< .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Massachusetts Liberal

Observations on politics, the media and life in Massachusetts and beyond from the left side of the road.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

The State of the Union...

... I believe the appropriate words is "sucks," but we'll be polite and say is "fragile."

Admit it, did you watch W. last night? I did not. I had more important things to do -- like anything. My blood pressure didn't need one last round of President Denial say how much he has accomplished in the world.

Nope, the man's legacy is visible throughout, from the war in Iraq to the failing economy to people at each other's political throats over whether torture really is a helpful interrogation tool. The divisions he will leave will -- economic, social, political -- will take decades to heal.

Besides, Bush's State of the Union addresses have always reflected the wide gap between the man's words and deeds. The compassionate conservative elected in 2000 (see the problem?) promising to be a uniter, not a divider, has a near perfect record in doing one thing and saying another.

George Bush frequently says history will be his judge and believes the verdict won't come until long after he passes. Wishful thinking.

I can honestly say that Richard Nixon had a respectable domestic record and would have been a respectable president if not for a simple character flaw that prevented him from distinguishing right from wrong.

And in a Barack Obama moment, I can agree that Ronald Reagan had a vision and a will to implement that vision -- even if I didn't agree with much, if not all, of it.

George Bush has sown dissension, foreign and domestic. He has spit on the Constitution, shattered America's moral standing in the world by his blind faith in torture. The gap between rich and poor, black and white, make and female will be wider when he leaves than when he arrived.

Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce move over and make room at the bottom.

Labels:

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem you have, Mass Lib, is that you are dishonest. You indicate your dislike of President Bush by using terms such as 'failed economy', and 'blind faith in torture'.

If you were honest, you would look at these kinds of issues with a critical thinking cap - but you don't.

Take the economy for example. There are several indicators for judging the health of the economy. Unemployment, GDP, and Consumer Price Index to name a few. While the last quarter has in fact trended towards bad news in these indicators, the past 4 years have trended good. Very good in fact. Data is available on department of labor websites and others. No, you can't choose MoveOn.org to get your data. They tend to, ah, 'skew' the message. Just like you do.

As far as the Iraq war, and the issues of torture and so forth, it is understandable that liberals, and peace loving folks(sic) such as yourself rarely see conflict as a solution. However, to be intellectually honest you really can't pidgoen hole your disagreement with left inspired catch phrases like "sown discontention" and "spit on the constitution". You need to provide fact based evidence to back up your points. ANd you rarely do.

A perfect example, is your recent blog about President Bush 'lying' about WMD. When an anon replies with some facts, you are forced to back-peddle and say thing like this:

"I'm not disputing that many people, myself included, believed Saddam could have had WMDs. He gassed the Kurds after all.

But by the presidential campaign in 2004 it was abundantly clear -- through efforts from people like George Piro -- that there were no WMD.

Nevertheless, Bush, Cheney et al continued to raise the fear level. That is the point I am making"

Total back-pedal and cop out.

So, start being honest. You may get some readers if you are.

anon

January 30, 2008 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

General knowledge of history tells us that growth during the Great Depression of the 1930s was slower than during the "economic boom" of the 1960s. One can put numbers on the comparison. U.S. real GDP grew at only 0.9 percent per year during from 1931 to 1935, but 4.65 percent during the 1960s.

Here is a breakdown covering the past 7 Presidencies; for simplicities sake, I've combinded the Nixon and Ford Administrations:

U.S Real GDP Indicator
1969-1977 (Nixon-Ford) 2.95%
1977-1981 (Carter) 2.73%
1981-1989 (Reagan) 3.52%
1989-1993 (Bush I) 1.92%
1993-2001 (Clinton 3.46%
2001-2007 (Bush II) 2.74%

So, Mass Lib, the economy was ruined by Bush II, How?

January 30, 2008 1:05 PM  
Blogger Outraged Liberal said...

Sorry Anon 12:13, but the dishonesty is in the attempt to twist my words to fit your preconception of what you thought I said.

In Mr. Saddam and Mr. George I was referring to the use of the specious WMD argument in the 2004 election, long after Piro's heroic work confirmed what the IAEA and other weapons inspectors confirmed.

You choose to take my admission that I too was snookered by Colin Powell's UN speech, and somehow suggest that I was backpedaling on my own words, and try to use to suggest I'm copping out. Talk about a dishonest argument.

As for liberals not seeing conflict as a solution -- wrong again. Afghanistan was a legitimate use of force. Diverting personnel and resources to Iraq, establishing a doctrine of preemption, one based on what has proven to be bogus "facts" is not.

And for an oldie but goodie -- World War II was a righteous conflict.

As for specifics on the spitting on the Constitution, allow me to name three right off the top of my head: illegal wiretapping -- in defiance of the FISA law that would allow it to take place legally; the Guantanamo tribunals (as decided by the Supreme Court with a majority of Republican appointees.

I'll also throw in a decision-to-be-named later: signing statements. The unitary executive concept is a blatant spit on the document that will eventually be rejected by the Supreme Court.

Anon 1:05 We can all find statistics backing our arguments. I'll toss out the loss of 2.7 million jobs between 2001-2004 during the last recession. Yes, many were restored and then some (at lower wages).

And what about wage growth. It has stagnated during much of the period you cited (and I'm not going to chase those numbers but refer you to that lefty periodical Business Week href="http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2006/nf20060117_7351_db084.htm/"
from Jan, 2006 asking "Where's the Wage Growth." We can trade statistics forever.

I may grant you I am projecting a bit about where the current economy is heading -- based on the absence of regulation which allowed the financial service industry to come up with specious tools like CDOs to make millions for the Masters of the Universe and which are now leaking billions of dollars in losses that will likely push the world economy into recession. Or are the stock markets a figment of my imagination too?

So maybe I will grant you that I may be a bit premature and will amend it to say Bush II WILL push the economy into ruin. It's started. My retirement account tells me that. (Yes I actually invest in the US economy, imagine that from liberal?)

Thanks to both of you for taking the time. I welcome readers who wish to disagree without being disagreeable. There's not enough of that in our nation today.

January 30, 2008 7:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YzU3OWUxOTM5NGZhZmYzODM2ZTI4ODhiYzU1NjdkNzE=

January 31, 2008 10:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YzU3OWUxOTM5NGZhZmYzODM2ZTI4ODhiYzU1NjdkNzE=

January 31, 2008 10:53 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home