Merry Christmas, from GWB!

Remove all ads!

All "good things" must come to an end sometime, and GWB will soon be ending his tenure as our Prez. I know, I know, I hear a few of you groaning already, "Here goes Chandos again, dogging on GWB." You are all at the thought. But try to look at it from my point of view - there's so much to write about and so little time left. And I have to begin sharpening my pencil for Obama at some point, especially as he continues to slip towards the "right" as he has evidently been doing of late. But who can resist GWB, epecially with this quote?

Hence, we discover the roots of Palintology. Or, could they be one and the same? Has anyone ever seen Sarah and George in the same room together? Kinda like Clark Kent and Superman?

Of course, the double-talk aside, what George meant to say was that the system was "thawing," since "unthawing" would be "refreezing."

But this was really interesting as well:

He doesn't know. So what was this war all about again?

But back to the economy for one last stop, there was this:

Well, yes, but we all know that none of this was GWB's fault. What could he have done with something that was "supposedly years in the making," at least according to Bush apologists? This for a start:

There is a lot of blame to go around, for sure, but the "buck has to stop somewhere;" sometimes even with the person in charge, it would appear.

But just to make things right, GWB is leaving Americans an early Chirstmas present:

And of course there are the indictments and investigations into this adminstration's many varied and perverse activities:

Wow, nice list....

Yet, to the relief of some members here, (who will have to go back to their 10,000th post on Gay Marriage, or Abortion), I will not have GWB to "dog on" much longer. So who's next?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27936112/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417/

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/Story?id=6356046&page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004749.html?hpid=topnews

 

Geez, the honeymoon's over already? He's not even in office yet. So what has he done/said?

Nasty business, that. They're supposed to be your leaders, and they do stuff that I would be shocked to see the most uneducated, unrestrained children do.

 

Chandos, here's my question, when will you start asking Congress to take responsability for it's actions? You love to put everything at Bush's feet, but if you'll re-read the Constitution, I think you'll see Congress has a lot more power than the President, and especially concerning many of the things you blame Bush for.

 

So far, he's done pretty well. A lot of us on the left are unhappy with some of his choices for cabinet postions, but that's really expected.

When they actually do something. Which, in itself, will be a miracle....

But really, NOG, doesn't any of this bother you in the least?

 

Nice chandos, post a list from the lefts version of rush limbaugh(that being rachel maddow). Yeah thats gonna prove anything.
That holds about as much weight as if i posted a list from rush or ann colture about all the crap that clinton & clinton appointees did.

Oh yeah, how about crediting your source next time, ok?

 

Chandos, you're fine blaming Bush for doing nothing on the housing crisis, but you can't afford Congress the same 'courtesy'? Could it be because the Dems have held Congress for the last two years? If the housing crisis is Bush's burden to bear because it came down on him, isn't it also Congress's for the same reason? Talk about a double standard!

 

I think she's more like the equivalent of Bill O'Reilly, seeing as how she has her own TV show to boot. Or has Keith Olbermann already staked a claim to the left's version of Bill O'Reilly?

 

We really need to teach you how to use links. Those 4 underlined highlighted things at the bottom of Chandos's post? Try clicking on them, and a whole new world will unfold before your very eyes.



(Y'know, maybe a sarcasm smiley might not be such a bad idea after all. )

 

Who is Chandos kidding? We can expect him (and others) to be blame Bush for everything that goes wrong over the next four years. It will be very similar to the conservatives blaming Clinton for everything that went wrong over the past eight.

 

So let's see, a few of you have attacked me (which I expected anyway), and the Dems in Congress (btw, some of us think that list of convictions would be a bit longer if the Dems were doing their jobs) . And that's the defense offered. Well, there is a lot of info there to respond to, but this was more than just a rant. There are two separate concepts at work here: One of competence and performance and other about character. While they can be separated to an extent, what appears to have happened is that GWB's lack of character has led to a great amount of the incompetence displayed here. Does character matter? I heard an interesting quote from somewhere and I can't remember the source, but it went something like: "personal is policy." In no instance, that I can remember, has this been in greater evidence than in the last 8 years. The personal character and political outlook of the top has tried to replicate itself all the way down to the smallest bit of policy. In GWB's case it was a blueprint for disaster.

The context of the quote was that Obama is preparing to do the opposite, with a "team of rivals," in that he is gambling on greater diversity of viewspoints, which could mean less unity and more confusion at the expense of that diversity. It is a gamble. But it appears that Obama has learned from the catastrophe of the last 8 years. It will be interesting to see how successful this gamble is in crafting policy.

And thank you, Splunge, for pointing out the link on Rachel.

 

I heard about GWB pushing through a bunch of final acts before he has to vacate the White House. The report was so one sided as to leave me speechless -- the way the report made it sound GWB has but one goal -- destroy the environment utterly. Somehow, not matter how much I personally dislike the guy, I figure he must have reasons for doing what he is doing. Perhaps they are stupid flimsy reasons, but they must be there - -I highly doubt that GWB wakes up every morning and says "let's pollute the living crap out of the planet! I like messes!"

That said, I also don't think that the whole mess can logically be blamed 100% on GWB, for the simple reason that no one has as much power as people ascribe to him. Surely he bears the lions share for a lot of the horrible things that have happened over the last 8 years. But no president acts alone. I need no stats to prove that, it's common sense. When we urinate on GWB, we are really urinating on the mindset that he embodies and that a lot of other Republicans held and enacted over the last 8 years. In addition to that, the stunningly ineffectual Democratic Senators and Representatives should also take their fair share of the blame. To say that their incompetance excuses Bush is ridiculous, but to say that they should get a free pass while GWB is rightly crucified is equally ridiculous.

 

The price gouging on oil was a better reason than supposed violations of UN Sanctions. He just couldn't come out and say that. There's a difference between the best interests of the nation and what the people will tolerate...

What pressure could those banks have applied? I think for the full story to come out, that question needs to be answered.

Yes and no. Yes, there's a lot of blame to go around, but rhather then stop the buck at Bush, spread the blame where it really belongs. You've bashed GWB so much that your credibility is questioned on the topic.

Bush is no psychic--grounds for tarring and feathering. Never mind the fact that psychic powers don't exist. How are all these indictments GWB's fault? People are people, and while they may have interviewed well, how much control did GWB have over their actions after they got the job?

 

Lobbying is the term you are searching for, and the banks have plenty of them.

Sometimes principles do matter to people - sometimes.

More attacks on me? That's fine. It's much the same as your "credibility" on the gay marriage and abortion issues, which, to the other side, is about where mine is on GWB.

For many, especially for those of us who have young girls, what you suggest about "tar and feathering," may be an option:

Remember that these are some of the people who are supposed to be protecting our children, not molesting them.

Have you ever worked anywhere, Gnarff? have you had a job? That's not a flame, but if you did, you may not have known, from the way things appear, that your seniors in management were reponsible for your performance. That's one of the reasons companies do background checks, interview and test potential employees so closely these days. But your supervisor was held accountable for your performance, to his supervisor, who was held accountable by his supervisor...see how that works? It's called "accountability," somethng that has been missing from our government for the last 8 years. Why? Because some people seem to have forgotten what the word means.

 

Chandos, I'm not trying to defend Bush. Yes, I'm attacking you, so long as you consider pointing out logical holes and double standards large enough to sink the Titanic in to be an attack on you personally. At least, I assume you lumped me into the 'attacking you' category, since you didn't respond to anything I wrote elsewhere.

 

Yes, if that's how you feel, then fine. Nevertheless you could not dispute a single item. And rather than addressing the issues I raised about GWB's performance in office, you ranted on about Congress and the Consitution. I guess it's fairly easy for you to recoginze a "double-standard" when you see one. Double-standard? Yes, NOG, the fact that you ignored 6 years of total Republican rule, including, yes, the Republican Congress and went straight for LESS than two years of a Democratic Congress. Double-standard, indeed. And it's proper that you mention the "Titanic" because that is exactly what it has felt like for the last 8 years: being on board the GWB Titanic.

No, I had not until your last post. And I responded to your post (even using one of your quotes), even though your post was mostly just a deflection. What's with you guys? Are really reading any of this? Please read post #4.

 

Oh, I'm not ignoring anything. I've been rather disapointed with the Bush presidency, but he hasn't been half the failure you claim. Most of your attacks seem to be centered around the fact that he's not a great public speaker. No duh. We've known that since day one, before even. That doesn't make him a bad president. Now some of his policy actions you can make a strong arguement attacking, though given the circumstances you can make strong arguements defending them as well. Sadly, I've seen mostly vague references to these from you.

Yes, I'm also rather disapointed with the way 6 years of a Republican Congress went. I've made no secret of my opinion that the 'Republicans' abandoned their ideals. Still, it was pretty funcitonal until about two years ago. Between removing the little functionality it already had, replacing it with the Dems who seem perfectly content to do nothing but blaim Bush, and possibly the fact that this has been an election year (which for some bizzare reason seems to mean all of Congress goes off to eat cheese for 365 days), the real problems have only come up rather recently. I'd bet money they were planted earlier than that, but you don't seem to be interested in the sources of problems, only who's there to deal with them.

Well, in that case, I take that as an unexpected compliment. In 'responding to my post', I was actually talking about post 6, after which your only response was the 'attacking me' bit. We did have a bit of an exchange going there for a second. Though I am a bit confused on one point. How exactly is it deflection to blame everyone that has a responsability to act and doesn't, instead of just the figurehead? Ok, Bush is more than just a figurehead, but he doesn't hold power alonge, either. The Democratic Congress got elected on a platform of 'change' and fixing things. They then did nothing, as you've said. Do you find this acceptable?

 

I can't believe people are still sulking about Obama winning!

Let's face it, America needs a president for the same reason Britain needs a prime minister....to keep comedians in work.

In a few years time we'll all be whining again over who's in charge of what so just let Chandos get it off his chest and then we can all prep our b*tching for next time

 

I was hoping with that comment, which was in my opening post, that it would be understood that Bush was not alone is this. But Bush handles the regulatory agencies in question.

The real culprits are not politcians - Bush, Congress, Regulators, but the people who mismanaged their companies. As in evidence, some of these guys were so far off the mark, you have to wonder what the qualifications are for being the CEO of a large investment, or lending institution. It's crazy that most of these guys still have their postitions.

But Bush gets the blame politically because he was the one at point, and his people backed-off on assurances from these no-nothings who ran the mortgage comapanies. That's what he was elected for, defending the interests of our country, and not the fat cats in business. There was a decision made to let the market regulate itself. And as Bush himself loves to point out, he is the "decider." Well, he "decided wrong." So he gets a lot of the blame. This time, please look over the link, with an open, objective mind and comment on the merits of the information, rather than making me the focus, rather than the documented information.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1719816~AP_IMPACT__They_warned_us__but_US_eased_loan_rules.html

 

But what real pressure could the banks apply by lobbying? Did they have some realistic threat to make? And who exactly backed down, GWB or congress?

Exactly. The problem is that sometimes what has to be done doesn't mesh with these principles.

I'll give you those two. I think they could play the part of pinatas for pinata practices.

I've never had a job requiring such an indepth background check. But then again, if these two had never been caught before, then how would the people doing the checking know that they were perverts? I'm guessing that if one was into these things, they'd go to great lengths to conceal it...

That's why the ones you pointed out are facing criminal charges. They are being held accountable for their crimes. And I doubt that they'd be welcomed back into the Republican fold any time soon...

I'm not sulking, I just think that Chandos is being unfair to GWB. I just want to see blame get to where is belongs in hopes that whoever is left is more competent.

That was not made clear, but rather, you made it seem that Bush was taking the brunt of the hit to protect some underlings that screwed up or screwed around as the case may be. I don't think that's fair to Bush, nor is it good for the political process in general. If the ones that were truly responsible were the ones held accountable, then they would be replaced. Hopefully by a better candidate.

Exactly. Complacent, corrupt mismanagement in times of obscene profit are what dug this hole. The industry should not have needed government regulation, just someone to stand up and suggest that things may be too good to be true. They were complacent and were caught with their pants down.

But was that GWB or Congress? What supposed qualifications did GWB's advisor supposedly have? Was there anything in the crisis that would have caught a competent economist off guard? There's a lot more questions than just attacking GWB. I don't see you asking enough of them.