He chose a white guy

[packsaddle]

Dirty politics is not a reason to criticize someone. Wow. Only you, The Scout, only you.

[TheScout]

Well people do not put things in the broad context. Yes Bush had some dirty campaigns, but probably not the dirtiest, and you wouldn't think that by the way some people talk.

 

Same as with his civil rights record. I am not a fan of some of that such as the PATRIOT Act, etc. But some make it seem like he has the worst civil rights record ever which is clearly not true.

 

The liberals will praise Lincoln who jailed thousands of opponents of the war and FDR who locked up over 100,000 Japanese Americans but will lambast Bush for wiretapping? I don't get it.

[OldGreyEagle]

I am not sure of the sequences, so some may be off, but I think tthe point will be valid

 

Way back awhile ago, Dan Rostenkowski (d) Ill was indicted, arrested, have something done to him for abusing his "franking" privilege, it had to do with the mail a congressman is able to send. So then the democrats countered by saying that Newt Gingrich improperly used the Congressional TV studio and then Pres Clinton gets impeached. So, no matter who the next republican president would have been, that person would have been under a microscope and any mis step would be examined with allegations of incompetence. As low as Bush's approval is, what is the approval of the Congress, or Senate?

 

How about we have the best goverment money can buy face and tackle issues, not point fingers about how the other side are worthless slugs.

[Lisabob]

I have yet to meet a liberal who thinks it was a good idea to intern Japanese-Americans during WW II. If the crowd of purported liberals you know cheer for this TheScout, then I can only say you need to associate more broadly with a better class of liberals.

 

(If your point was that people turn a blind eye to some of FDR's, or other presidents', mistakes well then perhaps we can agree on that and while we're at it, maybe we could agree that it would be nice to teach a more thorough version of history instead of lionizing certain personalities and acting as if they could do no wrong. However, on balance I would also say that for all the poor choices that certain past presidents may have made, most also made enough really good choices to present a fairly balanced historical view. I'm not certain that the same will be said of Bush in 50 years. He's just a screw-up through and through, in my decidedly personal opinion.)

[TheScout]

The point is that I think one could clearly point out to actions of Lincoln and FDR which were far greater abuses of Presidential power than anything Bush has done. They are held up as liberal icons, yet Bush is reviled. It is a double standard.

 

[packsaddle]

Bush suffered a surprise loss in NH to McCain - by a wide margin - and the Bush campaign knew that if he lost SC, a state in which McCain was already very popular, Bush would probably lose the nomination.

So they used push-polling to spread the rumor that McCain's daughter, whom he had adopted from Bangladesh in an act of incredible compassion, that this young girl with very dark skin was McCain's illegitimate daughter through some extramarital liason with a black woman. And it worked (of course it did, it was SC!). Bush got the momentum back and took the nomination.

That was no small matter in my mind. It was dishonest, dishonorable, and cowardly. It used a child to target a political enemy. It ignored real issues (of course it did, McCain was kicking butt on the issues) and fostered the most despicable kind of racial prejudice in response to the total lie that they perpetrated.

The Scout, if you think that is no reason to criticize someone, then you have a different sense of morality from mine. I guess that goes without saying.

[Eagledad]

When time washes away the slanted emotional gobbledygook of politics, history will record Bush as a good president. From a world view point, there is more stability in the Middle East than before 2000 and the Iraq war will be viewed as a major catalyst toward the peace with Israel. Since 9/11, there have been 40% fewer world wide terrorist attacks and zero attacks on U.S. property. The economy didnt take a dump after the national disasters of 9/11 or Katrina as was predicted and the unemployment remained stable considering those events. Bush will also get quiet credit for the stability in the Korean peninsula.

 

Our grandkids will read these as historic accomplishments.

 

Barry

 

[acco40]

Today, labels are usually applied in a pejorative nature. Also, labels used to simplify things too much.

 

What is a conservative? Someone who wants less government involvement in peoples lives? Someone who wants to "conserve" the satus quo? If so, why is it considered "liberal" to be "pro-choice" because today, abortions may be obtained legally (the status quo) and implementing anti-abortion laws would be adding government restrictions on individuals?

 

So, there are legitimate arguments both for and against making abortions in this country more or less restrictive but labelling those arguments as liberal or conservative is really not conducive to educated debate.

 

Packsaddle - looks like I may have hit a nerve with my comments about health care in this country. Do you disagree with any part of my post?

[Rooster7]

a better class of liberals - Isnt that an oxymoron? ;-)

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Eagledad writes:

Since 9/11, there have been 40% fewer world wide terrorist attacks and zero attacks on U.S. property.

 

The anthrax attacks a week later don't count as a terrorist attack?

[BadenP]

No Rooster what definitely is a oxymoron is "an intelligent group of conservatives."

So lets elect a senile old man to be president who thinks our economy is in great shape and can't even remember how many houses he owns and it really says a lot about the rationality of his supporters. It is time to put the elephant out of its misery, I hope you can read between the lines Rooster.

[packsaddle]

Acco40, not really, you were just the person who stimulated the response. There is no way a purely private approach is going to provide universal health care. One way or another, health care under the private system is going to be provided either poorly (to keep costs down and maximize profit) or denied to those who can't pay.

I want people to understand that the 'every man for himself' approach employs a Darwinian approach with obvious outcomes...and if people decide to take the country in that direction I want them to embrace it AND the outcomes explicitly.

[TheScout]

Conservatives were never a big fan of McCain at least in my opinion. Bad campaigns doomed opponents and independents and Democrats came out in important primaries to give McCain crucial momentum. Personally I voted for Ron Paul!

 

Probably more McCain votes will be anti-Obama than pro-McCain. Mine will be. Unless I throw my vote to Bob Barr since I live in a very Blue New York that McCain will not win anyway.

[Eagledad]

>>and if people decide to take the country in that direction I want them to embrace it AND the outcomes explicitly.

[packsaddle]

Eagledad, after WWII, perhaps partly because of it and the New Deal, there were very strong public institutions in support of public health (Public Health Service, VA, etc.) Many if not all of these are now terribly underfunded and unable to provide for all the indigent care that is needed much less for any others. I see this against the ascendency of Big Business Medicine. I see a move toward total privitazation and BECAUSE I know the accounts of what it was like before the public institutions, I understand the predictable outcome of health-care-only-for-those-who-can-pay.

Yes, in some sense it WAS like that in the past. Those old days weren't necessarily the good old days...just take a stroll through a very old cemetary and check out the incredible number of dead children. Check out the life expectancy back then.

Don't get me wrong. I'm with you on this. I am ready to embrace the Darwinian approach. As luck would have it, I am in a family that has been uncommonly healthy and long-lived for many generations. We have a family joke that we take the old ones out and shoot them at 100 years. So let's go for the profit! Or as your idol so famously said, "Bring it on!"

 

Edited part: Merlyn, I'm thinking that perhaps the anthrax attacks were on 'people' not 'property' and maybe that's what he meant. Property, you know, is REALLY important.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)