Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy are not Bush*s worst problems

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Samantha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:25 PM
Original message
Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy are not Bush*s worst problems
I admire the anti-Bush* rhetoric of both these men, and I feel they are serving an important function within our party by speaking out. Their words represent the anti-Bush* faction within this party while Kerry makes an attempt to remain above the fray and signal to the conservative Dems and disgruntled Repubs. Perhaps with the cooperation of the myriad of factions within the Democratic party, Bush* can be overcome in his attempt to win legitimate election in 2004. However, it has become apparent that the two most prevalent thorns in the side of Bush* come from pricks made by Republicans ... Richard Clarke, whom we have all heard is waging a "partisan" attack is a Republican, and now John Dean, most of whom will recognize from the publicity over Watergate, the author of "Blind Ambition, and most recently, the publisher of many articles critical of Bush on FindLaw.

These two Republicans' have recently published their books, "Against All Enemies" and "Worse Than Watergate." I started reading Clarke's the day it came out; I had to put it aside because I could not wait to start Dean's. Both of these books are excellent, excellent. This is the first time I have ever tried to read such detailed books by such wonderful patriotic Americans simultaneously. It is a challenge. I am excited. I cannot believe these books will not adversely impact Bush* and his 2004 election efforts. I hope to post a synoposis about Clarke's book at a later time, but in the meantime, I urge you to pick up Worse Than Watergate.

I have always considered myself part of the original anti-Bush* coterie, but John Dean's perspective on Bush* by comparison makes me appear moderate. Worse Than Watergate is simply damming.

Having read Blind Ambition years ago and having my eyes opened to the extent of Nixon's depravity and reading Dean's words that Bush* and Nixon have a lot in common is riveting. While people here at DU are fond of saying most of us are not representative of how the average American thinks, it is apparent through reading Dean's book that there are Republicans whose analysis of Bush* is just as condeming as is ours. The portrait Dean paints of Bush* and his obsession with secrecy is quite startling. Even though we have discussed that very issue before, that proclivity towards secretiveness, the levels to which Bush* has taken it, and the consequences of that secrecy on the American public is indeed worse than Watergate.

Early in the book, I learn Dean perceives Bush* and Cheney have a co-presidency. Bush* is not in the least interested in policy issues; he is simply a person who loves raw politics and the art of the campaign. Cheney is the policy wonk, the radical war hawk and the decision-maker in the administration; Bush is simply the "head of state." Cheney wants nothing to do with the crusade for the office; he simply wants the office. We have often discussed here the perception that Bush* is a puppet; now a well-known, well-respected Republican puts it in print for the rest of America to read. The Bush* presidency (sic) is a charade.

Cheney's medical condition and the seriousness thereof is an element of the secrecy surrounding this political arrangement which is actively depriving the American public from making a true choice, a "legitimate" choice if you will, as to who shall prevail in the White House. While the perception is that it is Bush*, the political reality is that Cheney rules. Imagine the consequence of that statement. Here we have a man, George Bush*, who was not legitimately elected but was in fact installed by the Supreme Court to be the American president only pretending to be president while a surrogate alternative actually functions as our president. I am going to repeat that statement so that absurdity of the situation is emphasized.

HERE WE HAVE A MAN, GEORGE BUSH*, WHO WAS NOT LEGITIMATELY ELECTED BUT WAS IN FACT INSTALLED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO BE THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT ONLY PRETENDING TO BE PRESIDENT WHILE A SURROGATE ALTERNATIVE ACTUALLY FUNCTIONS AS OUR PRESIDENT. It is beyond appalling, it is beyond stunning, it is politically surreal.

As I said when I started this thread, George Bush*s problems are not Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean. George Bush's problems are those within his own party who now stand with us, and will ultimately bring more like them to stand with us when we "buy George W. Bush that one-way ticket back to Crawford, Texas in November."

I hope to tell you more about this book as I read more. In the meantime, we have hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks. You are so correct.
Bush's limitations are, of course, well known. But I've always thought that Cheney's competence has been overstated as well. He does not impress me as a person who can see past his preconceived notions of the world. His expecttions that we'd be received as liberators in Iraq is a case in point.

All Dick is good at is figuring how to use government to line his pocket. He's made a career doing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. You're right
no one in this administration has struck me as especially intelligent or well versed in foreign policy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Samantha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 05:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. What is worse than a cancer on the presidency?
Remember when Dean used words to that effect to describe Nixon's presidency? There's a cancer on the presidency. If Bush*s presidency (sic) is "Worse Than Watergate" what exactly is he saying?

Perhaps one answer is that something worse than a cancer on the presidency is a presidency that is a cancer. And that is what Bush*s occupation of the White House is ... a cancer that eats away at our democracy, our liberties, our perceptions of what a leader is and how he should conduct himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Samantha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. A little bump
for the day crowd.

Anyone interested in commenting on Bush*s two worst problems: John Dean and Richard Clarke. Anyone reading Worse Than Watergate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC