Friday, June 06, 2008

The Final Word On The Hillster (Garbage Bags Full O'Testicles & Poison?)

To paraphrase the Mastercard hype: Priceless. If this is (fair & balanced) sexual punditry, so be it.

[x The Daily Show]
Sexism
By Kristen Schaal (with Jon Stewart)



[Kristen Schaal recently won the award for Best Alternative Comic at HBO's 2006 United States Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen. She also is the winner of the 2nd annual Andy Kaufman Award hosted by the New York Comedy Festival as well as the winner of the 2006 Nightlife Award in New York for best female stand-up.]

Copyright © 2008 Comedy Central


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

What Will Be The Dubster's Legacy?

The cyberbabble about The Dubster carries a faint echo of "War Crimes" and "Impeachment." Impeach (and convict) now! Then extradite the sumbitch and all of his cronies to The Hague to stand in the dock for their crimes against humanity. This, and this alone, should be The Dubster's legacy. If this is a (fair & balanced) J'Accuse, so be it.

[x Salon]
What will Bush be remembered for?
By Table Talk

The president's legacy, as defined this week by members of Salon's reader community, Table Talk.

Jun. 06, 2008 | White House

George W. Bush: The Legacy

Seacat -- 08:51 am Pacific Time -- Jun 3, 2008

Has he done anything good for the U.S.?

Arctor - 10:01 am Pacific Time -- Jun 3, 2008 -- #1 of 42

Yes. He's made us all aware that "it can happen here."

Jo -- 10:12 am Pacific Time -- Jun 3, 2008 -- #2 of 42

His legacy? The next time you have a chance to vote for a president you would like to have a beer with ... DON'T.

Randall -- 10:21 am Pacific Time -- Jun 3, 2008 -- #3 of 42

He's got some brush cleared. He lowered the bar for the next president. He almost succeeded in uniting the Democratic Party. No one has ever been able to do that.

How can you call him a failure when he's achieved all that while taking a record number of vacation days?

Feircnom -- 10:24 am Pacific Time -- Jun 3, 2008 -- #4 of 42

His nicknames for other people are sometimes borderline creative.

Seacat - 10:58 am Pacific Time -- Jun 3, 2008 -- #14 of 42

He made it highly unlikely Jeb would get his chance.

Feircnom -- 12:14 pm Pacific Time -- Jun 3, 2008 -- #19 of 42

He put Crawford, Texas, on the map.

dsduryea -- 12:39 pm Pacific Time -- Jun 3, 2008 -- #20 of 42

And almost took New Orleans off it.

princessalex -- 07:19 am Pacific Time -- Jun 4, 2008 -- #25 of 42

He's shown us that it's okay to redefine words and phrases ("Mission Accomplished"?).

The United States of American now officially endorses the torture of prisoners.

-- Philadelphia Steve
[Read Philadelphia Steve's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:21 PM
Fascism

Few Americans know anything about Fascism, but the resort of the Bushites to the tactics of Joseph Goebbels should remind us that Fascism is a very present danger.

-- turnip
[Read turnip's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:27 PM
Hmmm

We've learned that not everybody should grow up to be the president.

-- piedras
[Read piedras's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:29 PM
Legacy or Rap Sheet

Turning America into a third world country or becoming the first US president to be tried for war crimes.

-- YogiBarrister
[Read YogiBarrister's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:29 PM
One word:

Incompetence.

-- Green Lantern
[Read Green Lantern's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:32 PM
What will Bush be remembered for?

I sincerely hope the first president to leave office to go directly to prison for life. or at least be indited for teason.

-- dannils
[Read dannils's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:34 PM
GWB = WMD

Perhaps of equal infamy will be the Congress that facilitated his criminality; the Democratic leadership that put impeachment "off the table"; and the mass media that acted as his mouthpiece.

-- Scorpio69er
[Read Scorpio69er's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:36 PM
Legacy

I think 50 years from now historians will look back on Bush as a bold president that wasn't afraid to take on big risks and challenges (secularizing the Middle East through nation building) but those risks will not end up paying out. The bulk of his legacy will be that of the neo-con movement that turned the idea of "conservative" on its head and replaced it with impetuous and foolish decision making. His legacy will be contrasted with that of his father who fully assesed the risks and costs of invading Baghdad before blindly taking over a nation. The "Bush-doctrine" which defined his post-9/11 presidency will be considered a logically flawed doctrine since it holds nations harboring terrorists as responsible as the terrorists themselves. Many people will ask, what about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? What's the point of a doctrine if it's only selectively applied? Otherwise it should have just been called the "Invade Afghanistan and Iraq doctrine" Keep in mind that terrorist cells were found near Buffallo, NY and are probably operating within the US today. Does that mean we should attack ourselves? If Bush is lucky historians will call James Buchanan a worse president because he's already easily surpassed Nixon in ineffectiveness. At least Nixon accomplished some progressive reforms and was sometimes successful with foreign relations.

-- jkipling
[Read jkipling's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:42 PM
Abstinence

We wouldn't have been in this mess if he had just kept on drinking.

-- Parisnight
[Read Parisnight's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:43 PM
he ruined lot of lives

But it's not his fault. It's the fault of those who voted for him.

-- backacrosstheriver
[Read backacrosstheriver's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:43 PM
The pollsters that ask "Who would you rather have a beer with?"

The guy that formulated that question should be sent to patrol outside the Green Zone. Because now we know what happens when presidents are chosen on the basis of such worthless criteria.

I find it to be a rather insidious question, aligned with the shallow qualities the Republicans would rather base the election on. To ask it is to imply (and to plant the seed in the voter's mind) that something is wrong with the more serious, policy-oriented candidate, by the way always the Democrat. It should never be asked again!

-- TruthandConsequences
[Read TruthandConsequences's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:47 PM

Impeachment

I still have hopes that he'll be remembered as the first president impeached and convicted. If he bombs Iran, I think that there is a good chance that the new Congress taking office about 20 days before his term end would get it done just for starting another war on his way out the door.

-- cross1242
[Read cross1242's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:47 PM
terrorist states

The "Bush-doctrine" which defined his post-9/11 presidency will be considered a logically flawed doctrine since it holds nations harboring terrorists as responsible as the terrorists themselves. Many people will ask, what about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?
Heck, what about the US?

-- bearpaw1
[Read bearpaw1's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:51 PM
Creating Stepford Government

Bush transformed agencies ranging from the Justice Department to the Patent Office by forcing experienced, competent professional people out and replacing them with Bimbo Barbies. These creatures are typically blond haired graduates from a Kristian school, in their late 20's to early 30's, and have items on their resume related to their social schedules as undergraduates. They speak and look like Minnie Mouse and probably have smaller brains.

One of these morons is the Ass't Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. Needless to say, she has no technical background whatsoever. Another of them, in the Justice Dept., tried to argue for the government in a patent case, before the Court of Appeals (not yet transformed). This idiot thought that she could make up science and present it as fact to the justices, some of whom have PhD's. They thoroughly bitch-slapped her.

-- Busy Body
[Read Busy Body's other letters]
Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:55 PM
Mission Accomplished!

need I say more?

-- sunkid

[Best of Table Talk is an ongoing feature of Salon's vibrant community forum.]

Copyright © 2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Crimes Against Humanity

The Dumbos will spare no effort to defame and defile The Hopester. More power to them. Let them flail away with rumors of anti-patriotism and religious affiliation. If only the Congress would summon up the guts to impeach and convict The Dubster, the Dumbos would have something important in their miserable lives. The Dubster has caused the needless deaths of more than 4,000 of our finest young people and the maiming of thousands and thousands more. Add in the Iraqi casualties since the U. S invasion and the resulting indictment is "War Crimes." Saddam Hussein, no angel, went to the gallows. Extradite The Dubster and his gang of War Criminals to The Hague and start braidin' a noose for The Dubster and all of his War Criminal collaborators. Put an end to our long national nightmare. The Dumbos can lie about The Hopester and Mrs. Hopester but they cannot evade the verdict of history. Be gone: every last one of the War Criminals, including The Geezer who supports the War Crimes! Let the Dumbos spend their time and efforts on the defense of the War Criminals in their midst. If this is a (fair & balanced) surfeit of disgust, so be it.

[History News Network]
Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst
By Robert S. McElvaine

“As far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they don’t know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.”— George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb10, 2008

A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.

An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.

In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.

Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.

At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. “He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time and—if the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matter—then probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce,” wrote another historian.

The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the “nearly the worst” group, was well expressed by another historian who said, “It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title. Without a doubt, it is among the worst.”

In a similar survey of historians I conducted for HNN four years ago, Mr. Bush had fared somewhat better, with 19 percent rating his presidency a success and 81 percent classifying it as a failure. More striking is the dramatic increase in the percentage of historians who rate the Bush presidency the worst ever. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the respondents rated Bush’s presidency last. That conclusion is now reached by nearly six times as large a fraction of historians.

There are at least two obvious criticisms of such a survey. It is in no sense a scientific sample of historians. The participants are self-selected, although participation was open to all historians. Among those who responded are several of the nation’s most respected historians, including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners.

The second criticism that is often raised of historians making such assessments of a current president is that it is far too early. We do not yet know how the things that Mr. Bush has done will work out in the future. As the only respondent who classified the current presidency among the ten best noted, “Any judgment of his ‘success’ or lack thereof is premature in that the ultimate effects of his policies are not yet known.” True enough. But this historian went on to make his current evaluation, giving Bush “high marks for courage in his willingness to attack intractable problems in the Near East and to touch the Social Security ‘Third Rail.’ ”

Historians are in a better position than others to make judgments about how a current president’s policies and actions compare with those of his predecessors. Those judgments are always subject to change in light of future developments. But that is no reason not to make them now.

The comments that many of the respondents included with their evaluations provide a clear sense of the reasons behind the overwhelming consensus that George W. Bush’s presidency is among the worst in American history.

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

One historian indicated that his reason for rating Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: “the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover. . . . . God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.” Another classified Bush as “an ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man . . . .” Still another remarked that Bush’s “denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.”

“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

“George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,” wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. “Bush does only two things well,” said one of the most distinguished historians. “He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches. His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.”

Four years ago I rated George W. Bush’s presidency as the second worst, a bit above that of James Buchanan. Now, however, like so many other professional historians, I see the administration of the second Bush as clearly the worst in our history. My reasons are similar to those cited by other historians: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed enormous support around the world. President Bush squandered that goodwill by taking the country into an unnecessary war of choice and misleading the American people to gain support for that war. And he failed utterly to have a plan to deal with Iraq after the invasion. He further undermined the international reputation of the United States by justifying torture.

Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy. By pushing through huge tax cuts for the rich while increasing federal spending at a rapid rate, Bush transformed the surplus into a massive deficit. The tax cuts and other policies accelerated the concentration of wealth and income among the very richest Americans. These policies combined with unwavering opposition to necessary government regulations have produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the totally inexcusable failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and on and on.

Like a majority of other historians who participated in this poll, my conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence now indicates that, while this nation has had at least its share of failed presidencies, no previous presidency was as large a failure in so many areas as the current one.

[Robert S. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College. His latest book, Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America, has just been published by Crown.]

Copyright © 2008 History News Network


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.