Monday, November 13, 2006

make support for Bush seem abnormal

* kleiman:
"Americans love underdogs ...... but they loathe losers. So political success and failure tend to feed on themselves. That's part of the reason Bush's job performance number is down to 31% in the latest Newsweek poll.

A key objective for the Democrats now is to make support for Bush seem abnormal. Most people don't like bucking the crowd."
* Gilliard:
"This is fucking pathetic. For the last time in his sad, failed life, W needs daddy to bail his ass out. And we know how that ends, with a wave, a goodbye and president Hagel sometime at the end of next year.

Cheney is going to be shoved aside. Cheney is a man who needs to be listened to, and he knows Poppy Bush will only listen for so long before blowing him off. W can protest as he likes, but he fucked up, daddy had to come onboard and present the exit path. What people forget is that when you have daddy save the day, W is soon gone from the picture.

How pathetic is it that a 60 year old man needs his daddy to save his ass. It would be funny if we hadn't killed all those Iraqis in the process, and crippled 20k, and killed 2800 Americans.

When I said Bush had been a failure his entire life, people would argue the point. A blood-dimmed tide later, I think the point has been made. A sad little coward, who hid in his bible and his bottle, has, for the final time in his public life, had to be rescued by his father.

You think Bush has seemed off-kilter in public, you wait. He has suffered the ultimate humiliation, despite winning the presidency twice, he is a sad little loser, king of the cheetos-stained cowards, who fear a Muslim from every corner. His manhood has been disposed
of like a used condom.

So, which one of his mommies will comfort him, after daddy has emasculated him one final time? Condi, Karen? My bet is Condi. Laura will be the whipping girl for this, and suffer his rage. When she realizes she could be rich for life, tabloid fodder will become frontpage news, and Laura Bush will leave her cowardly husband behind."

* I always wondered why the dems didnt counter the 'dems will raise AVERAGE taxes by $x' lie with something like 'we won't raise taxes on 99% of familes.' Howie Dean on FNS partly explained it today, saying that the top 16(?)% of income earners all think they are in the top 1%, and then next 18% (aka 32%) all think they are in the top 10%. Fair enough - but why not say 'we wont raise taxes unless you earn more than $1m p.a.' (or whatever the number is)?

* kwiatowski (via scott):
" is time to speak of Rumsfeld’s legacy.

Surprisingly, it isn’t the Iraq fiasco – this is the criminal legacy of neoconservative advisors in and out of the White House, pro-Likud factions in and out of government, the utterly spineless and incredibly stupid Congress in 2002, and the appalling non-investigatory investigative reporting of major U.S. news corporations.

While he certainly propagandized the 2003 invasion, and glossed over the facts on the ground, I think Rumsfeld was far more honest and forthright with the public and presumably his bosses than either deputy Secretary of Defense Paul "The war will cost $1.5 billion and be paid entirely from Iraqi oil revenues" Wolfowitz or his old friend Dick "Fire-Aim-Ready" Cheney.
Instead, Rumsfeld did his part to ensure that neoconservative conspirers of the Reagan era, so comfortable fighting fake wars, playing overthrow-the-dictator games in vulnerable countries around the world, and offering fake security advice, could re-establish a new Cold War. The Bush War on Terror, while unsophisticated, illogical, and end-times-ish, has become a bellyfeeling and bank-account-filling New Cold War."

No comments: