The Republican KennedysPincher Martin -- Wednesday, June 23, 2010 -- 06:18:51 PM
The Bushes: Two presidencies, two governorships, one vice presidency, one senator's seat. All provided with minimal skill and flexible ideology. The GOP family that just won't go away, no matter how badly they mess things up for both party and country. A thread to discuss all things Bush, including whether Jeb will add to the family's resume.This thread is tagged:
(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
God this guy is a piece of work.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that this headline over at Hot Air elicited almost universal revulsion among the many commentators.
When I read articles like this, I'm convinced that at least two-thirds of people in politics are mouth-breathing idiots.
If the GOP puts up Jeb, I hope they get exactly what they deserve. It'll be the only candidate that allows Obama to run exactly the same anti-Bush campaign that he won so convincingly last time.
Like the Kennedys, the Bush family has a group of functionaries and high-level gofers who serve the family's political ambitions. Some of these people have talent and some don't. Card is one who does. But they all share the quality of a certain shamelessness and lack of self-respect when promoting the Bushes that the family has always sought in its help.
From 1989 to 1992 Card served as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for George H.W. Bush, and this posting began a love affair he's had with the Bush family that has not stopped to this day.
He then became Transportation Secretary under George H.W. Bush in 1992.
After Bush lost in 1992 to Clinton, Card went back to Massachusetts, but then came back to serve Dubya in 2000 -- first to run the Republican National Convention in 2000 and then to become his Chief of Staff for six years.
He then was named acting Dean of the Bush School at Texas A&M in 2011, presumably because the school is his Graceland. So it's quite natural he'd be schlepping for Jeb in his own ham-handed way.
Card was the man who whispered to Bush that the country was under attack on 9/11.
He has one of the deadest expressions I've ever seen on a man.
Bush's immediate stunned paralysis after being notified is all you need to know about that entire presidency. It's the whole thing writ small. The face of a guy who's realizing this isn't going to be the fun gig he thought it'd be.
Don't be ridiculous. If there's one thing that Bush did right during his presidency, it was the way he handled 9/11. It was a defining moment indeed, of both his patriotism and his ability to rise to the importance of his position.
You are such a hack for Obama. Tell me if you agree with our abject apologizing and his trite comments about how important that was in "calming the situation" after yet another 2 soldiers were killed yesterday.
No, I think making any sort of immediate statement was a complete mistake on Obama's part.
Bush's immediate response once his brain kicked into gear was fine, though he did not capitalize on it to mobilize the country well at all. Remember being told to keep shopping? We're still funding our own attackers with drug & oil money so nothing's changed there. And it's everything after the immediate response that got fucked up.
But is that really your defense? "September 2011 to Spring 2012 he was awesome?" You know how much of an incompetent he'd have had to have been to screw up looking good after 9/11? A ham sandwich would've looked patriotic atop that pile of rubble with a bullhorn.
He had a few moments. But those moments were the exception, not the rule. And many other moments, like the carrier landing and "good job, Brownie" and Harriet Miers, ended up haunting his own presidency in deservedly mocking fashion.
Is that really your comeback? To shift the direction of my critique of your comment away from you?
Listen, you're the one who argues Bush was an abject failure. PM is your friend here. I don't agree with either of you. Bush may have not had a stellar presidency, but compared to Obama, he's a Lincoln.
Nor do I think Bush is soley responsible for the Iraq campaign, there's plenty of blame to go around Congress there, including many democrats, who seem to have developed amnesia about their roles.
No, I don't. Nor do I think he was incompetent, certainly not compared to this current administration, and as for his foriegn policy stances, I agree more with them then I do the apologist in the White House.
Hackishness in evidence again, but history will be the judge with time as to the quality of the Bush presidency, that is if historians in the future can manage to break away from their ideological biases.
Nor do I think Bush is soley responsible for the Iraq campaign, there's plenty of blame to go around Congress there, including many democrats
In what way did Bush ever not get precisely what he wanted for Iraq or Afghanistan from Congress?
In what way did Congress ever protest or even seriously consider not funding his or the military requests? This was a consensus war, bucko.
It's not all his fault because they should have not allowed the Commander in Chief leeway to run the war as he and the Joint Chiefs saw fit?
Okay, I'm good with that as long as we can blame the fiasco of Afganistan on your guy. All of it, including the lack of willingness to protect and stand up for our men that has led to their murders.
If we're going to judge these two presidents by their foreign policy wars of Iraq and Afganistan, I'd say Bush comes out 10 lengths ahead on that race.
You've got to be kidding me. I don't even think the Bush sycophants go this far. Really, MsIt? Really?
You and Greg deserve each other.
Yes, some Democrats voted for the war and they should be held accountable for their votes. (And as Kerry found out in 2004, when push comes to shove, they usually are.) But most of the Democrats who supported the war, like Kerry and Clinton, didn't promote the campaign to start the Iraq war, or interpret the intelligence that justified the war, or develop a strategy to win the war, or run the war. Bush did all that. It was his job as Commander-in-Chief.
So don't even try to foist some sort of rough equivalence on the two roles. The Democrats' role was passive and pretty much left to that of authorizing the war. Once that moment was past, all the Democrats had left in their arsenal was cutting off funding, which most people agree was not a serious option. Bush's role was day-to-day and as close to absolute as we get in our democratic society.
Yes, really, compared to Obama, Bush looks very good. I know your position on this, I don't agree with it.
I don't support a Jeb Bush candidacy but that doesn't mean I think GW was the president from hell.
And you are whack on this topic.
It was, but he had solid congressional support, including from democrats.
Yes, just like Obama's in Afganistan. By the way, whatever else you might think, Bush did leave his presidency with the Iraq war in better shape (with respect to American interests) than Obama will leave Afganistan.
I don't care that you disagree with my position. I love disagreement. I live for it. What bothers me is that, like Greg, you can't support your opinion. Your argument here -- to the extent you even have one -- is completely without merit. Someone could perhaps make a decent case for what you want to make (although I doubt it), but you can't.
I don't care about Jeb Bush right now. I want to know how any idiot who was sentient over the last decade still thinks George W. Bush's presidency could look like Lincoln's presidency in any comparison.
Yes, on day one, Bush had all the official support (including from some Democrats) he needed to go to war. No one really disputes that.
But the war lasted the rest of Bush's presidency, and the Democrats didn't have a say in how it was run. Even skeptical Republicans in Congress didn't have a say in how it was run. That the war was authorized by Congress doesn't absolve the president of his responsibility in running it nor does it mean he shares equal billing with those who voted for it. When judging the leadership qualities of a president, especially in war, you don't just look at day one. You look at how well a president was able to set goals and meet them, especially when you consider how little interference he has from others to do what he believes needs to be done.
No, he did not. And the fact you think so just shows how ignorant you are of the entire War on Terror. You're still lost in the headlines somewhere. I think you're seeing "Surge" and leaving it at that. Bush was in Iraq for six years -- a period nearly twice as long as the period we spent fighting Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Everything positive he got done there was taken care of in the first six to twelve months. Everything else was a waste -- a waste of good men, a waste of money, and a waste of time.
Are you really this fucking stupid that you still don't know that?