Bush Supporters

I doubt that you saw it that way at all, Tico, but you're too big a chickenshit to address any other way.

People are calling the Bush years "a failure" but in my opinion that word is too weak, to neutral, too passive for the Cheyney/Bush years.

They didn't just "fail". They lied. They squandered. They warmongered. They postured. They constrained civil liberties at home, while spouting about freedom and liberty. They killed hundreds of thousands needlessly, some of them Americans. They reduced their country's standing wordwide while raising international tension.
That's not just a "failure".

Very well said McTag!

By latest Gallup polling, Americans "expect history will judge Bush worse than Nixon". http://www.gallup.com/poll/113806/Americans-Expect-History-Judge-Bush-Worse-Than-Nixon.aspx

So, what's with this "Bush Legacy Project" being run out of the WH by Rove, Hughes, Hadley and company?

One might assume that these individuals are seeking to protect or bolster their personal reputations given their central place in Bush's political career and in his presidential administration. But a better explanation is that they understand the damage that has been done to the Republican/conservative brand and the consequences that will have for future elections.

The goal is to attempt to create and forward a different (a positive or successful or winning) narrative. It is pure marketing (which, in the political sphere, is referred to as propaganda - particularly when it is knowing bullshit being forwarded). Thus the repetition of particular talking points, delivered by as many different voices in as many different information venues as possible.

It's understood that the positive narrative that was created around Reagan's presidency and, by contrast, the negative narrative created around the Carter presidency (not to mention the narratives created around Gore and Kerry) will tend, once they've taken root, to firm up into consensus and bcome accepted truths. They really don't want this to happen with Bush. So they try to make his record look positive. They don't have much to work with though.

"History will look kindly on him" is the key talking point and they all say it. This is predictable to 100%. There's no good reason to think it so and many good reasons to think the oppositive far more likely but these propagandist dickwads can express the notion and stand somewhat aside from any empirical test.

"He kept America safe" is talking point two. Except that NO ONE concurs here except loyal Bushies (if I might use the term from Monica Goodling and Schlozman and others in the JD to identify who was fit for office and who not), RNC propaganda hacks and the neoconservative chappies and chappesses hanging on by their splintering fingernails to dreams of continued power and influence and speechifying big bucks.

"He's a good man with deep passions, democratizing intentions, and sincere empathies for others" is talking point three. Again, such an amorphous claim allows them to stand somewhat aside from means of verification or measurement (as when Bush claimed he'd peered into the heart of Putin and found it swimming in wholesomeness). This claim has the disadvantage of being, after the last eight years (and all the folks in Texas he roasted in the electric chair while joking at their pleas for mercy) believable to that portion of the electorate who have no folds in their brains.

The fourth talking point might almost get overlooked, simply as it is so pervasive and common in the propaganda strategies of the Republican party and the movement..."Bush was treated unfairly by a biased media". A lot of conservatives here like tico and fox won't even blink when this claim of liberal media bias is made because they've accepted it as a fundamental truth. Of course, the claim itself provides the raionale for partisan and extremist rightwing media as well as getting done the work of ad hominem rejection of anything an independant press might say which is perceived to function in counter to Republican/conservative interests.

After those four talking points, it's on to whatever policies these people might dig up out of Bush's record (the Frist example is perfect) which provide evidence the man did something...anything...of value over eight years. But then they lie about it or spin it and leave out important aspects of the matter as Frist does.

I don't think any real damage was done. The party in power always gets unfairly blamed for a bad economy, and unfairly credited with a good economy. This was clearly a Democratic year, but there will be Republican years too in the future.

You are probably right that the Republicans are acting out of fear for the Republican brand name, but I think they are all worrying needlessly.

I know the pundits are all saying things like the only Republican voters in this election are old people who will by nature be dying off, while the more Democratic voters are young. But young people always tend to favor Democrats. As their generation becomes more middle-aged, some of them will become Republicans. And as the current middle-aged population grows old, even more will become Republicans. And while the moderates went to Obama in this election, that does not mean they won't go to a Republican in a future election.






It still amazes me that the public lets themselves be manipulated like that. I don't think any of these narratives are accurate or fair.

Sure, there's a cyclical phenomenon in play. But the cycle is hardly "yearly". We imagine that if the Dems, at the end of Carter's term, would have been able to peer into the future of WH occupancy, they'd have been a bit unhappy with their lot.



You are smart enough to understand how this thesis might be an instance of whistling past the grave. The actual statistics show that young people, though somewhat malleable in affiliation, tend overall to support through life the party which initially gained their enthusiasms (by about two/thirds, I believe it is). Not to mention the increasing liberalization we witness in the younger generation on social issues (gay rights, race, women's rights) which have provided the fodder for prior periods of divisive wedge politics utilized so effectively by the right...those young ears hear something quite different from Phyllis Schlafley's followers' ears.

Further, Republicans have a very serious demographic problem (clearly recognized in the RNC and by the smarter less bigoted conservatives) with the changes in ethnic makeup of the country. Mehlman and Rove are bright enough on this, but the party and movement are now so thoroughly cleansed of moderates AND the influential propaganda mechanisms of the party/movement (talk radio particularly) are so ideologically extremist and their influence so pervasive that we can pretty confidently predict that the party/movement will continue to rip out its own guts...at least until somebody comes along (someone like Jindal perhaps) who can get your party to evolve into something worthy again.

Forgot this bit...


Not so helpful, perhaps? This is rather like saying "People are stupid" or "Cruelty is a feature of human behavior towards other humans" or "Rape is inevitable given its genetic advantages".

The salient issue/question here isn't the psychology of individuals or the dynamics of group mythology or other general human propensities. It is, rather, What might we do about them so as to ameliorate their negative effects? Our institutions - courts, laws, etc - are what serve such community purpose.

It seems, at the very least, that we each have a civic responsibility to weigh in against the sorts of misrepresentation and deceits which are purposive and which can only have a consequence of making members of the community stupider. Whether or not "blondes have more fun" is a matter of civic insignificance. Whether or not Rush Limbaugh, piped into the Green Zone twice daily (no Air America on Pentagon radio feeds) is misinforming American servicemen and women is rather more significant.

If one desires a well-informed citizenry, that is. Clearly, such a goal is contrary to certain interests.

I suppose this thread will peter out now, as Cheyney, Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and the rest slink away from the light.

Shame there will be no prosecutions. There should be, in a just world.

I see the Guantanamo process is suspended, pending further action. Good.

I'm sure you could keep it going, McT.

McT

There may very well be prosecutions in a number of areas (Justice Department and torture issues the two most prominent). Some of the people Obama has brought into his cabinet had previously been quite outspoken on accountability and adherence to law. I'll be surprised if prosecutions don't follow though the people around Cheney have gone to elaborate lengths to insulate themselves legally. We'll see.

The neoconservatives won't go away though. First, let's be careful to categorize correctly here...there's a rough use of the term which includes the followers of Strauss and Strauss' students but also a group of hawks tied into the Pentagon and the war industries (the signatories of the New American Century documents include both). The first group are very well funded and have relatively permanent positions in the media and in influential Washington think tanks and have long term connections to Likud and, now, Kadima in Israel, not to mention historical connections to the CIA (Irving Kristol, for example). The Israel lobby retains much power in the internal workings of the US government and will continue to fund and support these folks (as will Murdoch, whose business interests he apparently still believes, are aided by such connections).

The second crowd here, the hawks connected to the Pentagon and war industries, seem to be a personality type but also suck very happily at the tit of the profitable war machine in America. They won't disappear because war profiteering has long been a trusty income-earner for a certain species of skuzzbag.

So, these people will still be around and making the world an ugly place even while their foreign policy ideology has been stripped of stature. They'll propagandize (go to the National Review Online any day and observe it) and they'll continue their happy relationships on boards at Boeing and Blackwater, or in their own companies, and at think tanks, and as salesmen for war and its products. What we can hope for in all this is that it might be a long long time before they again gain the main levers of power and influence in the US.

Aside from those questions, here's what Limbaugh is up to presently...

http://thinkprogress.org/

... and the leftists will propagandize their own message ... as the US becomes a welfare state ... and the beat goes on ...

Yes, Blatham, You are correct. N ot many people are aware that W blocked a bill that would have provided cardiologists with at least 80 Million Dollars for research in 2003. The Mayo Clinic reports that people who have suffered severe mycardioal infarctions and have subsequently lost a good deal of their mental function, could have been saved from that tragic conclusion.

You blaming us for the 'welfare state?'

Might want to take a gander at the size of federal outlays in 2001 vs. 2007-8

Cycloptichorn

Cyclopitchorn must be thinking of the Depression years. Everyone knows that Herbert Hoover led the US into a very bad depression--except that he didn't. Everyone knows that FDR led us out of the depression--except that he didn. We were still in a depression in 1938 with AN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE OF 17.4%.

I fully expect President Obama to cut some Medicare costs, scale back Social Security payments, place onerous taxes on business which will exacerbate the current downturn and still not solve the problem. At the beginning of his second term, with Unemployment still hovering over 10% because of his wrongheaded policies such as strengthening the Unions, he will undoubtedly blame the Repubicans and Presidnt Bush and will say--"I am working as hard as I can and I have the best of intentions.

That is a best case scenario. The worst case scenario is the one in which a nuclear device is detonated in one of our major cities while Obama plays footsie with the Muslim Religious Extremists.

President Obama is among the most naive in the world when he says:

"TO THE MUSLIM WORLD, WE SEEK A NEW WAY FORWARD, BASED ON MUTUAL INTEREST AND MUTUAL RESPECT"

President Obama has evidently not talked to any Israelis. They know that the religious fanatics do not respect anyone who does not believe in Allah.
The Israelis have learned the hard way. I hope that President Obama is not so naive that he trusts radical fundamentalist killers.

Your argument is not compelling. You don't seem to realize that your worldview has not been particularly successful in solving the problems we are facing, and has fallen out of power as a result of that failure.

Your complaints about Obama are complaints against his Ideology; but knocks on modern Conservatives revolve not around their beliefs but their incredibly poor record of performance. To put it simply, your party has very little credibility when it comes to prescribing solutions to the Economic problems we face, or the foreign policy ones.

Cycloptichorn

possum
potes
potest
possumus
potéstis
possunt

Different ballgame completely with respect to the Israelis. For the rest of the western world, especially the US at this moment in history, these folks just got awfully damn tired of y'all sticking your nose in their business, messing around with their lives and politics.

If ya weren't so greedy, there would be far fewer problems.

Speaking of radical fundamentalist killers, would that include the numerous actions by the CIA, the slaughter in Vietnam, the support of numerous radical fundamentalist dictators around the world, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, ... .

My "worldview"? has not been particularly successful in solving the problems we are facing? What is my "worldview"?

I am aware that many commentators are saying that President Obama will lead s to a reprise of the NEW DEAL.

If they are correct, it is indeed possible that President Obama's legacy will be that of a Socialist who gave us eight years of high unemployment as FDR did.

As far as poor records of performance go( and I know they don't teach this at Berkeley) the early eighties were terrible years under the Democrat and One Worlder, Jimmy Carter. My entire city prospered during the Reagan and Bush years only to be met by a downturn when Slick Willie was elected. That downturn was turned into the best economy in recent memory when the Republicans gained control of the House and Senate in 1994.

Yes,the Economy has gotten hit hard under President G. . Bush. It was stalled by 9/11.

What nuclear device will stall President Obama's pipe dreams???