligence, the Rwandan genocide and stood by as nearly one million people were slaughtered?
Who lied to the American people and a grand jury about his infidelity, was impeached, disbarred from practicing law in Arkansas or in front of the Supreme Court, and ultimately paid nearly $1 million in court fines and sexual harassment settlements?
On the upside he left us with a $70 billion budget surplus, the Brady Bill, the brilliant "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy, and was a pretty decent sax player.
It's funny how we forget things, when there is something new to hold our attention.
Imagine instead an adminstration that said, "We believe that America's dependence on foreign oil is the single greatest threat to our long term economic and political independence. We believe that encouraging and rewarding private sector development of alternative energy can make us a world leader in this emerging science, can help improve the environment, and can create hundreds of thousands of jobs and perhaps save the American auto industry."
I totally agree completely that this would be wonderful--I've already given up my SUV in favor of a hybrid. The reality is, though, that utopia is sadly infinitely more difficult to implement than it is to imagine. Which "alternative energy" is best? Who will pay for the R&D and infrastructure (e.g. development, fuel stations and distribution methods) needed for the dispensing of this alternative energy source--taxpayers, auto manufacturers, energy developers? What happens to the millions of people currently employed by the oil industry or associated organizations? How can low income families afford a new vehicle that uses an alternative energy source?
I'm not saying that it can't be done. Far from it. I think we are all more capable than we think. The problem is that we can't continue to shift blame to our elected leadership for issues that have been boiling for decades and for issues they really can't tame in 4 or even 8 years. We have to act together in spite of poor decision making or lack of clear options. Instead of bitching about the trash in the yard, we should just go clean it up.
It's funny how we try to divert attention when our boy is being attacked. We always hear about what an awful president Clinton was when the Bush-lovers' boy is criticized, as if critics of Smirky even like or voted for Clinton.
Why not defend your boy? Because he sucks.
Peter Billingsley -- "Does anyone believe that we will see a man of integrity, honesty and "for the people" again? Is Mr. Smith really coming to Washington?"
I vote for Greg. Even though he wished to banish me to the beautiful, yet concretion and oppressive nuclear capable region of North Korea.
Yah, it's amazing to me that *anyone* can even bring themselves to defend Bush at this point. It's fine to have conservative opinions, and to say, "Well, I voted for the guy because he's closer to my political philosophy," but if that was the case with me I'd be doubly disgusted at the way my boy had screwed things up and the lasting damage he's done. And Mike, I agree an alternative energy solution is more than a 4 or 8 year problem, but this adminstration has not just not made progress, they've gone in the *opposite* direction on the issue while the situation has become more and more critical. No excuse for that.
It's funny how we try to divert attention when our boy is being attacked. We always hear about what an awful president Clinton was when the Bush-lovers' boy is criticized, as if critics of Smirky even like or voted for Clinton.
Why not defend your boy? Because he sucks.
Well... for starters, he's not "my boy". I did reluctantly vote for Bush, but mainly because Kerry was a complete asshat with no real platform of his own. I eagerly await the upcoming elections. Hopefully someone will rise to the challenge, but most likely we'll continue to have real problems that can't be solved while keeping the majority content. Running this nation is a huge undertaking. Hell, I can barely manage to run my 5 person family.
I'm not diverting attention. I'm pointing out that every President has his flaws and every leader makes bad decisions. It's easy for us to point and and mock, but how does that make a difference or improve the situation? What would you have done after the 9/11 attack? What would you currently do to end the issue of terrorism? How would you fix the economy? How would you improve racial tensions? How can we make sure all of our citizens get a first rate education? These are just a very few of the questions I'd have you answer. If you can't, then I don't think you are really qualified to bitch.
I'm certainly not qualified to run this country and I'm barely qualified to discuss the decisions being made by our elected leaders, because I do not have all of the information necessary to form a solid opinion. All I have to fall back on is my own interests and the bits and pieces I pick up from the media or my peers.
Secondly, I voted for Clinton for both terms and I didn't bitch and whine when he made (some enormous) mistakes. Under all the bullshit, he actually did some really good things for our country and for the people. Bush has done the same, but because of all the strife abroad and the homeland issues, we don't see the good yet.
Mike, I appreciate your honesty, and yes every president makes mistakes. I'm afraid we're going to be looking long and hard before we see much 'good' left behind by this adminstration of arrogance and incompetance (not a good combo BTW). A great example is likely in your morning paper:
Look for the likely frontpage article on FEMA, where a bi-partisan Senate committee led by Susan Collins (R-Maine) concluded, "FEMA is in a shambles and beyond repair and it should be abolished." Now before you go bashing on the 6 years and Clinton, etc. the report continues, "... FEMA was independent and highly regarded until March 2003, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security."
If you need an example of incompetence, cronyism, and sheer lack of attention that ended up costing thousands of American lives, you need to look no further than this report and remember W with his shirt sleeves rolled up and his, "Good job Brownie" comments.
You're damn right about eagerly awaiting the upcoming elections.
Tom D -- "And Mike, I agree an alternative energy solution is more than a 4 or 8 year problem, but this adminstration has not just not made progress, they've gone in the *opposite* direction on the issue while the situation has become more and more critical. No excuse for that."
I don't know what you deem as progress, but I think the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a baby step in the right direction. Allocating $2.6 billion for conservation, energy efficiency, alternative motor vehicles, and fuels seems like at least some progress to me, but sadly, the bill also subsidizes oil and gas industries, which diminishes the positive aspects.
Again, nothing is perfect, but there is some progress being made. Only time will tell how much.
Well, I like to listen to scientists (I know science is kind of a bad word in Bush country), who have pretty much universally lambasted the Bush-Cheney energy plan as retro-thinking that reverses Clinton-era emission and efficiency standards and throws big meaty bones back to the GOP blue-chip donors running the coal and gasoline industries. The $2.6B is about what we spend every 10 days in Iraq, so hard to really call that much of a real moonshot type initiative.
Have you heard Bush talk? Mike, I can't believe you would vote for the guy, even begrudgingly. He would have been fired by most corporations for generally just being an idiot, much less harmful negligence.
If the choice for leader of the free world was Bush or a toaster, the toaster wins.
You guys judge the president as if he weren't human and wasn't vulnerable to the same kind of bad judgment everyone else is.
Holy shit, I'm laughing so hard I need to pick myself up off the floor to type.
I must admit, I am guilty of my share of bad judgement. That greasy burrito at 2 am after a night of drinking beer? Bad idea. But I'm just human!
Bush II is simply a triumph of good marketing (over bad product). We've all been victims of a good advertising campaign that has made us buy a crappy product -- it can take putting the product to the test to really see how woefully inadequate it is to do the job it was advertised for. The GOP has been light-years ahead of the Democrats in message crafting and talking point creation, buzzword bingo and Limbaughism, fear-mongering and convincing bald-faced lying. What the 67% is starting to realize is that it's all been a sham, and these guys aren't even smart scuzzbags, they're pretty much incompetent scuzzbags who have done a craptastic job at just about everything they've tried to do, despite having a total monopoly on governing. If the GOP loses the House or Senate in November the investigations are gonna start to fly and the wheels are going to come off this cart — should be good fun.
Really? Investigations? Good fun? Maybe if Ted Kennedy heads it up. That should make everyone truly apathetic. It's always one side against another.
An investigation will mean absolutley nothing. The only thing the next President has in store for him is to clean up this mess. And God help him because I honestly don't see he has a better future than Bush.
I'm going to start paying attention - closely to Libertarian's because right now Democratic an Republican aren't doing anything right. Maybe it's not just time for a new President but maybe some new parties
I'd agree with the new parties idea, but it's likely not going to happen in a system with both sides will come together to lock out any new contender. Investigations can be a good thing — they can be cathartic and cleansing. This administration has been accused of negligence and manipulation of the worst kind, and if it actually happened, the people who made those disasterous decisions should suffer the consequences. The Tom Delays and Duke Cunninghams have run amok in Washington for too long. It's time to step on some of those bugs.
I do hold out hope that both parties see some logic in nominating future candidates that break the mold. Could the GOP actually have the sack to nominate McCain? Can the Dems come up with someone who isn't beholden to their camp of special interests and who actually brings fresh blood to their party? It would seem to be a marketing no-brainer, but I guess we wait and see.
Maybe commenting to myself at this point, but just to get this in for the record — Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana:
"... by the time a sustained energy crisis fully motivates the market, we are likely to be well past the point where we can save ourselves. Our motivation will come too late and the resulting investment will come too slowly to prevent the severe economic and security consequences of our oil dependence. This is the very essence of a problem requiring government action."
This quote is from a critique of the Bush administration's "market-driven" approach to alternative energy, in a speech called Energy is the Albatross of U.S. National Security. He's introducing a new energy bill co-sponsored by Barack Obama. Would be nice if some of this leadership and vision could come out of the White House, but I guess the 67% — a growing number of them being Republicans — have realized it ain't going to happen.
I just have two words for you boys...'climate change'...
"What would you have done after the 9/11 attack? What would you currently do to end the issue of terrorism? How would you fix the economy? How would you improve racial tensions? How can we make sure all of our citizens get a first rate education? These are just a very few of the questions I'd have you answer. If you can't, then I don't think you are really qualified to bitch."
Every American is qualified to bitch.
Regardless, if you think those are important questions, how could you have possibly voted for Bush a second time?
"he actually did some really good things for our country and for the people. Bush has done the same"
Such as?
As opposed to John Kerry? Please, give me a break. I'll take Bush as the leeser of two evils. Kerry is scary crazy.