The American Spectator : George W. Bush, Winner

Print Email

Friends, Americans, conservatives; lend me your ears. I come to praise George W. Bush, not to bury him; I'll leave that to our famously unbiased media. Now that the eight years of his presidency have come to an end, there will surely be endless shovels of dirt dumped on the legacy of our 43rd president, some even heaved by our brethren on the right; but not here. I come instead not to speak specifically of his accomplishments or his errors, but of the man himself.

One can be reasonably sure that his exit, like his controversial entrance, will be marked by a graciousness usually absent in political circles. We can also be pretty certain that his departure will not feature the ransacking of the Oval Office and Air Force One, or the sophomoric removal of the "O's" from White House keyboards. If, as has been the case for his entire presidency, he is true to his word, he will be as magnanimous to his successor as he was to his predecessor; notwithstanding the disrespect he received at the hands of both.

In his last press conference on Monday he said that when he leaves Washington he'll be "getting off the stage," because there should only be "one person in the klieg lights at a time." Would that all former presidents had made and kept this same pledge; especially those of the Democratic stripe. Love him or hate him, you can't help but think that despite a rambunctious youth, this man was raised right.

Although some of his actions upset conservatives, as he departs the Beltway for his beloved Texas ranch, we can and should admire the aspects of his character that not only saw the nation through the dark days after 9/11, but restored a measure of dignity to what had been an Office marred Impeachment and irresponsibility.

The foremost of his virtues and the one that evokes the most hatred from those on the left is that he remains true to the courage of his convictions; not an easy task in these days of moral relativism. When he stated that there is good and evil in the world, and that Americans have always given their lives in defense of the good, he reopened a page of Americanism not seen since the days of Ronald Reagan.

Of course, some saw this dogged determination as hubris and decried his unwillingness to "admit mistakes." But this only pointed to his gift of good judgment. George W. Bush is one of the few powerful men in the world to recognize that homicidal brutes like those in Al Qaeda must be met not only with force of arms, but a steadfast resolve equal to or greater than their own. All the spinning in the world by his enemies cannot change the fact that this is what has kept our country safe from attack these last seven years.

And yes, he truly is a compassionate conservative. Unlike politicians who can turn on the tears on cue, George W. Bush could truly get misty at a T-Ball game on the White House lawn or at a press conference with "Snowflake" babies; those born from embryos that would otherwise have been destroyed or used for research. And who can forget one of the most emotional of all the scenes immediately following the carnage of 9/11, when President Bush returned to his seat after delivering his beautiful remarks in the National Cathedral, and embraced his visibly-shaken father.

This is a man who endured countless savage attacks on himself and those of his administration, and spoke not one bitter word in return. A man who, in stark contrast to his predecessor, cared not a whit about public opinion when it came to our national defense, trusting instead that future historians will do what their current counterparts refuse; to treat him fairly.

So this is the message to our liberal friends in the media: you didn't beat this president, he beat you. You and your allies in Washington failed time and again to take this good man down. Indeed, he was elected and re-elected despite your historic efforts to the contrary.

And this is his legacy: that this man did precisely what the President of the United States is sworn to do. He and the troops who fought so bravely under him for eight long years have defended this still-great country of ours against one of the most pernicious enemies mankind has ever seen, and equally important, he kept alive the idea that America is and can still be, a force for good in the world.

Letter to the Editor

Jason| 1.14.09 @ 6:42AM

I would have preferred a more conservative Bush, and in a better world, that might have been possible. But in the real world of the past eight years, Bush is probably the best president we could have hoped for.
http://www.rightklik.net/

Eric Dondero| 1.14.09 @ 6:43AM

Great. So, we're trading a moderate Centrist in the White House for a Fascist/Socialist, and all George W. Bush can do is smile, and look happy about it.

He wins an 'A' for politeness, but an 'F' for cajones. Fighting back against Islamo-Fascism? With Obama taking over his job, Mission NOT accomplished.

Robert Nowall| 1.14.09 @ 6:57AM

Perhaps the keyboards the Clintonistas used when they were in office---the ones with the damaged "Ws"---could be made available for their use as newly-installed Obamites.

Jeremiah| 1.14.09 @ 7:35AM

He was not conservative enough but we'll miss him more and more as the events will put his successor in full display.
Thank You, Mister President.

http://www.rightklik.net/

Steve| 1.14.09 @ 8:00AM

All things considered: like father, like son. A weak, compromising, utterly ineffective leader against America's most dangerous enemies: the Left. Yeah, Gitmo and umpteen thousands of dead jihadis are over in the plus column, but in the end his administration was catastrophic for his party and for his nation. All the current paeans to Bush's future stature are wishful thinking. A weak. moderate man, just trying to get along. I was fool enough to vote for him twice, votes I most sincerely regret.

frost| 1.14.09 @ 8:03AM

Mr. Dondero nailed it, absolutely: He wins an 'A' for politeness, but an 'F' for cajones. The border remains a wide-open joke, he didn't start pushing ANWR/offshore drilling 'til it was 'way too late; couldn't discipline his stupid GOP in "earmarks." Took several years to get rid of the McClellans in the Pentagon and find a Petraeus? Henry Paulson? Candidly, Dubya ranks down there with Tyler, Pierce, LBJ, Grant and Buchanan for sheer ineptitude. Cut taxes some? Sure. Appointed a few judges? Yup. But, alas, he's only one small baby-step above Jimmy Carter, and I feel genuinely betrayed.
That said, bad as Bush has been, I dread these next years -- scary times ahead!

Ammo Guy| 1.14.09 @ 8:26AM

There is not one person posting here who has any idea of what classified information this President had to view on a daily basis...and I have only an inkling based upon my perch within the five sided building. Neither is there one person in this country who thought on 9/12/01 that we would not sustain another blow to the homeland over the following 7+ years. You can nitpick all you want and you can focus on those single issues that bug you the most, but the bottom line for me is that he took the fight to the enemy and kept this country safe since 9/11...all the rest is froth as far as I'm concerned. I will miss seeing his picture at the head of the chain of command wall and will miss his steadfastness in the Oval Office...and one day, some of you will too.

carl saxon| 1.14.09 @ 8:33AM

It has always amazed me how Pres. Bush arose every morning when more than half of the western world hated his guts. The anger and vitriol of his political enemies must have set some world record, and, yet, he arose every morning with the pure clarity of purpose. I truly believe that history will be very kind to this man.

J David| 1.14.09 @ 8:44AM

I truly believe El Presidente Jorge willingly, knowingly set up all the machinery for a New World Order and has just handed, knowingly and willingly, all the levers of power to a foreign-born COMMUNIST. Thanx, Jorge! We'll miss the Education Bills by Ted Kennedy, and the bloated pork bills by RINOs, and LOST legislation and Herriet Miers Supreme Court picks, and AMNESTY...Oh, wait! No we won't 'cause that is all stuff Hussein is about to do!

J David| 1.14.09 @ 8:47AM

Keep praising this bumbling loser as the RINO Party he helped destroy grinds to a complete stop, and dies a gory death writhing on the cold ground.

Bye- Bye, Bush, Bye-bye GOP! Hello New World Order!

J David| 1.14.09 @ 8:56AM

I'm sure Ramos and Campeon are sending up fervent prayers of thanksgiving for the El Presidente Jorge as well!

JJ Jr| 1.14.09 @ 10:04AM

Y'all, agree with Lisa, but believe "W" went too far in his Christian faith by not letting himself or his administration defend themselves over the past eight years. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many opportunities went by the wayside to correct the record creating legions of urban myths that became the uninformed consensus of a majority of the American people.

And "W" is still doing it--even at his press conference on Monday. When questioned about "mistakes" he's made, he mentioned he'd "wished they'd found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." He might of added that they found 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium (recall the Joe Wilson led media canard about a sentence in W's State of the Union speech about Iraqi interest in Yellow Cake) and never announced it, because of national security reasons, until it had been safely and secretly shipped to Canada!!!!

So many opportnities--the relatively robust economy after 9/11 and his administration's very prescient tax cuts, accustations of torture , wire-tapping American citizens, GITMO, and on and on and on . . . . Granted, the mainstream media acts like a gigantic echo chamber hammering home the urban myths that the liberal elites create and benefit from, but geez, Christians are asked to
"[l]et your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone" (Colossians 4:6). I believe "W" and this Country would have benefited greatly had he taken this verse to heart.

frost| 1.14.09 @ 10:07AM

Just another thing or two, on top of Dubya's other multiple failings cited earlier -- Sandy Burger slipping away unscathed, un-prosecuted, and drivers licenses for Illegals?
The fact that we weren't attacked again doesn't seem to have much to do with the inept inhabitant of the White House; maybe it's simple luck, or the lack of cut-throat/bombing/murdering martyrs -- whatever. 'Cause, with the INS, ICE, CIA, DMV, FBI and associated other bureaucratic blahs like the take-off-your-sneakers-TSA jokers, we've just been damned lucky, that's all. I sure won't accord Dubya credit; be simply doesn't deserve it - - especially if he fails to pardon Ramos and Campeon! Nearly as bad as Jimmy Carter? 'Fraid so.....

frost| 1.14.09 @ 10:15AM

On second (3rd? 4th?) thought, Bush should get a little credit for Judges Roberts and Alito; not much more than that after his campaign promises. To be fair, he has appointed several constitutionalist jurists to the appellate bench, but, when it came to the big enchilada, he tried to shove down our throats Harriet Meirs. She was such a lightweight that even non-attorneys could tell she was not Supreme Court material, but Bush claimed, "she is a born-again Christian and I know she will vote the right way." So very shallow it's pathetic.
Your witness....

elhombrelibre| 1.14.09 @ 10:27AM

Certainly, President Bush could have done some things better. However, on the big issues he did what was best for us. He kept the country safe from further terrorist attacks in the US. We’ve leaned forward under his leadership and now fight our enemies in their backyards and not ours. I’d have liked him to have taken the war to the mad mullahs in Iran by removing their nuclear capabilities, but the country obviously would not have supported him. He stayed steadfast in Iraq and the critics here saying he lacked cojones must believe that didn’t take balls. Due to his backing of the surge, Iraq will emerge as an independent, self-governing nation, that at worst will be non-aligned and at best will be a tacit ally of the US. President Bush appointed conservative judges to the Supreme Court, and we’ll benefit from these appointments long after the bellyaching against him has ended. He did his best in a climate where the news media served up a constant stream of propaganda for the Democrat party and lies that served more the interest of our nation’s foreign enemies than our own. During most of his presidency, he had to deal with a congress more interested in partisan advantage and sophomoric histrionics than in aiding the commander in chief in a war against terrorists. To hear much of the media tell it (and Senator Durbin), the US military ran a Gulag that would make the Nazis blush. Not to have folded to this constant barrage took real courage of convictions. Under this president, our nation is now aligned closely with the largest democracy in the world, India. This will have many benefits in the coming years. Could things have gone better? Sure. But let’s be thankful for the good things that did happen.

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 10:27AM

W's big problem was his addiction to belief over reason. As he showed in his recent press conference, he has virtually no analytical ability and no command of the facts. This is the result of an electorate that could not comprehend a president that was intellectually incurious and did not have any analytical capability. He went to Yale and Harvard. I can just imagine what a disaster Palin, who is even worse, would do.

elhombrelibre| 1.14.09 @ 10:33AM

Bob,

Thanks for dropping by to share your Leftwing views on President Bush. I'm sure you think all conservatives are stupid and all liberals are smart.

Michigan-Matt| 1.14.09 @ 10:33AM

Ammo Guy nails it! And for all those opinionated 2nd guessing, Monday morning quarterbacking wanna-b-conservative commentators here --stop your whining, get off the couch you've been sitting on since the Elections and do something with your puny, miserable, incredibly inconsequential lives.

W has more class, more leadership, more presence in just his big toe than most of you have in your collective soul. Fellow-Texan Phil Gramm was speaking about you: YOU are a nation of whiners.

We need winners, not whiners. That's politics. And W proved he's a winner twice over. What's your score? Oh, I know; "zero".

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 10:55AM

elhombrelibre -- In fact, I don't think W was conservative enough. I want to see a smart, knowledgeable conservative in office. Primarily because of social conservatives, only anti-intellectual people without reason can win in Republican primaries. If a smart conservative voices their opinions like Will, Brooks, Parker, etc., you call them "libs". In fact, anyone who disagrees with social conservatives is called a "RINO". There are smart conservatives out there like Romney and Jindal. You do have one thing right, however. Liberals value intelligence and knowledge and many conservatives do not. That needs to change.

Anthony| 1.14.09 @ 11:04AM

An excellent article Lisa, you've summed up all our many and diverse thoughts about Mr. Bush over these 8 years rather well. As I've said before, history will be very kind to him, and very unkind to the rabid ideologues on the left, that are destroying our constitutional republic as we speak in the name of socialism and AGW. Mr. Bush was an incredibly gracious man in a time of vulgar politics at its worst. While his noblesse oblige annoyed the hell out of me over the years, nonetheless, I admired his steadfastness in the face of such irrational hatred. He is a bigger and better man than I. God bless Mr. Bush, and here's hoping he has a very soft landing, God knows, he deserves it.

taxpayer| 1.14.09 @ 11:05AM

Referring to Obama, are there any criteria that would disqualify a sitting president from serving as commander in chief?

elhombrelibre| 1.14.09 @ 11:07AM

You managed to put a few words in my mouth. I haven't said a word about "Will, Brooks, Parker, etc.,." I have not called them "Libs." It must be easier for you to post arguments against words I have not said. And it's nice of you to say I have something right. But I didn't say Liberals value intelligence. If they did, would Ted Kennedy have been one of their great leaders for as long as he has been? If Liberals valued intelligence, would they have fallen for the claptrap of Gorbachev, Clinton, and the unctuous Obama? I guess you're sooo smart you can read my mind instead of my words. Liberals do not value intelligence. They value the herd mentality, situational ethics, and abortion. Beyond that they’ll change their minds for expediency and partisan advantage. Knowledgeable conservatives know this.

stmichrick| 1.14.09 @ 11:08AM

As the Condescendors (Bob) here once again demonstrate, the real failing of George W. Bush was his being extremely courteous to his critics.

Too many absurd accusations went unanswered (i.e. the real story about government response to Katrina, what was found of the WMD capability of Saddam's Iraq, attempts to restrain FREDDIE and FANNIE and, of course, why not to buy into climate change fraud) and have resulted in establishment of a pop culture narrative about the Bush Administration that will take a generation to dispel.

Other than that I loved the guy.

Brooklyn| 1.14.09 @ 11:31AM

Totally agree with the fine Ms. Fabrizio.

Those Partisans who slandered, vilified, dehumanized, have a deeply misguided motive and perception.

GW Bush is a fine Man, who was a great President, strong, decent, ethical.

He led to the liberation of over 50 Million in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Very impressive...

J David| 1.14.09 @ 11:37AM

I did not, reluctantly(after voting in the primaries for someone else, vote for Jorge "to be a nice guy", but to kick ass and take names on behalf of Reaganism he dishonestly claimed. Michelle Malkin has a long list of warnings she gave before El Presidente Jorge was selected in 2000, and Rush also warned that he was not an ideological conservative, but rather, a moderate. He, as the titular head of his party has DESTROYED CONSERVATISM, and assisted others, including those from the commie-lib Dems, in doing so. He mostly deserves, having willingly admitted "chucking" his conservative principles, the shame of destroying the party of Lincoln and Reagan, and Bill Buckley.

The pop culture narrative being written about Bush will not be dispelled, because *America* as we now know it will no longer exist in the next generation.

Ammo Guy| 1.14.09 @ 11:47AM

Geez, Bob, methinks you value analysis over action - I'm sure you prefer McClellan over Patton. At some point, you gotta shoot the engineers and move out a project. "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week" though I'm sure you would disagree. I remember a story about Clinton (the President I'm sure you do admire) who would decide on a course of action after a meeting, but would often change his mind afterwards because some staffer stayed behind to continue the argument - you can't run a government (or even a private firm) like that. As far as I know (and I do know a little), President Bush would have meetings, hear out the opinions of those in attendance, make a decision, and execute accordingly without a lot of dilly-dallying, agonizing, and second guessing. I bet our new President will likely emulate #42 rather than #43, but we shall see...won't we?

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 11:58AM

Ammo, I do not value action WITHOUT analysis. Patton did a lot of analysis but his strength were the solutions applied to those analyses. What we have at AmSpec and with Palinpets is the triumph of ideology over facts. Those who don't understand history are bound to make the same mistakes.

Ammo Guy| 1.14.09 @ 12:09PM

Bob, then I guess we just disagree on how much analysis is required before taking action. I would submit that President Bush's decision on the surge was an example of how he would analyze the courses of action presented to him and make a decision that was wildly derided at the time - Clinton would have never done it because it didn't poll well - but turned out to be the correct decision. Was his decision to use the political capital he earned in the election of 2004 in an attempt to fix Social Security based upon analysis? I believe it was even though he was unsuccessful...others will follow and likely meet with the same fate, but I'm sure that never happened to you.

L. Ross| 1.14.09 @ 12:10PM

Bob:

You lift the following quote approvingly. "Liberals value intelligence and knowledge and many conservatives do not."

Dude, youse just provin' your ownself ignant.

baseballguy2001| 1.14.09 @ 12:12PM

elhombrelibre and Ammo Guy, you have proved Bobs point. "Liberals value intelligence and knowledge and many conservatives do not. That needs to change."

Ammo Guy| 1.14.09 @ 12:21PM

Baseballguy, too bad you didn't post yesterday to a column you might know something about - the one about Vin Scully. I would have been interested to hear your opinion on whether Koufax was a better pitcher that Bob Gibson. But you may not know who those worthies are...you probably think Sabathia is the finest pitcher who ever lived. Keep on trying...you might stumble over an original thought sometime.

baseballguy2001| 1.14.09 @ 12:23PM

"Bush has kept us safe the last X years"

Could someone please remind me of a terrorist attack on the homeland during the years 1993 thru 2000?

Sam Alito was Bush's second choice for the court.

Republicans are about less govt. Please tell me where the Bush Administration has reduced the size and scope of the Fed Govt.

Nation building is for Democrats.
Is America Nation building in Iraq?

Alan Brooks| 1.14.09 @ 12:29PM

What's wrong with George Bush, Amspec, Palin"pets", NR, American Conservative, is they still hold on to the outmoded desire for virtue, taste-- any taste.

get with it, its the 21st century.
do as thou wilt, chatter all day about nothing, some are more equal than others but we are all united in our tastelessness, our comforting oblivion.
But please dont hurt anybodys little feelings, dont do anything to make anyone feel guilty, jealous, inferior; dont rock the boat; dont speak until spoken to... let the chattering classes do all the chattering, because you dont want to disturb the chattery void or make anyone jealous or insecure. do as thou wilt but dont do as i do, do as i say.
do as thou wilt but dont have anything i dont have.
you can do what you want, say what you want to say as long as i approve.
we are all neoliberal, rightwing marxist/left wing libertopians now. pay your taxes, but PLEASE do not be more uppity than i amll@ww.com-- you might hurt my precious little ego.

Reaction to Closed Minds| 1.14.09 @ 12:29PM

To Bob: What a typical intellectual arrogant snot - yeah, I am calling you out - why don't you tell us your IQ or how many pedigrees you have that belie your own 'intellectual curiosity'? Are you serious? Do you not see how much of an idiot you & others who relish their 'intellectual curiosity' sound & look like when folks invoke this line? This response to your post is from a JD CPA MBA (

Ammo Guy| 1.14.09 @ 12:36PM

Ever hear of the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993? Or does history just begin for you in 2001? And Roberts was his first choice for SCOTUS (I know, just having a little fun with that one). Unfortunately, President Bush was unable to reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government in part because he was busy keeping the bad guys from reducing the size and scope of our homeland. As far as nation building is concerned, you don't seem to realize that 9/11 changed everything...to include a campaign platform from the year before...but I'm obviously wasting my time here.

baseballguy2001| 1.14.09 @ 12:37PM

Ammo -- I never saw Koufax or Gibson pitch so I hesitate to say they were 'the best'. They were very, very good I'm sure. I did see Nolan Ryan pitch several times and he was 'the best' I've seen. I'm looking for the article about Scully, As a broadcaster, he was GREAT.

Lower taxes.
Less Govt.
Strong Defense.

That's the way it should be.

Big B| 1.14.09 @ 12:38PM

W's only saving grace is that he has kept America safe from another terrorist attack. He deserves credit for this even if it is solely due to sheer luck. I'm also grateful that he took the battle to the enemy on their turf, but disappointed that he never got Bin Laden.

W's biggest failure by far is his unwillingness, as Steve said above to take on "America's most dangerous enemies: the Left." His failure to do this has ruined Conservatism and the GOP and could take years to recover, if ever.

As for Justices Roberts and Alito, so far, they have yet to hear a case regarding imposter-elect's eligibilty requirements. How hard is it to ask 0bama to provide an authentic copy of his birth certificate to prove he's a natural born citizen? If Roberts swears in an ineligible imposter on Jan 20th, we will have a Constitional crisis on our hands that will make America the laughing stock of the entire world. Where are all of America's conservative pundits and GOP members of Congress on this matter? They are all strangley silent. Surely, GWB could pull a few strings to out this imposter. Unless of course he's being blackmailed.

elhombrelibre| 1.14.09 @ 12:43PM

baseballguy2001 , how did ammoguy and I prove Bobs (sic) point? What do you think you mean by that?

elhombrelibre| 1.14.09 @ 12:46PM

baseballguy2001 ,

I'll guess what you mean. Ammoguy and I won't kick Bush when nearly everyone else is.

Ammo Guy| 1.14.09 @ 12:47PM

Baseballguy2001, the Vin Scully article was on yesterday's webpage - well worth the read.

baseballguy2001| 1.14.09 @ 12:52PM

I did say between 93 and 2000. I should have been more clear and also said after the truck bomb at the WTC. The answer I was looking for was 1995 Oklahoma City. Truth is, the Islamo Fascists didn't attack here until 2001. Was Clinton a great protector of the homeland? I don't think so. Bush didn't reduce the size of the Govt because he wanted to make it bigger. Education, medicare presriciption drugs, Homeland Security Dept, TSA, The massive Farm Bill, I could go on for an hour. He would have had another expansion with the idiotic guest worker program.

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 12:57PM

Hey, Reaction, I see you put your supposed IQ and degrees to good use responding in a highly intellectual manner. Usually, people who cannot argue on the facts resort to demonization. You have proved this case beyond all reasonable doubt.

baseballguy2001| 1.14.09 @ 1:05PM

elhombrelibre -- Yes, I will kick Bush (or Clinton, or Obama) when they are wrong. I didn't even get started about the bailouts, is THAT sound fiscal policy? 1.2 trillion deficit and growing. Bush made Obamas job easier by nationalizing the banks, Insurance, auto manufacturing, the country is in a tough spot. Ammo guy -- great article, I agree.

Maria| 1.14.09 @ 1:12PM

9:11 happened during Bush's watch - period. He has bankrupted the nation and uttered nothing but lies each time he opens his mouth. He was a drunk, is a skunk and religious modern day Pharisee. He is, and will go down as the worst president in history!

Gary| 1.14.09 @ 1:17PM

Steve I have no use for the left but Bush's job was to defend this country & that's what he did. His job was not to attack the left. If I was Elvis I would have shot a thousand TVs because of all the venom & bias vented at Bush & often wondered why he did't strike back but that is not him & I accept it. I did not agree with all his policies but I don't as to any president. As far as regreting voting for him what does Steve think Gore would have done, lob a few bombs at desert camps? Bush, unlike Carter or Clinton, put his country before his ego & I respect him for it. As far as intellectual curiosity, it belongs in bull sessions & in the halls of academia, not where life & death decisions are made. It's nice but not a necessity to being a strong leader.

Trotter| 1.14.09 @ 2:12PM

"Liberals value intelligence and knowledge and many conservatives do not."

Bob, I'm afraid that you give yourself up with this comment. Liberals actual value emotion and feelings first, and politically-correct knowledge as a distant second. Your comment means that you are either a liberal or one of those superior-intellect "Conservatives" who believe that so-called "social Conservatives" are nothing more than knuckle-dragging Bible thumpers devoid of any intellect.

In either case, your intellectual arrogance destroys whatever credibility you may have.

Alan Brooks| 1.14.09 @ 2:23PM

lower taxes
less govt.
strong defense

that's it? use whatever dope you want; make cp and/or sleep with your kids, do as thou wilt? whatever turns your crank? what sort of 'people' are you liberscumians?
you're far worse than Obama.

party hardy, hearty marty.

Michael| 1.14.09 @ 2:37PM

This is a man who should be at the Hague for crimes against humanity, and should pay the appropriate price, along with the other members of his criminal administration.

He did not beat us, he left this country in shambles, get a clue please!

Ammo Guy| 1.14.09 @ 2:45PM

Michael, too bad you weren't having breakfast on the top floor of the WTC on 9/11 - I would be interested to see what you selected from the day's menu: fried to a crisp or sunny side up on the sidewalk below. Send me a postcard when you've paid the price...any price...for the privilege of being born in this country.

elhombrelibre| 1.14.09 @ 2:47PM

Trotter,

Basically, I agree with you. Most of the soi disant "intellectuals" we're reading here are actually either Liberals or people who think it's smart to abort babies. So they hurl their massive grey matter at the at the poor pitiful hoi polloi. Aren't we luck?

elhombrelibre| 1.14.09 @ 2:49PM

Michael,

Thanks for sharing your trite histrionics. Do you have an original thought?

Alan Brooks| 1.14.09 @ 3:03PM

remind these peaceniks the name of the
political-faggot (the ACLU advocates free speech too) who was president when the peace 'n' love Red Army invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

frost| 1.14.09 @ 3:08PM

Baseball guy, I saw Kofax and some other pretty terrific guys pitch (I was a thrower who flunked try-outs with the Dodgers and Cubbies), but my favorites were Bob Gibson and Don Drysdale; add Preacher Roe and Hoyt Wilhelm maybe...?
But, on the other prevailing subject, the topic at hand: The border remains a wide-open joke, he didn't start pushing ANWR/offshore drilling 'til it was 'way too late; couldn't discipline his stupid GOP in "earmarks." Henry Paulson? Good Grief, what a total ass! But he was hired by that inept inhabitant of the White House. Candidly, Dubya ranks down there with Tyler, Pierce, LBJ, Grant and Buchanan for sheer ineptitude. To be fair, Bush should get a little credit for cutting taxes and appointing a few judges like Roberts and Alito; and several constitutionalist jurists to the appellate bench, but, when it came to the big enchilada, he tried to shove down our throats Harriet Meirs. She was such a lightweight that even non-attorneys could tell she was not Supreme Court material, but Bush claimed, "she is a born-again Christian and I know she will vote the right way." So very shallow it's pathetic. Dubya's other multiple failings -- Sandy Burger slipping away unscathed, un-prosecuted, and drivers licenses for Illegals? He called it “compassionate conservatism,” but others properly termed it “Liberal-Lite.”
Under Dubya, the US trade deficit more than doubled. Three million manufacturing jobs vanished, and America has begun to run a trade deficit in advanced technology goods of more than $50 billion too! Our trade deficit in advanced technology goods with China is $67 billion, eight times what it is with Japan. Talking about International stuff, bush backed the “Law-of-the-Sea Treaty” to be run by the UN; and sometimes he seemed to be helping Mexico to our detriment. Now, other stuff - - the conduct of the Iraqi War was awful; a “no-win” performance with a series of McClellans in the Pentagon (until he finally found Petraeus 3-4 years too late); the fact that we weren't attacked again after 9/11 doesn't seem to have much to do with Dubya himself; maybe it's simple luck, or the lack of cut-throat/bombing/murdering martyrs -- whatever. 'Cause, with the INS, ICE, CIA, DMV, FBI and associated other bureaucratic blahs like the take-off-your-sneakers-TSA jokers, we've just been damned fortunate, that's all. I read somewhere that Dubya deserves an 'A' for politeness, but an 'F' for cajones. I sure can't accord Dubya credit where it isn't deserved - - especially if he fails to pardon Campeon and Ramos!
Nearly as bad as Jimmy Carter? 'Fraid so.....

elhombrelibre| 1.14.09 @ 3:18PM

Frost,

You're repeating yourself to the extent that you're actually cutting and pasting remarks you've made above.

Rob Carr| 1.14.09 @ 3:37PM

If the outgoing clown is her definition of "winner", perhaps Ms Fabrizio needs to consult a dictionary. She also confuses "denial" with "determination" - both words that start with "D" but hardly synonyms.

Speaking of "D", how about Debt, Devastation, Disrespect, Disaster, and (especially) Dishonor as appropriate descriptions for this era that is so belatedly winding down?

Finally, we have been safe for the past 7+ years. Sadly, his term was for 8 years.

BTW, I'll anticipate that you all realize that the government investigation (under a GOP Congress) found no evidence of damaged keyboards (or any similar damage) when Bush came into office.

Frank Marschino| 1.14.09 @ 3:38PM

For all of those who don't know George W. Bush or have even met him, take it from those who have.....almost all of whom speak of him with respect and, at times, reverence. History will someday treat him as the great president he was, damn the leftist and biased media.

ncatty| 1.14.09 @ 3:39PM

Ammo. Being in the chain of command, especially at the top, requires leadership, which includes articulating the mission. The whole "war on terrorism" sounds like we are fighting 19th century Russian anarchists. Pres. Bush did not rally the country to our fight our enemies, the very specific Muslim fascists. And although we have not been hit at home again, neither have we caught or killed Osama. I was behind a Dodge mini-van at a drive through in North jersey after 9/11. The Mom behind the wheel was getting food to go for her young kids. She had a decal on her rear window "Kill Osama Bin Laden." Now that's articulating the mission!

Rich| 1.14.09 @ 4:24PM

Ammo Guy and Jeremiah:

Right on.

Dan| 1.14.09 @ 4:28PM

Is there a special kind of drug that this columnist took to force her eyes and brain to glaze over at the mere mention of Bush's name? A fine, decent man? It is to laugh--he is an arrogant, incompetent little pissant who vilified anyone who dissented from his skewed world view as anti-American or worse, who lied to the American public about the justification for the Iraq war, and whose Administration's zeal for deregualtion has ruined the world's greatest economy. He "liberated 50 million.."--how about the millions he displaced, the million or so he killed, the regional chaos he unleashed? His misguided revenge war against Iraq cost more lives than Osama Bin Laden did on 9/11, he left the nation with more debt than the previous 42 Presidents COMBINED, and he ruined America's standing as a beacon of human rights by authorizing torture, the suspension of habeus corpus, warrantless surveillance and a gulag at Guantanamo. His administration was the most secretive and partisan in history, his political operatives encouraged extreme partisanship and far from "protecting" us, his inattention to intelligence warnings contributed to the horror of 9/11. He leaves behind 2 unending wars, a ruined economy and a country that overwhelmingly rejected him. I don't give a damn if he's happy or at peace with himself, I'm just glad the imbecile is gone.

Michael| 1.14.09 @ 4:28PM

So I have to "pay a price" to comment about the criminal incompetence of Bush? Our entire country is doing that.

You idiots keep saluting the captain who ran your ship into a rock, keep smiling as you go down!

J.A. Davis| 1.14.09 @ 4:59PM

Very good piece Lisa. Those on the right that criticize W. are living in a parallel universe. The idea that conservatives could have done better than Bush is absurd.

PatD| 1.14.09 @ 5:11PM

GW Bush was the emptiest suit of them all.

Thom| 1.14.09 @ 6:13PM

I think many posting on this topic don’t have a clue what the actual constitutional duties and limits are for the Presidency. What most think should have happened would require an elected “king” not President having to deal with two co equal branches of government. An awful lot of people see the current President elect in that light and are going to learn the hard way that path leads to a place we really don’t want to go unless you like making large investments in bullets and a like.

A few months of non miracles being produced by our new “king” is going to sorely disappoint many who simply have no clue of how the real world works and really don’t appreciate how well we have it here compared to the rest of the world, including that Utopian European model of brotherhood. By the end of his first year in office his gross immaturity is going to be plain to see for all.

dan| 1.14.09 @ 7:35PM

The last poster begins with the premise that only a "king" could have acted differently. But wasn't it Bush who appended more than 1000 signing statements to lawful acts of Congress, arrogating to himself the right to be above those laws. Wasn't it also the Bush Administration that stonewalled every oversight request for documents with the shopworn claim of "executive privilege"? Wasn't it the Bush Administration that used the subterfuge of RNC email accounts to avoid lawful Congressional scrutiny and the archival record, and when that was questioned, conveniently lost 3,000,000 emails?? Sounds a lot like a group with contempt for the law, and for the people in whose name they claim to act. Whatever Obama may or may not be, the only ones dopey enough to see him as a Utopian Socialist are those fools who lost the election to him with their hyperbole; his supporters are far more pragmatic. We'd just like our government back, and relegate the Cheneys and Bushes of the world to the dank depths of their current popularity. We've seen an empty, immature, incompetent suit lead his party like lemmings off a cliff, and the nation into a mountain of debt and moral disgrace. We wish you a fond farewell

S.L. Toddard| 1.14.09 @ 7:46PM

Here Lisa Fabrizio demonstrates with aplomb why the Republican Party was run out of Washington on a rail, and why President Bush is the most hated president in modern American history. The infantile, pie-eyed hero-worship, the spectator-sport nationalism masquerading as patriotism, the breathtaking ignorance of America's political system and history - it's all here in this wretched piece. Read it and vomit.

President Bush indeed was a "compassionate" conservative, says Fabrizio. Never mind that he authorized the torture of innocent people, never mind the hundreds of thousands of innocents - of women and children - cruelly slain at his command... he gets misty-eyed at ballgames. He's always been "true to his word", says Fabrizio, and "that this man did precisely what the President of the United States is sworn to do". It speaks to the everlasting shame of the American educational system that they could produce a citizen (Fabrizio) so brazenly ignorant as to be unaware that what the president swore to was "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States", and that he then, in secret, *broke his oath* by ordering intelligence agencies to spy on American citizens - a felony which violates the 4th Amendment – while asserting that the president has the power to pull any person off of any street anywhere in the world (including an American citizen on American soil) and cage them for life without trial. Is it even possible to imagine a more blatant, evil and dangerous example of a man breaking his word?

This piece speaks profoundly to the pathetic, degraded state of “conservatism” nowadays. That such an inarguably ignorant (specifically of recent American history and the role of the President in a constitutional republic such as ours) writer should cobble together an arrogant and imbecilic piece of hagiography about a man who, because of his own ignorance and arrogance, sent thousands of American soldiers to their deaths *and have it published on this site* speaks both to how highly the writer and this magazine value fascistic Leader-worship and how little they value the lives of our soldiers, the state of our Liberty or the future of our Republic.

Ammo Guy| 1.14.09 @ 8:13PM

Having read TAS for close to 30 years and knowing RET personally, I find many of the comments herein to reflect the current state of political thinking in this country...which is downright poor. And, having been at the Pentagon on 9/11, and viewing the smoking debris up close, I know that leadership is more than a bumper sticker. For those of limited recall, please remember that President Bush did not lash out at Afghanistan on 9/12, rather he allowed the military to craft a plan and put the appropriate forces in place to show Osama who was the stronger horse...and that effort continues today so that you lazy posters can sit at home, watch the Super Bowl next month, and caterwaul to your heart's content. Be glad that rough men stand ready to protect you. It is only my profound respect for Mr. Tyrrell and his fine periodical that restrains me from stooping to the level of those cowards who post here of what they do not know and lashing out in a manner as crude as they deserve. Meanwhile, enjoy your new President and don't come asking for my assistance should you find yourselves in a bind down the road due to Obama's naivete. Good luck, you're gonna need it.

jrw| 1.14.09 @ 8:55PM

Oooh...big, stwong Ammo Guy isn't going to around to protect us...waah! Jesus, what a loon.

S.L. Toddard| 1.14.09 @ 8:58PM

"President Bush did not lash out at Afghanistan on 9/12, rather he allowed the military to craft a plan and put the appropriate forces in place to show Osama who was the stronger horse"

Oh yeah? How's that working out?

Alan Brooks| 1.14.09 @ 9:35PM

why wont anyone respond to criticism of Jimmuh the political queer? Carter.

he's on mt. rushmore right now.

Lila| 1.14.09 @ 9:51PM

Lisa, & Ammo Guy, couldn't agree more about Bush.
I used to be liberal, so I know where all that hate comes from. I am so glad I came over to the light, from the Dark Side. Ha.
Eight years ago, I voted for Gore, the internet inventor and man made global warming nut case. ( It is -1 where I am sitting right now, in the midwest. Buuurrrrr!!!! )
Bush kept us safe and that is my main concern, If we don't have that, we have nothing. I hope Obama is wise enough to figure that out. I, too, believe Bush is a decent man. I didn't agree with everything he did, but most. And there are many millions that believe so too, even in other countries. Obviously, Bush can take the heat, (unlike Barry who trys to shut people up and he's not even president yet. ) now that is tough.

The Bush haters just seem to scream louder an shriller. Like the people that are always out with the"Honk if you hate Bush, or hate Israel" signs, how original is that? Get a job...bubs. They all look so sour, too. Who will they hate now. Oh, I forgot.... Palin. Gotta love em tho...

and Try something a little more original than using Jesus as a curse word. Why not be a man and use Mohammed or Allah, oh too scared I bet, you might get your wittle bitty head cut off.

Beth| 1.14.09 @ 10:39PM

The lack of respect noted here between many of you toward our President and toward each other portends a sad state of affairs. I know fourth graders who can make their opinions known with more eloquence and less name-calling than I've seen from these posts. Grow up.

OPChaos Supporter| 1.14.09 @ 11:51PM

Being nice and polite is one thing, but being a human pinata for third rate creeps like Harry Reid and "Stretch" Pelosi is something else. What bothers me the most is that even after being bashed by Kennedy and the Clintons, W was still throwing movie night for the former, and expounding on the graciousness of the latter. Yes, it is polite but it is also complicit in draining the spirit of his most ardent supporters- conservatives. Good ridance, wuss. Next time act like you have a pair.

Alan Brooks| 1.15.09 @ 12:57AM

nice, what does nice mean?
smiley and toothy.

we're conservatives not gay dress designers.

marky| 1.15.09 @ 1:55AM

"So this is the message to our liberal friends in the media: you didn't beat this president, he beat you."

um...mnsbc still broadcasts everyday and we have a democratic majority. only a republican can see victory in defeat.

Michigan-Matt| 1.15.09 @ 7:43AM

marky, MSNBC is down to a 4 share of its niche market --although it might have 100% of the "idiots-parading-as-intellectuals" niche. MSNBC is set to announce layoffs of over 340 of its staff on Feb 1st. Advertising revenue for MSNBC is down 32% over the same quarter from last year.

FoxNews still leads by double digits all cable news shows. FOxNews advertising revenue is up a modest 6% over the stats for last yr's same quarter. FoxNewsTV got rid of its resident left-of-center-loon, AllieBabb Colmes because he was pulling down the primetime lineup according to focus groups.

MSNBC is going the way of AirAmerica. So is the NYTimes, WaPo, Newsweek and Ms.

About the only liberal rag still making it is the National Enquirer.

Only a liberal leftwinger can see victory in Obama's 1-term presidency.

S.L. Toddard| 1.15.09 @ 8:02AM

Note the childish, "I know you are but what am I" tone to that sentence, Marky. This is what the GOP has been reduced to - rank denial and infantile defensiveness. George Bush's presidency was an inarguable, unmitigated failure across the board, in every single aspect. He failed on 9/11 and allowed the most devastating attack on American soil in history. He failed to catch Osama bin Laden. He failed in Afghanistan, and continues to do so. He failed analyzing the intelligence on Iraq, and failed to find WMD. He failed as a conservative. He failed to reduce federal spending. He failed to reduce the size of the federal government. He failed to protect American prosperity - for six of the eight years he was in office he had a republican house and senate, and he and they FAILED to correct the fannie may and freddie mac/subprime systems as they were and in failing destroyed the American economy. Whatever programs Barney Frank and the democrats put into place in the 90's and before, Bush had six straight years and unlimited power to fix them and FAILED and so bears the responsibility. He failed to uphold America's standing in the world. And worst of all, he failed as a man and betrayed his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States".

To “Ammo Guy”: not all Americans are thankful to trade their liberties for supposed extra security. Not all Americans wail and cower under their covers at night, paralyzed with paranoid terror, scrambling to barter their birthright - the ancient freedoms bequeathed to them by the Founders, the liberties and protections enshrined in the Constitution, that were ALL that once made America great – for something as comparatively paltry as a small measure of safety. Many Americans know a free society is not always a perfectly safe one. Many Americans are not simpering weaklings in need of Daddy State "rough men" to tuck them in at night. There are many Americans, even now, who value their Liberties over their lives, and who call the eagerness of some to trade the former for the latter *cowardice*, unmanly, and un-American. Patrick Henry cried “Give me Liberty or give me Death”, not “Give me safety, Rough Man, and you can strip me of my liberties and I will thank you.” Some of us still share Patrick Henry’s priorities.

Some of us are still American.

S.L. Toddard| 1.15.09 @ 8:05AM

"Only a liberal leftwinger can see victory in Obama's 1-term presidency."

Right. Only a liberal leftwinger can see victory in a victorious presidential campaign that ended in victory for the victor. It's so weird that they see victory there in that victory.

S.L. Toddard| 1.15.09 @ 8:14AM

"What bothers me the most is that even after being bashed by Kennedy and the Clintons, W was still throwing movie night for the former, and expounding on the graciousness of the latter."

This is because the democrats - weak, cowardly snakes to a man - either allowed or actively supported every single significant policy President Bush enacted, no matter how stupid, dangerous, illegal, and un-American. The democratic party never made a substantial stand against Bush, and never hampered any of his most dangerous efforts - see the runup to the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the Protect America Act, the FISA betrayal, torture - the democrats were briefed on all of it and supported all of it either actively or by not fighting back. They were his partners in crime - literally. Why would he not be appreciative?

Ammo Guy| 1.15.09 @ 8:47AM

Dear jrw, S.L. Toddard, et al - be thankful for what you don't know, be blissful in your ignorance, and ungrateful in your good fortune to be an American. Your childish postings are not worthy of this website, magazine and subscribers. Your words are not the least bit persuasive and only harden the sentiments of your fellow Americans who might have a more conservative approach to this cruel world than you do. That being said, while I might wish that our new President fail in some of his domestic initiatives, I cannot in good conscience wish that he fail to protect the homeland and its citizens...and I gave President Clinton the same respect though I profoundly disagreed with many of his policies and approaches to national defense (to include freezing my ass off in Bosnia over Christmas 1995 while, unbeknownst to me, he was mentoring an intern...but I digress). President Obama will be my new CINC and, like Clinton before him, he will likely be surprised to see how readily the military will carry out his lawful orders - I just hope that he appreciates the sacrifices of those who serve and never takes them for granted. In closing (and for S.L. Toddard's sake), a wiser man than me once wrote that "the choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." That dilemma is a daily concern of those tasked to protect us...I'm sure Patrick Henry would agree.

S.L. Toddard| 1.15.09 @ 9:10AM

"the choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either"

Indeed - anarchy is lawlessness. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. When a president claims the power to violate the Constitution, when the president claims he is unbound by the laws therein, what we have is lawlessness. That is precisely the problem.

Also, the false choice between security and lawfulness is bandied about constantly by those who would subvert the law, and I reject it utterly. We have faced far greater threats than the ones we face now, and were able to overcome them while maintaining, for the most part, the Rule of Law. In short, if someone finds they cannot go about the business of protecting American security without violating the supreme law of the land they should *stand aside* and let better men do it for them.

There is no Liberty without Law. The supreme directive of the President of the United States is to protect and defend the Liberties of the people of the United States, and as they are bound inextricably with the law, to violate the latter is to destroy the former. Violating the Constitution constitutes a literal dereliction of duty (not to mention a crime) on the part of those charged with protecting and defending it.

Ammo Guy| 1.15.09 @ 9:36AM

Well then, run for president, win, and tell me what it looks like from the Oval Office...and, while you're at it, why don't you suspend habeas corpus or round up American citizens so you can send them to virtual concentration camps? If you've never had an intelligence briefing presented to you on a daily basis, it just looks so damn easy and so clear cut doesn't it? Personally, I feel the way Teddy did: "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." George Bush got in the arena, ran for President, won and took the job more seriously than did his predecessor. When he departs next week, I guarantee he will not exclaim that “I may not have been the greatest president, but I've had the most fun eight years.” It's a tough job and I appreciate the efforts of President Bush; I know I could not have done any better, though many others too scared to run think they could have...and for that, they have my disdain.

S.L. Toddard| 1.15.09 @ 9:59AM

"why don't you suspend habeas corpus or round up American citizens so you can send them to virtual concentration camps?"

Maybe you didn't get the gist of where I'm coming from here, but I am AGAINST the Bush policies you reference here, not FOR them. And the implication of what you've written here - that any President, by virtue of having won the office, is beyond criticism and above the law and should therefore never be scrutinized but only revered and worshiped - is offensively un-American. You seem to be under the impression that America is an absolute monarchy (an impression that is, incidentally, understandable, as that's how GWB treated his office) where the Leader is above criticism and worthy of nothing less than rapturous worship and deference. I'm sorry, sir, but that is not the nature of the country Bush was elected to lead. As an American yourself it suprises me that you are unaware that "so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king". And when a president violates that law, violates our liberties and breaks his oath of office then reverence is the *last* thing that is called for by a vigorous and still-free people.

Bush has earned, many times over, the scorn of his people and the vilification of History.

Ammo Guy| 1.15.09 @ 10:08AM

Oh, I very well get the gist of where you're coming from. My point is simply that you don't know what the President knows and he can't defend himself without exposing sensitive sources, methods and information. So, if you want to live in fear of our government because you think it is out of control, that is your privilege. And, I'm sure if you had been on Flight 93 you would've been more concerned about violating the rights of those in control of the plane than rolling with the rest of those who decided to defend themselves. I can only hope that your insouciance towards those who wish us harm does not take me with you next time they strike us.

elhombrelibre| 1.15.09 @ 10:38AM

S.L. Toddard ,

You sound like the type of person who opposed Lincoln during the Civil War. Luckily, we'll never elect you and Obama, if he wishes to succeed, will pay only lip service to your worries.

Bill C.| 1.15.09 @ 11:46AM

What ever you think of George W. Bush, his wife Laura has been one of the best first ladies ever. She graced the white house with her dignity, elegance and charm, she'll be a tough act to follow, IMHO.

S.L. Toddard| 1.15.09 @ 12:05PM

"Oh, I very well get the gist of where you're coming from. My point is simply that you don't know what the President knows and he can't defend himself without exposing sensitive sources, methods and information"

Right, and therefore any criticism of any American president is uncalled-for, and therefore all political dissent is illegitimate. Again, this is an open and free Republic we are trying to have, not the Stalinist autocracy of your fantasies.

Ammo Guy| 1.15.09 @ 12:16PM

And when did I ever say that informed, intelligent criticism of any president was uncalled for? Unfortunately, yours does not rise to that level and is unworthy of inclusion on the website of a distinguished, ground-breaking conservative publication. Please take your puerile comments elsewhere to some audience who can better appreciate your brilliance.

S.L. Toddard| 1.15.09 @ 12:26PM

I'm sorry, Ammo Guy, but because I entertain the lower sorts with conversation does not mean I take orders from them.

And how could criticism of a president be justified when "you don't know what the President knows and he can't defend himself without exposing sensitive sources, methods and information"? That was your very own attempt at "reasoning" just moments ago Or have you finally realized the fault in it?

Ammo Guy| 1.15.09 @ 12:39PM

The certainty of your criticism is based upon your ignorance, my defense merely acknowledges my lack of a need to know and my willingness to give a President the benefit of the doubt when it comes to national security...a distinction with a difference that I don't expect you to be able to understand. Go ahead and live in your own little world for all I care - you'll not persuade anyone here.

Bob| 1.15.09 @ 1:03PM

Michigan Matt, as usual, rather than dealing with truth, you deal with selected statistics that can prove anything. Here are the facts:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6624123.html?desc=topstory

Fox News gets more viewership, just like talk radio, primarily because of social conservatives who will not listen to opposing positions and do their homework. The genius of Rush and Fox, is that they have a monopoly on this 18% of the population who believe rather than reason. Their audience is narrower, but they watch/listen far more often. These are not places you go for factual discussions. Rush and Hannity embody the anti-intellectual, I didn't go to college, I never studied economics, rank and file social conservative voter. If these people valued education and the study of history, they would not listen to these dweebs.

On the other side, you certainly have Matthews who is a gut feeling liberal and Maddow who is a smart, but inexperienced ideologue. Olberman leans left but utilizes a more factual approach. He neglects, however, to speak of the facts on the other side of his arguments.

Let's face it, there is no objectivity in cable news either on the right or the left. CNN does try to find the middle and sometimes succeeds. What I lament is that an informed public provides a better democracy. If you read the boards here, or over at Huff Post, you find scant evidence of an informed public.

Bill Clinton| 1.15.09 @ 1:10PM

Does anyone have Monica's phone #--I gotta get this blue dress back to her

W.| 1.15.09 @ 1:46PM

Is it too late to declare martial law?

Let me set an appointment with Mr. Cheney so I can ask him.

S.L. Toddard | 1.15.09 @ 2:04PM

"The certainty of your criticism is based upon your ignorance, my defense merely acknowledges my lack of a need to know"

Indeed. The "lack of a need to know", otherwise called "willfull ignorance", is a calling card of the establishment-worshipping neocon sycophant. Much like Ms Fabrizio, your posts demonstrate a rather alarming ignorance with regards to the lawful role of the president in our republic as well as the very nature of the republic itself. We are an open and free society, “Ammo Guy”, one in which the motives and policies of the President are in general supposed to be known by the public *whom he serves*. We do not witness members of the elite political class – much less the President – break laws in secret and then give them the “benefit of the doubt”, and assume that the lawbreakers have our best interests at heart. In America all men live under the Rule of Law, and that includes – especially – our political leaders. We Americans believe power corrupts, and so we have placed checks on that power in the Constitution – these checks are otherwise known as “laws”, which George W Bush broke.

Again, we are still a nation of laws. America is still a Republic. You, Ammo Guy, have no love for the American way of life and that is fine. It’s not illegal to despise America or the Republic our Founders bequeathed to us. But it is ignorant to be unaware of how that Republic is to function, it is un-American to urge others to unquestioningly worship a president as though he were an Emperor, and it is unpatriotic to blindly support those who break its laws and erode our liberties.

Ammo Guy| 1.15.09 @ 2:19PM

Having spent 35 years working within the government you so denigrate and privy to many of the secrets that you so fear, I can tell you with certainty that you are delusional. Accordingly, you can go your way and I'll go mine...though I'd advise loosening up the tin foil hat you wear because it's restricting the blood flow to your noggin - if George W. Bush was as evil and corrupt as you aver, he wouldn't be leaving the Oval Office next week to someone who could prosecute him for the crimes you're so sure have been committed...but you're probably still worried about a last minute coup from Dick Cheney, aren't you? I hope it's not dusty under your bed.

W.| 1.15.09 @ 2:27PM

For the past eight years, we have worked hard, sometimes even on weekends, to shape the Homeland into the image of 1930's Germany. And, for the most part, we have succeeded.

We have honored the memory of President Nixon by letting Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld do whatever they wanted. Some say this and my indifference have destroyed the Republican Party. We prefer to think of it as only a flesh wound that my brother Jeb will be able to heal by being the next President in 2012. There is no way anyone can fix what we have done to this country in four years. Who said we never had a plan?

elhombrelibre| 1.15.09 @ 2:36PM

You seem to think that patriotism is irrational hatred of your elected officials simply because you disagree with how they protect you. That’s clever.

S.L. Toddard| 1.15.09 @ 2:45PM

"Having spent 35 years working within the government you so denigrate and privy to many of the secrets that you so fear, I can tell you with certainty that you are delusional."

Of course you can tell me that. A child could tell me that. But what you cannot do is *demonstrate* it, because I've said nothing refutable that could be described as "delusional" by a moderately well-informed American. Are you unaware that the President is bound by the limits set in the Constitution? Do you deny that the warrantless spying program was illegal at the time it was implemented? Not only have you utterly failed to refute anything I've said, you haven't even referenced anything I've said when making your infantile dismissals. As far as I can tell, you only disagree with me so far as you believe American presidents are above criticism and beyond the reach of the law.

And as for your contention that the fact that Bush is leaving office at all is evidence of his being incorruptible - honestly I can't believe even you would need an adult to point out the holes in that bizzaro claim.

S.L. Toddard| 1.15.09 @ 2:49PM

"You seem to think that patriotism is irrational hatred of your elected officials simply because you disagree with how they protect you. That’s clever "

Well, I wish I could take credit for that bit of cleverness but it's not what I think at all. I stand against men who do violence to the Constitution. I stand against men who carelessly send our soldiers to their deaths. I stand against men who would replace our Republic with a dictatorship. I stand against men who do not value what is great about America, and who would squander our heritage and our freedoms.

That is all.

W.| 1.15.09 @ 2:55PM

Now, now, Ammo, el, and S.L., your quarreling and mistakes disappoint me.

Why can't we all be friends and resolve this in a compassionate conservative bipartisan manner?

Okay, I'll do it: Medals of Freedom for Ammo and el, No-Fly List for S.L.

elhombrelibre| 1.15.09 @ 3:03PM

So, S.L. Toddard, tell us. What did you do in the war against the Bush dictatorship? What wounds did you suffer in this delusion of yours?

S.L. Toddard | 1.15.09 @ 3:06PM

"So, S.L. Toddard, tell us. What did you do in the war against the Bush dictatorship? What wounds did you suffer in this delusion of yours?"

Huh? I think you meant to address this to someone else. I have no idea what you're talking about. War against the Bush dictatorship?

elhombrelibre@hotmail.com| 1.15.09 @ 3:08PM

W.,

Thank you for the MOF. Please give poor ole S.L. Toddard a Purple Heart for his wounds suffered in his War Against Bush. In this melodrama, he exceeded all possible histrionics and self-praise. His bravery is truly risible.

Ammo Guy| 1.15.09 @ 3:09PM

Surprise...I absolutely do deny that the warrantless spying program was illegal at the time it was implemented. I know you would have preferred a series of murderous follow-on attacks while your fellow swells indulged in cocktail party chatter and clucked about how inconvenient and bothersome all this defense nastiness was, but fortunately for you other adults take their responsibilities seriously...and you live to whine another day. Enjoy your good fortune and let's review the Obama record another day on another thread.

elhombrelibre| 1.15.09 @ 3:10PM

Oh, that wasn't you who implied Bush set up a dictatorship, right?

S.L. Toddard | 1.15.09 @ 3:25PM

"Surprise...I absolutely do deny that the warrantless spying program was illegal at the time it was implemented."

It's no more possible to deny the illegality of the warrantless spying program than it is to deny the existence of the moon. That the warrantless spying program was illegal is literally beyond dispute. That it explicitly violated FISA is crystal clear. Its illegality is also demonstrated by the fact that the telecoms were retroactively *immunized* from prosecution for their part in it these felonies. One is not *immunized from prosecution* for acts that are legal, as one cannot be prosecuted for them. Do you not understand that?

S.L. Toddard| 1.15.09 @ 3:28PM

"Oh, that wasn't you who implied Bush set up a dictatorship, right?"

Correct - I never implied Bush "set up" a dictatorship.

Ammo Guy| 1.15.09 @ 3:41PM

What I understand is that you are more interested in legal niceties than the lives of your fellow Americans in an emergency. I bet that that if you had been on the top floor of the WTC on 9/11, your last words before you took the leap would have been: "I'm so pleased that they didn't crack open Moussaui's computer and violate his right to privacy." I'm just glad you didn't land on me; and I'm also glad you are not responsible for protecting your country.

W. Jasper| 1.15.09 @ 3:54PM

This President and his cohorts considered Americans who disagreed with their war policies to be un-American--be they Republicans or Democrats. How "gracious" could such a man be. Now that his war policies are shown to have failed, he hasn't the grace to admit any failures. He touts the "surge" as a success, but refuses to admit that it became necessary as a result of failure. As a result, more young men and women volunteers died. He hasn't the grace to accept responsibility for any of his failures. Responsibility belongs to the "intelligence community" for whom he is apparently not responsible. Gracious? You've got to be kidding me! True, he is not beaten. He has beaten us.

S.L. Toddard| 1.15.09 @ 3:56PM

"What I understand is that you are more interested in legal niceties than the lives of your fellow Americans in an emergency."

Right. The Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land, is nothing more than a "legal nicety". Why is it, I wonder, that we make our presidents swear an oath to protect and defend such a quaint, useless relic?

And note how Ammo Guy is still exploiting 9/11 to drum up fear. It's repugnant and shameful and, frankly, you should be embarrassed. I've said it before in this thread but it's apparent you need to be reminded again: not all Americans are cowards, Ammo Guy. Not all Americans are frightened children eager to trade their liberties for something as temporary and paltry as temporary safety.

In short, we are not all like you.

Ammo Guy| 1.15.09 @ 3:57PM

And for that, I am thankful.

ruth| 1.15.09 @ 5:36PM

Mr. Ammo Guy, has anyone ever warned you that if you wrestle with a skunk you could end up smelling like one? Well, SL Toddard is a particularly nasty smelling skunk, sir. Keep your distance.

Frosty| 1.15.09 @ 5:40PM

People like SLT talk big when times are good, but I bet he was wetting himself mightily on 9/11. Let's just see how the mighty O protects this nation. God help us, because we are certainly going to need it.

ruth| 1.15.09 @ 5:42PM

I'm thankful for men like you, Ammo Guy.

rybren| 1.15.09 @ 6:04PM

Bush reminds us of Machiavelli's timeless aphorism, "Is it better the Prince be loved or feared?" History demonstrates the answer. Bush a soft, shallow and sentimental man was little more than an amalgam of humanitarian impulses. His inept and ineffective tenure is testament to electing someone who is all sail and no anchor.

Ted| 1.15.09 @ 6:26PM

The current SCOTUS threshold for a MUST STAY of BHO’s inauguration is not whether he is ultimately determined constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, merely whether there now is SERIOUS QUESTION on his constitutional eligibility, since any determination of inelligibility AFTER inauguration would pose unnecessary civil and military difficulties.

Ammo Guy| 1.15.09 @ 6:39PM

Thanks Ruth for the kind words, but I'm not the guy at the tip of the spear...I just try to make their job easier by making sure that what they use is lethal and reliable. I'll pass on your gratitude to those who really make a difference.

ruth| 1.15.09 @ 6:54PM

You may not be the guy at the tip of the spear, sir, but you are still part of that spear. Once again, I humbly thank you for your part in the President's steadfast and hugely successful(!) efforts against terroism.

Paul Habib| 1.16.09 @ 2:01AM

He played the fear card many times. He was successful. He raided our public treasury and gave the money to the rich. He was successful. He wanted to prove that our peoples' government was inept and with Katrina he proved his point. He was successful. He wanted to prove to his father that he was a better man. Now he has Sadam's pistol. He was successful. If only he could have privatized social security and rid our nation of any semblance of socialism he would have been the greatest president ever!

Kat| 1.16.09 @ 5:48AM

He has protected us since the horror of 9/11, let's hope Obama can do the same. It will take more than an empty suit to do this job.

Michael L. Hauschild| 1.16.09 @ 7:45AM

Gail Collins is crowing on the bleached pages (made from endangered forests) of the Gray Lady about the “prolonged goodbye” of forty-three. Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but Presidents have all said their farewells on a regularly scheduled time frame, POTUS is a “life cycle” and the “species” will continue to evolve. The MSM, her venue, is the one facing the boundary layer of a K – T event.

elhombrelibre| 1.16.09 @ 11:32AM

I thought of you today, especially your sordid and sophomoric attempts to besmirch the president's efforts to keep us safe, when I read the article at the link below. WE were lucky not to have your misguided ideas on the constitution interfering with the president as he waskeeping us safe. We can survive your ignorant carping and kvetching that characterizes your phony concerns. But Bush was right on the wiretaps. Read the link if you're able.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206822799888351.html

S.L. Toddard| 1.16.09 @ 12:56PM

Have you read the decision? That WSJ piece is misleading, to put it mildly. Nothing Bush did was “vindicated” because nothing Bush did was *addressed* - I mean that literally. That ruling had literally nothing whatsoever to do with whether Bush acted illegally when he ordered warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens from ‘01 to ‘06, the time during which *warrantless eavesdropping was a felony under FISA*. The court, in this instance, was addressing a completely different question: whether the eavesdropping *Congress authorized* in the 2007 PAA was prohibited by the 4th Amendment – it did NOT address whether the President had the authority to eavesdrop on American citizens *in clear violation of a Congressional statute*.

Why would I have to explain this? It’s like having a debate with nursery school students. Stupid ones.

Ammo Guy| 1.16.09 @ 1:15PM

Y'know, you argue with the passion and certainty of callow youth...what are you, a second year law student at some Ivy League school who just finished a semester on constitutional law and now you're an expert?

S.L. Toddard| 1.16.09 @ 1:32PM

Armchair-warrior "Ammo Guy", internet-hero, keyboard-killer with the uber-tough username but no time for "legal niceties" or in-depth analysis: despite being a bureaucrat of 35 years our armchair-warrior friend has neither the education nor the breeding to formulate a coherent, logical argument. If you had, "Ammo Guy", and had used it to counter anything assertion I've made - for instance, if you had the wherewithal to counter the analysis of the decision above - you would have earned enough capital to toss off hamfisted insults like this one here without appearing so... ridiculous. You have been an adult for 35 years - why the ineptitude? Don't you feel that it is incumbent upon you to better yourself? You have been embarrassingly outgunned intellectually by someone you believe to be a college student (I'm not) - doesn't that tell you something? Doesn't it make you want to better yourself, to study - perhaps to re-enroll at university - in order to be able to, at least to a small degree, defend your own ideas, at least to yourself? If I’d been left with my arguments stripped bare, my postitons eviscerated, utterly incapable of constructing anything more substantial than juvenile insults – really “Ammo Guy”, you owe yourself better than this. Have some self respect for the love of Pete, and stop embarrasing yourself.

Ammo Guy| 1.16.09 @ 1:41PM

Hey, do me a favor and send me a ticket the next time (which, in your case, I'm sure would be the first time...but I digress) you are forced to defend yourself with more than words because I'd like to watch that spectacle. Heck, I might even root for you...but, of course, that would depend upon who your opponent was. A word of advice, as my old buddy Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus used to tell me: "Si vis pacem para bellum"

S.L. Toddard| 1.16.09 @ 1:45PM

"A word of advice, as my old buddy Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus used to tell me: "Si vis pacem para bellum""

Hey you might be old but you're not THAT old. I reject your assertion that you knew that man!

Scratch another one in my won column. Vae victis!

elhombrelibre| 1.16.09 @ 1:49PM

WE put the comma inside the quotation marks in American punctuation, Herr Einstein. You, for the love of Pete (whom I'm sure you do love) should have some self-respect and stop embarrassing yourself. Talking to you is like talking to a schoolgirl. Why don't you just go have a good cry.

Ammo Guy| 1.16.09 @ 1:57PM

When they issued me a social security number, it was in roman numerals...but I digress. If you call that victory, then I need to introduce you to another old buddy of mine - Pyrrhus.

ruth| 1.16.09 @ 3:24PM

I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me, but I do object when they are snide, arrogant and nasty. Trust me, gentlemen, discourse with SLT is always uncivil. Anger management may be in order for this cretin.

elhombrelibre| 1.17.09 @ 2:23AM

Ruth,

Isn't it ironic, too, that SLT, fancies himself as a braniac and, hence, an authority on President Bush? But like most self-described "intellectuals" he finds it difficult to be decent. I’m remind of the real intellectuals in Paul Johnson’s book INTELLECTUALS. There is something about these types of modern soi disant eggheads that we’ve educated over the last 50 years. Simple human decency, polite discussion, respect for different opinions, genuine enquiry are all traits lacking. It’s no wonder they despise GWB. He is so much their opposite.

ruth| 1.17.09 @ 5:10AM

Dismiss the vicious troll; SLT is a hater. A person devoid of goodness could never recognize it in another.

ruth| 1.17.09 @ 5:13AM

SLT and others of his/her ilk may be smart but they have no heart. I truly pity this brittle person.

Tcaros| 1.17.09 @ 9:45PM

It's ridiculous to say "he was raised right."

Bush is an elitist and doesn't care about anyone, but his familial associations and rich friends.

He used the religious right like a towel. How could anyone condone killing innocent people, using torture, violating our laws?

This column is written by a dupe.

Kat| 1.17.09 @ 11:54PM

More unthinking drivel from the left. Will they ever stop spewing their hate? Morons.

Michele San Pietro| 1.18.09 @ 5:54PM

As an ardent Republican, I think Bush was neither fish, flesh, nor fowl. He certainly wasn't disastrous as some incredibly biased "liberals" say, but he wasn't particularly good, either. He made a lot of mistakes and could have done more. Ronald Reagan was much better, under him there would have never been such thing as 9/11.

BobWhite| 1.18.09 @ 10:20PM

Michele, as an lifelong republican, I can tell you that Ronnie was a gutless, spineless wonder who should have never left repose on the casting couch. He acted the part of President; Bush 41 and 43 were Presidents.

Ronnie acted the part of a war hero; Bush 41 was one.

Ronnie acted the part of an athlete; Bush 41 was one.

Ronnie acted the part of a man who held family values amid divorce, sons estranged, faggots galore; Bush 41 and 43 actually were family men with family values.

Let's remember that all the mistakes of either Bush 41 or 43 don't even come close to Ronnie's supreme mistake of fighting the incumbent GOP President to an extent that led the way to a victory for Jimmy Carter.

For that mistake, Ronnie should have his name and image struck from all reference in the annals of history.

Ronnie --at his best-- was just play acting. He was never a leader of merit.

ruth| 1.18.09 @ 11:19PM

BW, you're heading against the winds of history, windbag. How many Evil Empires did you vanquish? Loser.

Kat| 1.18.09 @ 11:24PM

My biggest Reagan disappointment was his acceptance of George Bush as his vice president. The two Bush men are good guys but together they have absolutely destroyed the Republican Party. We could have done better.

ruth| 1.18.09 @ 11:32PM

You're an idiot, BW, George W. Bush is big time responsible for the election of the clown Obama. And not just for the election of a Marxist but for the destruction of our Capitalist system, too. Shut up and go away, it's too soon for you Bush idiots to try and rewrite history, especially at the expense of Ronald Reagan. UGH!

Kat| 1.18.09 @ 11:41PM

HA ha, Bob White is a liberal troll--probably Interloper.

ruth| 1.19.09 @ 12:14AM

Or that other liberal weasel, SLT.

THE TURD HAS GONE| 1.19.09 @ 11:06AM

The best thing for BUSH now is go back to his skull and bones camp, get back in the coffin, and have his friends have a Wa.k on him and nial the coffin shut, and then set it alight.

Frosty| 1.19.09 @ 12:08PM

Unfortunately, the real crapper is taking office tomorrow. Hold your noses!

Michele San Pietro| 1.20.09 @ 3:37PM

I am sorry, dear Bob, but I totally disagree with you. And I am afraid you are going a little bit astray: you said that Reagan "should have never run against an incumbent President" (then why just don't make a President who stays in office eight years?) and that this "represented a victory for Jimmy Carter". How come then he defeated Carter by landslide, winning in 43 out of 50 states? I doubt you are actually a lifelong Republican, not an American Republican at least.

NBD | 1.23.09 @ 8:51PM

I am appalled at the way those at the Innaugaration treated our former President. Screaming wildly for the likes of Clinton and hardly applauding at all when the President who has kept us from being attached again since 911 entered the area. I don't see how he was able to even shake the hand of the "O"; he was so disrespectful to him. I can only hope and pray that the next few years won't find our country falling into a sea of socialism.

Michele San Pietro| 1.25.09 @ 5:26PM

Be quiet, such a thing will never happen. Clinton tried to introduce a lot of State into the American economy soon after he was elected, but the overwhelming majority of the American people didn't like that, and the Democrats, at the mid-term elections of 1994, were soundly defeated.

Pingback| 1.27.09 @ 9:07PM

Pro Information Center » Blog Archive » Contrarian looks in the rear-view links to this page.

BUSH BETTER THAN MUSLIM OBAMA| 1.31.09 @ 11:06PM

To all Bush haters you can jump all in the lake. The man kept us safe for 7+ years and also took our national security seriously ulike the idiot we have now BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA who thinks giving our money for overseas countries so women can have abortions is much important then our national security!!!

Bush was a liberal| 2.1.09 @ 11:20AM

"BUSH BETTER THAN MUSLIM OBAMA"

Yes, he probably was better than Obama will be. However, he didn't keep us "safe". Just ask the victims of his illegal alien friends. Just ask the taxpayer....

Bush defenders are deluded and pathetic. Bush not only did nothing about the source of this latest Jihad - Saudi Arabia - he worked to encourage immigration from their to here. He SUPPORTED Al Qaeda in Kosovo and Chechnya! He FUNDED Muslim terrorists in Gaza!

Simply deluded.

John Crippen| 2.8.09 @ 8:28PM

The Legacy of George W Bush: (A Collection of Conflicting Opinions)

Editorial Reviews
Product Description
Can a man's legacy be drawn from an eight year period in time? What kind of a footprint has GWB left on the American people, or the world for that matter? Has he served his country well by protecting us from terrorism, or has a alienated America from the rest of the world. Has he acted as a Christian in his role as President of the United States, or has he misused the Bible as a means of procuring votes and evoking war? Was the rebuilding of Iraq set in motion years before the Twin Towers tragedy, or was this a rapid decision based on an emergent circumstance? I have tried to keep this debate as original as possible. That includes errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. I have also tried to collect them in a somewhat chronological method in order to keep a level playing field. I have simply collected publicly posted comments of others from open sources. Available at Amazon.

Pingback| 6.13.09 @ 9:13AM

From the American Spectator, 1.14.09 « Spokeelement's Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

From the American Spectator, 1.14.09 « Spokeelement's Blog Spokeelement's Blog The Links Link From the American Spectator, 1.14.09 leave a comment » George W. Bush, Winner By Lisa Fabrizio Friends, Americans, conservatives; lend me your ears. I come to praise George W. Bush, not to bury him; I’ll leave that to our famously unbiased media. Now that the eight…

Pingback| 7.10.09 @ 4:55PM

Obama ‘Sir Change-a-Lot’ in shining armor has risen! | Grizzly Groundswell links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…In: Uncategorized Finally, Obama ‘Sir Change-a-Lot’ in shining armor has risen. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition because the American public grew to hate George W. spectator.org/archives/2009/01/14/george-w-bush-winner They blamed global warming on George W. The farmers blamed their bad crops on George W., women blamed George W. when their husbands ran for Viagra, black people (oh, excuse me - I…

Pingback| 7.10.09 @ 4:57PM

Obama ‘Sir Change-a-Lot’ in shining armor has risen! | Socialist Squirrel links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

dropshippngwatch| 8.30.09 @ 10:48AM

Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Replica Watches Trade
Replica Watches
Replica Watch
Fake Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Rolex Watches
Replica A.Lange&Sohne; Watches
Replica Alain Silberstein Watches
Replica Audemars Piguet Watches
Replica B.R.M Watches
Replica Baume & Mercier Watches
Replica Bell&Ross; Watches
Replica BMW Watches
Replica Breguet Watches
Replica Breitling Watches
Replica Burberry Watches

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 12:23AM

Very good article written byWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
ah