Discuss.

Yes. You know it's bad times all around when all a democrat running for a position has to do is say "*insert name here* supports Bush 96%/supports staying the course in Iraq. Vote for me."

Hell, even Republicans don't want to be around that guy too much. They're afraid that if they have too much face time with the Prez, it'll blow their chances of showing to the wary public that they have the ability to "do better" next time around.

lol indeed that is sad

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm


And to a much lesser extent

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

Yeah, he sure screwed the pooch. The only way a Democrat isn't winning in 2008 is if Hillary runs.

+1 for him being a fuckup. Can anybody tell me one good thing that he's done in the last 6 years?

+1 for him being a fuckup. Can anybody tell me one good thing that he's done in the last 6 years?
he beat Al Gore and John Kerry... there's 2 for ya.

he beat Al Gore and John Kerry... there's 2 for ya.

You sure about that?

no doubt about it. wasn't the first time a pres was elected without winning the popular vote, just the first time the loser whined like a bitch about it.

the cause was a noble one, and Bush is a good man, I have a ton of respect for him....I hate those who openly hate a U.S. president....criticism is one thing, the kind of foul trash I hear these days spoken about him is reprehensible...such people should be executed

the problem is Bush's vision of Mulims embracing democracy was and is fundamentally flawed

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Additional question: were you one of the people who talked shit about Billy Boy when he was president? Because I hear an awful lot of "We should shoot those slanderous bastards" coming out of the same people who said "Fuck Clinton, he's a man-whore liar".

no, I never bashed Clinton

but I obviously lost alot of respect for him....then again he always struck me as a used car saleman from Day 1

Why? I surely hope you didn't lose respect for him after he banged that intern.

Yeah, he sure screwed the pooch. The only way a Democrat isn't winning in 2008 is if Hillary runs.

The Democrats are far from out of the woods. If John McCain runs, he's going to walk away with it. He's like a moderate teddy bear: Lovable by everyone.

Obama vs. McCain will be a very interesting race, though. (Aside from the fact that I can't stop cracking jokes about Obama's name. :D)

if you are a multi millionaire, big corporation.
Bush is the best president ever.

if you are a working man,
hes the absolute worse.

if you are a multi millionaire, big corporation.
Bush is the best president ever.

if you are a working man,
hes the absolute worse.

give me a break. it's not his fault you don't have different $90k car to drive for each day of the week...

In my mind, no. I'm severely biased, though.

Originally posted by yzf-r1

the cause was a noble one, and Bush is a good man, I have a ton of respect for him....I hate those who openly hate a U.S. president....criticism is one thing, the kind of foul trash I hear these days spoken about him is reprehensible...such people should be executed

the problem is Bush's vision of Mulims embracing democracy was and is fundamentally flawed.

Legacy is noble? This wasn't about Democracy in the ME, that's just one more lie from Flubya...someone tossed this quote at me and it's an interesting read from a psychological viewpoint in trying to understand why he's such an idiot...


In a characteristically perceptive Op-Ed in this morning's Washington Post, Dahlia Lithwick makes the point that Bush's extremist actions -- such as Jose Padilla's detention, the Guantanamo abuses, and omnipotence-declaring signing statements -- have no real objective except one: "The object is a larger one: expanding executive power, for its own sake."

When I began writing about the Bush administration's violations of FISA, what confounded me at first was the sheer pointlessness of the lawbreaking. It was not merely that the FISA court has always allowed the President -- all presidents -- to do whatever eavesdropping they wanted, and that bypassing it was therefore unnecessary.

That is true. But more significantly, if the President wanted FISA changed, even radically, to vest him with still greater powers, the unprecedentedly compliant post-9/11 Congress was as eager as could be to grant all of his wishes and to give him whatever new powers he wanted. It did so repeatedly, at exactly the time (October, 2001) when he ordered eavesdropping in violation of the law.

In fact, Congress did amend FISA to grant expanded eavesdropping powers -- in complete accordance with the President's request -- at the very same time Bush ordered illegal eavesdropping. As I wrote in my book:


The picture that emerged [from the Times story on NSA eavesdropping] presented a sharply contradictory set of circumstances. A president who commanded the support and loyalty of national politicians in both parties. A president who sought, and was given, expanded powers by Congress to combat terrorism. A Congress that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, repeatedly and with virtual unanimity agreed to every request the president made. And yet a president who chose to secretly order eavesdropping on American citizens, on U.S. soil, in violation of the very law he had just requested.


The reason Bush violated the law when eavesdropping is the same reason Lithwick cites to explain his other lawless and extremist measures -- because he wanted purposely not to comply with the law in order to establish the general "principle" that he was not bound by the law, to show that he has the power to break the law, that he is more powerful than the law. This is a President and an administration that are obsessed first and foremost with their own power and with constant demonstrations of their own strength. Conversely, what they fear and hate the most is their own weakness and submission to limitations.

For that reason, the weaker and more besieged the administration feels, the more compelled they will feel to make a showing of their power. Lashing out in response to feelings of weakness is a temptation most human beings have, but it is more than a mere temptation for George Bush. It is one of the predominant dynamics that drives his behavior.

His party suffered historic losses in the 2006 midterm elections as a result of profound dissatisfaction with his presidency and with his war, and his reaction was to escalate the war, despite (really, because of) the extreme unpopularity of that option. And as Iraq rapidly unraveled, he issued orders that pose a high risk of the conflict engulfing Iran. When he feels weak and restrained, that is when he acts most extremely.

Bush officials and their followers talk incessantly about things like power, weakness, domination, humiliation. Their objectives -- both foreign and domestic -- are always to show their enemies that they are stronger and more powerful and the enemies are weaker and thus must submit ("shock and awe"). It is a twisted world view but it dominates their thinking (and that is how our country has been governed for the last six years, which is what accounts for our current predicament). As John Dean demonstrated, a perception of one's weakness and the resulting fears it inspires are almost always what drive people to seek out empowering authoritarian movements and the group-based comforts of moral certitude.

The most dangerous George Bush is one who feels weak, powerless and under attack. Those perceptions are intolerable for him and I doubt there are many limits, if there are any, on what he would be willing to do in order to restore a feeling of power and to rid himself of the sensations of his own weakness and defeat.

:cool: