The book “American Dynasty” looks interesting, it’s about the Bush family and their presidencies, only being separated by the Clinton years. That is unprecedented in American politics. They (Bush 1 and Bush2) also have some common concerns and interests.
The book was written by a Republican, by the way. He doesn’t think very highly of George Jr.
Anybody read this? Worth buying?
The winner of the election will be the person who can rouse the greatest number of the generally apathetic electorate to vote.
Maybe Jared from Subway should run for President, apparently he gets results.
Not really all that unprecedented. The first President Adams had a son that became President as well. Their terms may have been farther than 8 years apart but I don’t see how that was a big or dramatic thing like some may.
The Roosevelts were 5th cousins.
Robert Kennedy, brother of JFK ran for President and may have been elected had he survived the campaign.
Some families are just political and some aren’t. It’s not some grand conspiracy and if it is it started with the very first President we ever elected to office.
tme,
Thanks again for posting. You make no pretence of trying to be objective. Your “anybody but Bush” is quite revealing. My comments are unlikely to influence an intransigent such as yourself. I will use you, however, to illustrate to the posters who are on the fence, the clear delineation in our philosophies. You are added to my “Good Luck” list for early November 2004. Say hello to lumpy, kuri, iscariot, and monquebec. You will be getting a nice note from me at the end of the year.
You wrote, “I think Kerry must be scaring the hell out of you republicats, don’t know why else we’d be seeing so much hate from you this early in the game.”
On the contrary, we are delighted you put up a candidate like kerry. I encourage you to get excited about his chances. Please become emotionally attached to him. Get involved in his campaign. Form a personal attachment to him. Echo his slogans.
Good luck in November.
hillary/chuckschumer/jerrynadler/billyboy in 2004!!!
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Who should Bush add to the ticket, if Dick Cheney should become a convicted felon?
Right now Halliburton is being investigated for bribing foreign officials, as well as Halliburton using an offshore mailbox as a way to get around sanctions against doing deals with terrorist states. That happened while Cheney was running Halliburton… he allegedly did business with terrorist states.
Then there is the matter of the leaker who identified the CIA agent, which is a felony. Supposedly his aides are under investigation for that and indictments are expected.
Just curious, if Bush has to cut Cheney loose, who would you like to see nominated for vice president?
Rush Limbaugh?
Rev. Billy Graham?
Pat Robertson?
Rick “Anal Froth” Santorum?
Please enlighten me with your YDD picks to click for the #2 spot to Shrub.
Condoleeza Rice may be in the VP slot instead of Cheney.
Condy would be a good pick. I wonder though, if Cheney goes down in flames, how much that will drag Bush down. Probably not at all, Bush has that “Teflon” thing going, where his rooters will put up with anything and blame him for nothing.
More on topic, it turns out that there is a phoney picture of Kerry and Jane Fonda together, that someone made in Photoshop. It’s being circulated on the net. Already starting with the dirty tricks.
Also, the National Guard guy who claims to remember Bush being in his office in Alabama has some of his dates wrong. He claims Bush was there on dates when Bush was actually somewhere else. Oops!
Maybe Bush didn’t go missing, but he certainly “gold bricked” it.
Also, since when does a serviceman tell the military where he’s going to be stationed? When your Dad is a congressman, I guess. I always thought it was the other way around, you went where the military tells you…
If military records count, then Bill Clinton cleared the way for all of us to be President.
Kerry will definitely carry the bleeding heart, left-wing, dixie bitches, flag burning vote.
I will be surprised if Kerry gets 30% of the overall popular vote.
After 8 years of Clinton, you democrats no longer have the right to use the word character.
In case there is any doubt, I will be voting for Bush. If he could run in '08 I would vote for him again.
Sorry to break the news to you lumpy. Only one of the two pictures of Kerry and Fonda were photoshopped. The other one is real.
Go here: http://snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp
and here: John Kerry | Snopes.com
“The winner of the election will be the person who can rouse the greatest number of the generally apathetic electorate to vote.” (iscariot)
Didn’t work out that way in 2000 but hopefully enough 'Mericans have awoken from their slumber & will stay conscious long enough to remove the oil and gas party from the White House.
“where all his rooters will put up with anything and Blame him for nothing”
Is Lumpy talking about Bush again, or John Kerry?
Lumpy, you should read the current New Yorker’s article about Cheney and Halliburton. It delves into conflicts of interest, but it doesn’t make Cheney out to be the dark prince that you seem to want to believe he is.
Most of the time, that’s how life is. Everybody has their reasons. Even the most ruthless, evil people, like Milosevic, unconsciously invent some higher mission for themselves. If you TRULY think that the burden of proof is on Bush and Cheney to show themselves to have more worth than pondscum (like I might say about David Duke or Pat Buchanan or Sharpton), why don’t you apply the same pessimism toward Kerry?
People have swallowed whole books on the “lies” of the Bush administration, and don’t want to hear whether something was a lie or just natural political spin, or any mitigating context whatsoever for Bush’s actions. If you give Bush and Kerry the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, Kerry does not have more credibility. The only way you could delude yourself to the contrary is if you’re selective to the extreme. I personally am going to vote for Bush if he goes up against John Kerry.
I’ve volunteered for the Edwards campaign. I have to call just 10 people in Wisconsin, and then I’ll probably help door-to-door for the New York primary. Lumpy, is it really “Kerry or Bust” for you, even while there’s a better Democratic candidate? Look at this from Sunday’s NYT:
“And [former National Republican Congressional Committee chair] Representative Tom Davis of Virginia said the White House should sit back and wait until Mr. Kerry had the nomination wrapped up, and not risk helping Senator John Edwards of North Carolina snatch it away from him, since Mr. Bush should be better off running against Mr. Kerry.”
I got it from Mickey Kaus’ column in Slate. You should read it, he’s a stand-up Democrat, daily documenting Kerry’s lack of character.
i’d vote for hulk hogan if casting a ballot wasn’t a complete waste of time. lemme know if anyone else wants to vote for hogan, we’ll start a movement and elect him by write-in. but then the supreme court would go ahead and ‘elect’ GWB, again.
US=GG, what do you think Bush has done that he will be remembered for as beneficial? He seems to be going against most Republican ideals with his rediculous spending, so I don’t understand why you still support him.
For Kuri, big, bad “oil and gas” trumps all. It’s pretty bad, I agree, but I don’t think it functioned that way this last couple years (or that the American people will let it have that effect over the next 6). I don’t believe Halliburton asked for a war, for the reconstruction contracts, and Bush delivered. (I don’t think Halliburton protested the war though.)
Hitchens makes the point that only 5 or so firms can do the job that Halliburton can. With our soldiers needing a company that has shown it can provide reliable goods and services, the system inherently favors Halliburton. It’s a long-term problem we have to deal with, how to increase competition without jeopardizing our military ventures.
Aside to Kuri: I wondered recently whether you noticed that the International Human Rights Committee of the OAS released a long report which cited us for human rights violations in depriving the District of Columbia of delegates in the Senate! (Mexico bearing the standard for human rights?). Or the shirts they wear in Mexico City that say “Viva Osama!” Did George Bush do anything that merited these repugnant gestures, or are we talking about an anti-Americanism for which we can’t scapegoat our current President?
tme is right about GW being a peice of shit. I don’t like being misled or lied to, as I was during the time leading up to the 2nd Gulf War. The way I see it, there’s no way you can trust them again after they claimed vehemently about Iraq having WMD’s and strong ties to Al Qaeda (sp?), neither of which have been proven. I don’t care what the real reason was for the war, I just don’t like being lied to.
I’ve lived in Texas my whole life and I’ll never vote for that dipshit, not even if Rush Dumbaugh was running against him.
John Kerry is an alright guy, but I would really like to see Jon Edwards in the white house.
The only decent candidate in my eyes was General Wesley Clarke.
Now that he’s out of the race - and especially with Kerry in the lead - my vote is going elsewhere.
One thing I do know is I AM going to vote this time around, and I AM going to vote for someone who will maintain a strong military instead of pulling a Bill Clinton trick.
When the democrats first started their campaign, particularly Gen. Clarke, their speeches made some sense, and made me question Bush’s actions.
Hence the anti-Bush speech.
The reality however is this: what would THEY have done? I don’t think they wouldve done better. I don’t think they could.
You have to understand, Bush was given a very bad hand as soon as he became commander in chief.
Also, MANY conspiracy theories arised, but - they always do. If you look at history, there is almost invariably a conspiracy theory or two about a specific event.
As it stands right now, my vote is on Bush, partly courtesy of Clarke I must admit. I find it hilarious Kerry they go through so much trouble to give endorsements when, in all honesty, they don’t mean shit. Just because I backed Clarke doesn’t mean I’ll back someWashington idiot just because Clarke says so, but whatever.
I find it interesting that everyone has this “what did Bush do?” attitude. Well Bush has delt with the WORST tregedy ever to occur in American history, he has fought and been successful in 2 wars (for those that think Iraq was unsucessful, ask where Saddam is), he has eliminated one of the worst human rights violators, he has not perjured to congres and the American people (unlike Mr. Clinton, the Pres. Bush made statements about WMDs on the intellegence from others, not trying to remember where he stuck his wanker), while he did enter Iraq without UN approval, so did old Bill but there are no Democrates crying about Bosnia (and by the way our boys are still there too), he did not get impeached, he has not vomited on any other contries leaders, and his wife has yet to becoma a Senator for a state they never lived in.
The situation in Iraq may not be picture perfect but compared to military history we have been there a relativly short time. By the way WMDs or not, Iraq WAS breaking the treaty they signed and the UN unanamiously voted that something had to be done.
Exercise your rights to free speach all you want (after you thank a service member) but lets be realistic about what President Bush has and has not done. Imagine if Gore was in on Sept. 12th…I think every American, even democrates, had a sigh of relief that Billy’s little buddy wasn’t in DC.
Wtagye,
That was a wonderful post. Hard to refute. You will know that you hit close to the mark, if moron’s like lumpy come flying out of the woodwork frothing like rabid, little rats. It happens to me all the time!!!
I find it very revealing that the democrats (minus Lieberman) are trying to run against a war that most of them supported. Most democrats voted to give the President the power to invade Iraq. Senior democrats were privvy to much of the pre-war intelligence. They apparently agreed with the conclusions. There is NO WAY these same senior democrats would have given a sitting Republican President a blank check to deal with the issue had they disagreed with the administration. democrats don’t work that way. They often put party above principle. If they had doubts, they would have run a smear campaign. The only prominent democrat to attempt that was poor, old robertbyrd of West Virginia. I remember him begging for a “debate” on the issue. He said that he couldn’t believe that there wasn’t more political uproar over the issue. I’ll tell you why, the dEMOCRATS AGREED WITH THE ACTION. Even billyboy came out recently and said that he believed that “there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”
We call this flip-flop HYPOCRISY. Many in this country can see this for what it is. There are many fence sitters who will go with the steady leadership of George W. They will eventually decide that we need to present a honest and steadfast image to the rest of the world. I GUARANTEE YOU, THAT THE TYRANTS OF THE WORLD HAVE TAKEN NOTICE. EXAMPLES? qadafi and kim jung il. Hey democrats, do you think it is coincidence that kim jung il came to the table THE VERY DAY that Bagdhad was liberated? How about qadafi voluntarily abandoning his weapons of mass destruction program? Coincidence? Hard to argue that it was directly due to our obvious resolve to deprive the tyrants of these despicable weapons.
democrats, I support your right to be, what I consider, tragically wrong. However, I sleep more safely knowing that we are actively rooting out and destroying the seeds of terror. Have a very nice year. I can’t wait until November.
hillary/billyboy/mr.ed in 2004!!!
I find it interesting that everyone has this “what did Bush do?” attitude. Well Bush has delt with the WORST tregedy ever to occur in American history,
Huh?
Ignoring the fact that Dubbya doesn’t appear to have well developed anterior, medial or posterior ‘delts’ I have to say, you’re joking.
Certainly, 9/11 was the worst act of international terrorism against America but the worst tragdy in US history? What about the stock market crash and concomitant depression of the late 20’s early 30’s? What about the race riots?
he has fought and been successful in 2 wars (for those that think Iraq was unsucessful, ask where Saddam is),
Two?
he has not perjured to congres and the American people (unlike Mr. Clinton, the Pres. Bush made statements about WMDs on the intellegence from others,
Well, he hasn’t perjured himself to congress because no one has tried to impeach him for lying his butt off. Also, to pass of the comments of the “Guy who gets to push the button” on faulty intelligence is, at best, disingenuous. Sure, at the beginning, it may have been an acceptable response, but the extended period of rhetoric? Sure, you’re intelligence was shoddy, but for that length of time? Smells like fresh rodent.
By the way WMDs or not, Iraq WAS breaking the treaty they signed and the UN unanamiously voted that something had to be done.
Ah yes, agreements with the UN, well they certainly mean a lot to those countries who just want to ignore them. I find it somewhat ironic that you cite that the US entered IRAQ without UN approval but it was ok becasue IRAQ didn’t listen to the UN…and can I say HUH?
Brian Smith
I am for the lesser of two evils. If Edwards wins the nod I will vote for him.
Maybe I shouldn’t settle for a lesser evil?
Cthulhu and Cheney in 2004!!! What a team that would be.