I think liberals believe that Bush is the issue. Bush is a person, not an issue, but try explaining that to the LLLeft.

Trust me, there are far greater evils out there than GWB.

I don't feel like going on a fishing expedition, but I'm sure some people agreed with what Bush said about rebuilding NO and addressing poverty. However, what Bush says and what actually happens can be very different things sometimes. We're still waiting on NO, and addressing poverty seems to have been forgotten about already.

Hmmm.

Personally I'm unhappy with Bush on a number of fronts. The issue of illegal immigration is #1 with a host of other issues coming up behind it. But I don't think Bush is evil or any such nonsense. I just disagree with his position on some issues.

Frankly anyone who thinks Bush is evil has a screw loose.

Sean

IMHO a booming economy with the lowest unemployment rate in a decade goes a long long way to "addressing poverty."

Amazing how "the poor" get column inches of attention during Republican admins.

I read this post, and I must admit it made me laugh. When one thinks of how the right excoriated Bill Clinton when he was president (need I remind everyone of right-wing accusations that the Clintons had Vince Foster "murdered"?), it seems like temper tantrum throwing sore winners who write crap like this. But try and explain that to the right. What right winger here today can honestly say they supported Bill Clinton's policies?

Sean, you have a great point. Bush says alot, but at the end of the day, he accomplishes very little. Talk is cheap.

Darleen, if you think there still aren't poor people in this country have the doctor up your meds, and then get out a little more.

I would be happy to answer the "kittens" question about Bush if the people asking it would substitute Cindy Sheehan's name for Bush and answer the same question.
The answer they would give is the same I would give to the Bush version of the question: "(S)he wouldn't do that. It's dumb question."
But do watch that temper next time they bait you, buddy!

Sweet Jesus, Jay. You cite THIS as your example of disagreeing with George Bush?:

"For just a few examples, I think he's wrong on the issues of abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage. But I also believe that he has derived his positions from sincere beliefs and ethical principles, and that is something I can respect."

Why not add that you also love him desperately, just the same? As one of the supposed "frothing moonbats" who can't stop hating George W. Bush, permit me to say that it IS the issues, man! If Mr. Bush (whatever my personal feelings about his intellectual candle wattage or other personal characteristics -- the inarticulateness, the smirk, the radio pack on his back... oh, sorry, frothing again...) were to suddenly espouse a policy I agreed with, I would certainly say so (and I wouldn't feel the need to qualify my support).

However, my problem with Mr. Bush is the very "principles" (your word) by which he seems to have come to all of his policy prescriptions: like hiring corporate cronies to oversee their former industries and then having the PR flaks massage the cronies' boosterism for their former industries into good governance talking points for the regurgitating devices on MSNBC, Fox and CNN to read. Or his habit of hiring campaign flaks (to run the Iraq CPA, FEMA, and now ICE) and shrugging off their clear incompetence and lack of qualifications. Without those things, Mr. Bush's proposals for New Orleans, his stewardship of the mining industry, his ideas for healthcare, social security etc. would be coming from a very different place, and I might even be able to support those ideas.

Then there's this habit Bush has ... or rather, that Cheney has for him ... of discovering new and expansive powers for the president that aren't in the Constitution. I dunno, somehow that bothers me, man...

On Iraq, we have the same problem. Mr. Bush began with a principle I cannot accept (and that other non-Moonbats like George Will and Pat Buchanan don't accept either): namely that it is a proper use of America's military to attack a country that didn't attack or threaten us, and which we have failed to prove could do so in the forseeable future. And then to do it BADLY, without enough troops to pacify the damned country and hand it back to its people in one, rather than a million little pieces? I should support that, why? Bush's roll of the dice with the mad neocons has doomed his presidency, shattered America's prestige, soiled its good name with the dregs of torture, prisoner abuse, secret jails and other Saddam-lite crap, and has brought his fundamental judgment into such question for me, that I really can't see how I support his foreign policy ideas going forward. And Bush seems to be making the same bad judgment calls on everything from Iran to North Korea to Latin America. Am I just supposed to support him because he's the president? (didn't work for Clinton) Because you say he's "principled?" ... or just because you say so?

In other words, I think your question is rather absurd. My disagreements with Mr. Bush ARE about issues -- they're about his POLICIES. His personal attributes are simply made more galling and annoying because he is a total incompetent as president. And by the way, why is it required that opponents of the president, who by definition oppose his methods of arriving at policy, "find something to agree with?" What's the point? To prove that we can? If you ask me, it's far more alarming to watch Bush bot types like yourself prostrate yourselves before the man and insist that he must be supported, even when his policies violate your own supposedly conservative principles (on immigration, for instance).

Trust me, Jay, if Dubya manages to do something -- anything -- right over the next three years, I'll be the first to stand up and cheer.

...oh wait! Marriage. ... I support Bush on marriage. Yes! I KNEW I could do it!

Actually, I was pretty happy with Clinton supporting welfare reform and free trade. I might have grumbled a bit about co-option of Republican policies, but I didn't particularly care. The result was more important than the man who got credit.

As for "the poor", part of our problem is in what we define as "the poor". Our "poor" would be pretty well-off in most of the world. Just comparing to 50 years ago, our "poor" fare better than many who considered themselves middle class. I've got people in my family on Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc. - and they've got cellphones, TVs, and computers. No, life isn't as smooth for them as it is for me, but no amount of government programs are going to change that.

I fail to see what the "new and expansive powers for the president that aren't in the Constitution. I dunno, somehow that bothers me, man..." means. What new and expansive powers?

The problems with the Left isn't just a problem with negatives. When they have a president in power he can do no wrong. What about the FBI files about opponents found in the White house? What about President Clinton's missusing the power of the office of the president? What about "just move on; get over it?" In the whole of the Clinton presidency there was no scandal or abuse of power so large that it couldn't be swallowed whole by Democrats at large.

I guess a more important question for whoever posted this is: what could possibly make you change your vote? Really, the answer is nothing. I think you'll find that most of the left bloggers are willing to completely criticize the left leadership when it does not hold to their own personal liberal values. This cannot be said about right wingers these days. Party before values. (ie remember when spending and government size was bad?)

Another good question would be for you to find some right-wing-blog support for Kerry. That would be tough, with all the lying that went on.

I think you'll find lots of Democratic opposition to Democrats. Seems like every 10th post at Kos makes some sort of stab at the Dem leadership. Don't find that too much on the right, even with video-doctor-kitten-killer Frist, or DeLay or many of the others involved in the culture of corruption. (Some even found ways to defend Libby and Rove) Even Abramoff's taint seems to get a pass.

As far as specific Bush policies - well, it's tough to find support there. Definitely the most divisive President ever. You'll find (almost) total support of the beginning of the Afghanistan. And then at the beginning of the AIDS funding. (Now, a give-away to religious groups) But all in all - I think you have a good point there.

Brad,

I don't know what democrats you're referring to, but almost every dem I know is/was embarrassed by Bill Clinton's behavior regarding the Monica Lewinsky mess. I think many liberals today view conservatives in exactly the manner you describe democrats - that George Bush does no wrong. Or if he does, no Republican is willing to admit it - at least in public.

Your comment above highlights this perfectly. "New and expansive" powers means wiretapping people without the search warrants that are readily available to this administration. Why wouldn't Bush simply go to the court that is more than willing to provide the warrants? It will be interesting to see how the very people who support Bush on this issue will react when a Dem president starts doing it - I think there will be lots of hooting and hollering.

However, I think deep in the hearts of many conservatives there's a nervous feeling that Bush isn't doing a very good job, and the current polls would seem to indicate this is true.

Gloria

Do you address things that have never been said?

Sure, poverty exists. But "the poor" as a monolythic, permanent group would appear to exist solely as a political axe to be weilded on the pages of the MSM during Republican admins. A closely related phenom to the "discovery" of "the homeless" during Republican admins.

The vast majority of today's poor will NOT be poor in five to ten years. Similar to all "class" distinctions in the US, it is fluid with individuals moving into and out of classes with regularity.

I wonder, is the phrase "From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" lost on you?

::::cough::::values::::cough::::

BTW, Gloria?

Please name a prominent Republican party official or elected official that signed on to the Vince Foster conspiracy.

America's military to attack a country that didn't attack or threaten us,

Ahh! The Bring-Back-Saddam briggade has arrived.

Ah, Bush Derangement Syndrome in all its crazed monkey, juvenile, frothing and spasmodic glory.

Never before has the exclamation point been so abused in sentences as by those under the BDS spell. Somewhere, EB White is rolling over in his grave...

Darleen:

You really are in need of help. To claim that there is no permanent class of poor in this country is akin to claiming the earth is flat. Site your claim that "the vast majority of today's poor will NOT be poor in five to ten years". Not some repubnant blog site, but a real statistic backing you up. I suggest you read "Nickle and Dimed" by Babara Ehrenbach. You obviously need a wake-up call.

And there are no homeless? How about 2 million homeless in this country, Darleen? And that was before Katrina.

I honestly feel sorry for you. The more you post on this site, the more obvious it becomes that you're completely ignorant.

puke:::Darleen:::puke

BTW Darleen:

Please name one prominent Republican party official or elected official who was critical of right-wing groups that promoted the Vince Foster crap? The silence was deafening.

And while we're on it, the same thing happened with the Swift Veterans for "Truth" nonsense. The silence was deafening.

You are such a complete phoney.

And while we're on it, the same thing happened with the Swift Veterans for "Truth" nonsense.

Minor problem: everything they said lined up with the known facts. And it was over 200 servicemembers, including guys who were POWs and Medal of Honor winners.

Reading comp isn't your forte, eh, Gloria?

"The Poor" IS A CLASS that individuals (majority) move into or out of. And as a class it IS relative to the other classes in the group.

Think of "grading on the curve" which at this point I believe you are more than familiar with.

On January 30, 2006, the poor will contain Sue & John Smith, newlywed undergrads, and Mary Jones, 18 y/o single mom, and the Sellers, family of four where breadwinner Dad Seller was laid-off. Do you think any or all of these individuals will be poor until their dying day?

Certainly, there WILL be a minority of people who will remain poor for most of their life... drug addicts, criminals, gangbangers ...

because of their values

Certainly, help those that will need it to move quickly through the downtime, support those who for circumstances beyond their control will never mainstream successfully (mentally ill, physically handicapped, mentally challenged). But don't equate those who can't mainstream with those who WON'T.

Gloria

You're the one that brought Vince Foster conspiracy up. Source it or shut up.

John AA,

Correct. No one, not even Kerry himself has ever proven libel by the Swiftboat Vets.

To this day Kerry has never fully released his military records as promised.

gloria, I seem to recall that nearly every single allegation by the Swift Boat veterans was sustained, and Kerry had to retract several elements of his claims -- including the whole Christmas in Cambodia story, which was just flat-out impossible. (A quick recap: Kerry "recalled" being in Cambodia on Christmas day, 1968, listening to President Nixon announce that there were no Americans in Cambodia. Nixon wasn't inaugurated until January 1969.

That being said, I've said a couple of nice things about Kerry on occasion. I still laud him for his work on the BCCI scandal, when he blew up a story that many of the power brokers at the time would have been happy to let it quietly fade away. But that's pretty much the only accomplishment of his 20+ years in the Senate.

J.

Jay is and was throwing or rather hurling his hat behind Bush in 2004, for his foreign policy initiatives in response to 9/11, since the differences on domestic issues including the economy were less marked .. I will give Jay the point, that it is difficult to find anything that Bush has done that the left bloggers and commenters have found positive, ( I looked hard )but the fault is not entirely of his critics'. It is not our job nor is it the job of public official like this one at NASA "to make the president look good" Besides Iraq, the green and open government issues are really hurting administration creditability with the public and making it difficult to give Bush the benefit of any doubt.

"Certainly, there WILL be a minority of people who will remain poor for most of their life... drug addicts, criminals, gangbangers ...because of their values"
Posted by Darleen

Dar-
You are definitely on drugs. Poor people are poor because of their values? Get help - fast!!! I truly hope that you find yourself in financial difficulty someday so that we can blame it on your "values". And I bet you call yourself a Christian too, right?

Jay Tea

Where was George Bush during all this time that John Kerry was supposedly fabricating his Vietnam record? Oh that's right - he was protecting Alabama from the Viet Cong - thank God, right? A quick recap: George Bush can't recall whether or not he fulfilled his duties in the NG. Remember?

What exactly are you referring to when you say that "nearly" every single allegation by the Swift Boat veterans was sustained? By who? Rush (I'm not really a drug addict) Limbaugh? And what accusations couldn't they prove? How about the most significant ones. You conservatives are pathetic - critical of a veteran's service and protecting a chickenhawk.

And you may want to remind Darleen that George Bush has yet to release all of his National Guard records. There is that nagging gap in duty he's never addressed to the American public.

Hmmm.

@ "gloria"

What right winger here today can honestly say they supported Bill Clinton's policies?

Refresh my memory please. What *were* Clinton's policies? Since this is your assertion, would you mind listing them out in detail?

Frankly I don't remember Clinton actually having any policies. There was Welfare Reform, but he reneged on it until a Republican congress forced him to address it. Then there's the Oslo Accords, which were and are a complete and utter failure.

Other than those two, nothing of any note really comes to mind. So here's your chance to step up and refresh my memory.

Hmmmm.

@ gloria

Poor people are poor because of their values?

If this isn't true, then please explain in detail how immigrants with no money and little education can become wealthy in America. Explain how the Vietnamese Boat People were able to forge a new life in a country where they had little more than the clothes on their backs and no command of the dominant language.

Hmmmm.

@ gloria

1.

What exactly are you referring to when you say that "nearly" every single allegation by the Swift Boat veterans was sustained? By who?

By John Kerry.

Who was never able to refute any of the allegations made and who in fact had to retreat a multitude of times on assertions he had made over the years in both official and non-official documents.

2.

You conservatives are pathetic - critical of a veteran's service and protecting a chickenhawk.

*shrug* go ahead and insult Bush's military service. I frankly don't give a rat's ass. But since you're feeling your oats and such, why don't you explain for me why Kerry didn't get his Honorable Discharge until 1978. Especially since he joined the USNR in 1966 with a 6 year enlistment.

Strut your stuff; be detailed.

3.

There is that nagging gap in duty he's never addressed to the American public.

Now you're starting to bore me. It's fairly obvious you don't really have a grasp of the issues you're raising.

Learn or continue being ignorant. Your choice.

Hmmm.

Looks like yet another invasion of the lefties.

Yay. Yet another opportunity to rehash the same damn things all over again. Yet again.

Ed,

Thanks for proving me right. The idiotic comment that Clinton only had 2 policies goes to show that you're not really willing to debate the presidency of George Bush.

Tell me, are the people of New Orleans who lost everything in Katrina poor because of their "values"? And are you (and pathetic Darleen) telling me that rich people have better "values" than poor people. I guess Ken Lay must have very high "values" in your opinion.

Hmmm.

Your comment above highlights this perfectly. "New and expansive" powers means wiretapping people without the search warrants that are readily available to this administration. Why wouldn't Bush simply go to the court that is more than willing to provide the warrants? It will be interesting to see how the very people who support Bush on this issue will react when a Dem president starts doing it - I think there will be lots of hooting and hollering.

sigh. Who do you think *started* this nonsense in the first place? Who do you think started *rendition* flights? Who do you think reserved the right to wiretap without FISA approval based on national security issues?

Bill Clinton.

Debating lefties means covering the same ground in an endlessly stupefying mobius strip of utter horror. And that's on a good day.

Thanks Jay for giving Kerry a compiment; that reminded me that Kerry was not always portrayed as soft on America's enemies, and led me to find find this article critical of the BCCI power brokers you spoke of . In the spirit of fair play and your admission; I will suggest that Condi Rice has been surprisingly a much tougher as Secretary of State than anyone expected, certainly more than Colin Powell, and that Bush shows an attractive sense of humulity in humor at times, that can not be entirely explained by the fact that he has much to be humble about.

Hmmm.

@ gloria

Thanks for proving me right. The idiotic comment that Clinton only had 2 policies goes to show that you're not really willing to debate the presidency of George Bush.

sigh. Your lack of comprehension is arrow in the heart. Please understand that reading is not comprehension.

I wrote that I could only remember two policies, not that those two policies that I remembered were the only policies, but that those two policies were the only policies that I could remember.

I.e., to diagram this in a simple way:

two policies = what I remember.

what I remember != all of Clinton's policies.

Which is why I asked *you* to list out in detail those Clinton policies that I had not remembered.

*shrug* since you rather ineptly avoided actually answering my question, that rather implies that you can't remember anything either.

I supported NCLB, not the lack of funding for it, but I support it.

Ed:

Anyone who does it (Democrat or Republican) is wrong. I think you should just answer the question: if the court exists to give the president the search warrants, why would Bush (or Clinton) go around it? It's surruptitious and underhanded - no matter who's doing it.

Hmmmm.

@ gloria

sigh.

1.

Tell me, are the people of New Orleans who lost everything in Katrina poor because of their "values"?

I would normally hope that someone would understand the logic implicit within their own writing, I see that hope is misplaced here.

The people made poor by Katrina are poor because of Katrina. Not by values. People who are poor and remain that way are poor because they exert themselves in fundamentally inefficient ways.

2.

And are you (and pathetic Darleen) telling me that rich people have better "values" than poor people.

Rich people have "better values" only in the inference that such values are more efficient in wealth generation. I.e. many wealthy peop