August 30, 2012

"I hope people remember George, and I think they will, for having the determination and the toughness and the persistence..."

"... to be able to see... our country through such a very difficult time after the terrorist attack," said Laura.

"There was never a taint of scandal around his presidency," said Bush the Elder. "And I think we forget the importance of that. But they'll remember him for being a good, honest president that got a lot of things done, but I think the thing I take pride in is integrity."

Video at the link. It's the video that was shown at the GOP convention last night, a convention where the party's last failed candidate spoke at great length. The party's 2 living Presidents appeared only in a charming, modest — overly modest — video. Sad. Almost shameful.

Was the Elder correct? Never a taint of scandal around W's presidency? Here's a Salon article, published in 2005 (before the second term), listing "34 scandals" from the first term — "every one of them worse than Whitewater."

Imagine if Salon were committed to maintaining a single standard for the meaning of "scandal" and had to make an equivalent list for the Obama administration. How many scandals would it list? It too absurd to imagine. Holding Obama to the insane standard that was imposed on Bush?!

Ironically, this is one of the reasons I voted for Obama and I won't apologize for that vote. I anticipated that Obama would have to own many of the policies that Bush — with his "determination and... toughness and... persistence" — followed. The Democratic Party would not be able to continue standing on the sidelines, calling everything outrageous, "a scandal," with the press amplifying each charge. They would do many of the same things and preen about their toughness on terrorism, and the press would boost them along.

And so now we are here in the fall of 2012, and that has been accomplished. Can you imagine where we would be if McCain had been President and the carping on the sidelines had continued all these 4 years? Would McCain even be attempting to get reelected?

71 comments:

Lauderdale Vet said...

Ann, do you honestly think that McCain would have inspired the same miasma that hangs over business today, ignored the protesters in Iran, led from behind in Libya or the during fall of Egypt? Do you think he would have publicly called for Israel to abide by the 1967 borders, or sat on his thumbs during the BP oil spill?

I posit that the world we live in today would have been a very different place had McCain been at the helm.

shishka said...

I think you're being naive. Electing a democrat didn't make them own anything. They still blame Bush. They don't admit their hypocrisy about the war and massive debt. They'll go right back to their hysteria as soon as another republican is elected. In fact, it was their mission that was accomplished: Make the country feel so miserable and negative when republicans are in power, they will elect democrats just to make it stop.

shishka said...

I think you're being naive. Electing a democrat didn't make them own anything. They still blame Bush. They don't admit their hypocrisy about the war and massive debt. They'll go right back to their hysteria as soon as another republican is elected. In fact, it was their mission that was accomplished: Make the country feel so miserable and negative when republicans are in power, they will elect democrats just to make it stop.

The Drill SGT said...

Random comments: I for one, look forward to the Dem's in 4 years having to put ex-President Obama on the stage with their 2016 candidate. What a millstone that will be. Even better, let him campaign in the 2016 primaries for his second term. Joy to the world :)

The Drill SGT said...

As for McCain he would have been better on Afghanistan, Russia and Iran. I think he would have been better on the economy, energy, and taxes. As for the coming Medicare and Social Security bankruptcies, I doubt he could have accomplished much in the face of Dem Mediscare, but the problem would not have been ignored.

Robert Cook said...

And then, of course, there was the whole illegal wiretapping of Americans without warrants thing, (which has now become normalized), and the torture thing, and the invading Iraq without cause thing, wreaking devastation, homelessness, hunger, terror, and death on a nation of people.

It's no wonder even the Republicans are ashamed of him.

Pete said...

Hey, no fair, Althouse! If you assert you won't apologize for your Obama vote, what'll I have to comment about now?

sykes.1 said...

Some votes against Obama were racist, but every single vote for him, including your own, was racist.

It was transparently obvious to everyone except the willfully ignorant that Obama was a total fraud without any qualifications to hold any position of responsibility. The sad truth is that Palin was better educated than Obama (who was maleducated into delusion) and infinitely better prepared.

Quincy IT Guy said...

Perhaps I missed all the reasons why you voted for Obama -- I thought it was basically because McCain had lost you (11/8/2008).

Coicidentally that same day you posted "I ♥ Mitt Romney." With Romney's advice to the new president:

He should forget entirely about reelection and focus solely on helping the nation at a critical time. He should dismiss the people who helped him win the election and bring in people who are above politics and above party. He should surround himself with statesmen and economists, businesspeople and leaders. In some ways it would be beneficial if our presidency consisted of only one term. That way the President would think about his legacy and the future of the country rather than reelection and partisanship...."


Prescient of Romney, don't you think?

Kelly said...

I think that is a fair enough reason for voting for Mr. Hope and Change. Ironically, for me, that is the very reason why I couldn't vote for a democrat again in this lifetime unless it is on the level of dog catcher. Even than I'd have to think seriously about it.

The double game the democrats played with 911 and the wars still makes my stomach turn. The hyprocricy and double standard displayed today only enforces my distrust.

Jake Diamond said...

Imagine if Salon were committed to maintaining a single standard for the meaning of "scandal" and had to make an equivalent list for the Obama administration. How many scandals would it list? It too absurd to imagine.

Althouse-
You claim "it too absurd to imagine" [sic], yet obviously you did imagine it.

Dennis said...

I had a similar thought about the need for reality testing the Democratic Party in the last presidential election, but I couldn't vote for BHO even so, and used the idea of reality testing to accept the swing of the pendulum that apparently couldn't be stopped at the time. I even thought: "the country could survive an Obama presidency, no matter how naive and inexperienced he was". The consequent reality test was a bonus.

But now that we are on the other side, how much of Liberal reality was really tested? Then as now, there is a 30% portion of the electorate who are still stubborn about uncritically supporting Progressive ideology. This, despite huge holes blown into their worldview by targeted assassinations, the epic failure of green tech, the pass on financial reform, the growing education loan bubble, a diminished job market with no end in sight and the looming prospect of a failed welfare state... All this, and yet the passion of the Left to defend itself persists, a capacity for self reflection and self critique is no where to be seen.

Democratic Party needs to break itself down and rebuild itself anew. This is my party. There was a time when I changed my party affiliation to non-partizan (the pox-on-both-houses theory), then considered Libertarianism (liberty was my refuge as a liberal), thought sympathetically enough about the Republican Party only to realize that the center of gravity of the arts (my profession, can't say more) had to be to the Left (transgression and art are integral, even though the dynamic is currently being depleted) and returned my voter registration to the Democratic Party. When my fellow Democratic friends start to sniff out my apostate odor (and I try to permit this to happen with only my closest friends), I tell them that I'm worse than a Republican, I'm a Democrat who wants to fundamentally change the party.

Towards that end, profound reality testing is what is sorely needed to the left side of the spectrum. Or maybe all that is yet to come, and I'm just impatient. Perhaps there will be an epic collapse and a wave of re-evaluation will come. the Or maybe I'm naive?

Matthew Sablan said...

It's why I don't take fact checkers or people concerned about draining the swamp seriously. Good government ethos is often only for the opposite party. You get very few true reformers like Sarah Palin (as much as I dislike bringing her up) who legitimately take on their own party for corruption with the same ferocity they go after the other team. The only sad thing is once we have a President Romney and dissent is once again patriotic the things we'll have to suffer through.

Cedarford said...

Had McCain been elected, he would have agreed to 80% of what Pelosi wanted, including Pelosicare...and long as she gave him the Green Light to launch 3 new splendid Neocon wars of Adventure and Freedom Giving to people that think freedom means freedom to butcher their neighbors and shoot troops in the back.
Unlike Obama, he would have turncoated again and delivered his Full Amnesty for all illegals in the country.

He probably would have been better than Obama on energy.

Jake Diamond said...

Good old Laura Bush conveniently forgot to mention that her husband spent a good chunk of the summer of 2001 on vacation at the ranch after his hard fought court cases secured his election. Then, after the terrorist attacks, he started two unfunded wars in retaliation, one of which we're still fighting, and both of which we'll be paying for for many years.

George W. Bush will long be remembered as the president who didn't take responsibility for much of anything that happened while he was office. It's a pattern of behavior that pretty much sums up his entire life.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

I credit GHW Bush with this: he showed that the GOP is not the party of limited government.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

...and GW Bush re-affirmed that.

gerry said...

The Democratic Party would not be able to continue standing on the sidelines, calling everything outrageous, "a scandal," with the press amplifying each charge.

That's pretty much what the Democrat Party and the MSM have done since Obama took office.

In other words, your vote had little effect.

Your protestations here are comical.

Jake Diamond said...

It's why I don't take fact checkers or people concerned about draining the swamp seriously.

And this is why I know you're full of shit. Remember yesterday when you screamed "Politifact says..." half a dozen times in your pathetic attempt to defend Mittens' lies about his inheritance? For a person who doesn't take fact checkers seriously, you sure cite them a lot.

By the way, here's a reminder of Mittens' statement about his inheritance that he gave away:

Mittens: "I didn't inherit money from my parents."

Matthew Sablan said...

This was one of the theme's in Ryan's speech: The people in power can only deny responsibility for so long. If Obama is not up to the task of dealing with the problems before him in any way that makes things consistently better for anyone besides his cronies and campaign donors like Corzine, then we should replace him. Even if Romney does not better, it is at least a chance for a non-known failure to fail.

Matthew Sablan said...

Diamond: The point of that is that Politifact is a hack site, and even they wouldn't even give it a "half true" or "mostly true" statement. The point was that you were over reaching, and that the people normally taking up your side were telling you this wasn't a fight to have. But please, keep digging that hole.

damikesc said...

And this is why I know you're full of shit. Remember yesterday when you screamed "Politifact says..." half a dozen times in your pathetic attempt to defend Mittens' lies about his inheritance? For a person who doesn't take fact checkers seriously, you sure cite them a lot.

Because if a group as hacky as they can't find a problem with Romney's statements, there REALLY isn't anything there.

Again, they said Romney lied when he said Obama has not visited Israel as President --- when, in fact, Obama has not visited Israel as President.

You claim "it too absurd to imagine" [sic], yet obviously you did imagine it.

She imagined the number would be huge, not what it would be. And THEY clearly can't imagine doing so.

Good old Laura Bush conveniently forgot to mention that her husband spent a good chunk of the summer of 2001 on vacation at the ranch after his hard fought court cases secured his election. Then, after the terrorist attacks, he started two unfunded wars in retaliation, one of which we're still fighting, and both of which we'll be paying for for many years.

HE ended the other one (Obama had nothing to do with ending Iraq) and Obama decided to ramp up in Afghanistan because it was a "good" war.

George W. Bush will long be remembered as the president who didn't take responsibility for much of anything that happened while he was office. It's a pattern of behavior that pretty much sums up his entire life.

The irony of an Obama supporter saying this is thick...and delicious.

Peter Ryan said...

"It too absurd to imagine. Holding Obama to the insane standard that was imposed on Bush?!"

Ah, the smell of speculation in the morning. Smells like victory.

I think the reason the "imposed standards" stuck on Pres. Bush is because Bush was a man with personal integrity, and held himself to a higher standard. His public commitment to that standard was the petard the press and the left (I repeat myself) hoisted him upon.

Mr. Bush was by no means flawless (trusting his subordinates on the intelligence in Iraq, trusting the SEC to keep an eye on Wall Street, horrible fiscal management, NCLB, etc.) and he certainly made many errors in trading freedom for "safety" (consolidating Homeland Security, introducing the damnable TSA, wiretapping international communications, etc). He made those errors with the consent of Congress, with the support of many Democrats, not by executive order.

I believe the reason that scandals don't stick to Pres. Obama is because no one, including the Democrats, expect him to hold standards of integrity. Mr Obama's actions are par for the expected course, and consistent with the value system that the ends justify the means. That's Alinsky 101, rules 4, 11, and 13 and Ethics #1-11, especially 2,3,10 and 11. http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/summary-of-saul-alinskys-rules-for.html

Can you imagine where we would be if McCain had been President and the carping on the sidelines had continued all these 4 years? Would McCain even be attempting to get reelected?

Yes. Had McCain been President, he would have bailed out GM and Chrysler, and the press would have vilified him for sticking it to the stockholders. The unions, however, would not have become the owners of the companies, it would be the taxpayers. McCain would not have pressed through fascistic healthcare, instead we would have adapted a mess of bi-partisan regulations, and been vilified for that, too. He would have begun the draw down in Iraq, and been criticized for not providing enough security. He'd be getting out of Afghanistan, too. There would have been 4 ever-increasing budgets but with lower deficits (lower unemployment, and the accompanying decrease in entitlement spending made for higher tax revenues but lower costs). I suspect he would have favored a bailout of the housing markets by making mortgagees current, rather than making Wall Street whole (I think he learned from the Keating scandal that backing Wall Street over main street was a bad play).

I think the most interesting thought exercise is considering how McCain would go through 18-24 months of slow realization that the press never really liked or respected him, they just hated the Republicans.

He would have used that knowledge to better effect as he ran for re-election this term. This years platform would be based on his "this time I really mean it", promise to reduce spending using the Walker-Daniels-Martinez-Kasich models.

That's my imaginative scenario and I'm sticking to it.

Phil 3:14 said...

Why are you reading Salon?

The internet version of Newsweek:

predictably liberal AND FREE!

Jake Diamond said...

even they wouldn't even give it a "half true"

Matthew-
You're a dunce. Politifact DID give Romney's lie about his inheritance a "Half True" rating, contrary to your claim. And the only reason he was awarded a "Half True" rating (as opposed to a "False" rating) is because Politifact supported Romney's assertion that his personal wealth isn't based on inheritance from his parents (in other words, a side issue).

How do you consistently get things so wrong? Are you unable to read or do you have some mental limitation that keeps you from processing information accurately? Or do you let wishful thinking wash away facts that you find inconvenient? I'm really curious why you say such astoundingly stupid things.

Jake Diamond said...

Again, they said Romney lied when he said Obama has not visited Israel as President --- when, in fact, Obama has not visited Israel as President.

damikesc, you're a dunce. Politifact awarded Mittens a "TRUE" rating for his claim that Barack Obama has not visited Israel as president. How do you consistently get things so wrong? Are you unable to read or do you have some mental limitation that keeps you from processing information accurately? Or do you let wishful thinking wash away facts that you find inconvenient? I'm really curious why you say such astoundingly stupid things.

Matthew Sablan said...

Ah. I see the problem; I was looking at their reporting of Preibus's statement about Romney, not Romney's statement.

I guess I was wrong. Politifact really is more hackish than I thought. Though, their ruling makes it clear that Half True is a stretch: "Romney wasn't entirely clear about the inheritance he gave away when he said he "didn't inherit money" from his parents."

In other words, they wanted him to be more specific.

But hey, Obama never visiting Israel is a dirty lie.

Matthew Sablan said...

It's the WaPo fact checker who dropped the ball on Israel.

Jake Diamond said...

HE ended the other one (Obama had nothing to do with ending Iraq)

The Iraq War ended in 2011, long after Bush left office. Even the dumbest of the dumb realize that Bush started the war and Obama ended it.

Matthew Sablan said...

P.S., The question that they ask is: "Did Romney, the last of George and Lenore's four children, receive no inheritance on his path to wealth?"

That's how most people understand inheritance. They go on to say: Nope. Romney did not receive any money. Yet, they double back and change their question. It's really part of their consistent inconsistencies that always seem to end up hurting Republicans and helping Democrats.

Matthew Sablan said...

For those following along at home:

Bush: Responsible for the economy in 2011, but not the end of the war.

Obama: Responsible for ending the war, but not the economy in 2011.

Is it bad? Bush did it. Is it good? Obama did it.

Jake Diamond said...

They go on to say: Nope. Romney did not receive any money.

They don't say that at all. Romney did RECEIVE and ACCEPT an inheritance. However, he didn't KEEP the money received as inheritance. According to Romney's own words, he gave some money to "charity" (his cult and its affiliated institutions) and he gave some money to his kids.

Of course, Romney usually likes to omit the part about giving money to his kids and plays up the part about giving money to "charity." In other words, it's typical of Romney's flexible approach to truth.

Matthew Sablan said...

"According to Romney's own words, he gave some money to "charity" (his cult and its affiliated institutions) and he gave some money to his kids."

-- Bing. Gotcha; it's just bigotry. Take care.

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

Mittens: "I didn't inherit money from my parents."


How about you source that, clown?

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...
and the invading Iraq without cause thing,


Comedy gold.

Again, I do wonder if you're just a parody poster.

Jake Diamond said...

Bing. Gotcha; it's just bigotry.

More wishful thinking from the ever wrong Matthew. Pointing out Mittens' inconsistency in his statements about his inheritance isn't based on bigotry, it's based on facts. And as I said before, this represents a pattern of behavior for Mittens. He seems to be willing to say ANYTHING to please his audience, even if it directly contradicts previous statements and/or the facts.

Mittens is a fibber. To deny Mittens' impressive record of fibbing about almost everything is a really sad strategy for trying to make yourself happy with a pathetically weak candidate.

Jake Diamond said...

How about you source that, clown?

Google it, asshole. You'll find it at Politifact if you look there.

Learn how to do things for yourself. It's time you learn how to put your big boy pants on.

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

Google it, asshole. You'll find it at Politifact if you look there.


In other words, you keep repeating something in the wish it were true.

I'm stunned by this development.

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

Mittens is a fibber. To deny Mittens' impressive record of fibbing about almost everything is a really sad strategy for trying to make yourself happy with a pathetically weak candidate.


Except you can't point out any "fibs"

Nor are really interested in holding Obama to any "fibbing" standard.

Of course you're a blathering idiot flinging poo.

So that's something.

Matthew Sablan said...

It's the casual "cult" to refer to Mormonism that let me see the casual bigotry.

bbkingfish said...

I havn't been watching the RNC. Has anyone on the podium yet used the words "Bush" or "Cheney"?

I notice Condi Rice's speech has gotten positive reviews. I'm sure she must have waxed nostalgic at length about the wisdom of her former bosses.

furious_a said...

I voted for Obama and I won't apologize for that vote.

Nor should you. Last cycle people voted for Obama so they wouldn't look like racists. For whom are they going to vote now so they don't look like fools?

Jake Diamond said...

It's the casual "cult" to refer to Mormonism that let me see the casual bigotry.

Apparently Matthew doesn't understand the definitions of the words "bigotry" and "cult."

furious_a said...

The correct usage is "Politicoughfactcough", not "Politifact".

Jake Diamond said...

So, according to Jay, because he doesn't know how to use Google, anything that requires a Google search must be false. Ordinarily I'd be shocked to find such a transparently idiotic argument, but considering Jay's track record of saying stupid shit, I'm not a bit surprised.

damikesc said...

Jake, Google "Status of Forces Agreement" signed in December 2008.

THAT was the schedule of removing the troops that Obama tried to get extended.

Bush ended the war.

Hell, here it is for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Carnifex said...

I've got to admit I like naivete in my professors. Oh...Wait! No I don't. The simple truth is that both parties will accuse the other one of taking an axe, ala Lizzie Borden, to your mother if it would advance their political fortunes, and no amount of history, or need for future action, will be allowed to sully the pristine minds of the politician.

So while your aims may have been admirable professor, I am afraid they were very much in vain.

And quit listening to the nattering nabobs. You've explained your vote time and again to them. If they can't accept it, screw 'em.

damikesc said...

Matt, you're right. It was Kessler who made that decision.

ricpic said...

Bush's mistake was believing a majority of Americans would give him credit for not flinging monkey poo back at the monkey poo flinging Dems and MSM. Well, they didn't give him credit. Which says volumes about the death of the hold of the WASP standard of proper conduct on most American mutts.

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...
So, according to Jay, because he doesn't know how to use Google, anything that requires a Google search must be false.


Um, no.

But of course being in the position where you can't defend the silly claims you're making, you attack stuff I never said.

Shocking.

chuck said...

Well, maybe. But suppose Obama wasn't just the dishonest left wing goof ball that he obviously was, but also a competent left wing goof ball? It is risky to depend on the incompetence of opponents. Sometimes you win, sometimes the course of history changes.

edutcher said...

His spending aside, there's a reason those "Miss me yet?" signs are so popular.

And I have to disagree with Meade. I have no problems about my vote for Junior and Miss Sarah.

Does anybody seriously believe we'd be 16T in debt if McCain were POTUS?

Jake Diamond said...

Good old Laura Bush conveniently forgot to mention that her husband spent a good chunk of the summer of 2001 on vacation at the ranch after his hard fought court cases secured his election. Then, after the terrorist attacks, he started two unfunded wars in retaliation, one of which we're still fighting, and both of which we'll be paying for for many years.

Diamond, however, has no problem with 5T in unfunded small c communist programs under Choom.

And bin Laden started the war. on 2/26/93 - Willie did nothing for 8 years, but fuck interns; Dubya fought back.

The Iraq War ended in 2011, long after Bush left office. Even the dumbest of the dumb realize that Bush started the war and Obama ended it.

Then Diamond is dumber than the dumbest of the dumb. Dubya won it and ended it, Choom threw it away.

Carnifex said...

Okay, so Jake diamond is arguing that Mitt romney is lying about receiving an inheretance from his parents because 1) he did get money and 2) he gave said money away.

I'd have to say the technically he is right.

Now Jake, are you willing to admit Zero is a liar for, ohh hell, I'll just pull one out of my ass, saying "The cops acted stupidly"

Or better yet--“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.”
(Remarks by President Obama to a Joint Session of Congress, September 9, 2009)

(this one I googled, so I "know" it occurred)

My point being to accuse a politician of lying is like accusing a fish of swimming. It's what they do. You shouldn't be using to try to tear down your opponent, you should use it to tear down your guy. I dont understand the leftist love for lying. They think it's a badge of honor.

Jay said...

Then, after the terrorist attacks, he started two unfunded wars in retaliation

I think you should go about shouting "Unfunded wars" as if any other war in the history of America was "funded"

Idiot.

Bender said...

this is one of the reasons I voted for Obama and I won't apologize for that vote. . . . The Democratic Party would not be able to continue standing on the sidelines, calling everything outrageous, "a scandal," with the press amplifying each charge

So rather than destroy the monster, feed it and give it new life? Rather than demand that Dems and libs change, play the enabler?

This latest rationalization (which admittedly was expressed in 2008), is just as poorly thought out as all the other justifications and excuses.

Well, you'd better re-elect Obama then because if Romney is elected, even if he continues each and every Obama policy, the left will seek to taint him with scandal from the very first moment.

Carnifex said...

Shoulda' asked which statement is "more" true, Romney's or Zeros'. My call is Romney is more true. He had money , he gave it away with no benefit to himself. Zero just flat out lied, period.

Carnifex said...

@Bender

It's the Supreme Traitor Roberts justification for allowing Zerocare to be constitutional.

"Well it's not, but we'll say it is. That's all that matters"

Ps.

McCain would have been a disaster too. Just less a disaster.

Charlie Martin said...

Okay, but how much damage has been done by demonstrating that the press and Democrats would collude on attacking Bush and protecting Obama? Will you be surprised if Romney wins and the collusion continues?

Basically, WTF were you thinking?

Bender said...

His spending aside

Let's knock this one down right now.

Lots of people like to blame Bush for too much spending and too high of deficits (both of which are miniscule compared to Obama*). But remember the Congress that Bush had to live and work with. More specifically, remember the RINO-infested Senate and the squish old-timers, all of whom pushed for more and more spending, remember Bush having to placate one John "Capt. Queeg" McCain, who spent his time seeking revenge against Bush, remember the various "Gangs" (e.g. Gang of Eight) who worked in the backrooms to undermine whatever policies were being openly pursued by the Bush Administration.

People bitch about Bush not being conservative enough. Well maybe if he had a few conservative Republicans in Congress, rather than the overwhelmingly moderate and squish Republicans that he had to deal with, we might have been able to get some more conservative policies implemented.

As it is, after Bush left office, Republicans in Congress continued the same weak and anti-conservative agenda that they had during the Bush years. And now, as seen at the convention, the moderate Establishment is seeking to consolidate its power even more and snuff out any conservative ascendency. Guys like Paul Ryan (who people push as some conservative poster boy) are the rare exception.

EMD said...

So, according to Jay, because he doesn't know how to use Google, anything that requires a Google search must be false.


"The one who maketh a claim shall also provideth the link."

-Usenets; 3:52

EMD said...

It's funny to hear people who don't give a damn about fiscal responsibility chide an opposition President for spending too much.

elkh1 said...

"They would do many of the same things and preen about their toughness on terrorism, and the press would boost them along."

"the same things"? Bush never claimed the power to kill an American citizen without trials, never dreamed of targeting a citizen without due process.

But do not fear, the MSM will resume their vicious dog mode to attack President Romney and give him hell.

elkh1 said...

'...if Salon were committed to maintaining a single standard for the meaning of "scandal".'

Standard is when the press decided to harp on it and make up stories about it.

Hence Katrina with 40,000 (not)killed was Bush's fault, the slow response to BP oil spill was shits that happened. Hence Enron was Bush's scandal because Bush knew Enron's CEO, but Corzine is fine because he is a big Obama bundler. Hence Romney must be a tax cheat for not releasing a decade long tax returns, confirmed tax cheat Geithner was fine to head the Treasury. Hence there ain't no Obama scandal when our guns walked across the Mexican borders to kill hundreds of Mexican and one or two American federal agents. Hence Solyndra was no scandal for Obama to launder half a billion of taxpayers' money to pay off a $500,000 "donation" from a billionaire bundler.

Chris Wren said...

You seem to be reading Salon a lot lately. Is everything OK?

PatCA said...

I actually shed a tear. Not for them personally but for the respect they have for this country, the presidency, and even the Oval Office.

When W talked about the awe Putin felt when he first walked into the Oval, all I could think of was this snarky juvenile in office now and pic of him with his feet up on the desk.

paul a'barge said...

First we defeat Barack Obama and we take the Senate.

But make no mistake: Second, we purge the Republican Party of the RINO Republican establishment.

Good grief. Yes, GWB gets kudos for his security policies. But the man cratered the American economy and sold out Conservative principles.

He will have to live with that for the rest of his life.

sydney said...

"the same things"? Bush never claimed the power to kill an American citizen without trials, never dreamed of targeting a citizen without due process.

And so much more has been done by this President with nary a peep from the mainstream media or the "activist" groups who were so intent on protecting our freedoms after 9/11. Hypocrites.

Tarzan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tarzan said...

Dubya took charge when no one else would. Saddam Hussein, hung by the neck until dead...by his own peers!

He finished the job his father lacked the courage for, and rid the world of a demonic scourge that was on the verge of digging in deep with European friends interested in his oil at any cost.

"No blood for oil" was GWB's rallying cry, not the anti-war left.

As for the 'torture', just shut the f up and give me a break. Worse things happen in frat houses around the country on a regular basis, and the frat-boys don't have a doctor around to make sure no one really gets hurt.

Bush II will go down in history as a bold, honest American President if not a downright hero. Just give it time.

Sigivald said...

I think Bush Sr. is correct, naturally - because for all Salon's (and the Left's) "scandal", none of it stuck with anyone who wasn't already rabidly anti-Bush.

Real scandals make supporters change their minds, I think is a good heuristic. (Watergate comes to mind.)

(And real scandals for a President also have to have something to do with the President's decisions, or lack of them.

Abu Ghraib? Never had a god-damn thing to do with the President.

"Lies" about Iraq? Tell it to the CIA, and ask the Robb-Silberman report about it.

Those - the first two I saw on their list - were never really anything to do with the President.

Oh, they're scandals - about lack of supervision at a prison in Iraq, and about how the world's intelligence agencies - all of them - could be so completely wrong.

But they were never scandals about how President Bush Was Horrible.

Our modern model Presidential scandal, Watergate, was, in the politically deadly coverup aspect, exactly about the President being horrible.)

leslyn said...

Well, you can't blame parents for wanting to speak well of their child.