Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
This "resume" is a prime example of why people dislike liberals so much.
He also graduated from Yale and Harvard Business School.
Of course liberal pol's never benefit from family connections. Well, except for all the Kennedy's, Al Gore, Hilary Clinton, Andrew Coumo, Jesse Jackson Jr. and scores of others. At least George Bush's father and grandfather were decent and honorable men, and not bootleggers or corrupt pol's.
Bush just made a mess of Texas. That must be why he was reelected, carried the state and is still the most popular politician there. And he lost the popular vote (although that fact has never been documented). I'm guessing that won't be much of an issue in the next election.
People like and respect this man. He's not perfect , but he has restored people's respect for the office of President and returned a sense of dignity to the office. Considering the alternative, we are very lucky he is our President.
Just saying "this is a prime example of why people dislike liberals so much, says more about you than it does about "people". How do you know who is "liberal" and who is "conservative"? Do you think anyone who does not respect or admire Bush is a "liberal"? If you really think that, you are sorely mistaken!!!
Yale and Harvard. Yes, as a legacy and enough $ contributions, and even Dan Quayle could have gone. That education was most definitely NOT achieved on scholastic merit. Even Dubya himself has said that ON THE RECORD!!!
Liberal Pols....and their families.......let's see. AAA, I have no idea how old you are, but Kennedy was essentially the model for today's Republican party platform. So don't confuse "liberals" with "Democrats"....I could get into a whole discussion about this, but maybe another time. Hint though...watch Chris Matthews, and tell me what his politics are. Keep me posted.
And yes, Kennedy's old man was a bootlegger/rumrunner. Also a notorious wall street swindler. Which was why he was chosen to head the newly formed SEC. Who better to watch over violations than a guy that knew all the tricks? However, Prescott Bush collaborated with Hitler, and broke much more serious laws. Hapaboy would have had him jailed for sedition. (Only because he was a Republican). Had he been a Democrat, it would have been Treason. (And really, it WAS!!! Look up the legal definition). So in that case he would have been executed.
"Bush just made a mess of Texas. That must be why he was reelected, carried the state and is still the most popular politician there."
.......Yes, he did make an environmental mess of Texas. Can't argue with the facts. And being "popular" does not equate to being competent. Yes, the man is a likable guy. And was in the position to become what he has become. I know a lot of "likable" people. Many of them far brighter and far more capable of leadership. But they have jobs, and are not in politics. Takes a certain combination of means, opportunity, and obviously either overwhelming ego (Clinton, for example, who even the most staunch conservative would have to admit had great intellect, and great charisma) or overwhelming family support (Dubya). Will we ever see another Harry Truman in the White House? Or a Nixon for that matter? Men of no particular wealth or breeding? Clinton was "self made".....but super ambitious, and a politician right down to his DNA. I think he was the youngest Governor ever (not 100% sure, but easy to look up). A Rhodes scholar, and very popular and passionate (about politics...and other stuff too). Dubya, to me, still comes across as a guy that did what was expected of him by his family. Not so comfortable in the job. His demeanor seems to indicate he would rather be doing something different. But of course, he will (if he hasn't already) get addicted to the power, and truly want a second term. Then there is Brother Jeb (can he possibly not be in the wings to carry on? It can't be Brother Neil, that's for sure! Lucky not to be in prison). As an aside, Nixon got into politics by responding to a classified newspaper advertisement. Won his first election as a congressman by campaigning using "dirty tricks" (anti-semitism, and calling his opponent a "communist"
Eisenhower was a natural leader, and a decent man. But not a particularly effective President. Clinton was a natural leader and a personally despicable man. But had a very successful 2 terms at the helm (disregarding his personal escapades). Reagan was a decent guy (his politics were a bit "fuzzy" as, sadly was himself at the time...just too old and too infirmed), and Carter was a very decent guy without a clue as to what it took to be President. Kennedy was also not a particularly "moral" man, but was a great and successful leader. Johnson was a son of a bitch, but a strong leader in a bad situation and took bad advice. I was not alive to know much about FDR, but to some he was a "socialist"...now the Republican Party is a big fan of his Social Security program. Things and attitudes change. FDR was called a "Jew" by many who disliked him, and an "anti-semite" by others that did not like him. Being President is not an enviable position under the most ideal circumstances for the duration of an entire term (let alone 4 terms).
"And he lost the popular vote (although that fact has never been documented)."
YES, it has. Not that it matters, but the facts are the facts!
"People like and respect this man. He's not perfect , but he has restored people's respect for the office of President and returned a sense of dignity to the office. Considering the alternative, we are very lucky he is our President."
Hard to argue this. I actually agree with you for the most part. We needed someone to undo the damage to the office caused by Clinton's behavior. But being "liked" and being "competent" are two different things.
My main contention (sorry it took so long to get here), is that you say people don't like "liberals". I find that a sad statement. Liberals and Conservatives; Republicans and Democrats, are all Americans FIRST. Now I am just guessing, and perhaps making an unfair rush to judgement. But when you said that, I assume you meant that "people do not like Democrats", since your tone imply's that "liberals" are Democrats. Again, if this were true, why are there more registered Democrats than there are registered Republicans? Are we a country of self-loathing constituents?
Are there conservative Democrats? Liberal Republicans? Of course there are. And I have said this before: I have a friend who is a congressman. Quite liberal, definitely a Democrat. Robert Wexler...you may remember him from the Clinton impeachment hearings. Anyway, he likes and respects his adversaries in congress. And they like and respect him as well. From what he tells me, the real participants in our government are less divisive than those of us here that argue politics (left vs. right, Dems vs. Republicans)...They are professionals, and they know they need to work together and compromise to keep the country running. They were all elected, all pretty competent, and all tolerant. They are all AMERICANS serving their country. Yes, there is the occasional maniac like Tom Delay, or Jesse Helms, or David Duke. (funny how they are all Republicans
. But on the whole, they are pretty even tempered and reasonable men. Those who go "overboard" get thrown "overboard". Wasn't so long ago that Newt Gingrich was a household name and a major power. Saw him recently on Larry King. Being out of the spotlight seems to have mellowed him out quite a bit.
Painting "liberals" with a broad stroke, as you have serves only to show your intolerance, and contribute to divisiveness. I pride myself on voting for candidates on the issues. Not on their party affiliation, and not on their "reputations" as liberal or conservative. I have voted for MANY Republicans in my life (though I am a registered Democrat). My favorite part of the ballots are where there is no party affiliation mentioned. That is when the voter HAS to go into the booth informed. School board members, some Judgeships. Dogcatchers, etc.
Again, to me, real Americans are Americans first. I truly think a flaw in our system is the need to be registered with any political party. Why can't I vote in a primary if I want to vote for a Republican in the general election? Why should I be shut out?
But most importantly in regard to your post, AAA, WHY is it that you dislike (or imply that you dislike) anyone who expresses dissent? Isn't that right perhaps the greatest freedom we have? How can you dislike someone for exercising their freedom of expression?
Peace,
Rs8.5
