i think he's probably quite happy making his silly paintings and not being involved anymore
Yeah. In retrospect he doesn't seem like the type of guy who really wanted to be President. And yet he was. Twice. Funny how stuff like that happens.
I think he was a genuinely insecure dude who jumped at a chance to show that he was better at his dad. And when he failed, like he did at pretty much every leadership challenge handed to him, he decided to cut his losses and live his own life.
If you didn't have several tens of thousands of corpses to consider, it would be a touching tale of personal growth.
I think the loathing for W. is only waning because he's keeping hidden
Putting another Bush up will bring it back
He's keeping hidden because he's respectful of the office, just like every President is in the terms after theirs.
So Clinton isn't respectful of the office?
Clinton shoved a cigar up a young woman's ass, in the oval office. Does that say respectful to you?
Anyway, he was quiet for Bush's first term and respectful enough until the time came for Hillary to take her shot in 2004. But in general I'd say no. He's not.
I heard a recent NPR interview with Ryan and he was advocating for welfare programs...either he is shifting to the center for a run or he's said fuck it and is just doing his own thing.
I heard that too, and while I'm not in agreement with his plans (which basically put all the discretion of where and who to spend federal welfare $$ to the local social programs. It might make it easier to get people the help that they need, but it also makes it easier to marginalize anyone said charity or group doesn't like, especially if you're going to cut them off after x years if they don't make enough of an improvement on their lives) it nice to hear someone with an (R) next to their name admit that there are people out there that really need government assistance (even if it is from the guy who coined the term "Makers and Takers")
In fact (and I'm not 100% on top of what comes out of the guy's mouth so I might be missing something that would completely change my opinion), one thing that I've come to... I guess the best work would be "respect"... about post-2012 Paul Ryan is that while most GoP members, when advocating and issue they think needs to be solved, are unable to give an intelligent answer as to how they would solve it beyond "Doing the exact opposite of what Obama is doing/wants to do" when Paul Ryan he speaks out about fixing a problem, he actually gives a plan for what he thinks would be a solution. It might not be a good solution, but I think it shows he puts some thought into what he says, and not just yells out what he thinks will make him look good until the next hotbutton issue comes up.
EDIT: Also, I think he's definitely thinking about a run, though I think the fact almost noone here has mentioned him in their list of possible primary runners kinda shows his chances of going anywhere...
I heard a recent NPR interview with Ryan and he was advocating for welfare programs...either he is shifting to the center for a run or he's said fuck it and is just doing his own thing.
I heard that too, and while I'm not in agreement with his plans (which basically put all the discretion of where and who to spend federal welfare $$ to the local social programs. It might make it easier to get people the help that they need, but it also makes it easier to marginalize anyone said charity or group doesn't like, especially if you're going to cut them off after x years if they don't make enough of an improvement on their lives) it nice to hear someone with an (R) next to their name admit that there are people out there that really need government assistance (even if it is from the guy who coined the term "Makers and Takers")
In fact (and I'm not 100% on top of what comes out of the guy's mouth so I might be missing something that would completely change my opinion), one thing that I've come to... I guess the best work would be "respect"... about post-2012 Paul Ryan is that while most GoP members, when advocating and issue they think needs to be solved, are unable to give an intelligent answer as to how they would solve it beyond "Doing the exact opposite of what Obama is doing/wants to do" when Paul Ryan he speaks out about fixing a problem, he actually gives a plan for what he thinks would be a solution. It might not be a good solution, but I think it shows he puts some thought into what he says, and not just yells out what he thinks will make him look good until the next hotbutton issue comes up.
In that same interview he recanted the "makers and takers" angle, saying that voters had taken him to task for it and he believed it was wrong of him to frame struggling poor people that way.
I think the loathing for W. is only waning because he's keeping hidden
Putting another Bush up will bring it back
He's keeping hidden because he's respectful of the office, just like every President is in the terms after theirs.
So Clinton isn't respectful of the office?
Clinton shoved a cigar up a young woman's ass, in the oval office. Does that say respectful to you?
That's more respectful then what Bush did in office.
Anyway, he was quiet for Bush's first term and respectful enough until the time came for Hillary to take her shot in 2004. But in general I'd say no. He's not.
He palled around with Daddy Bush in Bush's second term, that's super respectful on the world stage.
Anyway, he was quiet for Bush's first term and respectful enough until the time came for Hillary to take her shot in 2004. But in general I'd say no. He's not.
He palled around with Daddy Bush in Bush's second term, that's super respectful on the world stage.
They seemed to have gotten on well. GHW even did a little good-natured ribbing of Clinton in his AWS ice bucket challenge video.
I don't have any beef with the way Clinton handled himself after he left the White House.
Yea I can't think of a recent former president who didn't.
In general they go out and do charity work, maybe some glad handing diplomacy if asked and shut the fuck up about current administration politics.
This is sorta how it "always was" of former anythings of a high enough level. It's why Rummy, Cheney and Hillary's comments on politics stuff right after their term kinda pissed me off.
Glenn Beck made quite a big prediction Tuesday on his radio show.
"Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States," the conservative political commentator said, according to his web site The Blaze.
Beck said he believes Clinton will remind Americans about the 1990s when her husband was president. “And this is what made me say, ‘Oh, my gosh, she’s going to win,’” he said. “Pat and I both have said in the past, ‘I would so gladly take Bill Clinton right now. Don’t those years seem simple and good [compared to today]?’”
He added: "We already have friends on the left who say, ‘Will you guys just shut up about Benghazi?’ They’ve won that. Same with the IRS. All of it. And while we’re talking about technicalities and the past, they’re going to be talking about a past that was brightly remembered, and they will talk about the America we will become. She will win."
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think the loathing for W. is only waning because he's keeping hidden
Putting another Bush up will bring it back
He's keeping hidden because he's respectful of the office, just like every President is in the terms after theirs.
So Clinton isn't respectful of the office?
Clinton shoved a cigar up a young woman's ass, in the oval office. Does that say respectful to you?
Anyway, he was quiet for Bush's first term and respectful enough until the time came for Hillary to take her shot in 2004. But in general I'd say no. He's not.
I mean
Lots of presidents do lots of shit in the oval office.
I'd say Clinton getting his wang on is hella more respectful than committing treason, faking reasons for wars, and you know, basically the entirety of LBJ-Nixon.
+18
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I think the loathing for W. is only waning because he's keeping hidden
Putting another Bush up will bring it back
He's keeping hidden because he's respectful of the office, just like every President is in the terms after theirs.
So Clinton isn't respectful of the office?
Clinton shoved a cigar up a young woman's ass, in the oval office. Does that say respectful to you?
Anyway, he was quiet for Bush's first term and respectful enough until the time came for Hillary to take her shot in 2004. But in general I'd say no. He's not.
I mean
Lots of presidents do lots of shit in the oval office.
I'd say Clinton getting his wang on is hella more respectful than committing treason, faking reasons for wars, and you know, basically the entirety of LBJ-Nixon.
I'd be more surprised to find out he was the only person (nevermid president) to have sex in the Oval Office.
If you have access to that room, this is probably a life goal.
i would have sex with spool in the oval office if ted cruz were president
to make this about the 2016 election
GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!
+1
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
I am voting for this thread as best thread of 2016. It was time.
Also, I am concerned the population at large will have the same problem with enthusiasm this thread has for Hillary. Of course I'd prefer Hillary to any Republican, but even if she's going to win the Presidential election, I'm concerned about down ticket races, both in 2016, and much more importantly, in 2020 if she manages to win in 2016. 2020 is the next make or break election, as far as I'm concerned. Democrats staying home "because of course she's a lock," and then as a result the Republicans sweep into power in every state house, rewrite the districts even more favorably, and then literally nothing gets done in America until 20-FUCKING-30.
I am voting for this thread as best thread of 2016. It was time.
Also, I am concerned the population at large will have the same problem with enthusiasm this thread has for Hillary. Of course I'd prefer Hillary to any Republican, but even if she's going to win the Presidential election, I'm concerned about down ticket races, both in 2016, and much more importantly, in 2020 if she manages to win in 2016. 2020 is the next make or break election, as far as I'm concerned. Democrats staying home "because of course she's a lock," and then as a result the Republicans sweep into power in every state house, rewrite the districts even more favorably, and then literally nothing gets done in America until 20-FUCKING-30.
She's more popular among the general public than she is/was here. Remember how we broke down in the primary vs. the actual electorate.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So does this help or hurt Ted Cruz? I'm thinking primary voters might eat this shit up.
Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) father said that African Americans "need to be educated" about Democrats, adding that "the average black does not" know that the minimum wage is bad.
Rafael Cruz, the junior senator from Texas's father, made the comments at the Western Williamson Republican Club's August meeting on Aug. 21. The comments were highlighted by Buzzfeed on Tuesday. The event was advertised as the elder Cruz speaking "passionately on what can be done to return our nation to the principles that made America exceptional."
"I said, as a matter of fact, ‘Did you know that Civil Rights legislation was passed by Republicans? It was passed by a Republican Senate under the threat of a filibuster by the Democrats,'" Cruz said. "'Oh, I didn’t know that.’ And then I said, ‘Did you know that every member of the Ku Klux Klan were Democrats from the South?’ ‘Oh I didn’t know that.’ You know, they need to be educated."
Democrats actually controlled the Senate when the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed the chamber. Cruz might be referring to the bloc of Southern Democrats that opposed the Civil Rights Act.
Cruz went on to tout Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder For Blacks To Succeed by Jason Riley, a member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board who is African-American. Riley, Cruz said, talks about how "all the handouts to blacks have kept blacks in the poorhouse."
"Jason Riley said in an interview, Did you know before we had minimum wage laws black unemployment and white unemployment were the same? If we increase the minimum wage, black unemployment will skyrocket. See, he understands it, but the average black does not."
yossarian_lives on
"I see everything twice!"
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Remember how proud people were to vote for the first black president? There is going to be that for the First woman president, and they are going to want to run up the score. So yeah, no one who is a true blue democrat is staying home for this one, if she runs.
So does this help or hurt Ted Cruz? I'm thinking primary voters might eat this shit up.
Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) father said that African Americans "need to be educated" about Democrats, adding that "the average black does not" know that the minimum wage is bad.
Rafael Cruz, the junior senator from Texas's father, made the comments at the Western Williamson Republican Club's August meeting on Aug. 21. The comments were highlighted by Buzzfeed on Tuesday. The event was advertised as the elder Cruz speaking "passionately on what can be done to return our nation to the principles that made America exceptional."
"I said, as a matter of fact, ‘Did you know that Civil Rights legislation was passed by Republicans? It was passed by a Republican Senate under the threat of a filibuster by the Democrats,'" Cruz said. "'Oh, I didn’t know that.’ And then I said, ‘Did you know that every member of the Ku Klux Klan were Democrats from the South?’ ‘Oh I didn’t know that.’ You know, they need to be educated."
Democrats actually controlled the Senate when the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed the chamber. Cruz might be referring to the bloc of Southern Democrats that opposed the Civil Rights Act.
Cruz went on to tout Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder For Blacks To Succeed by Jason Riley, a member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board who is African-American. Riley, Cruz said, talks about how "all the handouts to blacks have kept blacks in the poorhouse."
"Jason Riley said in an interview, Did you know before we had minimum wage laws black unemployment and white unemployment were the same? If we increase the minimum wage, black unemployment will skyrocket. See, he understands it, but the average black does not."
Very little in politics pisses me off more than the right pretending that "Democrats from the South" would be anything other than Republicans today.
+16
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I heard a recent NPR interview with Ryan and he was advocating for welfare programs...either he is shifting to the center for a run or he's said fuck it and is just doing his own thing.
I heard that too, and while I'm not in agreement with his plans (which basically put all the discretion of where and who to spend federal welfare $$ to the local social programs. It might make it easier to get people the help that they need, but it also makes it easier to marginalize anyone said charity or group doesn't like, especially if you're going to cut them off after x years if they don't make enough of an improvement on their lives) it nice to hear someone with an (R) next to their name admit that there are people out there that really need government assistance (even if it is from the guy who coined the term "Makers and Takers")
In fact (and I'm not 100% on top of what comes out of the guy's mouth so I might be missing something that would completely change my opinion), one thing that I've come to... I guess the best work would be "respect"... about post-2012 Paul Ryan is that while most GoP members, when advocating and issue they think needs to be solved, are unable to give an intelligent answer as to how they would solve it beyond "Doing the exact opposite of what Obama is doing/wants to do" when Paul Ryan he speaks out about fixing a problem, he actually gives a plan for what he thinks would be a solution. It might not be a good solution, but I think it shows he puts some thought into what he says, and not just yells out what he thinks will make him look good until the next hotbutton issue comes up.
In that same interview he recanted the "makers and takers" angle, saying that voters had taken him to task for it and he believed it was wrong of him to frame struggling poor people that way.
GWB talked convincingly and compassionately about the poor in his first run. "compassionate conservative" was an earnestly-accepted thing. ladders and bridges and hope and whatnot.
of course it didn't actually turn out that way - whatever bush's feelings on the matter, the GOP gestalt really wanted to stick it to the poors more than anything else. however, i believe it's actually an earnest belief of a minority of republicans and in any case it's a way that republicans can frame their opposition to social programs in a way that is less hateful and off-putting than the "takers and makers" angle.
I think the loathing for W. is only waning because he's keeping hidden
Putting another Bush up will bring it back
He's keeping hidden because he's respectful of the office, just like every President is in the terms after theirs.
So Clinton isn't respectful of the office?
Clinton shoved a cigar up a young woman's ass, in the oval office. Does that say respectful to you?
Anyway, he was quiet for Bush's first term and respectful enough until the time came for Hillary to take her shot in 2004. But in general I'd say no. He's not.
Well I meant after he got out of office
Almost no president is respectful of it while he's in there, even Obama's got some shit on his shoes what with the NSA and the rimjobs he keeps giving comcast's CEO
But hey I don't really care about a president fucking in the oval office, I assume many of them have, I more hate Clinton's destruction of welfare and continuing Reagan's war on drugs/crime
We are a nation of lifters, not leaners. We are a great nation. We are a great people. By everyone making a contribution now, we will build a bigger, better Australia.
The rhetoric used by our parties has become that used by the US. The framing of issues in the 2016 elections will no doubt reverberate far beyond the US itself.
Not to mention that dividing everyone into "takers or makers" sounds like a philosophy developed by sociopaths.
Reminds me that South Park literally had an episode where Kyle's father (whos rich) why kenny's family is poor because there are "gods and clods" in a 'sitcom child mixup where the parent learns the lesson' style.
Trying to look at his history, I don't understand why it is assumed a Jeb Bush candidacy would be so swiftly defeated. He would really only alienate voters that would never vote for an R, with the family name. Everyone else would remember the good ol times of gas being $.99 under G.W, and how we felt safer, and the NSA totally wasn't doing that stuff before Obama, also no one was unemployed.
I think he would have a decent opportunity to excite the base a bit, he could paint himself as a shaker of the party to try and appeal to voters that are on the fence about voting for a Republican or bring back some of the ones that may have been jaded. Tea Party would totally be on board with his history of cutting taxes and downsizing the government.
Also I know Warren isn't running, but would she be picked up as a VP?
Actually, as exciting as that would be, I don't know that it would help anyone in the General.
GWB talked convincingly and compassionately about the poor in his first run. "compassionate conservative" was an earnestly-accepted thing. ladders and bridges and hope and whatnot.
Except that was all talk, when it came to action the "compassionate" side of that phrase it was found wanting.
of course it didn't actually turn out that way - whatever bush's feelings on the matter, the GOP gestalt really wanted to stick it to the poors more than anything else. however, i believe it's actually an earnest belief of a minority of republicans and in any case it's a way that republicans can frame their opposition to social programs in a way that is less hateful and off-putting than the "takers and makers" angle.
Bush was the president, if he truly was manipulated like that he was a terrible leader and I wouldn't rule out that he thought the poor were trash who deserved what they got. Obama, he was not. He may have been more moderate then the Tea Party but he was a neocon to his bones.
In fact (and I'm not 100% on top of what comes out of the guy's mouth so I might be missing something that would completely change my opinion), one thing that I've come to... I guess the best work would be "respect"... about post-2012 Paul Ryan is that while most GoP members, when advocating and issue they think needs to be solved, are unable to give an intelligent answer as to how they would solve it beyond "Doing the exact opposite of what Obama is doing/wants to do" when Paul Ryan he speaks out about fixing a problem, he actually gives a plan for what he thinks would be a solution. It might not be a good solution, but I think it shows he puts some thought into what he says, and not just yells out what he thinks will make him look good until the next hotbutton issue comes up.
Not when it's about fixing budgets, then he makes is a few pieces of paper with vague allusions to problems being solved. To think this is the guy the GOP consider their expert on budgetary issues.
EDIT: Also, I think he's definitely thinking about a run, though I think the fact almost noone here has mentioned him in their list of possible primary runners kinda shows his chances of going anywhere...
GWB talked convincingly and compassionately about the poor in his first run. "compassionate conservative" was an earnestly-accepted thing. ladders and bridges and hope and whatnot.
Except that was all talk, when it came to action the "compassionate" side of that phrase it was found wanting.
of course it didn't actually turn out that way - whatever bush's feelings on the matter, the GOP gestalt really wanted to stick it to the poors more than anything else. however, i believe it's actually an earnest belief of a minority of republicans and in any case it's a way that republicans can frame their opposition to social programs in a way that is less hateful and off-putting than the "takers and makers" angle.
Bush was the president, if he truly was manipulated like that he was a terrible leader and I wouldn't rule out that he thought the poor were trash who deserved what they got. Obama, he was not. He may have been more moderate then the Tea Party but he was a neocon to his bones.
neocons were, on the whole, agnostic when it came to domestic/ social policy. their big thing was hyper-aggressive foreign policy and whatever tools back home that needed to be implemented to enable that were just fine. they aren't the same ideology of the tea party - they represent completely different and ideologically opposed factions under the republican umbrella.
the charge that bush was a terrible leader is, i think, apt, as well as that he lacked the courage of his convictions as well when surrounded by his cadre of hard-right apparatchiks. i don't, though, think that he was a poor-hater and a racist the same way that his colleagues were. in the end maybe it doesn't even particularly matter - the only social policy proposals his office managed to produce were transparently bad and meanspirited.
Posts
I think he was a genuinely insecure dude who jumped at a chance to show that he was better at his dad. And when he failed, like he did at pretty much every leadership challenge handed to him, he decided to cut his losses and live his own life.
If you didn't have several tens of thousands of corpses to consider, it would be a touching tale of personal growth.
Clinton shoved a cigar up a young woman's ass, in the oval office. Does that say respectful to you?
Anyway, he was quiet for Bush's first term and respectful enough until the time came for Hillary to take her shot in 2004. But in general I'd say no. He's not.
I heard that too, and while I'm not in agreement with his plans (which basically put all the discretion of where and who to spend federal welfare $$ to the local social programs. It might make it easier to get people the help that they need, but it also makes it easier to marginalize anyone said charity or group doesn't like, especially if you're going to cut them off after x years if they don't make enough of an improvement on their lives) it nice to hear someone with an (R) next to their name admit that there are people out there that really need government assistance (even if it is from the guy who coined the term "Makers and Takers")
In fact (and I'm not 100% on top of what comes out of the guy's mouth so I might be missing something that would completely change my opinion), one thing that I've come to... I guess the best work would be "respect"... about post-2012 Paul Ryan is that while most GoP members, when advocating and issue they think needs to be solved, are unable to give an intelligent answer as to how they would solve it beyond "Doing the exact opposite of what Obama is doing/wants to do" when Paul Ryan he speaks out about fixing a problem, he actually gives a plan for what he thinks would be a solution. It might not be a good solution, but I think it shows he puts some thought into what he says, and not just yells out what he thinks will make him look good until the next hotbutton issue comes up.
EDIT: Also, I think he's definitely thinking about a run, though I think the fact almost noone here has mentioned him in their list of possible primary runners kinda shows his chances of going anywhere...
In that same interview he recanted the "makers and takers" angle, saying that voters had taken him to task for it and he believed it was wrong of him to frame struggling poor people that way.
That's more respectful then what Bush did in office.
He palled around with Daddy Bush in Bush's second term, that's super respectful on the world stage.
They seemed to have gotten on well. GHW even did a little good-natured ribbing of Clinton in his AWS ice bucket challenge video.
I don't have any beef with the way Clinton handled himself after he left the White House.
In general they go out and do charity work, maybe some glad handing diplomacy if asked and shut the fuck up about current administration politics.
This is sorta how it "always was" of former anythings of a high enough level. It's why Rummy, Cheney and Hillary's comments on politics stuff right after their term kinda pissed me off.
I mean
Lots of presidents do lots of shit in the oval office.
I'd say Clinton getting his wang on is hella more respectful than committing treason, faking reasons for wars, and you know, basically the entirety of LBJ-Nixon.
I'd be more surprised to find out he was the only person (nevermid president) to have sex in the Oval Office.
If you have access to that room, this is probably a life goal.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Check for bugs first.
Listening devices too.
to make this about the 2016 election
First thing on your mind is probably going to be getting dirty in there, like, immediately.
GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!
Also, I am concerned the population at large will have the same problem with enthusiasm this thread has for Hillary. Of course I'd prefer Hillary to any Republican, but even if she's going to win the Presidential election, I'm concerned about down ticket races, both in 2016, and much more importantly, in 2020 if she manages to win in 2016. 2020 is the next make or break election, as far as I'm concerned. Democrats staying home "because of course she's a lock," and then as a result the Republicans sweep into power in every state house, rewrite the districts even more favorably, and then literally nothing gets done in America until 20-FUCKING-30.
She's more popular among the general public than she is/was here. Remember how we broke down in the primary vs. the actual electorate.
So does this help or hurt Ted Cruz? I'm thinking primary voters might eat this shit up.
Very little in politics pisses me off more than the right pretending that "Democrats from the South" would be anything other than Republicans today.
GWB talked convincingly and compassionately about the poor in his first run. "compassionate conservative" was an earnestly-accepted thing. ladders and bridges and hope and whatnot.
of course it didn't actually turn out that way - whatever bush's feelings on the matter, the GOP gestalt really wanted to stick it to the poors more than anything else. however, i believe it's actually an earnest belief of a minority of republicans and in any case it's a way that republicans can frame their opposition to social programs in a way that is less hateful and off-putting than the "takers and makers" angle.
Well I meant after he got out of office
Almost no president is respectful of it while he's in there, even Obama's got some shit on his shoes what with the NSA and the rimjobs he keeps giving comcast's CEO
But hey I don't really care about a president fucking in the oval office, I assume many of them have, I more hate Clinton's destruction of welfare and continuing Reagan's war on drugs/crime
Unfortunately, the mentality appears contagious. The rhetoric used by our parties has become that used by the US. The framing of issues in the 2016 elections will no doubt reverberate far beyond the US itself.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Spoken like a taker.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
He is completely dead weight outside of his district where people look at his actual record
God I hated when he did that. You guys can keep him.
Reminds me that South Park literally had an episode where Kyle's father (whos rich) why kenny's family is poor because there are "gods and clods" in a 'sitcom child mixup where the parent learns the lesson' style.
I think he would have a decent opportunity to excite the base a bit, he could paint himself as a shaker of the party to try and appeal to voters that are on the fence about voting for a Republican or bring back some of the ones that may have been jaded. Tea Party would totally be on board with his history of cutting taxes and downsizing the government.
Also I know Warren isn't running, but would she be picked up as a VP?
Actually, as exciting as that would be, I don't know that it would help anyone in the General.
Except that was all talk, when it came to action the "compassionate" side of that phrase it was found wanting.
Bush was the president, if he truly was manipulated like that he was a terrible leader and I wouldn't rule out that he thought the poor were trash who deserved what they got. Obama, he was not. He may have been more moderate then the Tea Party but he was a neocon to his bones.
Not when it's about fixing budgets, then he makes is a few pieces of paper with vague allusions to problems being solved. To think this is the guy the GOP consider their expert on budgetary issues.
Agreed.
It's been said that he had wanted to be the MLB commissioner.
He'll be pushing her from the left on immigration and guns.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I blame Cheney and the assholes behind the scenes. GWB just seems more like a scapegoat as time goes by.
This would be an awful idea. At least the President has real influence, so would be worth losing her from the Senate, potentially.
neocons were, on the whole, agnostic when it came to domestic/ social policy. their big thing was hyper-aggressive foreign policy and whatever tools back home that needed to be implemented to enable that were just fine. they aren't the same ideology of the tea party - they represent completely different and ideologically opposed factions under the republican umbrella.
the charge that bush was a terrible leader is, i think, apt, as well as that he lacked the courage of his convictions as well when surrounded by his cadre of hard-right apparatchiks. i don't, though, think that he was a poor-hater and a racist the same way that his colleagues were. in the end maybe it doesn't even particularly matter - the only social policy proposals his office managed to produce were transparently bad and meanspirited.