Bush's best speech (no spam)

[fable]

This has to be one of the funniest, saddest, and best pieces of satire I've ever read on the Bush administration. Though I could it wish it longer--something about the Supreme Court stacking, "free trade" which involves tarriffs whenever Bush prefers them, tax credits to the wealthy, etc. But still, for what it says, with some logic and wonderful, light but scathing irony, it takes the cake.

Do you agree? What material do you think should be added to the speech, while remaining in the style of the original? Why do you think people who are so wealthy and presumably of at least average intelligence, nonetheless ignore reality in the way the entire extensive Bush administration has?

Over to you. Please remain on target with this.

[Luis Antonio]

I think its brilliant

However, I'd like to see the religious tone tuned down, cause otherwise he'd claim its God's will to do that .

Well, maybe I need to know more about things to actually contribute, but yes, Africa has been neglected, free market has been preached but never implemented, and maybe the US needed to use their troops in a different way, increasing social cause improvements and using the wealth to actually help other countries, not to control enemy nations.

[fable]

Well, I would add:

"It's no secret that following in the footsteps of my great predecessor Ronald Reagan, I have attempted to stack the US Supreme Court with justices who were ideologically committed to my personal religoius point of view about non-religious issues. However, after much thought and consideration, I have realized that the Court is supposed to be for American, not just those who hold to a particular religious or political stamp. So I make this promise to you: if, during the remainder of my term, any further justices leave the bench for whatever reason, I will find nominees who are politically uncommitted. And I will instruct those nominees to explain their viewpoints on every issue when questioned by the Congress, instead of telling them to ignore every controversial question. A government, after all, must be above partisanship and backroom maneuvering."

[Darzog]

In the vein of any stand-up comic that only wants to highlight things in a humorous light, I think this is pretty funny. In any form of serious intent (i.e. are the plans and actions mentioned in the speech valid in any way) I think it's a total flop.

Yes it is funny. Yes it highlights things that have not been done propoerly by the administration. No it does not offer any constructive advice. No it does not offer any actions that would make any difference.

A couple of questions that might highlight my thoughts:
1. Has Africa just started to be neglected and subject to poverty and hunger in the last 6 years? No it has been this way for a long time, through MANY administrations (I will conceed that this administration has done less than most though).
2. Has the health care system just started to suck? No, again this is a legacy from generations of making things worse by spending more money to get less done. My personal belief is that members of Congress should lose their lifetime 100% coverage health care and be subject to the public forms of health care available to everyone. That would make them fix the system in a hurry.
3. If Bush put forth a bill on energy savings that would cut oil use, increase alternative energy sources, and so on, would Congress pass it? No, because there are enough Representatives and Senators in the pockets of oil/automotive/developers to kill any plan (both Red and Blue).
4. Do Democrats appoint conservative Republicans to Staff or Judicial positions? No, they put their own extremists in place. We can only hope that more people in the middle are put in, in the future (which neither side do without a fight).

I don't mind poking fun at Bush; I think he's doing a terrible job. But making fun of him or pointing out what he's doing wrong doesn't actually make any headway into fixing the problem. Any solution needs to include a major overhaul of all three branches of government not just one.

[fable]

Darzog, you really should stop seeing Dubya in traditional Republican terms, and this piece as an attack on Republicans. It isn't, and he isn't. Dubya is a neo-con whose views are diametrically opposed to those of many conservative Republicans, in Congress and elsewhere. He's only had them on his side because 1) he controls the pursestrings of the White House, and 2) he was a vote getter. Now that's he not, their rebelling. And the "best speech" is aimed at Bush's White House, not Republican values.

Originally Posted by Darzog

1. Has Africa just started to be neglected and subject to poverty and hunger in the last 6 years? No it has been this way for a long time, through MANY administrations (I will conceed that this administration has done less than most though).

If you'll reread the op-edit piece, you'll see that the writer isn't chastising Bush for ignoring Africa, but for dumping billiions of dollars into controlling the MidEast while ignoring Africa. Very different thing. Bush has thrown more money at the MidEast in the last 4 years than all the previous presidents, combined.

2. Has the health care system just started to suck? No, again this is a legacy from generations of making things worse by spending more money to get less done.

No, most of the health safety net put into place by previous administrations has been all but eliminated by Bush. Don't trust me: go check the figures in the annual US budget that Bush has gotten through since 2001. Remember, a great deal of the money is sent onto state bureaus, as well. And if you want personal anecdotes, ask Chanak, who knows the state govenrment welfare system intimately, how badly the Bush cuts to social/health care have affected it. Nor was it a case earlier before of "spending more money to get less done." This kind of rhetoric certainly applied to the system when it was put into place under the Johnson administration, but it was refined to the point where there are no more doctors living the high life on golf courses with the aid of federal health support, and no more industries making fantastic sums of money. It was repeatedly praised by Reagan and Bush's daddy.

3. If Bush put forth a bill on energy savings that would cut oil use, increase alternative energy sources, and so on, would Congress pass it? No, because there are enough Representatives and Senators in the pockets of oil/automotive/developers to kill any plan (both Red and Blue).

Of course they would pass it. The Congressional Budget Office publishes each year not merely a list of all lobbying organizations in Washington, but also the amounts spent by them on Federal officials. The car industry is way, waaaaay back in line and has minor clout compared to the big players: remember Bush stating recently when GM had problems, that there would be no federal buyout support, as with Chrysler, back in the 1980s? (It's all about defense contracts, these days.) What's more, the car industry stands to *gain* from alternative fuels that can run in cars--new ones, that you and I would then have to buy.

4. Do Democrats appoint conservative Republicans to Staff or Judicial positions? No, they put their own extremists in place.

No, they don't. Remember Clinton, large guy, problems with his pants zipper? Though a liberal himself, he appointed a moderate-to-conservative to the bench, who already a had reputation for moderate-to-conservative views: Sandra Day O'Connor. She was passed on a bipartisan vote of both Democrats and Republicans, with hardly a dissent. Nor is this a Democrat/Republican issue, so don't make it one: do you know that Nixon not only appointed Renquist, but also Blackmun, one of the Supreme Court liberals (none of whom are any longer on the bench)? In other words, this is a matter of Bush, not Republicans, playing politics to please a portion of his electorate with far-right religious views.

[VonDondu]

Originally Posted by fable

Though a liberal himself, [Clinton] appointed a moderate-to-conservative to the bench, who already a had reputation for moderate-to-conservative views: Sandra Day O'Connor... Nixon not only appointed Renquist, but also Blackmun, one of the Supreme Court liberals...

A few clarifications. Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated by Reagan in 1981; she served for nearly 25 years. As an interesting bit of trivia, she graduated from Stanford in the same class as William Rehnquist; he was first in their class, and she was third. Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg to replace Byron White in 1993. Harry Blackmun retired in 1994; he was replaced by Stephen Breyer, Clinton's only other nominee.

The fact that many Supreme Court cases have been decided on a 5-4 decision (Sandra Day O'Connor was considered the swing vote) reinforces the idea that there is a conservative side and a liberal side. With Roberts and Alito now on the Court, I'm sure there will be many, many 6-3 decisions with only Stephens and the two Clinton appointees, Ginsberg and Breyer, on the "liberal" side. Stephens was appointed by Gerald Ford. They are the only ones who are decidedly pro-choice on the issue of abortion, for example. All of the remaining Justices were appointed by Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II. Kennedy and Souter (the moderate-conservatives) tend to side with the Court's conservatives, which now include Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. It's clearly a situation where we have Clinton/Ford appointees vs. Reagan/Bush I/Bush II appointees.

[TonyMontana1638]

Originally Posted by VonDondu

The fact that many Supreme Court cases have been decided on a 5-4 decision (Sandra Day O'Connor was considered the swing vote) reinforces the idea that there is a conservative side and a liberal side. With Roberts and Alito now on the Court, I'm sure there will be many, many 6-3 decisions with only Stephens, Ginsberg, and Breyer on the "liberal" side. Stephens was appointed by Gerald Ford. They are the only ones who are decidedly pro-choice on the issue of abortion, for example. All of the remaining Justices were appointed by Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II. Kennedy and Souter (the moderate-conservatives) tend to side with the Court's conservatives, which now include Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. It's clearly a situation where we have Clinton/Ford appointees vs. Reagan/Bush I/Bush II appointees

In regards to Kennedy and Souter though both were expected to be conservative judges when first nominated (appointed by Reagan and Bush senior respectively), and are for the most part (moderate-conservative like you said), but they often didn't side with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas on many issues thus negating the solid 6 justice conservative bloc that was expected. I only bring this up to show that nothing is ever entirely 'clear' with the supreme court. A 6 justice bloc is expected here too, but we could just as easily see echoes of the past.

[Darzog]

Just to respond to your edited comments, I do not see this as an attack on Republicans in general, and I don't see Bush as a run-of-the-mill Republican. I know that Bush is a neo-con and that this piece is critisizing Bush and his administration.

You seemed to miss my point, so here is the main thrust.... the piece SHOULD have been critisizing the US Government as a whole including Republicans and neo-cons (which are currently a subset of the Republican party).

The problems that are raised are not specific to Bush and his administration. I will agree that he has without doubt made the situations worse, but he did not create any single issue raised in the "speech".

to readdress each point:
1. OK, I think I just misinterpreted the point of this. If the point was that Bush spent money in the wrong place by burning it in the oil fires, I won't contest that.
2. My wife is a Social Worker, my father is a Special Ed teacher and my step-father ran a retirement home in the 80's and 90's. I am fully aware of the sad state that social services are in. I am also very aware that even when Clinton was being praised by everyone that all service areas were underfunded, understaffed and still couldn't help even half of the people that needed it. Has Bush made things better? Hell no! But he did not create the problem and social services was not a rosy world of perfection before he was elected.
3. The Auto industry (and the oil industry) continue to fight tooth and nail to keep any form of fuel efficiency standards out of legislation. There is some now, but anytime a bill is put forth with more it is attacked from many angles. If you offered up a bill right now with standards that would make a significant difference, it would not pass. In fact the California standards are already being attacked in court and may be overturned. I have to take off, but if the conversation is still going tomorrow I'll post some additional info on this.
4. VonDondu and TonyMontana1638 already responded better than I would have been able to. For this topic, I was going more by a judgement (no pun intended) than specific instances. Maybe the history doesn't reflect my impression, but in general all politicians put people in place that follow their general thinking.

In general, I agree that Bush is doing a terrible job and is swinging US policies far from moderate. But I don't think that he is the single reason for the current state of the government. I think the blame can be equally shared around the whole town.

[TonyMontana1638]

Originally Posted by Darzog

Just to respond to your edited comments, I do not see this as an attack on Republicans in general, and I don't see Bush as a run-of-the-mill Republican. I know that Bush is a neo-con and that this piece is critisizing Bush and his administration.

I've heard many opinions that Bush isn't considered a 'conservative' in many 'conservative' circles. Some dude just wrote a book on it, I believe: haven't read it myself, but that's just what I've heard. He seems to be raising the ire of as many people on his own side as he is the opposition.

[fable]

Originally Posted by VonDondu

A few clarifications. Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated by Reagan in 1981; she served for nearly 25 years.

Quite so; it was Reagan, not Bush, who had appointed her. It would appear, though, from your remarks, that you consider O'Connor more of a moderate than a conservative, given her swing vote (and the direction it swung), which doesn't make her sound like an ideological appointee. From what I recall of earlier administrations, there were "liberal" appointees by Eisenhower and "conservative" ones by FDR, as well as others who would seem to fit expectations. In other words, issues ideology (as opposed to general political perspective) wasn't the litmus test that it is, today--and that's the point I was trying to make.

Originally Posted by Darzog

The problems that are raised are not specific to Bush and his administration. I will agree that he has without doubt made the situations worse, but he did not create any single issue raised in the "speech".

He didn't invade Iraq? His hasn't been the first administration to be accused of wholesale political corruption in most of its top jobs? He wasn't the first president who tried to change the law to retroactively free himself of potential criminal liability in office?

Concerning the other points, I would suggest that Sweet's comments were meant to show not that Dubya has done a horde of new, bad things; after all, if he had intended that, he might have emphasized instead the blazingly largest budget deficit every achieved in US history, as well as the abandonment of many pieces of UN legislation that the US had already agreed to. Rather, he was focusing on what he saw as the most ethically degenerate aspects of Dubya's adminstration. The key, here, is in second sentence: "And I intend to stand up for both my new beliefs and my core beliefs, because now I know that anything less is a betrayal of my sacred duty as a president and as a man." (My bolds.) That accounts for Sweet's focus on retroactive attempts to justify an illegal action by Dubya's administration, replacements for many Cabinet members, an honorable way of getting out of a morally indefensible war, a way to support a continent where starvation and disease are rampant, etc.

So it wasn't a matter of being "first," with Bush, but being the worst, while at the same time repeatedly claiming the moral high ground. Sweet was showing what a truly moral Bush might say in such a speech.

Originally Posted by Darzog

4. VonDondu and TonyMontana1638 already responded better than I would have been able to.

Not to deny them, but no, their responses weren't much one way or the other, IMO. I simply wrote poorly, based on memory (which seemed accurate, at the time!) rather than research.

[VonDondu]

Originally Posted by TonyMontana1638

In regards to Kennedy and Souter though both were expected to be conservative judges when first nominated (appointed by Reagan and Bush senior respectively), and are for the most part (moderate-conservative like you said), but they often didn't side with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas on many issues thus negating the solid 6 justice conservative bloc that was expected...

As I recall, Kennedy and Souter were not expected to be the kind of fundamentalist-religious conservatives we have today. Kennedy was nominated after Bork's nomination went down in flames; Reagan realized he had to choose someone more moderate. But it is correct to say that many conservatives have been disappointed in Kennedy and Souter for not being conservative enough. The funny thing is, liberals have also been disappointed in Souter after he got their hopes up because he isn't liberal enough.

Kennedy sided with the majority in Bush v. Gore (so did O'Connor). It's kind of interesting that Souter, a Bush I appointee, did not decide in favor of Bush II in that case. I think it shows that Souter is a man of principle, but you are free to draw your own conclusions.

As a general rule, Republicans nominate conservative justices, and Democrats nominate liberal justices. They have no choice but to please their political base. There is also the need to at least superficially maintain the status quo to keep the country from tearing itself apart. For example, when the black liberal Justice Thurgood Marshall retired, Bush I selected Clarence Thomas to replace him. The black community couldn't call for Bush's head since he did appoint a replacement who is black, but the black community did turn on Clarence Thomas since he's so conservative. There was a lot of talk about whether a woman should be selected to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, but since there is another woman on the Court, it wasn't such a big deal, after all. Nobody really wanted someone like Harriet Miers on the Court, besides Bush that is.

Also, I don't really consider Clinton to be a liberal (that's a subject for another debate), but when two liberal Justices retired, he replaced them with Justices who would not disappoint liberals.

Originally Posted by TonyMontana1638

I only bring this up to show that nothing is ever entirely 'clear' with the supreme court. A 6 justice bloc is expected here too, but we could just as easily see echoes of the past.

I don't foresee any possibility that Roberts and Alito will not turn out to be far-right Justices. Not even if the mischievous rumors about Roberts being gay turn out to be true.

[VonDondu]

Originally Posted by fable

Quite so; it was Reagan...who had appointed her. It would appear, though, from your remarks, that you consider O'Connor more of a moderate than a conservative, given her swing vote (and the direction it swung), which doesn't make her sound like an ideological appointee...

I wasn't aware that I put any sort of label on O'Connor. I myself do not subscribe to any particular political ideology. But if I had to put a label on O'Connor, I would say she's a woman of principle rather than political ideology, just like myself.

[fable]

Originally Posted by VonDondu

I wasn't aware that I put any sort of label on O'Connor. I myself do not subscribe to any particular political ideology. But if I had to put a label on O'Connor, I would say she's a woman of principle rather than political ideology, just like myself.

And a moderate isn't a person who leads, as opposed to a person who is led by ideology? As you discuss her in terms of being a swing vote, between the conservatives and the liberals, the identification seemed appropriate.

But in any case, to return to subject, what are your views of Sweet's little speech?

[TonyMontana1638]

Quite funny but what impressed me the most was, as you put it, it's a "light but scathing" piece. It's much too easy to overdo some of the obvious Bush pratfalls, but this is quite original. Good stuff... A 'modest proposal' I'd say.

@ VD: I agree that Alito and Roberts may wind up to be far right, but that doesn't mean even the rest of the conservative judges will agree with them just by default. It's not written in stone is all I'm saying: they themselves may surprise us yet. Sorry Fable no morebranching discussion from me anymore; I promise.

[VonDondu]

Originally Posted by fable

...to return to subject, what are your views of Sweet's little speech?

What is there to say about wishful thinking? As parody, it's entertaining. But if I try to think about the substance of it, I'm overcome by negativity because I'm just so sick of George W. Bush. I vaguely recall reading similar parodies that were written during his first term in office. They were funnier to me back then because I didn't think he would be re-elected in 2004, but Sweet's parody is probably better than all the rest.