T1B

A former John Kerry campaign legal team intern ......

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

WOW

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

What an article. I agree and disagree. I think Bush could have done more to address concerns, mistrust, etc.. etc.. He was hampered from the get go though in that many believed he stole the election. He probably never recovered from that. Unfortunately his lack of polish, style, and "star appeal" outweighed his ability to lead behind the scenes, take tough decisions, and fullfill his Oath of Office.

I think we're fortunate now, Obama, has the polish, style, "star appeal" to rally the nation behind him should the need arise. Plus he already has the mass media behind him.

Chimpy's presidency was no better than mediocre. A year from now, people will wish he was president again

I don't think this guy is saying anything about Bush's presidency as much as he's making a case for him as a man who occupied the office.

It's an interesting perspective. In my naivte, I thought "rally behind the president in times of national crisis". I even became an apologist for Bush with respect to his decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The model I followed was outdated, FDR and Truman, the model I was comparing against was LBJ and Nixon.

But, reality dicates, times were different during WWII and Korea. By the time Vietnam came around, the infilitration was successful. LBJ broke the mold of "Democrats" maintaining popular appeal during time of war. Then again he didn't employ the vehicles FDR and Truman had to make sure people fell in line and sang from the same sheet music.

Obama can though. He has enough "gravitas" that he could nuke Afghanistan, level Iraq and Iran in one fell swoop and then put into effect some sort of "Marhsall Plan" and people would sing his praises throughout. He might not even need draconian measures like FDR and Truman did.

Bush was at best, mediocre. But I will never believe he was anything but a decent American, doing a tough job. I have the same belief in Obama. He commands my respect because of that.

If by “tough job” you mean doing everything in his power to enrich his friends, yes.

Worst. Fucking. President. Ever.

Tom,

You do know that Truman was all but run out of Washington on a rail in 1952? The "FDR/Truman" model you speak of exists only in your mind.

BSmack wrote:Tom,

You do know that Truman was all but run out of Washington on a rail in 1952? The "FDR/Truman" model you speak of exists only in your mind.

Yes.

Yes and no. I see your point, but it doesn't exist only in my mind. It existed in the form of executive orders, propaganda, and ... other methods at their disposal that in hindsight have been deemed "overkill".

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have.

Yep and now On...igger is going to reap the whirlwind. I hope you Dims enjoy getting motherfucked every minute of every day. You failed to get 60 votes in the Senate and the likely SC vacancies are libs, so you aren't going to change the balance of the court. Your advantage is temporary and far more tenuous than you realise.

I plan on enjoying myself these next four years.

Given your unerring accuracy of your negative predictive powers, I have to say that makes me feel much better. If you're expecting a repeat of 93-94, you're even dumber than I thought.

mvscal wrote:But go ahead and let's hear how it's going to play out from you. Tell us all how Onogger is going to avoid the backlash.

I don't have to explain shit to you. You've been wrong about every prediction you've made since mid 2006 when you said there was no way in hell the Dems would take control of Congress. How about you wrap your lips around the tailpipe of a truck and face fuck it until you choke on the rust flakes.

Tom In VA wrote:It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty...

I don't know who the Stalinist is who wrote this article, but fuckin' RACK him anyway.

Why American haven't adopted an oath of fealty to their Dear Leader as condition of citizenship, I'll never know.

All politicians take an oath. In it,

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God

I don't think anyone is questioning the sober, duty bound, questioning of a President. I know I'm not. I think what is being suggested is that the proper way to do that is - as discretely as possible - in the rooms where big decisions are made. Rather than using it as a political grandstand.

BSmack is somewhat correct. Historically, there have been squabbles as to whether or not we should wage war or not. Wars have been politicized. But compared to what transpired during Clinton's Administration with the Balkan's and his attempts to thwart Al Queda and Iraq with - aerial attacks alone - wherein he was accused of "Wagging the Dog" and what not. What's transpired over the past eight years by some Democrats and some Republicans has been something on a scale, I haven't witnessed in my adult life - perhaps BSmack's knowledge and age - and I'll know more, I don't know. Specifically, what comes to mind, is Iraq and the financial mess we're in.

Hey, all that being said, the bottom line is .... this kind of shit comes with the job. When you become President, you're it. You're where the rubber meets the road so to speak and you either deliver the goods or you don't.

The goods Bush is delivering are damaged, no question, his fumbling around caused them to be damaged - but they were also damaged as he ran the gauntlet.

In practice, football teammates beat each other up. It makes the team tougher, better, and in the end more cohesive. When the game is on, it's entirely focused on the opponent. In Bush's case. Whenever he left the field his own team, U.S. Citizens serving in the house and senate, beat the living shit out of him.

That kind of shit is best left for practice, with discretion, and with the same objectives in mind. Those objectives being ...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God

Democrat or Repblican, offense or defense, they're all supposed to wear that same uniform.

Tom In VA wrote:
I don't think anyone is questioning the sober, duty bound, questioning of a President. I know I'm not. I think what is being suggested is that the proper way to do that is - as discretely as possible - in the rooms where big decisions are made.

No need to explain the rules to an old totalitarian such as myself.

Can't wait for those "Mass Games" in Yankee Stadium. Should be a hoot.

Martyred wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:
I don't think anyone is questioning the sober, duty bound, questioning of a President. I know I'm not. I think what is being suggested is that the proper way to do that is - as discretely as possible - in the rooms where big decisions are made.

No need to explain the rules to an old totalitarian such as myself.

Can't wait for those "Mass Games" in Yankee Stadium. Should be a hoot.

Martyred wrote:Know God? = No God.

That's very zen like.

Embrace the new secular, non-theistic America, Tom...


...or...



...move to Canada.

P.S. I looked into that whole "free bass lessons from Geddy for all newly arriving American refugees.
Turns out to be a big hoax. Boy, did I ever get "snoped".

Martyred wrote:Embrace the new secular, non-theistic America, Tom...


...or...



...move to Canada.

P.S. I looked into that whole "free bass lessons from Geddy for all newly arriving American refugees.
Turns out to be a big hoax. Boy, did I ever get "snoped".

Marty, I never had a problem with a secular, non-theistic America. In fact, I embrace it. If the Amish can handle their business and worship, and peacefully co-exist making money off yuppies, I figure I'll fit in somewhere.

Keep Government out of church and keep church out of government. It's what the founders intended in my opinion.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:But go ahead and let's hear how it's going to play out from you. Tell us all how Onogger is going to avoid the backlash.

I don't have to explain shit to you.

Your surrender is accepted.

Look at the scoreboard bitch.

The Democrats seem wary of a potential "backlash"

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081105/D9492QB80.html

Obama will inherit a Congress with Democratic House and Senate majorities comparable to those enjoyed by President Clinton when the party last controlled both Congress and the White House in 1992. While Democrats are eager to churn out the new president's legislative programs, they're also anxious to avoid the electoral wipeout that swept them from power in the 1994 congressional elections.

I mean they seem to be talking some sense. Expressing "bi-partisanship" and all. But we'll see.

Assuming B.O. is in fact inaugurated, the dems control Washington.
It's their show for 2 years.

But whatever failings are delivered to the American people will come as a result of inheriting a HUGE mess from GW Bush.

We all know the name of that tune.


Just so nobody acts all ... shocked and awed ... when it goes down like that.

The Dems didn't accomplish jack shit when they gained control in the mid terms.

And Obama has a country filled with people expecting him to wave his magic wand and fix things.


Hope for change.


Yeah, right.

Tom In VA wrote:The Democrats seem wary of a potential "backlash"

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081105/D9492QB80.html

Obama will inherit a Congress with Democratic House and Senate majorities comparable to those enjoyed by President Clinton when the party last controlled both Congress and the White House in 1992. While Democrats are eager to churn out the new president's legislative programs, they're also anxious to avoid the electoral wipeout that swept them from power in the 1994 congressional elections.

I mean they seem to be talking some sense. Expressing "bi-partisanship" and all. But we'll see.

They are going to make sure at least some Republicans are on board with their economic policies before moving forward. Nobody wants a repeat of the 1993 Budget Bill.

What a surprisingly disingenuous article.

Why anyone who was a part - however peripherally - of the Kerry Campaign would write such an article is totally beyond me.

While Kerry was probably not the best potential POTUS, the fact is, the Bush Campaign distorted his war record in dramatic fashion...a point that surely wasn't lost on anyone working on either campaign.

When the Bush Administration was assembling the Iraq War effort, the reaction of the world at large was discounted by that administration and by many observers. It's sort of funny to see some confused bit player wringing his hands about world reaction at this point.

PSUFAN wrote: While Kerry was probably not the best potential POTUS, the fact is, the Bush Campaign distorted his war record in dramatic fashion...a point that surely wasn't lost on anyone working on either campaign.

They did ? We're not going down the "Swift Boat" crowd again are we ? You know, the ones who - quite rightly said - Kerry distorted HIS OWN war record with respect to his "witnessing" atrocities and all that. People on the same river, same boat, same time, same war didn't see what Kerry said he saw.

Kerry distorted his war record and impugned the war records of his comrades. Plain and simple.

BSmack wrote: Nobody wants a repeat of the 1993 Budget Bill.

You mean the legislation that made the economy skyrocket under Clinton?

that's what you used to call it anyway.

Cuda wrote:

BSmack wrote: Nobody wants a repeat of the 1993 Budget Bill.

You mean the legislation that made the economy skyrocket under Clinton?

that's what you used to call it anyway.

And I still do. What I was referring to was the manner in which it was passed without a single Republican vote. That will not happen again.

if the 93 budget bill was all you say it was, why wouldn't the democRats want 100% credit for it?

nice job kicking your own ass, monica

Cuda wrote:if the 93 budget bill was all you say it was, why wouldn't the democRats want 100% credit for it?

Because the net result was an increase in the hyper partisan nature of Washington. The 93 budget bill was a great step forward in terms of balancing the budget, but the blowback from that success was catastrophic in that it directly led to the insanity of the past 8 years.

I'm not going to try to explain it any further. You just need to understand that good policy accomplished via bad politics can have nasty unintended consequences.

BSmack wrote:

Cuda wrote:if the 93 budget bill was all you say it was, why wouldn't the democRats want 100% credit for it?

Because the net result was an increase in the hyper partisan nature of Washington. .

l to r: B-Monica