Sunset for the Bush Era
Tags: President Bush.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Come December, I’ll be writing – perhaps for no other reason than to clarify my thoughts – a long review of President Bush’s Administration. He’s not out of office yet, but absent some unexpected crisis emerging, the days of his forcing through broad policy changes are over. In his State of the Union, he laid out some excellent policy proposals, but the real effort to advance any of them will have to be made by his successor – mostly what we’ll get between now and November is a series of markers being laid down for the election. Some useful things might come out of this, but nothing earth shaking. For good or ill, President Bush – like all Presidents in their last year in office – is a caretaker President.
And yet the level of vitriol levelled against him is still not just strong, but seems to be rising. As I drove home Tuesday I scanned around the radio stations for Florida returns and stumbled across Michael Savage – in the time between tuning in and getting sick to my stomach (quite literally) over Savage’s nauseating polemics, I heard him claim that Romney won’t win because he’s not part of the “Bush Machine” and that McCain is Kennedy’s sock puppet…and the people who voted for McCain in Florida? Brooklyn Bolsheviks…switching over to some classical music to regain my sense of civilization, it occured to me that aside from the sheer idiocy of Savage’s statements, there was also the complete pointlessness of it all…President Bush is on the way out, and Savage was blowing a gasket over what he viewed as President Bush’s nefarious machinations in the Florida GOP primary. Savage is, allegedly, of the right – but his sort of bilge is also very common on the left where we, in January of 2008, still hear calls for President Bush’s impeachment and/or trial for war crimes.
Future generations will marvel, I think, over the amount of invective directed towards a center/right American politcian who bent over backwards – some times to the great dismay of his core supporters – to be kind to his opponents. President Bush is a man of first principles, but also a man who is willing to work with just about anybody in order to get the business of America done. A Chrsitian in fact as well as name, he’s treated by his opponents as a spawn of perdition. And the oddest thing of it is that all of the invective – like Savage’s rant – has been pointless. President Bush is of that moral belief (so am I) that abuse by others – if suffered patiently and for the glory of God – is a thing to be thankful for. President Bush, courtesy of his opponents, has had 7 years of intense schooling in how to be patient – and, I’ll bet, also in how to pray for those who hate you. The only people harmed by all the lies and slanders against President Bush have been those who launched them – who have poisoned their own souls, and made themselves into worse people, day by day.
Some people observe the hatred out there and worry – I do, too, at times. But mostly I’m coming ’round to the view that the anger and resultant hatred is burning itself up. For all their noise and apparant strength, they are stretched to the breaking point, and anyone who comes along and continues to be patient and kind with them will benefit from the whithering of the haters. The next four to eight years might well be a lot quieter than we expected – and the sunset of the Bush Era just might end up being the dawn of an era of good feelings.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
78 Responses to “Sunset for the Bush Era”
Caucus of Corruption
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000. In a per curiam opinion, by a vote of 7-2, the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court’s method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, and by a vote of 5-4, the Court held that no alternative method could be established within the time limits established by Florida Legislature.[1] The per curiam opinion was argued on the basis of Equal Protection.[2]
Doug,
It would strain my brain too much to try to say that, in a hypothetically reversed situation, that the Bush campaign either cheated or tried to cheat by utilizing the laws of the State of Florida as they existed in November 2000 and prior to the Supreme Court ruling. That “logic” is bit tortuous for me.
SEW,
I note that you don’t deny the media’s bias towards Vice-President Gore during the campaign. Also, I believe it’s a no-no in these environs to quote from Wikipedia, even sneakily without attribution, as it’s considered part of the vast left-wing conspiracy.
I really dont see any issue about the Florida election. The Demoncrat party in Florida acted like radicals when they though they would lose the state. The went after every concievable angle to steal the election, right down to coniving to disenfranchise tens of thousands of our military absentee ballots due to minor technicalities.
Two elections, same stuff.
And they call Republicans radical, what phoey.!!
I do deny liberal media bias towards Al Gore. Al articulated himself as a fake, not the biased liberal media. Even Wikipedia finds it difficult to change the 7-2 US Supreme Court ruling that the Florida Supreme Court’s method of a recount as unconstitutional. That was the liberal Florida Supreme Court’s attempt to cheat thinking it not possible to be called on it. So the reality is that the FSC appointed Gore as President, not that the USSC appointed GWB as you claim. The Florida Court ruling was judged UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a 7-2 count. Should have been 9-0.
SEW,
It was the Dec 8 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that required the recount of all counties to count all the undervotes. The SCOTUS ruling that was 7-2 was based on equal protection but only as far as the method the votes were counted, i.e. there was no statewide standard on what an undervote should look like in order to be counted. The SCOTUS 5-4 ruling was that there wasn’t time enough left to set a standard then do the count.
It was the FL Supreme Court that first took offense at Gore’s cherrypicking counties in order to cheat the rest of the voters, SCOTUS didn’t need to consider that issue as the liberal Florida court took care of it for them.
extra,
Just a quick note as I’m at work – actually, I think President Bush one of the best Presidents the United States has ever had, and we’re going to sorely miss him once he’s gone. As I said, I’ll cover more of this in December (including the things I think President Bush did wrong), but I can’t help but admire the man – and the saddest thing about the whole affair is how many people decided to spend their lives and energy hating him for no reason at all…
What about all those people that dont even take the time to fully investigate all the gossip they hear about Bush. They just jump on the band wagon, totally ignorant of the truth, and they rub it all in your face like they are proving something.
I still have not seen on of them document that Bush lied about anything. All they produce is gossip and inuendo, nothing more than elaborate conspiracy theories.
Its not so much about being a Republican or a Democrat, its about being smart enough to know the difference between a fact and gossip/rumor. We have wasted so much time with those people, for what?
Doug,
Are you telling me that the Gore campaign was violating the law when it asked for recounts? If so, which law, the one that existed when they asked for the recount or the case law that existed in their future? Is their a law library that exists where one can look future case law so one can conform to one’s present conduct to that?
js,
Okay, we’ll do this drill again because you seemingly can’t remember. President Bush on 04/20/04: (on videotape) saying:
Also at:
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
New York Times on 12/15/05:
President Bush on 12/17/05 in his radio address:
Note he specifically referenced the news story without denying its accuracy. Ergo, his statements of 04/20/04 were blatant and gratuitous lies directed at you, me and every other American.
Okay Diana, last time,
Gore may have attempted to use the state law that violated the U.S. Constitution in a manner that he knew would disenfranchise voters in all of Florida’s counties except for the three that he selectively wanted to count the undervotes in.
You seem to say that that is okay because he was using the available law. I guess you also are fine with MLB players using advanced forms of Human Growth Hormones because they weren’t specifically banned by baseball. Same thing, is it trying to gain an edge by denying equal protection to others? Is it acting dishonestly?
It is attempting to cheat, not only to win the Presidency, but in the process of trying to become the President it is Knowingly using a law in a manner that violates the same U.S. Constitution that he would be sworn to uphold.
It was a very despicable action and you must agree on that. If he had asked for recounts in all the counties, initially, that would have been a very honorable thing to do in contrast. I am sure that he is kicking himself, and I probably would guess that he listened to some bad advice in a most greedy fashion when making that determination. But it is done and I don’t really want him to hold a public office again until he fully realizes how awful it is for a public official to do that in order to try to gain power.
Deleted – off topic
Doug,
Since you’re so sensitive to perceived lack of ethics, is it okay to you for the winner of the 2000 election to lie to you? (Ed. Note: ok, that is quite enough. The 2000 election is not the subject of the thread, neither is the NSA’s signals intelligence program. Keep to the subject).
Your off your rocker Diana.
ALLL THAT and you dont have anything but a wild guess.
You can NOT tell us that you have some “inside” information that Bush had any intent to decieve us.
Your posts are drivel, you take information out of its original context to try to force it to mean something else.
You havent proven Bush lied.
The only thing you have proven is that, exactly as I stated above, YOU dont know the difference between gossip and fact. Suck on that for a bit.
OH cmon Diana.
Havent you noticed in the MSM that they are charging Bush and Cheney with Felony Wiretap violations and the Senate is seeking Impeachment? Reid is on his back sweety!!
And PELOSI@!! riding those huge, first class jets back and forth from California to Washington DC, its a sure lock on impeachment sweetiee!!
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Bush didnt lie, he was protecting America for idiots that like to Gossip and spread Rumors.
js,
I read your “insightful” analysis. Piece of advice. Don’t buy a used car.
Diana,
Piece of advice?
Is that suave and sophistication? Or just a cowardly act to justify your belief in gossip and rumormongoring?
Dont answer.
Its pretty obvious. You are no sophisticant!!
Diana,
A word of advice – our patience is entirely at an end in these attempts to always change the subject. Keep on topic, or suffer the consequences.
Mark,
Since I’m the only one who ever changes the subject, I’m glad to know that you have a consequence all laid out for me personally. (Ed. Note – no, not only; but you are the worst offender, and even that is not it – you keep changing the subject back to the same two or three issues you like to talk about…join the conversation, Diana, and that means talking about what others want to talk about, from time to time).
Mark – I agree that future generations will marvel at the level of hatred directed at Bush. Even so, the bad feelings are very real, and we’d probably all benefit by understanding them better.
I’d be very interested in some posts/debates about the subject of anger toward Bush and also toward Liberals. We should break it down – what exactly bothers us about these people? I certainly have the same question about liberal hatred that you have for Bush – you may disagree with anti-corporate attitudes, tax and spend, or entitlement programs…but what caused that disagreement to rise to the level of hate?
In saying “you may disagree”, I mean anyone rather than you personally.
dian, “Little Miss Non Sequitir”. But Mark, isn’t this her blog?
Extra,
Actually, I’m thinking of a series of threads this weekend on a “Defend (insert candidate/cause here)” – some left, some right…and lets see if people can actually defend what they claim to believe in without resorting to mere attacks on what it is not (ie, “I support Obama ’cause he’s not Bush” is a moderately interesting statement, but its also a bit meaningless).
Mark,
That would be a fun and interesting set of posts. That is why I do come here and read what people are saying.
Thanks.
Joe,
Coming up on Friday – “Defend McCain”, “Defend Obama”, “Defend Romney”, “Defend Hillary” – everyone will get a chance to speak their piece on why they think these people the best we have, or the worst idiots we’ve ever suffered…the only rule I’ll have is that a person who wants to defend must defend…no “well, he’s not Bush”…there has to be a reason for defending the candidate.
Lets see if everyone can actually articulate a rational case…