• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

WillRockwell

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
387
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The concept of a loyal opposition — that the party out of power can oppose the government without trying to overthrow it — is, of course, as old as the United States itself. “We are all Republicans — we are all Federalists,” Thomas Jefferson declared in at his first inaugural, heralding the birth of the American multiparty system

Democrats have always supported the winner of the presidential election, even when that election was stolen. But Republicans have decided to obstruct and bring down the president simply because he is not a Republican.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/weekinreview/22stolberg.html?ref=politics
 
Your kidding right?


Please show me where they supported Bush.


Your thesis is nonsense.


:roll::lol::lol:
I was waiting for a punch line.
B'da Bing!

Where'd it go?

Please tell me, what election was stolen by Republicans?
We know Kennedy beat Nixon in the Obama/Blago/Daley Beltway thanks to Democrat corruption, and Nixon let it slide for the good of the nation... but Republicans stealing an election?

Where?

Let me help you get over your Eight year old sore spot.
The NY Times serves as a good enough reference for you I hope.

EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - New York Times

EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

USA Today good enough too?

USATODAY.com - Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed


Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed


George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin

Now, please tell all your friends who think Bush stole the election in 2000.
 
Last edited:
Your kidding right?


Please show me where they supported Bush.



Your thesis is nonsense.

approval_27267_image001.png


Notice the points marked out. His approval ratings go down from a historical 90%.
 
Last edited:
Sorry hautey, all that says is after 911 there was a unification and IMMEDIETLY the left started in on him. Notice by yourown evidence how the graph slides south.


Also this is approval rating. Not how the libs supported him graph. Sorry.
 
"Stolen" elections are a matter of opinion and not fact. You can have this opinion all you want, even though it's unsubstantiated.

Willrockwell: See post #3.

The victor was substantiated; it was not Algore.
 
Zimmer, are you quoting me thinking I thought it was stolen? :shock: :lol:
 
Yeah, anyone that says that the left was supportive of Bush after the 2000 election is either 4 years old, or lying.
 
Sorry hautey, all that says is after 911 there was a unification and IMMEDIETLY the left started in on him. Notice by yourown evidence how the graph slides south.

Unification. You mean support for the President? Did I get the wrong chart? Or does my chart say 'Percentage of Americans Unified'?

Also this is approval rating. Not how the libs supported him graph. Sorry.

:rofl - With a 90% approval rating. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say the majority of liberals supported him. Or are you waiting for that magical 100% nobody ever got?
 
Unification. You mean support for the President? Did I get the wrong chart? Or does my chart say 'Percentage of Americans Unified'?



:rofl - With a 90% approval rating. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say the majority of liberals supported him. Or are you waiting for that magical 100% nobody ever got?



Rght so a month of 90% means the left supported Bush? Please. It was an emotional response to 911 that quickly faded as they went back to thier politics as usual....



I am un concerned with the rest of your straw man post.
 
approval_27267_image001.png


Notice the points marked out. His approval ratings go down from a historical 90%.

You are correct here in regards to the assertion that democrats NEVER showed Bush support. After one of the biggest catastraphe struck upon this country, they did join together for a short time that slowly went down from that moment onwards.

HOWEVER, you also show that the original poster's theory is ALSO wrong.

Notice that the start of your graph, his approval number is around 50%.

What did Bush win the election by? About 50%?

Not to mention your graph shows polls of the American People, not allowing us to see exactly what the approval was by Democrats and by Republicans themselves. However, based on the election results of 2000 and the poll results of 2000 an educated guess can be done.

Will is absolutely wrong. The Democrats in 2000 were doing the exact same thing as Bush is here. From cries of Stolen Election!!!!!! that continue on to this day, to making fun of how "dumb" he is or the way he talks, to complaining about his stances on religious based programs and other such things, to senatorial minority rights....Democrats in 2000 were no different than most republicans now in the beginning of Bush's Presidency and at almost every time outside of the initial few months after 9/11.

There were some that gave him a chance, I'm sure, as there are some republicans giving Obama one. But the vast majority seemed to not be just "giving him the benefit of the doubt".
 
You are correct here in regards to the assertion that democrats NEVER showed Bush support. After one of the biggest catastraphe struck upon this country, they did join together for a short time that slowly went down from that moment onwards.

And why may you ask? Well let's see. The complete false premise under which the war was started. The complete mishandling of the war by Rumsfeld. An either 'you're with us or with the terrorists' mentality by America's right wing.

HOWEVER, you also show that the original poster's theory is ALSO wrong.

Notice that the start of your graph, his approval number is around 50%.

What did Bush win the election by? About 50%?

Not to mention your graph shows polls of the American People, not allowing us to see exactly what the approval was by Democrats and by Republicans themselves. However, based on the election results of 2000 and the poll results of 2000 an educated guess can be done.

Will is absolutely wrong. The Democrats in 2000 were doing the exact same thing as Bush is here. From cries of Stolen Election!!!!!! that continue on to this day, to making fun of how "dumb" he is or the way he talks, to complaining about his stances on religious based programs and other such things, to senatorial minority rights....Democrats in 2000 were no different than most republicans now in the beginning of Bush's Presidency and at almost every time outside of the initial few months after 9/11.

There were some that gave him a chance, I'm sure, as there are some republicans giving Obama one. But the vast majority seemed to not be just "giving him the benefit of the doubt".

I've got no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the false assertion that Democrats & Liberals NEVER supported Bush. It is simply not backed up by the evidence. FFS the Iraq war was passed with 50% Democrat support in Congress and so was the Patriot Act. It's VERY dishonest to claim that Democrats and Liberals 'never' supported Bush like the so many right wingers claim.
 
And why may you ask? Well let's see. The complete false premise under which the war was started. The complete mishandling of the war by Rumsfeld. An either 'you're with us or with the terrorists' mentality by America's right wing.



I've got no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the false assertion that Democrats & Liberals NEVER supported Bush. It is simply not backed up by the evidence. FFS the Iraq war was passed with 50% Democrat support in Congress and so was the Patriot Act. It's VERY dishonest to claim that Democrats and Liberals 'never' supported Bush like the so many right wingers claim.




Meh, I think it is a lot more accurat and 'honest' than to play a symantics game....

It was the brief exception, not the rule. I don't expect Republicans to support Obama any more that dems to support Bush.

But the OP's claim is debunked. Good to see you acknowledge that.
 
You are correct here in regards to the assertion that democrats NEVER showed Bush support. After one of the biggest catastraphe struck upon this country, they did join together for a short time that slowly went down from that moment onwards.

Democrats post 911 were seen as weak on National Security for their decades long hostility to the military and intel services.
Post 911 this "position" was a disaster for them and they knew it.

It is why the Democrats asked for a SECOND vote to got to war in the Senate... to show their great support, and to cover their asses for decades of the hostility described above.

Their vote to send troops to war was done for political purposes.

Then they realized they had to destroy Bush to have "Hope".

So they went back to their roots and began slamming Bush and the war in Iraq.

Another turn for political expediency. They could care less what this did to the morale of the troops, their families and how it inspired the terrorists they were trying to neutralize and eliminate.

Only Lieberman stood in opposition to his party's 180... and they pulled their long knives on him.

A party that voted to send troops into battle for political expediency is willing to do anything to win votes.
 
Last edited:
Meh, I think it is a lot more accurat and 'honest' than to play a symantics game....

Semantics = Roses are red. Roses are FF0000.

Not semantics = Roses are always red. Roses are 00FF00.

Get it?

It was the brief exception, not the rule.

So you standard for 'support' is always?

I don't expect Republicans to support Obama any more that dems to support Bush.

But the OP's claim is debunked. Good to see you acknowledge that.

I never claimed otherwise. Good to see you admit you were wrong too ;)
 
I've got no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the false assertion that Democrats & Liberals NEVER supported Bush. It is simply not backed up by the evidence. FFS the Iraq war was passed with 50% Democrat support in Congress and so was the Patriot Act. It's VERY dishonest to claim that Democrats and Liberals 'never' supported Bush like the so many right wingers claim.

And I don't disagree with that.

But I believe, on average, barring the immediete months surrounding 9/11 it was typical American politics where most people on one side don't support the other sides guy. This is usually for a variety of reasons, some policy, some petty.

You can't tell me that, despite perhaps disagreements with the Iraq War, Democrats never throughout the next 7 years harped on petty, pointless, non-policy worthless things. From faking information about Bush's IQ that was so prevelant I had to print a factcheck thing out to disprove three random co-workers one day who swore to me Bush had a slow persons IQ, to the non-stop jokes all over the internet regarding "Bush-isms" and his speech, to the whole scathing debate about him reading to the kids that started cropping up after 9/11, to George Bush doesn't care about black people, and on and on and on.

Yes, for a short time during the one of the most prolific moments in American History Democrats and Republicans were united. For about 7 years and give or take some months however it was primarily politics as usual for BOTH sides.

There's nothing wrong with that, but you propping up this chart all the time as if the Republicans are insane for even giving any indication that for the most part Democrats were against Bush the amjority of his presidency is as annoying as those that say the Democrats NEVER supported Bush. You also have a tendancy to throw it out when people say that the Democrats weren't supporting Bush right out of the gate, which they WEREN'T.

That being the case, whether they did or not at one point due to a massive thing in our countries history is secondary to the OP's main point, which was that the Democrats someone gave Bush a "pass" at the start of his Presidency which just isn't the case.

While I'm sure there is a debate to be had on this, for me personally, I think the vast majority of Republicans would rally behind Obama immedietely if such a horrendous attack happened again barring it somehow being directly tied to something Obama did (for example, if say a Gitmo releasee ended up being in on it). I think there'd be some extreme ones that would be against him at first, and some other more extreme ones that would slowly in the weeks/months later start changing their tune...but that's about in line with Bush at 9/11.

However, no matter how many times I've heard people talk about this economic crisis as a "Disaster" and akin to 9/11 in the need to pass things...frankly, a long term economic crisis is never going to have the same affect on the psyche and attitudes of Americans like a massive terrorist attack.
 
Democrats have always supported the winner of the presidential election, even when that election was stolen. But Republicans have decided to obstruct and bring down the president simply because he is not a Republican.

This sh*t is so stupid, I feel like I'm reading Miley Cyrus's Facebook page, not Debate Politics Breaking News. :tocktock2 :yawn:
 
Your kidding right?


Please show me where they supported Bush.


Your thesis is nonsense.


:roll::lol::lol:

As usual, you resort to name calling instead of even reading the link provided.
President George W. Bush, though denied a plurality of the vote in 2000, nonetheless gained some Democrats’ cooperation in passing tax cuts and his No Child Left Behind education plan.
 
Democrats have always supported the winner of the presidential election, even when that election was stolen.
Most people wait until their thread has developed a little before self-sodomizing their credibility.
Not you! Congrats for that!
 
Semantics = Roses are red. Roses are FF0000.

Not semantics = Roses are always red. Roses are 00FF00.

Get it?


Irrellevant.




So you standard for 'support' is always?

Extremist logic. It is more than "once" or even "rarely".



I never claimed otherwise. Good to see you admit you were wrong too ;)

:lol: that must be some good **** you got there.
 
This sh*t is so stupid, I feel like I'm reading Miley Cyrus's Facebook page, not Debate Politics Breaking News. :tocktock2 :yawn:

The article cited quotes a respected Republican who laments that members of his party no longer seem capable of contributing to the balance of government. The evidence of that refusal is clear, the Republican strategy is to obstruct the president's efforts to clean up the Republican mess, use the Republican propoganda machine to convince America that the president is incompetent, then resume governing the nation in four years, using the same failed policies that have proven to be failures.

For eight years America has been governed by the intellectual equivelant of Miley Cyrus. Now the adults have regained the majority, but the whining conservatives who brought us to this mess refuse to help clean it up.
 
And why may you ask? Well let's see. The complete false premise under which the war was started. The complete mishandling of the war by Rumsfeld. An either 'you're with us or with the terrorists' mentality by America's right wing.



I've got no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the false assertion that Democrats & Liberals NEVER supported Bush. It is simply not backed up by the evidence. FFS the Iraq war was passed with 50% Democrat support in Congress and so was the Patriot Act. It's VERY dishonest to claim that Democrats and Liberals 'never' supported Bush like the so many right wingers claim.
I won't argue that Rumsfeld made some big mistakes, but there was more going on behind the scenes than merely disagreeing on the number of troops needed. Handicapped by a 8 year funding and personnel draw down under Clinton (which I personally witnessed), and attempting to impliment a new post-cold war military doctrine to combat assymetric warfare, Rumsfeld had his hands full. You need to give him a little credit for trying to execute this monumental task, while fighting a war. I have no doubt that many of the generals from the Bush 41 cold war era were not always onboard with this plan. Not a war has been fought without mistakes, so let's try to keep that in perspective. Anyway my apologies for participating in this off topic sidebar.
 
As usual, you resort to name calling instead of even reading the link provided.

President George W. Bush, though denied a plurality of the vote in 2000, nonetheless gained some Democrats’ cooperation in passing tax cuts and his No Child Left Behind education plan.

You're really just floundering in this thread. You don't address Hautey's graph showing half the country disapproving of Bush (with half not voting for him to its logical to guess most of those are democrats).

You quote the Tax Cuts as a reference to how the Republicans have acted in the first month? The tax cuts came about in 2003? Perhaps we should wait 2 years to see if we can cherry pick a single thing that Republicans join with Obama on. though...what was the votes on that tax cut again....

House
Republicans 224 Yays 1 Nays
Democrats 7 Yays 198 Nays

Hmm...96% of the democrats in the House voted against the Tax Cuts. Boy oh Boy Will! You certainly found one proving that Democrats were supporting Bush. Maybe the Senate will save you?

Senate
Republicans 48 Yays 3 Nays
Democrats 2 Yays 46 Nays

Wow, 96% again! Who'd have thunk it.

So essentially what you'er saying is it needs 3 to 4% or Republicans supporting something Obama does for it to be considered cutting the President some slack?

Lets look at the Stimulus Bill in the Senate shall we?

Senate
Republicans 3 Yays 38 Nays
Democrats 55 Yays 0 Nays

Hey...that's only 92% of republicans voting nay. That's 8% of them voting yay.

By YOUR presented logic, the Republicans are actually cutting Obama MORE slack than Bush!

Yes, No Child Left Behind was voted largely by both parties and written by people from both Parties. However, to my knowledge, a high profile republican (like Ted Kennedy was for Democrats) has not been contacted to work together in a close and equal footing way for some piece of semi-major legislation yet in Obama's term to truly compare this too.

Sorry Will, but your point is simply not factually accurate.
 
Back
Top Bottom