PDA

View Full Version : Elections Did Bush bring bipartisanship, improve tone, restore honor to White House?


Direckshun
09-15-2008, 08:03 PM
I fear this thread will be a pointless trainwreck but I'm still compelled to ask.

Here's something I don't get. Perhaps some conservatives can explain it to me. It has to do with something Biden was saying (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gG5qpz) today:

Eight years ago, a man ran for President who claimed he was different, not a typical Republican. He called himself a reformer. He admitted that his Party, the Republican Party, had been wrong about things from time to time. He promised to work with Democrats and said hed been doing that for a long time.

That candidate was George W. Bush. Remember that? Remember the promise to reach across the aisle? To change the tone? To restore honor and dignity to the White House?

Eight years later, we have another Republican nominee whos telling us the exact same thing: This time it will be different, it really will. This time hes going to put country before party, to change the tone, reach across the aisle, change the Republican Party, change the way Washington works.

Weve seen this movie before, folks. But as everyone knows, the sequel is always worse than the original.

Bush came in with the same idea that McCain's running on now: that he is capable of changing the partisan atmosphere in Washington, that he can elevate the tone of our politics, that he can restore honor to the White House and improve the image of America across the globe. He's failed at all of the above.

Now, more conservatives on this board like Bush than they do McCain. I'm wondering how someone, noticing that McCain's staff is basically Bush's staff, and his goals are basically Bush's goals, running the same type of campaign that Bush runs, could take McCain's promises seriously in this regard?

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.

banyon
09-15-2008, 08:14 PM
Bush is a uniter, not a divider, don't you dare call into question his impeccable record on this.


Liberals are the ones who divided us on 9/11 [/patteeu]

J Diddy
09-15-2008, 08:17 PM
Bush is a uniter, not a divider, don't you dare call into question his impeccable record on this.


Liberals are the ones who divided us on 9/11 [/patteeu]

Hell they practically flew the planes [/Programmer]

patteeu
09-15-2008, 08:23 PM
Bush is a uniter, not a divider, don't you dare call into question his impeccable record on this.


Liberals are the ones who divided us on 9/11 [/patteeu]


Thank you. That's right. He bent over backward trying to bring Washington's Republicans and democrats together, but the opposition wasn't having any of that. Within weeks of 9/11, some of the less noble dems were already trying to lay the attacks at Bush's doorstep.

:)

banyon
09-15-2008, 08:23 PM
Thank you. That's right. :)

It's one of the more incredible positions I've seen you take here since I've been posting, so it does stand out quite a bit. :D

Cosmos
09-15-2008, 08:29 PM
Bush is a uniter, not a divider, don't you dare call into question his impeccable record on this. [/patteeu]

And a decider too.

When Cheney says it's ok...

SBK
09-15-2008, 11:13 PM
Bush tried too hard to unite and did lots of things (like spending) that dems should have liked.

He would have done better to treat the left as they treated him, as an enemy.

J Diddy
09-15-2008, 11:15 PM
Bush tried too hard to unite and did lots of things (like spending) that dems should have liked.

He would have done better to treat the left as they treated him, as an enemy.


yeah he was a friendly mother****er

banyon
09-15-2008, 11:17 PM
Bush tried too hard to unite and did lots of things (like spending) that dems should have liked.

He would have done better to treat the left as they treated him, as an enemy.

Dems don't like spending money on garbage any more than Republicans. They just bicker about what garbage is and the debt continues to climb.

J Diddy
09-15-2008, 11:20 PM
Dems don't like spending money on garbage any more than Republicans. They just bicker about what garbage is and the debt continues to climb.


This is the one thing I don't like about politics. At the end of the day we all want the same thing, the problem is they play us against each other on how we're gonna get there.

Logical
09-15-2008, 11:39 PM
I am so embarrassed I voted for Bush, not once but twice, I can only cry I was duped and I am not letting that happen again this year.

And, no Bush did nothing to bring bi-partisanship, unless he caused 9-11, which brought about a temporary cooperation between the parties.

Friendo
09-15-2008, 11:49 PM
honor--definitely honor restored

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Gannon_comes_out_Former_escort_conservative_0506.html

J Diddy
09-15-2008, 11:58 PM
honor--definitely honor restored

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Gannon_comes_out_Former_escort_conservative_0506.html


is that sarcasm?

Friendo
09-16-2008, 12:00 AM
is that sarcasm?

dripping:D

BucEyedPea
09-16-2008, 12:48 AM
I really don't. Bipartisanship is not a good thing for a free people. That's just a way for elites like politicians and the politically connected classes ( industry and intellectuals) to ram legislation down the people's throats with little argument or debate lording it all over us. I wouldn't wish it on America. Very bad!

Tone? Okay I can see that one. But both sides do that.
Honor to White House? No he didn't! The wrong men got his ear.

HonestChieffan
09-16-2008, 07:35 AM
The democrats have done a wonderful job in the last two years of uniting the country. The success they have shown is clearr in the approval ratings. Thank you so much for saving the country Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid.

penchief
09-16-2008, 08:17 AM
The democrats have done a wonderful job in the last two years of uniting the country. The success they have shown is clearr in the approval ratings. Thank you so much for saving the country Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid.

You forget that democrats aren't like republicans. They don't reward their elected leaders just because the have a letter after their name. Therefore, the low approval ratings are because of two reasons.

One, republicans in this country will never give a democratic led congress a good approval rating. They are too unobjective and too dogmatic.

Two, democrats are pissed at their leaders in congress because they have not done what they've been put there to do. Which is to stop the bleeding and reverse the damage that republican control has wrought on this nation.

So, whereas, republicans will pretty much give a republican led congress a good rating even when their corrupt and incompetent leadership is dragging this country to its ruin, democrats aren't going to do that.

Hence, the historically low ratings for congress are due to the fact that republicans and democrats are rating congress low for different reasons. Republicans because they are going to give congress a low rating anytime it is not a republican congress and democrats because they aren't getting the change that they voted for.

patteeu
09-16-2008, 08:37 AM
Bush tried too hard to unite and did lots of things (like spending) that dems should have liked.

He would have done better to treat the left as they treated him, as an enemy.

Yep

patteeu
09-16-2008, 08:40 AM
I am so embarrassed I voted for Bush, not once but twice, I can only cry I was duped and I am not letting that happen again this year.

How can you possibly be sure? If your past history is as bad as you think it is, your judgment is abysmal.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2008, 08:46 AM
The democrats have done a wonderful job in the last two years of uniting the country. The success they have shown is clearr in the approval ratings. Thank you so much for saving the country Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid.Yea, Bush doesn't have the final say with his VETO POWER, does he? Yep, blame the Dems for your party's crappy candidacy.