And as far as the glib rhetoric goes, yeah, there’s gonna be some of that too. I didn’t call you names, I just said your argument was paper thin…like paper that…ahh, never mind.

Don’t tell me it’s a tough job being president. No one held a gun to Mr. Bush’s head and forced him to run. These guys want the job desperately. They’ll walk over their feeble grandmothers to get the job. They’ll sell their shriveled little souls to Satan to get the job. Then when they screw up we’re supposed to feel sorry for them? STFU! (Since we’re doing acronyms, this is a Soprano acronym: Shut The F— Up.)

Some obsessive, power-mad egomaniac gets a job that comes with a house, 24 hour security, a private 747, and a lifetime pension after as little as four years on the job and we cut him more slack than the Starbucks barrista trying to pay for her kid’s dialysis on $8 an hour? STFU! We’ll get pissy that Ms. mimimum wage didn’t give us enough foam, but we make excuses for some out-of-his-depth jackass who screws up a war?

Bush asked for the job, he said he could do it, he screwed up, so screw him. Next!

I have theories for why he didn’t win the nomination, but that’s a digression for another thread.

Tim: I like your latest points. What I don’t like (and this isn’t your fault) is that I’m not seeing anything offered as an alternative. The only alternative being offered is a Democrat – and I’m not liking the front runners so far.

Taking this idea and running with it: I’m tired of just “throwing the bastards out”. I’m tired of voting against someone instead of voting for someone. I don’t think I’m alone on this.

I agree with you about Kerry being a bad nominee. I could’ve easily voted for a Dem, just not Kerry. I didn’t watch the primaries, so my first introduction to Kerry was when I watched the Democrat’s convention. I wasn’t impressed with his message (I disagreed with his opinions on the war and he didn’t say anything about supporting gay marriage) and I was completely appalled by what seemed to be Michael Moore’s status with the party. It was disheartening. Personally – I think the ABB of the Dem party caused them to fail to choose a worthy candidate.

Next time, I’ll be following the primaries of both parties. From what my brother in law tells me, that’s when you really learn what the candidates are about.

As for congressional Republicans, between pork-barrel politics and daft legislation on immigration and a few other fronts (I’m trying not to turn this comment into another rant on the online-gaming bill, though I think it could blow up in the GOP’s face just as badly as the immigration stuff), many of them aren’t exactly helping their standing with their own performances, their identification with Bush notwithstanding.

The unemployment rate you cite is a non-issue to me. With the exception of a jump in unemployment up to 6% after the downturn in the economy post 2001 (which, yes, was not Bush’s fault), the unemployment rate has been trending steadily downward since the end of the early ’90s recession. We had unemployment rates lower than this and balanced budgets a few years ago, thanks to bipartisan budgeting. It’s hard to convince me that cutting taxes during war is sound economic policy; that debt clock seems to tell me otherwise.

Unfortuantely, for every Lybia backing down, we have an Iran ratcheting up. Saddam on trial, yes, that’s a good thing. The war we are continuing to fight that got him on trial, the thousands of allied casualties and many thousands of civilian casualties, not so much. (For the record, I do not support pullout. We made a hell of a mess there, and it’s our responsibility to clean it up.)

Regarding the lack of terrorist attacks, allow me to quote one of my favorite conversations from the Simpsons. I’m going from memory here, so please feel free to look up the exact wording and then disregard my argument because I didn’t reproduce it exactly:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm.
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you dear.
Lisa (annoyed): By that logic, I could say that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock. But I don’t see any tigers.
Homer: Lisa, I’d like to buy your rock.

In other less funny words, the lack of a terrorist attack does not mean that the president has successfully thwarted attacks. It just means that nothing on the scale of Sept 11 has been attempted. I’ll admit, that’s unfair for the president since he can’t win. However, it can’t be a positive.

To do my own math on this administration, I see few positives, and what I do see is on the short term alone. However, I see many long term problems. That’s a net negative to me. But hey, you’re free to disagree and explain why you disagree. Just don’t be surprised that in an era in which more than two-thirds of independents do not approve of the president that you’re going to find that people tend to disagree with you.

That doesn’t mean anyone is trying to pull this site to one side. It just means that a lot of people are fed up with Bush. It’s not because they’re still sore over the 2000 election, nor because all Republicans are evil, nor because all Democrats are golden angels with haloes over their head. We’re fed up with Bush because he’s a lousy president, and we arrived at that conclusion without any help from the liberal media, the DNC, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, or any of the other bogeymen.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean it to sound like I was calling you out on it. I’ve been frustrated and typed/said things I didn’t ultimately mean, and thought this might be what was happening.

And yes, I did think you were talking to Paul. I guess I got that all messed up. I’m not in the best place mentally today, as my earlier posts might suggest.

I just re-read your comment. Did you think I was saying that to Paul ’cause I wasn’t. You might still have a beef with me addressing it to Brian, but I just wanted to clarify.

I was under the impression that Brian’s use of name-calling and invectives is severely frowned upon on this site, and that’s why I like it. Many people have been banned from this site because of continually commenting in that manner. The first few sentences of his comment are fine, but the rest of it is completely worthless. It adds nothing to the conversation, and he continually posts comments of this nature. That is why I wish he would go away. I know that sounds immature (because it is), but it’s very frustrating when you want to engage in a legitimate debate of serious issues. Maybe I should amend my comment to say, “I wish he would stop commenting on this blog, IF that’s all he’s going to do. Fair enough?

BTW, I promise that I have (and will) criticize democrats for being stupid and/or bad, etc. when they f*** up as well. Even though I don’t agree with Bush’s politics, I would still give him props for doing a good job in a general presidential way, if he deserved it.

Paul,
I, for one, am not trying to run you out of town. I guess I just don’t understand what is wrong with calling a bad president a bad president. It seems like you are either disregarding the crap he has pulled, or you don’t really think it’s that bad. Do you really, truly think that Kerry would have been worse? I guess I (and maybe others on this thread) are just wondering if you suffer from BIK? (see Justin’s comment above). Or maybe RAAR Syndrome? (Republicans Are Always Right).

Personally, I don’t believe you should stop commenting on this blog. Differing views are important.

I’m not sure what’s up with Meredith wishing/asking you to stop commenting here. I’m not in agreement with her, and maybe she is just having a bad day? Who knows.

Justin tends to lean to the Left – as his admitted case of ABB would suggest – but I wouldn’t say that this makes Donkeplant a so called “Left” site. Sometimes I agree with Justin, sometimes I don’t – but I appreciate hearing all sides of an argument and I’d say he does that fairly well.

BTW – I agree with your ‘what’s gone right with this administration’ list above.

I’ll ask again: which way is this site going?

Tim: Libya backing down. Syria leaving Lebanon. Saddam brought to trial.
No terrorist attack on US soil since 2001. An attempt at immigration
reform. 4.7% unemployment rate. One of these refutes one of yours. And
if you get to say “everything else that has happened”, without support,
then so do I, without support, about everything good that has happened. I
stand by my claim: drab, but not nightmarish.

And I didn’t even have to resort to all caps.

The only leaders you really have to pay attention to are the ones who stay for decades, or the ones who can fire you. And as long as you’re several steps down in the chain of command, it is very, very hard for you to get fired from the government, as long as you avoid the obvious stuff (spying, other felonies, faking timesheets, etc.).

Again, I initially brought this up in regard to FEMA’s problems during the Katrina aftermath (which by the way I don’t even consider that staggering). These problems -can- be mitigated by great leadership and clear policy. The greater the leadership and clearer the policy, the fewer the problems. And I will freely admit that there are Bush policy bullets that I have disagreements with.

However, I wasn’t getting the impression from Kerry that his leadership would have been much greater, nor his policy much clearer. (”We can do better”??) Moreover, I got a strong impression that his policy, vague or clear as it might have been, would have leaned toward Iraq withdrawal at the first sign of trouble. (Would anyone disagree?) I felt (and still feel) that would be disastrous.

And – yet again – I should reiterate that “Kerry would be worse” was indeed my speculation. And hence, it motivated my vote in 2004. Not yours. What was the problem you were having here?

Those who voted for Bush believes Kerry wouldn’t have done better and those that voted for Kerry are convinced that he would’ve done better. The whole conversation is bizarre. There is no evidence for either side, only each person’s bias and hypothetical story to support it.

Regarding the point of the post…

If the Dems win later this year I believe it will be because Republicans aren’t happy with their party leaders – not because the public is happy with the Democrats. If the Dems win – the Republicans will come out fighting, thus creating more dirty politics and the sick cycle will continue on. Same thing will happen if the Republicans win. The Dems will continue to attack the Republicans, ugly politics will continue on and on.

Either way, it seems like the US people lose.

There you go again. It’s getting really, REALLY old. Calling Kerry names is a great way to make your point. I wish you would stop commenting on this blog. Seriously, grow up.