That's rich. Bush haters maintain that anything that goes wrong is HIS fault because "it happened on his watch". With fervent hostility you demand we accept your "rightness". Then when something good happens, you deny our using YOUR logic. LOL and you call Bush supporters hypocrites? What unmitigated gall.
Bush rolls on jobs data, as Kerry goes on IR
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
That's rich. Bush haters maintain that anything that goes wrong is HIS fault because "it happened on his watch". With fervent hostility you demand we accept your "rightness". Then when something good happens, you deny our using YOUR logic. LOL and you call Bush supporters hypocrites? What unmitigated gall.
In fairness, I said the President can do little to affect employment, but he gets the blame or credit either way. The things he can do have such a long lead time it is hard to measure the effects. Clearly the Bush tax cuts were helpful, although it is possible other types of tax cuts might have had more impact.
I don't think it was fair to suggest, as Kerry was doing, that Bush's policies were holding down employment or that Bush somehow was responsible for the overseas outsourcing of jobs. What was Kerry's plan? Repeal the very free trade laws and treaties he had voted for? Make the tax code even more complicated? Raise taxes on small business owners?
Bush inherited an economy heading into recession. The turmoil over the contested election didn't help, and 9/11 drove a stake in the economy. I'm not a Bush loyalist by any means, and I have criticized him plenty here, but I can't see how he could have prevented any of that or is responsible for it.
This thread is concerned more with the political ramifications of events. Clearly the jobs issue was hurting Bush and equally clearly, it appears to have turned. Whether it begins to help him or again becomes a liability depends on the next six or seven reports.
Magna
Administrator
I don't hate Bush although I dislike many things about his presidency, and as I've stated before I'll quite possibly vote for him later this year. And I'm not sure what "fervent hostility" or who is making "demands" that you must accept, but as I've seen many of your posts I realize you generally speak in hyperbole with a seething anger just underneath. I was addressing posts on this board for the last 3 years continually moaning and blaming Clinton for all the ills of the Bush administration. Then the sudden flip-flop when something favorable happens under Bush, how he immediately gets the credit. But, yes, my logic is that the man at the top needs to say The Buck Stops Here, and take the blame or credit for what happens under his watch. That's what a true leader does. If Bush (and his apologists) had been taking responsibility when things went wrong, then he (and you) are completely right in taking the credit when things go right. But neither he nor you have been honorably accepting responsibility for just about anything, continually blaming Clinton for all the ills of the world, and so it's hypocritical for you to suddenly shift gears, ignore all the rampant lack of responsibility, and suddenly bestow credit.
AAA, I agree with much of what you said. And while I have no illusions of piercing cdbern's fog, as I've stated many times I'm not particularly fond of Kerry and haven't trusted him for years. But I just had a strange notion of what would happen if for some reason he won the election -- would all the conservative defenders here suddenly give him a 3-yr honeymoon and, continuing in their well-established tradition, blame all the problems on the prior President? Oops, guess not, since the prior President in that case would be Bush. :eek:
Magna's (ealier) post and this post are just mirror images of each other.
Trying to be objective, it does seem to me that Magna's observation, while no more or no less true than this post in essence does indeed seem somewhat more relevant.
The "blame game" will always be a part of politics. But it really does seem that the Bush supporters do indeed seem to go overboard. Just here on ET (as well as virtually everywhere else), those who support Bush do seem to blame every "wrong" on Clinton. (Still after all these years). I hope that Bush's "plan" for improving the economy does work out. But it does seem rather humorous that a decent employment report (the first encouraging economic number to come out in a very long time) seems to give such a thrill to the Bush supporters. I can understand that it must be a very exciting thing to have something to crow about. But this number does seem like a weak issue to grasp onto as some major accomplishment by Bush. After all, as has been pointed out, there are factors that make the number seem somewhat circumstantial. Besides, as generally agreed, this is not a very immediate kind of thing to attribute to a President anyway.
And again, CDBern, who claims to have been a part of the Democratic Party's inner workings (hard to believe) uses the words "hate" and "hypocrite". Is it my imagination, or is there really a correlation between the conservatives and the tendency to use such emotional terms?
I have argued with Maverick endlessly on this. He has explained how "liberals" HATE rich people. How they HATE small business. They HATE entrepreneurship. Etc.
Every President gets made fun of. Criticized.....made to look like characartures of themselves (political cartoons have been around forever).
But I really admit to either being blind to, or just really not seeing any serious "HATE" attacks on Bush by anyone. Really nothing to HATE. In my opinion, the guy is not qualified (or even particularly interested in his job). But to HATE him? No, I don't hate him. I even said I could not discount the possibility of voting for him if Kerry turns out to be a worse alternative. A long way between now and November.
But when it comes to HATE, it is easy to find people that HATE Clinton. Do they HATE him because he cheated on his wife and lied about it? If so, how come these same people generally HATE Hillary Clinton as well?
I think it was Pabst who did a thread on FDR being the worst President ever. A lot of FDR "HATERS".
So is it a matter of conservatives, or Republicans having a tendency toward "hating"?
Nixon was a pathetic and (IMO) evil President. But even after resigning in disgrace, he was really just a tragic figure. I don't think people "hated" Nixon the way people "hate" Clinton. He went too far with his abuse of power, got busted for it, paid the price and stepped aside. He at least had the decency to do what was best (or seemed best at the time) for the country.
As a side issue...does anyone really believe threat CDBern was an active Democrat? I don't! I find it impossible to believe that anyone could go from one political position to such an extreme opposite position. And to "HATE" the party she claims to have been involved with. And to have such anecdotal stories that all imply that the Democrats (with her "inside" information) are all such evil and manipulative bad guys. I don't believe a word of any of it.
I know there are plenty of conservatives and liberals as well who truly believe in their positions. But I truly don't think anyone can predict with such certainty the "party line" positions of any "liberal" or Democrat the way that "conservatives" or Republicans can be so uniform on virtually every issue. It just seems to me that you can be a "conservative" Democrat. But you cannot be a "liberal" Republican.
Are there any conservative Republicans (somewhat redundant) who do NOT "hate" Clinton? I doubt it. Are there "liberal" Democrats that admire even Nixon and give him credit where credit is due? I would bet that the vast majority of "liberal" Democrats are just more open minded about things like this. Which is why it is so hard for me to imagine ever being a registered Republican.....which is sad. I wish I could participate in Republican primaries. GWB was the best candidate the GOP could come up with in 2000? Admittedly Gore was not an ideal candidate for the Dems...but tradition (incumbent VP getting the nod) sort of forced the issue. And even so, he got more votes than GWB. Just the "wrong" votes.
Peace,
RSPS: While writing this, Magna made another post. Amazing how similar some of what he said is to what I believe. And said. We both acknowledge a possibility of voting for GWB if that makes sense in November. Are there ANY Bush supporters or self proclaimed "conservatives" that are keeping an open mind about who THEY will vote for? I strongly doubt it. Seems like an open mind is against the rules for true "conservatives". I guess that is why "conservative" is such a good term. Why "STAUNCH" is always followed by "Republican". Is there such a thing as a "Staunch Democrat"? Seems like an open mind precludes that.
Yeah Mav, I definitely knew you would jump in here!
If you believe I am never right about anything, why do you solicit my opinions? So you can have an easy target and be so clearly right because you can count on me to be so clearly wrong? Even when we agree on things you somehow find a way to put a degree of adversity into it. I try and be respectful towards you. Why do you come at me so harshly? You may disagree with every word I say, but why the ad hominem attacks? Do I do this with you?
Maybe I make a lot of "blanket statements". Maybe you find it "unreal". But there is at least one person that out-does me in this transgression. And that would be YOU. "Democrats and liberals HATE rich people." They HATE entrepreneurship. They HATE small business owners, they hate this and that. These were YOUR words Mav....talk about blanket statements!
Oh, yeah, you also said that while all Democrats hate rich people, you also said this excluded the Jews. Another impressive "blanket statement".
Very true.
CDBern. I did not call you a liar. I just said I found it extremely hard to believe some of your experiences. Because the incidents are just too perfect to augment your conservative arguments. But anything is possible. I always acknowledge that. Sorry, but that is how I feel. I certainly could be wrong.
BTW, I was "around" in the 70s. I was "around" in the 60s. I was old enough to vote in the 68 election. If the voting age then was what it is now, I could have voted in the '64 election.
I readily admit that all of what I say is my opinion, not fact. Maverick said with sarcasm that I was being "objective" when I said Nixon was "evil". But I clearly stated that it was IN MY OPINION.. Read the post again Mav. I don't mind you slamming me, I am used to it. But please at least take what I say in context.
I guess I should just stop posting my opinions and cut and paste and cite sources (as is so popular here). But I am not that interested. Besides, we all know you can "prove" anything you want if you find the sources you want to back up your beliefs. Look and you WILL find those sources. I am just too lazy to bother doing what we all know can be done. So why do it?
Besides, if I wanted to read right wing or left wing publications, I would (I don't). I find it much more interesting to hear what people here have to say. I would much rather have the option to read some absurd senseless post (along with the option to start or finish them) than to see the endless cut and paste jobs that are so popular here. I give my opinions. Anyone is free not to read them. Just as I choose not to read the cut and paste stuff.
It's just a matter of what interests us. But again, no one needs to come onto ET to read what is written in The Guardian, or what Maureen Dowd or Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else had to say in todays op-ed pages. We can all find that stuff on our own. I don't need MSFE/Wild or anyone like him to lead me to what I can find on my own.
And Mav....where are you getting this "liberals coined the word hate" (to paraphrase) stuff? I mean really, I did not hear about the Karl Rove home incident. but I do hear about the hatred of Clinton all the time. Almost daily still. And the guy has been out of office for 3 years.
Please don't go back to the SDS days. Let's keep things current.
I only hear Bush ridiculed. But where do you hear people saying they "hate" him (on a personal level like people "hate" the Clintons on a personal level? Yes, people DO hate Bush's politics. But that is a lot different than "hating" the man).
Yeah, there are extremists like Moore. But who takes this guy seriously? Really a tiny tiny fraction of those that take Limbaugh seriously. Or Anne Coulter. Or any of the other right wing nut jobs. Clearly there are nut jobs on both sides.
You mentioned that Reagan changed parties. So? Happens all the time. In Reagan's case, it was probably because Nancy told him to! lol.
Look at Arianna Huffington's politics more recently.
More importantly, we see Supreme Court Justices drifting left with time on the bench. Which makes sense. William O. Douglas and Earl Warren come to mind for me because they were in "my day". There have been many others. Even some who sit now. Ask AAA
. Much to his chagrin, I am sure he agrees with me.So if CDBern changed parties, fine. But given her examples of what she witnessed, why did she not change parties sooner?
BTW, was there ever a party in power approved group like the "plumbers" for the Dems? Who are the Democrat counterparts of Gordon Liddy? Howard Hunt? Newt Gingrich? Ollie North? Spiro Agnew? Etc.?
Maybe I don't study these ET threads carefully enough. But I really don't recall anyone saying they "hate" Bush. (I would not be surprised at all if such quotes could be found, but I would say they are isolated statements by unreasonable "liberals").
Unreasonable people come in all shapes, sizes, and political persuasions.
Peace,
RS As a side issue...does anyone really believe threat CDBern was an active Democrat? I don't! I find it impossible to believe that anyone could go from one political position to such an extreme opposite position.
I have underlined the "I don't". Don't want others to think you were so extreme in your remark.
CDBern. I did not call you a liar. I just said I found it extremely hard to believe some of your experiences. Because the incidents are just too perfect to augment your conservative arguments. But anything is possible. I always acknowledge that. Sorry, but that is how I feel. I certainly could be wrong.
RS you may not think the first statement is in effect calling me a liar, however I think most people would disagree with you.
So if CDBern changed parties, fine. But given her examples of what she witnessed, why did she not change parties sooner?
As a matter of fact RS I left the Party back in the late '70's BECAUSE of the take over that I had witnessed. There were a lot of us who left. I keep in contact with friends who are still active. My political views have not changed in the last 30 years. I'm still fiscally conservative and socially liberal (although not as liberal as most of my friends)
Not all Democrats are bad. You have the Lieberman type Democrats who are the "old guard" and less inclined to follow the leadership which is now almost completely made up of Socialists.
I have underlined the "I don't". Don't want others to think you were so extreme in your remark.
CDBern. I did not call you a liar. I just said I found it extremely hard to believe some of your experiences. Because the incidents are just too perfect to augment your conservative arguments. But anything is possible. I always acknowledge that. Sorry, but that is how I feel. I certainly could be wrong.
RS you may not think the first statement is in effect calling me a liar, however I think most people would disagree with you.
So if CDBern changed parties, fine. But given her examples of what she witnessed, why did she not change parties sooner?
As a matter of fact RS I left the Party back in the late '70's BECAUSE of the take over that I had witnessed. There were a lot of us who left. I keep in contact with friends who are still active. My political views have not changed in the last 30 years. I'm still fiscally conservative and socially liberal (although not as liberal as most of my friends)
Not all Democrats are bad. You have the Lieberman type Democrats who are the "old guard" and less inclined to follow the leadership which is now almost completely made up of Socialists.