George W. Bush: John McCain is "ready to lead this nation."

[stevento]

George W. Bush officially put his stamp of approval on John McCain's candidacy and conservative policies.
Bush: McCain "understands the lessons" of Sept 11. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/02/rnc.day/index.html)

What lessons did republicans learn on 9/11? Let's discuss the role of Bush's endorsement. Good or bad?

[Much Ado]

That's like getting a recommendation from Stalin for chairman of Amnesty International.

[BoyBach]

What lessons did republicans learn on 9/11?

Fear wins elections?


Let's discuss the role of Bush's endorsement. Good or bad?

A Bush endorsement? The term "damning with faint praise" springs to mind.

[trebblekicked]

let's just say i don't think it was bush's idea to do this speech via satellite.

[Ntombi]

That's like getting a recommendation from Stalin for chairman of Amnesty International.Word.



I know I'm not the target for this speech, since I can't look at W. without getting a little ill, but still. Not helpful.

[bradl]

Word.



I know I'm not the target for this speech, since I can't look at W. without getting a little ill, but still. Not helpful.

.. And in related news, rumors are circulating that President George W. Bush is actually a monkey. When asked to comment, he shimmied up a tree and flung poo at the press.

BL.

[SMM]

How can Bush say McCain is ready to lead this country? He has no experience to draw upon.

[stevento]

Bush: "We need McCain. We live in a dangerous world, and we need a president who understands the lessons of September 11, 2001: that to protect America, we must stay on the offense, stop attacks before they happen and not wait to be hit again."

^^ those words parody themselves.

Cheney is speaking tomorrow. Maybe he will tout McCain's energy policy?:rolleyes:

[Iscariot]

President Bush never mentioned where McCain would lead it.

[dukebound85]

i love how quick all you bash on President Bush. Who is to say the Democrats wouldn't have done the same if Gore or Kerry were elected

It's not as if the Democrats are blame free either. Look at what they are doing with control of the congress......... Look at Nancy Pelosi.....need I say more?

as far as President Bush's endorsement, I dont think it will harm McCain. It would be more harmful if he didnt endorse him

[gibbz]

i love how quick all you bash on President Bush. Who is to say the Democrats wouldn't have done the same if Gore or Kerry were elected

It's not as if the Democrats are blame free either. Look at what they are doing with control of the congress......... Look at Nancy Pelosi.....need I say more?

as far as President Bush's endorsement, I dont think it will harm McCain. It would be more harmful if he didnt endorse him

What, by the same do you mean take us into an unending war against people who did not attack us, put out economy on the brink of recession, see oil prices rise to record levels and the housing market crash, preside over a weak dollar, throw away our foreign relationships with allies, all while pissing on our leg and telling us it was raining? I would place money that either Gore or Kerry would have avoided at least most parts of "the same."

[thechidz]

i love how quick all you bash on President Bush. Who is to say the Democrats wouldn't have done the same if Gore or Kerry were elected

It's not as if the Democrats are blame free either. Look at what they are doing with control of the congress......... Look at Nancy Pelosi.....need I say more?

as far as President Bush's endorsement, I dont think it will harm McCain. It would be more harmful if he didnt endorse him

ummmmmm yeeeeeahhhhh:rolleyes:

[dukebound85]

What, by the same do you mean take us into an unending war against people who did not attack us, put out economy on the brink of recession, see oil prices rise to record levels and the housing market crash, preside over a weak dollar, throw away our foreign relationships with allies, all while pissing on our leg and telling us it was raining? I would place money that either Gore or Kerry would have avoided at least most parts of "the same."

most of those issues were set in motion before Bush took presidency. The dollar and housing had alot to do with what greenspan did back in the 90's....you know during Clinton's presidency

i agree that Bush wasn't the best or even close and has hurt our reputation. However, to say that he is solely to blame while the Democrats now control congress and nothing significant has happened should say something

[hulugu]

i love how quick all you bash on President Bush. Who is to say the Democrats wouldn't have done the same if Gore or Kerry were elected

It's not as if the Democrats are blame free either. Look at what they are doing with control of the congress......... Look at Nancy Pelosi.....need I say more?

as far as President Bush's endorsement, I dont think it will harm McCain. It would be more harmful if he didnt endorse him

How, in your opinion, are Democrats to blame? What are they doing with control of Congress? And, what can we learn by "looking" at Nancy Pelosi.

Yes, I think you should say more.

[Iscariot]

i love how quick all you bash on President Bush. Who is to say the Democrats wouldn't have done the same if Gore or Kerry were elected

It's not as if the Democrats are blame free either. Look at what they are doing with control of the congress......... Look at Nancy Pelosi.....need I say more?

I doubt the Democrats would have done the same. I agree with your second point, but not for the reason you've listed. Anyone of them that says they were "mislead" or "hijacked" are either liars or morons.

[dukebound85]

How, in your opinion, are Democrats to blame? What are they doing with control of Congress? And, what can we learn by "looking" at Nancy Pelosi.

Yes, I think you should say more.

Good God, im not saying they are only to blame. just saying everything that Nancy Pelosi stood for while campaigning has pretty much went by the wayside

Congress is now controlled by the Democrats and yet, nothing has changed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/21/pelosis-failure/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5398479

people are just as displeased with this congress as they are with Bush and for good reason

[hulugu]

Good God, im not saying they are only to blame. just saying everything that Nancy Pelosi stood for while campaigning has pretty much went by the wayside

Congress is now controlled by the Democrats and yet, nothing has changed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/21/pelosis-failure/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5398479

people are just as displeased with this congress as they are with Bush and for good reason

Well, again I'm asking for particulars about why you think Democrats aren't "blameless" but rather responsible for the last year.

Secondly, remember that the Democrats barely control the Senate with 49 members, while 2 are independent. In the House, Democrats have 233 members, just a slightly majority. An obstructionist Republican minority can halt most bills in its tracks in both houses.

[OutThere]

I turned on the television and thought I was watching the USA Prize Swine Judging Competition, but in fact it was the RNC. :p

Bush is a leper to the republicans at this point. Nobody in their right mind will want anything to do with him, no matter how much he wants to give his help and endorsement.

[Beric]

Bush isn't a terrible president. The media has just treated him like another Dan Quayle in the hopes of getting a liberal into office. The huge success of the surge, despite the media's death predictions at every turn, only show their bias. And yet how many articles about Iraq have you seen lately? Has the media apologized for its misconceptions?

Bush has stood up to the media through 8 years, despite the fact they can see no good in him no matter what he does. Fortunately, he hasn't crumbled like Quayle, even though that was the media's intention.

Bush's endorsement should be a good thing at this point, but the media will certainly try use it against him.

[Iscariot]

Bush isn't a terrible president. The media has just treated him like another Dan Quayle in the hopes of getting a liberal into office. The huge success of the surge, despite the media's death predictions at every turn, only show their bias. And yet how many articles about Iraq have you seen lately? Has the media apologized for its misconceptions?

Bush has stood up to the media through 8 years, despite the fact they can see no good in him no matter what he does. Fortunately, he hasn't crumbled like Quayle, even though that was the media's intention.

Bush's endorsement should be a good thing at this point, but the media will certainly try use it against him.

Yeah, the media hates him. That's why they fought him tooth and nail on the whole invasion thing. But hey, the surge worked, so all is forgiven, right?

[dukebound85]

Bush isn't a terrible president. The media has just treated him like another Dan Quayle in the hopes of getting a liberal into office. The huge success of the surge, despite the media's death predictions at every turn, only show their bias. And yet how many articles about Iraq have you seen lately? Has the media apologized for its misconceptions?

Bush has stood up to the media through 8 years, despite the fact they can see no good in him no matter what he does. Fortunately, he hasn't crumbled like Quayle, even though that was the media's intention.

Bush's endorsement should be a good thing at this point, but the media will certainly try use it against him.

ha right. i consider myself conservative but the media is displeased with him for good reason. there is no evidence to support going to Iraq other than a personal vendetta. this alone has hurt america's image across the world. this is not to say i am against Bush on everything, in fact i support him more than i disagree but there are some huge mistakes

if this video doesnt shout hypocrisy, i dont know what does
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cihqYdqGXpk&feature=related

[stevento]

i love how quick all you bash on President Bush. Who is to say the Democrats wouldn't have done the same if Gore or Kerry were elected
...
as far as President Bush's endorsement, I dont think it will harm McCain. It would be more harmful if he didnt endorse him

Obama's central attack on John McCain is that his presidency would essentially be a continuation of Bush's presidency. and he's right. and McCain doesn't deny it. so the endorsement could be used against him.

Al Gore absolutely would not have invaded Iraq. - even though his running mate, lieberman is the one who authored the resolution to invade -

[és:]

i love how quick all you bash on President Bush.

Me too, it means people understand what a vile pig of a human being that man really is.

[és:]

Bush isn't a terrible president.

He's been the worst president your country has ever had. If not the very worst, he's right up there.

The huge success of the surge.

Yeah, what a wonderful 'success'. You swallow that sort of nonsense down with your conflakes, do you. I guess my definition of success differs for yours.

[.Andy]

That's like getting a recommendation from Stalin for chairman of Amnesty International.
Thread over with first reply :D

[blackfox]

Bush: "We need McCain. We live in a dangerous world, and we need a president who understands the lessons of September 11, 2001: that to protect America, we must stay on the offense, stop attacks before they happen and not wait to be hit again."

The problem with that quote is the idea that terrorism can be defeated by sheer force.

As I recall (and perhaps I'm wrong), terrorist organizations have been quelled not by military force, but by eventually including them in the legitimate political process. To think that we can just go where they are and kill them all, is a ridiculous proposition.

If you don't agree, name one terrorist organization that has been quelled by the use of military force.

To topic, I am not sure McCain understands this reality.

[BoyBach]

i love how quick all you bash on President Bush.

Bush isn't a terrible president.


Yep, we've all "misunderestimated" him.

[stevento]

yep, we were blind to his brilliant "strategery" :rolleyes:

[Anuba]

Bush isn't a terrible president. The media has just treated him like another Dan Quayle in the hopes of getting a liberal into office.
Never mind the media. You don't need the media, or their bias, or fast and selective edits, to realize that the man is a village idiot. All you need to do is listen when he speaks without reading from a script. The man is mentally handicapped.

You also don't need the media to find out that the economy is in shambles and the dollar is at an all-time low, which is remarkable given that Clinton handed over a strong dollar and a strong economy.

I mean seriously... in his 8 years in office, Bush has singlehandedly taken the USA from being a well respected country around the world, to some kind of retarded cousin that some hate and the rest pity. The damage he has done to America's reputation and status makes Nixon look like a PR genius. Even here in Western Europe where we've always felt closer to America, culturally and spiritually, than any other part of the world, people just shake their heads in bewilderment. We realized pretty quickly that the man was an idiot, but we didn't hold you collectively responsible for that. But when you elected him a second time, you ran out of excuses.

[atszyman]

most of those issues were set in motion before Bush took presidency. The dollar and housing had alot to do with what greenspan did back in the 90's....you know during Clinton's presidency

i agree that Bush wasn't the best or even close and has hurt our reputation. However, to say that he is solely to blame while the Democrats now control congress and nothing significant has happened should say something

The first six years he spent with a GOP contolled Congress was when he managed to do most of the damage. Now that the Dems have had a very slim majority for nearly 2 years somehow they are getting most of the blame?

Sure they promised a lot but they don't have a filibuster or veto proof majority so if the GOP wants to stop anything they can.

I'm really interested to see if Obama wins and the Dems gain a few more Senate/House seats how well the "everything deserves and up or down vote on the floor" mantra holds up. I might almost be wishing they had eliminated the filibuster. Of course a runaway majority that controls both the executive and legislative scares me no matter which party has it.

[Cleverboy]

Bush isn't a terrible president. The media has just treated him like another Dan Quayle in the hopes of getting a liberal into office. The huge success of the surge, despite the media's death predictions at every turn, only show their bias. And yet how many articles about Iraq have you seen lately? Has the media apologized for its misconceptions?
Wow. Please stay away from elected office. PLEASE. I could give you an anecdote about how well the "surge" is "working", but if you just want to be a cheerleader for misguided foreign policy, I certainly can't stop you.
Bush's endorsement should be a good thing at this point, but the media will certainly try use it against him. I don't think you've heard the Republican talking points. Bush is "history"... "old news". This convention is about the NEW direction the GOP are taking, in forging a new conservative future. Bush's endorsement has already been given. More than that, its NOT a good thing.

~ CB

[Prof.]

Now that Bush said McCain is ready for the job, I am soooo gonna vote for him.:rolleyes:

*changes avatar and sig*

[NT1440]

Bush isn't a terrible president. The media has just treated him like another Dan Quayle in the hopes of getting a liberal into office. The huge success of the surge, despite the media's death predictions at every turn, only show their bias. And yet how many articles about Iraq have you seen lately? Has the media apologized for its misconceptions?



Has anyone else been stuck completely dumfounded when they continually hear this from republicans?? "the surge worked therefore he was right". So the surge brought down violent deaths or w/e, how does that justify the war in anyway??

[Anuba]

Now that Bush said McCain is ready for the job, I am soooo gonna vote for him.:rolleyes:

*changes avatar and sig*
Yeah, a village idiot's official seal of approval changes everything.

It's like Michael Jackson vouching for a plastic surgeon...

[stevento]

*changes avatar and sig*

I agree; the judgement McCain exercised on Palin was totally reckless and absolutely irresponsible. She brings absolutely nothing to his ticket except "omg wow" news coverage and a better shot at Hillary's voters. He did not properly vet her, because only now is McCain finding out about her pregnant daughter, support for the bridge to nowhere, and support for Alaska leaving the union.

meanwhile:
Romney: "There's never been a day I was not proud to be an American"

Huckabee is next.

[NT1440]

I agree; the judgement McCain exercised on Palin was totally reckless and absolutely irresponsible. She brings absolutely nothing to his ticket except "omg wow" news coverage and a better shot at Hillary's voters. He did not properly vet her, because only now is McCain finding out about her pregnant daughter, support for the bridge to nowhere, and support for Alaska leaving the union.

all of which the GOP has managed to spin in their favor somehow. i really dont get it.:confused:

what happened to the intelligence America once had.

[stevento]

Guiliani is recycling Hillary's attacks with 3 am phone call and present votes in state senate.
Rudy: Dems wont face the reality of 9/11
Sarah Palin: I want John McCain as commander in cheif because my son has just joined the army and is shipping to Iraq next week on September 11

are these people nuts?

[Prof.]

I'm laughing my ass off at the RNC. These republicans are ********** craaaaazy.

[zap2]

Bush isn't a terrible president.
No, he is

The media has just treated him like another Dan Quayle in the hopes of getting a liberal into office.
Oh, come off it. Got some proof? The media, while each station leans one way or another, is not a grand plan to ruin the GOP.

The huge success of the surge, despite the media's death predictions at every turn, only show their bias.
I had had not realized we were out of Iraq, or that people had stopped dieing, or that 10 Billion dollars a month was no longer being spent :rolleyes:


Bush has stood up to the media through 8 years, despite the fact they can see no good in him no matter what he does. Fortunately, he hasn't crumbled like Quayle, even though that was the media's intention.

Yea, the "media" hates him...in fact I heard they planned 9/11 to make Bush look bad. Oh, and they had Osama caught, but let him go, again to make look Bush bad.


Bush's endorsement should be a good thing at this point, but the media will certainly try use it against him

First off, the media has simply reported that Bush did an endorsement, thats it. I think the American people will read into it. 27% will think its a good idea, 73% will say it bad.


And to the poster who said Gore and Kerry would have done same, PLEASE! Gore said at the DNC, he would have done stuff differently, and Kerry ran on the ideas against Bush, we'd have changed our direction with Kerry too.

[Ntombi]

Guiliani is recycling Hillary's attacks with 3 am phone call and present votes in state senate.
Rudy: Dems wont face the reality of 9/11

What?! Guiliani invoked 9/11? I'm SHOCKED!





:rolleyes:

[dukebound85]

I'm laughing my ass off at the RNC. These republicans are ********** craaaaazy.

says the diehard obama supporter

absolutely no bias in your views *end sarcasm*

[mactastic]

says the diehard obama supporter

absolutely no bias in your views *end sarcasm*
Says the diehard McCain supporter.

Absolutely no bias in your views *end sarcasm*
:rolleyes:

[dukebound85]

Says the diehard McCain supporter.

Absolutely no bias in your views *end sarcasm*
:rolleyes:

except im not a diehard mccain supporter......or really much of a mccain supporter

[mactastic]

except im not a diehard mccain supporter......or really much of a mccain supporter
And you're that prescient about others' support of Obama?

[dukebound85]

I'm laughing my ass off at the RNC. These republicans are ********** craaaaazy.

And you're that prescient about others' support of Obama?

yes and and im right from looking at his other posts, avatar and signatures and such

republicans arent ********** crazy just like the democrats arent. which is why i called out that post as being immature

[mactastic]

yes and and im right from looking at his other posts, avatar and signatures and such

republicans arent ********** crazy just like the democrats arent. which is why i called out that post as being immature
And if I pull a couple of cherry-picked quotes where you deride Obama or Democrats in general, then I can call you a die-hard McCain fan.

[dukebound85]

And if I pull a couple of cherry-picked quotes where you deride Obama or Democrats in general, then I can call you a die-hard McCain fan.

all im trying to say is that statements like that are immature as they are not objective and inherently biased. why you cant see that i dont know.

you must like having arguments or something

[paddy]

republicans arent ********** crazy just like the democrats arent

Judging from the crazy comments coming from the RNC, I'd have to disagree.

[mactastic]

all im trying to say is that statements like that are immature as they are not objective and inherently biased. why you cant see that i dont know.

you must like having arguments or something
And all I'm saying is that statements like yours are not objective and are inherently biased too. Why you can't see that, I don't know.

[dukebound85]

And all I'm saying is that statements like yours are not objective and are inherently biased too. Why you can't see that, I don't know.

how is my statement not objective? im pointing out that saying parties are crazy is immature if the only reason is if you arent affiliated with that party. please tell me how my statements are biased. im not the one stating that dems are nuts or republicans are crazy am i now?

why you must mock each one of my posts word for word is real cute. please keep it up. are you back in middle school? seriously

[leekohler]

how is my statement not objective? im pointing out that saying parties are crazy is immature if the only reason is if you arent affiliated with that party. please tell me how my statements are biased. im not the one stating that dems are nuts or republicans are crazy am i now?

why you must mock each one of my posts word for word is real cute. please keep it up. are you back in middle school? seriously

And all I'm saying is that statements like yours are not objective and are inherently biased too. Why you can't see that, I don't know.

Stop fighting girls, you're both pretty. :)

[mactastic]

how is my statement not objective? im pointing out that saying parties are crazy is immature if the only reason is if you arent affiliated with that party. please tell me how my statements are biased. im not the one stating that dems are nuts or republicans are crazy am i now?
We're all biased, right? All news organizations are biased, as are all the people the report or comment on the news. Pointing out that someone else is biased, with it's inherent implication that you aren't, is disingenuous.

why you must mock each one of my posts word for word is real cute. please keep it up. are you back in middle school? seriously
If you'd stuck to just criticizing the substance of the remark, rather than trying to hold yourself out as a paragon of a non-biased person, I wouldn't have said anything.

You are not unbiased. I know, everyone thinks they are the one unbiased person around here and that everyone else's view is skewed by their political leanings, but it's just not so. You have your own set of biases that you bring to the table. Pretending you do not merits mocking.

[dukebound85]

We're all biased, right? All news organizations are biased, as are all the people the report or comment on the news. Pointing out that someone else is biased, with it's inherent implication that you aren't, is disingenuous.


If you'd stuck to just criticizing the substance of the remark, rather than trying to hold yourself out as a paragon of a non-biased person, I wouldn't have said anything.

You are not unbiased. I know, everyone thinks they are the one unbiased person around here and that everyone else's view is skewed by their political leanings, but it's just not so. You have your own set of biases that you bring to the table. Pretending you do not merits mocking.

yea i realize that but please tell me how saying a post is immature and biased when they call the party they are not affiliated with "********** crazy" is out of hand

im not saying im always objective but i can see bias in statements when the only evidence supporting that statement is one's beliefs and not facts. do i agree with the democratic platform, no not in its entirety, and i say the same with the republican platform. i will not say either train of thought is "********** crazy" as its just not so

so you honestly believe calling republicans "********** crazy" is not biased and immature?

[solvs]

Good God, im not saying they are only to blame. just saying everything that Nancy Pelosi stood for while campaigning has pretty much went by the wayside

Congress is now controlled by the Democrats and yet, nothing has changed.
Not exactly true (http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=279873). Not everything they promised, but they don't exactly have "control" of everything. They barely have a majority. And between those out for whatever reason (campaigning, illness), conservative Dems, and those like Lieberman, they actually don't have a majority at all. Not to mention Bush still being the President, being able to veto what isn't approved by an over 2/3 majority. And veto he suddenly has. The GOP had 6 years, and what did they do? That was good I mean.

people are just as displeased with this congress as they are with Bush and for good reason
Congress as a whole. Don't leave that part out the way so many do. Breaking it down by party, Dems tend to fair better in the polls on most issues. The GOP is preparing to lose seats in both houses, and they know it.

Bush isn't a terrible president. The media has just treated him like another Dan Quayle in the hopes of getting a liberal into office. The huge success of the surge, despite the media's death predictions at every turn, only show their bias. And yet how many articles about Iraq have you seen lately? Has the media apologized for its misconceptions?

Bush has stood up to the media through 8 years, despite the fact they can see no good in him no matter what he does. Fortunately, he hasn't crumbled like Quayle, even though that was the media's intention.

Bush's endorsement should be a good thing at this point, but the media will certainly try use it against him.
Wow. Really? I know people like you are out there, but even the conservatives I know won't go this far. That's just... wow.

First of all, yeah, he is a terrible President. Name one thing he's actually done right. One. Not a vague generality, an actual thing that his administration has done right. It's actually harder than you'd think. He's been a bad President. Most of us know that. Why you can't see it, I don't understand.

Second, the media? Really? You're blaming the media? The same media who didn't question the run up to the Iraq war? The same media who also hasn't questioned the surge, which is why they're not talking about it (and because it doesn't get the ratings anymore). The surge isn't working BTW. If it did, we would have been out of Iraq by now. It was supposed to end in 2007, the bloodiest year on record if you didn't know. Sure, violence is down in some areas, though mostly due to other things, most of them starting before the surge and having nothing to do with it, but it's been up in others, and still happening on a daily basis. To say nothing of the political goals, that even after moving the goal posts, still are barely satisfactory, let alone actually being met. Or the reasons why we went into Iraq in the first place. No WMDs, nothing to do with 9/11, and atrocities that were committed when they were considered our allies. Not to mention taking our eyes off the prize in the 'stans, where the people who really attacked us still are.

But no, it's all the media's fault. Bush is actually awesome. None of the bad things happening now are his fault, or even actually happening. It's all just the media telling us they are. And he's done so many good things for people, like...

so you honestly believe calling republicans "********** crazy" is not biased and immature?
The ones who spoke at the convention certainly haven't helped that perception.

[blackfox]

Yeah, OK...he's ready to lead the Nation.

Where exactly is he going to lead it, though?

Isn't that the important issue?