The Failing Bush Presidency

Right Wing News ^ | 5/08/02 | John Hawkins

[jumpstartme]

Many, including me.

[Texasforever]

If that 1% votes the other way in 2004, who would be laughing then?

The same way it went in 2000. The nutcase 1% was divided up between the nutcase candidates. If you are going to threaten then you SHOULD have something to threaten with.

[dead]

I have been very critical of Bush on many issues, but this is an ill-informed analysis of Bush's performance, by a simple-minded writer with a very superficial grasp of the issues.

The author is not wrong everywhere, but he's not insightful anywhere.

[Drew68]

Woah, is that pic of Clinton for real?

[capt. norm]

The author is obviously not a chess player.

The complexity of what Bush has to do is obviously going to fly right over the heads of many.

[Texasforever]

It will be a very hollow victory if we win in November because we will have basically said vote for us, we're just like the Democrats.

Yeah win by losing gol dern it that'll learn 'em.

[jumpstartme]

Capt. normcrunch bump. That doesn't mean I want to play chess. ;)

Love the game, but I'm much better at cribbage.

[Cold Heat]

The proper position to take with this president is to support him in his efforts. If you must be critical of his policies then take them issue by issue and make your case.

To blanketly claim a failing presidency and then say your "sorry you had to say it and you hope you are wrong", seems a bit like a arm chair quarterback rant about a football team.

To summarize, this should not have been said without making a case for what should have been done!

As it is, it is nothing but whiny claptrap!

[Scott from the Left Coast]

He can not veto everything.

The problem isn't that he can't veto everything, picking political fights is always an art form.

The problem is that his "new tone" effectively translates into he won't veto anything.

He hasn't used the veto once. Not once.

And the "new tone" non-confrontational theory appears to have extended all the way to the War on Terror. He is not engaged in a posse hunting down some bad guys out there -- he is face to face with a war of civilizations. And as much as he'd like to ignore that nasty boogeyman, it's staring him back in the face.

We need a War President, not a sheriff. He can look to Ariel Sharon for example, if he needs one.

[baseballmom]

Oh PUHlease. Guess who listened to Rush today? That's all............

[poet]

Do you deny the content of the posting or is this another case of an "insult du jour?

People who use insults are saying they have no substance to refute statements that are made.

Anyone who does an overview of bush's domestic policies can only come to one conclusion and that is that he has embraced the dem's policies. To do otherwise is defending the indefensible.

Personal attacks do not strenghten an argument, rather, it shows a weakness. Those are clinton's type replies.

[notpoliticallycorewrecked]

Ya noticed the postition of the hand, did ya?

I didn't until I looked again after your comment. Good catch. Even if it is an altered image, it tells the truth.

[McGavin999]

Unfortunately, your analysis is failing. First of all, we are at war. I know you think that the war is "over there" but it's not, it's right here. This country is in severe danger from Islamic militants right here in our own country. There is a lot going on, but, in order to keep the public from panicing it's being done as quickly and quietly as possible. There are so many balls in the air right now that dropping even one could create a situation so serious and deadly that this country would be hard pressed to continue.

Bush is trying to keep it all together and the dems are taking advantage. One day, when history looks back, it's people like you they will be shaking their heads at, wondering just how people could be so short sighted they would betray the man who was trying to keep them alive.

You really ought to be ashamed.

[Lancey Howard]

Oh, well, Bush is the best we can hope for right now, and I think he's doing pretty well considering that the scumbags control the Senate. So you can blather about a "failing Presidency" all you want - - the alternative is some liberal scumbag or another, supported and elected by welfare mothers, clucking feminists, abortionists, socialists, minority "victim" groups, and various other losers, slugs and parasites. I'll take Bush any day.

[Texasforever]

We need a War President, not a sheriff. He can look to Ariel Sharon for example, if he needs one.

The same Sharon that crawls to "daddy" to get permission to kill Arafat? That great war time leader? The one that responds to human bombs by knocking down empty buildings and surrounding Arafat for months without taking him out? I have a 100 bucks that says Arafat outlives Sharon. Talk is cheap.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Click on the Framboyán tree. OK...it's a vanity of sorts.

[Texasforever]

Lol, yeah but you and JH are special. Both of you actually have something to say.

[Lancey Howard]

I remember reading on FR a couple of months ago about the "Scumbag Underground" (a little-known rat site) registering Republican and conservative sounding names and trademarks so that they could parody conservatives and write subversive crap. You one of those?