21 Comments Add your own

• 1. hokumboy  |  May 15th, 2008 at 9:21 am

  Last night my wife and I stood in awe and admiration while watching this commentary:

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24635229#24635229

• 2. Pat Cunningham  |  May 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am

  Hoke: I saw that commentary when it aired. You’re right. It was very good.

• 3. Millard Fillmore  |  May 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am

  Sweet Jesus. Just when you thought he couldn’t make it any worse. What an embarrassment.

• 4. Pat Cunningham  |  May 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

  Millard, I guess you’re not as moved by his selflessness as I was. You’re a cold-hearted man.

• 5. Henry  |  May 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

  I saw the commentary last night as well. How ignorant and shallow can Bush be? It’s astounding.

• 6. equalityrkfd=  |  May 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

  It must be really painful to give up “gulf”! You reallly have to admire someone who would sacrifice so much for his country.

• 7. Millard Fillmore  |  May 15th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

  When you pause to think about it, it’s hard to say which is more outrageous - the golf thing, or Cheney’s comments about Bush’s burden.

• 8. Mike Carroll  |  May 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

  I have never been able to understand the Bush hatred thing but then all of you probably don’t understand my hatred of Bubba. Oh wait, I think you Obama backers have started to get it. Sixteen plus years late of course.

• 9. Will Pfeifer  |  May 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

  Wait — he’s not really the president, is he? This is some sort of very elaborate Onion/Daily Show spoof, isn’t it? I mean, he can’t really be a two-term president, can he? Can he?

• 10. Mr. Baseball  |  May 15th, 2008 at 10:13 pm

  This is just so sad. Several friends of mine who are Republicans have expressed their disbelief in the “stupid” things that Bush says.
  I think Bush has hit a new low this time.

• 11. Mr. Baseball  |  May 15th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

  Also, this has nothing to do with “hatred.” I don’t hate Bush. Actually I think he’s probably a decent guy. I believe he’s simply in a job he never really wanted and is in way over his head.

• 12. Mike Carroll  |  May 16th, 2008 at 6:46 am

  Mr. Baseball-there is a high percentage of the looney left , and that includes the MSM,that has a visceral hatred of Bush and it has been evident since Bush v. Gore. It wouldn’t make much difference to this crowd what he said or how he said it. I’ll exempt you from this group.
  Admittedly, Bush does come up with some occasional howlers.

• 13. Pat Cunningham  |  May 16th, 2008 at 8:49 am

  Mike: I’m with Mr. B in this matter. I don’t hate Bush at all. I think he’s a world-class incompetent and the worst president of my lifetime. But he’d probably be fun to chat with about baseball or anything aside from politics. Bush’s dimwittedness was amply displayed in his ill-chosen remarks yesterday at the Israeli Kenneset. All he did was steal the thunder from McCain’s big Iraq speech and make himself Obama’s adversary-for-the-moment, which is not a matchup likely to enhance Republican fortunes. In the final analysis, Bush is (as someone once said of somebody else) an amiable dunce.

  Oh, one more thing. Your claim that the MSM has hated Bush since Bush v. Gore doesn’t jibe with history. The MSM was complicit in Bush’s jingoism in the run-up to the war and was downright rapturous in hailing Bush’s triumphalism on the now-infamous day of “Mission Accomplished.” No, Mike, the media have followed rather than led the American public in its growing antipathy toward Bush.

• 14. Mike Carroll  |  May 16th, 2008 at 9:31 am

  Patrick-don’t twist my words-I didn’t say the entire MSM-I said a high percentage of the MSM and I note you didn’t counter my comments re the looney left.
  Worst President in your lifetime? Sorry, not even close. That honor was claimed in a landslide by Carter. We’ll see how W is judged v Bubba by history.
  That said, don’t get the impression that I am a huge fan of W. I’m not. There are a number of things that he has done and failed to do with which I strongly disagree. My liberal friends, and yes I have more than a few, have tried to get me to say that I think my votes for him were a mistake. My rejoinder has been, and continues to be, he was a better choice in both elections.BTW-I agree with his remarks at the Kenneset and his approach v Obama’s is a legitimate debate for the election. Bring it on and let the people decide.

• 15. Pat Cunningham  |  May 16th, 2008 at 9:55 am

  Mike: Forgive my mischaracterization of your comment, but my disagreement would also apply to any claim that a high percentage of the MSM have hated Bush all along. As for the Kenneset thing, I’d love to hear your defense of Bush’s incredibly stupid analogy. The man suggests that talking with adversaries (which virtually all administrations do, including his) is tantamount to appeasement. That’s insane. His grasp of history or foreign policy is no better than his grasp of grammar and syntax. Intellectually, he’s a boy trying to play a grown-ups’ game. But, I’ll give him this: He’s done Obama a big, big favor.

• 16. Mike Carroll  |  May 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am

  Pat-I think W has done the country a favor by bringing the issue forward. Whether its a favor for Obama is a different issue. A foreign policy debate plays to McCains strength, not Obamas. If the election is based on foreign policy strength, Obama loses.
  All administrations do, in one way or the other, talk with adversaries. I’ll grant you that.What Obama has said, and he said it in one of the Presidential debates, is that he would seek direct talks with any of our adversaries without preconditions of any kind.No wise administartion (even with the clowns in State) does that. There is a substantial amount of behind the scenes negotiations which take place before any meetings are announced or scheduled between the heads of state.
  Anything short of that approach, especialy with a Hugo Chavez, an Ammanwhatever, or Hamas and you end up looking like Chamberlain following Munich. The appeasement comment was not that big a stretch. The usual suspects howled but they always do.
  Sitting down and playing nice with terrorists or dictators does them a favor. They understand strength. Nothing else.

• 17. Millard Fillmore  |  May 16th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

  Mike, this has been an interesting exchange. Nice try, but you’ve not been given much to work with. Whether one hates Bush or not, it’s a little hard to read the Politico interview and interpret his golf comments in ANY sort of favorable way. They reflect someone (and this is putting it kindly) who is so clearly out of touch …. with everything. As for the legacy issue - certainly history tends to change our perceptions about presidents, but ranked today, it is W who wins in a landslide…a $2 trillion war…4,000 soldiers dead…a surplus converted to a deficit…$4 a gallon gas…boy oh boy you gotta work hard to come up with that portfolio. Lastly, I do have to say I agree that the issue Bush raised this week is absolutely a fair one, but … in line with his being divorced from reality … timing and location are everything. Making it to the Knesset was not the best time and location.

• 18. Mike Carroll  |  May 17th, 2008 at 7:18 am

  Millard-One of the truths that I’ve learned in my many years on this planet ( Pat is older but not wiser) is that it takes some time to assess the historical importance of a President. Harry Truman had worse approval ratings that W yet history rightly regards him as a good President. JFK was canonized by the MSM (which continues to this day) but historians know better. He is regarded as, at best, average.

• 19. Millard Fillmore  |  May 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

  Mike - I wouldn’t disagree. Eisenhower is another example. People thought of him as not-very-bright…yet his warnings about a military industrial complex were very forward thinking. All I am saying is, at the moment, it sure doesn’t look good. But, you are right, time will tell.

• 20. Millard Fillmore  |  May 17th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

  I should add, quickly, that for W, it all depends on Iraq. If in 20 years it somehow become a success democracy in the Middle East, then history will take a different view. It’s just hard to see how that possibly happens.

• 21. Mike Carroll  |  May 17th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

  Millard-agreed. The historical view of the W presidency will depend on what the outcome of Iraq will be and the next president can have a substantial impact on that outcome.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed