President Bush Leaving Office More Unpoular Than Nixon

[Banquo's Ghost]

But Dubya has broken every record for purposefull immorality. (and all in the name of God)

Lord knows I hold no candle for the Bush administration, but I don't think President Bush can be accused of purposeful immorality.

I think the president is a decent man whose belief system brooked no internal reflection or personal challenge. He was maintained in this rigid thought by more manipulative people around him. It should be remembered that on the day after 9-11, pretty much his entire constituency was baying for blood and revenge. It takes a strong man to resist that siren call yet still take effective action.

From that moment, he gave into every dark thought a conservative soul is prone too - control, pre-emption, demonisation. He was facilitated in this by a compliant and equally unthinking Congress.

Nonetheless, one has to remember always that he firmly believed that he was protecting the American people - which is his first duty as president.

He can be accused of rigid certainty and lack of empathy - a huge failing in any leader - but personal, purposeful, immorality is, I think, an imputation too far.

Nixon however, was indeed a crook and knew it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Banquo:

Nice try (and I agree with a number of your points) You are wasting your time.

Nixon is history, and therefore not so bad (but he was a crook, and knew it/considered himself above the law).

Bush is current, and therefore the acme of evil (i.e. only that which I personally have experience with can be viewed as the "best" or "worst," it is impossible that the best or worst preceded me).

His detractors will brook no "gray area" assessments and cannot find ANY other explanation for his foreign policy decisions aside from abject stupidity, greed and/or religious fanaticism.

Give Bush 35 years and some calmer reflection will be allowed. For now, he must serve as the Emperor to Sen. Obama's Luke.

[Martok]

Give Bush 35 years and some calmer reflection will be allowed. For now, he must serve as the Emperor to Sen. Obama's Luke.

Sigged.

[Samurai Waki]

Well, all in all the Galactic Empire wasn't so bad, after all, they did end slavery which had been a part of the Republic for millenia. OTOH, it did cost a few planets and billions of lives...

nvm.

[Strike For The South]

I don't like Gulliani or Palin. Where does this leave me?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't like Gulliani or Palin. Where does this leave me?

Romney you fool! You had your shot!

Giuliani will never run for president again, I'll put money on it. His showing was embarrassing and he sealed his fate; to be NY/Tri-State elected only.

Romney may go again in 2012, Palin would be smart to run in 2016 after two terms in the Governorship. If she could get a half term in as Senator that would be good too.

Jindal may go for it in 2012. Paul Ryan may be a Senator by then. Eric Cantor seems to have ambition. I wouldn't be suprised to see Chuck Hagel come back - he is interesting. I hope Huckabee stays on his talk show.

Rick Perry may run after the nation forgets about Texas Republicans, Crist might not be bad as long as he doesn't have a white-haired running mate or a boyfriend. Pawlenty would make a good run. Sanford, Hutchison etc.

Republicans have a bunch of bright and well educated guys and gals climbing the ranks. Some are in the House and may pick up a Senate seat, others will have aged by 2012 and 2016. The funny thing is that they don't all sound like hicks and can answer abstract questions. THe echelon that took legitimate offense to the GOP beign thought of as dumb and hillbilly is now gaining years in office.

We need to not run anyone like McCain or Dole again. If they are old they have to seem young or no ball.

[Martok]

If the Republicans nominate Romney or Palin in 2012, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot.

Jindal, Crist, or Pawlenty would be far better. Hell, they might even get *my* vote, depending on how Obama's doing by then.


EDIT: And Senator Kerry? Liberal he may be, but he was also obnoxiously bland and uninspiring. As soon as I saw he was confirmed as the nominee, I knew Bush was in.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If the Republicans nominate Romney or Palin in 2012, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot.

Jindal, Crist, or Pawlenty would be far better. Hell, they might even get *my* vote, depending on how Obama's doing by then.


EDIT: And Senator Kerry? Liberal he may be, but he was also obnoxiously bland and uninspiring. As soon as I saw he was confirmed as the nominee, I knew Bush was in.

Well that depends on what Romney does over these next 4 years. Republicans are unlikely to win an election to a sitting President. Nobody has done that since Carter and that was almost 30 years ago and he was most likely the worst (or second worst) President since the Great Depression. Even Bush won a second term and he is probably THE worst.

Romney excited me to a great extent with the unique qualities that he brought to the table. This primary season was about getting to know him, getting over his Mormonism and coming to terms that he is a pro-life convert. He is an incredibly gifted business man and has a knack for reducing the complex without really sacrificing complexity. He understands the difference between optimism and naivety and this primary will strengthen that understanding.

If he stays visible and takes a few more difficult tasks before 2012, he has a decent shot at picking up the nomination in 2012. I don't believe that he will ever be President, but even to a sitting president in 2012 I believe that he will have a better shot than any GOP contender did in 2008.

He will usher in a necessary re-birth of Ivy-League educated, Northeastern Republicans that will help re-claim some radical issues that are brilliant. The GOP can't survive shooting from the hip and speaking with a drawl about stopping progress. Unique, bright, and conservative solutions need to be developed instead of folksy rhetorical stop-signs.

In doing this he will help make the GOP a viable option to the new Democratic party.

[AlexanderSextus]

I don't like Gulliani or Palin. Where does this leave me?

PAUL!!!!!

[CountArach]

His detractors will brook no "gray area" assessments and cannot find ANY other explanation for his foreign policy decisions aside from abject stupidity, greed and/or religious fanaticism.

You mean there are other reasons?

[Jolt]

What I find most funny about this entire situation is that he is on his second term. It was evident in his first term how competent he was, and yet he was elected again. How could such a dumb President be elected twice? Who knows if he runs for President in a decade, people might elect him again.

[drone]

What I find most funny about this entire situation is that he is on his second term. It was evident in his first term how competent he was, and yet he was elected again. How could such a dumb President be elected twice? Who knows if he runs for President in a decade, people might elect him again.

Fortunately, he can't serve another term, so this won't happen. On his reelection, generally it is unconventional to vote out the president (commander in chief) during a war, and he was running against a very poor candidate put forth by the Democratic party. He was the idiot that we knew, and was therefore was kept in office. If the Democrats had offered up a real candidate, there would have been a very good chance of him losing in 2004.

[LittleGrizzly]

If you look at various ratings like presidential ratings and the like, it seems bush/republicans managed to hold up just about enough support to get through 2004 election, not long after bush approval rating dropped into the zone which probably would have seen him lose the election...

[Martok]

Fortunately, he can't serve another term, so this won't happen. On his reelection, generally it is unconventional to vote out the president (commander in chief) during a war, and he was running against a very poor candidate put forth by the Democratic party. He was the idiot that we knew, and was therefore was kept in office. If the Democrats had offered up a real candidate, there would have been a very good chance of him losing in 2004.

Unfortunately, drone is correct: Bush won because the Dems, in their infinite stupidity, nominated the weakest possible candidate. Had Edwards or even Dean gotten the nomination, they probably would've won.

[LittleGrizzly]

I would've have thought dean would have successfully been painted as loony, i thought he was too liberal for mainstream america, though his energy and charisma are obama like...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would've have thought dean would have successfully been painted as loony, i thought he was too liberal for mainstream america, though his energy and charisma are obama like...

No way. Dean simply did not have Obama's charm. Martok may have a point about Edwards though -- he might have edged passed Bush in Ohio in 2004 and that would have been the difference.

In retrospect, the fact that a hyper-lib patricianesque twit like Kerry came as close to a win as he did should have been a huge wake-up call for the GOP. One which we ignored in the afterglow of the first majority of the popular vote we'd enjoyed since 1988.

[Devastatin Dave]

he gave into every dark thought a conservative soul is prone too - control, pre-emption, demonisation.

Really, so lefties like Mao, Stalin, Che, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Kim Jung Il are really conservatives?

[KarlXII]

Really, so lefties like Mao, Stalin, Che, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Kim Jung Il are really conservatives?

You mean your lovers?

[Devastatin Dave]

You mean your lovers?

Kim Jung Ill gave me VD....

[KarlXII]

Kim Jung Ill gave me VD....

You can't blame a man for being ronery.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Really, so lefties like Mao, Stalin, Che, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Kim Jung Il are really conservatives?

Well, Dave, yes indeed. But then I use the word "conservative" not as a battle flag, but in its intended meaning - one who conserves the status quo, is interested in traditional values and is cautious of change or innovation.

Of your list, only Che would not have fitted the description once they had imposed their revolutions (and no doubt, had he lived, he would have ended up a conservative too). The dark soul of conservatives I was describing is the urge to rely on law to control, not to trust people to behave, to impose the (often nostalgic and fantastical) tried and trusted, and restrict freedoms. Just as the dark soul of the liberal is too much trust, carelessness of people's fears, and a wanton disregard for the law and precedent if the law is perceived not to fit their current needs.

Each of the men noted by you created deeply conservative regimes, terrified of thought and change and characterised by rigid controls, false patriotism and the demonisation of an "Other".

I compare none of them to President Bush, save in noting the continuum. I also note that each of them started their political careers as revolutionary liberals - showing in the most extreme form, that we are all liberals when young, and all conservative when old.

To provide you with further LOLs, I consider myself a conservative, and recognise the dark soul of which I speak in my own political reactions. Not only am I quite a traditionalist, I am keen on fiscal responsibility. I am a strong advocate of the rule of law - which is why I devote myself to the cause of human rights and the respect for a system of international law.

I also whip hippies from my land and have been known to eat a baby or two with my kedgeree.

[Devastatin Dave]

I also whip hippies from my land and have been known to eat a baby or two with my kedgeree.

Then you have my respect sir, and as a token of my apreciation for a fellow conservative, I'm sending you a case of fresh newborn Cuban babies for your consumption.