Bush suddenly an interesting character again
 

The only benefit of being unemployed is that I get to be a news hound for a while again. The channels just had Bush's final press conference, and for 50 minutes the guy was more personable than he has been in about 5 years. His press conference performances have been wooden, a little nervous, not real strong on specifics, etc. a poor communicator. But here with all the politics out of the way, he was relaxed. And without it meaning much, the press was relaxed, it was more conversational. He could be candid about mistakes, including the "Mission Accomplished" banner, and some of his rhetoric.

Other things he would not take credit for, such as his reaction to Katrina, and the financial meltdown, which he described as disappointingly having happened on his watch.

Still, it was actually refreshing to see some of the guy's natural charm return, and he seemed bright and alert and a little funny, like he used to be. Totally gracious to Obama. You could see why his voters had a good gut-level feeling about him. The question then becomes why he lost that nature while in office. The sense I get, now, is that he was too overwhelmed to also be charming in any way.

Interesting take on it UT - I wonder what Obama will be like after a few years in the meat grinder.
I saw him again yesterday morning and he really is a captivating speaker.

That alone is better than 8 years of someone who could not talk well in front of groups. But he is going to have to do more than talk pretty.

But, but, but..... butthead

He looks like a man who has been let of the hook.

He can go back to Texas and start clearing' some brush. That's a problem that's more on his scale.

He must have finished off all the brush in Crawford; he's moved on to Preston Hollow.

Undertoad, I'm sure you can find a video somewhere on the internet of his 1994 debate against Ann Richards, then governor of Texas (who went to school on a debate scholarship) in which he is quite articulate and on-the-ball.

I've remarked before that either he has some kind of degenerative neurological disease, or that at some point, for political reasons, it was decided that he would be more successful if he pretended to be more like a regular guy--that is to say, dumber.

I heard him this morning on the radio, and he was, you know, likeable.

My dad always liked him, and thought he seemed like a good kind of guy.

I always thought he had a smug bastard face that needed to be punched in.



Regardless of how irrelevant... in politics, people have to "like" you.

Yah, I've seen pieces of that 1994 debate, and he did seem like a whole different person. I did think that he did lose his skills of the past. As I get older, though, I'm less likely to attribute that to some weird neurological problem as it is just aging. You lose some things, you gain others; you do change styles, because the cocky youngster faces so many humbling experiences.

Personally, I think he owed his victory to too many strong people. I don't believe he was 'his own' president, so to speak. He was the selected front man for a wider project, and as such was delivering somebody else's agenda. Not unusual in a leading politician really. In these days of focus groups and detailed breakdowns of public reactions to speeches and debates, I suspect that the Bush we've been seeing for the past few years is a version that has been refined through such feedback. He scored well on folksey charm, and people felt better about him when he was just as bemused by the world as they were. After the slickness of the Clintons, it was a breath of fresh air for a lot of people to be led by somebody who seemed like he would enjoy a beer at their local bar.

Maybe they thought, because he seemed to be an ordinary guy, he'd share some of their more pressing ordinary concerns.

Either way, I think they (his advisors, speechwriters, pollsters etc) began to over emphasise that side of him. He was playing a role the last few years. The role was his most ordinary and least impressive self.

Here's an interesting read, by a friend of Jenna's, about kicking back with the first family at the White House.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...a-and-me200901

I often wonder whether he really wanted to be President beyond the idea of the job.

It's like how all little boys want to be astronauts, firemen, or superheros. 99.99% of them wouldn't really want those jobs if they actually had them (which is why most of them don't do the work to get those jobs).

BINGO!

Much the same way I think Obama has been selected.

Who's he fronting for?

I have no idea, its just a feeling I have. At first I felt that he was selected to 1) Be a distraction and then 2) Be a Calming influence on the 'masses' after all the BS of the past and for the BS to come in the future...which some of we are experience now with the recession/depression.

I lost a lot of faith in our 'democratic' institution with the Bush administration, so my outlook is a bit tainted.

As far as I can tell, the rest of the democratic party owes him bigtime. He's not in debt to many people, 'cept the grassroots. And all they want him to do is get us out of this godawful mess.

That's because you're young, they soured me a long time ago. :haha:

yep - I agree with xob - Carter did the same to me Pico.

Clinton did it for me, followed by Bush.

Clinton, but Bush restored it. Devouring undemocracies is just the best thing in foreign policy ever.

Yeah. Shame about that indigestion eh?

We will need another 10 years to actually measure the impact. The immediate impact has been evident. I am not sad to see him go, but I am not completely happy Obama has taken his place. Congress is the real seat of power in this country and the current make-up is more worrisome than Obama.

I see Bush is dropping the down home cowboy facade and moving back to the idle rich social set.

Yeah, but now that stocks have tanked, even the rich are pissed at him. Heck, I'll bet the guys at the the yacht club are probably pumping their own marine diesel now.

Heh. They are pissed at Bush for tanking stocks? :lol:

Nero fiddled while Rome burned...

Bush diddled...

And Clinton got jiggy

I thought he played the sax.

Reagan got shakey with it.

hmmm. Bush interesting. What a concept. I think he's just a spoiled egomaniac who gained way too much power, to the detriment of this country and the entire world. And while he may have expressed some disappointment about certain things in that interview, and admitted a few mistakes, he in no way took responsibility for the disaster that is the past 8 years. In fact, he has been out touring trying to rewrite history, or his-story. It is sickening. Too bad about all those damn videos ruining that part for him. :D

The people who cry "disaster disaster disaster" frankly don't impress me with their thinking. The "disaster" they seem to have in mind always seems to be better said as "a setback to the [il]liberal agenda." O'Reilly calls these people "Secular-Progressives," if you'd rather use that term, and reckons they don't got it. He makes a pretty solid case.

Item: refusal to pass gun control legislation -- good for the Republic, bad for increasing the chances of genocides, and for criminals generally. Gun rights are a most potent expression of human rights -- a right not to be murdered or robbed, a right not to suffer genocide. Fundamental, I should think.

Item: demolition of undemocratic regimes, plural -- better for good government worldwide; the greatest part of human miseries stem from bad governance, as looking for correlations of bad national quality of life with undemocratic governance will show.

On a related note, it's one option for making a better world that isn't taking in millions of illegal immigrants: make their home places better than they were, and where's the wrong in removing those human obstacles to that idea that invariably present themselves, with their guns, their goons, their clubs and gas? That we're about the best country around is evidenced by how many millions of people are literally breaking into the place to partake. About eleven million illegals these days.

Item: not being buffaloed by environmentalist lobbies promotes efficient business by ensuring the cost of doing business is not so excessive it is no longer worthwhile -- that way lies European stagnation. Business is something humans do, and GWB understood that in his bones.

Item: Federal-level government almost entirely engrossed in foreign policy reduced any temptation to meddle with domestic affairs, to the benefit of those affairs and of civil rights also, unlike his predecessor, who clearly viewed the Bill of Rights not as a guide to his behavior in office, but as a stumbling-block to his ambitions. His predecessor was never out of disgrace, couldn't do foreign policy (very scant legacy -- his lone foreign-policy success seems to have been handing the Balkans fighting over to Europe to settle), and had the DoJ completely suborned with Janet Reno. His predecessor got two terms, neither with my vote, I can tell you. Unlike his predecessor, your own civil rights have never been imperiled nor eroded with GWB, whatever the pretenses of the ravers have been. Look at what they say happens, then look at really does happen. This is why I'll defend GWB's record.

Item: GWB kept me happy enough with him to vote for him twice. He did things I wanted done. This cannot be dismissed as just UG being crazy -- it's UG thinking better than most of the people who yell at him around here.

Did he do anything that you would be critical of or didn't like? I am seriously interested in your answer.

Well, it's pretty hard to say there is no disaster happening in this country when millions of people are losing their jobs and homes, while Wall Street execs give themselves 18 billion dollars in bonuses after taxpayers paid hundreds of billions to bail them out. I think we should just nationalize all the banks and be done with it. That's what many other countries have done. Those morons caused us to lose, what? 3 TRILLION dollars in the stock market over the past 3 months? Frankly, I think there should criminal investigations, and people should go straight to prison. I also think their money and assets should be confiscated and sold off to help pay for this mess.

I'm all for gun rights, but the NRA are extremists in their positions, as much as some people on the left are in theirs. There should be responsible gun control. Why is it such a problem to require certain things to make sure guns don't fall into the wrong hands? And why is it such a problem for certain kinds of weapons to require a special license? And I seriously doubt we need to worry about genocide in this country.

And why should be it OUR JOB to judge bad governance, or to police the world? WE certainly wouldn't want some foreign regime coming into OUR country and telling US how to live. At least I know I wouldn't. So why should we think any other country would want us to do that to them? IF there is genocide going on somewhere, or some form of apartheid or something, of course we should help. But any military action should be done through NATO, not with US military control. For one thing, we can't afford it. And for another, it simply isn't our right to force our form of government on other countries. How is that any different from what Germany did, or Russia?

Ummm, condescending much? Most of the illegals who are breaking into the United States are poor, and live in places that leave much to be desired. But there are lots of other countries out there that are at least as good as ours, and many of the people who live in those countries think theirs is better than ours. You are looking at the world through a very small looking glass, and with a very big filter.

What? You don't care about drinking fresh, clean water, or having wholesome food that isn't laced with pesticides and toxins, or breathing clean air? I'll tell you what. Go find your own planet to live on, then you can pollute it as much as you want. This planet does not belong to US, or to INDUSTRY. We SHARE IT with a world community. The fact that we have organizations that fight for our safety is one of things that made this country great. But I guess you don't mind getting contaminated crap from China...

WHAT? Are you KIDDING ME? Haven't you been listening to the news? Do you not realize how deep the wiretaps went into spying on Americans? bush threw out the Constitution. He pissed on it, and gave us all the finger while doing it. Clinton's foreign policy put bush to shame, and I'm not even a fan of his. The fact that people on the right can't get over him getting a blow job in the Oval Office is just stupid. So what? The man liked sex. I would rather have someone in office getting some on the side than someone misleading the American people into a needless war, and then completely demolishing our reputation around the world with his arrogance. And let's not forget the torture...

Great. So we can blame you for financial meltdown, and the torture, and everything else bush did to ruin this country. I'm so glad he made you happy though.

Hey sugarpop - do you think congress has any culpability in this mess? Are they responsible at all for any of the financial issues we are dealing with? I'm interested in your opinion.

Of course they do. And anyone in Congress who was complicit in any way that could be deemed illegal or unethical or neglectful should be dealt with in whatever way is open to us. I'm sick to death of corruption and greed, and Congress (and politics in general, just look at blago) is ripe with it. But people in Congress did not write all those mortgages, knowing they were probably going to be bad, and then sell them over and over and over. And Congress did not give billions of dollars in bonuses and salaries to a few executives while they were driving us into the toilet. This global meltdown started HERE, with OUR financial system. And it all started with mortgages and banks and Wall Street. I'm wondering if they even teach ethics at Wharton or Harvard Business School anymore.

They need to put reasonable regulation, transparency and oversight back into law. I believe ultimately, deregulation caused a lot of this.

Did you read the thread "How a 'perfect storm' led to the economic crisis"

I find it ironic that those calling for investigations were themselves as involved in the oversight as those they are accusing. Dodd, Frank...

No the congresspeople didn't write the loans - that we agree upon. But it sure seems that the financial lobbyists they were very close with knew what was going on. They sure as hell have a lot of explaining to do and should stop the finger pointing.

I posted a reeeeally long response to that article. (Because I felt the need to go into a whole lot of things that I see as being contributing factors to what happened. :D) Thanks for guiding me there.

Sorry honey. That was a Bush plan completely approved by a Democratcially dominated Congress. The Democrats approved it the first time as well but the Congress was controlled by the Rebublickins and Bush carried it out. You can't blame Bush for that one.

Some of them may have approved it for what it was supposed to be for, which in my understanding was to listen in on Americans who were suspected of terrorist associations on phone calls from other countries, but they completely misused it and simply spied on everyone and anyone. They were even listening in on personal phone calls our SOLDIERS were making from Iraq and Afghanistan to their wives and husbands. And you can't possibly believe Bush told them everything about how he was using it. He had the most secretive administration ever, and he thought he was above the law.

I can picture Bush and Cheney sittin in the office with headphones on
listening to me talk to my mom... can you?

Somebody grab the butterfly net!

House approves Patriot Act renewal
Approval sends measure to Bush's desk before expiration

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/07/patriot.act/

As a matter of fact, the Democrats did not approve the FISA abuses of warrantless wiretaping "the first time".

Bush did it unilaterally, using the congresionally approved Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) as a legal justification.

An AUMF authorizes military force...NOT NSA wiretapping.

Gonzales lied to Congress about it and Bush as much as acknowledged that there was no Congressional approval, which was why he called for a new and expanded FISA bill after the abuses became public.

they did go along with the amended FISA (Protect America Act) in 07, but were instrumental in including greater Congressional oversight and far greater limitations on wiretapping American citizens.

I had to come back here to correct the revisionist history :)

Correct. Not the first time. But they did approve it a second time as well as the protection of the large telecoms. It was the courts that rebuked Bush on FISA, not Congress.

It was the Congressional oversight hearings by the Democrats that brought it to the attention of the courts....oversight in many areas that was sorely lacking for 6 years.

And I was disappointed in the Democratic caving on the telecomm immunity, but pleased that at least the new FISA has more oversight and limitations.

I believe the "new" FISA was not much different from the way it was prior to Bush, and fixed some of the problems that the Bush admin said they had with it, like a significantly faster turn around time fro approval of wire taps on actionable intell. And that was a good thing.

The differences may be small, but they were significant in terms of oversight and protection of Americans oversees from warrantless wiretaps.

In fact, the Bush administration, through Gonzales testimony at an oversight hearing, specifically said they did NOT need FISA reform...sadly at the same time they were already exceeding FISA authority with warrantless wiretaps of Americans.

Wiretaps of Americans under FISA is still approved. I agree they should include the FISA courts. Esp since they have a history of not turning down any requests. They greater controversy was not about warrantless wire taps, it was wire taps of Americans, that had not been included before. Now it is approved, as it should be.

with more Congressional oversight...as it should be.

With no Congressional oversight. Only oversight by FISA courts. Congress should not be involved.

I want checks and balances on any court and any president's use of FISA...and it can certainly be accomplished in closed Intel Committee hearings to protect national security, if necessary.

Congress leaks like a sieve.

A leaking sieve is a far better protection against potential Constitutional abuses than no sieve at all.

This is one where most liberals and libertarians agree.

I am not talking about protection against abuses, that is what the FISA court is for. I am talking about protection of sensitive intell, something Congress has a hard time doing, under the best of circumstances.

IMO, the FISA court should be accountable like any federal court...but with reasonable protection of national security information.

Cite please.

You'll be amazed at how much you believe is bullshit, if you just look for cites. I know I was, when I first tried to confirm what I knew.

It wasn't "Bush" using it, it was the NSA. This means a lot of people are involved, and the more people, the more likely information about how it's used or misused is to leak out. In fact the very existence of the program was revealed to the NY Times by such a leaker.

Also, this is a logical riddle meant to win arguments, which is something less than a proof. "We believe the program was widely abused." "How do you know?" "Because Bush was secretive! We didn't hear anything, that means something was going on!" Ehh, I'll need a little more than that, personally.

It was the NSA acting under an order by Bush through what most Constitutional scholars have said was an illegal interpretation of an AUMF.

IMO, the "leaker" who gave no details that threatened national security, should be applauded.

(pardon the echo chamber)

I disagree and it was not what most constitutional scholars stated, it was only those that agree with that notion. Never the less it was a leak for a political agenda. That person should be punished.

Fair enough, I should have said...constitutional scholars from both the left and right....

I would also suggest it was a leak in the most general terms possible by a government employee who had serious and justifiable concerns that laws were potentially being broken and Constitutional rights potentially being violated. There is nothing to suggest that it compromised national security.

One could also suggest that the leak was due to a pissed off employee with perhaps, a political axe to grind. What makes one scenario more believable than the other?
Both are mere speculation.