-
Reopened for Business
April 26, 2013 | 95 comments
-
Bush and Boston
April 24, 2013 | 102 comments
-
Dubya’s Reemergence
April 18, 2013 | 67 comments
-
Lead Us Not Into Temptation
March 21, 2013 | 69 comments
-
The Mean Old Gray Lady
March 31, 2012 | 3 comments
Special Report
Center of Attention
Greetings from the George W. Bush Presidential Center.
DALLAS — To call the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Center this week a post-Nov. 2 “Take That, Barack!” moment wouldn’t be, well, let’s see… certainly not 100 percent accurate. Fifty percent? Sixty? Something in that range maybe.
Which isn’t a reference to the 43rd president’s intentions in summoning friends and supporters from far and near to mark the breaking of ground on the 23-acre project scheduled to open in the spring of 2013 on the eastern side of Southern Methodist University’s campus.
The center’s namesake — whose best-selling memoir bears the title “Decision Points” — noted the pile of decisions that lie on the 44th president’s desk. “He deserves to make them,” said George W. Bush, “without criticism from me.”
But then there was Dick Cheney. The former vice president, wielding a cane and looking gaunter and older than when he turned his official house over to Joe Biden, received a fusillade of cheers. The Bush center, said Cheney, “may be the only [nudge, nudge] shovel-ready project in America.” More cheers. Hearty applause.
Then the sly tribute to his former boss — a man “unimpressed with himself.” Noted for his “refusal to put on airs.” “No affectation about him at all.” A “decent, good-hearted, stand-up guy.” In contrast with…? Dick Cheney wasn’t telling. He said he knew this much: The boss’s belief that history would be his best judge was taking on reality. “The history is beginning to come around.” He proudly recalled the bullhorn incident — Bush’s most spontaneous and best appreciated moment as national leader, when he got the world’s attention at Ground Zero with his call to rally round freedom.
The boss — who records in his memoir that Cheney offered to stand down as vice president in 2004 — responded with a rhetorical bear hug — “a great vice president of the United States, and I’m proud to call him friend.”
Condi Rice — in red dress that matched the former First Lady’s own — likewise set off whooshes of cheers and applause. She’s chairman of the board of the George W. Bush Institute — a discrete department of the larger Bush Center. Its project is to come up with and advance democratic and market-based ideas for coping with an array of problems around the world, including, in the Center’s own narrative, “human freedom, education reform, global health, and economic growth.”
The Bush Center, it has to be noted, isn’t just a library, though it will house 80 terabytes of digital information and 43,000 administration artifacts. The Bush Institute is meant as an idea factory — which could be good news or bad news, depending on one’s perception of the ideas hatched at the White House from 2001-09. Among these was, yes, greater centralization of education funding and academic standard-setting. Why does “No Child Left Behind” come so suddenly to mind?
Less exposure to blame and, certainly, frustration derives from the Institute’s emphasis on freedom. The Institute, its namesake related, “believes you can spend your money better than the United States government can spend it.” He got no arguments from the 3,000 spectators gathered beneath a mega tent under the tight security conditions sure to obtain at the Bush Center once it gets under way. No. 43 and the former First Lady live only a few miles to the north. They appear to plan a hands-on relationship with the center, which is headed by longtime conservative journalist James Glassman.
Called on by her husband to impart her own vision for the Institute, Laura Bush discoursed on the “women’s initiative” she wants to launch — “fostering economic opportunity and promoting freedom” for women, with emphases on literacy and health.
What distinguishes the Bushes’ present enterprises from those they oversaw until two years ago? Chiefly a lack of taxpayer money to fund them, and no need for political trimming and compromise in moving ahead. Is there a family resemblance here to the Clinton Global Initiative, founded by the 42nd president in 2005? Quite a significant resemblance, actually: one major difference being the Bushes’ deployment of freedom both as tool and objective and the CGI’s seeming focus on good works (good as they might be) for their own sake.
Bush’s efforts to spread democracy were much mocked during his presidency, sometimes by conservatives: the more so when the war in Iraq started to go south and imprecations upon American “imperialism” began breaking out across the political spectrum.
Another side of 43’s commitment to freedom showed up in the flesh at the groundbreaking ceremony in Dallas — former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. For all the attempts of the left in the United States to blackguard Uribe, foe of his country’s leftwing guerrillas, and perforce to block ratification of the U. S.-Colombian free trade agreement, Bush stuck by his South American amigo. Not the least interest to date has President Obama shown in getting the treaty ratified.
For all that Bush 43 left office with excoriations ringing in both ears, the right one and the left, the grass his administration planted and tended looks significantly greener when viewed from the perspective of November 2010 — ObamaCare, financial regulation, oil-drilling moratoriums, bailouts, sweet talk with foreign jerks, gag, urp.
A friendly audience in Dallas could have been expected, on such an occasion as the ground-breaking, to applaud in friendly fashion. The Republican/conservative wave on Nov. 2 created just the right momentum to whoop it up, shout a little, celebrate, paint the town red. And so, on a mild, sunny November morning in Dallas, it came to pass.
About the Author
William Murchison, a Dallas-based columnist for Creators Syndicate and author of Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity (Encounter Books), is completing a biography of John Dickinson..
Letter to the Editor View all comments (144) | Leave a comment
More Articles by William Murchison
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/17/center-of-attention
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 7:10AM
The Failed Obama, " Can I Still Try To Blame Buuuusssshhhh In 2012?"
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 8:51AM
I read Decision Points- it should be chopped up and used as kitty litter. If he used a ghostwriter, you couldn't tell.
A caption to a photo of the First Lady and he read
"Marrying Laura was the best decision I ever made."
As if she were a business merger.
Thompson was correct: Reagan was the last great American.
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 9:09AM
Gee, not you Alan? Why your modesty is truly impressive.
If you're going to critique anyone else's quality of writing, you might not employ such atrocious grammar.
Jus' sayin'.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 11:18AM
Oh in that case Bush is a good writer.
And a great former president.
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 12:27PM
Also, your sense of logic is seriously deficient.
Just so you know, if A is true and B is true, it does not necessarily hold that Y and Z are true.
Then again, maybe the problem is that you're just completely illiterate.
Oh, that's right: You are a liberal - logic is the first casualty; literacy is decidedly selective. Up is down, in is out, good is bad, inflation is deflation, victimization is triumph, equal treatment is racism, Marxism is social justice . . .
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 1:22PM
But capitalism is going bad.
What do you think of this?:
"Concepts and memes have been evolving and we now have a better understanding of neuroplasticity and brain regions. We use the brain to understand the world, to produce paradigms of knowledge (epistemology) about being. The brain produces awareness and consciousness of “what it feels like” to understand, to be conscious of given paradigms of theories/concepts, and memes. The brain also allows for phenomenological experiences of bracketing out the very concepts which it has created over generations and has the ability to even bracket out a lot of the sense data/qualia/feelings in which it produces from the senses.
To understand consciousness we probably need to understand the evolution of consciousness in the brains of animals and ourselves, so the understanding of the physical reality of the evolution of the brain regions are understood alongside modern theories of consciousness namely theories that come out of modern consciousness studies, neuralphilosophy, cognitive science, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of science to understand understanding.
Turning to politics in 2010, I believe that neuroscience can help. After all politics is made up of individual brains, subjective brains, whose genetic structure is almost identical, whose potential is very similar. To get a better understanding of who and what we are, the mixing of genetics, psychology, neuroscience, sociology and consciousness studies as well as philosophy of science is I believe crucial. Here we are at the pinnacle of knowledge about what and who we are, yet to really understand takes so long. I suppose to understand how to live within a given paradigm of being consciousness is not all that difficult, but many reject paradigms as they come and go, some still haven’t given up memes such as the Christian god. Many still haven’t given up on the meme of capitalism either. Anyway, anarchism and socialism both yearn for an anarcho-syndicalist/ libertarian socialist, egalitarian society within our paradigm of pre-posthumanism.
However our human condition is most likely a paradigm and our current access and potential to understand/feel/conceptualize/create and manipulate information has only existed for a few thousand years. While some of our sociological and political theories come close to mastering the paradigm of being us, in our condition, we know this is temporary but speculation as to the future of what it will be like to be physical subjective units may also be paradigmatic.
This is why I strive at utilizing memes and my own ability to move past conceptual memes which are in crisis, paradigmatically speaking. The only way I believe for this to happen is by utilizing neuroplascity, the ability of the brain which allows for “teaching old dogs new tricks”. It consists of making more neural connections, mixing/blending concepts/memes, while being that thing we refer to as consciousness/awareness. Politically, people who spend time doing just this, with this paradigm of the human condition tend to be privileged economically and socially.
This is why socialism and anarchism strives at trying to get people who are privileged and western-educated to understand their position, to help society evolve into an egalitarian society. While some privileged elitist intellectuals believe a society based on equality is devolution of their social niche, their “leadership,” and ability to make more neural connections, this is a fallacy in the paradigm of the human condition. The wealthy capitalists may be ignorant of science and social theories and may value money and material possessions in the context of themselves because they have mastered the ability to understand economics and capitalism. We know this is wrong, we know their mastering of this knowledge should not give them the right to live such life styles on the backs of millions upon millions of people.
But we also know they are minds/brains with the ability to change, to use the plasticity their brains allow, to see the world differently. In our current paradigm of the human condition there are several ways to get people to change, to realize their privilege to help the exploiters to not exploit. The “far left” believes it has found several answers in how to change elitist/privileged people in their paradigm of pre-posthumanity.
My understanding of the human condition comes from direct experience and also knowledge of the sciences and philosophies up till this time of writing, of course. I have not grasped all theories in science, sociology, nor have I experienced everything to be experienced. I am Mary in the Mary thought experiment like we all are when it comes to so much of what it is to know and experience “what it is like” to think in different contexts.
In saying this I am claiming that in order to simulate/emulate/feel/conceptualize experience may be a vital part of this reality. However I don’t think that it’s the case for everything for reading and theorizing can in fact lead to many conclusions which make sense to the one who lacks the experience. How close is this to the Mary problem I do not know, and I understand that most people without realizing it probably agrees with Daniel Dennett that with enough words/symbols describing whatever it may be, that the malleability of the brain can allow these words or symbols to create the proper consciousness experience, the proper emulation/simulation/feeling, etc needed to understand the feelings/qualia in which the author is trying to portray to other consciousnesses.
Marxism and anarchism both yearn to have this impact on the reader so that equality in thoughts then action in the rational person becomes a mental and physical reality. I am left again with experience and what I know about this subject. From what I understand the thinkers which are on the forefront of political theory like Patricia Hill Collins want people to simulate and understand their own place in the Matrix of Domination , their place in the interconnectedness of the reality of social and economic inequality. Perhaps anarchism and Marxism can agree with late thinkers like Collins, but there are still some conflicting views.
Emergentism seems to deny the historicism of Marxism, and to help people understand the diversity and evolution of an anarchist society. But the historical materialism and dialectical materialism concepts seems to deny anarchism its ability to reject ideology and over-determination. This is where western Marxism meets concepts of emergentism in a way that may have correlates with the evolution of information within the privileged elitist and anti elitists brains/minds which recognize the diversity and complexity of the human condition, in the context which I have outlined above.
It seems to me that the value of modern anarchists truly lies within their ability to reject over-determination though at times anarchism can be very determinate in its quest for a theory/simulation of what society should look like. We have to understand that people are drawn to simplistic models of what reality should look like and how to get there. This only emphasizes the value of education, the value of the educated skeptic in a context of critical thinking. Critical thinking that leads to rational political concepts similar to Marx’s ideas of the relation between labor and consciousness. But if there are different ways of knowing equality then there might be different ways of understanding the relation between labor and consciousness.
There are different ways of education but are there different ways in which labor and consciousness/awareness dance together? To move beyond Marx and anarchism in our current paradigm of the human condition may be an actual fallacy, an over criticizing of theory by intellectuals or anarchists which have, out of this awareness, a desire to move on past Marx and anarchism out of awareness of the dangers of simplifying the way people are supposed to be. Progress seems to come out of paradigmatic crisis, and this intuition may lead some to the point of over analyzing, yearning to either create crisis or move beyond crisis to a new paradigm because of authentic intuitive feelings of the yearning for progress and egalitarianism which many intellectuals experience and write about through out their lives."
Chris Notaro
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 2:59PM
Nice cut-n-paste job!
And the use of the phrase "paradigmatic crisis"...WOW!!!
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 3:56PM
The cut and paste (typical of lefties) is irrelevant.
Capitalism is going bad? Only when the social engineers that populate the Democrat party interfere with it. :)
SpiralArchitect| 11.17.10 @ 4:28PM
Liberals 'think' with emotion wheras Conservatives - logic.
Anthony| 11.17.10 @ 3:38PM
I guess Bill Ayers was not available, eh Alan?
Joyce| 11.18.10 @ 5:51PM
Hear! Hear!
Alan, Alan, Alan, if you want to comment it's okay. But that grammar has to go.
Oh, how I miss President George W. and First Lady Laura Bush!
Occam's Tool| 11.17.10 @ 11:45AM
A marriage is a contract. The woman you marry, and her quality, will determine significantly your quality of life and career. George didn't run without Laura saying "yes," and he wouldn't be in shape to run if she hadn't molded him.
A marriage is a life decision, and it will effect your business, better believe it.
My decision to marry the beautiful and brilliant Cindy was my best decision ever. Because of her, I have the two best children in the world. I have a great job. And I live in a great place. Finally, I have Cindy.
Please, Alan, if you are not married, you don't understand. And if you are, your wife will be very interested to learn of your better decisions. Irrespective of the quality of George's writing, on this he was correct.
Occam's Tool| 11.17.10 @ 11:47AM
Sorry, "affect your business." Oops.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 12:25PM
"I have the two best children in the world."
Gosh, I thought the son of God, Jesus the Christ, was the best child (even though he is the son of God) ever born into the world.
However if you say your two children are the best children in all of the world, in all of Creation, we here at AS will take your word for it.
JKS| 11.17.10 @ 1:05PM
Your understanding of the English language is as rudimentary as your ability to punctuate. "Have" is a present tense verb. The last time I checked my Lord and Savior last walked the earth about 2000 years ago. What you quoted deals with the present, not all of time. You truly are an idiot.
Tim the Enchanter| 11.17.10 @ 1:17PM
Alan- are you really this obtuse? Were you born that way, or was it something you had to work at?
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 4:56PM
First of all Alan, you'll notice Occam's Tool didn't say that his kids were the best in the HISTORY of the world, just, in his world.
Secondly, Jesus ascended to Heavan, right? So, technically, He isn't here anymore is he? He will be again, but, as of yet, He's still in Heaven waiting for the Father to send Him. So, if someone here wants to make the claim that their kids are the best in the world--right now, I guess I'll allow it, what with parental bias and all.
You don't possess even half the wit that you imagine you do, do you? Wait, how would you know?
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 1:20PM
How does Obama's ass taste today, Alan?
I'm betting that after Nov. 2nd, it's kind of...bitter.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 1:29PM
"Have"?
But I thought Jesus transcended time. Otherwise it is (was?) a fable.
You accept Jesus' transcending time, or you do not; there is no "maybe" in being a true-believing Christian.
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 5:07PM
Again, is this your attempt at wit? Trying to start an off-topic argument that has nothing to do with anything else being said here is childish at best. What's wrong? Are you starting to run out of ammo? Who said anything about Jesus being restricted by time? You sound like this idiot I know that I accuse of being a conversational hyena. By that I mean when he realises he is losing an argument, he tries (in vain) to cause caos in the discussion by bringing up irrelevant topics on which to argue. He's a good fit with the Democrat party.
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 4:00PM
"As if she were a business merger."
-------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, I think you are confusing the Bush's marriage with the Clinton's marriage--one obviously engaged in for career purposes alone.
Career Soldier| 11.17.10 @ 8:27AM
Oh he means Bush when he says "the failed policies of my predecessor". I thought he meant Clinton, cause it just made more sense that way.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 9:09AM
WHAT??
Clinton was exponentially better than both Bushes combined. I've been waiting for this day, not because I hate Bush (though almost) but because of the waste of eight years, plus four years wasted by his dad. Time poured down the drain, a waste of people's lives; the people who let down their guard.
Like father, like son.
JKS| 11.17.10 @ 1:06PM
Name one thing clinton did that was remarkable - Monica Lewinsky doesn't count.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 1:30PM
Yet it is acceptable for you to have a mistress (or two)?
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 4:10PM
It's only a resume enhancement to those of you on the political left.
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 4:08PM
You are such a liar. You do hate Bush. Fine. At least admit it. It's obvious.
As far as Bush's presidency being a waste of time, the opposite is true. It was a time of tremendous economic prosperity. We had an unmatched period of job growth--4.3 years of un-interrupted job growth. We had the same average unemployment rate as we had under Clinton through 2006.
Then, of course, the Dems took over Congress, and started holding show-trials of business executives, threatening to socialize their industries. They promised they would not extend the Bush tax cuts. They refused to lift the oil-drilling ban, until REPUBLICANS pressured them into doing it. That, of course, precipitated an immediate drop in oil prices, which in-turn brought the price of goods in general down. All Democrats have is threats of ending all private private property rights, and punishing all who dare participate in the free market. Yeah, you Dims are fricken economic geniuses.
Eliza| 11.18.10 @ 7:30AM
Well Bush knows the definition of "IS" and he didn't commit purjury in front of Congress.
Derek Leaberry| 11.17.10 @ 8:45AM
Sad to see Mr. Murchison spin positive towards a failed presidency. If he plans to attend the John Randolph Society meeting in Charleston this weekend, I'm sure his defense of George W. Bush will be met with ridicule.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 9:18AM
Derek, think of this: if these political-seniles praise Reagan so much, what ARE they saying about Bush?
Ask every one of them you meet and try to get a straight answer.
"He tried, but they wouldn't let him because... they were... partisan, and they ... if only they understood him, and were fair [but not to the 'uppity One' Obama]
if they would only see our way... they would... go to Heaven... uh, I mean, that is; you see, that is to say.. Bush wanted to shrink the guvmint but... THEY wouldn't let him, because they don't see that the uh...GOP was sent by Christ Hisself to, um...lets see to uh..."
Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 10:09AM
Agnostic ObamaBoy Gone Wild.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 11:23AM
Look, Bush could have gone quietly into retirement, but he HAD to write Decision Points?
HE stirred this up. He writes,
"marrying Laura was the best decsion I ever made."
"how about:
"She was the best Texas Ranger Home Run I ever scored."
"Laura was the best oil well I ever drilled."
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 11:38AM
Anyone here want another Bush?:
go to a singles bar.
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 1:24PM
Wow, the WIT you display is truly awe-inspiring, Alan. I get it!!! The "other" meaning of Bush! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
OMG, that is TOOOOOO funny. Did you think that up all by yourself?
What I love is that, whereas most adults wouldn't even think of resorting to such an intellectually inane "pun" even once, not only have you bravely ventured forth with it, but you do it over and over again!
Well, I guess we can never get enough of a good thing. Like a good Lady Gaga song, no?
Someone's bucking for a promotion from "troll" to full-boat "gadfly."
Well put me down as a reference!
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 3:01PM
Alan,
Sorry, but we don't get that impression that you have much experience with "Bush"...You probably prefer trolling a different kind of bar.
Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 11:45AM
So Could Have You, But Your Still Runnin' Your Mouth Brooks.
If You Shut Your Pie Hole, Maybe We Can Get Bush To Promise Not To Write Anymore Books.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 12:28PM
DEAL!
Tim, we all owe you an apology, we have underestimated you.
Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 1:53PM
Uh Oh ! You Just Scotched The Deal Brooks.
You Opened Your Pie Hole Again.
Bruce | 11.17.10 @ 4:31PM
"Could have gone quietly into retirement"?
Why is it that only Republican Presidents have to go quietly away after leaving the Presidency, Brooks? Did Carter go away quietly? No - he has continued to run his mouth and undermine American policy since his ass was booted from office. Did Clinton go away quietly? I won't even go there. What about Albert "I was robbed!" Gore? He thinks he IS President and hasn't shut his damned annoying mouth yet.
Your snarky comments relating to the ex-Presidents wife further show a complete lack of class on your part. Like all Liberals you fill the web anonymously with your bile, but haven't the guts to use words like that face to face - "man to man." But then Liberals aren't men, are they. Keep it classy, Brooks.
Dan Hirsch| 11.18.10 @ 12:06AM
Alan,
You useful idiot or unrepentant Communist, let's talk about the hopelessly noisy and racist campaigning of our self-proclaimed "first black
president" Mr. Clinton. Or the hopelessly anti-Semitic ravings and writings of Jimmy Carter.
Your disgusting and disrespectful slurs on a man who served his country and his family would speak volumes to the quality of your reasoning and person if you had any.
I wonder who pays you to write all the mindless, confused, and contrived faux logic that you spread over this site like so much manure. It is a wonder we can see the posts for all the vegetation sprouting forth from your detritus.
HEY SPECTATORS - IGNORE ALAN, IT'S THE ONLY THING HE CANNOT TAKE. TRY IT!
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 8:53AM
Condi has followed Colin Powell in the all-too-familiar drift leftward that seems to infect far too many of the right's former denizens.
She defended Obama's foreign policy last month. Et tu, Condi?
I badly wanted Condi to do well as Secretary of State - instead she proved herself utterly feckless, and the administration's dog-and-pony show with the whole "middle east peace" canard was just a cynical exercise in appeasing liberal sensibilities at the New York Times and the Washington Post.
And, while I do think Bush is a very decent human being and worlds better - not to mention smarter - than our current Piece of Shit in Chief, his idea of freedom is selective - No Child Left Behind is classic statism. That's a big friggin' deal. Not to mention his half-hearted Social Security reform efforts. Or the Steel tariffs. Or the inexplicable attempt to shove Harriet Meiers down our throats. Or his utter refusal to veto outrageous spending bills. Or his failure to come to right the wrong that was done to Scooter Libby.
As for the center, of course it's de rigeuer these days to have presidential libraries impose themselves on our idea-saturated culture as "idea factories." It's a way of keeping the brand current. Let's hope Jimmy Carter isn't on the Center's speed dial.
And Laura Bush is promoting a "women's initiative?" Gee, that wasn't predictable or anything. Not that it did her any good in public opinion polls, but Laura's always conformed to the left's idea of what a good first lady should be, happy to protect the left flank and inflict the cotton candy of "compassionate conservatism" into far too many public utterances.
I like Laura, but why do first ladies always have to have their "initiatives" - which always manifest themselves in literacy programs and women's issues? At least Michele is entertaining us with her wonderful impression of Marie Antoinette on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and her sullen pose as a descendant of the Bolsheviks on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
I have nothing against a presidential library. In many ways I admire Bush - and I'm a huge Cheney fan. The guy gave the administration the cajones that Rove tried to take away on a daily basis.
But their adherence to a leftist pop culture's expectations in setting the thing up brings back into sharp focus all the things during Bush's administration that made me want to tear my hair out.
Sheila| 11.17.10 @ 10:59AM
Good comment, Grz. Let's not take the "missing Bush" stuff too far, folks. While a fundamentally decent man, he was also a fundamentally flawed president. No child left behind, seniors' prescription drugs, increased Muslim immigration, illegal aliens doing jobs "Americans won't," etc. do not make me inclined to sentimentally reminisce. Laura's "women's" issues include abortion. Anyone observing the Bush daughters could see this family's direction - they're big backers of gay marriage, too. I give Bush credit for adopting the role of dignified (and generally silent) former president - until he came out with this book. Quite frankly, I don't really care what someone's motivations are; I care about the actual decisions made. Good intentions are the left's province. Real-world outcomes and solutions are supposed to be the concern of conservatives - but then, this site (and most of the commenters) aren't - they're Republicans.
Derek Leaberry| 11.17.10 @ 11:27AM
Fortunately, Bush was not man enough to have sons. May the Bush dynasty die with the Mexican lad, GP.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 11:35AM
Motion seconded.
Bushes make the Kennedys look good.
Occam's Tool| 11.17.10 @ 11:51AM
Alan, was that comment..."Bush League?" Oh, I kill myself, I do. I'm here all week, folks. Remember to tip your waitress.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 12:31PM
"Alan, was that comment..."Bush League?" Oh, I kill myself, I do. I'm here all week, folks. Remember to tip your waitress."
Just remember:
YOU voted for Bush, don't ever forget it.
Margie| 11.17.10 @ 2:26PM
And YOU voted for Obummer, and we won't ever forget it, Alan!
Not only that but you say you're voting for him again?
And the beat goes on.. and on.. and on.
Alan~ you make yourself part of the problem!
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 3:44PM
"Just remember:
YOU voted for Bush, don't ever forget it."
-------------------------------------------------------
Why would anyone forget it? I voted for him, and i'm not sorry. We had 52 straight months of job-growth under Bush, along with 4.7% average unemployment through 2006. Am I happy with everything Bush did? No. The border issue with Mexico still makes me mad. The first bail out that he signed which then gave the green light for the subsequent bailouts irritates me to no end. You see Alan, most of us on the political right can look at Bush honestly, and even accept fair criticism of him. We don't blindly defend him the way those of you on the left blindly defend Clinton. Clinton's "economic successes" came about because of the Republican Congress that dominated during the '90's. Clinton was pushing the same nonesense that Obama has gotten through. The Republican Congress kept him and his collectivist tendencies in check. Socialism fails every single time it's tried. It doesn't matter who tries to implement it. If Clinton had a Democrat Congress, the economy would have tanked in the 1990's. How do I know that? Because every-single-time the Dems have that much power, economic misery ensues. So, go ahead, continue your rant against Bush. Eventually, in the interest of self-preservation, you may want to recognize the pattern of destruction that the collectivist policies Democrats relentlessly push on this nation bring about. Or, keep your head in the sand.
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 1:37PM
Actually, genius, the Bush family has done more for this country, and accomplished more than the Kennedy's ever did.
The Kennedys are a myth and a fraud. JFK was in office for 1,000 days...BIG WHOOP. His father was a bootlegger, a philanderer, and a Nazi-sympathizer who counseled appeasement. Bobby Kennedy illegally tapped Martin Luther King's phone and recorded King's sexcapades to use as blackmail. And Ted Kennedy was a lecherous pig who's eternally trapped in a sinking car in hell.
And the Kennedy grandchildren are all idiots. The only one of them who was likable was John, Jr., who at l;east didn't give the appearance that he thought the world owed him a living because his last name was "Kennedy".
Get a clue.
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 3:51PM
And..........don't forget Teddy's traitorous behavior under Reagan, when he approached the Kremlin offering unsolicited cooperation in an attempt to undermind and bring down President Reagan. Ted Kennedy was a traitor that should have been thrown in jail, not buried with honor at Arlington.
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 3:54PM
Only UBL makes the Kennedys look "good".
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 11:52AM
Very well said, Sheila. I couldn't agree more.
Great point on abortion and the direction of the Bush daughters.
I don't understand the psychology of liberalism - to me, it really is standing on one's head and telling the world it's upside-down. But even more puzzling to me is the drift leftward of soooooo many - Peggy Noonan, Michael Gerson, David Frum, David Brooks, Bill Krystol, Brit Hume, David Brock, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, and on and on and on.
They used to say that if you're 20 years old and a conservative, you have no heart; if you're 40 years old and a liberal, you have no brain. Well, I've never been a liberal - but reality has honed my conservative leanings in the last 25 years.
This Peter-Pan syndrome is so disturbing and utterly inexplicable to me. It's like one-time conservatives wake up one day and think, "you know what? I don't like the law of gravity anymore, and so I'm going to live my life as if it doesn't exist."
Liberalism and reality are diametric opposites; one would think that, as people age, they become MORE acquainted with reality - and yet we seem to find the opposite - multitudes abandon it for a one-way trip down the rabbit hole and through the looking glass, to the cloud cuckoo land of good intentions, intellectual foppery, moral vanity and, of course, hypocritical opportunism.
It's just unbelieveable - it is that psychosis, frankly, that convinces me that, GOP victory or not, TEA party rise or not, conservative resurgence or not, we are doomed.
I don't know whether we'll flame out in a burst of hyperinflation or hand the keys over to Islam, but I do know it's over.
Margie| 11.17.10 @ 12:18PM
Sheila says:
"but then, this site (and most of the commenters) aren't - they're Republicans."
Funny, that coming from a person who is openly racist. Is that you're idea of "conservative?"
Screw you with your haughty attitude!
And what, someone cannot be a conservative and a Republican?
Oh, and you left out your famous "decline & fall" this time. Did you forget?
Sheila| 11.17.10 @ 1:02PM
"You're" is a contraction representing the words "You are." "Your" is a possessive pronoun. Perhaps you could learn to differentiate between the two.
For a self-proclaimed righteous one, Ms. Margie, the expression "screw you" doesn't meet the code requirements.
Margie| 11.17.10 @ 1:08PM
I still say it you low life.
Youcan pick on my spelling all you want, that is a typical Leftist tactic, Ms. Sheila. And I couldn't care less how hot you think you are, dearie. Your past posts speak for themselves.
You have openly proclaimed you are racist. And you place yourself above all others with your haughty attitude, never having a thing decent to say about either the authors here or the people who comment.
So screw you and your White Nationalist scum. And all those who befriend you.
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 1:37PM
Margie, I applaud you for calling out Shiela's vile racism. Her presence on this site disgraces all decent conservatives. But please....don't try to sell her (or Timmie) to our side. She's in a league of her own.
Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 1:58PM
No Comment For the Moment, Face Of Ass RCV Obamaboy.
Carry On.
Margie| 11.17.10 @ 2:10PM
"Our side?" Well RCV, I think not!
You may despise racism, but wait~ no~ you really don't! You have called the TEA partiers racist, and referred to them as TEA Baggers!
And THAT is despicable.
And..
You love Marxism ~ I abhore it.
You reject the Bible as it is written ~ I accept it.
So we're not on the same side. Perhaps when you come to the Light and reject Obamaism et al, and once you do that you will begin to accept the real gospel of Jesus Christ.. then we will be not only on the same side, but friends as well.
And as for Sheila and other Toddards who think the way that they do ~ I pity them. Let them speak all they want.. but I will protest what they have to say, especially when it is directed at who I am, and those of like mind.
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 2:33PM
Margie, when I said "our side" I was decidedly NOT referring to you and me. I was referring to your efforts to cast Sheila and Tim -- who, whether you like it or not, are on YOUR political side, even though you properly call out their racism and anti-semitism.
As for your other statements, (1) I abhor Marxism and always have, but unlike you, I know what the word means; (2) Like most Christians, I do not believe in a literal interpretation of all of the OT, but believe that God spoke to us in parables and stories then, just as he did in the Gospels of the NT. And, I also don't put human beings, like St. Paul, as worthy as he was, on a par with God. To do so violates God's explicit proscription given to Moses.
Margie| 11.17.10 @ 2:41PM
RCV~
One cannot be a racist and be a conservative.
End of story.
Nor can one reject certain parts of the Bible and be a Christian, nor can one say that when God says something, He really didn't mean it.
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 2:46PM
Well, on both subjects, you don't get to make the rules. You can, of course, come up with your own personal definitions of "conservative" and "Christian", just as you do with "Marzist" and "Socialist", but then, you're not speaking the same English as the rest of us.
Margie| 11.17.10 @ 2:59PM
Actually, I don't make the rules.
God does.
Let's see... does everyone with half a brain think that God, who created Man in His image agrees to racism?
Nope, sorry! And those that call themselves after His Son, that would be Christians~ are in agreement with Him.
If Man is made in His image then mankind are to be treated same by mankind. After all, who are we to say otherwise? Unless of course one wants to be found misrepresenting Him.
Not all Conservatives may be Christian, but all conservatives ought to reject racism. Unless of course they want to go and join the Democrat party, where they truly belong.
No, the Bible tells us what Christians are and what they believe, and I'm in full agreement with what God says. I have nothing to do with it, I just listen:
"For whoever is ashamed of Me and of My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels." Lk. 9:26.
Margie| 11.17.10 @ 1:54PM
I don't think the TEA partiers will like what you think of them, Sweetie:
Sheila| 6.18.10 @ 5:25PM
"..Finally, the tea party people are like most others in the mainstream right - desperate to prove their racial bona fides and demonstrate that conservatism is a genuine multicultural value system... ? Since I'm a Christian/HBDer and a white nationalist of Jewish extraction, I don't really fit in any of the standard categories and I don't really care to - I'm an independent thinker and find the rah-rah republicans as tiresome as the trolls here."
~~~
And do you all know what an HBD-er is? I'll tell you:
Basically it means Human Bio-Diversity. Darwinian and rabid anti-Israel white Nationalists.
I found a website of theirs and it isn't pretty:
http://hbdbooks.com/2010/06/is.....heir-land/
~~~
More of Sheila's posts, in agreement with her pal, Toddard:
Sheila| 9.1.10 @ 11:10AM
"You nailed it, Toddard. Movement conservatives and rah-rah-Republicans are all about building democracy abroad (mostly supported by neocons who are, in large part, Jews like Aaron Goldstein who were "awakened" because 9/11 was a Muslim action, not so much because it was an anti-American action) and expanding government a little more slowly than the Democracts (compassionate conservatism) at home. In short, they're neither sane nor conservative, and none of them truly pass the author's "test" quote. But hey, Aaron tells us he's now seen the light - and he's conservative just like the Log Cabin Republicans are conservative, and we need a big tent, and Peter Ferrara tells us 70% of Americans believe in smaller government (who are you going to believe, my cherry-picked statistics or your own lying eyes?) and they can all see November and we're in the best of all possible worlds. Decline and fall."
Well Sheila,
The vile TEA partiers (in your estimation) must have disappointed you oh so thoroughly, eh? And us "Rah-Rah" type Republicans too, eh? Pity, pity, such a pity!
May you personally "Decline and Fall"~ maybe then you will come to your right mind and quit lying and snickering at those of us who give a damn.
Cris Worth| 11.17.10 @ 8:59AM
Timing is everything; if he had done this a year earlier he would have been booed off the national stage that includes conservatives as well. But he waits for a GOP comeback to lessen the scrutiny. It didn't work W. Bush; you were a lousy President and ungrateful man.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 9:01AM
Derek, we can say Bush is mediocre, but not quite as mediocre as Murchison. Such is the #1 reason Reagan is venerated; he looks good next to his residu... er, I mean his... successors.
Just you watch, now that Cold War GOP unity has long been finished (2 entire decades) the Grand Old Prevaricators will screw it up yet again. More space colonization-talk from Newt (even though we can't even colonize the Yukon), more God loves apple pie. If only they knew how childish they appear! How smarmy.
Sam Vaughn| 11.17.10 @ 9:39AM
Alan, never sure what you believe in, though glad to see your occasional commentary. The problem with the Bush's, and the reason why I joined the Tea Party moevment, is that our leaders were being put forth by the "ruling class". Clinton falls into that category as well. I voted for Bush because it was the lesser of evils. At least he had the courage to take the fight to those who declared war on us, a decision everybody agreed with including Democrats too cowardly to admit it today (including Clinton). Join the Tea Party if you want to take control instead of whining....
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 11:28AM
Sam,
If the GOP is dissolved and replaced by the Tea Party (as the GOP replaced the Whigs in the 1850s), I will stop whining; NOT until then,
GOT IT?
I make my own decisions- is that acceptable to you?
Havoc| 11.17.10 @ 9:18AM
That Republicans still yearn for President Bush to say something inspirational two years after he left office says it all ... May this be his epitaph:
"A day late & a dollar short".
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 12:36PM
You put it just so.
Bush's unconcealed urge for familial power thankfully disrailed the dynasty.
Sure, the Kennedys, too.
Democracy means everyone eventually gets their just desserts.
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 12:56PM
Hilariously puerile comment. Ah, liberalism: Self-granted permission never to grow up.
However, if you ever feel you are going to get your just desserts, could you give us a little warning ahead of time?
I'll bring a comfy chair and pack a lunch.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 1:34PM
Doesn't matter as far as the Bushes are concerned.
remember (again), they derailed their dynasty, as (again) the Kennedys did.
I am not culpable for what high-positioned bunglers do or do not do.
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 1:44PM
Next time you take to the keyboard, Alan, why don't you wait to start typing until a cogent thought enters your head?
Yeah, I know. It'll be a damned long wait.
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 1:31PM
For all of his faults, Bush did PLENTY of inspirational things while he was President.
His leadership in the War on Terror, and protecting our nation, are his greatest achievements.
The Left is APOPLECTIC that Bush's popularity is rising as Obama's continues to fall. The release of Bush's book was brilliantly timed. Bush looks like a grown-up statesman, while Obama looks like a petulant little boy.
And the best part? Bush NEVER criticizes Obama! And by taking the high-road, Bush looks even better.
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 1:43PM
While I fully agree with your last sentence, your second paragraph is so far off the mark it deserves rebuttal.
Bush gave Osama Bin Laden EXACTLY what the latter was seeking when he responded to the criminal acts of 9/11 by declaring the "war on terror". It elevated a small, universally despised band of criminals into an "army" on a par with the United States. It was Al Qaeda's dreamed-for recruiting tool, and it worked like a charm. Bush then compounded that profound miscalculation by diverting attention from the focus on Al-Qaeda when he invaded Iraq and upset the delicate pwoer balance in the Middle East.
There have been few Presidential decisions that have done more to harm the security of our nation, and of our friends around the world, than those two fatal miscalcuations.
Bush is a nice, decent person who was just a disaster as President.
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 2:02PM
Sorry, but...wrong.
This idea that the "War on Terror" actually made the war worse is a pathetic straw-man.
The USA was attacked on 9/11...Maybe you noticed? Osama bin ladin and Al-Qaeda (a terrorist organization) actually declared war on the USA in the early 90's, but the media and the Clinton administration, like Kevin Bacon in "Animal House", pretended that "All is well!".
This "army" you speak of already existed before 9/11. And even if we posit the bizarre notion that the "War on Terror" was a "recruitment drive" for Al-Qaeda, can you please explain what the alternatives would have been??? Should we have hemmed and hawed, but done nothing? Or should we have taken it "to the U.N.", as John Kerry said repeatedly in 2004??
Hate to tell you, but the biggest "recruiter" for terrorism is a visible demonstration of weakness.
Additionally, I disagree with the assertion that Iraq was an unnecessary war. In fact, I think it was a stroke of strategic brilliance. By calling-out Al-Qaeda and sending a large contingent to Iraq, Bush and his team created an actual front in a struggle which the "wise men" always told us had no front - TERRORISM. As a result, lots and lots of Islamic and Al-Aqaeda loonies came to Iraq and were summarily dispatched to paradise and their 72 virgins. Now, 7 years later, we have a Democratic ally in a decidedly undemocratic part of the world, an ally that's strategically located (next to Iran, so we can dispatch them, too), and floating on oil.
Bush made some serious mistakes as President, particularly on the domestic front, but he's wise to understand that history will judge him far kinder than our present day pundits. And he's right.
"Disaster"? Hardly.
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 2:26PM
The very second our troops leave Iraq, the Shiites now in charge there will cement their alliance with their Shiite brothers in Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Israel's security (as well as that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- which is why tehy supported George Sr.'s decision not to topple Saddam) will be even more threatened than it is today.
A focused but quite US-led international police effort targeted at the small band of terrorists who carried out the criminal bombings would have saved us the carnage, the loss of brave US soldiers, the bleeding of our material resources, and most importantly, would not have invited disaffected youth throughout the Muslim world to take up the "war" that Osama Bin Laden had been calling for so unsuccessfully before Bush played his game. A tragic, tragic misjudgment.
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 3:37PM
Sorry, but you lost all credibility with the Clinton-era phrase "US-led international police effort".
Unless you're talking about an "Gideon"-type operation that targets and eliminates terrorists and their support network (as the Israelis did after '72), then that approach rarely ever works.
And again...The idea that we should have avoided war after 9/11 because that increased recruitment among "disaffected" Muslim youth is not only silly, it's completely unsupported by any facts whatsoever. So I ask (again)...WHAT were the alternatives after 9/11???
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 3:52PM
That's exactly what I was talking about - a quiet targeted take-them-out effort instead of the counterproductive chest-beating. Janet Napolitano wouldn't be frisking your cajones today if we'd chosen that course instead of the madness we embarked on.
Anthony| 11.17.10 @ 9:20AM
It was good to see V.P. Cheney with the President. To this day, I can't for the likes of me figure out why Bush didn't pardon Scotter Libby.
I will give Bush the benefit of the doubt that he knows somethings we don't, although, I have not heard a single additional element of what Libby did, or didn't do, to warrant this travesty to stand. Apparently Mr. Cheney feels the same way.
I love Cheney's zing to Obozo, about this project being the only shovel ready job!!! If only more Rs had Cheney's intestinal fortitude!! Let's see, the score is now Cheney 5, Obozo 0.
mames| 11.17.10 @ 10:23AM
The Bush family is impotent because they can never figure out whose side they are on - they are the nice guys who get in everyone's way. W was just another failed socialist who made it easier for Obama to push through a greater socialist agenda. And don't get me started on his abortion loving dingbat of a wife.
WayneFarmer| 11.17.10 @ 10:44AM
AGREE about Laura. Pretty face & figure -- nice manners, empty head incapable of thought. Looks like it's been passed down to the twins.
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 1:27PM
Yeah, Laura Bush is a FRAUD!!!
She's never earned a thing in her life!!! It was all given to her on a silver platter just because of the color of her skin!!! And she STILL bitter and angry about it!
Oh, waitaminnit...Sorry. That was Michelle Obama...not L:aura Bush.
Oops!
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 1:46PM
Ah, yes. So now George W is a "socialist" too! The word has come to encompass about 75% of the American electorate to the nutcases on this site.
Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 2:12PM
"The Republican triumph in the House of Representatives has grown a little wider, with the party now capturing 61 seats in this month’s midterm elections. The latest victory comes in Illinois’s Eighth Congressional District, where Representative Melissa Bean, a Democrat, conceded to Joe Walsh, a Republican.
Mr. Walsh is among one of the many incoming freshman members of Congress who was seen as a long shot. Republican leaders in Washington didn’t give him much of a chance, but he has credited his victory to volunteer support and the strength of the Tea Party movement."
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 2:36PM
Another cut-and-paste non-sequiter from young Timmie**** (it's so cute the way you do your name, son).
Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 3:58PM
Hey LosserBoy, We can understand, that You can't address the fact that You ObamaBoy Pseudo-intellectuals lost 61 Seats.
We Tea Party Rebels grabbed 42 House Seats and counting.
We Tea Party Rebels Grabbed 5 of The 6 Senate Seats too.
Ahhhh ! Schadenfreude !
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 4:55PM
Tim - YOU haven't grabbed anything (except ...).
Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 7:49PM
No CommentFor The Moment ObamaBoy RCV Trolling Loser.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 11:32AM
If only you knew how much people laugh behind the backs of Republicans, and not merely lib'rals. Best you find out the hard way: starting next year you will find out.
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 12:38PM
Horrors!! OMG, people are laughing behind out backs? Could there BE a worse fate? Tres gauche! I'm sure we're all sufficiently mortified. Thanks for the heads-up!
Well, we conservatives should take a page from the liberal playbook and adopt more pop-culture friendly positions (I'm sure you have the checklist handy - can you put it on your facebook page - or maybe it's on Peggy Noonan's).
After all, principles are the province of nerds - everybody knows it's the cool kids who are p0pular at school. So we have to emulate the cool kids, right Alan?
"Hey, tea baggers, listen up! The reason you don't like Obama isn't because he's an immature, ignorant, vengeful, incompetent, narcissistic sociopath - no, you don't like him because he's AFRICAN AMERICAN, you bigots!!!"
How am I doing, Alan?
Gee, next year I hope our lockers are close together. You know, so your "cool" will rub off on me.
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 1:22PM
If you only knew how much we laugh at you!!!
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 1:37PM
Do we laugh at Reagan, you two?
Not anymore, not many do.
He looks better and better.
Now, would you please explain exactly why that is? Please?
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 3:39PM
I don't laugh at Reagan. I never did, and I never will.
So what's your point, genius??
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 4:24PM
See, that's just it, we don't care. Seriously. Go ahead and laugh. That goes for the rest of the world too. We don't care what you think of us. I find it rather amusing that you all think we spend time worrying about it. Of course, image is everything to you.
William Stein| 11.17.10 @ 8:36PM
None of this "laugh behind the backs" stuff for me: I chuckle at liberals in their face, like a man. You liverals might give it a try some time. (I promise to hand you a hankie beforehand)
JmsA| 11.18.10 @ 12:34AM
Hey, Alan, there are hundreds of democrats in D.C., and not just politicians, about to hit the unemployment line. And guess what? They're not laughing.
COnservative Bob| 11.17.10 @ 12:13PM
Really Pisses you off that that Obama has managed in 2 short years to make W absolutely shine in comparison...
Thanks for the smiles guys rant on.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 12:38PM
Go ahead, even nominate Jeb in '12.
Do as thou WILT.
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 1:25PM
Jeb?!?!
WTH are you talking about? Jeb Bush has about as much chance of being nominated as you do of having an original thought.
Watching idiot-boy Obama pass the baton to Palin, or Jindal, or Romney, or whomever in January, 2013, will be sooooo sweet.
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 1:35PM
Dr. Right, I think you overestimate Obama. Like every spoiled child, he will not be inclined to play nice; he won't pass the baton. He will still be holding his breath until he turns blue.
He'll have locked himself into the bedroom in Air Force One, refusing to come out until the whole world apologizes to him for repudiating his "genius."
Still, we'll all get to see Alan Brooks - along with the generic legions of fools that look just like him - clutching his ragged Obama action figure with white knuckles, tears streaming down his baby-smooth cheeks, wondering why, why, why, Oh Gaia, didn't totalitarian Marxism work THIS time?
And then blaming Bush, of course.
THAT will be sweet.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 1:42PM
I blame Reagan for at least this:
accepting Geo HW Bush in '80 rather than Kemp, or someone of like high caliber.
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 3:41PM
Gee...Maybe the fact that Bush beat Reagan in New Hampshire, could deliver Texas, and had substantial experience with the RNC (and CIA) had something to do with it..?
Dumbass.
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 1:48PM
Please, please nominate Palin in 2012. We Democrats beg you. A woman with a 62% negative public rating. You'll be happy, and so will we!
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 3:44PM
The Left will always tell us exactly whom they fear the most.
Palin is the current King-maker in the GOP. She's practically Queen-Midas. And you over-estimate the importance of these polls (and their questionable methods).
Truth is that Sarah Palin scares the shit out of you and all of you idiot Liberals.
If she was really the non-entity that you fools claim her to be, you wouldn't talk about her at all.
Will she win the Presidency in 2012? Who knows? She might not even be the nominee. But she can run circles around O-dumbo...And has been for 2 years.
Nice try.
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 6:19PM
She couldn't even sell her own cloneboy, Miller, to her own state! Perhaps that because Alaska had the first-hand experience of her abandoning her post to chase the dollar. And the two other candidates she lavished the most of her charm on, Angle and O'Donnell, both got trounced as well. Barrack Obama is in trouble in 2012, but the GOP has a knack for fielding their weakest candidate. I could ask for nothing better than this vapid, vacant, empty-headed winker for an opponent. If Harry Reid can win, there's hope for anyone.
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 1:48PM
Please, please nominate Palin in 2012. We Democrats beg you. A woman with a 62% negative public rating. You'll be happy, and so will we!
Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 2:09PM
"The Republican triumph in the House of Representatives has grown a little wider, with the party now capturing 61 seats in this month’s midterm elections. The latest victory comes in Illinois’s Eighth Congressional District, where Representative Melissa Bean, a Democrat, conceded to Joe Walsh, a Republican.
Mr. Walsh is among one of the many incoming freshman members of Congress who was seen as a long shot. Republican leaders in Washington didn’t give him much of a chance, but he has credited his victory to volunteer support and the strength of the Tea Party movement."
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 2:09PM
As a president, she'd be superior in every way to the juvenile delinquent that's currently in office.
But will you return the favor? Will you renominate the Great Black Hope (and change) again? PLEEEEEEASE?
By then, a 62% negative rating will seem like nirvana to you Dems.
Too bad Castro is so old. I could see how a Castro/Pelosi ticket would put the wind right back into your sails.
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 2:19PM
Don't worry -- we will renominate him. And I guarantee you that the GOP will insure his reelection by once again nominating a pair of unelectable dolts. You'll see....
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 2:31PM
THANK YOU.
Spoken like a true moron.
Something tells me you'll be nowhere to be found when his hopey changey ass is forced out by your own people; like all liberals, your memory is selectively deficient (along with your sense of logic, ability to add and subtract, common sense, etc.)
Maybe you'll replace our piece of shit in chief with a nominee of equal ability.
Do ya find yourself wondering what Jeanine Garofalo is doing in 2012?
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 2:38PM
And spoken with your usual foul-mouthed eloquence.
Margie| 11.17.10 @ 2:43PM
Heh, any less foul than referring to TEA partiers as Tea Baggers? Hmm? Or calling them Racists?
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 2:51PM
If people didn't walk around with silly hats with tea bags dangling from them, people wouldn't refer to them by such names. (And I honestly didn't know the other definition of "tea-bagging" until I learned it from the "conservatives" on this site, who seem so obsessed with the physical details of what homosexuals do.) As for racism, I never said all tea partiers were racists. But I've personally been to enought tea party gatherings to know that lots of them are: I've heard the most vile, racists things from their mouths that would even embarass Sheila (though not Tim*, whom nothing would embarass assuming he understood it).
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 3:07PM
Gee, now you are out-and-out lying. What a surprise.
Or maybe it was all those liberals posing as tea partiers you heard spewing vile things.
Because, as you know, you Marxists have been dying to play "gotcha" by attempting to capture racist comments from the tea parties ever since they began - with ZERO results.
Funny how all the hate and vitriol always comes from the left. You ever notice that, VCR? No, I wouldn't think so.
Oh well - I'm sure it's just a coincidence that NO racist comments have been recorded at these things, but apparently, dozens of you self-gratifiying morons have attended them - and, gosh darn it, you all HEAR what apparently cannot be recorded.
Hey, got a bridge in Brooklyn you wanna sell?
Hard as it is for your liberal pea brain to comprehend, the tea parties have nothing to do with race. They have to do with reining in government spending. The tragedy for blacks is not their abuse at the hands of white conservatives - it's what liberals have done to destroy the black family ever since the Great Society ripped it apart.
The tea partiers, on the other hand, welcome any American, irrespective of ethnic origin. Because, unlike you, we know that what makes an American is commonality of values. Respect for the constitution. Individual liberty. And that's what threatens your whole little pantomime.
Because for you, there is no America, there are no Americans: Just a generic straw man oppressor who is a white Christian male and the endless supply of victim groups you newly-mint on a daily basis, and then balkanize and keep on the plantation so that rank-and-file liberals can feel good about themselves and the elites never have to worry about losing their cushy lifestyles - lifestyles that are paid for on the backs of the very tax payers you slander here.
Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 4:04PM
Apparently, Obama LawBoy RCV Is All Flummoxed by Their Mid Term Asskickin'.
Carry On LoserBoy !
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 2:48PM
Margie's point below is well made.
I must fight fire with fire. When in Rome, and all that.
Unlike many conservatives, I'm not reluctant to put the tea cup down and get into the mud with you nihilistic, self-flattering Marxists.
All you know is destruction.
Doesn't Saul Alinsky have something for you on this topic? I'll wait while you consult your notes.
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 2:53PM
Unlike you and your ilk who seem to need personal demons to fight, I've never read and don't consult Saul Alinsky or , for that matter, George Soros.
Putting the tea cup down and debating hard is one thing. Speaking gutter-language like a junior highschooler is another.
Grzmlyk| 11.17.10 @ 3:17PM
Well, perhaps you should learn to read. Because 99% of what I write is not "gutter-language." Not sure why you put in the hyphen, but, hey.
And I'm willing to bet that it's not that you haven't learned from Alinsky, it's just that you're too ignorant to know that your idols on the left - the cretins you DO learn from - get their marching orders from Alinsky. Like Obama. Who taught a course on Alinsky. Did you know that? No, of course you didn't.
No, I call our piece of shit in chief a piece of shit in chief because the piece of shit in chief is a self made piece of shit and he takes pride in reducing life to its very ugliest.
Like all liberals, he doesn't want to raise individuals up - he wants to bring self-made people down.
Socialism never works. It is a parasite that feeds on capitalism and then, when it kills its host, it dies too. Look anywhere you want in history and you'll find every socialist idyll a smoldering wreckage that produces one thing and one thing only: Human misery
You are all nihilists.
idalily| 11.17.10 @ 10:16PM
Well said, Grzmlyk! And deadly accurate. Kudos.
George| 11.17.10 @ 4:06PM
Yes He Does.
Ingrate ! No More Stealth Money For You.
Saul| 11.17.10 @ 4:11PM
Then Give Me Back My Rule Book RCV.
George Is Right . You're An Ingrate.
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 3:47PM
swell in that case, I suggest that you dimwit Liberals nominate a VP that you really trust, 'cuz after 2012, O-Bambi will have a GOP-led House AND Senate with a veto-proof majority that will be investigating his Kenyan ass every time he breathes, and over-riding all of his idiotic mandates.
Oh, and by the way...Yopu might not have noticed, but the GOP picked up 680 seats in State Legislatures, and several important Governor-ships. We're getting ready to re-district you jack-offs out of existence!
Happy trails!
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 5:04PM
Every election, the party that won starts crowing about how the other side is on its way to extinction, and that the next election will be the one where they really take over. And what does history teach us? That the American political pendulum swings left and then swings right, then swings left and then swings right. In 1964, Goldwater got decimated; pundits predicted the imminent death of the GOP. Four years later it won the WH. After Nixon's disgrace, the Democrats were to rule forever; the Reagan era soon followed. Clinton lost the Congress in a landslide in 94, and was reelected two years later. Bush's GOP got shellacked in 2006, and after Obama's election, pundits were sure the GOP was finished for good.
The Republic endures, and will so long after you and I are gone. And the American people will continue to steer a basic center course into the future, swinging sharply to the right one year, and back to the left a couple of years later. And life will go on. Relax....I will. See you in 2012; and 2014; and 2016; and 2018.....
Margie| 11.17.10 @ 5:20PM
Ok RCV~ this is true.
And I will forever and always be on the Right, and apparently you will always be on the Left, and never the twain shall meet.
Though I do hope that everyone on the Left would "come to their Right minds and sin no more". :^)
RCV| 11.17.10 @ 6:23PM
I genuinely wish you well, though not politically! :-)
Margie| 11.17.10 @ 9:36PM
Well, RCV, the easiest thing in the world is to fight with a Leftist.. or a Liberal, at least it is for me. The harder thing to do is to love them. But that means speaking the truth to lies.. and that is what Liberalism/Leftist is. I don't hate you but I do hate what you believe, just as I hate racism.
Say, if you truly do have a brother who is a Christian as you've said, tell him I encourage him to work harder on you.. you need it. Hey, we all need "working on".. by God's Spirit. Otherwise we're really lost. Right?
idalily| 11.17.10 @ 10:21PM
Sadly, no, this Republic WILL NOT endure if the idiots in Washington (many of whom you admire and defend) do not STOP SPENDING us into oblivion. The USA may endure, limping along as a social democracy, but as a Republic, we'll be dead. As a free society, we'll be dead.
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 4:29PM
Oh, hell no! Not Jeb. Not Newt. Not McCain. Not Romney. Not any of these posuers. We need actual limited government-types. That's assuming they exist. Jindal? I don't know. We'll see. I'm sure it will mainly be a list of the usual suspects. Still, they'd ALL be better than another American-hating-Marxist that the Dems will most likely field.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 1:40PM
Who said "read my lips, no new taxes"? was it Bill Clinton?
Was it Barack Obama?
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 3:49PM
Who said that there's 57 states, dummy? Was it Obama, or was it...
Oh heck! It WAS Obama!
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 4:41PM
And who referred to a language that doesn't exist? Ever hear of the Austrian language? Obama has! Yes, he's brilliant! And so knowledgeable about the world in which he lives. Classic.
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 4:35PM
Who here is defending THAT? Seriously. Who are you arguing with? The voices in your head?
jstwndring| 11.17.10 @ 4:44PM
You wanna talk about lies? Didn't Obama say that socialized medicine would be cheaper than what the private market could offer? Yes. In fact, I believe it was a prime selling point. We have to have the government handle it because our current system is unaffordable. Now he's acknowledged that, of course, it's more expensive!
idalily| 11.17.10 @ 10:29PM
Oh, goody! The Liar-Liar-Pants-On-Fire Game. Can I play?
Who said pass the stimulus and unemployment won't go above 8%? Who promised a hard pivot to jobs? Who promised he'd bring all the troops home? Who promised bipartisanship then called the opposition "enemies" who had to "sit in the back"? Who promised the most transparent administration ever? (considering the TSA debacle, that last one might have a grain of truth in it)
Margie| 11.17.10 @ 3:50PM
The Leftists always are willing.. or should that be are always willing.. oh tell me please Ms. Sheila! Are always willing to pick at syntax and spelling errors as if to prove that somehow they must be right and us wrong.. and they always love to point out foul language used when we use it. No, they are right when they say it is wrong and I do not enjoy using it, and I always do regret using it. It does not negate though, the truth being spoken.
Like Rush said the other day:
"If you want to make a conservative angry, tell him a lie. If you want to make a liberal angry, tell him the truth. Works every time."
I'm sorry to Sheila above, only for the bad language, but not for the rest.
David| 11.17.10 @ 4:50PM
Okay, because Clinton and Monica came up here...
I believe Monica turned 40 a couple of months ago. It seems like just yesterday she was crawling around on the oval office floor putting everything into her mouth that she could find.
George True| 11.17.10 @ 5:06PM
Alan Brooks: I'm still trying to figure you out. You seem like someone who is part libertarian, part liberal, and a small part ultra-right conservative. I understand that not everybody can be pigeonholed. I myself go off the conservative reservation on several issues. But I cannot figure where you are along the continuum. Some days you sound like a flaming leftist. Other days like a pure libertarian, and on yet other days you express fidelity to the values of Ronaldus Maximus. More often than not, your comments seem leftist and self-contradictory (but I repeat myself). But then occasionally, you say something profoundly truthful.
So what do you believe? Who would you like to see as president? What legislation would you like to see passed, and which bills would you like to see defeated? What do you think the gummint should and should not be able to do? Do you think gummint and its influence in every aspect of our lives is too large, or not large enough?
Do you think, as most of us here do, that the layer of lies surrounding Obama, his henchmen, and the Democrat party in general is thousands of feet deep? Or do you think they are all hunky dory? Do you despise Bush because he was too much of a neocon, or because he signed on to too much liberalism in the name of "compassionate conservativism"? If you were president, how would you prosecute the war declared against us by Islam? What would you do about energy? Where do you stand on taxes, fiscal policy, government spending, and Quantitative Easing (ie-inflating the currency)? What would you do, if anything, about illegal immigration?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 11.17.10 @ 7:24PM
We took a shellacking, RCV. Good work troll. I let you guys work for me trying to undermine conservative web sites and now Bush and I poll evenly. If you keep working at this I can't wait to see where I am at in 2012. Since you wouldn't help with the summer of recovery, wind farms and the Chevy Volt how about helping me pass the Bush tax cuts, permanent detention in Gitmo and military tribunals for terrorists. Surely you have to care about something besides gay marriage. Why do all my trolls only care about gay this or that? What about me? My golf game is suffering. Have you noticed that the government wanted to help increase home ownership and now we have less of it? It is like some law of nature or something. Shooting a liberal trying to help you would be considered self defense if we lived in a rational scientific world. Have you ever noticed that water boarding is a crime against humanity but a 19 year old raining down predator drone hell on the same terrorist in Pakistan or Yemen is hardly worth mentioning. My followers are a bunch of mind numbed zombies. Oh well, we progressives are a quirky bunch. Playing some golf tomorrow. If I have to play Boehner I want to stay within 20 strokes. Cap and trade, baby.
Roll Forming Machine | 11.18.10 @ 1:03AM
Okay, because Clinton and Monica came up here...
I believe Monica turned 40 a couple of months ago. It seems like just yesterday she was crawling around on the oval office floor putting Roll Forming Machineeverything into her mouth that she could find.
MAJ Mike| 11.18.10 @ 1:06AM
For all of the infighting and rage in these comments, there is one critical thing that a lot of people seem to have missed. When the last IBCT came back from Iraq, Obama didn't go down to greet them at the airport in Dallas, but Bush, who was out of office, did. Similarly, when MAJ Nidal Hasan shot up FT Hood, the first person on the ground to visit the wounded was former-Pres. Bush, not Obama, and he didn't bring a press entourage to record his visit, he just came, met with the wounded and left. Whatever your take is on his policies, competence or managerial skills, you have to admit that George W. Bush is a genuinely decent man who feels tremendous love for his country and the troops who fight for it, much more so than the current CIC.
Margie| 11.18.10 @ 5:52PM
I fully agree with everything you just said. I recently watched some of the interviews available online of GW being interviewed, with my husband. We both loved seeing him again and I cried out, "Oh, why can't he be our President right now?" I know this will bring cries of hatred and RINO-ism from the crowd but I don't care. Yes, I do miss him. He wasn't perfect but nobody is. I believe he did the best job he could have and whatever he may have failed at is going to be between him and his Maker.
Hey GW~ Do I miss you yet? Yes, I do, sir.
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:49AM
The center's namesake -- whose best-selling memoir bears the title "Decision Points" -- noted the pile of decisions that lie on the 44th president's desk. "He deserves to make them," said George W. Bush, "without criticism from me."