Thank you, Grey-Whiskers, you’ve demonstrated my point. I’ll just respond to the first few lines of your post (my replies are in caps) just so you can get the drift:
“Bush’s ‘new tone’ began when Gore tried to sue his way into the White House; even in the aftermath of *that*, and with the extreme vandalism and literal filth left in the White House in a fit of spite by the childish Clintonites, Bush didn’t call them on it.”
UM, BUSH WON, DIDN’T HE? OR DID I MISS SOMETHING????
“Then you had 9-11, and Bush didn’t clear house and have Gorelick sent to Leavenworth for treason.”
BUSH COULD HAVE THROWN GORELICK INTO LEAVENWORTH FOR TREASON? REALLY? I NEVER KNEW HE HAD THAT PREROGATIVE.
“Shortly after 9-11, you had the ‘Axis of Evil’ from which Bush backed down, to be replaced by the “Religion of Peace” fellation.”
I’M SURE YOU THINK WE ARE LOSING THIS WAR. BUT CHECK THE NEWS. THE WAR IN IRAQ IS ALL BUT OVER. THE ISRAELIS ARE KICKING TAIL IN GAZA. EVEN HARD CORE BUSH CRITICS LIKE M. LEDEEN (WHO I THINK IS JUST GREAT) CONCEDE THAT IRAN IS ON THE BRINK OF REAL TROUBLE EVEN AS DEMOCRACY IS GAINING A FOOTHOLD THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST. THE DEATH TOLL FOR ALL OF THE JIHADISTS SIMPLY MUST BE AT OR NEAR THE 1 MILLION MARK, AS AGAINST OUR < 5,000. SHOULD I GO ON?
“Then you had the Harriet Meiers fiasco ...”
WHO IS HARRIET MEIERS? OH, RIGHT. I HAD COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN. BUT I COULD HAVE SWORN THAT ROBERTS AND ALITO ARE BUSH’S TWO APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT. DO THEY SOMEHOW OFFEND YOUR CONSERVATIVE SENSIBILITIES, OR WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THEY ARE THE FINEST APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL GENERATIONS?
Hmmm ... I know you hate our president. But take a few deep breaths. Get a grip. Look at what he had to work with (Specter, DeLay, et al). Overlook the intermediate stumbles and focus instead on outcomes. And praise the Lord that we had him in the White House.
But by posting in ALL CAPS, you have outed yourself as a Bushbot.
Incidentally, when posting responses, it is also a good idea to address the actual topics, rather than attempting to move the goalposts or redefining terms on the fly.
Case in point:
UM, BUSH WON, DIDN'T HE? OR DID I MISS SOMETHING????
I never alleged he lost; I pointed out that by refusing to play PR hardball against Gore during Gore's attempt to sue his way into the White House, he legitimized Gore's claims, and delegitimized himself. This carried throughout both of his terms, and greatly diminished the GOP "brand".
You appear to be the one who "missed something."
BUSH COULD HAVE THROWN GORELICK INTO LEAVENWORTH FOR TREASON?
Yes, it's called rhetorical hyperbole. Gorelick is the one who championed the wall of separation which helped keep the government from stopping 9-11 in its tracks. See also the reports of the FBI agents who attempted to warn their higher ups of Muslims taking flight lessons but not being interested in *landing* the planes. These things *should* have been laid at Gorelick's feet -- instead she was appointed to the commission investigating 9-11.
Too many other examples to mention.
Thanks for playing, troll.
Cheers!