Would you vote for George Bush

[Darth Rotor]

For a bonus point, what do you make of this Hitler guy

I think that he only had one ball.

DR

 

[rikzilla]

Kind of disappointing but so far the best rant award has to go to rikzilla.
Good stuff.

As to the substance of what he had to say:

I'm not sure what to make of this Bush hatred phenomena myself. I'm basically in the Bush hater camp* and I am not sure that provides much insight on the issue because it is always possible that one's biases are leading one to not see the situation objectively.

I think there are some issues which strongly strike at the hot buttons of people. Bush seems to have a genuinely cruel side to him. Clearly innocent people have been caught up in some of the torture or near torture schemes of Bushco. Bush seems unwilling to acknowledge these kind of errors. This strikes me as unusually cruel, but perhaps it is just pragmatic. I don't think Bush's "biring them on" quote was an aberration. I think this was really representational of the way this chickenhawk thinks. For at least some of us this kind of callus disregard for the huge consequences war will have on people's life is a reasonable justification for at least strong dislike if not hatred.

I also think Bush used the war as a means to generate profit for crony corporations and to create positions for political cronies. This means that while many people's lives are being destroyed fighting and dying in a war started by Bush, Bush was exploiting the war for his political purposes and personal gain and almost certainly more people have died because of this. I think there is some justification for Bush hatred there.

It also seems that a great deal of the story behind what has gone on in Bushco is that Bush has been cynically manipulated by Cheney and Rove to implement their personal agendas. The personality characteristic that Rove and Cheney exploit to achieve their power is Bush's need for simplistic ego gratification. I, at least, find this an almost evil characteristic in Bush's makeup.

But perhaps a lot of what is going on in my own case is that I am a lifelong mostly Republican voter. I vote for Republicans because they represent themselves as the party of the free market and fiscal conservatism. Bush continues to be identified for that by his left wing critics. But in fact, Bush's brand of corrupt and incompetent governance have nothing to do with supporting the ideals of free markets and limited government. So Bush has not only harmed the country with an unnecessary war incompetently and corruptly fought, and absurd fiscal irresponsibility, and abuses of power by the judicial branch and terrible corruption, Bush has harmed the country because he has trashed the very values he has claimed to represent. And in the end, it is for that that the country might pay the highest cost.


* although I might to tend to weasel this a bit and characterize myself more as a Bush critic than a Bush hater, the truth is that as time as gone on I think I have moved at least next door to the Bush hater camp.

Aw Dave! Cut it out man...you're embarrassing me!

Your use of "Bushco" and "Chickenhawk" are a fine attempt, and you use them to great effect, but you are right about yourself; you're only a Bush critic.

May I suggest a more liberal use of "ChimpyMcBusHitler" coupled with a rambling yet intelligently worded style. See the UnaBomber's Manifesto for more info.

there's hope for you yet sir!
-z

 

[billydkid]

Nice reply. I'd nominate it but I'd hate to see the TLA thread spontaneously combust due to the infusion of such a critical mass of straw and superheated air.

Irrational and vehement hatred of Mr. Bush is a bizarre phenomenon of our times. It's hipster herd mentality, a kind of wooism that even the big-brained JREFers are drawn to in credulous unison. (see poll results for data) Just goes to show that no matter how smart you are you can be made to frog-march in the direction your knee jerks.

Personally speaking, I like to think for myself...regardless how popular or unpopular those rational thoughts are to the herd. Irrational Bush haters have much in common with irrational Clinton haters...they both place more importance on emotion than reason.


-z

Wow, is it really that obvious from my post that I only hate Bush because I want to go along with the crowd? It is amazing the way you can see right through me. Or maybe I am just completely transparent. I think it's obvious from everything I have ever posted that I can't think for myself or arrive at my own positions. Yeah, that's me - hot to be with the in-crowd and join the herd. I'm sure you can see that illustrated in all my posts. Just the kind of guy I am.

But you, striding boldly and independently, not afraid to take the unpopular view. What a guy! Never mind that Bush has done more than any other President to undermine the rule of law and the principle of the balance of power. Never mind that mendacity and prevarication seem to be the only governing principles to which he adheres. Never mind that his administration manipulated and deceived the American people to get us into the quagmire that is Iraq and demonstrated utter incompetence in conducting that fiasco.

Never mind that political loyalty is single significant consideration when choosing candidates for his various appointments and that competence is not a consideration at all. Just never mind that stuff and stick to your guns. Anybody who doesn't like Bush is just following the crowd like a bunch of lemmings. That's me. Just ask anyone who has ever read any of my posts. I'm all about getting line and following the herd. Oh, and by the way, we were never about staying the course.

 

[davefoc]

Broad brush much, Dave? Not all conservatives are neocons. Got it?

Broadly, Conservatives fall into at least one of these three groups:
1. neocons
2. Social conservative
3. Fiscal/economic conservative

Clearly fiscal conservatives are none too happy with Bush and there are very few social conservatives in this forum. So my assumption is that most of the remaining support for Bush in this forum would be from the neocon branch of conservatism.

Ah, so you are trolling. Noted.

As the creator of numerous zero response threads, is it really such a big crime if every now and then I actually try for a thread that might generate a little interest?

Why? How is a Brit's opinion, or position, relevant to people voting for a Bush who can't run for an election in the US, nor in the UK? (Bush is an American.)

DR

I think you missed my intent there. I thought Dr. A's comment was a nice blend of subtlety and wit and it made me laugh.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Broadly, Conservatives fall into at least one of these three groups:
1. neocons
2. Social conservative
3. Fiscal/economic conservative

Clearly fiscal conservatives are none too happy with Bush and there are very few social conservatives in this forum. So my assumption is that most of the remaining support for Bush in this forum would be from the neocon branch of conservatism.

Right, so you admit it, you were trolling for neocons.

To what end? To start a fight?

As the creator of numerous zero response threads, is it really such a big crime if every now and then I actually try for a thread that might generate a little interest?

No. You post, and accept such lumps as you get. All's fair, in that regard.

I think you missed my intent there. I thought Dr. A's comment was a nice blend of subtlety and wit and it made me laugh.

Which one?

DR

 

[davefoc]

Right, so you admit it, you were trolling for neocons.

To what end? To start a fight?

I don't know if I was trolling for them so much as wondering if their strong feelings about the benefits of US military intervention in the middle east and for strong support of Israel would be enough to justify a vote for Bush again.

I was hoping that a few of them might have something to say about that.

As an aside, I think Bushco will be the last neocon dominated administration for a very long time.

Which one?

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Pointless poll.

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Suppose you were asked a hypothetical question --- would you answer it?

Maybe it's because my mother was English that I find a comment like this funny.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate
Maybe it's because my mother was English that I find a comment like this funny.

I hope you realize why I didn't answer it.

I got the joke.

DR

 

[RandFan]

I think that he only had one ball.

DR

Göring has only got one ball
Hitler's [are] so very small
Himmler's so very similar
And Goebbels has no balls at all!

 

[IllegalArgument]

That Bush inspires such irrational hatred in people who hold Marx, Stalin, Che, Castro, Chavez, and Arafat in high regard means he must be doing something so bloody wonderful that I would vote for him again in a NY minute.

No, I don't like everything about him. He's too fundy, he's makes too many mistakes he won't own. Other than that, when I see people so demented that they'd burn troops in effigy or crap on the flag while wearing disguises and chanting their desire to murder...when I see that these "people" hate Bush...well it reaffirms my vote.

He isn't the best President ever....but if "billydkid" hates him he can't be all bad.

-z

Hillary inspires irrational hatred, so that's a meaningless standard.

And before you wave that strawman around again. I don't hate Bush, I think he's a bad president and will be very glad to see him gone.

As for the people you listed in the first paragraph, I don't like any of the people either. They are dicators, except Marx, Bush is not a dicator.

Waving Marx around like he's the epitome of evil is silly, he was wrong and people used his ideas to validate their horrible acts. Marx did not pull the trigger or give the order, so how is he evil?

Many religous fundamentalists have the same opinion of Darwin, they say he is evil because the Nazi's and others used his ideas as justification.

 

[Tony]

Personally speaking, I like to think for myself...


-z

So you were lying when you said:

That Bush inspires such irrational hatred in people who hold Marx, Stalin, Che, Castro, Chavez, and Arafat in high regard means he must be doing something so bloody wonderful that I would vote for him again in a NY minute.

You don't think, as evidenced by the above, you have kneejerk reactions. The same people who hold Marx, Stalin, Che, Castro, Chavez, and Arafat in high regard also hate Franco and Hitler. By your logic, they must have been bloody wonderful.

regardless how popular or unpopular those rational thoughts are to the herd. Irrational Bush haters have much in common with irrational Clinton haters...they both place more importance on emotion than reason.

I agree. Although you're making a mistake to include yourself in with the reason crowd.

 

[Roswell-Perseis]

Yes, the status quo relies on us vs them mentality. Party loyalty or hatred of the opposition is their stock in trade. You are just the mirror of your parents. The politicians have carved up their faithful and work hard to see to it that the sheep stay in line. So much for skepticism and critical thinking.

Yes, I am buying into the status quo. I do not see another way. I do not see a republican who believes what I want to see in a politician. Even the barely palatable Guiliani now panders to the conservatives with promises to temper his more liberal values- such as appointing strict constitutional interpreters as judges?

I, by the way, am still selling out with the dems because I don't like them much either. I simply find them less disgusting. Find me a republican who is pro-choice, pro-national health care, believes in huge taxes on the rich and will end lobbying (something no dem will do either) and I will vote for them, campaign for them, believe in them.

The democrats are closer now; perhaps your experience leads you to believe it will change. Perhaps you will tell me what would actually break up the two-party national monopoly. Switching between parties? Unless there is a phenomenal candidate, why? Voting for independents? Perhaps, but I have the feeling that our system, upon seeing a new party candidate that was succesful, would simply integrate them into whichever party bought first.

This leads me to the conclusion that there must be another way. I do not want to believe I have this one pathetic option. I do not see it; I have no faith in government and, yes, complete hatred for the republican party. That have not run far and fast and hard enough to break them from Bush, not for me at least.

So criticize me, it is fair. I would rather get a solution to my quandry. I will keep looking, will you help me? I do not want to be so bitter about this government I was raised to love, but what options do I have?

Roswell-Perseis not Rosewell, thank you.

 

[Tony]

Waving Marx around like he's the epitome of evil is silly, he was wrong and people used his ideas to validate their horrible acts. Marx did not pull the trigger or give the order, so how is he evil?

He's not. Rik doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Kopji]

Jeb? GHW? (He has six years of eligibility left) Laura? Neil?

Which Bush?

Which Carter? Jimmy?

DR

Merely an attempt at a humorus continuation of the idea proposed by the topic, 'what if GWB could run in 2008?' In a 2008 election he would want to run with someone that could help him build houses for the poor - Jimmy Carter.

I will be very surprised if history is not completely brutal to GWB. There is a common thread of foolishness to his actions, and non-action, that becomes more apparent over time. A foolish person is not stupid, or mean, or evil. It is hard to hate them since it would be a waste of time. A fool does not care to learn from previous mistakes and so repeats them - choosing to see only the tiny and isolated successes within a vast landscape of ignored failure and mistakes.

It a strategic distortion of facts and reality that allows people to demonize 'haters of Bush' as a type of irrational thinker; it is a glorification of foolishness, positive thinking or patrotism gone awry and put to service in the denial of a national tragedy.

 

[Tony]

If I was on a jury, I'd vote for the death penalty, but that's about it. I regret voting for him in '98 and '00 and I regret voting for the candidates he supported in '02. It will take a massive change (like the complete marginalization of the religious right) or the emergence of a really worthwhile candidate for me to consider voting republican again.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If I was on a jury, I'd vote for the death penalty, but that's about it. I regret voting for him in '98 and '00 and I regret voting for the candidates he supported in '02. It will take a massive change (like a complete marginalization of the religious right) or the emergence of a really worthwhile candidate for me to consider voting republican again.

The Hair's re-election was not a good thing. A drinking buddy of mine claims that-- get this -- Kinky Friedman was induced to run to water down Strayhorn's shot at winning as an independent. I had to ask, "OK, so is this a Jewish plot deal here?" and he replied "I think so."

*sigh*

Could Ma Strayhorn have won if Kinky had stuck to being funny? Well, if most votes to Kinky had gone to Strayhorn, she'd have had just over 31% of the vote, and IIRC, The Hair had 34% or so.

He has not impressed me at all. Yes, I voted for him in 2002. Silly effing me.

DR

 

[RandFan]

So criticize me, it is fair.

Fair enough, I agree.

 

[RandFan]

Merely an attempt at a humorus continuation of the idea proposed by the topic, 'what if GWB could run in 2008?' In a 2008 election he would want to run with someone that could help him build houses for the poor - Jimmy Carter.

I will be very surprised if history is not completely brutal to GWB. There is a common thread of foolishness to his actions, and non-action, that becomes more apparent over time. A foolish person is not stupid, or mean, or evil. It is hard to hate them since it would be a waste of time. A fool does not care to learn from previous mistakes and so repeats them - choosing to see only the tiny and isolated successes within a vast landscape of ignored failure and mistakes.

It a strategic distortion of facts and reality that allows people to demonize 'haters of Bush' as a type of irrational thinker; it is a glorification of foolishness, positive thinking or patrotism gone awry and put to service in the denial of a national tragedy.

I distrust any analysis of Bush at this time including my own. I'm angry at a lot that has transpired but then I can get mad as hell at Lincoln, FDR and JFK for many reasons and I think they were great presidents.

I don't see Bush's presidency the way you do. I don't think I'm an unreasonable person so I'm not sure how to view those who see Bush the way you do. I'm willing to simply disagree. I hope that is ok.

 

[Tony]

The Hair's re-election was not a good thing. A drinking buddy of mine claims that-- get this -- Kinky Friedman was induced to run to water down Strayhorn's shot at winning as an independent. I had to ask, "OK, so is this a Jewish plot deal here?" and he replied "I think so."

*sigh*

Could Ma Strayhorn have won if Kinky had stuck to being funny? Well, if most votes to Kinky had gone to Strayhorn, she'd have had just over 31% of the vote, and IIRC, The Hair had 34% or so.

He has not impressed me at all. Yes, I voted for him in 2002. Silly effing me.

DR

What don't you like about ole "good hair"? Are you a fan of the TTC?

 

[Darth Rotor]

What don't you like about ole "good hair"? Are you a fan of the TTC?

TTC? OK, my acronyms are failing me today.

Hair's budget slash a few years back, to the tune of about 9 billion, would not have irritated me so much had not the impact on our local school districts been so marked. Ma Strayhorn's "here's the surplus" gambit (and here she was the financial controller for The Hair) seemed a strange concidence . . . once she began to run.

The Hair's recent "executive decree" on shots seemed rather brash, even if there is some good medical reasoning behind the desire to innoculate against predictable hazards.

Why wasn't this done via a more consensual process: Hey, legislature, here's why it is a good idea, let's do it, who is with me? Let's put this in place together.

Ya know, leadership. Sorry, The Hair just isn't doing it for me.

(Also, a very liberal buddy of mine who lives in Austin hates Hair's guts, and has on a number of occasions shared with me his up close views on interactions in the capital. While I take what he says with a grain of salt, I can see where his distaste comes from.)

DR

 

[Tony]

TTC?

Trans Texas Corridor. One of good hair's pet projects.

Hair's budget slash a few years back, to the tune of about 9 billion, would not have irritated me so much had not the impact on our local school districts been so marked. Ma Strayhorn's "here's the surplus" gambit (and here she was the financial controller for The Hair) seemed a strange concidence . . . once she began to run.

I was unaware of that. Honestly, there are a lot of details about texas politics I don't know about.

The Hair's recent "executive decree" on shots seemed rather brash, even if there is some good medical reasoning behind the desire to innoculate against predictable hazards.

Yeah. I had a problem with that too. Although it did make me smile that he pissed off the "parent's should be able to expose their daughters to diseases to scare them from having sex" fundies.

Why wasn't this done via a more consensual process: Hey, legislature, here's why it is a good idea, let's do it, who is with me? Let's put this in place together.

3 reasons as I see it:

1. We should inoculate people against deadly viruses.

2. We should inoculate people against deadly viruses regardless of what their parents want or what the fundy opposition thinks.

3. I read somewhere (forgot where, I'm sure it can the article can be found online) about a connection to drug company lobbyists.