BUSHISM of the Day

"I want you to know that farmers are not going to be secondary thoughts to a Bush administration. They will be in the forethought of our thinking." ---10 August 2000


Right up front, there, in the front row. That's right...no more worrying about the second row of up front, no indeed. Front row...right up front. When we think we are thinking about thinking we think about upfront thoughts first. Any questions?

BUSHISM of the Day

"Our priorities is our faith." ---10 October 2000

BUSHISM of the Day

"I've changed my style somewhat, as you know. I'm less--I pontificate less, although it may be hard to tell it from this show. And I'm more interacting with people." ---13 February 2000 on Meet the Press

BUSHISM of the Day

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." ---23 September 2002

Well, from the looks of the new energy bill passed by Congress this summer, I think the president got what he wanted. However, if gasoline prices continue to climb, I doubt his desires will continue to see fruition.

BUSHISMs of the Day

"It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America." ---Dakar, Senegal; 8 July 2003

What exactly is a "steadfast"? Does anybody know? Also, wasn't the religion of the African slaves mostly voodoo (or something similar) until they got to America? Finally, let me just ask a hypothetical question: If you were a slave, taken far away from your home to work in the fields and homes of people you did not particularly like, would you believe in freedom? or would you just prefer to live a life of quiet desparation? I'm not sure...


"It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan that is Clinton in nature." ---23 February 2000

Does GW really believe that anyone could possibly mistake him for either Reagan or Clinton? I realize that he does resemble Reagan in some ways...cowboy hat, boots, the 'duh' look on his face most of the time....but he obviously has neither the intelligence nor mass appeal of Clinton. Smell the coffee, George!


"Well, it's an unimaginable honor to be the president during the Fourth of July of this country. It means what these words say, for starters. The great inalienable rights of our country. We're blessed with such values in America. And I--it's--I'm a proud man to be the nation based upon such wonderful values." ---At the Jefferson Memorial, Washington D.C.; 2 July 2001

I'm just glad to know that GWBush is a nation unto himself...Saves face for the rest of us, if you ask me.


"There is book smart and the kind of smart that helps do calculus. But smart is also instinct and judgment and common sense. Smart comes in all kinds of different ways." ---19 September 2000

But apparently "smart" is not a pre-requisite for being president...however, it may be necessary for being a GOOD president! Also, just a quick comment as someone who 'does calculus'--I've found that a great deal of my math 'smart' comes from books. I'm confused about the difference mentioned in the first sentence above....

BUSHISM of the Day

"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace." --25 July 2003

Okay...so let's get this straight. SECURITY is a roadblock to PEACE. Uh huh...so is that like saying, "Sleep is the essential roadblock to being awake," or is it more like saying, "Depression is the essential roadblock to committing suicide?" Can anyone clarify this for me?

BUSHISM of the Day

"A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness." --18 September 2000

Recess Appointment of John Bolton as Ambassador to the U.N.

Mr. Bolton nor President Bush have kept it a secret that the intent behind Bolton's appointment as U.N. Ambassador was to force the issue of reform. The problem, of course, with the Bolton appointment began to come out during the Senate confirmation hearings. Republican members of the Senate became some of the most vocal opponents to Bolton's confirmation. The administration would have the American people believe that the confirmation process was being held up by the 'obstructionist Democrats,' but that was NOT the case in the least.

Rumors were running rampant that Colin Powell, formerly Bolton's boss, and Richard Armitage, formerly Asst SecState, were working behind the scenes--giving Senators a thorough knowledge of Bolton's background and behavior patterns--to ensure that Bolton did not receive confirmation. A key Senator in the fight to defeat Bolton was close Bush supporter and ally John Voinovich of Ohio. Would these influential members of the Republican Party really have spoken out against Bush's nominee if there were not SERIOUS character flaws? Of course, the most serious flaw in Bolton's character was his inability to deal with his subordinates in a professional manner. If the man is unable to deal with subordinates professionally, then how can we expect him to deal with the Ambassadors of other nations professionally and civilly?

The great problem with Bush's recess appointment is that, more in this case than in any other, the President has usurped the balance of power; he has removed the confirmation process from the Senate in order to place an incompetent ally into a place of power. Certainly, all presidents have used recess appointments to place their nominees into office, but I know of no other appointment that has been made exclusively to flaunt an ideological agenda at the American people.

This appointment goes too far. It is time for moderate Republicans to stop thinking about political power structures and to start thinking about the good of the nation. For moderate Republicans to continue to support the ideological agenda of the far right does the nation an injustice at a time when the nation needs unity more than ever. The far right agenda offers division and confrontation, not unity and not justice.

Now is the time for the moderates and the liberals to come together to govern the nation in an effective way. A government not based solely on an ideological agenda, but based on what is best for the country and what is best for its citizens. If the recess appointment of John Bolton does nothing else, it should create the realization NOW rather than LATER that the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is not looking out for ALL of the citizens of the United States, but is instead following a far right wing ideological agenda. This agenda is designed to help 1% of Americans (I'll let you guess who they are), abandon the middle class, and return the U.S. to a time when Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements were not a 'burden' to the country. Do we really want to destroy some of the greatest anti-poverty programs ever known to man? Let Bolton's appointment be a wakeup call to all of us!

BUSHISMs of the Day

Well, since it has been awhile, I thought I would post not just ONE Bushism, but a few to get us back in the mood. Here we go--

BUSHISM #1
"I think it's very important for world leaders to understand that when a new administration comes in, the new administration will be running the foreign policy." ---USA Today, 12 Jan 2001

We have some really stupid leaders around the world if they didn't already understand this fact. Or, maybe it's just that Mr. Bush THINKS they are stupid. Actions speak louder than words, don't they?


BUSHISM #2
"I am determined to keep the process on the road to peace." ---10 June 2003

Well, of course by 'peace', Mr. Bush means 'war', right? What evidence is there that this president has any interest in peace at all? He said of himself that he was 'the war president.' Come on, Georgie-boy, who do you think you are fooling with this 'road to peace' rhetoric? Remember, "...fool me once...shame on you. Fool me...won't get fooled again!"


BUSHISM #3
"I want it to be said that the Bush administration was a results-oriented administration, because I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy on teaching children to read and having an education system that's responsive to the child and to the parents, as opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be--a literate country and a hopefuller country." ---11 Jan 2001

I know, I know...anybody could have made a blunder like "hopefuller", but come on...really???


Okay, okay....ONE more...
BUSHISM #4
"I'm gonna talk about the ideal world, Chris. I've read--I understand reality. If you're asking me as the president, would I understand reality, I do." ---appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC; 31 May 2000

It is my understanding that the above quote was in response to a question about abortion; however, I really have to ask myself, was Mr. Bush telling Chris and the American people the truth when he said that he understands reality? I'm not sure he was. In fact, I think maybe he was also lying when he said, rather matter of factly for him, that "I've read..." Do any of us really believe that? Liar, liar!!


Well, I can't resist this one. It has just been too long since I have posted these, so here is one more for the day.
BUSHISM #5
"I'm thrilled to be here in the bread basket of America because it gives me a chance to remind our fellow citizens that we have an advantage here in America--we can feed ourselves." ---Stockton, California; 23 August 2002

Well, a couple of comments about this one. First, when did California move to the center of the United States? Traditionally, the 'breadbasket' of the U.S. has been considered the central U.S. from Texas up to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, at least according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and this news report from the Detroit News about drought conditions. Second, do not all adult animals 'feed themselves' in one way or another? Perhaps I am a bit picky here, but couldn't he have just said something like, "we grow our own food?" Oh, well...

More BUSHISMs to come...

Paul Krugman Points Out Some Interesting Facts About the 'Intelligent Design' Movement

NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman, in his latest exposition, writes that the intelligent design movement is a direct result of the brainstorm of the founder of the neo-conservative movement. In 1978, Irving Kristol began urging corporations to make large donations to ideologically conservative individuals and groups who would speak out in favor of certain principles over others, whether they had the scientific research to support their claims or not. The neo-cons first attacks were against the established economic theories of the day, arguing in favor of supply-side economics--the idea that huge tax cuts could help to improve the economy in significant ways--even though there was no existing data to support the argument, and no plans to conduct any research into it.

Mr. Krugman argues that we can see the continuing effects of the neo-conservative agenda today in the attacks upon the established science of global warming, and most recently in the attacks upon evolutionary theory. Krugman writes, "Corporations followed [Kristol's] lead, pouring a steady stream of money into think tanks that created a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of 'scholars' whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers." It is this need to toe the ideological line that most distresses me about the current presidential administration. This administration creates its information where it sees fit to meet the ideological objectives that have been set forth. Just as Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury in this administration, stated in his personal account of his time at Treasury, this administration does not look at the facts and develop policy. This administration develops policy and then finds 'facts' to support it. It is this political design that Irving Kristol mobilized, and it has now taken on a life of its own.

The neo-conservative movement identifies those issues that are not ideologically in line with it, finds 'scholars' who are willing to sell out in order to support the cause, does not offer true scientific research to support claims but instead offers good public relations machines, and attacks those established principles which they oppose in a concerted defamatory way. Krugman argues that even "the self-policing nature of science - scientific truth is determined by peer review, not public opinion - can be exploited by skilled purveyors of cultural resentment." When the neo-con organization opposes an established scientific position, they can throw the old argument at the public that 'those people', whoever they may be at the moment, think they are smarter than the average person; they argue in effect that 'those people' are elistist. As Krugman puts it, "Do virtually all biologists agree that Darwin was right? Well, that just shows that they're elitists who think they're smarter than the rest of us."

Krugman argues that the original attempt to discredit Darwinism, called 'creation science', was "too crude to fool anyone." However, the 'intelligent design' movement has essentially done only one thing: attempt to discredit evolution by making claims that 'evolution is only one theory' or that 'there are gaps in the theory of evolution." Even the attention given to the movement by the Catholic Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna uses ideology to support his claims, not scientific study. He, like the rest of the neo-con movement, attempts to argue that Darwinism is more ideology than science while ignoring science completely to support his own claims.

Here is the methodology employed by the neo-conservative movement. These are the tactics that we must become aware of and that we must make others aware of. Fight the good fight. The thing I have recently realized is that although I am a liberal thinker, I am not an ideological liberal. I am liberal because when I look at the real facts, I am required to come to grips with these facts. The best way to do that is from a liberal viewpoint, not a strict conservative ideology. In my mind, to be liberal means to be willing to make adjustments as necessary to find the best answers to the most difficult problems. To be conservative in these times means to listen to someone explain the party line and follow it blindly, without question and without consulting any facts.

If those are the options, I will choose being able to think for myself!

Bush Speaks Out About 'Intelligent Design'

Our illustrious president has now had his say about the brewing debate regarding the teaching of 'intelligent design' theory. Although opponents of the theory point out that NO actual scientific studies have been conducted to support the theory, proponents continue to refer to 'intelligent design' as alternative science to the theory of evolution. Cardinal Schonborn, as we have discussed in this forum previously, has written that evolution is "not science but ideology." I would argue that 'intelligent design' comes closer to that statement than evolutionary theory. At least evolution has years of scientific research and piles of scientific data to support its arguments. Where is the same scientific inquiry for 'intelligent design'?

Once again, I have no problem with the notion of an omniscient creator who provided the initial energy and the rules, laws, and guiding principles of the universe; however, what I do have a problem with is the desire of the religious right to insinuate its ideology into our schools' classrooms. If there is evidence to support intelligent design, then let's see it and have an academic debate rather than a political one. President Bush's statement that he believes students should be exposed to "different schools of thought" is just another example of his lack of understanding of things scientific. Mr. Bush and all of his ideological cronies should leave the science to scientists, the education to educators, and religious indoctrination to churches and families!