bush
Posted at 10:16am on Mar. 25, 2008 Just stupid: the NYT editorial board
Love for Spitzer + Hatred of Bush = ?
By Mark Kilmer
On the same day when the New York Times heaps love on the corrupt, criminal pervert who once was their beloved governor, they blame President Bush for things beyond a president's control.
From the Spitzer editorial:
It is still important to separate Mr. Spitzer’s personal and political failings from the worthwhile things he did, or hoped to, accomplish. As attorney general, he worked hard to make Wall Street a safer place for the little guy and helped craft an agreement to get cleaner air in the Northeast. As governor, he was working to open one of the nation’s most opaque state budgets and reform one of the most unfair campaign financing systems.
Yeah, they did it for Like Bill Clinton of recent memory; now, it's Eliot Spitzer's turn to receive credit from the NYT for things which never happened or Spitzer did not himself do.
Meanwhile, in another of today's editorials, the doltish souls on that editorial board preach that our dependency on foreign oil is the fault of President Bush:
The Bush administration can’t be entirely blamed for the pain at the gas pump. But its shortsighted energy policies — zealously focused on increasing the energy supply, with little attention paid to conservation and greater fuel-efficiency — means the country is far too dependent on oil that is both ruinously expensive and ruinous for the environment.
They say that the White House is run by "oilmen," and they insinuate that the purpose of this administration was to protect oilmen from the dangers of Cape Cod wind farms. (No, that's Teddy Kennedy, you sillies.)
They expect that their readers, some of whom are intelligent and/or decently educated, will follow these puerile arguments and agree: "Gol, those Times guys are so smart, Oracle at 'Delphia. Yep, boy howdy, I sure agree with those observations!"
[Read on, by all (and by any) means.. …]
Posted in bush | Culture | new york times | Spitzer — Comments (4)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:08pm on Jan. 7, 2008 Remember George McGovern? He's aging, but he's ticked at Bush/Cheney.
The man's still stuck in war protest gear.
By Mark Kilmer
Welcome to the song:
Long as he wants to go opposite to the foe
We'll stay with the old man wherever he wants to stay
Long as he stays away from the battle's fray
Because we love him, we love him
Especially when he keeps us on the ball
That’s Irving Berlin, apropos of George McGovern's this, from an op/ed in Sundays Washington Post:
I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?
Scratching your head? Well, don't. George McGovern is still fighting yesterday's war:
Read On…
Posted in bush | Cheney | George McGovern | impeach | Iraq | Liberals — Comments (19)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:52pm on Dec. 6, 2007 Re: Is Huckabee a Compassionate Conservative?
By Jeff Emanuel
Alex, the next time you wish to (attempt to) shoot a hole in something that is commonly held, please please attempt to find an article which does *not* need to twist logic into a pretzel to bolster your argument.
To wit:
There has been much back slapping in the media and the blogosphere over identifying Mike Huckabee as a “Compassionate Conservative.” In fact a search of his website will find the phrase “Compassionate Conservatism” three times. (Changing to Compassionate Conservative” yields similar results.) In all three instances they are in the comments sections of posts.
So...because he doesn't use a certain term -- which accurately describes his record and platform (if we're being generous to him) -- on his website, it is therefore not applicable? Come on, Alex -- you yourself have used the term "compassionate conservatism" to describe (and to spin) Huck's big-government, nanny-state record; the simple fact that those words are not posted on his official campaign site does nothing to negate their accuracy as descriptors.
It probably doesn’t help matters that “compassionate conservatism” gets blamed for all that is wrong with the Bush administration.
Not all -- not even close. But the expansions of discretionary spending and of government bureaucracies and involvement? Absolutely. So "Huckabee’s own education page actually criticizes 'No Child Left Behind'" -- does that negate the fact that, under the title of Compassionate Conservatism, Bush pushed through (or allowed Congressional Democrats to write/push through) a massive Medicare expansion, among others? Who cares if, as Vox Nova says, "it passed with plenty of support from folks who wouldn’t self-describe themselves as “compassionate conservatives" -- who proposed it, and why?
And then there's the inexplicable attempt to claim that Huckabee the big-government Republican (a la GWB) is actually the anti-Bush, and that the "establishment candidates" have actually been running as a "competent Bush." Um, no -- Bush has been dropped like a hot rock by every candidate on that stage. His domestic policies (and big government ideals) have been as well -- at least, by all but one candidate. Which one? That's right: Mike Huckabee.
By the way, can you get more insulting to your audience's intelligence than to echo Huck's ridiculous mantra and to refer to his opponents as the "establishment candidates," as though he were some noble outsider riding in on a Biblical steed to save the day? Seriously -- please, please explain to me just how it is that a fella who was governor of a state for ten years is *less* of an "establishment candidate" than, say, a career businessman whose only experience in office is four years as a governor, an attorney who spent eight years as mayor of a city, or an actor whose only experience is eight years as a Senator.
Posted at 4:03pm on Apr. 10, 2007 Something To Be Thankful For
Yes, he did expand government. On the other hand...
By krempasky
There's a lot for conservatives to be cranky about when it comes to the Bush Administration. Education bill, Prescription Drug Bill, size and scope of government...the list goes on. But noticing the cover of today's edition of USA Today reminded me that even if you're a disgruntled conservative - especially one that thinks Republicans ought to lose to learn a lesson - don't think for a moment this President hasn't done good, important things. Here's just one.
And if you needed a reason to focus on November, 2008 - well, there you go.
Posted in bush | scotus | The Courts — Comments (21)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 4:52pm on Apr. 4, 2007 The worst pitch vs. one of the best
Commentary on the political parties?
By krempasky
Democratic Mayor of Cincinnati throws what may be the worst opening pitch ever.
President Bush, wearing body armor under his clothes, throws a strike to open Game 3 in New York City, 2001.
Posted in Archived | baseball | bush | mallory — Comments (8)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:46pm on Mar. 29, 2007 Thank God for A Sense of Humor
W. @ the correspondents' dinner
By krempasky
Posted in Archived | bush — Comments (2)/ Email this page » / Read More »
