Whatever else historians may say about the presidency of George W. Bush, they will likely agree that he was very fortunate in his opponents. Just as Bill Clinton benefitted from the inept, creepy Ken Starr, Bush has had the good fortune to be opposed by the wooden, ridiculous Al Gore and the loathsome gasbag John Kerry.
Likewise, as the "Summer of Iraq" now melts into the Autumn of "We're Staying", one by one the various factions of the machinery assembled against him are self-destructing. MoveOn.org had the misfortune of introducing itself to a large portion of the American public as the guys who personally attacked a soldier that a large majority believe to be trustworthy and competent. The NY Times Dan Rather had the good grace to re-surface with a $70 million lawsuit against CBS. A twofer! Columbia University invites Amadinejad to address students. Beautiful! Anyone heard from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi lately?
Likewise, as the "Summer of Iraq" now melts into the Autumn of "We're Staying", one by one the various factions of the machinery assembled against him are self-destructing. MoveOn.org had the misfortune of introducing itself to a large portion of the American public as the guys who personally attacked a soldier that a large majority believe to be trustworthy and competent. The NY Times Dan Rather had the good grace to re-surface with a $70 million lawsuit against CBS. A twofer! Columbia University invites Amadinejad to address students. Beautiful! Anyone heard from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi lately?
posted by alwaysright at
6:21 PM
3 Comments:
Personally, I don't think any historians are going to agree about the presidency of George W. Bush. Those on the left probably will not comment at all and those on the right will mangle and revise the history of his two terms in such a way as to obfuscate the most obvious illegalities and shortcomings and veneer over the rest with a coat of platitudes and homespun lies.
How on earth did Clinton benefit from the 'inept and creepy Ken Starr', Starr was not running for office, as were Gore and Kerry. Starr was a manifestation of right wing paranoia over the possible success of a Clinton and administration and what that entailed for future Republican presidential aspirations. Clinton must not be seen to be successful, it would hurt the repug brand exponentially.
You really live in an alternative universe politically, perhaps you should try clicking your heels!
MoveOn.org - still here!
Dan Rather - entertainment news!
Ahmadinejad - irrelevant!
Harry Reid - Still better than Trent 'lynch 'em' Lott!
Nancy Pelosi - Is it 'Boner' or Boehner the most ridiculous man in American politics.
Say what you want about the democrats, the republican party is a complete and utter catastrophe. Your domestic strategy is in shambles and you still own Iraq... The NRSC & NRHC are broke, the RNC is a rudderless mess with no clear message and no rising star. Incumbent repugs are being outraised on a national and constituency level, there is very little talent available to plug the gaps of the retiring (read: disgraced) members. Your whole party is imploding and you still have the nerve to attack democrats.
Not even a complicit MSM will help you this time...
Dennis Kucinich is the most ridiculous man in American politics. Hands down.
Starr was a perfect foil for the Clintons--an untelegenic Christian.
As for Iraq, in a few more months I suspect the Republicans will be glad they own it, as it will be beginning to be clear that it is a success.
I readily concede that the R's are down in the cycle right now. But isn't it striking how badly the Dems are fumbling the opportunity they've been handed?
I find the horse race interesting, but what drives me is who's right and who's wrong. What are the policies that will keep the last, best hope for mankind running for a few more generations.
You may be right about Kucinich, what with the Shirley McClain talking to UFO's malarky...
However, Boehner is as lightweight as they come, a truly vaccuous individual with all the charisma of a can of luncheon meat.
I still have a problem with your assertion that Ken Starr was a benefit to the Clinton administration, whichever public perception won out, it remains a scurrilous example of rightwing demonization gone too far. Clinton was dogged by repeated, failed, attempts to slander, defame and negate his mostly popular 'image' by an elitist element within the republican party that holds that only they are 'worthy' of leading this country, a belief system that is, quite frankly, unAmerican.
One may argue that the Founding Fathers, the Framers so to speak, were of the same elitist ilk but, their genius was in recognizing the uniqueness of the situation handed to them, the blank page that would become the Constitution of The United States was written to prevent the rise and ultimate domination of a political/socio-religeous elite and it's ability to force a proscribed mandate on the populace, hence Cheney's stated opposition to said document and his striving for the Unitary Executive. Once we have a King, why do we need a Constitution?
As for Iraq, in a few months time I think you'll find we will be back to square one. The surge is finite, the Civil War is in it's infancy...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home