Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Soy un Perdedor
Via Josh Marshall's TPMpire, witness George W. Bush re-enacting
Johnny
Sack's journey back to prison after his daughter's
wedding.
You can understand where the man's head is at. Immigration reform
was it: This was the last issue he could possibly hammer
out a deal on with the Democratic majority. A massive citizenship
program could have been his second-term legacy, a fat item in his
Wikipedia entry between "narrowly defeated the worst Democratic
presidential nominee since John W. Davis" and "got food poisoning
from poorly-prepared seitan while awaiting trial in The Hague."
|6.28.07 @ 3:47PM|#
The only thing that matter regarding Bush's evaluation by history, the only thing that has mattered for four years, is what the government of Iraq, and the larger Persian Gulf in general, looks like in 2020 or so. Anybody who says they know is lying.
|6.28.07 @ 3:54PM|#
I totally agree Will. and Cesar that was shameful.
And was that nominee Gore or Kerry? They both suck it hard.
|6.28.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Kerry did better at the polls than any other candidate in his
position in the history of the Republic.
This country has never voted out an incumbent president during
wartime. The closest any challenger ever came to winning an
election unders those circumstances was...John F. Kerry in 2004,
when he won 48% of the vote.
The worst Democratic nominee in recent memorty? I'd have to rank
McGovern and Dukakis above either Kerry or Carter.
|6.28.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Jimmy-
I would never have said that if the entire Republican Party hadn't
wrapped themselves in the mantle of 9/11 for the last 5 1/2 years.
That, my friend, is shameful.
|6.28.07 @ 3:57PM|#
What about providing the most entertaining speeches? Doesn't he get a mention for making college kids the drunkest of any president during the SOTU?
|6.28.07 @ 4:00PM|#
I'm not your friend. Whatever you think about the political actions of Republicans, referring to the final resting place of over 3000 Americans as "some rubble" is shameful.
|6.28.07 @ 4:02PM|#
A massive citizenship program could have been his
second-term legacy, a fat item in his Wikipedia entry
Do you suppose Georgie is computer-literate enough to even know
what the Wikipedia is - let alone know how to access it? I wonder
if he knows how to use a computer.
|6.28.07 @ 4:03PM|#
I don't think George Bush ever had to overcome a serious setback
before becoming president.
It shows.
Remember "character counts?"
It does.
|6.28.07 @ 4:03PM|#
I'm not your friend. Whatever you think about the political
actions of Republicans, referring to the final resting place of
over 3000 Americans as "some rubble" is shameful.
Yes, but the only think more shameful is to stand on that final
resting place and use it as a soapbox to push through civil rights
violations, an unnecessary war and massive expansion of
government.
I think Cesar was simply pointing that out.
Edward|6.28.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Jimmy
There sure was a lot of rubble covering the final resting place of
those 3000 Americans before it was cleared away. I think you have
some brainpan leakage.
|6.28.07 @ 4:06PM|#
From day one I said, immigration and Social Security are the
only two issues W is half way right on.
So in eight years of getting everything he want handed to him, and
just taking what wasn't handed, after eight years of exploding
government, earmarks, astronomical transportation bills, undoing
decades of agricultural subsidy reform, military imperialism,
torture, FUCKING TORTURE, colossal new entitlements, all the lies,
all the bullshit... What two things did he try to do and not get?
Take your time, think hard, answer when you're ready.
|6.28.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Jimmy-
I apologize for any choice of words that may have confused what I
was trying to say, or to imply disrespect towards the people that
died there.
That was not my intent. My intent was to point out how the deaths
of 3,000 innocent Americans have been used in the most politically
exploitative manner possible by both Bush and by a certain wing of
the Republican Party.
|6.28.07 @ 4:11PM|#
Regarding the worst Democratic Presidential candidates, I think
Gore would have probably one (despite being a piss-poor campaigner)
if Bill Clinton had kept his pants zipped.
Kerry was just awful, though again not as bad as Dukakis, Mondale,
or McGovern.
|6.28.07 @ 4:12PM|#
"Yes, but the only think more shameful is to stand on that final
resting place and use it as a soapbox to push through civil rights
violations, an unnecessary war and massive expansion of
government."
Good thing Bill Clinton never stood on the rubble of OKC and blame
his political enemies and talk radio for it or anything.
This was a terrible bill and a slap in the face to everyone who
actually played by the rules and went through the hell that is
getting a green card. Bush managed to alienate his last remaining
supporters with this garbage. I and practically every Republican I
know was ready to leave the party and quit voting if this
monstrosity passed. It was wildly unpopular with the public, but
the media, big business and the political elite loved it and tryed
to shove it down the country's throat with no debate or with no one
really having any idea what the bill really said.
This is a victory for democracy. It shows that despite all of the
corruption and bullshit in Washington what the voters want can
occasionally happen. The President and his allies in Congress
basically tried to give the country the finger and say tough shit
we are passing this anyway and it didn't work. Thank God.
|6.28.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Reinmoose | June 28, 2007, 4:06pm | #
smartass sob -
did you forget that Georgie has used "the Google?"
Oh! I didn't know. I had thought he meant gargle, as in
gargle with booze.
|6.28.07 @ 4:14PM|#
"got food poisoning from poorly-prepared seitan while awaiting
trial in The Hague."
Come on....this is in Wikipedia?!?!
Now I will get some smart ass telling me that rather then
criticizing Wikipedia I should fix it...yeah cuz complete and utter
shit needs my help in getting fixed.
|6.28.07 @ 4:15PM|#
John-
I was just as pissed at Clinton in the late '90s when he used the
militia groups and the OKC bombing as an excuse to ram gun control
down peoples throats.
|6.28.07 @ 4:18PM|#
John,
I don't think Clinton was much better, and arguably worse
long-term, because at least Bush was so blatant that people woke up
and got pissed. A lot of Slick Willie's bullshit passed under the
collective American radar.
Keep fucking up Georgie, and we'll keep waking up.
Viva la resistance!
|6.28.07 @ 4:22PM|#
David, need you any reminding that fascist FDR was and still is
hugely popular.
Anyway Bushes tax cuts have greatly improved our economy and
standard of living.
Oh yeah David, like me, you liked that Bush was moving towards
amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I think i am changing my opinion of you David from "kick
republicans whenever possible" to "kick anyone more unpopular then
libertarians even when I agree with them."
Jimmy|6.28.07 @ 4:22PM|#
I'm not a moron. And despite what you believe about 9/11 being
used for political gains, I actually believe that it should shape
what we do. Namely, the war on terror is the most important effort
of our generation.
This is all I'll say, as I can see any opportunity to bash Bush has
brought the flamers out of the woodworks. Wow, yea, insult Bush on
a medium which you love to point out that he doesn't even use. Talk
about pointless.
|6.28.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Bush says...
The American people understand the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to our immigration laws.
Of course the status quo now, after the attempt at
immigration reform, is worse than it was before the attempt.
New enforcement and fence bills were passed in order to cajole
anti-immigrant legislators to the table to discuss "comprehensive"
immigration reform. And the stepping up of administrative
enforcement against arbitrary illegal immigrants -- another part of
the cajoling of legislators -- is a truly disgusting exercise in
mass punishment of victimless crimes.
Bleah.
|6.28.07 @ 4:23PM|#
The problem tactix is that when a Democrat does something outragous the media sits there with their teeth in their mouth. Can you imagine the outrage if George Bush had been in charge at Waco? Clinton and Reno do it and its a big yawn. If a Republican gets out of line he might get away with it but at least the left gets up in arms about it. If Hillary Clinton wins in 2008, she could do anything Bush did times ten and no one on the left would say a word.
|6.28.07 @ 4:25PM|#
I don't think George Bush ever had to overcome a serious
setback before becoming president.
Sure he did: his love of sweet, sweet booze.
|6.28.07 @ 4:25PM|#
If Hillary Clinton wins in 2008, she could do anything Bush
did times ten and no one on the left would say a word.
And thats why I'm scared to death she will actually win.
Just wait until she uses "9/11" or "The War on Terror" as an excuse
for a national gun registry or a massive tax hike.
|6.28.07 @ 4:26PM|#
A lot of Slick Willie's bullshit passed under the collective
American radar.
No shit?
Like when Clinton kept FBI files on Republican's. I guess Nixon
only got kicked cuz he hired ex public employees to spy on
Democrats...if he only knew all he had to do was keep his crooks
payed from tax payer dollars he would have finished out his
term.
|6.28.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Wow, yea, insult Bush on a medium which you love to point
out that he doesn't even use. Talk about pointless.
I could care less if Bush doesn't use teh internez. Voters use it.
A lot. Trolling fucking idiot...
If Hillary Clinton wins in 2008, she could do anything Bush did
times ten and no one on the left would say a word.
*shudders in fear of the thought*
That's exactly what I mean. At least Bush has done enough to fire
up the other side. However, with the rise of the "fair and
balanced" news, I don't think the left will have free rein when the
time comes for them to be in power again.
The pendulum keeps swinging between Dems and GOPer's. As
libertarians, we need to reach up and rip the fucking thing
off.
(Sorry about the excessive swearing, these stories just piss me off
to no end.)
UCrawford|6.28.07 @ 4:32PM|#
I found Bush's remarks about Congress using their time after the
July recess to get spending under control particularly ironic.
Where the hell was that prudent restraint on government spending
when you had a Congressional majority, Bush!?! Oh, that's
right...you didn't exercise it because (according to Paul O'Neill)
Dick Cheney told you that looting the government was the GOP's
reward for winning Congress and the White House.
Hell, I'm ecstatic that the immigration bill failed...particularly
since it means that illegal immigration (which shouldn't be
illegal) will be able to continue more or less unchanged. If the
government isn't going to abolish their ridiculous restrictions on
people coming here to work, I'd rather they at least not add to
them.
|6.28.07 @ 4:34PM|#
A lot of Slick Willie's bullshit passed under the collective
American radar.
The problem tactix is that when a Democrat does something
outragous the media sits there with their teeth in their
mouth.
Um, guys... Remember that impeachment thingy?
|6.28.07 @ 4:36PM|#
New enforcement and fence bills were passed in order to
cajole anti-immigrant legislators to the table to discuss
"comprehensive" immigration reform.
What the politicians don't realize is the fact that, like the
Drug/Civil War, stopping illegal immigration is a losing
battle...
Worried about the border fences? Refer to the recent Penn n'
Teller: Bullshit on immigration.
UCrawford|6.28.07 @ 4:42PM|#
That Penn & Teller episode was hilarious. It took the illegal immigrants they hired a whole day to build one segment of government-specification border wall and five minutes or less to go through it.
|6.28.07 @ 4:45PM|#
I think the pair that won the race through the "fence" did it in under 2 minutes...
|6.28.07 @ 4:47PM|#
"Kerry did better at the polls than any other candidate in his
position in the history of the Republic. This country has never
voted out an incumbent president during wartime. The closest any
challenger ever came to winning an election unders those
circumstances was...John F. Kerry in 2004, when he won 48% of the
vote." - joe
That's a heckuva set of qualifiers trying to keep Kerry from
looking like the guy who was so pathetic he couldn't even beat
Chimpy McBusHitlerburton...
"The worst Democratic nominee in recent memorty? I'd have to rank
McGovern and Dukakis above either Kerry or Carter." - joe
Yeah, kinda spoiled for choice there, aren't you? (BTW, you TOTALLY
forgot Mondale...)
Not that Dole, Bush, Ford or Nixon weren't as bad or worse - like I
said, spoiled for choice.
Roz|6.28.07 @ 4:50PM|#
I c no problem hiring MEXICANS to build the GREAT WALL of AMERICA. Just as long as they are on the MEXICAN Side of Border.
UCrawford|6.28.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Tactix,
Yup, I can't remember the exact times, but the pair that went under
got through quickest and the pair that went over the top got
through last. Perhaps the sample size of P&T's survey was
unrepresentative, but I imagine we'll find out for ourselves if the
government ever builds that stupid wall.
Hmmm...could this all mean that subscribers to Showtime are
drastically underrepresented in the anti-immigration crowd?
|6.28.07 @ 4:55PM|#
I'm glad the immigration bill went down. The status quo is better than the huge new bureaucracies the bill would have created.
Will Allen circa 2020|6.28.07 @ 4:56PM|#
The only thing that matter regarding Bush's evaluation by
history, the only thing that has mattered for four
seventeen years, is what the government of Iraq, and the larger
Persian Gulf in general, looks like in 2020 2070 or
so. Anybody who says they know is lying.
tlxtftrf|6.28.07 @ 5:46PM|#
I love how the right-libertarians (John, etc.) complain about
this bill because it didn't crack down hard enough on the illegal
immigrants and because they didn't "go to the back of the line." Of
all the horrible ideas in this legislation, they always base their
objection on the most trivial garbage.
How about these reasons for why this bill was a horrible
idea...
1. It would have set up yet another federal database, this one
amounting to a national employment registry, where an employer had
to ask the feds whether they could hire you (one mistake locking
you out of employment) What about freedom of contract? What about
privacy?
2. The bill would have also required an even more widespread
employer crackdown on those that dare hire cheap, willing labor.
What ever happened to freedom of enterprise?
3. What about the fact that these "fees and fines" that in reality
amounted to little more than official bribery? What ever happened
to the libertarian distaste for rent seeking among
politicians?
4. What about giving 12-20 million new and low income citizens
access to government healthcare, TAFN, and other stressed
government welfare programs? What about fiscal
responsibility?
5. Finally, it would call for less than half the fence necessary to
cross the border (apparently Mexicans don't know how to walk around
obstructions), and the fence that it requires cut easily be climbed
over, dug under, cut through by illegal immigrants anyway. What
ever happened to intelligence?
These are just a few of my objections.
You guys seem to think that this bill is wrong not because it
expands government, infringes on civil liberties, doesn't solve the
problem, or is political opportunism by a congress that can't seem
to do anything correctly. No, no, no you object to it because it
isn't vindictive enough. Am I wrong?
Jatravartid|6.28.07 @ 5:48PM|#
There will be no ice in 2142.
The coming of the great white handkerchief will be before that.
|6.28.07 @ 5:51PM|#
Actually, circa 2020, four years ago, I was pegging 2020 as about the earliest that things might be judged. Given your sarcasm, I can only guess that you do, in fact, know what the future holds. Golly gee, don't hold back; won't you please share your genius with us?
e|6.28.07 @ 5:58PM|#
"got food poisoning from poorly-prepared seitan while awaiting
trial in The Hague."
David Wiegel wins the thread, before it even starts.
Duckman|6.28.07 @ 6:00PM|#
I think that it won't be possible to get rid of the illegal
immigrants currently in this country without doing something that
will make libertarians cringe.
Either:
1) We round them all up with the police
...resulting in riots, mistaken identities, and all manner of
police excesses...
OR
2) We prevent illegals from getting a job
...requiring government ID cards, a massive intrusive database,
legal citizens denied employment because of glitches...
OR
3) We bribe the illegals to leave
...resulting in a mass cash payout which offends libertarian
thrifty sensibilities, and which may not even work...
I think all we can do is enforce the border better and deny
government services to illegals. Enforcing the border better will
result in a "Great Wall of America" like some people have pointed
out, and I find the idea distasteful.
So...... I'm for amnesty and open borders. Make the illegals legal
to employ and require they be paid at least the minimum wage, thus
reducing the demand employers have for them, thus causing fewer of
them to come over. I think it's the only realistic solution that
doesn't offend my sensibilities.
D.A. Ridgely|6.28.07 @ 6:23PM|#
Wow, yea, insult Bush on a medium which you love to point
out that he doesn't even use. Talk about pointless.
He's right, you know. We really should go back to giving televised
press conferences.
Anon|6.28.07 @ 9:44PM|#
"got food poisoning from poorly-prepared seitan while
awaiting trial in The Hague."
Come on....this is in Wikipedia?!?!
No, dumbass, it was a joke.
|6.28.07 @ 10:38PM|#
This country has never voted out an incumbent president
during wartime. The closest any challenger ever came to winning an
election unders those circumstances was...John F. Kerry in 2004,
when he won 48% of the vote.
2004 was only the third election in the history of the US where an
incumbent president ran during a foreign war. The other two (1940
& 1944) were won by that cruel stepfather of our country, FDR.
So, what you're saying is that Kerry was a stronger candidate than
Wendell Willkie. Hooray for him.
And, Truman and LBJ would almost certainly have lost had they run
in 1952 and 1968, during the Korea and Vietnam wars. So there's no
track record on presidents running during unpopular wars.
|6.28.07 @ 10:39PM|#
Oops, actually it was only the second time, since we weren't in WW2 yet in 1940. What was I thinking...
Grotius|6.28.07 @ 10:56PM|#
crimethink,
Well, in 1900 we were still fighting in the Phillipines (a
disgraceful campaign one must admit).
Grotius|6.28.07 @ 11:02PM|#
crimethink,
Also I guess there is James Madison's re-election following the
declaration of war against Britian.
Lord Jubjub|6.28.07 @ 11:13PM|#
Don't forget 1864. The Civil War was by no means wildly popular, either.
|6.28.07 @ 11:14PM|#
Grotius,
I thought the War of 1812 ended before Nov. 1814, but it turns out
I was wrong and the war ended in Feb. 1815.
So, that's two previous reelected presidents during wartime. (Three
if you count Lincoln in 1864, but that wasn't really a foreign war,
and IIRC the war was going very well for the North at that point.)
Still, I think my main point stands...
|6.28.07 @ 11:16PM|#
Lord Jubjub, it wasn't popular during the first couple of years, but (lucky for him) Lincoln wasn't up for election until the war was almost over.
|6.28.07 @ 11:18PM|#
I just looked it up: Sherman captured Atlanta on Sept 2, 1864, and reached Savannah by December. So I guess things were going well on election day that year.
Lord Jubjub|6.28.07 @ 11:20PM|#
Ah, so that was Bush's mistake. He should have started that war the day he entered office. . . ;)
Grotius|6.28.07 @ 11:24PM|#
crimethink,
Madison was re-elected in 1812. The war started in the summer of
1812. Make of these facts what you will.
|6.28.07 @ 11:25PM|#
Also, Grotius, were there even two national parties in 1812? Madison was an Old Republican, the Federalists were long gone, the Democrats were obviously not around yet, and I thought the Whigs were pretty much confined to New England.
|6.28.07 @ 11:30PM|#
Never mind, I guess his opponent was a Federalist, who got 89
electoral votes.
Maybe I should start remaining silent and thought a fool, rather
than the alternative...
Grotius|6.29.07 @ 12:03AM|#
crimethink,
Well, you could be like and be possessed of mountains of useless
trivia. ;)
~Justified Ancient Liberation Zulu
Got to teach, an' everything you learn'll
Point to the fact that time is Eternal~
|6.29.07 @ 9:49AM|#
I love how the right-libertarians (John, etc.) complain
about this bill because it didn't crack down hard enough on the
illegal immigrants and because they didn't "go to the back of the
line."
Ditto. These are, of course, the same people who complain about
immigrants changing our culture, speaking a different language,
bringing foreign ideologies, and taking up our open space and
natural resources.
Yeah, sure, they just love legal immigrants. That's why they go to
the barricades to make sure there won't be any more of them.
|6.29.07 @ 9:51AM|#
In some alternative universe, Bill and Hillary Clinton were
never criticized by the press.
That must be the same universe where wartime incumbancy isn't
really a meaningful factor to consider when you look at the
dynamics of a presidential election.
|6.29.07 @ 10:44AM|#
We should delay our judgment until 2020? How convenient for the
people presently in office. Until then, should we just give them
free reign? Indeed, by that thinking, why should we even hold
elections, as we can't possibly evaluate a sitting president until
long after his re-election?
First, Iraq isn't Bush's only legacy. The president's
attempts at expanding executive power at the expense of rule of law
have been disgusting, and we don't need to wait to criticize him on
that front.
Second, Iraq has been a disaster. The writing is on the wall. Our
political leaders have asked us to delay judgment on this mess
until long after they're politically accountable. Some of us have
fallen for this farce, and some of us haven't.
|6.29.07 @ 10:53AM|#
Anyway Bushes tax cuts have greatly improved our economy and
standard of living.
Oh, and this is pure nonsense. GDP growth under this administration
has been far from exceptional. While I strongly support tax cuts,
the net effect of the tax cuts + defecit spending on the economy is
very much open for debate. Moreover, Mr. Bush has been one of the
primary architects of "Big Goverment Conservitism." More spending =
more taxation; it's just a matter of when.
But whatever, we can't possibly evaluate his economic policies
until 2090...
|6.29.07 @ 11:14AM|#
2020?
Look, I'm glad that the people who spent 2005 shouting "Egypt's
sham elections were slightly less of a sham! Bush was right!" have
come to appreciate the wisdom of taking a longer view, but after a
certain number of fatalities, you stop the drug trial, even if you
haven't completed the protocol for the double blind study.
Grotius|6.29.07 @ 11:17AM|#
2020 might as well mean never. For better or worse, very few people are going to be thinking about the Bush administration in 2020 in those terms.
|6.29.07 @ 1:22PM|#
Chris, you "should" do whatever the hell you want to do. I was merely commenting that people who try to write history in real time are nitwits. The only thing that substantially matters in regards to the historical evaluation of the Bush Adminsitration is what happens in the Persian Gulf over the next decade-plus or so. I don't know, and if you do, please don't keep it to yourself.
|6.29.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Will Allen,
I really don't care what historians write in 2020. We have to
evaluate what to do about Iraq right now.
And, considering that the administration you're defending has a
piss-poor record of looking ahead even a couple of months, please
don't claim that they're taking the long view of Iraq while those
of us who are opposed are short-sighted. As George Will said
recently in regard to Condi's comments on the recent Palestinian
break-up, "'We never saw it coming' is the epitaph of the Bush
administration"
|6.29.07 @ 2:38PM|#
crimethnk, perhaps you had difficulty reading the post that
produced my remarks in this thread. It pertained to how history
will judge this Administration. Now, perhaps in the universe you
inhabit, saying that historical judgements take time is the same
thing as mounting a defense. In my universe, it isn't. I could
write paragraph upon paragraph about what mistakes and blunders I
think they have made. In terms of hisorical judgements, however,
those paragraphs are pointless, because the only thing which will
be meaningful in terms of judging this Administration years from
now is what the political situation is in the Persian Gulf. If it's
a mess, Bush will be judged extremely harshly. If it's considerably
better than it has been since the fall of Ottoman's, the judgement
of Bush will be far more generous.
Now, it may make you feel really, really, good about yourself to
pretend that you know the answer to that question. What makes you
really, really good about yourself, however, has very little to do
with reality.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245