Eh, the Democrats tried to run on this in 2000. They tried to run on this in 2004. Yawn.
The way to get ahead in life isn't to talk down the opposition, but to talk up yourself. Once your only strategy is to talk down the opposition, you've lost. If you can't sell yourself and your ideas to the American people, get out of the way.
I look around my office here at the Fun Factory, and the way folks get ahead isn't by standing around and complaining about other workers or managers. The folks who get ahead are the ones who bust their behinds working, and offer creative ideas and call sell those ideas.
Positive beats negative every time.
You might want to print this comment out and read it as a daily affirmation.
Posted by muckdog at September 23, 2005 12:14 PMMany things have already stuck to Bunnypants. Iraq, Katrina, Social Security privatization and Terri Schiavo. Why else do you think he's polling below 40%, you flying monkey rightards?
Posted by roamer at September 23, 2005 12:18 PMYeah muck, NO ONE ever accuse clinton of Anything like (murder, drug dealing. Bush got ahead because his dad was rich not becuase of hard work.
Posted by goose1 at September 23, 2005 12:21 PMThe way to get ahead in life isn't to talk down the opposition
Unless you call yourself a swift boat veteran.
Posted by at September 23, 2005 12:25 PMPositive beats negative every time.
Then why is negative campaigning so effective?
Posted by ann at September 23, 2005 12:30 PMI don't understand why Republican supporters wouldn't want news that Bush is a drunk. You'd prefer to think that he's naturally a mealy-mouthed, klutzy doofus who can't handle simple tasks like walking and eating? Hey, it's your fantasy world.
Posted by dj moonbat at September 23, 2005 12:39 PMLet alone dressing himself.
You would think the wingnuts would like an excuse that he was temporarily impaired!!
Posted by bbtb at September 23, 2005 12:48 PMSo Georgie is coked-up and swilling Nyquil. It's not like HE actually runs the country or anything.... Besides, could he be any worse totally shit-faced?
Posted by tempus at September 23, 2005 12:58 PMI agree with muckdog completely.
In fact I, and practically everyone else I know, would be an incredibly more effective president of the United States than the current occupant of that office.
Muck's right!
All that positive thinking feels pretty darn good!
Posted by snark at September 23, 2005 01:12 PM
Bush got ahead because his dad was rich not becuase of hard work.
Bush won in 2000 because people agreed with his vision of a tax cut to get the economy going again.
Remember, the 2000-2 bear market began in early 2000, while Bush and McCain were out competing in the primaries. By the time the Presidential debates took center stage, the economy was swooning. One of the debate topics was how to best kick-start the economy. Gore said "lock box," and Bush said "tax cut."
The better idea won.
In 2004, Kerry spent the primaries bashing Bush instead of coming up with his own ideas. When the debates came around, the best Kerry had to offer was a tax hike and "we'll do the same thing in Iraq, only faster." Other than that, all Kerry did was criticize. People saw right through Kerry.
Bush pounced on it. All he had to say was "This guy's only plan is to raise your taxes. I think it's your money."
'nuff said.
Posted by muckdog at September 23, 2005 01:28 PMIf 'nuff said, then why didn't you say that the first time?
Posted by pessimist at September 23, 2005 01:35 PM"This guy's only plan is to raise your taxes. I think it's your money."
And, barely one year later, as the red ink flows like water through the streets of New Orleans it's terribly apparent that that was the full extent of George Bush's "plan".
I think it's your money.
Posted by snark at September 23, 2005 01:43 PM
A true story: This morning I ran into an acquaintance, and in the course of discussing the two hurricanes, I was stunned to hear him discoursing on the country's four greatest presidents: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and ... and, oh god, I just can't repeat it ...
Muckdog, dear, I've been thinking: since y'all don't need my tax money, maybe you don't need my income either. So I'm seriously considering spending part of each year and part of my income in the company of civilized people in some other part of the world.
Al's Granny
Posted by g at September 23, 2005 01:46 PMYeah, tax cut works every time.....until one day the next generation has grown up and realizes the bill they have to pay. Just because people want it doesn't mean it's the better idea. It's only the better idea if you're obsessed with winning and have no interest in the actual job or the future of the country.
Posted by ann at September 23, 2005 01:47 PMOn the National Enquirer article:
First, let me say that I agree that there might be truth to rumors, as the original blog article points out. Secondly, I find the notion that Bush might be drinking again wholly believable, and thus, terrifying. Frankly, it's something I have worried about from the beginning of his presidency, and I needed no article to jumpstart my fears. However, I do share the concerns that we're getting this information from the National Enquirer, which, minus the pot shots at left wingers and liberals, seems to be the primary concern of the posting with which this blog was taking issue.
I first heard about this story listening to one of my favorite local talk radio hosts. Indeed, the article that host was reading out loud in his broadcast was alarming. I immediately checked the internet, and my sense of alarm instantly refocused upon learning the article's origins. I simply can't trust a supermarket tabloid with a deserved reputation for making up information. I could find no other information that backed up this story, and I have serious reservations about latching onto this story in the manner many anti-Bush forces, including a local talk show host for whom I have the utmost respect, apparently have.
That the article's general claim, that Bush had fallen off the wagon, strikes me as plausible and frightening, hardly warrants believing it. I'll need good, hard evidence and a source far more credible than the Enquirer before I'll believe it. After all, isn't that what makes Bush's WMD-in-Iraq claims so infuriating? No evidence, incredible sources and lies. Does anyone out there share my concern that many people seem to have latched onto this article as yet another reason to criticize Bush? Sheesh, do we really need further evidence that he's a terrible president and a threat to everything he touches? If it's proven I'll scream about it as loudly as evreyone else, but until then, well.....
And if anyone is concerned that I might be "trolling," I would hope your fears would be put to rest by reviewing my original posts to this blog during Hurricane Katrina.
As for the negative campaigning debate that arose in this section:
As someone who has worked in politics professionally, I think I can state confidently that mudslinging is hardly the sole province of either Republicans or Democrats. Simply put, if a candidate believes that negative campaigning will work, they'll probably engage in it. Unfortunately, all too often, it does work.
That said, if there were solid evidence that our president had, in fact, fallen off the wagon, it wouldn't be mudslinging to point it out. Hell, it'd be our duty to point it out. That's a serious, serious issue!
Thanks for indulging me.
Liveliest Crib
Posted by liveliest crib at September 23, 2005 01:57 PMmuck looks at dear leader and sees a hard worker. i look in the mirror and see george clooney. same difference.
Posted by benjoya at September 23, 2005 02:00 PMBush won in 2000 because people agreed with his vision of a tax cut to get the economy going again.
But fewer people agreed with Bush than Gore in 2000. Remember?
Posted by at September 23, 2005 02:10 PMTax cuts, schmax cuts, Scalia looked at the Bush v. Gore case and saw that the candidate that he wanted got in the White House.
'Nuff said.
Posted by rlp at September 23, 2005 02:44 PMEven the GAO is catching on that the "tax cut and borrow" crowd isn't sustainable. At least someone left in DC has a clue.
GAO Says Tax Breaks Too Costly
Posted by ann at September 23, 2005 03:13 PMHaven't all the rightwingers been saying they'd feel comfortable having a beer with George? They wished this on him...if it's true....and I bet it is.....
Posted by Sharon at September 23, 2005 03:22 PMNot only do I think it is my money, I think this is my country. I would like the President to use great care with both.
Posted by Jim Hurt at September 23, 2005 03:30 PMI, for one, feel better thinking the President might be able to excuse some of his actions on an occational "one to many" moment.
Posted by Jim Hurt at September 23, 2005 03:33 PMSince he's falling back on his old (and only) business strategy of taking a business, running it into the ground, and moving on, why should we be surprised that he's drinking again? It's just another "what he does" thing.
Posted by Michael at September 23, 2005 04:13 PMIt's just another "what he does" thing.
i gotta be me. heheh. urp.
Posted by dubya at September 23, 2005 04:39 PMTax cuts, schmax cuts, Scalia looked at the Bush v. Gore case and saw that the candidate that he wanted got in the White House.
Or, Scalia just made sure Florida followed their own election laws.
Can't have the refs announce at the end of the fourth quarter, "Well, lets add a 5th quarter today."
Besides, Bush won most of the vote recounts anyways. No matter how many quarters the Florida Supreme Court Refs wanted to add to the ballgame.
And that's THE TRUTH!
Posted by muckdog at September 23, 2005 04:52 PMI don't know whether President Bush has resumed "throwing one back" now and then, but it is certainly the case that his policies have and are continuing to cause me to.
Posted by bncthor at September 23, 2005 04:59 PMNot only do I think it is my money, I think this is my country.
Yes, and sometimes we have to spend money on things we don't want to: for the better of the entire country, not just what I want to buy at Wal Mart today. Paying taxes, to invest in the infrastructure and provide a safety net, under an effective and efficient and accountable government is possible. Unfortunately, Bush and his cronies aren't interested in running an effective, effienct and accountable government. Their only interest is looting the treasury and lining their pockets.
Posted by at September 23, 2005 05:07 PMHey muck,
The only reason Bush is in the White House now is all the election manipulation in Ohio by Blackwell. If you could take off your paritsan glasses for a second, read the Sept. 2005 article in Harper's mag that documents all the shennigans that went on there.
As long as crooked Secretaries of State will cheat for their parties nominee, there is no democracy in the United States.
http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html
Posted by brisa at September 23, 2005 05:21 PMActually, cons, the "state of liberalism today" is a state of "just about ready to kick all of your fucking asses."
Brace, you con bitches. Fury comes.
Posted by thunderhawk at September 23, 2005 05:22 PMPositive beats negative every time.
You might want to print this comment out and read it as a daily affirmation.
Posted by muckdog at September 23, 2005 12:14 PM
*****
Not in politics, dumbass. Been paying attention the past few elections?
Posted by thunderhawk at September 23, 2005 05:23 PMTax cuts, schmax cuts, Scalia looked at the Bush v. Gore case and saw that the candidate that he wanted got in the White House.
Or, Scalia just made sure Florida followed their own election laws.
Can't have the refs announce at the end of the fourth quarter, "Well, lets add a 5th quarter today."
Besides, Bush won most of the vote recounts anyways. No matter how many quarters the Florida Supreme Court Refs wanted to add to the ballgame.
And that's THE TRUTH!
Posted by muckdog at September 23, 2005 04:52 PM
*****
You wouldn't recognize the truth if it sodomized you with a toilet plunger (which, btw, you and your traitor ilk deserve).
Posted by thunderhawk at September 23, 2005 05:29 PMHey muck,
The only reason Bush is in the White House now is all the election manipulation in Ohio by Blackwell. If you could take off your paritsan glasses for a second, read the Sept. 2005 article in Harper's mag that documents all the shennigans that went on there.
As long as crooked Secretaries of State will cheat for their parties nominee, there is no democracy in the United States.
http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html
Posted by brisa at September 23, 2005 05:21 PM
He can't take off his partisan glasses. He's a kool-aid drinking cultist like the rest of the traitorous GOP apologists.
Fuckdog will always be a partisan, and will never be a patriot.
Posted by thunderhawk at September 23, 2005 05:31 PMI think it's your money.
Then why is he giving it all to Halliburton?
Posted by Repack Rider at September 23, 2005 05:54 PMOr, Scalia just made sure Florida followed their own election laws.
State Supreme courts are supposed to interpet state law. Scalia made sure an exception to the tenth amendment occured in Florida's case.
Posted by rlp at September 23, 2005 06:22 PMChoking on pretzels, falling off his bicycle, again and again, bruses on his face recently from who knows what, development of a mouth distortion, forgetting the questions from reporters, yep, I just might begin to wonder about his sobriety. Nothing is more terrifing than the thought of a drunk GWB.
Posted by Judith at September 23, 2005 09:22 PMOT, but I wonder if the media will even mention the protest tomorrow.
Posted by Judith at September 23, 2005 10:04 PMMuck is a fool
Yeah, that "Al Gore invented the internet" nonsense (and all the other crap thrown at Gore and Kerry) wasn't the main factor in Bush's "win" in 2000. It was the tax cuts....geesh you're an idiot.
Posted by pjhawk at September 23, 2005 11:43 PMWe know for a fact that Bush is not sober. The Washington Post reported on August 28th that Bush drank Buckler, a "non-alcoholic beer" during the press BBQ at his Crawford ranch. Non-alcoholic beer is a misnomer, as it is actually low alcohol beer. As any member of AA knows, all alcohol is verboten to a truly sober alcoholic. Bush is drinking again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A61966-2003Aug28¬Found=true
Posted by truth at September 24, 2005 03:52 AMMost of us know that alcoholism is a disease that must be treated. Bush has never received treatment for his alcoholism. I suspect the "born again" story created by Rove was to mask his drinking problem, among other things. As I have said before, I want to live long enough to read the book that will be written years from now on the Bush pResidency. Bush was, and stil is, a loose cannon. Frightening.
Posted by Judith at September 24, 2005 06:08 AMTruth, your link has disappeared. Hmmmm
Posted by Judith at September 24, 2005 06:13 AMThinking back, I don't remember bruses or scratches on my Father's face or any of my friends, for that matter. Bush, on the other hand, seems to sport such injuries quite frequently. Perhaps he is a falling down drunk.
Posted by Judith at September 24, 2005 06:29 AMthe chimp makes a habit of falling down and fuckdog makes a habit of talking out of his ass...tax breaks ...bullshit...
Posted by at September 24, 2005 09:35 AMWhile I would dearly love to see George Bush run out of office, the left blogosphere shouldn't risk damage by running with a story on the word of the National Enquirer. If it's true, then sooner or later we'll hear it from a more credible source.
Posted by Joe Buck at September 24, 2005 08:19 PMIf it's true, then sooner or later we'll hear it from a more credible source.
If it's true, there's a good chance that Bush will render himself incapacated to the point that the 25th amendment will be invoked and we really will have a president Cheney.
Posted by rlp at September 25, 2005 08:05 AMOr, Scalia just made sure Florida followed their own election laws.
If that's true, why did the Bush v Gore opinion specifically state that it has no standing as precedent? This was a one-time-only opinion - if it was based on Florida following its own election laws, why would such a disclaimer be necessary?
Can't have the refs announce at the end of the fourth quarter, "Well, lets add a 5th quarter today."
Which is exactly what Scalia did. Glad we can agree on that one.
Besides, Bush won most of the vote recounts anyways. No matter how many quarters the Florida Supreme Court Refs wanted to add to the ballgame. And that's THE TRUTH!
Wrong. Gore won the statewide recount that he was too stupid to ask for. Bush only won the limited recounts in Palm Beach and Broward Counties that you people screamed about. Face it - your tie-wearing chimp is only president because of a bloodless coup.
You probably don't know this because the "ultraliberal" CNN buried this fact about two-thirds of the way into its story on the recount. The headlines, which said Bush won the recounts, were referring only to the limited recounts, and not the statewide recounts.
Next time, try reading beyond the headlines.
Posted by chingachook at September 25, 2005 12:21 PM