Do You Want To Re- Elect Bush For Presendent!

[NeedForSpeedNFS]

Do You Want To Re- Elect Bush For Presendent?

No, I would like to elect John Kerry President.

[post="176440"][/post]​

Yes, I would like to elect GW Bush for President

 

[TWAnr]

Relax, it's OK for liberals to hate Bush.
By Lee Siegel
Lee Siegel is a contributing editor to Harper's, the television critic for the New Republic and the recipient of the 2002 National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.

September 9, 2004

There's a new weapon to use against liberals. It's called complexity. And happily for the conservatives, liberals are using it against themselves.

So terrified are liberals of being branded as extreme that some now preface any criticism of President Bush by saying that despite the fact his policies stink, they are sure he would make a lovely dinner companion. Other liberals offer the thought that though Bush may be dumb, which is an unwelcome trait in a world leader, his forthrightness bespeaks a self-awareness deeper than mere brains.

Such chastened liberals might say that Bush's unjustified and unjustifiable adventure in Iraq is deplorable, and then immediately add that they don't, you know, hate the president on a personal level. They are quick to follow that up, however, with the assurance that they do hate Michael Moore. They hate Moore because he hates the president. Moore also seems to hate capitalism, and because Moore hates Bush, and capitalism, and maybe even America, no one post-Moore can hate Bush without sharing the whole package of Moore-hatreds: Bush, capitalism, America.

Such conclusions derive from what many liberals now like to call "complexity" and "nuance," which are the essential components of "civility." (Civility was last year's complexity.) They contrast these qualities with the "simplicity" and "extremism" of "the left," though besides Moore, and Noam Chomsky, and some anarchists with nose rings and hangovers who are on the protest party circuit, no one can actually say what the left is or what role its members have played in a national politics that has swung steadily rightward for the last quarter-century.

No matter. The important thing is to be "complex" and not "extreme." So at a time of war, when the country and the world are entering a new historical phase, when radical change in social policy benefits the rich and ignores the poor, when voters are facing the most important election in decades, the liberals' role model is not FDR or Harry Truman or LBJ or Martin Luther King Jr. It's Henry James.

How did a Republican Party that has left vast stretches of the population convinced Bush stole the presidency, that dragged the nation into a purposeless war under false pretenses, that gives no quarter to dissenters within its own ranks, that compares John Kerry to Hitler and sponsors a smear campaign against him — how did this truly fanatical, extremist political party succeed in making its critics feel guilty about the intensity of their criticism?

The answer lies in the way conservatives have managed to manipulate the word "liberal." A guilty liberal used to be someone who felt bad about having so much when other people had so little. The '60s radicals who forswore material goods were protesting just this discrepancy between preaching and practicing that haunted the liberals. But the radical movements of the '60s imploded into irrationality and extremism, and the liberals used that debacle to jettison their guilt. Ultimately, the radicals themselves evolved into people unashamed to flourish in society and play by the rules, while they harbored and even acted on a liberal vision of society. They had beat the hypocrisy rap.

Or so they thought. With the ascendance over the last 25 years of the radical right, the specter of liberal hypocrisy loomed again. This time, any liberal who passionately critiques the Bush administration, or any liberal who plays the ruthless game of politics that conservatives have mastered, gets charged with betraying the temperate, tolerant and "complex" spirit of liberalism — in other words, like the "limousine liberals" of yore, today's liberals are accused of not really being liberal. Nowadays, to be conservative is to be political, but to be liberal is to be held to a philosophical and moral ideal that transcends politics.

Thus liberals, in order to prove their tolerant, complex liberalism, are bending over backward to accommodate the conservatives' position, which consists, in turn, of the belief that the concept of "liberal" has been betrayed by its present-day adherents and is now synonymous with the words "radical" and "intolerant."

For conservatives, if you follow this crazy logic, a Bush victory in November would mean the triumph of the true liberal spirit, that is, a spirit that isn't radical or intolerant. For some liberals, a Bush victory would give them four more years to demonstrate their powers of complexity and to have a shot at throwing off the slur of liberal hypocrisy. For a complicated, liberal Bush-hater such as myself, this is a terrible muddle.

And so in the interest of setting twisted matters straight, I herewith offer to my fellow liberals "A Guide for the Complexed." Its premise is that real complexity is not a fig leaf for timidity, but a complement to conviction.

• I love America. I hate Bush.

• Michael Moore's politically effective film was devious, dishonest, distorting propaganda. I hope dozens of films just like it appear before election day.

• I would like to see Bush removed from office. By legal means.

• It is possible to fight fire with fire without losing your head.

• It is possible to criticize bias without being driven by bias.

• I want the U.S. to contain and, if necessary, to destroy its enemies. I do not want the U.S. to go to war for no good reason.

• Left-wing passion in 1968 is entirely different from liberal passion in 2004. One epoch's extremism is another epoch's pragmatic response to extremism.

• In matters of intellect, when you meet a contradiction, make a distinction. In politics, when you meet a contradiction, blame it on the other side. There is no intellectual beauty and little intellectual clarity in the practice of politics.

• I hate George W. Bush. And I don't want to have dinner with him either.

 

[TWAnr]

The Case Against Him

His war on terror may well have made things worse. He doesn't deserve another chance

By MICHAEL KINSLEY

Sunday, August 29, 2004

What do we know about George W. Bush that we didn't know four years ago, when most of us voted for someone else? We ought to know a lot more. Never has anyone become President of the United States less pretested by life. And never has any President been tested so dramatically so soon after taking office.

He was born at the intersection of two elites—the Eastern Wasp establishment and the Texas oiligarchy. He gimme'd his way through America's top educational institutions. In his 40s, he was still a kid, hanging around his father's White House with not much to do. A decade later, without actually winning the most votes, he was President himself. The average gas-station attendant struggled harder to get where he or she is than did George W. Bush. Then came Sept. 11.

The heroic saga writes itself, with help from Shakespeare's Henry V and the life story of Harry Truman. This small man, this wastrel youth, finds himself leading his nation as it faces one of its greatest challenges. And in the fire of great events, he finds the fire of greatness within himself. Take it away, Peggy Noonan.

It's a swell story line, but it won't wash. Against a backdrop of great events, even a mediocrity can seem great for a while. After Sept. 11, there was certainly a great flurry of activity. War on terrorism was declared. An actual war was started in Iraq and still goes on. A Department of Homeland Security was founded. Various American freedoms have been suspended. More than $100 billion has been spent. At the rate things are going, the toll of American lives lost responding to 9/11 may exceed the toll of 9/11 itself. The toll of innocent foreigners is higher already.

But what has it all amounted to? As the most powerful nation in the world, we have managed to track down and kill a few members of al-Qaeda. No more airliners have been flown into skyscrapers in the three years since 9/11, but then that was true in the three years before 9/11 as well. Are we safer from terrorism than we were before?

The only honest answer is, Who knows?

You may approve or disapprove of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but it is clear beyond dispute that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. By turning the world in general and the young people of the Muslim world in particular against us, the decision to respond to al-Qaeda by toppling Saddam Hussein could have made future terrorism more likely, not less.

Subtract the war on terror, including Iraq, and the Bush presidency looks small indeed. Buying short-term prosperity by goosing the economy with heavy borrowing is no trick at all, yet it's not clear that Bush has pulled off even this (except the borrowing). His party has controlled Congress for most of his term. Aside from the traditional Republican wealth-friendly tax cut, can you name a single major successful legislative initiative? O.K., prescription drugs for seniors. Starting in 2006. If it works, which many experts doubt.

And what have these four years taught us about Bush as a person? Some fortunate folks whose lives do not require struggle have used the gift of ease to become better people: wiser than if they had had bills and laundry cluttering their minds, kinder and gentler—in the famous formulation of George Bush the Elder—than if they had needed sharp elbows to get somewhere. Bush the Younger never seemed noble in this way. But as we got to know him in 2000, the ease of his life had seemed to make him affable, undogmatic and pleasantly underinvested in anything as vulgar as an agenda. And then there was all that amiable chatter about "compassionate conservatism." The forecast was for a laconic, moderate presidency.

How wrong this was. Bush's obvious lack of interest in policy issues makes him more dogmatic, not less so. Intellectual laziness stiffens the backbone as much as ideological fervor does. Hand him his position on an issue, and he can cross it off his list. Bush's intellectual defenders compare him to Ronald Reagan, who was simpleminded (they say) in the best sense. Reagan whittled down the world's complexities into a few simple truths. But Reagan pondered those complexities on his way to simplicity. He stopped thinking only after a fair amount of thought. Bush's advisers deliver ideas to him like a pizza. His stove has never been lit. And four years have not illuminated the meaning of compassionate conservatism. It remains an insult to conservatives and a mystery to everybody else. On every big social issue that has arisen during his term (gay marriage, for example, and stem-cell research), Bush has been steadfast in taking the hard-conservative line.

The Wasp graciousness, the good-ole-boy affability, even the obviously sincere religious conviction run about a quarter-inch deep.

In four years, this small man had two historic opportunities to reach for greatness, to lead this country to a new and better place, and he passed up both. The first was when the Democrats patriotically bowed to a Supreme Court decision they believed to be wrong, if not corrupt, so that the U.S. could avoid a further constitutional crisis. What a moment for bipartisanship! Maybe put more than a token Democrat in the Cabinet? Not a chance.

George W. Bush's second opportunity came on Sept. 11, 2001. Past grievances suddenly seemed petty, current disagreements seemed irrelevant, and, even among Bush's opponents, desperate hope replaced sullen doubts that our nation's leader would be up to the task. Bush got this gift from the opposition—the suspension of dislike and disbelief—without doing anything to deserve it. He could have asked for and got anything he wanted in the weeks and months after 9/11. And he decided to invade Iraq.

For once, George W. Bush was tested. And he flunked.

Michael Kinsley is editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times

 

[Fly]

 

[Fly]

But this explains why Kerry's .......ahem........pants got so tight while he was campaining with Dustin Hoffman.

 

[LiveInAHotel]

You would re-elect a President who carries his Presidential Manual around with him?

 

[FredF]

Trying to be more concerned about energy, John Kerry is selling his truck

 

[faver]

Hell yes!

I fully support George W. Bush!!!

i feel he is the only canidate that can operate this country on such great terms and has a great compassion and love for the country and trying to help us and help the world.

Kerry in my thought will just bring things down and back to where they will. plus i can't trust kerry, cuz i don't know what he deep down wants to do or not to do, except he wants to take away my guns, and i say hell no to that.

 

[LiveInAHotel]

 

[KCFlyer]

As I replied to AA-MCI, I doubt that Presidents are under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. I'd be willing to bet that their health care isn't even through an insurance plan, but is instead through the military, except in emergencies like when Reagan was shot and they took him to the nearest facility, in his case George Washington University Hospital. Likewise, JFK was taken to that private hospital (Parkland Memorial?) in Dallas after he was shot.

[post="176631"][/post]​

I just finished reading an analysis of Bush and Kerry's health care proposals. Bush supports a "medical savings account"... a tax free individual savings account for an individual or families healh care coverage. What isn't addressed though is just exactly how does a person who is living paycheck to paycheck to put food on the table and a roof over their heads come up with the money to "own" their own medical savings account? Looks like those folks will continue to rely on their local government health department, but the Bush tax relief plans don't really address how public health programs that depended on monies from the government (from tax revenues) will be funded when the tax revenues that they depend on are cut.

 

[KCFlyer]

. Likewise, JFK was taken to that private hospital (Parkland Memorial?) in Dallas after he was shot.

[post="176631"][/post]​

Interesting that you should mention Parkland hospital...that is also the hospital in Dallas where the uninsured (indigent) go for care. It also has a national reputation for it's trauma center. Here's an interesting little blurb from a report by the Dallas County Hospital district about the financial condition:

The Dallas County Hospital District faced its most difficult financial
situation in recent memory, due to shrinking revenues from federal
programs coupled with volume pressure related to demographic shifts
and reduced alternatives for the medically indigent.

Yep...tax dollars support that hospital, which will treat mortally wounded presidents or homeless winos. But tax cuts don't appear to be "trickling down" and with the loss of tax revenues, grants from the US government aren't "trickling down" either.

 

[delldude]

[url="http://KISS MY DONKEY

 

[KCFlyer]

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_9.html]KISS MY DONKEY[/URL]

[post="185327"][/post]​

Then why haven't we started carpet bombing Syria? I mean that information is most likely MORE accurate than the information we had used to invade Iraq...let's turn Syria into a glass parking lot...either yer fer us or agin us....yeeehawww let's go kick us some more A-rab ass.

 

[atabuy]

Any body seem to notice how much road construction is going on now?
How does all this affect the job numbers.
I saw 4 road gaurds on one corner directing traffic.

I am sure this helps Bush's numbers.

 

[mrfish3726]

NOPE, won't vote for BUSH EVER AGAIN! :down: