Still feel good about your two votes for Bush?

[Gunny]

How can anyone say that Gore or Kerry would have been worse than the idiot we have now? Please! The guy is a walking disaster.

Have you watched closely how the guy walks? Does he think he is wearing six shooters or something? He holds his arms out like he is a policeman. Maybe that how he keeps his balance. It is difficult to walk around with an empty shell on your shoulders.

It's pretty easy. Both Gore and Kerry would have been worse than Bush.

Have you ever watched how YOU walk?

 

[Paulie]

How can anyone say that Gore or Kerry would have been worse than the idiot we have now? Please! The guy is a walking disaster.

Have you watched closely how the guy walks? Does he think he is wearing six shooters or something? He holds his arms out like he is a policeman. Maybe that how he keeps his balance. It is difficult to walk around with an empty shell on your shoulders.

I hate Bush just as much as the next guy, but what does his walk have to do with anything?

Just for shits and giggles though, could someone point out what exactly Gore or Kerry would have done that is worse than what Bush has done?

Keep in mind, you will only be speculating, because you have no idea what exactly either of them would have been able to accomplish with a Republican-controlled congress for 6 years.

 

[DeadCanDance]

LOL, the pot calling the kettle black. Bush is not even TO THE RIGHT. You people are so far left you can not even recognize one of your own.

Do you even KNOW what the term NEO CON means?

McCain is another one that is not right of center far enough to even know he is right.

What a laugh.

It's fascinating that your whole adult life has been defined by voting against something, rather than for something. That's quite a political party you decided to join. No wonder the GOP is stereotyped as the party of angry white men. Since the 1980s, you haven't been given a choice you can be thrilled about. You basically admit Bush sucks. I know the republican base isn't thrilled about McCain; the geriatric Dole was hardly a choice anyone was proud of; and you admit Poppy Bush sucked. That's five elections is a row - Poppy, Dole, Bush, Bush again, McCain - where you were basically voting against the other guy, rather than enthusiastically and proudly voting for your candidate. That has to be the worst 5 candidates in a row ever put forward by a political party.

Me? I think myself and most Democrats were enthusiastic to vote for Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore, and Barak Obama. Obama is someone most democrats are completely enthusiastic about. Kerry is the only one I was ambivalent about.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Given the choices we were in 2000 and 2004, knowing what I know now about where Bush took us, I would still vote for Bush. There simply was no option, Neither Gore nor Kerry would have done a hill of beans for us

No and what has Bush done for you? He gave US a hill of shit. It is amazing that no matter how bad bush gets, you always fall back on an unproven of what gore or kerry would have done.

Your grandchildren, if you have any, will wonder why we had such a moron in the office not once but twice.

Of course they are already hiring conserative writers to staff his Liberry. They will then begin their revisionist history.


Once he is out of office and can't cover up all the crap that he has done, it will be interesting to then listen to your whining about how the left is now lying about him.

FISA, spying, Torture.

Oh, that's right, waterboarding isn't torture if we do it to them.

They better hope there is no afterlife where they stand before God, because all the lying and bullshit won't work anymore. Not that they really believe anyway, but there is always hope that justice will be done for all those real American patriots who died for oil and the dream of empire.

They will get front row seats:

 

[Ravi]

It's pretty easy. Both Gore and Kerry would have been worse than Bush.

How exactly?

 

[Diuretic]

The right's been so hijacked by extremists that they no longer have any sense of where middle is.

Some sort of political parallax error.

 

[Diuretic]

LOL, the pot calling the kettle black. Bush is not even TO THE RIGHT. You people are so far left you can not even recognize one of your own.

Do you even KNOW what the term NEO CON means?

McCain is another one that is not right of center far enough to even know he is right.

What a laugh.

How far is far left? What sort of policies are advocated by the folks you call the "far left". We'll get to the bottom of this confusion and sort it out.

 

[Diuretic]

It's pretty easy. Both Gore and Kerry would have been worse than Bush.

Have you ever watched how YOU walk?

I've been told I walk like a sailor. Too much Popeye as a kid

 

[DeadCanDance]

How exactly?

With the evidence of the carnage and consequences of their votes laid bare around them, Bush voters inevitably fall back on the "but, but, but...all the other guys (the ones with the D next to their name) would have been worse!"

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. None of these Bush worshipers has any clue what a Gore or Kerry presidency would have been like. It's mental masturbation to even guess. There have been good, average, and medicore presidents of all stripes throughout history. Democratic and republican. There have been few truly horrible and disasterous presidents. To claim that both Gore and Kerry, would both have been worse than the truly atrocious bush requires the suspension of belief. Or, the guzzling of gallons of kool aid. And let's not forget: Most Bush lovers never came out an admitted their hero was a disaster, until the last 12 to 24 months.

What we do know, is that Bush is going down in flames, as one of the worst presidents ever. He has presided over an absolute disaster. Trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet in an ill conceived, poorly managed, and unneccessary war. Not to mention the oceans of blood left in his wake. A foreign policy diaster practically unprecendented in american history. The most expensive war in american history, outside of world war two.

An economy that has had the worst job growth records since the Great Depression. What economic growth there was, was based on bad debt, horrible fiscal policy, and negligent complacency. People have warned about this for years. Bush lovers stuck their fingers in the ears and sang "La, La, La, La". Fiscal mismanagement and incompetence that had left us on the brink of a bad recession. Possibly, one of the worst recessions we've seen in decades.

Here's a clue. When somebody drives the car into a ditch, you take the keys away from them, and give them to someone else. You don't give the keys back to the drunken driver who crashed, and proclaim that others would have driven worse.

 

[Gunny]

No and what has Bush done for you? He gave US a hill of shit. It is amazing that no matter how bad bush gets, you always fall back on an unproven of what gore or kerry would have done.

Your grandchildren, if you have any, will wonder why we had such a moron in the office not once but twice.

Of course they are already hiring conserative writers to staff his Liberry. They will then begin their revisionist history.


Once he is out of office and can't cover up all the crap that he has done, it will be interesting to then listen to your whining about how the left is now lying about him.

FISA, spying, Torture.

Oh, that's right, waterboarding isn't torture if we do it to them.

They better hope there is no afterlife where they stand before God, because all the lying and bullshit won't work anymore. Not that they really believe anyway, but there is always hope that justice will be done for all those real American patriots who died for oil and the dream of empire.

They will get front row seats:

Incorrect. Both Gore and Kerry have proven political track records, and I pretty much disagree completely with both of them and their political ideals. I only disagree with a few of Bush's political ideals, and some of his decisions.

There never has been and probably never will be a Presidential candidate that embodies EXACTLY what I believe unless I run for office.

 

[jillian]

Incorrect. Both Gore and Kerry have proven political track records, and I pretty much disagree completely with both of them and their political ideals. I only disagree with a few of Bush's political ideals, and some of his decisions.

There never has been and probably never will be a Presidential candidate that embodies EXACTLY what I believe unless I run for office.

Fair enough to disagree with them, but they'd have done their jobs a lot more competently and things wouldn't be the mess they are now. There would be different issues, I'm sure... but nothing like this past 7 years.

 

[Gunny]

How exactly?

Gore is an over-the-top conservationist that doesn't mind putting thousands of people out of work to save one bird. Currently he selling his global warming crap and his let's do something" or "we're not doing enough" has about as much meat on it as Obama's "we need change". He can't even identify the exact causes of global warming but swears its man-made and we need to do something. "Doing something" under those circumstances amounts to going hunting and shooting at a bush when it moves THEN going to see what you were shooting at.

Kerry is a political opportunist who stands for whatever he thinks will get him some votes at the moment. He has no problem switching allegiences as it suits his political career. I don't think we need a President that stands for nothing but himself.

 

[Gunny]

I've been told I walk like a sailor. Too much Popeye as a kid

LOL ... I've been told I walk like I own everything.

 

[Gunny]

The right's been so hijacked by extremists that they no longer have any sense of where middle is.

I missed this one. If the right's been hijacked, it's by the left and center. So if THAT is what you are calling extremists, I agree.

 

[Gunny]

Fair enough to disagree with them, but they'd have done their jobs a lot more competently and things wouldn't be the mess they are now. There would be different issues, I'm sure... but nothing like this past 7 years.

I disagree. Neither would have done a more complete job at anything that matters and things would be in as big as if not bigger mess.

Just wait. If one of your Dem candidates is elected and dumps even more taxes on the middle class, THEN you're going to see a mess.

The past 7 years were better financially for me than the 8 that preceeded them.

 

[jillian]

I disagree. Neither would have done a more complete job at anything that matters and things would be in as big as if not bigger mess.

Just wait. If one of your Dem candidates is elected and dumps even more taxes on the middle class, THEN you're going to see a mess.

The past 7 years were better financially for me than the 8 that preceeded them.

We wouldn't be in Iraq. Retaliation for 9/11 would have been where it belongs... in Afghanistan.

It wasn't the middle class that got BushBaby's tax breaks... and unless you're in the top 1% or getting corporate welfare, you're not going to feel it when they roll it back.

But when you spend more than you take in, it comes back at you sometime... .And when you have a useless trillion dollar war going on, perhaps tax cuts and corporate welfare make bad policy.

 

[DeadCanDance]

We wouldn't be in Iraq. Retaliation for 9/11 would have been where it belongs... in Afghanistan.

It wasn't the middle class that got BushBaby's tax breaks... and unless you're in the top 1% or getting corporate welfare, you're not going to feel it when they roll it back.

But when you spend more than you take in, it comes back at you sometime... .And when you have a useless trillion dollar war going on, perhaps tax cuts and corporate welfare make bad policy.

I think what we're seeing are the 25% dead enders: those who would always put Party over Country, rather than see a D be president.

Even Nixon, after his crimes against the nation were laid bare, left office with a 25% approval rating. Those are the die hard republican base, who still thought Nixon was doing a good job, even though he was a criminal.

 

[jillian]

I think that's probably true.

Funny thing about Nixon... but for Watergate, he actually would be considered one of the best presidents ever...

But that's real different from the embarrassment that is baby bush.

 

[Annie]

I think that's probably true.

Funny thing about Nixon... but for Watergate, he actually would be considered one of the best presidents ever...

But that's real different from the embarrassment that is baby bush.

Agree, both domestic and foreign. History will be kinder to him than real time. Geez, I hated him and now in my middle age, have to say he was light years ahead...

 

[onedomino]

We can compare Bush with a Democrat Presidency that really did occur: Clinton's.

Some aspects of the Bush Presidency that are easy to criticize:

1. Poor performance against Al Qaeda.
2. Allowed the US industrial base to be transported overseas.
3. Delivered no effective energy policy.
4. Bad performance in post Saddam Iraq.

And these are exactly the things that it is easy to criticize Clinton about; with the exception that Clinton performed poorly regarding pre-invasion Iraq. Unless, that is, one preferred ineffective no-fly zones, ignored UNSC resolutions, Iraqi Shiite mass graves, the Saddam torture gulags, and the continuous oppression of the Iraqi people that occurred with the oil-for-palaces program. Was that better than Bush's Iraq performance? Pick your poison. Bush's Iraqi attempt at least got rid of Saddam. But he blundered badly with poor post invasion planning and did not anticipate so many casualties or the huge expense.

Clinton's performance against Bin Laden was abysmal. He did zero about Bin Laden except shoot a few cruise missiles at him. Clinton allowed Bin Laden to get away with attacking our Navy, and blowing up our embassy in Kenya. Bush's performance against Bin Laden has been somewhat better. But he has accomplished next to nothing regarding the destruction of Al Qaeda's funding.

Clinton delivered no energy policy whatsoever, and did not plan for when oil prices would rise. The same can be said for Bush. Although pressure to deliver an adaptive energy policy was greater on Bush and he did nothing of significance. Thus his result might be considered even worse than the Clinton performance. However, one hundred dollar per barrel oil could have only been avoided with infrastructure that starting building during the 90s. When next you are paying $4 per gallon, you should be reminded of the no energy plan Clinton Administration.

Both Clinton and Bush presided over a massive weakening of the US industrial base. As advocates of one-sided give-away free trade treaties both Clinton and Bush worked to undermine the US economy. Hurting many ordinary citizens, much of this has come home to roost in the Bush years, but Clinton is just as responsible.

I do not guess that Kerry or Gore would have performed any better with these issues. Perhaps they would have spent less money dealing with Iraq. But is that what we would say at a Shiite mass grave site? Could we boast of our thrift to the families of those that would have continued to die in Saddam's torture gulags? What would the Kurds think of the money that we saved? It is a very difficult world. And the choices that the leader must make are sometimes all negative. There are many who stand on the sidelines with no responsibility and complain that America should stay out of the affairs of other countries. To hell with those murdered and oppressed by their own rulers? Just stand by and watch? Pass another ineffective resolution at the UN? After all, they are not us. We know for certain not to call Clinton when the next Rwanda comes around. And it will be a long time before the burned Republicans intervene again. So be careful what you wish for...When the next inevitable international phone rings at 3am, someone may pick it up, listen, say nothing, and place it back on the hook.