that bothers me. It is the tone of political discourse in "today's politics".

The 2 events were the passing of Ronald Reagan, and the ensuing discussion surrounding his life and times. And the Normandy invasion, particularly those who landed on Omaha, and the character of the men involved.

It was noted that Reagan and Bush were the last Presidents who's characters were really shaped by both the Great Depression and WWII. Those who landed on Omaha were born and raised during the Depression and indeed their actions decided WWII. Our last 2 Presidents, a large majority of members of both houses of Congress, and damn near everyone else in politics today, were not.

As Reagan's legacy was being discussed they spoke of the battles between he and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill. Without going into the nature, and the merits of these battles, what was noteworthy was that they were conducted without attacking each other personally. It is said that Tip and Ron had a great deal of respect for one another. They just had different ideas and that is what was debated.

Of course the courage and character of the men of Omaha goes without saying but I believe it is that character, forged out of adversity, that is lacking today.

BK

The four best "Republican" presidents in my lifetime are:
1. Nixon (he was the smartess the one who started to re-define the Republic party and creted a new US international policy, unfortunaltey he couldn't complete his job)
2. Reagan and Clinton. Reagan completed with success Nixon's vision of a new Republican party and the success in foreign policy which led to the fall of the Soviets). Clinton (great brain and as smart as Nixon).
3. Kennedy (I was only 2 when he died, but I read enough to consider him a president of my lifetime).  

The worse Rebuplican (without the quotation marks) presidents in my lifetime:
The worse of all time is the current President W. Bush, he's  totally insane. The next worse was his father the other Bush.

-- Modified on 6/7/2004 8:03:21 AM

Hubba Hubba!  I should also add that it's nice to see a detailed Biography that accurately reflects the complex and beguiling woman that Nicole truly is.

On a more prosaic note:  Reagan was a man of principle, even if I disagreed with most of his.  I can't say the same about the Shrub, however.

BTW, Shrub's daddy was a man of courage in battle, but NOT a man of principle.  Bush-1 was resolutely pro-choice for his entire career, until he realized that being pro-choice would handicap him in his to get the Republican nomination for the Presidency.

-- Modified on 6/6/2004 5:42:43 PM

I agree on your assessment of Nicole's new photos (they are hot and just reinforces why I hope she comes my way one day soon) but I sharply disagree with one of your other observations.  
    George Bush II is a human being, not a shrub.  While you are free to disagree completely with his policies and work against his re-election as president, calling him a shrub only serves to provoke other participants in this forum who do not see issue the same as you.  I think that this board would be much better served if we state why we do not agree with a politician and avoid calling that politician or posters who support that politician names.  Name calling has been done way too much with both Bush II and Kerry, such behavior serves to alienate, not convince.

I think the term "Shrub" was originated by long-term George W. watcher and columnist, Molly Ivins, from his days in Texas politics. I think that, as pejoratives go, it's pretty mild. Actually, much worse were used to describe Abe Lincoln and, in the modern age, Bill Clinton by their respective enemies.

That great iconoclast and labor activist, Studs Terkel, can't bring himself to call him President Bush, so instead calls him W.

And, as others have pointed out,  The Shrub actually gave himself this nickname, by accident, in the naming of one of his own failed companies.  So, I cannot imagine a more appropriate one for him.  And, surely, you must admit that this nickname is less derogatory than "Dumbya", which I believe to be even more descriptive.

-- Modified on 6/7/2004 11:39:41 AM

I wasn't aware someone might have coined "Shrub" as a Bush moniker.  When I read it, I immediately thought of it in horticulture terms.  A bush is a shrub of sorts.  I really didn't put any negative connotation to it.  But now that I think about it more...

ROTFLMFAO!!!

KCSHYGUY

The term Shrub was inadvertantly coined by Bush himself, as pointed out by Molly Ivins in her book.  Bush thinks he can speak Spanish and named one of his failed oil companies Arbusto Energy, believing (wrongly) that arbusto was Spanish for Bush.  Actually, the translation for arbusto is shrub, aka W.

Actually Molly Ivins coined the name for Bush in her book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375757147/qid=1086614995/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/102-7082116-2025729?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


Bush's oil company used the Spanish word for "bush" as it's name.

This is no joke!

It was named    Arbusto.

TMT

One additional point is that George W. loves to give nicknames to his "friends", and indeed many of these nicknames are meant to disparage. Some psychologists believe this represents a bullying personality, and this is certainly how many of our ex-Allies around the world view George W. - that is, as a bully. For example (see link below), George W. took to calling Paul O'Neill, the "Big O". Soon after that, O'Neill resigned as Secretary of the Treasury.

Since George W. inadvertantly coined this word for himself, Shrub seems like a perfectly respectable "nickname" for him.

-- Modified on 6/7/2004 9:59:01 AM

-- Modified on 6/7/2004 9:59:41 AM

and frankly, his performance as President has shown that he is unworthy of our respect.  I disagreed with most of Reagan's policies, but he earned my respect as a leader, and as a human being, and by his willingness to work WITH the opposition for the betterment of the nation.  Bush has not done so, and he has in fact made it a matter of policy not to do so.  He is either "Shrub" or "Dumbya" in my book at all times, until he proves himself worthy of the position which he was appointed to.

He is arrogant in the extreme, unquestioning of the consequences of his actions, and he has had no compunction against acting unilaterally without the electoral mandate of the public he serves.  And for that, he is "Shrub" or "Dumbya".  Mr President is a title that one earns, and Bush has not earned it.

Not only has he not earned the respect that should go with being President based on his performance on the job, he didn't earn the right to even become President in the first place.  Never forget the 2000 election fiasco in Florida, with the hanging chads, missing ballots, and the bureaucratic bullshit Shrub's brother, Florida's Secretary of State, and the courts shovelled out so Dumbya would win the White House.

If Roger Maris was forced to have an asterisk next to his name in the baseball record books after breaking Babe Ruth's home run record, Shrub/Dumbya should be forced to have an asterisk next to his when his name is listed among our country's presidents.

-- Modified on 6/8/2004 12:28:43 AM

Doesn't say a lot for the power of intellect on the left.

That may be the case but it is terribly ineffective at changing someone else's mind. When I see people calling him "shrub" and quoting a partisan like Molly Ivins, I know I'm talking to someone who has been drinking too much of "The Parties" kool-aid".

I have come to take a different view of Bush's presidency that when he first came to office but it has not been from having sent a minute talking with the Micheal Moore, "Bush was in on it crowd".

What you have here is essentially a circle jerk. The choir, in love with it's own voice.

I think lockstep partisanship is for fools.

Best,

BK

-- Modified on 6/7/2004 10:51:41 PM

And THOSE folks may very well be susceptible, on a subconscious level, to the repeated drumbeat that Bush is an idiot, so long as it is always accompanied by an explanation of WHY he is an idiot.  Consciously, they might actually not think so, but subconsciously, when they hear it OVER and OVER and OVER again, it will make inroads.

Plus, it REALLY pisses off Bush's supporters, which makes it worthwhile in and of itself.

I don't think that Bill Clinton was ever called anything by his enemies that rivals the pejoratives for Lincoln.  Aside from peurile name-calling (Dan Burton's reference to "scumbag," prescient, in retrospect), the only things I ever heard Clinton called was "Slick Willie," started years before his national prominence by Paul Greenburg of the Arkansas Democrat, and "the Great Prevaricator," an obvious play on reference to Reagan as "the Great Communicator."

As for Studs Terkel, who uses "W" because he can't bring himself to call him "President Bush," I don't mind.  I can't bring myself to call Studs Terkel "great," or even an "American."

Hint:  there never has been one.

If you didn't hear any worse nicknames applied to Bill Clinton than "Slick Willie" or "scumbag", then you should get out more. Jerry Fallwell was circulating a tape charging both Bill and Hillary as "murderers".

And as for Studs Terkel not being "great or even an American", I would not bother to reply except to say that your comments clearly identify who you are and what you represent.

-- Modified on 6/9/2004 9:41:16 AM

Read the Constitution, POTUS is elected by the electoral college. Why is it that the left is so ready to invoke Constitution Rights and their trashing of them by the Patriot Act, but can't read the part regarding the election of the President.

Talk about picking the parts you want, what HYPOCRITES!!

committed, those who can be swayed by childish namecalling?

I think that says a lot about the intellectual content of your message.

Oh and, your last sentence validates my use of the descriptor "childish".

BK

Bush is SO BAD for the future of this nation, that the end justifies the means.  Surely, Republicans can relate to that mindset.  You reap what you sow, and Bush has sown the seeds of this view.  

ELECTORAL Votes are NOT cast based on any intellectual decision, only POPULER votes are.  So, Obviously, to sway a vote that is THOUGHT driven, it must be a popular vote.

I will grant you that Bush HAS been more effective in getting votes from people who are UNABLE to think.  But that's the ONLY thing he's been more effective at.



-- Modified on 6/9/2004 7:55:13 PM

As for my comment on Studs Terkel, you Lefties would be (and usually are) screaming when Conservatives treat Slick Willie like that, but applaud Terkel for his comments.  Terkel is a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist, and honest about it.  The former is about as unAmerican as you can get.

but unlike sdstud and you, I've never replied to my own posts.

And BTW, I've never posted agreement as "Ding Chavez" with something I've posted as "james86."

Building phony support and ballot-box stuffing is a Democrat tactic, not a Republican one.

"the end justifies the means"

Was that Marx, or Lenin?

Hmmm! Let me see, james86 = Ding Chavez, so is Ding Chavez the Hispanic Doppelganger of james86? This opens up a whole new parallel universe for james86 to inhabit.

You really are hilarious! ROTFLOL

I'm not writing a novel and have a life outside of this board. I am not too worried if I don't run the spell checker. Perhaps if you posted better arguments, I would fell the need to impress you, as it is, you're not even close...