In The Shadow of Bush

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: JBuzicky75@comcast.net @ 01/21/2008 1:12:14 PM

    Yes, everyone read what Phil Duffy wrote! DITTO! Why did NewsweAk leave out Ron Paul? What are they afraid of. Real change will be a good thing. Ron Paul was CORRECT about Iraq, he was CORRECT about our economy! These other candidates are lawyers, do we really want a lawyer in the White House?

  • Posted By: Trout @ 01/21/2008 1:08:55 PM

    What a load. Bush is a two term president who said what he was going to do, then he did it. Today's polls mean very little. History will remember the Bush presidency for the big, important things he did. Like bringing democracy to the middle east. Spreading human freedom, "the glorious cause", to parts of the world who need ed it most. Continuing the struggle started by Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Washington. I don't think history will spend alot of time on weather issues, (Katrina).

  • Posted By: reconman @ 01/21/2008 12:57:59 PM

    Why leave out a discussion of Ron Paul, the Republican presidential candidate who is most distanced from George W. Bush and all of the Democratic candidates. Here is a man who has a clear vision for America, not just a "movie in his own mind". In fact, he attributes his success to "the message, not the man". I have heard all of the logic of the 'talking heads'. It sounds wise, but I question its depth and balance. So far the exclusion of Ron Paul from any serious discussion in the national media appears to be based upon the argument, "he cannot win". Why should that exclude reasonable discussion? A reasonable case could be made that no Democrat could win the presidency unless he/she were distanced from George W. Bush, who has created a disaster for his party (I believe those were essentially your words).

    Phil Duffy
    West Chestre, PA

  • Posted By: gracchus2 @ 01/21/2008 12:50:00 PM

    Sorry, I omitted the journalist's name - Peggy Noonan

  • Posted By: gracchus2 @ 01/21/2008 12:48:27 PM

    Obviously, there are some Clinton supporters and Bush supporters on this thread. Perhaps here is another way to look at it. Journalist brought forth this interesting point that I had brought up long ago in other discussions. If we look at the Presdiency over the past 20 years, we have seen the emergence of two dynasties: Bush and Clinton. If Hillary gets elected, we may see another 4 or 8 years of dynastic rule. This presents an interesting dynamic to the Presidency. Do we really want these dynasties presiding over our country, or do we need to make a radical shift in our approach to electing candidates who represent our interests and not those of corporations or monied powers? It seems to me that apathy has entrenched itself among the masses in this country. As long as people have their flat-screen televisions, can watch "American Idol" and "Dancing With the Stars," and drink their double espressos, who cares who occupies the Oval Office? However, when they have to sell those televisions and give up the espressos, then they become interested in politics. When we slide into sharp recession and maybe depression soon, hopefully more passive constituents will become more engaged in political discourse. It is critical and healthy for us to daily engage in political debate. Maybe then we can have more candid discussions in addition to this one.

  • Posted By: sbourg @ 01/21/2008 12:42:53 PM

    Newsweek, once again, showing its true colors. Evidently the marketing push for some time now's been to sell to sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. A Bush-voter, supporter, would be a fool to subscribe to Newsweak. By the way, didn't see much "news" in the article, but plenty of opinions, and demeaning adjectives re. GWB.

  • Posted By: nawawimohamad @ 01/21/2008 7:49:06 AM

    Why is everybody blaming Bush for what he had done? He was elected by the Americans to power for two consecutive terms! He was given the MANDATE! . Despite his shortcomings, he is what the majority wants.You get what you vote for. So please don't blame Bush, he is only doing his job based on the mandate! Don't cry over spilled milk.

    • Posted By: jtudor2002 @ 01/21/2008 10:15:51 AM

      Barely or not even 50% of the votes does not constitute a mandate. Get real.

      • Posted By: nanday @ 01/21/2008 11:54:37 AM

        True very true, we voted him in again. In spite of everything. But there is a large portion of America that is under represented. The extremes are a crime here. Consider how the right would feel if the left took office, and employed the same tactics the right does to get their agenda through. Consider it at least, and know that is how many of us have felt for the past 7 years. We have been either apathetic or just discouraged. Consider that we may just get a Democratic president. So, how would you feel to be at the mercy of them believing what you do about that party?

    • Posted By: jtudor2002 @ 01/21/2008 10:16:40 AM

      Less than or barely 50% of the votes do not constitute a mandate. Get real.

  • Posted By: mcsplst @ 01/21/2008 11:51:21 AM

    Exllent article not because I want to agree with you, all, collectively, it's the way you worded it. I would have to say like a James Carville novel. You invited the reader to find out what you had to say and then you kept and alive so they would finish the whole article. Stephen Miller mcspslt@hotmail.com

  • Posted By: ztexz @ 01/20/2008 11:07:03 AM

    Citizen Phil: I understand the logic behind saying "Time will tell" is not an acceptable answer, but there is actually some merit to looking at events through the distillation of time. For example, Harry Truman was one of the most unpopular presidents in history during his terms -- at one point, his approval rating 23%. However, I think history now regards him as a very successful president who steered the country through a huge post-war economic boom.

    Iraq certainly won't be a US-style democracy, but what if 10 years from now this whole things has actually worked? What if the Annapolis Conference in November actually turns out to be the jump start to a negotiated final settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians? I don't think these things are slam dunks, but there is certainly the possibility. If those two items succeed, Bush could indeed come out of this thing looking like a good president, just like Harry Truman.

    • Posted By: ademeyer @ 01/21/2008 11:49:43 AM

      Have you ever actually heard Bush speaking off the cuff? The most charitable adjective to describe his thoughts on how foreign policy is "banal." I certainly hope Iraq recovers in the next ten years, however, if it does, the credit will be to the American soldiers who put their lives on the line trying to stop a civil war, not to George Bush and anything he has done. Trust me.

  • Posted By: pent77 @ 01/20/2008 12:17:41 PM

    I'd rather my president say "I'm taking care of this, you have to trust me" than "I'm not sure what to do, you have to help me".

    Bush knows how to govern, and you-- are a moron.

    • Posted By: ademeyer @ 01/21/2008 11:36:07 AM

      Most adults expect their President to be able to justify taking a nation into war by framing an intelligent argument, bolstered by facts. "I know what's best for you, trust me" is what children want to hear. How old are you?

  • Posted By: JW Chicago @ 01/20/2008 3:40:15 PM

    Thank you for your comments. However, you act surprised by the rise in oil prices. The high cost of oil was the main reason for all of this. Bush is an oil man to the core. There is no surprise that he would support those who helped him get to where he is today.

    The out of control military spending, the insane tax breaks, the oligopoly in our media (our supposed society's watchdog), the political control of our legal system and the marginalization and unraveling of our civil service are the main goals of the neocons.
    I don't understand why you guys criticize him. These were his goals. Matching his results with his goals shows that he has done a wonderful job as president. I think you are all missing the point. The real discussion should be based on this new conservative party values based on profit taking rather than investment and how religion and the deregulation of our media have removed any real debate of substance.

    • Posted By: Air Force Mom @ 01/20/2008 5:01:15 PM

      I have two family members proudly serving right now and they are doing so for less than4,000 a month just so all you wanna-be-poloticians can talk back and forth about how you hate this government and have all the answers.They believe in this country and when the dems take over, run and hide, because our enemies will attack and you will eat your words because they are waiting for a democrat knowing there will be no retaliation. Be thankful you live here and SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Posted By: jtudor2002 @ 01/21/2008 10:38:59 AM

        Shame on you. Many of us think the policy is wrong but we still support the troops. Having done a year in Iraq myself, at least I understand that I was there to protect our freedoms, including freedom of speech, so primary in our Constitution that your kids swore to defend. I know you're scared for your kids, I would be too, but don't minimze them by forgetting what they fight for, our Constitution and the great ideals of American democracy.

  • Posted By: Lexy1998 @ 01/20/2008 4:27:33 PM

    You always believe the media don't you?. Whatever they print or report, you fall right into line with their biased reporting. We HAD to do something when 911 occured. What would Clinton have done? Demand an appology? Probably. Iraq DID have WMDs, he used them on the curds. Didn't you see the news reports? By the time we invaded, he had plenty of time to move them to Syria or some other nearby country. He was an animal, and he deserved what he got. I personally would rather see a war being fought over there than here on our own soil. They hate us and there is nothing we can do but NOT BACK DOWN. Use your common sense and see it for what it is. Do you really think a democrat would do any better? I think, No, I know not. It would be giving up and leaving it for some other villian to take over. We need to finish this.

    • Posted By: jtudor2002 @ 01/21/2008 10:33:49 AM

      You poor pitiful person. The media was only correct in reporting anything negative about Dems, right? Not just what we know about Bush and Cheney, but Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Scooter Libby, Larry Craig, Tom Delay, Michael Scanlon, Brian Doyle, David Vitter, and the list goes on and on. Which part of corrupt do you not get?

  • Posted By: REPUBS_BLAME_EVERYONE_ELSE_FOR_GWLOSER_PROBLEMS @ 01/21/2008 8:51:20 AM

    I continually read comments of what would of Clinton of done with 911 and would he not of attached Iraq. Well I believe that answer is yes! The answer Mr. Obvious posters are that IRAQ HAD NOTHING (REPEAT NOTHING) to do with 911. Bin L accomplished sadly this project and sent over his team to learn to fly planes while our President was working hard on vacation for two months on the ranch. Meanwhile the Florida FBI kept getting reports of people wanting to learn to fly and not land planes. This of course never made to the ranch as Bush had cancelled the previous administration weekly briefings from the FBI. Yes, folks when you one elects an cocaine snorting failure who bankrupts his past oil company.... One gets the same style leadership and nothing changes. So REMEMBER AS BIN L has Built up his team and laughed at the us over and over that you voted this clown in the second term and sat at his table and ate up all the lies he could feed you and now you have a failing economy, larger terrorist network, higher unemployment, 27 trillion in debt which grows one million per minute in interest. SO PLEASE ASK WHAT WOULD OF CLINTON DO WHO ACTUALLY PAID THE DEBT TO A 400 BILLION SURPLUS AND EARNED RESPECT FROM ALL........... WOW SOME PEOPLE JUST KEEP THEIR HEAD BURRIED IN THE SAND AND THINK ALL IS OKAY DAILY!

    • Posted By: drsnobby @ 01/21/2008 9:08:31 AM

      sorry man it was a tillion $ surplus.the good ole bush tax cut ate away in 1 gulp.as far as 911 goes,inside job

  • Posted By: drsnobby @ 01/21/2008 8:18:29 AM

    nawawimohamad, i did not vote for the man.the first election was a fluke.the 2nd was america smoking crack and going to the polls and voting for him.until we get a bonifde 3rd party in the game,i guess i,ll pick the lesser of 2 evils.

  • Posted By: drsnobby @ 01/21/2008 7:51:53 AM

    This is the most corrupt administration in the history of the united states.the only folks that benifted from this administation was the top 3%.to bad america decided to smoke crack in the 2004 election and vote for this man. can,t wait to see the hearings after this guy leaves office.i remeber the reagan era,it,s like me stepping back i time and reliving bad times over again

  • Posted By: Stan A @ 01/21/2008 1:24:50 AM

    The media overstates the dangers to Republicans. They have been the dominant party since 1968 and are and have been structurally in control of the country for 40 years. They dominate business and all levels of government, and the opinion media. Their style of campaigning, often highly negative, has been proven to resonate with Americas anxiety and mindset. Their interest group lineup, large and small businesses, sububanites, religious conservatives, the military industrial complex, hangs together well, and the strains it suffers can be welded together. Their regional strength in the South and West in a winner take all ystem let them focus their considerable resources on key in play states. We have no idea who their candidate is going to be, but whoever wins out will probably play better in the media than his rivals. This structure faces a challenge in that Bush's execution while in office has been abysmal. However Bush's ideas still play strongly within the Republican party and about half the country. In addition while Democrats have narrow majorities in Congress, the president and 40 Senators can and do control the nations agenda, so Congressional Democrats have accomplished nothing, have not sold the people on their program and have popularity that is as low as Bush's, not a good sign if Bush is not on the ballot. Perhaps the most important point is that whoever the Republican candidate is they will be a white man facing most likely either a woman, an African American or possibly both. If the Democrats did not nominate one or the other, the trauma would be so great as to demoralize everyone. Furthermore the woman is not just a woman, she is Hillary Clinton, a person with large personal negatives and even larger baggage of bad memories associated with Monica, pardons and white house fundraising that can be replayed endlessly on videotape. And the African American is also a relative newcomer to high office, who is likely to be easy to grow mistrust about. In times of international and economic uncertainty, Americans have few models of leadership to measure them women and African Americans, and it will take courage and trust to elect such a different president. The election should be the Republicans to lose, despite Bush's record. They need a candidate who can make it clear he will run things better than Bush did. It appears that Huckabee has brought the Christian conservatives back, and is a natural VP candidate. Immigration has split the Republicans who want cheap labor from the ones for whom a secure border is a values and patriotism issue., so they need to finesse this The war and possible terrorist attacks being much uncertainty, but as long as Iraqis cooperate with keeping the carnage below pre-surge levels, it should be manageable. Thus this election is a challenge to the Republican political machinery but one that they may be up for. Like a sports champion, the remain the favorite until they are defeated.

  • Posted By: kfoley7777@aol.com @ 01/20/2008 11:12:23 PM

    I think that the fault lies in what the President takes more seriously - himself or the Office. JFK was a classic example of taking the Office more seriously than himself, and so we made it through the Cuban Missile Crisis without war. President Bush is an example of the reverse: (" he did not turn to his father for strength. "There is a higher father that I appeal to," Washington Post, November 10, 2006). Evaluate your candidate by that standard.

  • Posted By: Charles in Maui @ 01/20/2008 10:46:13 PM

    It is time for the Republican voters in the Sunshine State to help their party select the most electable Republican candidate for President of the United States in the General election. Because of our present difficulties, both domestic and abroad that we and our country face, it is imperative that our party retain the White House in the General Election. With out a Republican President, the values that our great party holds in high esteem, will be imperiled by the unchecked power of a Democrat majority in the House and Senate. There are more voters registered as Democrats than Republicans in our nation; there fore, for any Republican Presidential Candidate to be elected, they must be able to effectively win a majority of the Independents that vote. One candidate has shown himself to be the most able to win those voters. To become President, a Republican must be able to win in the south and they must be able to win in Florida. The ideal candidate should also be able to capture the votes of moderate Democrats in a general election. It is vital for our party to have a candidate who can retain the 55% of the Hispanic vote that our current President won in the last general election. Selecting a candidate that chooses to demogauge, instead of leading on the immigration issue, will not retain 55% of the Hispanic vote. There is one Republican running for President who has shown the ability to deliver more than just the votes of our party members that it will take for us to win in November. There is only one man running for President who has consistently out polled, head to head, all of the Democrats left in the race. There is only one person running for President, whom the Democrats fear in the General Election. That one candidate who can win the White House for our party, in the November General Election is Senator John McCain. The only thing left to find out is if John McCain can win in Florida that is the decision of the Republican voters of Florida. The voters in Florida have determined who has become President in the last 2 general elections. Republicans in the Sunshine state have an historic opportunity to actually pick the eventual President if they prove to the nation that Senator McCain can win in Florida. Florida your time is now, your nation is waiting, your voice is more important than any other, at this time. Choose greatness, choose wisely, make our country proud, and choose Senator McCain.

  • Posted By: MM Shadow @ 01/20/2008 5:08:07 PM

    We will pull out of Iraq. And A Democrat will be President. And then 9/11 will happen again in the first year of Dem rule. Bush mismamaged the WAR its true,but we needed to take Sadamm out of power. We should have done that, and left them to clean up the mess.

    • Posted By: nanday @ 01/20/2008 10:44:13 PM

      Maybe it was the CIA and American Intelligence that have kept us safe. Somehow, our soldiers in Iraq cannot be here and there, so how are they keeping lunatics from harming us here? By the way, Iran has already established that they are more than willing to "clean up the mess" over there. When we leave, they have vowed to take over Iraq. There are very few options at this point for us since we destabilized Iraq.

  • Posted By: ghostcommander @ 01/20/2008 10:38:24 PM

    The reason the wrong wing of the American political process does not include Democrat or others is because they only want loyalist's that keep their mouths shut about the high crimes they have committed--the largest robbery in history of present and future taxpayers--all done in the name of Democracy Freedom, the phony war on terror. They have become a Criminal party rather than a political party. Just Google--"the 14 points of Fascism" and compare to the Bush/Cheney mis-administration, the GOP rubber stampers, the RNC and all of it's brown shirt minions, and the sycophant poodle journalist's that constantly put lipstick on all the Big Hawgs'.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse