Posted on 06/08/2009 6:58:16 AM PDT by meandog
HAHAHA! Sorry, thought you were talking about Alcoholic’s Anonymous
Are you blaming Californias failure on Bush?
Blame it where it belongs in the laps of the voting public of the State of California. They sat on their fat butts and let a rogue Democrat legislature run that state for years and years and years.
If something happened that displeased the voters, it was always because of someone else’s representative or state senator - not theirs and the same fools sat on that legislature forever and worked at bankrupting the state.
I know the other five; however who is Poe...the judge from Houston?
Awwwwgh! IOW, according to the ABC video on Mrs. Bush’s “Little Red Dress” heart drive, Laura also begins campaign to save the Burka-wearing women on the Middle East from breast cancer and other female problems...I suppose so they’ll pop out more Islamofacist IED planters to kill our troops.
I was having an adult conversation. Do you mind going away so that it can continue?
Thanks ever so much.
Where I disagree with many of you, is in thinking that humility and lack of self-defense are flaws in his character
"Humility." Humility is a virtue. It is not humility to allow political enemies to ride roughshod over your supporters; to ruin your policy initiatives. That is weakness. And, IMHO that was a flaw in the man we admire..
"Lack of Self Defense," has left us in the former President's party with a weak defense against sweeping changes that threaten to inundate us with government edicts and economic policies that could end our way of life. And, IMHO, that was a flaw in the man we admire.
kept me accutely aware of what the man was really doing, vs what was reported that he had done.
Why do you feel unique in that ability? Many of knew precisely what he had done, only to watch while he sat silent when it was mis-reported, misinterpreted. Again, that exposes his supporters to "derision," a feeling of which you seem acutely aware.
His deafness to calls for to more effective control of the border, for example, exposed his supporters to derision as "racists," and worse.
I really don't think that President Bush should have controlled the election process, do you? What do you suggest he might have done to keep Democrats from crossing over to vote for McCain? What would have been an appropriate action, short of something illegal, or some form of abuse of power, that would have had any effect?
Of course he could not "control the process." What he could have easily done is taken part in it, as was his duty as head of the party. I agree fully with you that as time passes, his standing as a good President will be established. But, his immediate legacy is before us on the TV screen, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., in all his marxist glory.
I want you to personally know, that during his Presidency, I did not "join in the chorus" of unhappiness with George W. Bush, rather I tended to defend him, even as you do now. Furthermore, I wouldn't dream of discussing this openly with members of the Democrat party, although I suppose this forum is an open book to them.
Now that he is out of office, and we in the GOP are left with the wreckage, it is not IMHO, the time for reticence. I don't propose that we disown him, just be aware of his mistakes in order to build upon them. Above all, we shouldn't waste our time in defending W in those areas where he did little to defend us against profligate spending, against illegal immigration, against a Democrat Congress that made his last term a disaster.
He kept us safe. That is the overriding success story of his 8 years. But he did not have the political leadership abilities and communication skills necessary to assure handing over the power of his office to someone who would continue with that basic need. In short, while you continue to loyally defend him, a virtue on your part, he did not fully return the favor.
Deflect the wrong issue? Deflect what wrong issue? What are you talking about?
My point is simple, so I hope you will try to understand it.
The President was doing his job. Whether or not he said enough in his own defense is a matter of opinion, and not part of the President's Constitutional 'job description.'
Understand?
No, just more made up stuff in your little pink world.
As is know by many around here having an adult conversation with you is a complete waste of time. I was just trying to save the member I posted too some time for other more fruitful activities.
My heart is not troubled because I am sure the Viking Kitties are in your near future. Crazy people do not last long around here anymore. Why don't you go back to WA and run your "George Bush walks on water and c$aps Ice Cream threads"?
Feels like that he owes? Oh, dear. Shades of George Bush's convoluted grammar.
The president definately did not do his job.
A big part of his job was getting the facts before the people, and he failed on that score dismally. That is one of the big reasons that we have O.
His silence did much to bring all this about. He seems contented with liberalism.
You talk about political enemies "running roughshod over your supporters." What are you talking about? Did you think it was his job to verbally defend you? Or me? I don't. It was his job to protect this country from terrorist attack - and he did.
I really believe that blaming President Bush for the present state of the Republican party is hyperbolic and faulty. Elected Republicans are complete wimps. The fact that they are in disarray now is due to their own weakness. It's not the job of a former President, or a President leaving office to control the party. Reagan didn't do it. BushI didn't do it. Eisenhower didn't do it. Why should that have been GW's responsibility?
I don't feel "unique" in the ability to know what President Bush was doing. Of course there were others........but certainly not many. The majority of conservatives turned on him and were part of the attack. They didn't listen to anything he said, they blamed him for things he never did, and blamed him for not doing things he did do.
I don't think he was "deaf" at all. He was focused on his job, and certain that he should continue doing what he thought was best for the country.
Again - w regard to the election. How much do sitting Presidents involve themselves in the election of their successor when their VP doesn't run? I'd like to see some quotes or citations that ANY Republican President ever did that.
And again......the "wreckage" is the fault of a myriad of factors, and as long as the focus is solely on him, nothing will ever be done to correct the real problems in the Republican party -which are legion.
The focus on President Bush is counter-productive to solving the problems.
Final point. I do not in any way, shape or form, believe that it is a President's job to make me feel good, or "return the favor" of my support. However, I realize that what he did was to love this country, and defend its people. He loved the military and their families, and EVERY time he spoke, he patted all of us on the back and thanked us for our service. It wasn't his "job" to do so, but he did it anyway.
I'm sorry so many were not listening, and I'm sorry that some feel hurt that in not defending himself, he didn't do enough to defend us against the media slander, but I think that is fundamentally an emotional position, and doesn't jibe with the real responsibility of the President of the United States of America.
Thank you so much for the link! I missed it this morning.
Sick.
And at what point do you acknowledge that if he is saying it over and over and the media is ignoring it, it's not because he is not "doing his job," but rather because he is being attacked and ignored by a hostile media over which he had no control?
Obviously you are one who ignored all the facts of the election in order to blame President Bush for "having O," but it's an argument that cannot hold water, and will disappear as the negative emotions about George W. Bush fade away into a much deserved oblivion.
When all we have left are the facts, the blaming of President Bush for the election of Barack Obama is going to seem as weak and silly as it does to many of us already.
Once again.......back to the adults. You can go back to Nurse Ratchett......
Two hundred years from now, when history students review this era, I fear deeply that they will be seeing a repeat of Rome circa 476 AD when Odoacer, a mercenary in the service of Rome and leader of the Germanic soldiers in the Roman army, deposes the western Roman emperor and thereby terminates the western Roman empire. It was a good run for Rome, almost 1,000 years since it began as a Republic in 474 when Cuma was established. But weak, and worse, then corrupt emperors followed; Roman citizens quit sending their sons into the greatest military the ancient world knew, systematic debauchery and deviant morals became the norm.
We're following the same path. We had great role models: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Reagan; and we had weak ones in Grant, Tyler, Arthur, Hayes, Hoover, and the two Bushes; poorer ones in Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Harding and Nixon. And now we come to the worst of the lot: Clinton and Obama.
There are no Cincinattuses on the horizon, no Ciceroes to guide us, no strong emperors...there is only downfall.
The former first lady also approves ; “she sounds like a very interesting and good nominee.”
“As a woman I’m proud that there might be another woman on the court,” Bush said.
***************
Reasons #2,#3 why this country is screwed up.
Right - Ted Poe - he’s really, really good!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.