|
14 Jun 04 - 05:55 PM (#1207217) Subject: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Rapparee Today, at the unveiling of the official Presidential portrait of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush said (according to the AP): '"The years have done a lot to clarify the strengths of this man," Bush said about Clinton. "As a candidate for any office, whether it be the state attorney general or the president, Bill Clinton showed incredible energy and great personal appeal. As chief executive, he showed a deep and far-ranging knowledge of public policy, a great compassion for people in need, and the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president." 'Bush said Clinton "could always see a better day ahead, and Americans knew he was working hard to bring that day closer. Over eight years it was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy. He's a man of enthusiasm and warmth, who could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service."' |
|
14 Jun 04 - 05:57 PM (#1207218) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Peace Give the man a cigar! |
|
14 Jun 04 - 06:08 PM (#1207227) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Blackcatter Well we all know where he should stick it. The feckin' fascist. |
|
14 Jun 04 - 06:11 PM (#1207231) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Peace I meant a used cigar. Ya know? |
|
14 Jun 04 - 06:18 PM (#1207237) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Joe Offer Now, if I said that about Shambles, would people believe me? [grin] Actually, I think there's a lot of truth in Bush's assessment - and I'd like to believe that Bush believes what he said. I think we're too quick to demonize our leaders, and we're also too quick to call them heroes. Bush and Clinton both have some extraordinary assets. -Joe Offer- |
|
14 Jun 04 - 06:20 PM (#1207239) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Little Hawk Politicians are like hockey players. They're pros playing the same game together. When the game is on the ice they hate the guys on the other team. When they're off the ice they talk shop, joke around, reminisce, and generally get along fine with one another (aside from the rare personal feud). It's as simple as that. Bush and Clinton are pros (well, Clinton is, anyway...) and they play in the same league. Why wouldn't they say nice things about each other at a nice social occasion? :-) It's the same deal in Canada. We have 2 politicians, Sheila Copps (Liberal) and John Crosby (Conservative) who fought constantly in the public arena for decades and appeared to heartily detest one another. They were playing to their political audience. Off the public stage they apparently get along fine, joke and kibbitz around about their epic confrontations, and Crosby recently wrote the introduction to Copps' autobiography! Pros in action, baby, just like pro wrestling. Gotta get the public whipped up over something to get the votes. |
|
14 Jun 04 - 06:28 PM (#1207244) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: DougR I listened to the ceremony and thought Bush did an excellent job. He praised Clinton for his strengths and mentioned not one weakness. It was a dignified, yet humorus speech and it was sincerely presented. I agree with much LH said (for a change). Politicians know when to praise their opponent and know appropriate times to criticize them. DougR |
|
14 Jun 04 - 06:55 PM (#1207277) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Bobert Well, gol danged.... I'm speechless.... Bobert |
|
14 Jun 04 - 07:32 PM (#1207307) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Amos When two veterans like that start talking sweet thang to each other you just KNOW they got sompn up their sleeve! A |
|
14 Jun 04 - 07:54 PM (#1207313) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Amergin I thought this was gonna be about gay porn... |
|
14 Jun 04 - 08:01 PM (#1207317) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Peace Not necessarily. Seems like everything BUT the bush was on Clinton. |
|
14 Jun 04 - 08:03 PM (#1207318) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: GUEST,skeptic Just shows ta go ya that GW will say anything to get reelected - then prolly have Clinton deported. |
|
14 Jun 04 - 08:08 PM (#1207327) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Amergin i didnt care much for clinton either...he was an elephant in an ass' clothing... |
|
14 Jun 04 - 08:37 PM (#1207334) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Peace Last time it was Monica on Clinton. Now it's Bush. Where will it end? |
|
14 Jun 04 - 09:07 PM (#1207345) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Bill Hahn//\\ To put it into perspective--the comment and report---Rapaire. This past weekend I had the opportunity to interview the author of a book (for my radio program---Tabletalk on WFDU www.wfdu.fm) on the Bush Dynasty. An interesting comment in the book and confirmed by the author; the Bushes (both) despised him (Clinton) not so much for his policies but rather that he, they felt, took a "....cavalier attitude about the office of the President". It seems the W actually puts on a tie and a jacket when going into the oval office after hours. That sort of thing. With W it seems attire is the order of the day---pilot's outfit when landing on a carrier. Our very own flying ace. I don't know about you all, but I prefer substance over self serving image and show. Bill Hahn |
|
14 Jun 04 - 10:50 PM (#1207405) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Amos Gee, Bill, how much substance do you want? He mobilized practically every ton of steel the Armed Forces had to offer, blew up thousands of tons of explosives and ammo, and flooded the valleys of Mesopotamia with blood!! Coffins!! Body bags!! Not to mention all the flashback from insurgents and all. Can't accuse him of not swinging some mass around... A |
|
14 Jun 04 - 11:51 PM (#1207431) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Little Hawk There's plenty Doug and I would agree about. We just keep getting drawn into these political threads that are about the few things in life we usually disagree about! :-) It's ironical. |
|
15 Jun 04 - 12:46 AM (#1207451) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Sam L I don't care too much for either of these presidents. It was a nice speech, which would've been more poorly written for Clinton, maybe, but which Clinton would've delivered more convincingly. Why do we have weak-willed bright people followed by resolute dumbasses? Because those are our limitations, I guess. No wonder Californians elected a fantasy cyborg with muscles. |
|
15 Jun 04 - 09:01 AM (#1207651) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: kendall California elected the Terminator for the same reason they allowed Hitler to take over. They were desperate. Did you see the report on Enron? Those bastards were laughing about old people who couldn't pay their p0wer bills! |
|
15 Jun 04 - 09:34 AM (#1207683) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Little Hawk People are desperate because they don't actually control the political process. Wealthy lobbyists control it. That is, banks, billionaires, and major corporations. When all you have to vote for is the cabal of phony candidates that a lobby-controlled system trots out for you, you have plenty of reason to be desperate. Schwarzenneger was just another of those pre-chosen faces...a very saleable one, as it turned out. (Karl Rove is a clever manipulator.) It's mass marketing at the polling booth. It's as tawdry as selling cheeseburgers. |
|
15 Jun 04 - 01:43 PM (#1207885) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: DougR Bill Hahn: congratulations! Your comment about your prefrence (substance over style, etc.) was about as arrogant as any I have read on the mudcat. You give me and Amos a run for our money with that one. DougR |
|
15 Jun 04 - 01:49 PM (#1207891) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Rapparee Nothing wrong with selling cheeseburgers, as long as you're honest about it. |
|
15 Jun 04 - 04:33 PM (#1208031) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Peace I think American take their Presidents too seriously. My God, you iconize them. They are people. Period. Some get in over their heads. One of our greater Prime Ministers was drunk all the time. He built Canada. We had another who got advice from his mother--she was dead at the time. Then there's Trudeau. Folks out west STILL remember the finger. Trudeau was having it on with someone who wasn't his wife, and his wife was having it on with someone who wasn't her husband. Frankly, most Canadians didn't give a shit. It made the papers for a few days and went away. Hell, we love the odd scandal in Canada. Takes our minds off the weather. But, we don't take these people seriously. They are simply elected folk, that's all. It's what we do with those who can't find honest employment. Besides, we all know that bureaucrats run the place. Friggin' presidents, kings, prime ministers could croak and the country would run just fine until the next election. |
|
15 Jun 04 - 05:23 PM (#1208063) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Rapparee Maybe better, Brucie. Maybe better. |
|
15 Jun 04 - 06:07 PM (#1208097) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Little Hawk Good point, Bruce. :-) Yeah, the President seems to be almost like a demigod in the USA...a giant Father figure for the whole nation. It's overblown and unfortunate, and it's an image few men can ever live up to. Canadians don't see the Prime Minister as a national father figure, they see him as just another politician...an ordinary guy. My impression of Clinton was...kind of a fun guy to have around, but don't leave him alone with your wife or daughter! Bush? Nice guy to have running the local baseball franchise. His dad? Good guy to have as your lawyer or chartered accountant. Reagan? Great guy to watch home movies or have a barbecue with. Ford? Nice guy to coach the high school football team. John Kennedy? Now THERE was a real president!...even if he did secretly screw women all the time like a deranged billy goat on steroids. I still carry a Kennedy half-dollar in remembrance of him. |
|
16 Jun 04 - 12:20 AM (#1208283) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Kaleea so how's come bubbalite cain't do the same? And they called Clinton "Bubba?" bubbabush take a look in the mirror. OOps, I forgot, when he looks in the mirror he sees Napoleon. duh. So Nappy, after we take Iraq & the rest of the middle east, what say we start a war in, say, Greenland & show them thar norskies a thing or 2----oops, I forgot that the former USSR was next on your list of takeovers. |
|
16 Jun 04 - 12:42 AM (#1208294) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: dianavan I'm posting this as the English debate is on in the background (Canadian candidates) and I have to agree that they are just politicians. Not heroes, not demi-gods, not even very effective. Canadians don't really idolize their leaders. Seems most people just want a money manager, someone who can be friendly with the U.S. while maintaining our own identity, someone who will not get us into a war, someone who cares about the environment and someone who keeps govt. out of the bedroom. Pretty basic. Will we get it? Who knows. Somehow (and I don't know why) there does not seem to be so much animosity among the electorate. If you vote for Martin or Harper, I won't hate you. If I choose to vote NDP or Green, it won't matter to you either. Nobody really cares. We vote but its all kinda half-hearted. Americans are scrappier. Canadians are debaters. Do you see a big difference among the U.S. presidents? Not me. Do you see a big difference in the candidates? Not me. They are really all the same and are manipulated by the Lobbyists and those who pay for their campaign. Same thing goes in Canada. Thats why Martin will probably win, no matter what the people want. |
|
16 Jun 04 - 09:24 AM (#1208503) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: GUEST,weirdo in Australia we have extremely cynical attitudes towards our politicians, partly because most australians are pretty irreligious, and don't get into worshipping anything much in particular. |
|
16 Jun 04 - 10:33 AM (#1208580) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Little Hawk This is fun. Hmmm... Okay, Nixon? Good guy to hire to dig up dirt on people and ruin them...would have made a great private investigator or trial lawyer. Jimmy Carter? Nice guy to have as a next door neighbour or a minister or running a local charity or social service agency. Lyndon Johnson? Feh! Keep that damn cowboy away from me. Good for nothing. Teddy Roosevelt? Good guy to put in charge of an army or have running a nature park. Lots of energy and determination. |
|
16 Jun 04 - 10:56 AM (#1208606) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: GUEST The presidency in the US has, in recent years, been elevated to point of 4 year sainthood. It is ridiculous. But it is also rooted in the cult of TV personalities. The spin handlers create a monolithic, iconic image of the candidates, and the real person is never shown to the American electorate. It is the imperial presidency thing, and has been going on ever since the Kennedy administration. Spooky thing for a democracy, eh? But in the US, we have Democracy with Imperial Value Added, so the presidential horse race, to the national media, is the only race that matters in our democracy. As to why Bush would make glowing remarks about Clinton--remember, it will be his turn to drag his sorry ass back to the White House to debut his Christian soldier portrait a few years hence... |
|
16 Jun 04 - 10:34 PM (#1209041) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Little Hawk Yeah, it's the cult of the Great Leader, the Superman, the Emperor, the Fuhrer Americano...but renewable or changeable every 4 years, that's all. It's horrifying to anyone who watches it from outside American borders, but seems to be taken for granted within them, at least by a sizeable majority of American citizens. "Hail to the Chief" Sounds just like...you know what. What would they ever do if a woman got elected? Would her husband get to be "first husband"? Ha! Ha! Just imagine. :-) India, Canada, and the UK have all had a female chief executive before and managed just fine, though in Canada's case it didn't last long. So have many other places. But not fortress America. The Great White Father still reigns supreme in the 50 states, dispensing beads and blankets in exchange for total hegemony over the savages in the unsettled lands yet to be taken around the World in order to fulfill America's manifest destiny and save everybody. Yeah, right. |
|
16 Jun 04 - 11:52 PM (#1209075) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Amergin maybe next time we'll have kerry in bush.... |
|
17 Jun 04 - 09:14 PM (#1209568) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Thomas the Rhymer It was surreal. Wow! Bush just cuts loose and lets fly with a genuinely intelligent assessment... while on the air, and with uncharacteristic grace... I think the out of order aspect of the generosity... the viviness brought about by the unexpected kindness... is not something I'm used to seeing in Bush. Unprecidented! ttr |
|
18 Jun 04 - 12:40 AM (#1209650) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Sam L So what? Like he wrote it out by candlelight. Somebody thought it would be a good move right about now to look gracious. I suppose I agree with the comments about T.V. persona presidents. I like the dull ones. I liked Dukakis. I liked Dole. Being personally uninteresting is proper attire for the office of the president, and if one is interesting, the media should take it pretty lightl, as a side-issue. Kennedy is not a model most politicians should follow, but they hire writers and handlers and try. If Kennedy hadn't been James Deaned I doubt he would haunt the political consciouness the way he does. And that would be good. |
|
18 Jun 04 - 10:02 AM (#1209864) Subject: RE: BS: Bush on Clinton: Huh? From: Thomas the Rhymer Drivel on a swivel... |