No "Stay the Course" or "4 More Years;"--Bush Rebuked Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 9, 2008 at 9:51 am
It is noteworthy how President Shrub and his disastrous policies have gone from being embraced, to skirted, to criticized by the GOP Presidential candidates in recent weeks.
The is little or no talk of continuing the legacy of the Shrub years. The operative word, "change," ballyhooed by candidates from both parties, is vernacular for running the executive branch of the federal government in a very different way than has the incumbent. McCain talks about changing the strategy in Iraq and ousting Rummy, Huckabee talks about the administration's arrogance and paranoia, Romney chirps about how his Harvard MBA classmate has "mis-managed" things.
Lame duck incumbents such as Truman, Johnson and Clinton watched their parties lose the White House as the nominee distanced himself from the departing President. Truman and LBJ both were involved with unpopular wars most of their time in office. Clinton's personal dalliances got the best of him, and the stench rubbed off on Gore.
President Ford was not able to remain in office as he attoned for the sins of Nixon. Bush the First is the only recently elected President who was of the same party as his predecessor, the popular Ronald Reagan, and his turned out to be a one term Presidency.
None of this bodes well for the ultimate GOP nominee, no matter who it is. Clearly, history is not on his side, and the man in the Oval Office right now is a millstone around the nominee's neck he will have a nearly impossible job of removing entirely. Even the lesson of Bush the First will not lead to someone "hitching their wagon" to the Shrub policies and legacy.
Ironically, if a Republican actually did distance himself completely from Shrub, the country would be better off no matter who wins the White House, provided the two final candidates both are pointing the way to a very different direction and leadership than what we have be subjected to the last 8 years.
Posted by Another Boomer, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 9, 2008 at 11:26 am
Can't argue with most of Boomer's points except: The Supreme Court is what got in the way of Gore's moving into the White House, not the "stench" of Clinton's bad behavior. In fact, many analysts say that Gore's distancing himself from Clinton -- a very popular president even during the impeachment carnival -- cost him votes. Yet, he won the election anyway.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 9, 2008 at 11:46 am
Who said Hashberry was dead? The constitution provides for the term of office and the procedures for electing a president. There is no "Hold my breath until I turn blue" ammendment. The boomers turned on, tuned in and dropped out as ordered. Some have never recovered from the drop, or drops as the case may be.
Posted by Another Boomer, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 9, 2008 at 1:13 pm
So where does the constitution say that the Supreme Court appoints the president? If Gore won the electoral college -- which the results of a recount that came out in late 2001 indicate he did -- he won the election. That fact might possibly have been proven had the State Supreme Court not been overruled by Big Brother Court. But of course, one would have to be a "states rights" believer to call the Big Brother Court's move unconstitutional.
Oh, by the way, I may as well pre-empt your predictable "get over it" response by asking you why you can't just GET OVER your tired, anemic anti-Boomer animosity. Your anti-Boomer braying suggests that you have FAR too much emotional investment in attacking "the other" -- that which you do not understand.
Posted by Shannon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 9, 2008 at 1:59 pm
"If Gore won the electoral college -- which the results of a recount that came out in late 2001 indicate he did "
I have heard just the opposite, but it hardly matters. The inauguration was in Jan. of 2001. We needed to know. The Gore camp did every trick in the book to steal Florida (cherrypicking counties for recounts, suppressing military votes), but he lost.
Posted by NotABoomer/Narcissist, a resident of another community, on Jan 9, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Another Boomer -
The Supreme Court did not "pick" the president -as you whiners constantly claim. They upheld election law as defined in the constitution. Don't like the law? Then work to change it. And thank you for making my point -you poor, misunderstood, victim boomer.
P.S. What fraudulent recount did you cherry-pick to convince yourself that Gore won? -Guess it doesn't matter anyway. Four years later your loss was even bigger.
Posted by Another Boomer, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 9, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Shannon, Thanks for affirming my awesome ability to predict. Hugs and kisses.
NAB/N, I will stick to my principle of ignoring pure silliness, but my curiosity is getting the better of me in terms of your "thank you for making my point" comment. Could you kindly explain your path from Point A to Point B? I'd be most grateful.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jan 9, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Bush's approval rating is about 15 points above Congress (led by Nancy Pelosi). If approval ratings are the measure to predict the next election, the Republicans will probably sweep the whole thing.
When Congress is led by two people who claim that the Iraq war is already lost, when, in fact, it is being won, it is no wonder that they are in such a fix. If Hillary should win, she will not be stupid enough to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Her women friends will then need to start coming up with reasons to fight harder in Iraq. Actually, I might enjoy watching that show.
Posted by Petriot, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jan 9, 2008 at 3:49 pm
This really is Alice's world. We're winning? Gee, you could have fooled all those Iraqi's, who can't even hold local elections, or get their newly built hospitals staffed. And isn't it funny how the war is spreading to Afganistan and Pakistan? Yeah, sure, we're winning - in Orwell's universe, maybe.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 9, 2008 at 4:07 pm
There are communities in the US that can't hold local elections or staff hospitals. The war is "spreading" to Afghanistan and Pakistan? Spreading? Implying a prior peaceful condition? Wanna borrow some Kipling? Say the Soldier dying on the Afghanistan plain? That was pre Bush, I believe. The rot started when they changed History and Geography to Social Studies. The cost of war is high,, but the cost of surrender is everything.
Posted by NAB/N, a resident of another community, on Jan 9, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Your posts are very psychologically revealing. If you are unfamiliar with narcissistic tendencies, let me explain some of them.
Narcissists have unusually large but delicate egos. Everything in their world is about them; their needs, their feelings and their perceptions (really misperceptions). Boomers -"The ME Generation" are notorious for this kind of behavior.
Walter and I stepped on your sensitive ego and elicited quite a defensive and characteristic emotional response. In your last post your concern was not about election facts but rather how you had made my point for me on Boomers & narcissism. It was all about you.
Narcissists are also prone to throwing magnificent tantrums when they don't get their way -as when Gore lost in 2000. Only Boomers could put on such a show!
Posted by Another Boomer, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 9, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Oh dear oh dear. I fear, NAB/N, that trying to conduct a rational discussion with you is an effort doomed to fail. Somehow you interpret my pressing you to logically explain a statement you wrote as my being concerned about myself. This is an interesting response from you, but I'll be kinder to you than you've been to this thread's readers and not attempt to psychologically analyze you.
What I will do before I bid you adieu and go on to things that matter in life is to restate my request: Can you explain your logic in concluding that what I wrote earlier in this thread = my feeling like a "misunderstood victim"? To be "misunderstood" requires a second party's making an attempt to understand. That certainly is not the case with you braying anti-Boomers. And victim? How can that be? Victims feel violated, put upon, wounded. No, NAB/N, your inability to think clearly is a victimless crime. Adieu.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jan 9, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Yes, we are on a winning track in Iraq. The surge has worked. Oil production is now past pre-invasion levels, and m\the major oil companies are now bidding for contracts. 4 million b/d (near all time record for Iraq, and equal to Iran) is predicted in 2009. Electricity continues to improve in Baghdad...it had already impproved throughout the rest of the country. Violence is tapering down. Cooperation with the Americans and Iraqi army is gaining momentum. The economy is improving. Refugees are starting to move back.
A pretty good and reliable blog on the Iraq issues is:
Posted by NotABoomer/Narcissist, a resident of another community, on Jan 10, 2008 at 2:09 am
Surrender can be a strategic initiative? - Looks like another Boomer has been smoked out. One who wants to relive his Vietnam glory days.
OK Mr. Anti-Patriot, lets get real. The way to win a war is to kill the enemy and make HIM surrender. White flags and peace talks didn't work with Hitler and they most assuredly won't work with radical Islamic terrorists.
You don't understand the cultural mindset of the terroist. He sees surrender as a sign of weakness (like the japanese did in WWII). It just encourages him to believe that we are ripe for defeat. And these terrorists are even more dangerous to deal with than the Nazis or the Japanese were. They are wild fanatics who abide by NO rules of warfare. They purposely target civilians including their own.
Nothing short of complete victory is necessary here. Otherwise they will force their barbaric theocracy on all the people of the world. They have stated their intentions to do so very clearly. Yet you refuse to believe them.
So hey, stay in denial. Keep on projecting your own motivations onto the terrorists. Believe only the NYT. Put some daisies into gun barrels and smoke that weed dude.
Posted by ha ha, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2008 at 2:33 pm
PS - The writer of this piece and Ahmadinijad both make the same mistake, they both think that Bush is running again ( Mr.A offered to "monitor" our elections to make sure Bush didn't get fraudulently re-elected)