View Full Version : Bushs' ability revisited
OK, now that he has received such a wonderfull greeting in Pakistan that required sneaking in in the middle of the night, I wonder about his competance.
In 2000, while campaigning for president Bush could not identify Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf by name:
QUESTION: Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?
BUSH: Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?
QUESTION: No, it’s four questions of four leaders in four hot spots.
BUSH: The new Pakistani general, he’s just been elected–not elected, this guy just took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country, and I think that’s good news for the Subcontinent.
QUESTION: Can you name him?
BUSH: General. I can’t name the general. General.
Now
“I believe that a prosperous, democratic Pakistan will be a steadfast partner for America, a peaceful neighbor for India and a force for freedom and moderation in the Arab world,” the president added.
Later, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that Bush meant to say Pakistan would be a force for freedom and moderation in the Muslim world. Pakistan is not an Arab country.
Digby..
I can understand why people may have intially thought that the guy just had to be smarter than he appeared in public because well.. nobody that dumb could possibly be president.
I blame the press as much as I blame the Republicans for this nonsense. If they hadn't gotten a schoolkid crush on Bush after 9/11 and had maintained even a modicum of professionalism, we might not have had to endure this horrible failure for a second term. They built him up so high, and kept him there so long, that it was impossible for the public to fully comprehend what a miserable failure he was until it was too late. Now we are stuck with this bozo for another three years because these alleged journalists took five years to realize what was evident to anyone with eyes to see: George W. Bush was unqualified by brains, temperament or experience to be president, and the party he represents treated their country with tremendous disrespect by anointing such a man for such an important job. They have failed as much as he has and they have a lot to answer for.
Interesting comment Hcap.
The press's right wing bias is beginning to show more and more as time goes by.
ecaroff
03-04-2006, 09:26 AM
The last I remember: The Republicans control the White House, the Republicans control the Senate, The Republicans control the House.
www.intrade.com (http://www.intrade.com) shows that the odds are such that nothing is going to change in 2006 or 2008. intrade.com not only predicted the Presidency correct last time but it predicted EVERY state election correctly - that's every state, including Ohio, Florida, etc. Looks like the libs will be crying for years to come. What must it be like to go to bed as a liberal and wake up to face the next day of doom and gloom as a liberal.
Democratic Party Candidate to Win 2008 Presidential Election 47.3%
Republican Party Candidate to Win 2008 Presidential Election 50.3%
The Field (Any Other candidate) to Win 2008 Presidential Election 2.12%
Republican Party 2006 Mid Term Election Control
Republican Party to retain control of the US Senate in 2006 election 85.18%
Republican Party to retain control of the US House of Representatives in 2006 election 68.56%
ecaroff
03-04-2006, 09:45 AM
AND we'll probably get another Republican on the Supreme Court SOON!
YES! :D :lol:
Poor, Poor Liberal ......:(
ecaroff
03-04-2006, 10:04 AM
Details of the Democrats Contract with America:
That's it.
GaryG
03-04-2006, 10:21 AM
The press's right wing bias is beginning to show more and more as time goes by.Now that is a good one. You are one funny guy! :lol: :lol:
OK, now that he has received such a wonderfull greeting in Pakistan that required sneaking in in the middle of the night, I wonder about his competance.
As opposed to Clinton sneaking interns OUT of the oval office in the middle of the night.
As to him being to dumb to be president, he has keopt YOU guessing for what, 6 years now! :lol: :lol:
As bad as I think he is on some issues, he is a GIANT compared to the entire flock of democrat clowns you guys keep strutting out of that little car! :lol:
Give him credit - he is going to the front lines. When is the last time Big Head Ted, Hillary, Screamin' Dean went anywhere to do anything?
Heeeeeeyaaaaaaa!
Secretariat
03-04-2006, 01:31 PM
Yes, wasn't the last time GW was in the front lines was the aircraft carrier, and his Mission Accomplished proclamation how many years ago...or was it the turkey fly in with the fake bird on Thanksgiving....Tom, don't get bilked by the propaganda. The man's an embarassment.
46zilzal
03-04-2006, 01:39 PM
I thought that stating Bush and ability in the same sentence is one of the best oymorons of all time
The cargo cult** mentality of bush supporters is unbelievable. Bush is obviously in over his head. Funny thing is the rest of the country is finally getting it.
Let's hope he doesn't do us all in by the time he leaves.
Cargo cult **
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A cargo cult is any of a group of religious movements that occurred in Melanesia, in the Southwestern Pacific. The Cargo Cults believed that manufactured western goods ('cargo') were created by ancestral spirits and intended for Melanesian people. White people, however, had unfairly gained control of these objects. Cargo cults thus focused on purifying their communities of what they perceived as 'white' influences by conducting rituals similar to the white behavior they had observed, presuming that this activity would make cargo come. A characteristic feature of Cargo Cults is the belief that spiritual agents will at some future time give much valuable cargo, and desirable manufactured products to the cult members.
Cargo cults have been recorded since the 19th century, but have been continuously growing since World War II. The cult participants don't fully understand the significance of manufacturing or commerce. They have limited purchasing authority. Their understanding of western society, religion, and economics may be rudimentary. These cults are a response to the resulting confusion and insecurity. They rationalize their situation by the reference to religious and magical symbols they associate with Christianity and modern western society. Across cultural differences and large geographic areas, there have been instances of the movements independently organizing.
The most famous examples of Cargo Cult behavior are the airstrips, airports, and radios made out of coconuts and straw. The cult members built them in the belief that the structures would attract transport planes full of cargo. Believers stage "drills" and "marches" with twigs for rifles and military-style insignia and "USA" painted on their bodies to make them look like soldiers.
Today, most historians and anthropologists argue that the term 'Cargo Cult' is a misnomer that describes a variety of phenomena. However, the idea has captured the imagination of many people in the First World, and the term continues to be used today. For this reason, and possibly many others, the cults have been labelled millennialist, in the sense of a utopian future brought about by a messiah.
ecaroffThe last I remember: The Republicans control the White House, the Republicans control the Senate, The Republicans control the House.Rasmussen the most conservative polling outfit has bush at his lowest. Rasmussen and Survey USA the liberal counterpart to Rasmussen both use automated phone systems. Normally I don't look at either. However, l think that it may be significant that Rasmussen says
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
"The President's support has fallen to 70% among Republicans. For most of his time in office, his support among the GOP has been in the high 80's.
Rasmussen Reports has released an Election 2006 Preview addressing the political implications of the President's declining poll numbers. The Preview notes that "the situation in Iraq has given the Democrats the opportunity to regain majority status in Congress; the Dubai ports issue has provided a rallying point; and, the President has lost the initiative on his signature issue."
And just think not all festuring scandals have come to light, and those that have are just growing and growing.
ecaroff
03-04-2006, 03:01 PM
POLLS ARE A WASTE and the Democratic polls are mostly fraudulent - it simply gives the liberal media a story to push.
With www.intrade.com (http://www.intrade.com/) you are betting your MONEY and Money talks. There are other sites in the European countries where you can bet your money. Every poll I looked at over there for the last election had President Bush winning.
The democrats need to learn that most people aren't stupid - you may think you're fooling them with these polls and President Bush's supposedly approval rating but I'm willing to bet it's over 50% despite what the polls say. In fact, I am going to start a poll here.
Rasmussen and fox are both showing awfull numbers for bush. They are by no means liberal, and both show anything near 50%. Bush is tanking.
You seem to be channeling the "bush cargo cult". Disregarding reality and making up a faux belief system is what cargo cults are all about.
lsbets
03-04-2006, 03:22 PM
Rasmussen and fox are both showing awfull numbers for bush. They are by no means liberal, and both show anything near 50%. Bush is tanking.
Has nothing to do with whether or not the House will change hands. Incumbants have a huge edge, and traditionally seats are normally lost when an incumbent retires. If memory serves correctly, 94 was one of those years. It was the last year that an incumbent could retire and keep his campaign money for personal use, so there was a flood of folks stepping down to keep the millions they had raised from special interests. The Republicans were able to take advantage of that, and in an open race beat the Democrats looking to take the seat. While Congress always polls very low, regardless of party in charge, people still vote for the incumbent. Why? The power of the incumbency. The "I hate the guys in charge, but my guy helped my Mom when she had trouble getting her social security, so I'll vote for him anyway." Incumbents have a huge edge because of constituent service. Additionally, districts are now drawn to make the seats safe for the guys already in there. So, despite Bush's poll numbers, there is virtually no chance of the Republicans losing control of the House (notice I did not say Senate, but that is very doubtful too). Guarantee - the House does not change hands in November.
Yes, wasn't the last time GW was in the front lines was the aircraft carrier, and his Mission Accomplished proclamation how many years ago...or was it the turkey fly in with the fake bird on Thanksgiving....Tom, don't get bilked by the propaganda. The man's an embarassment.
Why is he an embarressment for going to Pakistan?
I thought that stating Bush and ability in the same sentence is one of the best oymorons of all time
Second only to mentioning YOU and neutral in the same sentence. :bang:
Rasmussen and fox are both showing awfull numbers for bush. They are by no means liberal, and both show anything near 50%. Bush is tanking.
You seem to be channeling the "bush cargo cult". Disregarding reality and making up a faux belief system is what cargo cults are all about.
And this is significant because.....surely you are not niave enough to think polls this early mean anything at all? Oh, wait, you thought Kerry had a chance didn't you? :lol: :lol:
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.