Sunset for the Bush Era
January 30th, 2008 at 12:49am 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.
Entry Filed under: President Bush
78 Comments
1. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 1:07 am
As I’ve said before, I wish George W. Bush, the man, nothing but good. However, in his former capacity as Governor George W. Bush and current capacity as President George W. Bush, I have had nothing but contempt for his policies and approach to governance. I don’t believe all of the policies and philosophies originated with him, but he had the responsibility for them being implemented. As such, he bears considerable, but not total, responsibility for the damage to this nation over the last seven years.
2. Mark Noonan | January 30th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Diana,
Thats all fine and dandy but, good or bad, what is done is done, and it won’t be undone while President Bush is in office. I had a lot of ill feelings towards Clinton in 2000, but as he was on the way out, I didn’t really care any more what he did, nor did I care to spend my time rehashing my arguments against him, as such arguments were moot.
There is something just bizarre in the way the left is carrying on as if 2008 is their chance to beat President Bush - you can’t beat him; he’s leaving office. Its done - he won, you lost; but now its a new dawn, and you can try again with Hillary and/or Obama.
3. danielle | January 30th, 2008 at 6:18 am
GREAT POST!!!
This was the best part of it all:
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.
4. extramedium | January 30th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Mark,
I’ll be interested to read your assessment of Bush after he leaves office. I imagine that you’ll regard him as a good, but not great, President - even though you spent so much time debating under the “Blogs for Bush” banner.
I understand that to say so now would somehow cede ground to Bush’s detractors and violate your conservative code of loyalty - however, it hasn’t gone unnoticed that in covering the primaries neither you nor Matt have looked to any candidate to “assume the mantle” of George W. Bush. Like so many Republicans have done since the crash of Bush’s popularity (I’ll never forget Sean Hannity’s choked-up “I’m a Reagan conservative” radio segment), you seem to have latched on to Reagan as the be-all end-all model.
In my view, B4B was never so much “for” Bush as it was “against” liberals (other Bush critics) and I suspect that was your main motivation - almost as though you somehow took criticism against him personally. I never got the impression that you thought Bush was the greatest President that ever lived.
(cue James Allegro)
5. Macker | January 30th, 2008 at 7:11 am
And all that hatred and vitriol goes right back to the 2000 Election….
6. Rana Quijotesca | January 30th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Great President? I don’t think so… Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate him (that would be stupid because I don’t know the guy).
But let’s take a look at his presidency:
-He spent most of his first 8 months in office on vacation in Texas.
-Managed to turn budget surpluses into deficits and balloon the debt to the largest one in history (it now stands at $9.2 trillion).
-Rode an unsustainable economic boom caused by the Fed’s easy money policy after 9/11 and erroneously attributed it to his tax cuts (even something that former economic advisers disagree with).
-Used signing statements to circumvent laws passed by congress, the most egregious of which was exempting himself from a torture ban passed with a 90+ vote in the Senate.
-Related to the last one, insisting that the military and CIA, under his orders, do not torture, while, at the same time, ensuring he retains a right to do so.
-Decided that controlling spending was important only after the Democrats took control in the House and Senate.
-When invading Iraq, he ignored the advice of possibly the most experienced military man in US History (Colin Powell), and went with that of Paul Wolfowitz.
-Appointed cronies to important positions (like Michael Brown to FEMA).
7. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Macker,
You lost the 2000 election and for the sake of your mental health, get over it. And you just can’t fault us for being highly critical of the hyper-sensitive, deranged posts of our resident liberals. Most of them have strayed far from the reservation.
IF Iraq can continues to improve,
and one day soon becomes a representative democracy in the ME that champions civil rights and helps curb fanaticism, President Bush’s legacy will be golden.
8. Magnum Serpentine | January 30th, 2008 at 8:13 am
george will be remembered for being the worst president in the 21st century. george approval rating has not risen above 29 percent in a very long time. 66 percent (Gallop) feel george is the worst president in history
Don’t get me started on the 2000 election. And where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court can order an end to counting and to that matter, interfere in a state election? I am sure many will come up with excuses for this…..
“… the World Wonders.” Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, World War 2, Pacific Theater, 1945
9. Bigfoot | January 30th, 2008 at 8:24 am
And where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court can order an end to counting and to that matter, interfere in a state election?
The Supreme Court ruled that in order for Florida to legally conduct a recount, it must do so for the entire state, not just in a few selected counties, as the Dems were trying to do. The recount in only a few counties would have violated the “equal protection” part of the 14th Amendment. This, by the way, was a 7-2 decision. The court also decided that Florida could not extend recounts beyond their legislated time limit for doing so, which was a 5-4 decision.
Back to topic. Jonah Goldberg of NRO had this to say about the Bush presidency.
10. plainjane | January 30th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Future generations will marvel, I think, over the amount of invective directed towards a center/right American politcian …January 30th, 2008 at 12:49am Mark Noonan
Are you referring to President Bill Clinton?
11. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Mark,
True enough. Regardless of anything else, however it was accomplished, George W. Bush was the custodian of the office he was sworn to on January 20th, 2001. I hope that his personal life goes very well and that he has ample time to spend in his retirement.
While I don’t think it was necessarily because of his personality, I find your contention that President Bush was preternaturally kind to his political opponents to be utterly revisionist. Was he operating at the scurrilous level of a President Nixon? No. However, the fact that his chief political strategist for almost of his public life was the politically amoral and utterly remorseless Karl Rove puts the lie to that notion.
More importantly, at his behest, real, measurable harm has been done to the United States of America. Some harm cannot be undone. The Americans who have died and been maimed in Iraq cannot have their lives, limbs and unscarred bodies returned to them. Our repudiation of civilized behavior and damage to our international standing in deporting Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, to Syria where he was tortured cannot be undone.
Some damage can and should be undone. The egregious USA Patriot Act can be repealed and replaced with appropriate legislation. The facilities at Guantanamo Bay can be permanently closed. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can be restored to their status as the exclusive mechanism for the Executive Branch to conduct such activities. The era of the “trust me” government noted by Ronald Reagan in 1980 can be ended:
The egregious concentration of power in the Presidency, which will be routinely condemned once again by Republicans when a Democrat assumes the office, can be undone and a government with three coequal branches, as described in our Constitution can be restored. In the meantime, the additional damage contemplated must be prevented or at least limited. That is the task for the next 356 days.
12. js | January 30th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I always figured the damage to this nation came from liberals. Certainly, the condemnation of the Iraq war came from them, and the failure of the American Press is the real fault of our worldwide disgrace. Had they adhered to Journalisms imparial ethics and standards they would have shouted the whole truth to the worlds masses instead of being the dogs of liberalism and bias. Because of the Press’s corruption, lies get around the world twice before the truth is ever printed once.
In its core, conservative people will stand up and fight for what is right, and thats what Bush did in Iraq, instaed of spending 8 years appeasing a tyrant. Unlike the Clinton administration, which spent 8 years appeasing the tyrany in Lybia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and other places. Doing that allowed terrorism to gain a substantial following, leading up to 9-11, the Taliban, and the Iraqi Invasion.
13. Dave | January 30th, 2008 at 9:56 am
The Anchoress has an interesting (and inspirational) post on President Bush, complete with YouTube clips:
http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/01/29/bush-rescues-his-own-ss-agent/
14. Aitch | January 30th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Well of course there will be an era of good feelings. With an approval rating in the low 30’s most people are going be happy that Bush is no longer the President.
15. SEW | January 30th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Dian has good company in her thoughts. Hugo Chavez, OBL,Saddam Hussein, Jimmy Carter, and Mahmould Ahmadinejad. President Bush certainly damaged the USA imagage as pushovers with them. And
“they have had nothing but contempt for his policies and approach to governance”.
Dian
The libs are certainly in high cotton with their company.
16. Joe | January 30th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Yep… what a great era this Bush administration has been. Or not.
I won’t even bring all the crap up. But tell me how you Republicans can support all of his signing statements?
Here is the most recent:
So Congress passes the law. He signs it, but says he doesn’t have to obey the law.
Why would he plan to disregard probing possible contract fraud?
Why not pay attention to allowing protections for whistleblowers who work for the contractors?
Of course he wouldn’t want to allow intelligence agencies to proved Congress any documents.
He certainly wouldn’t want to ban any permanent bases in Iraq.
Come on. Someone has to be able to defend this. I personally find it appalling.
17. Canadian Observer | January 30th, 2008 at 11:35 am
President Bush - you can’t beat him; he’s leaving office. Its done - he won, you lost.
Mark Noonan | January 30th, 2008 at 1:17 am
The American people lost more than you will ever concede, Mark. Truly, a dark, dark period in your country’s history.
18. Joe | January 30th, 2008 at 11:36 am
SEW, do you just throw names out of bad guys or do you have a point?
And I laugh at you for putting Jimmy Carter in that list of characters.
19. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Five years ago we named our son after G.W. I am still very proud of Bush as a man, I believe his integrity after 9/11 moved the world in the right direction and we will forever be thankful.
While I agree wholeheartedly with his policies (though I could do with some less spending) I understand how those policies coupled with hatred from the anti-Bush crowd has seemed to divide the country. I say seemed because I really think that compared to 10 years ago, our country is less divided and more united in some very important aspects - obviously not political, though.
In forty years the history books will speak highly of him, and I am honored to do so today.
20. Joe | January 30th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Doug,
you named your son after George W Bush?
21. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Joe, sort of, we named him Garrett Walker, we couldn’t get to the point of naming him George in today’s world (just not a modern name) so changed that a bit, but yes, we wanted Walker after G.W. and wanted to use the G. We went through lots of names but couldn’t come up with any that we didn’t know someone that we didn’t like that much, so we figured G.W. Bush had a lot of integrity - and despite what people think now he really still does - and wanted to honor him and hope our son learns from that as he grows.
22. Dennis | January 30th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
You’ve got a point about the hatred, Mark. But you know there is a certain seeking for accountability that goes along with our Judeo-Christian heritage.
Mr. Bush always was a simple man who hardly harbored evil intentions when he came into office. He has been skillfully played by others with more cunning and more questionable agendas. Yet he succumbed to the temptations of hubris and presumption (Christ’s second and third temptations in the wilderness), and the ball he started hasn’t nearly stopped rolling.
In his own administration, its accretion of ugliness is startling. Covering up an array of illegal actions, such as the decision to allow torture of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions, can only be so successful before it all falls open, like the sin of King David, to the nation. The unprecedented multitude of signing statements, essentially demonstrating his contempt for the letter and spirit of the law, deepens rather than ameliorates his culpability.
And although the number of innocent lives lost in Iraq so far may be in dispute, millions have been made refugees. Regardless of Mr. Bush’s original intent, Iraq is indisputably more dangerous and unmanageable now than it was under Saddam Hussein. And most tragically America has lost its moral authority in the eyes of the world - a pearl I would be reluctant to put a price on. And we won’t see the end of the processes set in motion by Mr. Bush’s presumptions for a very long time. There must be an accounting, and there will be.
“Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience he stands waiting, with exactness grinds he all.”
I’m content to let the mills of God take care of George W. Bush - meanwhile we must think in new ways for our nation to move forward and surmount the difficulties created by his legacy. America needs a national catharsis. We have been fighting symptoms rather than causes. We desperately need a whole new kind of leadership to regain what has been lost, and to fight an effective war against the root causes of hatred and division, both at home and abroad.
The field of candidates who can fill such a need is very small indeed.
23. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Joe,
In lieu of the line item veto, signing statements seem to be the way to go. It’s the executives job to enforce the laws, Congress really is limited in their ability to. Also, as you pointed out, if Congress passes a law that prevents the President from carrying out or is in conflict with his oath or constitutional responsibilities, he needs to make sure that is known and take appropriate actions.
I don’t know all the information on whether forcing the agencies to respond ‘immediately’ would hurt, or any of the other specifics, but if I were President I’d have lawyers (rather than politicians) telling me if I carried out some provision I would be in violation of my oath.
I guess what I would find more appalling is if Congress passed a law forcing the President to violate his oath and expecting him to do it. I would hope that the President would provide some check on an overzealous legislative branch.
24. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Doug,
Where do you hypothesize the “hatred” of George W. Bush, by which I suppose you mean personal animus, came from? Before late 1999, who outside of Texas gave George W. Bush any thought? He was all but politically non-existent even while Governor of Texas because Texas’ system of government makes the governor primarily a figurehead. In fact, if truth be told, it was probably the ideal job for George W. Bush.
Do you think that it might have anything to do with the amoral electoral behavior of his political muse, Karl Rove? What effect do you think the live coverage of the infamous “Brooks Brothers riot” in Miami on November 22, 2000 might have had? Regardless of the soundness or lack of soundness in their legal reasoning, do you think the reality that George W. Bush was essentially appointed as President by the U.S. Supreme Court might have engendered some anger? What would your personal reaction have been if the circumstances and results in Florida had been precisely reversed? Would you have been a vocal supporter of President Albert Gore, Jr.? My guess is “no”.
25. Joe | January 30th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
The line-item veto that would allow the President to pick and chose which pieces of the law get thru? Wouldn’t that be against the Constitution? Remember… Congress MAKES the laws. The Executive signs them or vetoes them.
If Bush didn’t like the law, veto it, send it back to Congress and work on a compromise.
That doesn’t violate his oath.
26. js | January 30th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
so many lies and conspiracy theories
nothing original
they all sound like puppets on a string saying the same thing, over and over, here and there, they say it everywhere
its still lies
its still conspiracy theories
gossip and rumor mongoring
is that america……
27. Joe | January 30th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
js, what are you talking about?
What exactly are you calling lies and conspiracy theories?
28. Dennis | January 30th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Doug, you say “signing statements are the way to go,” and “if I were President I’d have lawyers (rather than politicians) telling me if I carried out some provision I would be in violation of my oath.”
In 2006, the American Bar Association condemned signing statements as “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers.”
29. SEW | January 30th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
“the reality that George W. Bush was essentially appointed as President by the U.S. Supreme Court ” BDS
President Bush was “elected” by the voters, the laws of the USA were interpreted by the Supreme Court. Liberals do not have that power. Spin away.
30. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Diana,
If the Supreme Court ruled that Gore could recount votes in only the 3 most populous counties, I would have been angered. If the Supreme Court ruled that the whole state would be recounted, we’ve been shown that Bush would have won anyhow. If that cheating pig of a man Al Gore would have requested a recount in all counties by the state mandated deadline then we would have been able to have the full state recount. Instead he tried to selectively steal the election by picking the populous counties he did best in to try to find undercounted votes.
It was most likely that election that was the precursor to the Bush Derangement Syndrome and the news and media that have misinterpreted the goings on in that election and classifying as you pointed out, an appointment from the Supreme Court.
Joe, in today’s congress, the bills are covering way too many things (compared to the early 1800s). The President could veto a bill based on specific lines and send them back - it would slow down the government anyhow. The line-item veto would make more sense today than it would back in 1800, it would be a nice addition to the constitution. However, it appears, the signing statements haven’t been considered unconstituional, either.
Dennis,
The American Bar Association would have said otherwise if their man Clinton was in office. In regards to lawyers, I have only one adage. In every conflict of opinion, half of the lawyers are wrong and half are right. When I deal with attorneys, we use different ones from different companies, simply because we know that at any given time we should assume our attorney’s opinion is incorrect.
31. Joe | January 30th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
re: signing statements and the line-item veto.
So between 2001 and 2006 when the GOP Congress was bloating every bill with an insane amount of earmarks and the Dems were going along with it adding their own. Your plan would have allowed the Repub President to pick and chose which pieces of pork made it thru to the final signed law? That sure doesn’t seem right.
Think about it if the parties were reversed.
32. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Joe,
If we had a line-item veto amendment, I would look at what would happen more like:
Groups in the Senate would get together to insure some of the pork projects would get through - they would have to deal with both parties to get the 2/3 override. Pork projects from both sides would still make it through, but a good portion would be sacrificed.
It wouldn’t be a case of the President’s party pork projects only get through - unless that party held 2/3 of both houses - then they should.
33. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Joe,
Okay, I see, let’s say the President only vetoes the opposite party’s pork projects? Yes, I see what you’re saying. Though I would guess the President’s Party would have hell to pay the following election - maybe signing statements are better - or at least Bush’s plan to cut down earmarks.
34. Joe | January 30th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Cutting down earmarks would be great. I wish he issued that earmark cutting plan 7 years ago, but that is another story.
I would rather see him veto the entire bill than issue signing statements that say he/his administration doesn’t have to obey the law. It may slow down government initially, but then it would actually speed it up and allow for more compromise and bipartisanship.
35. Sunny | January 30th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
SEW, yep, once again you confirm it - you are an idiot! And just how old are you? 12? You write like an immature child.
36. megapotamus | January 30th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I am no praying man but I can make an exception for George W Bush. He has been the man we needed quite desperately. The detractors are pathetic types, hurling calumny at a better man; as you say Mark, Bush expected nothing else and has not been dissappointed. Hard Lefties; start your little “revolution”. It would be a delight. 2000 election whiners…. Neither Kerry nor Gore were able to cheat their way into office. Maybe Obama will have better luck. Bush is not the best President in history but he is far, far from the worst. Clinton of course takes that mantle. Now that he turns his malice on fellow Democrats, the cries of shock are hilarious. Bush did everything he could possibly do, consistent with the interests of the US and simple decency to extend the hand of cooperation to the Democrats. They spat on that hand. They always will. I would part with some final insult to the Democrats/Lefties and other predictable peddlers of lies and stupidity but George wouldn’t like that.
37. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Doug,
I would have appreciated your answering the question relating to what your reaction would have been if the situation had been reversed. However, I see that while invoking the devoid-of-thinking neologism “Bush Derangement Syndrome” (which could as easily be “Bill Clinton Derangement Syndrome ” among conservatives) you have revealed your actual hatred of the former Vice-President. So, as I speculated, if the instance in Florida had been exactly reversed, including Democratic Congressional staffers being flown in to intimidate the vote-recount process, then you would have thought it perfectly appropriate to hate the man that you still hate even though he didn’t become President in 2000.
38. Joe | January 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
ok megapotamus…
thanks for blasting the Dems and saying how great Bush is. Yet not giving one example.
Bush is great… now defend the signing statements (see my post #16 above).
39. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Wow, megapotamus, I guess you’ve never heard of Presidents James Buchanan or Warren G. Harding. You can rest assured, though, that your opinion on President Clinton is distinctly in the minority among Americans at large.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm
40. megapotamus | January 30th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
If you can find that Bush’s signing statements are significantly more objectionable or more common than Clinton’s (I’ll even spot you Carter), proceed. One example is of course implicit. Bush and Bush alone would have conducted the current GWOT. We know even his dad would not have, since he had a nearly identical opportunity and declined… That was the major reason I voted for Clinton BTW, as he promised discipline to “aging dictators” in contrast. What a sucker, huh?
Diane, accusations of intimidation and fraud by Republicans in Florida are a lie. Accusations of intimidation and fraud by Democrats in Florida were and are of course, Gospel. See how simple these things are? Voter fraud is how Democrats do business. Always and everywhere. Always and everywhere. If anyone really wants to rehash this, ok.
41. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Diana,
If Florida was exactly opposite, my son would not have been named after a cheating pig of a GW Bush. But it wasn’t George Bush that tried to steal the election by disenfranchising voters in Florida’s other counties, he tried to defend those voters by arguing that Gore’s attempt to recount only three counties disenfranchised the other voters.
Gore figured it out, albeit a couple days too late, after the state deadline. I’m sure inside Gore is still kicking himself for not asking all counties to recount.
So the answer is very simple, it was quite apparent who attempted to steal that election and disenfranchise voters. Unfortunately, the liberal media successfully portrayed it as opposite of what happened, that is why there is so much anger today.
42. Sunny | January 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
In lieu of the line item veto, signing statements seem to be the way to go. It’s the executives job to enforce the laws, Congress really is limited in their ability to. Also, as you pointed out, if Congress passes a law that prevents the President from carrying out or is in conflict with his oath or constitutional responsibilities, he needs to make sure that is known and take appropriate actions. - Doug
If you understand the reason for the signing statements, you would know that it is not to prevent pork as the line item veto would do, but it is to say, that even though Congress passed a new law, and the President signed that law into affect, basically, he does not intend to comply with the law(s) or some portion of it. Only since November of 06 has Bush became concerned about pork in bills he has signed, however, he signed hundreds of signing statements. The Supreme Court has already ruled that line item veto is unconstitutional. If you believe that signing statement are ok for a president to use to circumvent the law, please remember that if a Democrat is elected at president this next November. You might not find it so palatable at that time. If a president is really honest, they will veto a bill they believe to be bad and not sneak around signing a document stating that he/she probably will not recognize the bill as legally binding.
43. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Diana, and before you go nuts,
I don’t agree that Clinton was the worst president or even one of the worst - however, I think that is mostly due to having Newt’s congress to work with. While Newt was there they actually did some good together. After Newt was gone……well. I mean gosh, would we rather have Clinton in the White House or Carter - if we had to do it all over again - that’s a no-brainer.
But, it appears you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the media elite’s portrayal of the 2000 Florida election debacle.
44. SEW | January 30th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Sunny,
This is a very difficult concept for you. But here is my statement for which you proclaimed me an idiot.
“President Bush was “elected” by the voters, the laws of the USA were interpreted by the Supreme Court. Liberals do not have that power. Spin away.”
Which part are you having problems understanding?
45. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
megapotamus,
I note that you are someone else here who is incapable of reading and writing my name. Interesting. I also note your lack of interest in history, i.e., Presidents Buchanan and Harding.
So, the “Brooks Brothers riot” was a lie? That assertion would be of interest to Matt Schlapp, who currently is a Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs at the White House and who was part of the riot.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31074-2005Jan23.html
Oh, wait, I forget. It’s not intimidation if Republicans do it, right?
Doug,
To an extent, I agree with you because Florida in 2000 can’t be redone. Had there been better mechanics for voting then there might not have been a need for a recount. However, I stand by my characterization of your attitude towards Al Gore as hate which is not an emotion I feel towards the current President despite the horror I feel at the incalculable damage his policies have done to this nation.
46. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Diana,
If you can see, my extreme distaste for Gore is specifically and only because he tried to cheat to become President by overtly disenfranchising voters. I have no emotions towards him for any other reason.
If it was a Republican who had done the same thing, I would have the same level of emotional disgust for them.
Character matters to me, it is the most important factor in determining whether someone should be entrusted. That is why, even as a Republican, I have supported my current Democrat congressman (though not the previous ones, or likely the next one). It is also why so many democrat voters will be supporting John McCain over Hillary in the general election.
47. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Doug,
Your claim that Al Gore cheated is your perception. The Gore campaign complied with Florida statutory law in requesting recounts at the county level. If acting in compliance with the law in place at the time is cheating in your mind, I don’t know what to tell you.
As to the “media elite’s portrayal of the 2000 Florida election debacle” I would agree that the corporate media failed miserably during the 2000 presidential campaign. The press routinely manifested an active disdain towards Vice-President Gore during that year as opposed to the pass they would give to Governor Bush for similar conduct. One minor example was their obsession with clothing where Bush’s daily variety of garb was seen as his being “a leader who is utterly comfortable in his role” but led them to frown at the Vice-President and characterize him as someone who “doesn’t really always know who he wants to be in public”. The press message was crystal clear that year. George W. Bush was a regular guy and Al Gore was a big fake, both of which are memes still articulated today.
48. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Diana,
“Your claim that Al Gore cheated is your perception. The Gore campaign complied with Florida statutory law in requesting recounts at the county level. If acting in compliance with the law in place at the time is cheating in your mind, I don’t know what to tell you.”
And you wouldn’t consider it cheating if instead of Gore it were Bush that requested recounts in the three counties he won by hundreds of thousands of votes - with the sole purpose to try to gain from the undercounted in those counties alone?
Well, that is why we have a Supreme Court, to make sure people like Gore don’t go trampeling on the equal protection rights of others for his own advantage. And gosh, what was the vote of the Supreme Court that said the recount method Gore wanted was cheating? That’s right 7-2. Even some liberal justices know what a rat smells like.
49. SEW | January 30th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
DP, Doug did not state Al Gore cheated. He stated he tried to cheat. By only having a recount in counties which would be favorable to him. And he ignored Federal law, which the Supreme Court ruled on after being passed there from Florida courts. Liberals wanted “justice” served by the remarkably liberal Florida Supreme Court. Another effort to cheat.
You are correct that Al Gore has been articulated as a fake, and Al himself is doing a great job articulating that image. In fact better today than in 2000.
50. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
SEW,
To be fair to the Florida Supreme Court, they were the batch of liberals that I referred to that basically wouldn’t let Gore cheat. They ordered, after being slapped around, a recount in all counties because it was unfair for Gore to try to cheat by asking only three counties to count their undervotes.
51. SEW | January 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
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]
52. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
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.
53. js | January 30th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
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.!!
54. SEW | January 30th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
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.
55. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
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.
56. Mark Noonan | January 30th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
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…
57. js | January 30th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
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?
58. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
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?
59. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
js,
Okay, we’ll do this drill again because you seemingly can’t remember. President Bush on 04/20/04: (on videotape) saying:
60. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Also at:
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
61. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
New York Times on 12/15/05:
62. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
President Bush on 12/17/05 in his radio address:
63. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
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.
64. Doug | January 30th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
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.
65. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Deleted - off topic
66. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
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).
67. js | January 30th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
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.
68. js | January 30th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
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.
69. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
js,
I read your “insightful” analysis. Piece of advice. Don’t buy a used car.
70. js | January 30th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
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!!
71. Mark Noonan | January 30th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
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.
72. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
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).
73. extramedium | January 31st, 2008 at 3:23 am
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?
74. extramedium | January 31st, 2008 at 3:25 am
In saying “you may disagree”, I mean anyone rather than you personally.
75. SEW | January 31st, 2008 at 8:29 am
dian, “Little Miss Non Sequitir”. But Mark, isn’t this her blog?
76. Mark Noonan | January 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
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).
77. Joe | January 31st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
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.
78. Mark Noonan | February 1st, 2008 at 1:14 am
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…