I Sure Do Miss Him

[RobertNashville]

I don't know very many people (other than stone-cold Republicans) who think W was a great president but I'd take 1,000 GWBs any day or 1 Obama.  I do think that W, at least, loved this country and didn't run for President for the purpose of destroying it.

[RobertNashville]

And it could get worse still.

 

- OS

Not much more worse before we are facing a total economic collapse of the country.

[runco]

Not much more worse before we are facing a total economic collapse of the country.

I'm still waiting on the plan to be revealed for him to somehow skirt the Constitution and remain in office past January 20, 2017.

[Chucktshoes]

I don't know very many people (other than stone-cold Republicans) who think W was a great president but I'd take 1,000 GWBs any day or 1 Obama.  I do think that W, at least, loved this country and didn't run for President for the purpose of destroying it.

I can give you that one, but I am more of a results oriented person. Judging by that standard, Bush and Obama are both equal disasters for the liberty and freedom of the American people.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

W and the R congress sowed the seeds, made it possible for obama's election and D super majorities in congress. Without W there could have been no O, at least not in 2008.

If W and the R's had even done a halfway approximation of a run-of-the mill but acceptable job, then it couldn't have got to the point that ALL republicans were about as popular as the bubonic plague in the 2008 election.

W just sucked at his job regardless how pleasant he may theoretically be to drink a beer with, or regardless of "how hard he tried" or "how much he loved america." Edited December 28, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Erik88]

I can give you that one, but I am more of a results oriented person. Judging by that standard, Bush and Obama are both equal disasters for the liberty and freedom of the American people.

 

Just curious- aside from the patriot act, what are you basing this on?

 

I wasn't nearly as involved in politics at the time so I'm just asking. Between Fast and Furious, Benghazi, NSA Spying, Obamacare and everything else it's hard to imagine Bush was just as bad.

[runco]

I for one don't think Bush was bad!  I for one very much like him.  (I am a hard core republican).  Let the bashing begin

[Guest Bassman17SC]

As compared to who is in office now?  Of course I miss W.

 

However, I really miss Ronnie.

[RobertNashville]

W and the R congress sowed the seeds, made it possible for obama's election and D super majorities in congress. Without W there could have been no O, at least not in 2008.

If W and the R's had even done a halfway approximation of a run-of-the mill but acceptable job, then it couldn't have got to the point that ALL republicans were about as popular as the bubonic plague in the 2008 election.

W just sucked at his job regardless how pleasant he may theoretically be to drink a beer with, or regardless of "how hard he tried" or "how much he loved america."

I guess Mr. Tree would have been a better president? LOL  Those were our only two choices after all and I've seen nothing in the years since that would cause me to change how I voted then.

 

I'll take GWB...a man whom I believed truly loved his country and loved and valued our military men and women any day and twice on Sundays over a socialist America-hating community organizer.

 

Edited December 30, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I guess Mr. Tree would have been a better president? LOL Those were our only two choices after all and I've seen nothing in the years since that would cause me to change how I voted then.

I'll take GWB...a man whom I believed truly loved his country and loved and valued our military men and women any day and twice on Sundays over a socialist America-hating community organizer.

Ain't saying W was evil or bad-intentioned. OTOH ain't saying he was not. I'm not privy to such info, but I doubt if he was bad-intentioned. But it seems patently obvious that his good intentions, along with the congressional R's and the willing help of congressional D's, made R victories impossible in 2008, guaranteeing election of some kind of "not an R" including the pitiful example that got elected.

Looking at results rather than speculative good intentions, it is possible that Gore WOULD have been better-elected in 2000, merely because there's no freaking way that asshat would have been a two term pres, his damage would have been limited, and some kind of "not a D" would have been guaranteed in 2004.

Similarly, if Kerry had been elected in 2004, there is also no freaking way that asshat would have been a 2 term president. Bush's damage would have been limited, because by 2004 W and the R congress had not yet completely destroyed the credibility of republicans. Guaranteeing "not a D" in 2008, ergo, not an obama in 2008. In the period 2004 to 2008 the R congress and kerry would have spent the term in gridlock and squabbling, having not enough time left to pass stupid laws to "help" us. :)

I even voted bush in 2004, so its as much my fault as anyone else that it was allowed to go "too far" before over-correcting so tragically in 2008. Edited December 30, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[RobertNashville]

Ain't saying W was evil or bad-intentioned. OTOH ain't saying he was not. I'm not privy to such info, but I doubt if he was bad-intentioned. But it seems patently obvious that his good intentions, along with the congressional R's and the willing help of congressional D's, made R victories impossible in 2008, guaranteeing election of some kind of "not an R" including the pitiful example that got elected.

Looking at results rather than speculative good intentions, it is possible that Gore WOULD have been better-elected in 2000, merely because there's no freaking way that asshat would have been a two term pres, his damage would have been limited, and some kind of "not a D" would have been guaranteed in 2004.

Similarly, if Kerry had been elected in 2004, there is also no freaking way that asshat would have been a 2 term president. Bush's damage would have been limited, because by 2004 W and the R congress had not yet completely destroyed the credibility of republicans. Guaranteeing "not a D" in 2008, ergo, not an obama in 2008. In the period 2004 to 2008 the R congress and kerry would have spent the term in gridlock and squabbling, having not enough time left to pass stupid laws to "help" us. :)

I even voted bush in 2004, so its as much my fault as anyone else that it was allowed to go "too far" before over-correcting so tragically in 2008.

I don't agree.

 

There is no way to know/prove it now of course but I believe that Republicans could have won in 2008 if they had put up a great candidate...I had to hold my nose to near the point of suffocation to vote for McCain and if I had to do that I'm sure there were a lot of folks who would have voted for a Republican ticket that either didn't bother or voted for Obama simply because of the choice we had.

 

Further, I believe that Hillary Clinton will be elected as the next President of the United States in 2014; showing that as disliked as Obama is right now; the same party's nominee can get elected even following an unpopular president of the same party. I'm going to do what I can to ensure that doesn't happen but I have no illusions about the chance for success.

[JayC]

We have?  Name 2 republicans who were worse :)

 

We've certainly had worse presidents. I honestly believe W loved this country. Can't say the same for the current dictator occupying the white house.

 

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't agree.

There is no way to know/prove it now of course but I believe that Republicans could have won in 2008 if they had put up a great candidate...I had to hold my nose to near the point of suffocation to vote for McCain and if I had to do that I'm sure there were a lot of folks who would have voted for a Republican ticket that either didn't bother or voted for Obama simply because of the choice we had.

Further, I believe that Hillary Clinton will be elected as the next President of the United States in 2014; showing that as disliked as Obama is right now; the same party's nominee can get elected even following an unpopular president of the same party. I'm going to do what I can to ensure that doesn't happen but I have no illusions about the chance for success.

I think you are right that maybe a strong enough R candidate could have prevailed in 2008, but it would have been dicey, and possibly required a campaign throwing W under the bus, apologizing for mistakes, and some kind of "bold new plan" to reverse cumulative policy errors and corruption rot in the R's over the period of 2000 to 2008.

It wasn't just running that weenie McCain. It was TWO ill-considered endless wars.

It was a short-lived anemic "economic recovery" which had run out of steam by 2005 and unerringly on a downward slide until it finally fell off a cliff in 2008. The R's kept throwing money at the problem with economic stimulus, which didn't even slow the downward trend. The economy was too over-stimulated to respond to additional stimulus and should have been allowed to enter a good cleaning-out recession years sooner.

The R's were mis-managing for many years, guns and butter just like Johnson and the D's. Massive deficit spending and poorly managed, ill-advised foreign adventures, with the fed reserve printing money and pumping the bubble just as bad as today.

Remember, it had got bad enough that the R's had already been well-trounced in congress in the 2006 elections.

So there was A LOT for a theoretically "good 2008 R candidate" to overcome. Edited December 30, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Oh Shoot]

I don't agree.

 

There is no way to know/prove it now of course but I believe that Republicans could have won in 2008 if they had put up a great candidate......

I think you are right that maybe a strong enough R candidate could have prevailed in 2008, but it would have been dicey, and possibly required a campaign throwing W under the bus, apologizing for mistakes, and some kind of "bold new plan" to reverse cumulative policy errors and corruption rot in the R's over the period of 2000 to 2008.

 

I don't think Christ himself could have won running under the GOP in '08.

 

But the GOP got the '12 election back on a silver platter -- except the candidate winds up being one of the few men on the planet that enough of the electorate found to be at least as untrustworthy and a whole lot less personally likeable than BHO.

 

- OS

Edited December 30, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[tnguy]

I don't think Obama could have got as far as he did as fast as he did without W and Cheney to pave the way. Things may be worse now than they were but it's partly their legacy.

[JayC]

This is what happens when we keep nominating RINO's and turn our back on principals.

 

Hopefully we won't do it three times in a row and nominate Christy in 2016.

 

I don't think Christ himself could have won running under the GOP in '08.

 

But the GOP got the '12 election back on a silver platter -- except the candidate winds up being one of the few men on the planet that enough of the electorate found to be at least as untrustworthy and a whole lot less personally likeable than BHO.

 

- OS

 

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Awhile ago Jonnin suggested that states who did not majority vote for R pres candidates in previous elections should not be allowed to vote for the nominee in the national convention.

Something like that might be the only thing that prevents cristy for 2016. If all the D's in CA, NY, NJ and New England crossover, in addition to the liberal R voters in those states, then cristy probably wins nomination in a landslide.

[Guest TankerHC]

For those who think that Bush wanted to sign the Patriot Act, or wasnt a Conservative,  I would suggest reading "Heroic Conservatism by Michael J Gerson". Michael Gerson was Bush's Speechwriter and ended up being his personal aide as well as an adviser. And he is a great writer. According to writing "Michael Gerson is considered by many Republicans and Democrats to be the most influential speechwriter in the White House since the Kennedy Administration. There are some things in the book I did not know, the first Progressive and the beginning of Progressivism in the 1820's, for example, or the fact that like Reagan, when Bush was told saying certain things in speeches would ruin him, he thought the truth a better option and did it anyway. Or that when he met with people in places like rehab facilities he would publicly admit to his mistakes and talk about all the stupid things, especially the drinking, in his younger days as well as what it took to overcome those issues. 

 

I am on the last chapter. If anyone is interested in some of the going's on in the Bush White House, especially what happened on and post 911, when I am done in a couple of days Ill send it to you. 

 

Talk about missing Bush, hell, under the current circumstances I would even take this guy back.

 

[tnguy]

Awhile ago Jonnin suggested that states who did not majority vote for R pres candidates in previous elections should not be allowed to vote for the nominee in the national convention.

Something like that might be the only thing that prevents cristy for 2016. If all the D's in CA, NY, NJ and New England crossover, in addition to the liberal R voters in those states, then cristy probably wins nomination in a landslide.

The parties have got muddled into the political process to a ridiculous degree. That seems to be the majority of the issue to me. The whole idea that states get a say in the process of picking the presidential candidates is crazy. I am particularly referring to the open primaries which were responsible for McCain being selected and largely responsible for Romney. The parties should be responsible for the process themselves (not that I'm a big fan of parties but it seems they are predestined to exist).

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The parties have got muddled into the political process to a ridiculous degree. That seems to be the majority of the issue to me. The whole idea that states get a say in the process of picking the presidential candidates is crazy. I am particularly referring to the open primaries which were responsible for McCain being selected and largely responsible for Romney. The parties should be responsible for the process themselves (not that I'm a big fan of parties but it seems they are predestined to exist).

I don't much like the "smoky back room" method of yesteryear, but even those were decorated by the showy song and dance of primaries.

But in the case of weenie RINO candidates, if the state "mover and shaker" party leaderships got together in the smoky back rooms we would still have got McCain and Romney. The party leaders WANTED those twerps, thought they had latched onto big winners I guess.

I don't know any exalted party leaders, but get a vague impression they must all be 85 year old rich out-of-touch country club people who want the r party to be their own little social club whether they win elections or not. Remember how much static the "leadership" gave for instance young enthusiastic ron paul supporters in the last two primaries. Edited December 31, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Dennis1209]

For those who think that Bush wanted to sign the Patriot Act, or wasnt a Conservative,  I would suggest reading "Heroic Conservatism by Michael J Gerson". Michael Gerson was Bush's Speechwriter and ended up being his personal aide as well as an adviser. And he is a great writer. According to writing "Michael Gerson is considered by many Republicans and Democrats to be the most influential speechwriter in the White House since the Kennedy Administration. There are some things in the book I did not know, the first Progressive and the beginning of Progressivism in the 1820's, for example, or the fact that like Reagan, when Bush was told saying certain things in speeches would ruin him, he thought the truth a better option and did it anyway. Or that when he met with people in places like rehab facilities he would publicly admit to his mistakes and talk about all the stupid things, especially the drinking, in his younger days as well as what it took to overcome those issues. 

 

I am on the last chapter. If anyone is interested in some of the going's on in the Bush White House, especially what happened on and post 911, when I am done in a couple of days Ill send it to you. 

 

Talk about missing Bush, hell, under the current circumstances I would even take this guy back.

 

 

 

No... Let's not go that far.

 

Even the "rabbits" attacked him!