50 posts tagged “worst president ever”
Here's what I was really waiting for. Bush boarding a plane to get the fuck out of Washington.
As my grandmother would say: Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
For almost four years I've had this bumper sticker on my truck:
Now that I won't need that one anymore, I decided to design the one I wanted.
If you'd like to have one, too, you can get it here.
On NPR this morning, I heard something that sent me straight-away to the internet to confirm that what I thought I heard was true. It was something so strange that I was sure I'd misheard the news, but The New York Times reports it, too. (Not that I always rely on them for factual accuracy.)
Bush turned down a secret Israeli request for a whole assload of bunker buster bombs that it wanted to drop on Iran. That's right, George W. Bush said, "Whoa there. That seems like overkill, pal."
Imagine. It'd be like being at a drunken fraternity party and having Dubya take the beer bong out of your hand and say, "Hey, buddy, I think you've had enough."
I mean, we're talking about George W. Bush. Mr. Bomb Them All and Let Allah Sort Them Out. Has he been replaced by a Not Evil Robot Clone™? (From the makers of Evil Robot Clone™ now with Cheney Death Sneer, Patent Pending.)
I'll tell you whut: makes you wonder if people really can change...
Earlier outside my office, a professor in the German department was lamenting Obama's victory. He said, "I think it's a terrible mistake." He said, "I think people will regret voting for something as amorphous as hope." Then he said, "I just can't think of him as my president."
That's when I popped my head out and said, "I know just how you feel. After eight years, I am so tired of looking at George Bush and thinking, 'That's not my president. He doesn't speak for me.'"
Professor of German moved on and left me with a bigger smile than I was already wearing.
It made me think of my aunt and her unflagging love for the Kansas City Royals' third baseman. Aunt Matilda loved George Brett. She went to as many games as she could and watched the rest on TV. At the games, Aunt Matilda was rabid. It was common for her to leap out of her seat when Brett was at bat and scream, "That's my boy! Hit it out of the park, son!"
This was shouted so passionately that people occasionally leaned over and said, "Is that George Brett's mom?"
"No, no," we always whispered, "She just really loves him."
I felt that same way when I walked on campus this morning and strolled by the newspaper racks in the union, where all the big daily papers trumpeted: OBAMA WINS!
I wanted to shout, "That's my president! Hit it out of the park!"
After the rally, Spucko and I dropped by my parents' house in an attempt to secure two more perhaps useless Kansas votes for Obama. Now, Mom and Dad were both raised Republican like me, but Mom has drifted Democrat on a number of elections, mostly because of women's rights issues. Dad is a die-hard Republican, whom I suspect of voting for Dubya in 2004. Let's just say, he's not exactly having a conversion, but he is starting to suspect that he's been cheated and lied to and stabbed in the back by his own party.
Dad has already said he thinks Obama will be the next president and he doesn't say it in this devastated the-end-is-really-fucking-nigh voice, either. So, I went to see if I couldn't convince him to actually cast a vote for Obama. He's still feeling pretty bullheaded about any suggestion that taxes might have to be raised, but I think Spucko and I whittled away at his reservations about Obama's health care plan, while talking about the utter bullshit that is McCain's plan.
I don't think I'd ever told my dad about how hard it was when Ryan and I had to buy our own health insurance, and I hope he can see how bad things are for people like his own kids. The thing is: when you're one family you can't negotiate with an insurance company for a better price, because you have no power. On the other hand, if all 300 million of us were collectively bargaining, what couldn't we do? One of Dad's proofs that nationalized health is so awful has always been: "Well, look at all the Canadian doctors moving to the US." Seems to me, that's only proof that doctors in the US just have more power to screw patients out of more money through their insurance companies. Seems to me, that's just a sign of what's wrong in the US.
The thing I keep coming back to is: the US government already spends more per capita on health care than any other country in the world. We're already spending the money, why not get something for everybody with it?
Besides, according to Sarah Palin: “We shouldn’t worry about government not having enough money. Government’s got plenty of money. It’s a matter of how government prioritizes the expenditures of those public dollars.” Of course, she's governor of a state that already has a socialized distribution of shared resource wealth. And she's right. She's right. The government has plenty of money, it's just stupidly failing to use its power to get the most for it. Oh, and there's that little problem of prioritization, like flushing money down the toilet in Iraq, or on the missile defense system. (Doesn't work now, never has worked, unlikely to ever work and we keep paying for it?) Or paying $6,000 per capita per year for health care that doesn't manage to cover everyone.
Speaking of nationalization and socialism, I have to say: I love Hugo Chavez. The guy is seriously crazy and dangerous and he's done all sorts of nefarious things, not least of which is silencing the press in Venezuela. As an off-the-hook wackjob who lives far from me, though, he's always good for a laugh. Unlike most of the media in the US, Chavez was quick to point out that with the banking bailout plan, Bush just took a sharp left into socialism. Chavez said, "Bush is to the left of me now." He also said, "I am convinced he has got no idea what's going on." Score two for Hugo "Chock Full o' Nuts" Chavez.
Which leads me to my other oddity: the way the news caster on NPR reported that Chavez has accused the US of wanting to invade Venezuela and overthrow or assassinate him. She said it in this shocked and mildly amused tone, as though to say, "Wherever does he get these ideas?" Maybe from the fact that we've rather recently invaded a sovereign oil-bearing nation and overthrown its leader. Are we forgetting about that? Just because the Hague hasn't tried to arrest Bush doesn't put us in the clear morally on that front.
Obviously, now I'm just putting off the inevitable: adding tags and going back to work. Ugh.
I had to stop drinking halfway through the vice presidential debate, because Palin was killing me. We started with our usual list of "drink" words or moments: change, experience, Main Street, golly, darn, heck or any other folksy utterance, any instance in which Palin substituted a folksy story for actual policy substance, the moments when Biden fought laughter. We also had a special "English majors drink" rule: any time Palin racked up more than five dependent clauses without actually finishing the sentence. We hit two of those.
In the end, it was "maverick" that almost did me in, and that turned out to be Biden's fault. When he went on his rant about McCain not being a maverick, I finished off my last bottle of cider and declared my participation in the drinking game over.
The best line of the night, though, was Palin's use of the phrase "team of mavericks." Really, she and McCain are a "team of mavericks"? A TEAM of MAVERICKS? I checked the OED this morning to make sure I was being fair, but the OED confirms my understanding of the word maverick: an individualist. So, how exactly would one set about getting together a team of individualists? Exactly what would this team of mavericks rally around? (Or maybe Palin meant maverick in its Old West sense of "an unbranded yearling or calf." Well, it might describe Palin, but McCain? Hardly a calf.)
There were also two rather scary moments in the debate, the first when Palin established that she's not just Bush in a dress, but that she wants to be Bush in a dress. She actually used the word "nucular." Not once or twice, but perhaps a dozen times. I would not automatically ascribe that to any particular political feeling, as I grew up among people who said "nucular," including my dad. What happened as the debate wore on, however, is a different matter. Namely, Palin slipped a handful of times and said, "nuclear." Because the Alaskan dialect does not in fact feature the word "nucular." So, Palin had actually practiced using "nucular," perhaps drilled herself on it during the week of "debate camp" she attended to get ready for the debate. The thought of McCain being president doesn't absolutely terrify me, in part because I suspect he despises Bush. How could he not? Palin, though, seems to want to emulate the Worst President Ever. Yikes.
The other scary moment is one that is seared into my brain. A thing that made me want to run from the room and pour bleach in my eyes. Sarah Palin winked at me. She looked right into the camera and she winked at me. Our country has put up with a lot these last eight years: invasions of other countries, plunging home values, rising unemployment rates, the nepotic and necrotic demolition of revered American institutions. I've handled all of that, but I swear to you, if that woman ever winks at me again, I am going to go batfuck insane and take this country apart into a big pile of red, white and blue Legos.
I don't care if she wants to wink at the people who show up for Republican rallies and stump speeches, because they're her people. She can wink at them. But when I watch a vice presidential debate, I've invite the candidates into my home as guests. I expect them to act with appropriate decorum.
So here's the deal, Sarah Palin: you and me, we're not in on a joke together. We're not friends or compatriots or fellow travelers on this journey of life. You are Satan's favorite succubus, and I hate your stupid Amy Winehouse hair, and your five kids with their ridiculous "frontier" (maverick?) names, and the way you've stolen the word "Awesomest" from indolent teens everywhere, and the fact that you fired the town librarian over issues of "loyalty." Like you were the fricking Communist Party Boss of Wasilla, Alaska.
Do you hear me, Sarah Palin? DO NOT FUCKING WINK AT ME EVER AGAIN.
And how are we going to patch the hole?
I don't ask this because I have an answer. I ask because I want an answer.
I don't know whether a bailout of the financial system is good or bad, smart or stupid, because no one seems to be able to tell me exactly what will be done with all of that money. Or what we'll do to prevent a repeat of this.
Here's the situation as I understand it. The federal government will take somewhere near a TRILLION dollars and use it to purchase all some bad debt currently held by private banks and investment firms. Most of the bad debt is mortgage debt on properties in danger of foreclosure, brought about by reckless mortgage lending.
Now, from where I'm standing, this sounds like nationalized banking, for a country who declared itself too good for nationalized health care.
My question is: how is this all going to work? The banks who made all the stupid loans, who were supposed to be responsible for vetting potential borrowers, do they just get to pocket the money and walk away from their screw up? Basically, am I and my fellow taxpayers purchasing mortgage securities on mortgages that will never be repaid? Are we planning to do something to address the fact that the borrowers on those mortgages are still in over their heads, owing more money on a house than it's worth, with no hope of selling it? Is there a plan to allow these people to refinance under terms they can manage? Is there a plan to address the fact that housing values have plummeted? Since I'm buying up these bad debts, will I see dividends if they are ever paid off?
When is someone going to explain all of this in simple terms, so folks like me can understand? Obviously Bush can't do that, but don't they have someone who can? All Bernanke and Paulson have talked about is why we need to commit to the bailout. Neither of them have much to say about how the bailout will be implemented or how it will work. Are they too afraid to talk about the practical aspects of it? I'm not the smartest person in the world, but I do pretty well. I think if they explained it to me, I could understand, and I think they owe to me. They owe it to everyone whose tax dollars would be spent on the bailout.
I only feel sorry for Americans while listening to the BBC's. We're so far away and the announcers talk in cultured voices about the "bleak situation in the United States." The weak dollar. Rising gas prices. The mortgage crisis. Home foreclosures. They sound so kind and sympathetic for "middle class Americans feeling the pressure of a sagging economy." I actually start to feel bad, momentarily forgetting that in my part of the country those poor suckers are the same dumb saps who drive around with "God Bless America" bumperstickers and ever thought invading Iraq was a good idea, and by and large voted twice for the Worst President Ever.
Imagine two boats: one a big ocean liner with double hulls and one a rickety little overcrowded fishing boat. That seems to be the new model of America. On the big boat, rich folks stand on the upper decks drinking cocktails, and whenever there's trouble, they get the first handout. Big boat springs a leak, all hands to the bilge pump. Little boat springs a leak, well, let's just say the little boat has had a leak all along. This is how the government has reacted to the mortgage loan crisis: rushing to bail out the very banks who made the irresponsible decisions that led to the crisis. Don't even bother blaming the people who took out loans they had no hope of repaying--it's the banks' job to evaluate borrowers to establish their worthiness. The borrowers are being held responsible for their mistakes--they're losing their houses. The banks, not so much.
Worse, bailing the banks out isn't going to solve the problem, which currently is a wasteland of foreclosed houses. In Detroit alone, 73,000 houses were repossessed in 2007. 73,000 houses sitting empty, abandoned, or gone to auction to the highest bidder. Neighborhoods blighted, property values down, tax revenue plummeting. How is this going to help the economy?
Of course, the people in the big boat don't get all the blame, because the people in the little boat aren't rowing. No, I take that back. They're rowing, but they're rowing in the wrong direction. They're rowing towards an impossible future, where everything gets better every year. How can people think that's possible? Really, we really think that forever and ever and ever and ever, the "next generation" is going to be "better off" than their parents? How the fuck would that work? We're already consuming our natural resources at an insupportable rate and the planet's population keeps going up.
The fact is, we need to turn this boat around and row ourselves closer to shore. We need to seriously work towards contracting our lifestyles to one that's sustainable. Use less energy, consume fewer goods, be content with less. Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without--remember that?
Denmark once again this year rates as the "happiest country." Ronald Inglehart, who oversees the study into national levels of happiness, believes that happiness has a direct correlation to: peace, democracy, and a sense of freedom to choose how to live your life. Of course, Denmark is prosperous, but note that doesn't seem to be the big element in happiness. It's not how much stuff the Danes have or how much they can buy or how quickly their economy is growing. The United States, still the world's richest economy, only ranks 16th on the national happiness scale.
Some days I wish I didn't follow current events. I wish I didn't read the news or listen to the radio. Today is one of those days.
Seymore Hersh reports that the US is currently preparing for military action in Iran. According to Hersh, the build-up of troops and equipment is taking place in Afghanistan. US officials counter by denying that they're launching any attacks from Iraq. Iran, meanwhile, offers that they're already digging graves to properly bury the bodies of invading troops.
It's like both sides have hired Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the former Iraqi Minister of Misinformation. On the one hand, he regrets to inform us that we are "too far from reality." On the other hand, "There are no American infidels in Tehran. Never!"
Could we possibly bump the presidential election up to August?
One quote from Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf cannot be denied, but then even a stopped clock is right twice a day: "I speak better English than this villain Bush."
Dear Scott McClellan,
Does the phrase "a day late and a dollar short" mean anything to you? You spent two and a half years as George W. Bush's official spokesman, but now, now you want share with the world that you feel the White House used "propaganda" instead of "candor"? Wasn't that your job, you asshat? To pass off propaganda as truth?
Everything that you swore for years was true, now you're telling us it was the result of Bush being "ill-served" by his advisers? So, what? Bush gets a pass? He's not responsible for parsing truth from falsehood? That's not the president's job anymore? Wasn't that what his excuse for being an ignorant fuck--that he was going to have a bunch of great advisers to make up for his stupidity?
As for you, do you think this is going to earn you points with anyone? Now, when it doesn't matter, when nothing you say or do is going to pull America out this spiral of debt and war, you're going to tell us, "Oopsie, some of those things I said weren't really true"? Are you worried that there might some day be a tribunal to investigate the crimes of George Bush and you hope that this book will absolve you of any responsibility for your role in those crimes?
If the White House is "puzzled" by your tell-all book, color me utterly fucking perplexed. What's the point of telling everything now? We've already figured it out.
With contempt,
~Redzilla
