Balkinization  

Monday, January 28, 2008

Bush's Legacy-- And Reagan's

JB

Over at the Washington Post, Lou and Carl Cannon try to offer a balanced assessment of George W. Bush's Presidency, comparing him to Ronald Reagan, whom they have studied in depth. They argue that at least domestically, Bush was "a worthy inheritor of the Reagan mantle," especially in the area of tax cuts and judicial appointments. They don't blame him for increased federal spending and earmarks; although this seems to be overly generous, since he did promote his Medicare program heavily. Moreover, he was the leader of his party at a time when that party controlled both Congress and the Presidency, and, moreover, he had the veto power. If Bush had really wanted to limit the growth of federal spending, he could have used at least some political capital to do so.

And then of course, there is the Administration's incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina, which aptly symbolized its lack of seriousness about domestic policy and, perhaps more to the point, its lack of seriousness about the competent implementation of domestic policy. Would Reagan have handled a crisis like Katrina better? It is hard to imagine that he could have done worse. Cannon and Cannon do not take this into account. (Nor do they take into account the Administration's deregulatory policies that helped produce the current subprime crisis, a crisis that may send the country into recession as Bush leaves office. Perhaps this is premature, as the recession is not yet here. But the Bush Administration's refusal to rein in financial institutions has already produced a problem at least as serious as the S&L crisis created by deregulatory policies in the Reagan Administration, a crisis which, you may recall, led to an enormous bailout during the Administration of George H.W. Bush.)

In the foreign policy area, however, Cannon and Cannon agree that Bush was decidedly inferior to and different from Reagan:

[Iraq] was Bush's war. We doubt it would have been Reagan's. Despite the widespread support for the 2003 invasion among Reaganites in Congress, our research has convinced us that Reagan -- prone to lower-key measures such as arming the Nicaraguan contras, burned from sending the Marines to Lebanon in 1983 and generally inclined to see the United States as a shining exemplar rather than a mailed conqueror -- would not have undertaken Bush's nation-building war.

When Reagan ran in 1980, many people worried that he would be a bellicose mad bomber, eager to go to war with the Soviets. As it turned out, he was much more inclined to outspend the Soviets and support proxy wars in Latin America than to engage in direct military confrontation, and he ended his term with what can only be described as radical agreements for reducing nuclear arms. By contrast, Bush has turned out to what people feared Reagan was: cocky, a high stakes gambler, altogether too sure of himself, and eager to use American forces to solve problems without sufficient planning and forethought. Indeed, had it not been for the recent national intelligence estimate, Bush (and his increasingly unhinged Vice President Dick Cheney) might have opened a third front in the Middle east wars by attacking Iran.

The Cannons say nothing about torture, or the mess at Guantanamo Bay, or the Administration's view that it could hold even American citizens in military prisons without any right to judicial review or the protections of the Bill of Rights, but surely these are among the sorry legacies of Bush's foreign policy.

The Cannons warn that it is entirely premature to judge Bush, since the reputation of some Presidents, like Harry Truman, improve based on later events. That may well be true of Bush, especially if there are a series of terror attacks after he leaves office, if the Iraq war ultimately succeeds (or, conversely, if a precipitous withdrawal leads to catastrophe). If the next several Presidents are even more incompetent than Bush now appears, or if we have a series of one term political failures, both Bush and Bill Clinton (already well regarded by many) will rise in the public's estimation.

Nevertheless, I think that the Cannons are correct to focus on the central fact that Bush has helped destroy both Republican hegemony and the Reagan coalition:

In 1980 and 1984, Reagan's coattails carried hundreds of Republicans into seats in state legislatures. In eight years of Reagan's rule, the percentage of Americans who identified themselves as Republicans grew from 33 percent to 42, while the proportion of self-identified Democrats fell below 50 percent for the first time since the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt. These trends let the Republicans capture both houses of Congress in 1994 and hold them until 2006. Much of Newt Gingrich's famed "Contract With America" was drawn from Reagan's ideas, recycled from his second-term State of the Union addresses.

That is all in peril now. "It took 30 years to build the Reagan coalition," Catholic University political scientist John Kenneth White wrote on the eve of the 2006 midterm elections. "It has taken George W. Bush just two years to destroy it."
. . . .
Bush's approval rating is now in Carter territory, less than 30 percent of Americans hold a positive view of the Republican Party, and Democratic presidential candidates have overtaken the Republicans in campaign money, votes and crowds. The Republicans' chances of taking Congress back from the Democrats are slim. So we can indeed reach a short-term political judgment of George W. Bush: He is a disaster -- if not the worst president of all time, then at least the worst since Carter, Hoover or any other recent failure. But who knows how the story will end?


As I have detailed in my previous posts here, here, and here, I believe that Bush is the last president in the current political order shaped by Reagan. Comparisons to Carter and Hoover are therefore entirely appropriate, because each of them also was the last president in a political order, created by Roosevelt and McKinley, respectively. The Presidents who followed them, Roosevelt and Reagan, reshaped American politics significantly. If I am right about this, then the next president is likely to do so as well. Successful presidents of this sort greatly diminish the reputations of the presidents who immediately precede them. That means that Bush may look even worse than he does today.

Under this analysis, moreover, Bush is nothing like Truman. Truman is far closer to his father, George H. W. Bush. Just as Truman consolidated Roosevelt's foreign policy, ending World War II and setting America on a grand strategy of containment of Soviet communism, so too George H.W. Bush successfully maneuvered the world through the final days of the Cold War, the dismantling of the Soviet Union, and the creation of a post-Cold War Europe with a united Germany. George H.W. Bush, I think, gets insufficient credit for his remarkable diplomatic acumen and foreign policy leadership during this crucial period, but, I think, someday he will be honored for it, just as Truman was later honored for his foreign policy achievements. George W. Bush is clearly not like Harry Truman in this respect; he did not help Reagan's foreign policy succeed. Rather, he started a new foreign policy adventure in Iraq and-- at least to this point-- has failed miserably at it. Despite the success of the surge in temporarily dampening down violence, we are no closer to a political solution, and if Bush has his way, we will be wasting enormous amounts of resources keeping the peace in Iraq indefinitely.

If George W. Bush is like Carter and Hoover, the judgment of history will likely improve only if Bush becomes a valued public servant or contributor to public discussion later on. In this respect both Carter and Hoover were quite successful as ex-Presidents who engaged in significant public service (even if everyone did not agree with what they did). As time passed, many historians came to understand that Carter and Hoover were not fully to blame for their undoubted failures as President and that both were essentially upright and honest men who took office at the wrong time given their beliefs and tendencies. It will be interesting to see if George W. Bush follows the same path. Bush has so far suggested no inclination toward public service after he leaves the White House: rather, he has said that he just wants to make lots of money. He plans to burnish his reputation through his Presidential library.

Suppose, however, that Bush is not the last Republican President in the current political order. Suppose, for example, that McCain wins the Presidency in 2008, or that the Democrats win but that the next President proves seriously incompetent, serves only one term and the Republicans win the White House again. Under these circumstances, Bush's long term reputation will be somewhat better. He will not have destroyed the Republican coalition; it will struggle onward for a decade more. Perhaps the Republican President elected in 2012 will create a new political order. In that case, Bush will not be regarded as a complete failure but as a middling to poor President, like Benjamin Harrison, the last Republican president before McKinley (and who also won a majority of the electoral college while losing the popular vote).

Of course we cannot know the future. We only know the past, and even our view of the past is changed by what comes later on. Perhaps, despite what now appear to be significant failures, George W. Bush will later be regarded as a successful president. But right now the odds are not looking good.

Comments:

The Cannons have a very myopic view of foreign policy. The Bush Doctrine is in fact a direct descendant of the Reagan Doctrine.

The Reagan Doctrine was a fundamental change from the defensive doctrine of containment and a rejection of Realpolitik. Rather, it was the offensive use of military, economic and moral power to destroy communism and impose regime change on the USSR.

The Bush Doctrine re-aims this offensive foreign policy against Islamic fascism and the dictatorships which support it.

It is true that Reagan did not deploy US troops directly against the USSR. However, this was impossible because each side possessed nuclear weapons. Instead, Reagan used surrogate troops to wage a series of very real wars against the USSR.

Mr. Bush did not have any viable surrogates to use in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor did the enemy have nuclear weapons which would make US intervention prohibitively expensive. Consequently, Mr. Bush used the US military rather than surrogates. However, the end result of using military power to impose regime change was the same.
 

Professor Balkin:

Nevertheless, I think that the Cannons are correct to focus on the central fact that Bush has helped destroy both Republican hegemony and the Reagan coalition:

In 1980 and 1984, Reagan's coattails carried hundreds of Republicans into seats in state legislatures. In eight years of Reagan's rule, the percentage of Americans who identified themselves as Republicans grew from 33 percent to 42, while the proportion of self-identified Democrats fell below 50 percent for the first time since the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt. These trends let the Republicans capture both houses of Congress in 1994 and hold them until 2006. Much of Newt Gingrich's famed "Contract With America" was drawn from Reagan's ideas, recycled from his second-term State of the Union addresses.

That is all in peril now. "It took 30 years to build the Reagan coalition," Catholic University political scientist John Kenneth White wrote on the eve of the 2006 midterm elections. "It has taken George W. Bush just two years to destroy it."


:::chuckle:::

The Reagan coalition thrived nicely with far fewer seats on the federal and state levels than we have now.

The Clintons (and not Reagan ) in two years caused the collapse of the Dem party in the 90s.

The GOP increased its margins in Congress in the first four years of Bush II.

However, Mr. Bush allowed Mr. Rumsfeld to mismanage the Iraq War and his popularity tanked by the 6th year mark. The Dems ran center-right candidates who sounded far more like Reagan than either Carter or Mondale. The result was a narrow Dem margin in Congress, but no governing liberal majority because the 60+ Blue Dog Dems govern like Reagan Dems.

The Reagan conservative coalition still runs the country even if a few of them have a small d after their names.

Meanwhile, you may want to temper your doomsday claims. As the US turned the corner and is approaching victory in Iraq, the generic congressional polling has returned to where it was leading up to the 2004 elections.

So we can indeed reach a short-term political judgment of George W. Bush: He is a disaster -- if not the worst president of all time, then at least the worst since Carter, Hoover or any other recent failure.

Please. You should heed the caution of the Cannons on this subject.

Under Mr. Bush, tax rates are down, the economy has been booming, revenues are way up, the budget deficit is declining, the courts are being filled with conservatives, and we have won two wars decimating the first enemy to attack our homeland since the British.

There are no depressions and our enemies are not gaining power as during the Hoover and Carter Administrations.

Bush surely had his problems to offset these successes and probably deserves a midrange ranking among Presidents. He is nowhere near Carter and Hoover.
 

That is one hell of a fantasy world you're living in, Baghdad.

There was no WMD. There was no Al Qaeda connection. Iraq is a disaster. The economy is now tanking.

Dumbya will go down as the worst president in US history.
 

However, the end result of using military power to impose regime change was the same.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 11:13 AM


Too funny... Military power had nothing to do with the regime change in Russia, and it has been a dismal failure in Iraq.
 

The Bush Doctrine is in fact a direct descendant of the Reagan Doctrine.

There is no such thing as a Bush "Doctrine". This was a piece of spin that the conservative movement came up with to make it sound like Bush was a great foreign policy thinker like Monroe. And it was applied to three or four completely different policies (you are either with us or against us on the war on terrorism, preemptive war, regime change rather than containment, etc.).

Basically every time Bush did something, it was announced as a "doctrine". Sorry, doctrines are things that get repeatedly followed over time. And they are developed by learned and intellectually curious people who have an understanding of history and political theory.

Bush doesn't do "doctrines". And we shouldn't accept movement conservative-drafted spin that he does.
 

Bart writes:
:::chuckle:::


You can tell when someone posts something Bart secretly is afraid is all too true - he gets a nervous laugh.
 

Geee Whizzz!! We sure whipped Afghanistan and
Iraq. Wonder how we would do against Bahrain.
FWWW
 

Perhaps the most telling evidence of the continuing vitality of Reagan conservatism is the complete lack of alternative ideas being offered by the Dems here.

Saying "Obama is going to be a transformative President because Bush is the 'worst President in history'" is not a presentation of a fundamentally different governing vision.

Reagan ran on replacing the old EU style punitively progressive tax system with a substantially lower and flatter system. No Dem is talking about returning to those bad old days nor offering an alternative system like the FAIR tax. The most they can muster is allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse.

Reagan ran on reducing regulations and making them more market friendly as an alternative to the democratic socialism in vogue back then. No Dem is even hinting at democratic socialism anymore. Indeed, the Euros who invented this hybrid are moving towards free markets. Hell, the hard left Greens are all about market based carbon credits these days. These are all Reagan era free market ideas.

Reagan ran against entitlements. The Dems have abandoned campaigning on universal government run health care. Rather, they are offering private insurance schemes or hiding behind children to expand the SChip program as if they were human shields.

Reagan ran on a muscular foreign policy meant to defeat rather than accommodate our enemies. While the Dem left has broken from this and returned to its Vietnam roots, they do not possess a political majority for their isolationism. The Dem left has lost every national security battle in Congress because the conservative Blue Dogs are voting with the GOP here. More tellingly, national Dem candidates have to mouth the talk about bringing the war to the enemy in an attempt to gain the first majority of the presidential vote in a generation. Even the very liberal Obama was talking about waging war in Pakistan. No national Dem candidate is echoing the words of Carter scolding the nation about an inordinate fear of its enemies.

All of this talk about an imminent transformative presidency simply has no basis in fact. Both the Dems and the GOP continue to play variations on the Reagan theme.

Indeed, one can reasonably argue that Reagan was simply a return to the classical liberal Anglo-American theme of governance. I am finishing an absolutely outstanding book by Walter Russell Mead entitled "God and Gold," which attempts (successfully I think) to explain the dominance of the Anglo-American system in the world. I cannot recommend this book enough.

Try to put aside the partisanism for a moment and take a look at the long view. The Dems appear poised to add about 4 seats in the Senate, keep control in the House and have a very good shot at the Presidency. This Elephant is not really worried because the Dems have no mandate or real plans for a fundamental change in this country's conservative governance. If they try universal health care or raising taxes again, 2010 will simply be a repeat of 1994. If they try ignoring Islamic fascism like they did communism and the enemy attacks again, 2012 could be like 1980.

Enjoy the spectacle of a particularly competitive election. However, if you are expecting real substantive policy change, you are deluding yourselves.
 

Prof. Balkin:

The Cannons say nothing about torture, or the mess at Guantanamo Bay, or the Administration's view that it could hold even American citizens in military prisons without any right to judicial review or the protections of the Bill of Rights, but surely these are among the sorry legacies of Bush's foreign policy.

Well, we did have the Nicaraguan contretemps, what with arming the Contras, mining the harbours, and support for paramilitary organisations (a/k/a "death squads") all across Latin America. If you think that assassination, "pacification", torture, rapes, and such not, were not part of those efforts, you weren't paying attention.

Iraq (and Iran), sadly enough, are not out-of-step with the main thrust of U.S. foreign policy in pretty close to an unbroken string for the last century (and some would say longer, including the Spanish-American War). See Stephen Kinzer's book "Overthrow" for the sanguinary details....

Cheers,
 

Prof. Balkin:

Despite the success of the surge in temporarily dampening down violence, we are no closer to a political solution, and if Bush has his way, we will be wasting enormous amounts of resources keeping the peace in Iraq indefinitely.

Mind if I object to such language, particularly so soon after Prof. Lederman's Orwell post?

Here's "keeping the peace", Dubya-style.

Cheers,
 

The Reagan Doctrine was a fundamental change from the defensive doctrine of containment and a rejection of Realpolitik. Rather, it was the offensive use of military, economic and moral power to destroy communism and impose regime change on the USSR.

Yeah, I saw that movie too; late night on TBS with lots of commercials for weight reduction and "manly vigour", when all the other movies looked even more brain-dead and I was insomniac. B-grade Hollywood. "The Peacekeeper" was more realistic, IMNSHO"...

For the actual facts, the interested reader might look at the longer, denser, and more pedestrian "Arsenals of Folly" by Pulitzer prize winning author Richard Rhodes, and other such materials.

Cheers,
 

It is true that Reagan did not deploy US troops directly against the USSR. However, this was impossible because each side possessed nuclear weapons. Instead, Reagan used surrogate troops to wage a series of very real wars against the USSR.

Mr. Bush did not have any viable surrogates to use in Afghanistan ....


Oh, piffle. He had Reagan's buddies there, the "freedom fighters", the mujahadeen, the Taliban (complete with Stinger missiles, courtesy of the good ol' Yoo Ess of Aye)....

Cheers,
 

Under Mr. Bush, tax rates are down, ...

True.

... the economy has been booming, ...

ROFLMAO....

... revenues are way up, ...

BS.

... the budget deficit is declining,...

Down from the stratospheric highs of that irresponsible ... ummm ... wait for it ... Dubya maladministration. COmpared to Clinton's surpluses of course, it looks pretty awful....

... the courts are being filled with conservatives,...

Which warms the hearts of RWA like "Bart" here ... but not so much anyone else any more.

... and we have won two wars decimating the first enemy to attack our homeland since the British.

"[W]on two wars"?!?!? On the planet Uranus, maybe.

Cheers,
 

My, how the bar has been lowered:

"There are no depressions..."

Now an astute observer might ask why they had to lower the bar that far. ;-)

Cheers,
 

... to explain the dominance of the Anglo-American system in the world.

Yes, the sun never sets of the British Empire.

Oh. Waiddaminnit....

Cheers,
 

Baghdad, the Ronnie Raygun "doctrine" was smaller government. That doctrine is dead. Newt killed it when he shut down the government, and most Americans realized that they really liked a big government.
 

bb:

Baghdad, the Ronnie Raygun "doctrine" was smaller government. That doctrine is dead. Newt killed it when he shut down the government, and most Americans realized that they really liked a big government.

The size of the federal government as a percentage of GDP has shrunk from a high of 22.9% during the apex of the Reagan military buildup down to 18.1% in 2001 after Newt's slowdown of government growth below the growth of the economy. The costs of the war have bumped the size of government back up to around 20% of GDP.

The growth of government as a percentage of the economy was stopped in its tracks and has not returned under either party's administrations.
 

The growth of government as a percentage of the economy was stopped in its tracks and has not returned under either party's administrations.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 4:28 PM


Numbnuts, you just posted stats showing that it HAS NOT stopped in it's tracks. It has gone from 18.1% to 20%. As we fix SS and healthcare it is almost certain to go higher still.
 

bb:

It is very likely that an expansion of boomers using current entitlement programs will expand the size of government. The point you are missing is that there is no big push to add any substantial new programs to the menu. Rather, the current entitlement benefits will most likely be trimmed as they were in 1998.
 

Sorry to interject amongst the usual commenters here, but I was wondering about this:

Nor do they take into account the Administration's deregulatory policies that helped produce the current subprime crisis, a crisis that may send the country into recession as Bush leaves office.

What specific deregulatory policies produced a greater likelihood of sophisticated banks underestimating the riskiness of mortgage-backed CDOs?
 

"Perhaps the most telling evidence of the continuing vitality of Reagan conservatism is the complete lack of alternative ideas being offered by the Dems here."

Dude, we've been over this before.

Read your list of Reagan proposals. Now read anything about Jimmah's campaign proposals in 1976. We'll still be here.

Looks about the same, doesn't it? You don't have to have new ideas to become a "great repudiator". All you need is an incumbent administration that fails miserably in the public's eye. The administration in question may even have tried hard to fulfill it's promises - Carter's did - but if a) the public is already dissatisfied and b) the promises can't be kept and c) the obvious reason is the hegemony of the old party's ideas and constituents, then the stage is set. That's why you hear a resounding chorus from all Democrats running for president: "I'll change things and, by the way, you've probably noticed I'm not a Republican!" Believe me, if history is any judge, that is all they'll need.

As to Dubya: what do you think order Numero Uno in the next administration will be, if the Dems win? Well, I'd say right after defunding the right (kiss faith based initiatives goodbye now) and propping up the unions (card check elections) will come extensive investigations by both the executive and legislative branches of the actions of the Bush administration. Too bad the prosecutions probably would be pointless, but, what the hay, the hearings would be terrific!
 

tracy lightcap said...

BD: "Perhaps the most telling evidence of the continuing vitality of Reagan conservatism is the complete lack of alternative ideas being offered by the Dems here."

As to Dubya: what do you think order Numero Uno in the next administration will be, if the Dems win?


That was my question to you.

Well, I'd say right after defunding the right (kiss faith based initiatives goodbye now) and propping up the unions (card check elections) will come extensive investigations by both the executive and legislative branches of the actions of the Bush administration. Too bad the prosecutions probably would be pointless, but, what the hay, the hearings would be terrific!

Professor Balkin, is THIS what you call a transformative presidency?

I rest my case.
 

Tracy Lightcap:

Well, I'd say right after [...] will come extensive investigations by both the executive and legislative branches of the actions of the Bush administration. Too bad the prosecutions probably would be pointless, but, what the hay, the hearings would be terrific!

... or at least entertaining. Which is what we so desperately need, given the ongoing Writer's Guild strike. We need something like this (and I'd love to see Chris Dodd play a starring role). ;-)

Cheers,
 

The point you are missing is that there is no big push to add any substantial new programs to the menu. Rather, the current entitlement benefits will most likely be trimmed as they were in 1998.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 5:22 PM


Numbnuts, fixing SS and healthcare are pretty big programs.
 

There is a quote in 'The Bush Tragedy' attributed to Bill Clinton, on W's early foreign policy perspective: "He doesn't know anything. He doesn't want to learn anything. But he is not dumb."
 

I skimmed that pot of sh*t, and it's even worse than you say:

"So George W. Bush has a point when he notes, in an admittedly self-serving way, that scholars are still arguing about the first president named George."

About the details, yes - but when has George Washington *not* placed in historians' top 5 presidents?

"Many historians blame Hoover's predecessors, not Hoover, for the high tariff rates and other excesses that led to the Depression."

Yes, 'many' historians, but how man outside of the AEI and Hoover Institute? Or perhaps they were including the 'historians' of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

"Second, we have no idea what the future holds. "

Somewho I don't think that that argument would suffice to persuade those two to give me all of their money, for example.

"The excesses of a current president often make previously neglected characteristics in another president seem desirable. "

That's a pretty desperate excuse - are they expecting a Dhimmicrat president to surrender to the Global Jihadist Caliphate?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

So let's draft and elect Gore.

He's willing to work on global warming, he's for gay marriage, he's against the severe incursions on our Constitution of the Dubya maladministration, and he showed the good sense in advance to call the Iraq war a stoopid idea.....

Any one of these would be "transformative" and a brave new initiative (compared to the current weasels running). All four (and probably more), and you've got yourself the real deal if you want "change" ... but of course, "Bart" doesn't want change; he even thought Brown II to be a horrible idea.

Cheers,
 

Folks keep telling pollsters that the country is off track and they are tired of the status quo. The supposed mantra of the 2008 elections is "change." Yet, if Florida is an indicator, voters are casting their ballots for more of the same.

In the Dem corner, we have another Clinton. The Dems have run a Clinton or a member of a Clinton Administration in three of the four previous elections.

In the GOP corner, we have McCain, who is essentially a George W. Bush clone. We have had a Bush running in three of the past four elections.

Change my ass.

Same ol, same ol...
 

Seems a good place to remind folks of this wonderful resource, "The Art of Controversy," a spiritual forbear of sorts for the well from which certain persistent vandals draw their rhetoric. Follow the link to learn more about:

The Extension
The Homonymy
Generalize your Opponent's Specific Statements
Conceal Your Game
False Propositions
Postulate What Has To Be Proved
Yield Admissions Through Questions
Make Your Opponent Angry
Questions in Detouring Order
Take Advantage of The Nay-Sayer
Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
Claim Victory Despite Defeat
Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
Arguments Ad Hominem
Defense Through Subtle Distinction
Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
Draw Conclusions Yourself
Meet him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
petitio principii
Make Him Exaggerate his Statement
State a False Syllogism
Find One Instance to The Contrary
Turn The Tables
Anger Indicates a Weak Point
Persuade the Audience, Not The Opponent
Diversion
Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason
This is Beyond Me
Put His Thesis Into Some Odious Category
It Applies in Theory, But Not in Practice
Don't Let Him Off The Hook
Will is More Effective Than Insight
Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast
A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
Become Personal, Insulting, Rude
 

@Stuart: That's a good question, I hope we get an answer to it...so the miscreants can be strung up for them.

Always good to see you, and to read your "interruptions".
 

Baghdad, you need to post a blog entry detailing how Rudy's campaign is going to benefit from his endorsement of McCain.
 

bartbuster said...

Baghdad, you need to post a blog entry detailing how Rudy's campaign is going to benefit from his endorsement of McCain.

Nah, my guy Rudy picked the wrong strategy and lost fair and square.

It is still amazing to me that so many folks support McCain. The man is hardly the epitome of charisma. He has crapped all over his base for years. Yet, the GOP leadership like Rudy are falling all over themselves in a rush to jump onto his bandwagon and Rasmussen has McCain not only leading the GOP race, but also breaking into leads over Clinton and Obama with the voters.
 

Nah, my guy Rudy picked the wrong strategy and lost fair and square.

Yes, running as the mayor of NYC when terrorists destroyed a city landmark probably wasn't the best strategy for becoming president. Of course, that was pretty obvious to everyone except you.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Nah, my guy Rudy picked the wrong strategy and lost fair and square.

Oh. The "wrong strategy". Which happened to be the Same'Ol'Song that "Bart" sings here every day. Didn't work. Sad, really.

Here's a pik'cher for "Bart"; better luck pickin' 'em next time.

Cheers,
 

Is there no answer to my question upthread? It doesn't seem quite right to blame Bush's "deregulatory" policies without something specific in mind.
 

I would rather spend one lifetime with you, than face all the ages of this world alone.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home