Seven myths about Bush

Orlando Sentinel ^ | May 12, 2002 | Paul West

[Dr. Scarpetta]

I am also a Bush supporter. I don't think it's possible to reason with some of the posters on this thread. They're probably Democrats or conservative perfectionists, and in that case, no electable Republican would be good enough for them. These people demand perfection in Pres. Bush,but they themselves, probably lead lives of frustrating imperfection.

[Southack]

"I spend my serious time posting to those who like to debate in a serious matter."

Then you are delusional.

You couldn't even explain why pulling the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court was "leftist".

After all, you claimed that "nothing" Bush has done has been conservative, and Bush did pull the U.S. out of that court.

Nor have you explained how killing the Kyoto Treaty was liberal, yet again Bush killed that Treaty, too.

Bush pulled the U.S. out of the Soviet-U.S. ABM treaty, yet you claim that Bush is making America more liberal.

Nonsense. You either don't know what "liberal" and "Leftist" mean or else you feel no shame about tossing out such false charges of liberal and Leftist against Bush.

Either way, the end result is delusion...

[Mortimer Snavely]

You list things Bush did that John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson would have done. I'd be interested to read your take on JFK and LBJ.

BTW, as I'm sure you've realized, the only thing I'm really interested in is confrontation and refutation of Leftist and other collectivist concepts, whether their premises are Marxist, religious, or otherwise. Bush hasn't done this and I seriously doubt it's in him to do so.

[Mortimer Snavely]

Bush says and does nothing that couldn't be hashed out in a committee meeting of advertising specialists. Right now, as I've noted before, Bush is like Chauncey the gardener in Being There: folks project onto him what they think they want to hear. Faith, enthusiasm and not a little religious euphoria do the rest.

The following was posted by RLK during the hanging chad mess:

“...George Bush has a spotty history. He looks good when viewed superficially. In fact, he has done very little of any seriousness in his lifetime. His existence has consisted of coasting through life on the basis of family name and contacts.

It was also that way with his father, who continued in the path set and enabled by grandfather Bush. George W. was brought into an oil business as a figurehead and did none to well at it. He was saved by purchase of the oil company by outsiders who kept him on as a nearly non-functional figurehead.

Last year he apparently made $18,000,000 from the sale of an athletic team. But where did the original money come from? It was largely the result of payment for his serving in figurehead positions for being a Bush. It was the result of cushy positions and privilege. Bush has never used hard minded grit to build anything starting at the bottom.

The Texas governorship is another cushy illusion. The previous governor, Ann Richards was a former drunk with a coarse mouth who sounded as if she still had a load on. Her raucus iconclasm held immediate attention and amusement, and may have originally got her elected, but was not the type of thing that wears well over time. She was not a strong candidate for reelection.

Texas is a state where many people are of similar mind. To become governor of that state requires little more than to drift along with that mindset while showing an easy-going affability and personal appeal. Texas has its own distict culture that is distant from national issues. Indeed, the Texas mind is two steps away from secession from the union. One does not need the capability of arguing the nuances of Marxism versus free enterprise with the likes of Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Bella Abzug, Teddy Kennedy, or leading figures in the national media to become governor of Texas. It's a position of ease, with little contention to face, where one merely presides over continuation of the machinery of the status quo. It requires none of the intellectual or temperamental capabilities needed for present national leadership.

In short, all manner of things have come unto George Bush without effort as people have sought him out to bestow them upon him merely because his name was Bush. He has had but to pick and choose. That he has chosen among those unearned gifts and positions has given the illusion of success.

George Bush was sought out offered a presidential candidacy on the same basis as he has been offered everything else. It was an acceptable gift.”

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...the point of the matter is, opponents on this website have a tendency of accusing each other of groupthink. Witness our present fondness for terms like "Bushbot" and "apologist."...

Well don't accuse me of that. I'm simply saying that 1. having Bush as president is a hell of a lot better than the alternative, and 2. that he is turning out to be a disappointment, to conservatives.

[Southack]

"BTW, as I'm sure you've realized, the only thing I'm really interested in is confrontation and refutation of Leftist and other collectivist concepts, whether their premises are Marxist, religious, or otherwise. Bush hasn't done this and I seriously doubt it's in him to do so."

Bush told the UN to stuff its ban on small arms trafficking. That is most assuredly confronting and bashing a Marxist concept.

Bush pulled the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court. That too bashes a major platform component of the international socialists.

Bush pulled federal funding of foreign "family planning," dealing the socialists yet another body blow.

Bush killed U.S. cooperation with the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, yet again smashing socialist dreams of transfering American wealth to third world hellholes via buying and selling UN "pollution credits" from non-polluters.

Perhaps you simply haven't been paying attention, but Socialism is taking multiple hits these days. Nationalism is once again in vogue, and the right wing is making political gains in Taiwan, Italy, France, Austria, Germany, as well as the Netherlands and of course Mexico and the U.S.

[Mortimer Snavely]

Like I posted earlier, those are the kinds of things one would have expected from JFK or LBJ. I do not assign any malice upon Bush, as I do those rascals, but I am convinced that Bush sees them as benign Democrats of the Harry Truman mold.

I would like to see what you have to say about Jack Kennnedy and Lyndon Johnson.

[Southack]

"You list things Bush did that John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson would have done. I'd be interested to read your take on JFK and LBJ."

Well, JFK blockaded Cuba to end the missile crisis and embargoed Cuba to punish Castro for confiscating all American property on the island.

Bush is currently continuing that embargo (and I expect that he will unless he trades it for even more right-wing gains), and I fully support keeping it. JFK funded our Nike ABM missile system, and GWB is funding our non-nuclear interceptors for our new ABM system.

Both JFK and GWB lowered taxes on individuals and businesses, too. So yes, striking similarities do exist between them.

LBJ jumped into Vietnam and had Left-Wing protestors outside his White House every day even though his War on Poverty was perhaps the largest boondoggle Socialist endeavor in recent memory. Odd, really. The Left never recognized LBJ as one of their own. Most striking was that the clear Communist puppet in the Senate during Johnson's reign was Al Gore, Sr., who fought LBJ tooth and nail over Johnson's Civil Rights Act of 1965. In that alone we see two Leftists at war with each other, and the well-funded Gore lost handily to the mean, clever, wily Johnson.

He had a ranch in Texas like GWB, was tall, and moved controversial pieces of legislation through Congress like GWB, so some similarities do exist even between them.

Frankly, as bad and as Leftist as Johnson was in general, he was right to push the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

I expect that in the next 6 years we'll see GWB do the same thing with vouchers. He's already got Ashcroft standing up for our firearms civil rights, after all, so vouchers fit in nicely with his approach to civil rights.

But I don't expect GWB to restart Johnson's War on Poverty or try to micro-manage our military in our War on Terrorism.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Well don't accuse me of that. I'm simply saying that 1. having Bush as president is a hell of a lot better than the alternative, and 2. that he is turning out to be a disappointment, to conservatives.

That about sums it up! Short, sweet and to the point.