Ha ha ha. I didn't think about this until right this minute but I have a keychain that has these words on it:
"I'm trying to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my ass."
But I digress.
So, to be absolutely fair to the other side,(the left) I am going to discuss what I think is wrong with President Bush.
1) He spends too much. I cannot right now think of any spending bill that has come across his desk that he hasn't signed.
2) When he and/or his administration is attacked, instead of acknowledging the possibility that he may be wrong or has used bad judgment, They circle the wagons and go into defense mode. They seldom, if ever, attack back even when they are correct.
3) He has still failed to do anything about the borders, which in my opinion is the biggest problem America has to face right now, Katrina and Iraq not withstanding. I am completely baffled about the apparent apathy on that one.
4) He sometimes lets the minority party dictate his agenda. He is the President and his party is in the majority. He doesn't have to go along with anything they want if he doesn't want to. You can bet if the Democrats were in charge the President would not be so easily influenced.
Okay?
Still think I'm too biased?
Whether we want to admit it or not, we voice our opinions, especially in the blogosphere, To convince those that disagree with us that we are right and they are wrong. The ones that have the advantage are the ones that are diligent in doing exhaustive research and can find several concurring legitimate opinions.
There is a frequent commentator over at ER's place that is so good at expressing herself that I shy away from arguing with her, even though I am 100% convinced she is dead wrong. She does the research and she has the education and the verbosity to overwhelm me with what sound like infallible arguments. I can't compete. ER is very good in his own right at that but he sometimes, like me, lets his heart override his sense of logic. If he is honest with himself, I think he would tend to agree.
I want to win these arguments, but I am just not smart or educated enough to compete.
Here are some words to a song that explains partly what I am trying to say, but in a more entertaining style:
"...Son, you look like a scrapper,
So just before you fall
I'm gonna explain to you about all I got by being the winner.
You see these bright white smiling teeth,
You know they aint my own
Mine rolled away like Chiclets
Down a street in San Antone.
But I left that person cursing, nursing,
Seven broken bones
And he only broke about three of mine
So I guess that makes me a winner.
Now, behind this grin I got a steel pin
That holds my jaw in place
A trophy of my most successful
Motorcycle race.
And every morning, when I get up
And touch this scar across my face
I'm reminded of all I got by being a winner.
You have to talk loud when you challenge me, son
Cause it's hard for me to hear
With this twisted neck, and these migraine pains
And this old cauliflower ear
And if it wasn't for this glass eye of mine
Well, I'd shed a happy tear
Just to know what you're gonna get by being a winner.
Now, this broken back was the dyin' act
Of handsome Harry Clay
That sticky Cincinnati night
I stole his wife away
But that woman, she gets uglier
And she gets meaner every day
But I got her, boy, and that makes me a winner.
Now you remind me a lot of my younger days
With your knuckles a'clinching white
But I am going to sit right here
And sip this beer all night
And if there's something you have to gain or prove
By winning some silly fight
Then, OK, I quit, I lose. You're the winner."
Yeah, that's right. I quit. I lose. You win.
Let Hillary or Kerry or some other left wing Democrat win the next presidential election. Then I will be vindicated.
Troops will pull out of Iraq, Taxes will bury us, Terrorists will nuke our cities, Christianity will be outlawed, abortions will be mandantory to fill the quotas for stem cells, the aged and infirmed will be euthanized because the "compassionate" government will presume it knows better than they if they are suffering and need to be put out of their misery, we will be out of oil because the environment needs to be protected, and on and on and on, till we are no more.
Ok I realize that is a little too extreme, but there are those who would have it that way. Right, Bruiser? Toad? Anonymous?
I won't care. I am 53 years old. When those things start happening I will most likely be dead, and in Heaven, and looking down on America from above, and saying,
"I told you so"
Good luck.
16 comments:
US politics is captivating!
Do what? "He sometimes lets the minority party dictate his agenda." I missed it.
This hyear is whatcha call "catastrophic thinking" -- "an exaggeration of danger and an underestimate of one's control over that danger."
Pretty good rantish post, though. :-)
--ER
I used to think the blogosphere was a place, too, where opinions could be exchanged and maybe even changed, but I gave up on that. Not because I thought I was wrong (ha!) but because I got a headache from beating my head against brick walls. I hope you have better luck. :)
Do what? "He sometimes lets the minority party dictate his agenda." I missed it.
OK, here's one example:
Bush talked to almost all of the Democrat Senators before he announced the appointment of John Roberts for the SCOTUS. He didn't have to, but he did because he was allowing them to dictate his decision.
Borders issue and illegal immigration is the biggest one for me.
Mark, if BitchPhd’s arguments are dead wrong, then write down (for yourself) why you think they are wrong. Write down what you believe, then start looking for evidence for and against all you have written down. I often find that the process of researching a reply clarifies my understanding of my own point of view and can highlight the flaws or assumptions in the other person’s.
As for President Bush, if he let’s the minority party dictate his agenda where a Democrat President would not, then surely that’s a problem with the President rather than the Democrats – it’s their job to try and influence the administration.
And if you are worried about a Democrat President getting in, imagine what the Democrats are expecting from a third-term of Republican Presidents…
Troops won’t pull out of Iraq (because democracy takes years to properly establish itself in a culture), science and freedom of worship will be outlawed (Fundamentalist Christianity will be the state religion and unbelievers will be burnt at the stake), terrorists will nuke US cities (see previous point), nobody will want stem cells because science has been outlawed (see above), taxes will become optional (if you can afford a good accountant), the right to life will be strictly enforced; no-one will be allowed to die so long as their body can be artificially maintained (you may have been brain-dead for years – but miracles do happen if you pray hard enough!), the US will be out of oil having severed all connections with the Middle-East (terrorists and their sponsors!) and Latin American producers (terrorists and communists!) while having consumed all domestic production by driving huge fuel-inefficient vehicles. No-one will care about the environment because everyone of consequence has got good air-con and heating and it’s only poor people who die when the coastal cities get flooded (the poor don’t really count because if you can’t make it on your own in America then you probably didn’t deserve to live anyway and should make way for someone with decent health insurance.) Half the population will be dying of over-eating and the other half will be just waiting to die…
Yes, that’s a little extreme too. :o) I suspect the reality will be somewhere in between… after all democracy isn’t about giving you what you want, it’s about finding a common compromise that allows the most people to live tolerably alongside each other. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ about it; everything in politics is a matter of opinion.
Your concerns about Bush are 100% correct! --> The problem is he's a pseudo-Conservative.
Much less Liberal than the (D)'s, but definitely not a Conservative.
That said, I'd take him 100 times out of 100 over the Kerry/Kennedy/Boxer/Pelosi/Dean/Clinton group.
Guess you just plan to leave me to battle the dragons all by myself, huh?
Well, okay, if that's what you feel you have to do.
Sure was nice to have a wing man for a while...
DISCLAIMER:
"Battle the dragons" is a metaphore. Simply a figure of speech.
I do not intend to imply that anyone who has before, or may in the future argue with me is in fact a dragon, nor do I intend to imply that they look like a dragon, smell like a dragon, think like a dragon, sound like a dragon, nor do I intend to imply that they resemble dragons in any way.
Nor do I believe dragons to be liberal, either in ideology or lifestyle, nor do I intend to assign any particular political leanings or religious beliefs to dragons, whether they be real or imaginary.
-TUG
Don't take it out of context Tug, I aint done yet. I haven't quit fighting.I'm just done trying to convince the skeptics.
Wait til you see tommorrows post.
I was originally going to say I don't think losing to prove a point is the tactic I would wish to take. Try it on a small scale. It doesn't work with the wife either. It would have far more harmful results by trying it on the large societal scale of letting these people in power.
But I see that's not your point. Good for you. The sensible thing to do is convince those who are within reach, and embolden those who already stand with you. Arguing with the commies is pointless. Killing them isn't, but arguing with them to persuade them to your point of view is.
Tug, your disclaimer was a hoot.
Re, regarding consulting with Dem senators before nominating Roberts for SCOTUS: "He didn't have to, but he did because he was allowing them to dictate his decision."
That is plumb loco. True, he didn't have to, but the Dems sure as HELL didn't "dictate" anything about that selection. Wacko, man. Count how many Dem votes he gets. That will be a measure of the Dems' ability to "dictate."
--ER
Whether the Dems dictate the agenda or not, President Bush sure has bent over backward to compromise with them. Press may recall that when Dems controlled the Senate, Robert Byrd rolled over the minority to end filibusters without so much as batting an eye. Now, we plead and beg and promise and compromise.
Education bill, Farm bill, Transportation bill, Steel quotas and on and on and on.
Name ONE BILL that Bush has vetoed??? ONE??? Just ONE???
And he even went so far as to invite arch fiend, Ted Kennedy over to the White House for movies and popcorn, then named the Justice Dept. after his slain brother Bobby. And in return, Unkie Ted stands up and says things like "lie after lie after lie."
Bipartisanship during times of crisis and war used to be the rule, not the exception. I'm sure some reality challenged leftist will tell us it's all Bush's fault for not doing it all 100% their way.
But just remember that we still live in a democracy until Hillary gets elected. Bush won in 2000, increased his Senate and House margins in 2002 and 2004 when he was re-elected. Yet we still find ourselves being forced to pander to the losers.
OK, ER, perhaps "dictate" is the wrong word. But They still insisted that he run his choice by them for their approval, and as I said, he didn't have to do that.
If I had been him, I would have nominated Judge Roy Moore just to piss em off!
And don't forget to remember that if he was so inclined, He could have appointed Jesse Jackson and David Duke by recess appointment, just to watch the fireworks, and no one could have done a flippin' thing about it. D or R.
Fortunately, President Bush does not do things like that.
Mike, could you clarify something for the ignorant Brit, please? If the Republicans hold the majority in both houses, then why should Bush be vetoing bills? Surely every bill that comes his way is policy he approves of, unless Republicans are voting against party lines?
Post a Comment