Joe Klein must be drinking while writing, no one could be this stupid:
“When Bush came to office–installed by the Supreme Court after receiving fewer votes than Al Gore–I speculated that the new President would have to govern in a bipartisan manner to be successful. He chose the opposite path, and his hyper-partisanship has proved to be a travesty of governance and a comprehensive failure. I’ve tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration–arrogance, incompetence, cynicism–are congenital: they’re part of his personality. They’re not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.”
How about unfit to write?
Er, excuse the brother, but “bi-partisan manner”? Are you drinking?
No President of one party ever tried harder to get along with the other than Bush – no one. Didn’t happen because Democrats from the beginning wanted no part of it.
It’s Democrats, not Bush, who have been accusing, stalling, filibustering, leaking secrets to the media, visiting enemies abroad to tell them our war plans. All for the same “Stuck on Stupid” reason you cite which betrays your reasoning:
“Bush stole the 2000 election”.
Cripes mate, really, get over it, Gore lost.
So put down the bottle, back away from the keyboard and make a meeting.
No Response
jay k.
April 6th, 2007 at 6:29 am
1“…No President of one party ever tried harder to get along with the other than Bush – no one…”
Are you serious? If anyone is drinking it’s you. Forget the election debacle. From his first hundred days this president has been operating as though the words bi-partisan and compromise do not exist. Cripes mate…take off the blinders.
Linda
April 6th, 2007 at 6:46 am
2It makes absolutely no difference what Bush does, it will be portrayed as the wrong thing. Never in history has an American president had to deal with such attempts to undermine his authority.
jay k.
April 6th, 2007 at 7:23 am
3linda…never in history has a president so deserved to be undermined. he has been wrong about everything. i do appreciate your continued loyalty…no matter how misguided.
shm10
April 6th, 2007 at 7:41 am
4Jay:
“never in history has a president so deserved to be undermined.”
It is truly a shame that you feel this way. Our economy is flourishing, unemployment is extremely low, we have not had an attack on our soil or another American interest worldwide since 2001
(versus how many against American interests during the Clinton administration?)and last I looked the Bush’s do not see themselves as the King and Queen of the White House.
I guess you can appreciate my loyalty to my President too as I consider someone who has dignity and humility and the ability to keep my family safe and secure as someone I not only would want for my President but for my friend. As always, I respect your right to disagree.
jay k.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:15 am
5linda…you seem to want to give the president a pass for the largest attack on our soil in history…even though the info was there if he had been interested in reading it. no matter. i guess a rocket attack on our embassy in greece in 2007 isn’t an attack on our interests? no matter. how about the 8 soldiers killed in the last three days policing a civil war? does that count? don’t be naive…terrorism worldwide is way, way up. it’s pure luck nothng has happened on our soil…yet…and our luck will run out eventually. and folks like you will realize that this president has done nothing to stop it, and in fact everyone but his partisan loyalists agree that he is making the threat worse
shm10
April 6th, 2007 at 10:12 am
6Jay:
I think you addressed the wrong person in your last post. The difference between you and I is that I will not put the blame squarely on the shoulders of President Clinton who did nothing for 8 years in strong retaliation to terrorist atacks. The blame for September 2001 belongs to those who committed the act. This President was determined to do all possible to make as certain as possible we never have something so horrific happen here again. There are never any guarantees but I will always go with a course of prevention rather than appeasment.
While every death in Iraq, whether ours or a Muslim is a tragedy. Having come from a military family and marrying into one, I know these soldiers understand their mission as laid out by the Commander in Chief. As for a “civil war”, that has come from no general in theatre..simply from the liberal press. You may find a few “disgruntled retired military members” who will say just about anything to get on tv or radio but until it comes from those in charge with boots on the ground I hesitate to believe it.
I do not know who “everyone” is, that is a bit too general for me. If you mean the press, democrats and perhaps some Europeans well you are probably right. The fact that this President still has approval ratings in the 70′s from his Republican base surely says not “everyone” believes he has made things worse.
As far as being naive, I have been around long enough to know that those who accuse others of being so usually are themselves. I do not approach life that way but believe we all have the ability to develop our own thoughts and opinions. We do not have to agree but hopefully our reasoning is based on facts not the newspaper or a partisan politician.
shm10
April 6th, 2007 at 10:21 am
7*Every death in Iraq whether ours or an innocent muslim is a tragedy.*
Correction from above, sorry.
jay k.
April 6th, 2007 at 10:30 am
8“…President Clinton who did nothing for 8 years in strong retaliation to terrorist atacks…” um…not exactly nothing. but htat is a republican talking point so keep saying it like a good parrot.
shm10
April 6th, 2007 at 10:45 am
9Jay:
Please enlighten us then as to exactly what “strong” action President took. I will be happy to learn something new as you have given no examples just claim this statement to be incorrect. If you are refering to sanctions and a few short bombing runs we all know about those. Again, I do not blame President Clinton, perhaps he thought that his foreign policy and ,means of retaliation were correct..that is our system, he was elected and had the absolute right to conduct his policies foreign and dmonestic as he saw fit. That does not mean however, that because I disagree I would look to demean the Presidency. Unfortunately, those with BDS have chosen to do so on a regular basis. Now the tone has been set and I fear it will never improve.
jay k.
April 6th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
10shm10…
it was the biginning of clintons first term when the first wtc bombing took place. within a year the first of the suspects were captured and convicted. yousef was captured and convicted by 98. i’m not sure but isn’t bin laden still out there? and speaking of bin laden… clinton tried to get him with the missile strikes you mentioned. of course he was widely criticized by republicans…you all thought it was about lewinsky. he signed executive orders that authorized the fbi to investigate and prevent financial support of terrorism. later that was expanded and went so far as to name bin laden. he also made numerous proposals to expand pre-trial detention and allow more federal wiretaps of terrorism suspects, easing deportation of foreigners convicted of crimes, allowing the detention of aliens convicted or suspected of crimes, criminalizing fund-raising for terrorism, and strengthening visa denial provisions. the republican congress fought all of these proposals…you all were more interested in his sex life than national security. he had written the republican congress that “Usama bin Ladin and his organizations and associates have repeatedly called upon their supporters to perform acts of violence. Bin Ladin has declared that killing Americans and their allies ‘is an individual duty for every Muslim … in order to liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Holy Mosque.’ but you guys only wanted to hear about monica. he warned warned the incoming bush administration about the threat that al queda posed. and of course bush and cheney ignored them. so to say clinton did nothing for eight years is wrong. the truth is the republicans fought him every step. and the results showed on 9.11…on a republicans watch.
shm10
April 6th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
11Jay:
You are correct of course that Clinton did treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem. As for “all you thought about was lewinsky”, I don’t know who “all” is but it was certainly not me. What concerned me about that whole situation was the degrading of the Oval office. I have the utmost respect for that office and its occupant and the thought of any President using it for his own personal pleasure is one I wish I never had to experience in my lifetime.
Every President has their strong and weak points and we all have opinions on which has the better approach to solving problems we are faced with in this country. You mention all of the things Clinton “wrote” and blame republicans for not implementing them..you say he warned the current administration about bin laden and they ignored him…you must have been there for that discussion as I certainly was not privy to the conversation of the former President and the incoming President and Vice President.
Isn’t it amazing that many of the things you cite in your paragraph above are the things that Democrats now tell us are not so or are not necessary or require “investigations?”
W.B. Reeves
April 7th, 2007 at 11:29 am
12["I have the utmost respect for that office and its occupant and the thought of any President using it for his own personal pleasure is one I wish I never had to experience in my lifetime."]
For the sake of your tender sensibilities I advise you not to delve into previous Presidential history. Otherwise, you’ll be shocked to discover that Clinton is hardly the first President to use the office for his own “personal pleasure.” Somehow the Republic survived.
["Isn’t it amazing that many of the things you cite in your paragraph above are the things that Democrats now tell us are not so or are not necessary or require “investigations?”]
Not amazing at all, since the premise for such proposed investigations is the question of whether or not President Bush exceeded his lawful authority and violated the legal guidelines of the policies in question, not the validity of the policies themselves.
Macranger
April 8th, 2007 at 5:56 am
13“For the sake of your tender sensibilities I advise you not to delve into previous Presidential history. Otherwise, you‚Äôll be shocked to discover that Clinton is hardly the first President to use the office for his own ‚Äúpersonal pleasure.‚Äù Somehow the Republic survived.”
However, he was the first President to lie about it – under oath. He also was the first in a lot of categories:
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
As to current democrat investigations not a one is based on anything except your basic Bush Derangement Syndrome. Not a one has produced a shred of evidence of wrong doing.
I might add though the hypocrisy of Rep. “Dollar” Bill Jefferson (soon to be indicted) still warming a chair on the Hill. Senator Jay Rockefeller who by his own admission sold his country down the river prior to the Iraq invasion, and again Jihad Nancy wearing a Burka (sign of submission) before known terrorist sympathizer Assad.
The fact is that Democrats are showing just how corrupt they have always been, unfit to lead, and as noted unfit to write.
hastingspete
April 8th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
14It’s always Clinton. Funny how the day he was impeached, most Americans (70%) thought he was a good president, and Today, Bush, on a GOOD day approaches half of that.
There’s a small group out there still holding on to the idea that Bush is a great President. The rest of us, not so much. There’s a small group out there who think Bush reached out across the aisle – the rest of us, we know taht he only did taht when teh other side followed his line. But the spirit of consultation, compromise and amity was absent from day one. From day one, he ruled “as if he had a mandate”, and his poltical director, Rove, carried on in a way, from day one, set to demonize Democrats.
You may claim this is otherwise. There is always Clinton. But 65% of this country – far, far more then he ever got to vote for him, think he’s a disaster. Bush has single handedly generated more Democrats than the Democrats ever did. Bush is an unqualified disaster for the country, but far more relavant to you, he is an complete disaster for the Republican party and you will be paying for it for a generation, and it serves you right.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Top Stories in the Blogosphere News
The Commander in Chief at Work!
News
Reading List
Most Popular Posts
Macsmind – Politics, Culture and Breaking News! Copyright 2008, Macsmind is a registered trademark of Macsmind Media - BloggingPro theme by: Design Disease