Newsweek: 2006 Election Was ‘In No Uncertain Terms’ An Endorsement of Former President Bush
Newsweek: 2006 Election Was ‘In No Uncertain Terms’ An Endorsement of Former President Bush
Newsweek is the latest major media outlet to repeat the falsehood that the 2006 election was an endorsement of conservatism. The latest Newsweek cover story notes:
The American people, as politicians like to say, spoke last week – and spoke in no uncertain terms. The 2006 vote does not suggest an eagerness for a sharp left turn. It seems, rather, to be a plea for a shift from the hard right of the neoconservatives to the center represented by the old man in Houston [President George H. W. Bush].
The “centrist” ideas “represented” by former President Bush are actually progressive ideas put forward over a year ago. Media reports indicate that the James Baker-led Iraq Study Group will call for (1) a phased drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq and (2) a diplomatic initiative to engage Iraq’s regional neighbors to help calm ethnic tensions. The Center for American Progress advanced these very steps over a year ago in its Strategic Redeployment plan.
It’s also worth noting that former President Bush publicly backed his son’s Iraq policy prior to the war. Two months before the invasion, Bush 41 said “someone needs to step forward to hold Saddam to account. And the United States, led by our president, is prepared to do just that.” True, some former Bush advisers have opposed the war since the beginning. Yet others, like Colin Powell, were among the most prominent public advocates.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Then why did they fire Rummy? Why is Cheney numbers so low? Bush jr whole staff is daddy retreds.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:28 pmI believe no incumbent Democrat lost his or her job. That doesn’t sound like a bi-partisan repudiation to me and I haven’t heard any analyst on television point that simple fact out. The “liberal media” seems hell-bent on describing this election as anything other than what it was.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:29 pmThese people are pathetic. They were wrong about the war, wrong about the occupation, wrong about the election. We’re supposed to believe them now? They should all be emailed Bob Cesca’s post from HuffPo, and STFU.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:31 pmWas this article printed in Newsweek’s newly expanded comics section?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:33 pmYou have to consider the source; the article was written by Joe “Anonymous” Klein…
November 13th, 2006 at 1:35 pmWTF?? an endorsement of BUsh senior?? He’s a real centralist. Not suprising wimp Bush supported Iraq, he invaded Panama against international law. Now that Iraq is a disaster he’s sending in his boys to wipe juniors ass like he’s been doing his whole life. Newsweek is f**ked in the head. Sweeping repubs. out of office is somehow an endorsement of bush senior defies logic.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:36 pmThey can call it whatever they like. Apparently, liberal is the new conservative. Whatever.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:38 pmIs that why so many conservative republicans were swept into office? Wait, that was 1994! (I guess this isn’t the current issue.)
November 13th, 2006 at 1:39 pmand what were papa bush’s approval ratings like?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:42 pmNewsweek, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the rest of the corporate rags can spin it anyway they want. The bottom line is that the Republican party is now irrepairably fractured between at least three wings: the reality-challenged neocons, the corporate greed-mongers, and the “God is on our side” fundamentalists. Nothing they say is going to change that reality. Dems just need to keep on message, which is the progressive mandate of this election.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:42 pmblockquote>Newsweek: 2006 Election Was ‘In No Uncertain Terms’ An Endorsement of Former President Bush
Why don’t the MSM say ‘We think the 2006 Election Was ‘In No Uncertain Terms’ An Endorsement of Former President Bush.
Instead of trying to pose this deluded opinion as fact?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:42 pmguess newsweek is doing badly and about to have to become a tabloid to compete with the national enquirer. if they print this, the enquirer has more accurate news.
remember, all newpapers and printed publications are doing very badly now, and their internet ratings will affect this as well. So they are glitz instead of substance just to get readers
we should not take notice of brats when they are asking for a spanking.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:43 pmI was never one for the LOL stuff so I’ll just say,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
If Voting for democrats is now some supernatural form of praise and support for washed up Republicans,well then, lets all just show those republicans all the support we can.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:44 pmConservatism is organized hypocrisy. Newsweek pretty much proves it, with this goofy article.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:45 pmGlad I did not renew my subscription. Daddy Bush has been enabling the Shrub all his life – get him into the oil business and bail him out, get him into the baseball business and bail him out, get him into politics and bail him out. Let’s hope bailing the Shrub also saves America as a side benefit.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:47 pmwatch the PBS documentary called “the dark side” on their website and you’ll know more about powell and his “support for the war”.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:47 pmvery good documentary in general.
Houston, we have a problem…
November 13th, 2006 at 1:48 pmAre they saying that in comparison even Bush the first looks good?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:48 pmAs I recall, back in those days, GHWB was not highly regarded, and had exhibited that he was quite out of touch with the average American.
But W is so awful, he has made even Nixon look good.
That is pretty bad, where would Newsweek get that idea from?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:50 pmIt’s ‘Weekly World Newsweek’ and the front page shows the clone of looser number one: looser number two.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:51 pmWhoa! How many people voting even remember the first President Bush? Or care?
This is beyond laughable. The election of 2006 is supposed to be about policies supposedly promulgated by a President who left office 14 years ago? Sorry, but Americans don’t have that kind of longterm memory.
Newsweek might as well have said it was an endorsement of President Nixon, or Taft. Or depilatories!
November 13th, 2006 at 1:51 pmsomeone needs to explain the laws of physics to Newsweek:
if you are going to the right, there are 2 and only 2 ways to get to the center, i.e., a place to the left of where you are. Either:
a) you go further to the right until you double back on yourself, as in the long way around a circle, or
b) you turn the left.
Now since Neweek hasn’t devined that the election was as a mandate from the voters for the country to go further to the right, there is only one way left to get to the center: turn left.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:52 pm.
Now that is a serious case of a reaching argument.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:54 pmDear Mr. Conyers,
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2006-11-13 18:19. Impeachment
By Carol Wolman, MD, Cochair: Impeach Bush-Cheney, Member: The Longhouse Coalition
Congratulations on your re-election to Congress. This makes your 21st term. I believe you are now the senior Democrat in the House of Representatives.
You have long been a hero of mine, because you’ve been willing to take brave stands in difficult times. I’ve especially appreciated your investigation of the fraudulent Ohio vote in the ‘04 presidential election.
What stands out for me is your effort to get an impeachment movement going in the spring of ‘05. That’s when the Downing Street memos came out, revealing that intelligence had been deliberately twisted to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation that was not threatening the US in any way. Lying us into war is an impeachable offense.
As the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, you wrote a treatise, you held hearings, you got over 30 cosponsors for HR 635, which would mandate an investigation into impeachable offenses by Bush and Cheney, you tried to get a people’s movement going.
You were our shining star in Congress, the one we counted on. Now you will become Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and have the power to begin impeachment hearings. You have experience, since you participated in the Nixon hearings way back in ‘74, when you were already a member of that Committee. You have wisdom, courage, position.
Yet, according to an article in your local paper, http://www.freep. com/apps/ pbcs.dll/ article?AID= 2006611100333, you have decided to say, with Nancy Pelosi, “impeachment is not on the table”. With everything at your disposal now, you could hold swift and certain impeachment hearings, and boot the criminals right out of office. What’s stopping you?
Bush is more dangerous than ever. He holds absolute power over all of us, as you well know. John Conyers, you were there in Congress last month when the shameful law was passed that allows him to declare any one of us an “illegal enemy combatant” and put us away in Halliburton’ s “detention centers” with no legal recourse, not even habeas corpus. You were there when the other law was passed that voids posse comitatus and puts the National Guard under Bush’s direct command, bypassing the governers, so that they can be used to control the people.
The people want Bush out. That’s why we voted so overwhelmingly for the Democrats. The only way we knew to express our desire to get rid of Bush and Cheney was to vote for the Democrats. Over half the people in this country want impeachment. They are hoping that a Democratic Congress will carry out the popular will.
There is a huge groundswell of support for impeachment, which is quickly getting defused by the disgusting Bush-Pelosi love fest now taking place.
The public is being told “We don’t have time for impeachment, there’s more important business to be done.” What could be more important than getting rid of this would-be dictator who has already done our country so much harm?
The public is being told, “We don’t want to divide the country”. The people would quickly unite behind an impeachment movement once Bush and Cheney’s crimes were brought to light by the House Judiciary Committee.
You know all this, John Conyers. I’ve been hoping you would accept a draft to become Speaker of the House, challenging Pelosi’s determination to play ball with Bush. Now I hear that you stand with Pelosi: “impeachment is not on the table”.
John Conyers, I feel betrayed. I understand that your good friend, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated and that you have to be careful. I understand that you have be a politician. But you could have said- “we’ll see how things develop”- anything to let us know that you are still with us, and are willing to conduct impeachment hearings when the time is right. But no, you say with Pelosi “impeachment is not on the table.”
How did they get you, John Conyers? Did they threaten you? or your grandchildren? I can’t believe you would accept a bribe after all these years. What happened to you?
My heart is broken, John Conyers. I trusted you. I thought you abided by the same Christian principles that Dr. King stood for- justice, truth, service to the people. But no, you’re going along with the rest of them.
Luke 16: 13No servant can serve two masters.
He will either hate one and love the other,
or be devoted to one and despise the other.
You cannot serve God and mammon.â€
http://www.usccb. org/nab/111106. shtml
Come back to us, John Conyers. Help us get rid of the criminals who have hijacked our government. Impeachment is legal, peaceful, and expressive of the will of “we the people”. You have the power to make it happen.
Help us take our country back.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:55 pmJon Meacham is editor in chief now.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:56 pmThat is a rather interesting spin on the election, especially considering that George H. W. Bush only received 30 something percent of the vote in 1992. But this isn’t the first time the main stream media has attempted to rewrite history. And I’m sure it won’t be the last time either.
Why don’t they simply look at the exit polling. That will tell them everything they need to know. Besides, I don’t see how the old man bails Bush out on the issue of the culture of corruption. Perhaps an inventive mind will come up with something though I don’t see how.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:57 pmThis is going to Burn inside GW’s stomach. He’s been getting saved and protected by his daddy for the longest time and the picture alone shows the world that daddy is coming to the rescue again.
The article itself may have some merit considering the extensive slant the current administration has been force feeding us. GHWB did say during the Gulf War that removing Saddam would have been bad and would have created a void in the region. So in one sense the dad is smarter than the son.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:02 pmHow do these people make up this s**t? How do they pretend to be journalists?
November 13th, 2006 at 2:05 pmThat damn liberal media with their left bias are at it again!
/sarcasm off
November 13th, 2006 at 2:08 pmHell, I might have supported the war, IF they didn’t lie to us about going in, IF they had stated that it was to remove Saddam Hussein, IF they had been able to convince me that we could win and not just said “Trust me, we know what we’re doing.” One thing Bush Sr was good for was putting together alliances. When he went in it was at the head of an alliance of countries who knew what it was we were trying to accomplish, not some mumbled half-assed ‘evidence’ that there were WMDs somewhere and that the Iraqi’s had something to do with terrorism. When he went in I knew it was about oil then too, but I knew that the stated goal was achievable and that’s what the generals on the ground were going to do, and damned if that wasn’t exactly what happened.
It WASN’T that we invaded Iraq. That was never my problem with Dubya. It was WHY and HOW that got me ticked off.
I wouldn’t vote for Bush Sr if he ran again (mostly simply because he’s a Republican), but he’s not at all like Junior.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:09 pmAre there ANY examples from the past six years showing a liberal bias to the new media?? With articles like this, how can anybody still honestly believe that…
November 13th, 2006 at 2:11 pm“These people are pathetic…” “Centrist ideas were really progressive ideas put forth….” “…trying to pose this deluded opinion as fact?”
Comments from Progs/Progettes
*********For the sake of argument – let’s PRETEND you are correct. Let’s PRETEND that the country was signalling a massive shift to the Left…..Now if the country was saying, “We wish to adopt a more liberal form of goverment,” wHY didn’t the Dems run candidates who are true ideological LEFTISTS??? (Pssst….maybe because they couldn’t or WOULDN’T be elected???)
On a less nebuloue topic: Please pass along my sincere compliments to the new Speakette of the House…When she kept discussing the “Climate of corruption” during the campaign, I had no idea she was going to bypass Jane Harmon as head of the Intel Committee and prop up the old, disgraced crook, Alcee Hastings. I thought she was AGAINST corruption…(At least Repubs kick crooks from our Party to the curb and quit re-electing them – Dems swear they can change the spots on the leopard…..but they haven’t yet.)
Busy day…..
November 13th, 2006 at 2:15 pm[...] Also, Newsweek sees the Democratic victory as an endorsement for—wait for it—George Herbert Walker Bush. Not sure how they managed to work that out. I naively thought a big Democratic victory was an endorsement of Democrats. Silly me. [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 2:15 pmThis is what the Bush Crime Family has done to Iraq.
It has been 60 years since a major nation has been so guilty of War Crimes. And that’s saying something.
ITMFA!!!
November 13th, 2006 at 2:19 pmAs long as the cons remain in fantasy land, maybe they won’t do too much damage in the real world.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:20 pmHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
whew. i needed that…
November 13th, 2006 at 2:21 pm“To retain laws and customs according to the traditionary manner, and to extend these laws and customs to other lands,” was the precept of the founders of the Celestial Empire, as well as of other civilised nations. “But this extension,” they added, “is not to be effected by the oratorical powers of single messengers [Bush], nor through the force of armed hordes.[Iraq] This renovation, as in every other sound organic growth which forces itself from within, can only take place when the Outer Barbarians [GOP], irresistibly compelled by the virtue and majesty of the Son of Heaven, blush for their barbarism, voluntarily obey the image of the Heavenly Father, and become men.”
When are the GOP gonna become men and stop being greedy materialistic frat boys?
November 13th, 2006 at 2:24 pmOnly 5 of those Dems were what you might call “social” conservatives
November 13th, 2006 at 2:26 pmand not fundamentalist desroyers of the Consitution. And we KNOW how you hate that word ’social’ Might Foamy Uranus Nads
When are the GOP gonna become men and stop being greedy materialistic frat boys?
Comment by Dog_named_Boo — November 13, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
When the public stops supporting their drunken frat parties.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:27 pmWell if we’re pulling stuff out of our asses, why was this election all about Bush senior whose name was not on the ballot anywhere? Why wasn’t it all about former president Clinton, or Nixon, or Abe Lincoln for that matter.
In fact why was it all about a former president? Why not say this past election was all about my dog, your cat, Bozo the Clown, Mrs. Simpson, or Bart, La, La, La-La-La.
As Al Franken likes to say, “These guys just make stuff up”
November 13th, 2006 at 2:30 pm#1 (Goose1)
Daddy’s crowd falls into two camps. The neo-con; war-monger, fascist clan led by Prince of Darkness Cheney and the pragamtist politico clan led by George “I hurl Sushi” Bush.
Rummy, Feith, Bolton, Pointdexter etc. are warriors of the fascist clan. Robert Gates, Powell, Armitage, Jim Baker etc. are with pragmatist clan.
Perle, Condi, Adelman, McCain etc. are with the “I go the way the wind blows” faction. Like parasites they attach themselves with whomever is in power in GOP
There is a purge; the pragmatist are cleaning GOP house by getting rid of the neo-cons hoping GOP will be a viable party in 2008 Presidential elections and the American political scene after the neo-con debacle of last 6.5 years
I hope this short synopsis of the inner workings of the GOP helps you understand why Rummy had to go.
It is either that, or the fact that Rummy was a moron. Take your pick. :-)
November 13th, 2006 at 2:32 pmHow about the notion that the American people have had enough unbridled power and corruption?!
Or the notion that the neocons have gotten us into the Iraq Fiasco, but have no way to get us out?!
Or the notion that the so-called conservative party is spending the Treasury like a drunk sailor?!
Really. It was all about Daddy, was it?
November 13th, 2006 at 2:33 pmLetys say you are correct, which this blog proves otherwise on a daily basis that in 1994 their was no massive shift to the right, Now if the country was saying we wish to adopt a more conservative form of goverment, why did the GOP side with the Kirpatrick crypto fascists [neo-cons]?
If I use YOUR logic Mighty Evil Assrodite, then the the GOP never had a realigment ergo you are actually ‘Democrats’.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:33 pmMighty A: “wHY didn’t the Dems run candidates who are true ideological LEFTISTS??? (Pssst….maybe because they couldn’t or WOULDN’T be elected???)”
All 27 of the Dems who beat out Repubs favor raising minimum wage and universal health care. All believe in unions. All 27 favor federal funding for stem cell research. I believe 4 of them call themselves “pro-life.” No incumbent Dems lost. WTF are you even talking about?
November 13th, 2006 at 2:34 pmI keep hearing this “‘06 was a victory for conservatism” mantra over and over. If America was so conservative, why didnt the republican candidates, who are assumedly more conservative than the democratic candidates, win? So its a victory for the slightly less than conservative conservativism! They didnt print that because they wanted to save on the typeface.
By the way, the reason the democrats didnt run Leftist candidates is because there are very few Leftist politicians in this country- not like Europe where parties like the Greens, Socialists, etc exist as viable parties. You can call Democrats names all you like- it doenst make it true, but it does make you look like a retard.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:34 pmThat and take away mommy and daddys money and make the coke spooners actually do some work and earn a living.
Talk about welfare, Bush is it.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:35 pmMighty likes to argue for the sake of argument. Period.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:40 pm“wHY didn’t the Dems run candidates who are true ideological LEFTISTS??? (Pssst….maybe because they couldn’t or WOULDN’T be elected???)”
OK, why didn’t Bush run as a true ideological RIGHTIST when he ran in 2000?????
(Psst…. maybe because he couldn’t or WOULDN’T BE ELECTED???)
So, he ran a dishonest campaign selling himself as a centrist and I’m sure you thought this cynical strategy was a work of genius.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:41 pmsay what!?!?!?!
It was a ringing indictment of the failures of conservatism not and endorsement. What planet do these writers live on?
November 13th, 2006 at 2:45 pmThe planet of denial where the great blameless ones live.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:51 pmFor the sake of argument – let’s PRETEND.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Edited for clarity.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:53 pmWorld of Mass Denial (WMD).
November 13th, 2006 at 2:56 pmThe democrats did run lefties. Don’t you remember your two years of attacking them. We sure do. You are a phoucing retard.
Ahah aha ha hahah ah aha h ah ha hah.
Yeah right.
Tom DeLay anybody. You phoucers wanted to change the rules to keep him in.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:57 pmMighty thinks that Rove, Scanlon and friends [Reed, Delay, Abramoff] calling the fundamentalists wackos means that Bushco is an ideological rightist. MA why would a Rightist call the Rightists wackos? Cam you say neo-liberals?
November 13th, 2006 at 2:58 pm[...] My colleagues on the left are in a bit of a snit over the media coverage of the recent Democratic takeover of congress. Today marks another time where I find my view diverting from theirs. That’s one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives – we think for ourselves. But anyway, check this out: Newsweek is the latest major media outlet to repeat the falsehood that the 2006 election was an endorsement of conservatism. The latest Newsweek cover story notes: [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 2:59 pmHeh!
November 13th, 2006 at 2:59 pmHW Bush sucked, and everyone agreed then, I can remember it vividly- he was the butt of more jokes than Ford – so now Time/Newsweek (drivel-rags at best) and the MSM generally, are saying, in effect, that the mullet haircut and parachute pants are back by popular demand?? Get a clue, f***ers….
November 13th, 2006 at 3:02 pmCorporate owned media is a Freak Show of lies and distortions. Senior Bush was a failure in the early 90’s and Reagan sucked also. Both were very unpopular and sold out the middle and lower class to the wealthy. Just like the current A-Hole.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:09 pmWho cares what the media call it? If the agenda is progressive and they want to call it conservative, let them. Then when we want to present something like universal health care, free public education from pre-school thru college, etc. we can say we’ve only moved a little toward the center from our ‘conservative’ position.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:11 pmI have been having one thought/question – does it really matter that much that the right is touting this election as a victory for conservative values? My thought is possibly this is not so bad. Think about it – such thinking could give a Republican the idea that voting for a Republican is not anethema to being a member of their party. In fact, it could even make them think that the only way to carry on conservatism is by voting for “centrist” democrats (even though all of these “centrists” are looking to support and protect the middle and lower class). Couldn’t this be a good thing??? I truthfully do not have an answer to this observation – anybody else want to weigh in on whether it might not be a bad thing for conservatives to think this election was a win for conservatism???
November 13th, 2006 at 3:16 pmThe irony of it all, They claim to be religious. Yet they embrace the ones the lust for money, the root of all evil.
As MA here, they covet materialism over humanity. They hate more than they love, they take more than they give, they speak badly of others, they often pray for the death of others. They pray for war so the messiah [the christ] will return. They start wars based on lies.
Hardly a group of people Jesus would recognize. He would have nothing to do wiith these folks insatiable greed and hate.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:25 pmWell if what the Democrats want is “conservative” then when the Republicans put forward an idea, just declare it Extreme Right Wing and it goes away. By trying to spin this, Republicans are just painting themselves further off the spectrum.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:25 pm“World of Mass Denial (WMD).” Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
********You seem to have hit the “Post” button a little quickly…. again… It should read:
“Dems and Frenchified Europe – World of Mass Denial…about Weapons of Mass Destruction….”
You must be thrilled with the talk of Alcee Hastings for Chari of the Intelligence Committee…. Such a choice!
November 13th, 2006 at 3:29 pmI have been having one thought/question – does it really matter that much that the right is touting this election as a victory for conservative values?
A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. People should not enable liars.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:30 pmIt’s just TALK, as you said. Do you have any real points?
November 13th, 2006 at 3:32 pmOh didn’t you hear the Good News? Alcee is now a conservative!!
November 13th, 2006 at 3:34 pmIOKIYAC!!
did mighty just post something?
November 13th, 2006 at 3:45 pmhe does know best by what? giving the boot to a nazi(rummdumm) and fill the slot with a what……iran contra player.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:05 pmHow about the notion that the American people have had enough unbridled power and corruption?!
Comment by Cheney/Voldemort 2008 Campaign HQ — November 13, 2006 @ 2:33 pm
No… are you kidding? What would Americans do without political scandals and mud-slinging? Corruption and power-mongering is the bread and butter of Republicans and Democrats alike. The public just want the lite version. That’s why most voted Democrat this term. 2012 will swing it back. My prediction (in case anyone cares) is that we’ll be right back to where we were at the beginning of the second term of Clinton’s Presidency. We’ll have had a democrat in power with a democratic congress for four years and we’ll be looking at rumors and innuendo about a personal scandal in the Whitehouse and wondering if the Republicans can pull us out of it. Anyone who brings up the Iraq war will have to deal with a whole lot of finger-pointing at people who are out of office and a whole lot of “we really should not dwell on the past” and the Republicans aren’t the same party they were in 2006 blah blah blah… and people will believe them. When the Republicans have their sh*t together, they run a much more effective campaign than the Democrats do.
Vote them ALL out. Otherwise you’re still stuck on the merry-go-round.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:10 pm[...] A Newsweek cover story states that the 2006 election was, “in no uncertain terms,” all about the American people endorsing the ideas of… former President Bush. Indeed, nothing uncertain about that. Just like all Americans, Herbert Walker was at the forefront of my mind when I cast my ballot. [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 4:13 pmPapa Bush, who? Are you kidding me that this was an “endorsement” of that old codger? This has to be a fictional article written for comedic effect….totally and entirely ridiculous. Papa Bush’s only legacy is that he “isn’t” his son….what a legacy, huh? He’s got one foot on a banana peel and is so far off the political radar that I thought he’d become the poster boy for Dole’s new raisins….but, to coin the words of his son recently….”shows you how much I know”…hah!
Perhaps the editor of Newsweek is not all there either? I’ve heard of people clinging to the past but this is absurd.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:25 pmIt had to be a typographical error because, if anything, this was a healthy endorsement of Bill Clinton and certainly not the botched Iran Contra Daddy Bush.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:27 pmTime and Newsweek are both corporate whores. They have absolutely no journalistic ethics whatsoever. Their covers are proof. The idea that the voters were supporting Poppy Bush is absurd. This was an election on Chimpy and he lost. His daddy had nothing to do with it.
Remember, Newsweek also censored the “Losing Afghanistan” cover in the US, they ran a crappy cover about Annie Liebowitz instead.
To hell with corporate whores. Cancel your subscriptions!
November 13th, 2006 at 4:36 pmYup. Corporate Whores. How could any sane mind come up with that crap and believe it. Daddy wasn’t even in the picture until sonnyboy appointed one of Daddy’s old cronies after the election. Are these publications TRYING to be laughingstocks?
November 13th, 2006 at 4:42 pmNewsweek? Or is it Spews-weak?
Corporate media in this nation *steenks*, and the little media outlets are all but ignored. Pathetic. That’s what it is. Pathetic.
No wonder the Military Commisions Act of 2006 hasn’t generated an overwhelming outcry. Virtually no one knows about it, and how it murdered democracy.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:44 pmHow they arrive at this bizarro conclusion is totally beyond me. A few of the Senators elected are middle of the road. Period.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:10 pmThe fact that not a singe Democrat Senator or Congressperson lost a seat means the election is a REPUDIATION of Bush’s adminisration. Nothing to do with daddy, at all, whatsoever, nada, nil, nuttin.
Let’s also remember that both Time and Newsweek knew before the 2004 election that Bush was lying about the Plame affair. Can we trust Time and Newsweek as useful members of our Fourth Estate? No.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:39 pmWow Bush Sr. is apparetently much taller and larger than baby boy Bush.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:50 pm#13
Liberalism is organized BS.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:14 pm79 – Sure, Tracy, whatever you say babe – after all, you speak for the “vast majority” of “mainstream Americans”, right???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA…..loser.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:18 pmTracy can you hone that one down a bit and provide some reasoning.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:36 pmIf the Nov vote was a win for conservatives, someone better tell all of those staffers their bosses really didn’t lose and they can keep their jobs. Why can’t the right take an ass whipping like men. Why do they have to cry like babies who just messed and needs to be changed. Take it like a man and stand up now that the people have kicked the you know what out of you morons.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:01 pmAfter 12 years of ass licking the gop, the media just doesn’t know what to do without them.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:35 pmThey comfort themselves by telling each other and trying to convince the people who voted against it, that conservate ideas are still valid.
Personally, I still think it would be great if we start a smear against the very word. Make it as ugly as they made liberal. Make it a sneer word. And the gop’s endearing traits like being unable to govern, wild spending like they had daddy’s credit card, unable to rouse themselves to do anything of any importance, and being the bitch of the coorporations.
Think how fun that would be if there was a real campaign to do this. All the cartoons we could make of them??? Hey, alittle pay back never hurt.
Steven Colbert just did a great The Word about this cover by Newsweek. Had me rolling. I hope everyone saw it.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:37 pmScrewBush 40′
November 13th, 2006 at 11:42 pm“why was this election all about Bush senior whose name was not on the ballot anywhere?”
Because the Bush 41 people like Gates are now being brought in to try and save save Sonny Boy’s ass, so naturally in retrospect we now realize that that’s what We the People voted for.
SlyGuyChicago at 59
I think you meant “voting for a Democrat”?
sure, but I don’t think it was or will be the Republican Party that will convince republicansd to vote for a Democrat. It’s their own observations about where the parties are. The word “Conservative” applied to the pederastic, binge-spending imperialists of today’s GOP has no meaning.
Read Glenn Greenwald’s great piece today, “George Bush and GOP House Leaders: ‘conservatism’ defined
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11/george-bush-and-gop-house-leaders.html#links
and here’s the end of a comment by paul rosenberg on Greenwald’s blog about 2 weeks ago:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/glenngreenwald/116239268223609671/#50959
“I want to point out that I don’t think conservative concerns are illegitimate, just because conservatism is a failed political philosophy. Indeed, liberalism’s great success over the past 300 years or more is largely due to the fact that it serves a conservative social function–preserving social order and historical continuity. In this sense, liberalism is “the true conservatism.” The authoritarianism and moral absolutism of traditional conservatism threatened to destroy Western Civilization in the face of tensions it could not handle. But the flexibility and pragmatism of liberalism achieved precisely the stabilizing functions that conservatism falsely claimed it alone could provide.
To repeat: the concerns of conservatives contain a solid, healthy core (as do the concerns of liberals and radicals as well). The ideology and methods are complete failures.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:18 amPaul Rosenberg | Homepage | 11.01.06 – 1:18 pm | #
Both Newsweek and Time are so out of touch it’s pathetic.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:28 pmBlack is white. Bad is good.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:49 pmSpeaking of the election. This is the first time in 6 years you people thought the voting process worked. No rigged voting booths (except they did find some rigged for Democrats, shhhhhh) no disenfranchised votes or court battles. Hmmmmm
November 14th, 2006 at 12:58 pmThey can try to manipulate public opinion all they want, the fact is that the majority of the population in this country is Democrat. If we actually had popular representation the Bush’s would all be in jail.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:16 pmThe thing that everyone seems to overlook is that even though the GOP took a “thumping” the real power players who pulled the strings, set the law on energy, clean air, Civil rights, etc are still there safe behind this vague term “the corporations”. Chenny still has all the power today as he did in 2004. So do they, just more money, now.
The Media & the GOP are falsifying the facts again & the same way they convinced the American people that we had to give up our Rights, are the same guys doing the next rape & piliage of what’s left of America, that they covet.
The Democratic party, will either start the long hard journey back to square one before we can begin moving forward again, or they will show that they too are a part of the the forces of Darkness.
To Fight for the light, even in the blackness of this nation’s soul.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:47 pmWe do get the Government we deserve, each & every time.
Maybe, just talking is no longer the course left for us the people, who love liberty, who need freedom, the Terrorist are willing to die for their future… are we!
#80
Of course not and neither do you….or liberalism.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:09 pm#81
As soon as you provide some reasoning to this BS….#13 “Conservatism is organized hypocrisy. Newsweek pretty much proves it, with this goofy article.”
November 14th, 2006 at 4:41 pm