I received this e-mail this week from my ultra Liberal acquaintance Kiko:
With 1,000 days left, how can George Bush salvage his presidency?
Go to Kiko's House at . . .
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com
. . . and share your thoughts by clicking on the "Comment" button beneath The Return of the King article. Comments from Anonymice(sp) are welcome.
Salvage his Presidency? As if it is in danger. It boggles my mind that the Liberals still want us to believe that Bush is a bad President.
They have yet to offer any proof of that assertion. They have yet to make it clear exactly what about Bush makes him such an object of their hatred.
Oh, I know what they say. The problem is, what they say doesn't hold water.
There are some things that I disagree with about Bush. No one will ever do exactly what I want them to do as President. But those things don't amount to anything resembling high crimes and misdemeanors specified under any article of impeachment.
They are simply disagreements. All Presidents have opposition.
What must he do to salvage his Presidency?
How about you anti-Bush, anti- American, anti-everything, bleeding heart, sob sister, Communist sympathizing, Liberal leftists try supporting him instead of grasping at any straw that you hope will bring him down?
Your hatred of Bush grows increasingly tiresome and ineffectual with every passing minute. Stop wasting all your energy on trying to get even with the Republicans for beating you in 2000 and 2004, and try offering something positive that will improve the American way of life. You want to win in 2008? Do something to prove you can do better!
Anything!
Start with this stupid amnesty for illegal aliens program. What would you do differently? Would you do anything differently? I'll let you in on a little secret:
The party that can fix the illegal alien problem is the party that wins the 2008 elections.
Bank on it.
Then, for God's sake, please try to come up with viable solutions to all the other problems that are detrimental to America. You say you have a plan. Where is it? You say you can do better. Show us how!
You Democrats won't. Because you can't. You can't do better than what Bush is doing because you have been so busy trying to bring this administration down that you haven't had time to come up with a better plan. If one exists.
Salvage Bush's Presidency?
He doesn't have to do anything to salvage his Presidency. By constantly trying to undermine him, you Democrats are insuring he will go down in history as one of the best Presidents.
You are your own worst enemy and you don't even know it.
By the way, do you know what this is?
I know it's hard to tell what it is. The resolution is poor, but it is my voter registration card. If you can't read it, I will tell you what it says.
It says I am a registered Republican!
I recently changed from an independent to a Republican and I have Democrats like Toad, Bruiser, Kevron, and, to a certain extent, ER, to thank for it.
So thanks, guys. Your hatred and vitriole created another Republican.
21 comments:
At the moment only 38% of Americans think Bush is doing a good job. Bill Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating. Ronald Reagan left office with a 64% approval. [Poll data taken from here and here.]
If two such different Presidents can leave office with such high opinions (especially considering Clinton’s scandals) I think it’s fair to say that Bush needs to salvage his presidency.
And I changed from Republican to Democrat (who tends to vote Green when given the chance) thanks to Reagan. So?
You said:
"I know what they say. The problem is, what they say doesn't hold water."
And yet, a majority of the world disagrees with you. The majority of the world (and roughly a majority of the US) thinks that Bush was seriously wrong in his Iraq invasion.
How many times must it be said that, if we think the evidence is clear that this invasion was illegal (war crime-league illegal for many of us) or at best hugely wrong and immoral, then we can do naught but oppose him?
As to salvaging his presidency - how low do his ratings have to go before it's time to call for a lack of confidency vote? He's already in Watergate/Nixon level approval ratings. Does he need to drop to 25%? 10%? At what point will you and a handful of supporters say it's time to pull the plug - EVEN if you still support him?
Mark, I'd be willing to bet $100 donation to the party of your choice if, in 25 years, Bush is not remembered near-universally that he rates amongst the worst presidents ever. Want to take that bet?
Could you answer one question Mark (besides this one)? Do you understand that IF we think he's a war criminal, that we MUST oppose him with great vitriole and intensity? Whether or not you agree with us, do you understand that and agree with it? (ie, if you thought X was a war criminal, you must oppose him)?
I see Rusty has the same pic as I do. (When I glanced at the page, at first I thought I had blacked-out Patrick Kennedy-style and had no recollection of commenting here already. Yikes!)
Anyway, the comments so far perfectly illustrate how libs define a successful presidency -- by approval ratings.
When Bush was running in 2000, he campaigned on the promise that he would lead by principles, not be led by polls. He made the same promise in 2004.
Bush and his administration are doing what's best for America. They are acting with our children and our grandchildren in mind.
If Bush leaves office in 2009 with an approval rating of 10%, I don't think he'd care. I really don't.
This notion of "salvaging his presidency" is so superficial, something that became emphasized during the image-conscious, self-absorbed Clinton years.
Well, the success of a president's tenure shouldn't be about that individual's popularity. It's about the country.
We have gone almost five years without a terrorist attack on our soil. Bush has pulled the country out of a recession in spite of the massive economic damage and devastation resulting from the 9/11 attacks. We have two brilliant new Supreme Court justices.
Thank God Bush doesn't lead by polls. Thank God he has the character to do what's in the best interests of the nation.
Well, okay Gribble: if we 'cant' define a war criminal, and the current definition doesn't fit (anyone you disagree with)'s purpose, then what is it that you understand as being the current defintion?
And Dan's right: if you believed that evil was being done abroad by a sitting president, would you entertain cheerful suggestions to support him, Mark?
Lastly, no one gets to solve the immigration problem. Even if someone comes up with a workable solution, it gets gutted in committee. Count on it.
At which point, the GOP will trot out some non-issue like queer marriage or something, so as to dupe the easily led.
As if the resta you actually cared that much about marriage...I'd chuckle if it weren't so damn awful.
If the Democrats can't do better than Bush, then God help us all!
My favorite quote about Bush:
"The President is not an evil man, not a man who trades "blood for oil," not an imperialist aggressor, but a simple screw-up, a small man in way over his head, a weak man who has succumbed under pressure to megalomania, an incompetent."
Another "independent" gone Republican. YAY! Good for you! We don't need any more fence sitters, what we need is unity. I'm so very glad you came to this decision Mark.
You said "How about you anti-Bush, anti- American, anti-everything, bleeding heart, sob sister, Communist sympathizing, Liberal leftists try supporting him instead of grasping at any straw that you hope will bring him down?"
Mark, that's one of the best rants I've ever heard. As far as rants go, your entire post was excellent. Keep going, guy. Don't ever let the Moonbats get you down! I'm cheering you on 1000%!
One more thing to those who believe in that 38% of Americans thinking Bush has done a good job. First of all, who are they polling? They sure aren't taking their polls in what is called "fly-over country" where I'm at. If they did that I can positively tell you the results would be a lot different. Second of all, because of the way questions are worded, and because of who is polled, and the area the polls are taken in, I don't believe in polls period, even if they are slanted to favor my opinion. Polls tell us nothing. Period!
Mark, I did the same for many of the same reasons, conservatives have to make a stand. Ignore the seminar posters spewing left over disproven talking points put out by MoveOn and the rest of the claptrap. I lean left on enviromental issues but support a conservative approach, a classic "crunchycon".
Rusty said:
"only problem is they cant define a war criminal."
How's this, Rusty? At the Nuremburg Trials, surviving Nazis were charged with (among other things) crimes against peace for invading Poland unprovoked.
Many of us think the evidence shows that Bush did the same in Iraq.
The evidence below shows that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales are guilty of violating "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention.
Torture is a war crime.
There are two ways that I have defined Bush as being a war criminal, Rusty. What "current definition of war criminal" are YOU using? Someone who does those same acts but is not a US president?
Funny you should claim the Dems have a problem with throwing labels on people as a means of demonizing them. Remember the Red Scare? Commie boogiemen? Now we have terrorist boogiemen ("If you're not with us you're with them.") Ain't buying it.
Anybody who says he switched from Republican to Democrat, might as well say that one day he decided to just stop thinking. Is it any wonder that they parrot absurdities like, "George Bush is a war criminal?" That could only come from somone with faulty thought processes. How does one wake up one morning and decide to switch to the party of slavery, of segregation, of lynch-law, of Dredd Scott, of Jim Crow, of black codes, of the KKK, of abortion, the party that has opposed every civil rights bill the Republicans have ever pushed through, including women's suffrage? Want to know what torture is? Putting panties on someone's head is not torture, sawing off someone's head is. The inability to acknowledge that distinction is surely a sign of people who have disengaged their brain. The Dimocrats have gone from supporting slavers to supporting murderous communists to supporting murderous abortionists, to supporting murderous terrorists -- murderous terrorists who cry like babies that they're being tortured if they are treated only half as badly as I was treated in basic training. Waa, waa, waa.
Lone Ranger, in a psychotic rage, said:
"decide to switch to the party of slavery, of segregation, of lynch-law, of Dredd Scott, of Jim Crow, of black codes, of the KKK...."
You left off that they're the party that began terrorism by nuking two cities and the party that lied to get us involved in Viet Nam. They do have a troubled history, to be sure.
So, perhaps you're right. Maybe it'd be better to be the party that had the only president to be forced to resign in disgrace, of a war crimes conviction !!! (and evasion of that conviction) in Nicaragua, of supporting terrorists throughout Central America, of supporting Saddam Hussein, of selling WMD to BOTH Iran and Iraq !!, of support for various brutal dictators around the world...
Shall I continue? Both parties have had troubles, to be sure. I find it interesting though that the criticisms you level against the Dems are all relatively ancient history, whereas the problems with the Republicans are current problems. So, forced to choose between two faulty parties, I will always choose the one that doesn't believe in committing war crimes or torture.
Get over it, LR.
Just by reading these comments, any sane person can easily deduce that The Lone Ranger, in his worst 'psychotic rage', is a thousand times more logical, truthful, and Pro-American than Dan Trabue is on his best day...
Dear me! Think I touched a nerve there.
People may not like opinion polls but they do, by definition, reflect the opinions of the people. Just because those opinions aren’t yours, doesn’t mean the polls are wrong.
Fly-over states? They are called that for a good reason; most Americans don’t live there. Your opinions are given the same weight as those of people living on the coasts. If there are more of them than there are of you, then I’m afraid they win; that’s democracy in action.
As for the validity of polls, polling organisations have to be able to prove their results are statistically meaningful. They can’t just poll strongly democratic areas to create low popularity for Bush nor can they poll just republican areas to give him a boost.
I think Mary has the nearest to a good point when she says the success of a Presidency is all about the country. However looking at the US from the outside, I don’t see any signs that the country is doing spectacularly well. In fact, from this side of the pond America looks like a country riven by racial and religious schisms, and where political dialogue has polarised into two camps of ineffectual name-callers. (As beautifully exemplified by the quality of 'debate' within these comments today!)
On the international stage the Global War on Terror is an excellent idea, but it is being most visibly prosecuted in a way that will increase the number of terrorists wishing death on America/ns, rather than reduce them.
I wish Mr Bush the best of luck in setting the country on a course back towards unity and coming up with a winning argument in the conflict of ideas (rather than military might) that is the GWoT.
Trader Rick said:
"The Lone Ranger, in his worst 'psychotic rage', is a thousand times more logical, truthful, and Pro-American than Dan Trabue is..."
Oh? Am I wrong that we sold WMD to both Iran and Iraq (illegally, mind you)? Am I illogical to think that this was stupid?
No, and no.
Am I wrong that we were charged with and convicted of war crimes for our illegal intervention and support of terrorists in Nicaragua? Is it illogical to think that this is immoral and contrary to our American ideals?
No, and no.
Am I wrong to call the Contras terrorists? (or the Guatemalan gov't which Reagan supported, or Pinochet whom Nixon put in power?) Are you aware of our history in Central America over the last 30+ years?
No and, apparently.
If you question any one of my facts, I'll be glad to give you the references, it's all a matter of public record. If you accept my facts (in which case you'd be wrong for questioning my truthfulness) but still question my logic, that's your prerogative, but the logic is sound on my end - we ought not support terrorists - who can question that?
Or you can just quietly acknowledge your slander and sulk away, which we can all take as an admission of your ignorance. Or, you could be even bigger and actually post an apology. Your call.
No, and apparently not, that is.
Nothing? No answer from Mark on my question:
“Do you understand that IF we think he's a war criminal, that we MUST oppose him with great vitriole and intensity?”
No answer from Trader Rick or the Lone Ranger on the FACTS as presented?
Well, then I’ll assume your silence is a shame-faced apology.
And it is accepted, thank you very much.
"They sure aren't taking their polls in what is called "fly-over country" where I'm at. If they did that I can positively tell you the results would be a lot different."
It's not 38 percent. It's 32 percent. And that's a Fox News poll.
This isn't about Democrat and Republican at this point. When only 32 percent of the country thinks you're doing a good job, it isn't only the liberals who don't like you. It's just that simple.
Incidentally, it doesn't matter if Bush is a war criminal. He's guilty of abuse of legal process, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice, for his role in the Plame leak debacle. The guy is a felon.
And then, this week, two separate polls (USA Today and New York Times) found his approval rating down to 31%. Yikes.
But, of course, these pollsters are all doubtless part of The Plot to Make Bush Look Bad (TM), a subgroup of the Liberal MSM, which is, itself, a subgroup of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy...
And we're succeeding! Bwa-ha-ha!!!
While I was a Democrat for most of my life, I became a Republican last summer after disagreements about Cindy Sheehan, Hugo Chavez, Mamoud Ahmadinejad, and other illiberal people the left is fond of supporting these days. Whether one supports the Iraq war or not, I'm not a big fan of totalitarianism and terror.
In addition, I'm fed up with the moral equivalence the left postulates between the United States and some of the worst regimes in human history.
just passing through....
but jeeze...
i saw a car magnet ribbon the other day... it says... "just pretend its all OK"
can we? you'd loose your hair less. :-)
Post a Comment