Michael Berube? Wow. Best guest ever! Thank you again, BHTV.

Stating that Bush is leaving a mess for the annointed one to clean up is a monstrous offense to dispassionate reasoning.

He wasn't annointed; he was elected.

Quoting TwinSwords: Michael Berube? Wow.

My reaction, too. Anyone here who isn't already reading American Airspace regularly -- do. I really liked the part of this diavlog about the supposed dominance of liberal thought on campus. I wonder if anyone who believes in this (as conspiracy) will be at all persuaded by Michael's distinction between (largely non-existent) classroom indoctrination and the real effects of students just being exposed to a more cosmopolitan environment. Michael's point about on-campus lectures being poorly publicized also really hit home. That was one of my regrets about my time in college -- that I didn't realize until it was just about over how many opportunities like this I had missed. I imagine it's potentially different nowadays with everyone having email and omnipresent Internet connections, as opposed to having to know to look for a flyer on a certain bulletin board in a building you'd have no other reason to enter. On the other hand, having the new channels of communication also means that there are that many more things competing for your attention.

That was really entertaining; I'm sure many conservatives/libertarians can relate to Will's classroom woes. Regarding the discussion about credential snobbery: even though many conservative writers and pundits are elitists, they will never match the credential worship of those on the left as long as the legacy of Ronald Reagan, Eureka-College-grad-turned-actor remains the standard for which to aim. On a related note, while I want my president to be "educated" I wouldn't hold him/her to the standards that I'd ask of a supreme court justice. So much of politics is communication and connection, and these talents aren't easily taught.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...pe-Earth.html#

From the above:

Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.

You have to wonder whether this guy has ever heard of Amazon. (I suppose he might be narrowly correct, if he is here dismissing Corsi, et al, as not offering "proper books." And:

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King ...

Just ... wow. Why do you bother reading such nonsense, Steve?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Stating that Bush is leaving a mess for the annointed one to clean up is a monstrous offense to dispassionate reasoning.

Well, sure. Haven't you heard? 99% of the country has been hypnotized into believing this. Good thing you've been keeping your eyes and ears closed, so as not to be affected.

The art of communicating and connecting with others is not directly taught but could be enhanced by a college experience. Then again some of the best persuaders have limited formal education. I have noticed with physicians (M.D.'s) in particular their communication skills on average are nothing to shout about.. John

Interestingly, the column that Steve linked to is by Peter Hitchens. Interesting to see Steve appealing to him as an authority, given the rest of Steve's comments about the wondrous George W. Bush and the wonders he accomplished in the Middle East. You might have a look at Peter debating his older brother on, among other things, the Iraq invasion. (Don't let the title throw you -- the first half of the debate is about Iraq.)

Quoting bkjazfan: The art of communicating and connecting with others is not directly taught but could be enhanced by a college experience. Then again some of the best persuaders have limited formal education.

I have noticed with physicians (M.D.'s) in particular their communication skills on average are nothing to shout about..

John

Is this a reply to Mari?

Quoting bjkeefe: From the above:

You have to wonder whether this guy has ever heard of Amazon. (I suppose he might be narrowly correct, if he is here dismissing Corsi, et al, as not offering "proper books."

And:

Just ... wow. Why do you bother reading such nonsense, Steve?

Well, sure. Haven't you heard? 99% of the country has been hypnotized into believing this. Good thing you've been keeping your eyes and ears closed, so as not to be affected.

it is worthwhile to read Peter Hitchens simply to learn that Obama does not know the meaning of the words he uses. ( I did not know what it meant either ). regarding segregation in America, it is very real and judging by the abscense of people of color in Obama's inner circle, that segregation will not change much. Note the first action of the democrats will be to spend $50 billion to rescue the car industry so the privledged auto workers can stay that way. Is that money supposed to trickle down to the underemployed in urban america? After democrats spend the country's money on a narrow group of workers, Larry Summers will cutoff the spending. There will be little remaining to

English gives you analytical tools...well so do philosophy and logic, and expecially so does science, so why not enter one of those fields...? If you want to use your intelligence, I don't recommend studying the jumble of "meta" lit-crit, politics, and social commentary that many current liberal arts programs offer. (always somewhat metaphysically aimless I admit, but perhaps particularly so right now). You may be better off reading in your spare time. If you want to be a good artist (and if you go study English, you will hopefully be bathed in the creative imaginations of great writers and you probably want to be an artist) you may want to consider options... Or you can try and stake your claim in the overly PC, aimless, meta world of texts (what is a text?) as Berube is doing.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: regarding segregation in America, it is very real and judging by the abscense of people of color in Obama's inner circle, that segregation will not change much. Note the first action of the democrats will be to spend $50 billion to rescue the car industry so the privledged auto workers can stay that way. Is that money supposed to trickle down to the underemployed in urban america?

A paragon of non sequiturs. To the larger point: I am not denying that racial discrimination is not still a real problem. I am denying that "the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King."

Quoting bjkeefe: Is this a reply to Mari?

Sorry, it was a reply to Mari. John

Quoting bjkeefe: Interestingly, the column that Steve linked to is by Peter Hitchens.

Interesting to see Steve appealing to him as an authority, given the rest of Steve's comments about the wondrous George W. Bush and the wonders he accomplished in the Middle East.

I think it is useless to make an assertion without backing it up with facts and examples. BHTV participants are constantly saying Bush is a disaster. They rarely follow that statement with an explanation. Carter was a bad president because he wrecked the economy and gutted the military. Clinton was bad because of his partisan rhetoric ( someone ( "republicans" ) is burning black churches ), inaction against terror attacks, Somalia, Waco and Ruby Ridge, abuse of presidential pardons ) what exactly did Bush get wrong on foreign policy? If the answer is Iraq, you have to explain how the ME would be peaceful with Saddam and the Baathists still in place. It looks like Obama is going to roll back missile defense from Poland. A cowardly act, that is a good start for his presidency.

Yeesh. All these loony forecasts of doom about the upcoming Obama administration are going to sound even dumber four years from now than they do now. I don't think the wingers actually believe their forecasts. It's just how they're expressing their displeasure. I'm expressing my displeasure too -- I have just about had it with journalists and pundits speculating on what Obama's really going to do, reading the tea leaves, looking for an angle. You know what Obama's going to do? What he said he'd do. He's spent two years talking about, 23 or so times debating, and written a whole book on what he's going to do. That's what he's going to do. Obviously we have checks and balances in our system so a lot will depend on what Congress wants. But the man has campaigned on a progressive agenda, fought off attacks on the progressive agenda, and won. So I'll bet on: a progressive agenda.

I share Will's perplexity at the resistance of many liberals to the sorts of economic arguments typically put forth in favor of using market mechanisms as a means to bring about liberal ends. I don't know if this is simply a hangover from Marxist theory, or if it's based in something along the lines of Issac Asimov statement that he couldn't understand economics and therefore couldn't shake the feeling that it was all made up. But whatever its basis, the tendency Will is describing is quite real.

Quoting bjkeefe: I really liked the part of this diavlog about the supposed dominance of liberal thought on campus.

Although I'm not going to comment on the general theme of this diavlog as it remains rather obscure, I did want to comment on the segment about students in Liberal Arts campuses. I find the description of opportunity for learning and for intellectual expression enviable. Coming from a country where there is no college, since students go from High School to Medical School directly, I missed an entire experience which is so essential for intellectual development. On the other hand, and as an outsider to this culture, I can also see the less appealing aspects of this tradition. There is a sense of there is only one way to get from here to there. I'm not underestimating the importance of formal education, but I'm concerned that in a way it does limit creativity. I wonder how much of what I see as a difference has to do with the origin of the American model of education, which I will assume is mostly British, while I was educated in a French-derived model. Are there any experts on this topic

I completely agree. Market fans have been shun by the Republicans the last 8 years, have been made to be the culprits of every disaster including the Irak war, and now with Democrats who don't seem that Clintonesque in power they will once again be squashed. So much for "liberal" education. What's so liberal about centralization of power and decision-making? What's so liberal about punishing foreign technology and protecting failed national business ventures? I could go on, but I won't.

I guess I don't see Micheal's view that the country is becoming more secular. Surely demographics indicates otherwise. After all, who is having the most children? The answer are Mormons, orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, and so forth. I don't see how one gets from that demographic trend to a more secular society?

Quoting claymisher: Yeesh. All these loony forecasts of doom about the upcoming Obama administration are going to sound even dumber four years from now than they do now. I don't think the wingers actually believe their forecasts. It's just how they're expressing their displeasure.

I'm expressing my displeasure too -- I have just about had it with journalists and pundits speculating on what Obama's really going to do, reading the tea leaves, looking for an angle. You know what Obama's going to do? What he said he'd do. He's spent two years talking about, 23 or so times debating, and written a whole book on what he's going to do. That's what he's going to do. Obviously we have checks and balances in our system so a lot will depend on what Congress wants. But the man has campaigned on a progressive agenda, fought off attacks on the progressive agenda, and won. So I'll bet on: a progressive agenda.

What part of "no money" do you not get? Obama ran on big government ventures and welfare checks to most of the country. Kinda hard to get all that stuff rolling in the middle of a recession.

Quoting claymisher: Yeesh. All these loony forecasts of doom about the upcoming Obama administration are going to sound even dumber four years from now than they do now. I don't think the wingers actually believe their forecasts. It's just how they're expressing their displeasure.

I'm expressing my displeasure too -- I have just about had it with journalists and pundits speculating on what Obama's really going to do, reading the tea leaves, looking for an angle. You know what Obama's going to do?

Hurray!! Obama will do the best he can! I want to support your statements. There is an important role for constructive criticism, but all this double guessing is going nowhere. The man has already been elected. He's planning what he needs to do. If the American people voted for him so unequivocally, why is there all of sudden so much mistrust? He is assessing resources and possibilities, and sticking to a prudent approach. What's wrong with that?

So I'll bet on: a progressive agenda.

You bet!

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I think it is useless to make an assertion without backing it up with facts and examples. BHTV participants are constantly saying Bush is a disaster. They rarely follow that statement with an explanation.

That is because, at this point, it is useless to spend the time typing it out. If you haven't figured it out for yourself by now, there will be no convincing you.

Quoting Ocean: Anyhow, I went off topic. The point was that we do have a wealth of information available which becomes ever larger and more difficult to filter, particularly for those of us who get so carried away when we find topics that are new or different from what we are used to. Would two or three lifetimes be enough to cover the material?

At my input rate, no way. Seems to me the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know, and one of the few things that I do pick up on is that people are learning (and sharing) new things faster than I can keep up, almost no matter how narrowly I define my scope of interest.

Quoting Blackadder: I share Will's perplexity at the resistance of many liberals to the sorts of economic arguments typically put forth in favor of using market mechanisms as a means to bring about liberal ends.

Depends what you mean by "many." It also depends on what you mean -- in practice -- by "market mechanisms." To the first I would say that I am not at all opposed to letting the market decide how most things are done, and I would also say that most reasonaly informed liberals (on this board, to pick a sample) share that view, more or less. To the second I would say that the consequences of trusting the party that professes reverence for market forces as a panacea have mostly been crony capitalism, corporate welfare, growing inequity, outsourcing of jobs, decaying infrastructure, a hugely expensive war, health care costs growing far faster than inflation, and now, a collapse of the financial system. So, a little moderation is in order, for one, and for another, you should not be too surprised to hear people responding a little heatedly against "market mechanisms" when it's merely trotted out as a campaign slogan, particularly when it's used primarily as a way to demonize "liberals."

Quoting dankingbooks: I guess I don't see Micheal's view that the country is becoming more secular. Surely demographics indicates otherwise.

Surely demographics don't. Extract:

The survey finds that the number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children. Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.

Quoting dankingbooks: After all, who is having the most children? The answer are Mormons, orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, and so forth.

But how many are there of these, compared to the population as a whole?

I need to read Micheal's book - it sounds interesting. But I think he may have missed some important points: Aren't liberal arts colleges (LAC's) gradually dying out? Certainly they're getting strong competition from for-profit and on-line schools - if not for content, then certainly for students. Second, it is much less necessary to have a credential than it used to be. Will is a good example - even without the PhD, he has as much influence as any professor. In a meritocracy where everything is on Google or Facebook, what is the value-added in a degree from State College? Not much. Third, globalization and technological change will ultimately commoditize educational services, just as has happened in many other businesses. Today a student can take calculus from MIT (for free, actually), English comp from U of Phoenix, philosophy from the local community college, collect everything together in a transcript that resides on Facebook, and presto - one has as much of a credential as one needs. How will the LAC survive in that kind of environment? What Michael observes as increased cosmopolitanism is instead the narrowing of the market for LAC's to those folks who are already cosmopolitans. Colleges, instead of becoming more important, are

danking: Do you have any data to back up your claims that LACs are disappearing? Just curious. I don't know myself, but I'm skeptical of this claim. As to the worth of going to college, as opposed to gathering credits online, I won't argue. Either you see the worth or you don't. I didn't, the first time I went. I did, the second. Maybe it's not for everybody, but I don't know very many people who completed a degree and regret the experience. I'll grant that some who put in lots of time getting Ph.D.s, who then went into industry, say they would probably make different choices if they could go back in time with their acquired life experience intact. Do you teach at a for-profit school?

BJ, I teach chemistry at a state college. My evidence is mostly anecdotal - I'm more predicting the future than describing the past. But the University of Phoenix alone has over 300,000 students - it is the biggest university in the country by far. On-line education is becoming mainstream, especially at the graduate level, and college finances will take a huge hit. There are many for-profit schools that offer degrees in practical subjects, such as engineering or computer science, that get students through quicker and more efficiently, and ultimately for less money, despite higher tuition,. Finally, in an age of Facebook or Google, it is much easier for potential employers to verify experience, and therefore they depend much less on credentials. So apart from those areas where state law requires a credential, those will become much less important. It is interesting that 60% of college students today are female. I don't know what that means, but it can't possibly auger well for the future of colleges.

Quoting bjkeefe: Surely demographics don't. Extract:

But how many are there of these, compared to the population as a whole?

It doesn't really matter how many there are now - the issue is one of exponential growth. Take, for example, the Kiryas Joel orthodox Jewish community in Orange County, NY. That started with 5000 people in 1950. Today it has 30,000, and that is essentially all natural increase. Extrapolate that 60 years into the future, and this community has 150,000, which will make them the majority population in the county. And they're not the only ones. The Mormons and the Amish both have fertility rates at least double secular society. My former colleagues, evangelical Christians all, had anywhere from 3 to 10 children apiece. With that sort of differential in fertility rates, demographic change will happen easily within 3 or 4 generations.

Quoting bjkeefe: To the second I would say that the consequences of trusting the party that professes reverence for market forces as a panacea have mostly been crony capitalism, corporate welfare, growing inequity, outsourcing of jobs, decaying infrastructure, a hugely expensive war, health care costs growing far faster than inflation, and now, a collapse of the financial system. So, a little moderation is in order, for one, and for another, you should not be too surprised to hear people responding a little heatedly against "market mechanisms" when it's merely trotted out as a campaign slogan, particularly when it's used primarily as a way to demonize "liberals."

I suppose that dislike of Republicans may also be a factor. Republican politicians say they are in favor of the free market (though as you point out they often are not), and so it's not surprising that at least some of the hostility and suspicion that many liberals feel towards Republicans would carry over as hostility towards markets.

Quoting dankingbooks: It doesn't really matter how many there are now - the issue is one of exponential growth.

Surely you should know as a college professor that extrapolating, especially over long time scales, is iffy at best. And even if we accept your proposed future numbers, they're still tiny compared to the overall population of the US.

Quoting Blackadder: I suppose that dislike of Republicans may also be a factor. Republican politicians say they are in favor of the free market (though as you point out they often are not), and so it's not surprising that at least some of the hostility and suspicion that many liberals feel towards Republicans would carry over as hostility towards markets.

Yes, especially when things are reduced to the slogan level.

Quoting dankingbooks: I teach chemistry at a state college.

Thanks for acknowledging.

Quoting dankingbooks: My evidence is mostly anecdotal ...

Thanks for acknowledging. And given that, I'm skeptical about your predictions for the future, as well. Just saying the UoP has a large number of students doesn't say anything about other schools. It may, but it may also say that people are using UoP as a supplement, or as a way to pile up a few credits, or in place of community college (both as prep for bachelors degrees and as continuing ed), and so on.

It is interesting that 60% of college students today are female. I don't know what that means ...

I don't either, but I suspect it means you'd like to go off on another one of your misogynistic rants, so I'll break off here.

Quoting Blackadder: I suppose that dislike of Republicans may also be a factor. Republican politicians say they are in favor of the free market (though as you point out they often are not), and so it's not surprising that at least some of the hostility and suspicion that many liberals feel towards Republicans would carry over as hostility towards markets.

Yes. But once we understand that Republicans pay lip-service to the market to get votes and that Democrats pay lip-service to their own well-meaning idealism to get votes, once we are past this simple Public Choice 101 statement, can we start to care about the truth and stop sticking with partisanship? Especially if we're talking about academia and the discourse on campus. Does it have to be so politicized that we can't even address simple propositions as: are market mechanisms more reliable than central planning?

The key question facing the human race today is: Who will successfully reproduce in an environment that contains birth control? I seriously doubt the answer to that question has very much to do with liberal arts colleges. They're probably going the way of the dodo bird.

Absolutely right - extrapolating is dangerous. Though extrapolating demographics 60 years hence is not all THAT dangerous - it's only three generations, after all. I certainly wish that the believers in global warming would also consider the hazards of linear extrapolation - in their case much more risky.

To give an example, a number of Barack Obama's chief economic advisers had, before signing up with his campaign, endorsed some of the key elements of what became the McCain health care plan (e.g. repealing the employer tax exemption for health insurance, tax credits to individuals, and the promotion of health savings accounts). They did this not because they are secretly right-wingers, but because these proposals stand a good chance of decreasing health care costs and increasingly quality, allowing more people to get coverage. Since joining the campaign, however, they have largely stayed mum about this previous support, and now that the ideas are associated with John McCain, there is little chance of their being incorporated into Obama's health plan.

Quoting dankingbooks: Absolutely right - extrapolating is dangerous. Though extrapolating demographics 60 years hence is not all THAT dangerous - it's only three generations, after all.

What was the birth rate in the US three generations ago?

I certainly wish that the believers in global warming would also consider the hazards of linear extrapolation - in their case much more risky.

This doesn't work as a sweeping statement. The risks lie in which policies are chosen to mitigate AGW. Most of the things I'd support seem to me worth doing even if the predictions of AGW turn out to be exaggerations. Cutting down pollution, developing renewable energy sources, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing efficiency are all worthy goals with useful outcomes, and there's no reason to believe sensibly promoting these will do any lasting harm to the economy. Some could even be economically beneficial.

Quoting bjkeefe: This doesn't work as a sweeping statement. The risks lie in which policies are chosen to mitigate AGW. Most of the things I'd support seem to me worth doing even if the predictions of AGW turn out to be exaggerations. Cutting down pollution, developing renewable energy sources, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing efficiency are all worthy goals with useful outcomes, and there's no reason to believe sensibly promoting these will do any lasting harm to the economy. Some could even be economically beneficial.

How did that happen? I mean, how did you end up talking about AGW/ pollution and population control?

Quoting bjkeefe: At my input rate, no way. Seems to me the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know, and one of the few things that I do pick up on is that people are learning (and sharing) new things faster than I can keep up, almost no matter how narrowly I define my scope of interest.

And an even more puzzling aspect is that people don't even know how or why they end up reading what they read. By the way, there is a whole bunch of nasty, mean and obnoxious people that write all over the place. What are they trying to do? Create the Empire of Evil and Fear? It can be truly annoying...

There are two aspects of the health care debate: coverage and cost. McCain was right about cost; Obama was right about coverage. But, coverage is the first priority, preferably without raising costs too much.

What, then, to do? The boldest idea for reform now gaining currency is to abolish the tax advantage enjoyed by employer-based health cover. For decades, this was taboo, but no longer. First, John McCain has made abolishing this tax distortion the centrepiece of his health plan—though his ideas on what happens after the current system is abolished are rather less coherent. The New America Foundation has also recently proposed a variation on this that would cap the current tax deduction so that the wealthiest can no longer enjoy tax breaks for sumptuous so-called Cadillac plans.

A more comprehensive proposal comes from Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon whose Healthy Americans Act (HAA) would scrap the tax benefit and replace it with a fixed tax deduction for employees so that they could, as with Mr McCain’s plan, buy coverage from either private or public sources. But this plan goes further to address likely market failures. The HAA imposes an individual requirement

Quoting Ocean: How did that happen? I mean, how did you end up talking about AGW/ pollution and population control?

In response to danking's argument that his use of extrapolation is not iffy because people who believe in AGW are being iffy to use extrapolation. Yeah, I know.

Quoting dankingbooks: The key question facing the human race today is:

Who will successfully reproduce in an environment that contains birth control?

Ha ha ha! I love it! You look at evolutionary science the same way a dog looks at a card trick! Birth control! Jesus! So sophisticated! I'd love to see how you square this with changes in child mortality rates! Bwa ha ha! Go get'em, Darwin!

Quoting dankingbooks: I guess I don't see Micheal's view that the country is becoming more secular. Surely demographics indicates otherwise. After all, who is having the most children? The answer are Mormons, orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, and so forth. I don't see how one gets from that demographic trend to a more secular society?

I have never, ever heard of secular people suddenly joining up to a major religion. Or their kids. Or their kids' kids. Once you break the tie, it is pretty unlikely that you or your offspring will end up back inside the faith tent.

He is assessing resources and possibilities, and sticking to a prudent approach. What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with that. Obama will be signaling the course of his administration with his cabinet picks between now and January. That will tell us a lot. All the hoopla about Obama being a great symbol for the world can be reduced to identity politics (black, Kenyan, lived in Indonesia), his early opposition to the Iraq holocaust, and the electoral triumph over the universally-despised Bushies. The world loves all that, but it's hardly a pardigm shift. The results are what will matter. I'm not sure what it will take for Obama to sustain his credibility over the course of a year or so, but I know how he could blow it almost immediately: If he fails in the first three months to shut down Guantánamo, repudiate "enhanced interrogation techniques" and set a firm timetable for Iraq withdrawal, the honeymoon will be over internationally and he will lose support domestically as well.

Quoting Wonderment: I'm not sure what it will take for Obama to sustain his credibility over the course of a year or so, but I know how he could blow it almost immediately: If he fails in the first three months to shut down Guantánamo, repudiate "enhanced interrogation techniques" and set a firm timetable for Iraq withdrawal, the honeymoon will be over internationally and he will lose support domestically as well.

How do you know he is not working on that already?

Quoting Wonderment: Nothing wrong with that. Obama will be signaling the course of his administration with his cabinet picks between now and January. That will tell us a lot.

All the hoopla about Obama being a great symbol for the world can be reduced to identity politics (black, Kenyan, lived in Indonesia), his early opposition to the Iraq holocaust, and the electoral triumph over the universally-despised Bushies. The world loves all that, but it's hardly a pardigm shift. The results are what will matter.

I'm not sure what it will take for Obama to sustain his credibility over the course of a year or so, but I know how he could blow it almost immediately: If he fails in the first three months to shut down Guantánamo, repudiate "enhanced interrogation techniques" and set a firm timetable for Iraq withdrawal, the honeymoon will be over internationally and he will lose support domestically as well.

Something for you to read. (via) Something else. Let us also remember that you predicted we were in deep trouble because of recalcitrant Hillary voters and later, because of Obama's move to the center after the primaries, and later still, because of the

How do you know he is not working on that already?

I don't know. I'm hoping he is working on those things.

Quoting Wonderment: I don't know. I'm hoping he is working on those things.

OK. I promise I'll work on improving my use of the English Language... PS: I may wait until someone 'splains this thing to me. It's only fair.

P.S. See attached.

How reassuring. Guess I'll go to sleep now.

honestly Steve, there is no point trying to have any kind of rational discussion with anyone on Bloggingheads about Bush-- you will get nothing but ugly thoughtless Bush bashing without any sense of the historical enormity of the problems Bush has had to face. History will redeem him. Don't waste your time with these people or you'll just repeat yourself endlessly and go in circles over the same arguments that went on for the last 8 years--- they won't be convinced and you shouldn't care if they are, just know that you are right my friend, you are right. The one thing I will point out is that anything Obama does, any credibility he has in foreign policy will be a direct result of Bush using force. Plain and simple, it's the ultimate case of good cop, bad cop. And the financial meltdown is just the unwinding of 30 years of growth unprecedented in the history of mankind. Human beings achieved the highest standard of living, the widest and fastest technological advances man has ever seen-- of course there will be a pull back-- its the management of this pull-back

Quoting bookofdisquiet: [...]

I never realized just how big that river in Egypt is until now. Or: JohnM, I think you've been bested.

Nader's Uncle Tom comment was just as stupid and offensive as the old white men term that's thrown around regarding conservatives in power. Assigning race as a reason why someone will do something is a brainless cop-out. Bringing up race when it's not relevant is equally stupid, whether it's Rush 'Donovan McNab' Limbaugh, Barack 'typical white person' Obama or Ralph 'Uncle Tom' Nader. Some very smart people do it occasionally, it's just which constituency they represent that defines the outcry and punishment, if any. The extra bad thing is that Nader negated any sort of well-reasoned argument he may have had that BO was capable of selling out. I have no idea if he will because I have no idea who BO is, although I think it's illustrative that BO didn't throw Rev Wright under the bus, despite all his hateful blather, till he had the temerity to diss Saint Barack himself. This to me was the first inkling I had of a potential hubris factor. Nader even went so far as to criticize communist dictators which is not the sort of Naderism I'm used to. If he'd resisted the use of a very stupid

Quoting harkin: Lastly - as stupid as Nader's comment was, I have no idea why Sheperd Smith decided to morph into a Nancy Grace/Keith Olbermann sanctimonious retard when he did the interview.

I didn't get the sense that Smith was sanctimonious. I would call his reaction (understandably) incredulous, and I thought it was downright kind of him to give Nader the chance to walk back his statement. What would you rather Smith have done? Just sit there?

My money had always been on Jeremiah Wright: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/157...9:20&out=19:26

Quoting dankingbooks: I need to read Micheal's book - it sounds interesting. But I think he may have missed some important points:

Aren't liberal arts colleges (LAC's) gradually dying out? Certainly they're getting strong competition from for-profit and on-line schools - if not for content, then certainly for students.

Second, it is much less necessary to have a credential than it used to be. Will is a good example - even without the PhD, he has as much influence as any professor. In a meritocracy where everything is on Google or Facebook, what is the value-added in a degree from State College? Not much.

Third, globalization and technological change will ultimately commoditize educational services, just as has happened in many other businesses. Today a student can take calculus from MIT (for free, actually), English comp from U of Phoenix, philosophy from the local community college, collect everything together in a transcript that resides on Facebook, and presto - one has as much of a credential as one needs. How will the LAC survive in that kind of environment?

What Michael observes as increased cosmopolitanism is instead the narrowing of the market for LAC's to those folks who are already cosmopolitans. Colleges, instead of becoming more important, are

Quoting Wonderment: How reassuring. Guess I'll go to sleep now.

Glad to have helped. Here's another take: from hilzoy (via Sully).

whatever,whatever and whatever

Even more on point: an article specifically related to the closing of Gitmo (via Sully).

Quoting bookofdisquiet: whatever,whatever and whatever

Neocons testifying for Bush. You've convinced me.

a couple of history profs and some columnist do not a neocon make. nice use of neocon as a pejorative though, Stalin would have been proud.

Nice use of "Stalin" to label someone who doesn't share your world view. And by "nice," I mean "lame and stale." You wingnuts need some new buzzwords.

it was appropriate-- instead of arguing the merits of the columns you chose to affix a label to them-- its typical from you-- you're a partisan with an inordinate sense of the value of your own voice. What are you going to say when Obama keeps Gates? Bernanke? I think you know I'm hardly a wingnut. Keep posting though, I think with about million more posts you might actually come up with something original to say. Or, you can keep indoctrinating yourself in the same old I'm right and your wrong feedlback loop along with the 10 million other anonymous bloggers on the web who actually think what they say is important.

I fully expect Obama to close Guantánamo. I think getting out of Iraq will be a bigger test and turn out to be a lot messier, but that ultimately he'll do okay there too. It's not that I'm unwilling to cut Obama a lot of slack. It seems perfectly normal that he will struggle to achieve even meager goals, given the constraints. If he can end the Iraq War, do something significant about global warming, deliver on national healthcare, adhere to UN human rights norms and appoint some liberal judges to federal courts, his administration will be a huge success by my reckoning. And who knows what new problems will emerge to surprise us all? What disturbs me now slightly is the emerging personality cult of Obama. It's probably harmless, like the Kennedy cult of the 60s. Far more disturbing, however, is the related renewed myth of US exceptionalism. The media, especially the liberal intelligentsia has goofily turned (overnight) patriotic and hubristic. Suddenly, the slate is clean and we are not merely a great nation again, but the sexy, avant-garde, righteous leader of the Free World. What an astonishing, laughable crock of shit.

On further reflection Gitmo will be closed. Actually, at this point it's a side show issue. With Iraq he will probably phase it out. Afganistan is a question mark. Anything that has to do with money like expanded healthcare and probably tax cuts - forget it. The big enchilada on his plate is the economy and how to bring it under control and stop the job losses. Presumably, this will be dominating much of his time in the first year of his term. As far as growing the economy I don't know what he has up his sleeve there. The "taxing the rich" mantra was a campaigning tool and is not recipe for what ails this bifurcated rich/poor divide. This is a major problem that has been festering and growing for the past 30 years including 2 Democrat presidencies, Carter and Clinton. The post industrial service based economy with so many jobs paying low wages leaves many living without basic services ("makes me want to holla"). Hopefully, Obama will address it but time will tell. John

Bookofdisqueit, you mean to say that you do not think Bush is the woooooooooooooorst president evvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvver? That this have been the darkest, worst years of any nation in history? That Bush can do no right, and Obama no wrong? Why then you must be a wingnut EDIT: this reply is supposed to be under bookofdisquiet's response.

I know, I know, how could there possibly be a human being alive that could think Bush might have done a couple of good things? I must be a wingnut because i'm so obviously out of step with MSNBC and the blogging universe's "newspeak". We must be careful -- these transmissions are probably being intercepted as we speak. If I'm not cautious, I might end up one of Obies wooooorrrrrrssssstttttt persons in the wwwwooooorrrrrlllllldddddd!!!!!

Quoting DoctorMoney: I have never, ever heard of secular people suddenly joining up to a major religion. Or their kids. Or their kids' kids. Once you break the tie, it is pretty unlikely that you or your offspring will end up back inside the faith tent.

I don't think that is true. There are various reasons people join churches. People are social animals, and many feel a need to be connected to something. The local church has been a traditional source of community, and offers acceptance and belonging to those seeking such things. Some join for such reasons, and religion comes along with the package. Some non-religious people also turn to religion for comfort in times of loss. A fundamental message of the Christian religion is that no loved one is ever really lost. They aren't gone they are just temporarily out of touch, as though they moved away and have no phone. In a few years, you will be together again, and in a far more blissful state. People like to believe things that make them feel better. I leave it to others to suggest that non-believers can also suddenly realize the truth of their particular beliefs. "Everybody want

Quoting claymisher: Yeesh. All these loony forecasts of doom about the upcoming Obama administration are going to sound even dumber four years from now than they do now. I don't think the wingers actually believe their forecasts. It's just how they're expressing their displeasure.

I'm expressing my displeasure too -- I have just about had it with journalists and pundits speculating on what Obama's really going to do, reading the tea leaves, looking for an angle. You know what Obama's going to do? What he said he'd do. He's spent two years talking about, 23 or so times debating, and written a whole book on what he's going to do. That's what he's going to do. Obviously we have checks and balances in our system so a lot will depend on what Congress wants. But the man has campaigned on a progressive agenda, fought off attacks on the progressive agenda, and won. So I'll bet on: a progressive agenda.

Like this:

Asked what Barack Obama was elected to do, and what legislation he's likely to find on his Oval Office desk soonest, Mr. Emanuel didn't hesitate. "Bucket one would have children's health care, Schip," he said. "It has bipartisan agreement in the House

Cragger, Who says everyone wants to go to heaven? As far as dying we are all headed there and some of us are closer than others to it. I do agree with you that people from secular backgrounds do join churches and the like including cults. I read a study once where many of the members of the Unification Church aka "Moonies" are from non religious homes and college grads to boot. Go figure! John

Obama has a great record of doing what he says he'll do... like when he said he'd take public financing
or when he said that he'd do joint town hall debates with McCain, and debate him "any time, anywhere"
or that he'd vote against the FISA bill
or when he said that he couldn't disown his racist spiritual adviser...

My, such petulance. You should ease up on dishing it out if you can't take it, books.

One of the things Smith did that bothered me was that he unnecessarily brought up the fact that Nader polls really low and no one votes for Nader. At the time, I didn't notice any reason for Smith to bring that up other than to attack something about Nader.

Quoting Wonderment: What disturbs me now slightly is the emerging personality cult of Obama. It's probably harmless, like the Kennedy cult of the 60s.

I think you're probably placing too much emphasis on anecdotes. Sure, you can find people who have an uncritical affection for him. So what? I guarantee you that for every such person, there are ten other people fully conscious of their areas of disagreement with him. And that's just among the people who voted for him. I also think you're being a sourpuss not to allow, or enjoy, ... call it a last-day-of-school feeling of exuberance. Ding-dong, Bush is gone! And no McSame! And what about the victory of a fundamentally decent man over lies and smears and attempts to divide the nation into us versus them? The powerful symbol of a black man convincingly elected to the highest office in the land? Winning in a number of previously-believed deep red states and making several others close? The victory of a message of hope over a message of fear? Unity over divisiveness? Intelligence over ignorance? The feeling that the entire world just got a lot more happy about the United States?

Far more disturbing, however, is the

Quoting Bobby G: One of the things Smith did that bothered me was that he unnecessarily brought up the fact that Nader polls really low and no one votes for Nader. At the time, I didn't notice any reason for Smith to bring that up other than to attack something about Nader.

I don't remember the context for sure, but I have the sense that Smith might have been pointing out that Nader should reign in his self-importance and his presumption that he speaks for a wide class of people. The thing that bothered me most about Nader in that interview is that I basically agreed with his general thrust, and wondered why he had to express it in such an offensive way.

I guess what motivated Nader is this: 1. Policies x, y, and z will help poor people, a disproportionate percentage of which are black;
2. There is no reasonable debate over whether x, y, and z will help poor people;
3. Obama is intelligent and well-informed;
4. Given that there is no reasonable debate over whether x, y, and z help poor people, and given that Obama is intelligent and well-informed, it follows that if he doesn't pursue x, y, and z, then it must be because of deplorable motives (e.g., compromise with moderates and conservatives who are the pawns or willing slaves of corporate interests);
5. The presence of those deplorable motives (should he have them) makes him a traitor to his race to help the corporate elite; therefore,
6. If Obama doesn't pursue x, y, and z, he is an Uncle Tom. My biggest problems with the argument are 2 and 4--2 because I imagine there is indeed reasonable debate over economics, and 4 because I don't think compromise in politics necessarily indicates a moral failing. One question I have for you, though, is: what's your problem with what Nader said? If he called Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom, would that bother you?

Speaking as an academic, I know one way in which college professors may indoctrinate students is by limiting the sphere of debate in the articles they assign. For instance, some colleagues of mine (not necessarily in my department) only assign readings on arguments against the existence of God, and make quite clear that they think the arguments work; some others won't assign any articles on gay marriage, because they think the arguments against gay marriage are so bad as to not be worth discussing. Perhaps interestingly, this second approach may actually have the opposite of an indoctrinatory effect, seeing as how the professor's views on gay marriage are never aired. As for lectures, the lectures on my campus are uniformly (I mean, 100%) left-wing or non-political. But I've only been on my campus a few months. I don't think students go (and, speaking to the above comment, many students don't read what they're assigned), but they do see the posters, and they get a sense of what the speakers' views are at least from the titles of the talks. I don't know how strong this indoctrinatory effect is.

Wonderment: Following up on my last, I just read something by someone who often says what I think, only much better, Heather Havrilesky. The conceit of her piece is a letter from a GenXer to Baby Boomers, which I would filter out or at least deemphasize. Anyway, some particularly resonant excerpts:

And look, we really did stand for something, underneath all the eye-rolling. We're feminists, we care about the environment, we want to improve race relations, we volunteer. We're just low-key about it. We never wanted to do it the way you did it: So unselfconscious, so optimistic, guilelessly throwing yourself behind Team Liberal. We didn't get that. We aren't joiners. We don't like carrying signs. We tend to disagree, if only on principle.

But when we watched Barack Obama's victory speech on Tuesday night, we looked into the eyes of a real leader, and decades of cynicism about politics and grass-roots movements and community melted away in a single moment. We heard the voice of a man who can inspire with his words, who's unashamed of his own intelligence, who's willing to treat the citizens of this country like smart, capable people, worthy of respect. For the first time in some of our lifetimes, we believed.

Suddenly it

Quoting Bobby G: One question I have for you, though, is: what's your problem with what Nader said? If he called Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom, would that bother you?

As I said, I agreed with the basic thrust of his message. I did not like the way he put it. I find the term "Uncle Tom" needlessly offensive. I do not like to hear it applied to anyone, so, in answer to your question: Yes, it would have bothered me just as much had Nader said this about Clarence Thomas.

I will jump in here because I almost voted for Ralph Nader. I reasoned that given the impending Obama landslide in California, a Nader vote from me would help third parties (which I strongly support) and not harm O. This would have been consistent with my campaigning for O, which I did in close states (Florida and Nevada), where O votes really mattered. I ultimately rejected the idea and voted for Obama because I wanted to be part of the support system to repudiate racism and promote multicultural values. But I agree with you that Nader's arguments fail:

My biggest problems with the argument are 2 and 4--2 because I imagine there is indeed reasonable debate over economics, and 4 because I don't think compromise in politics necessarily indicates a moral failing.

One question I have for you, though, is: what's your problem with what Nader said? If he called Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom, would that bother you?

I view the "Uncle Tom" epithet as inherently racist and linguistically anachronistic

You make good points. I think ultimately, however, you and I view the Obama phenomenon through different lenses, both temperamentally and culturally. Politically, I think we are pretty close on the issues, and that's what matters in the long run.

Quoting Wonderment: You make good points.

I think ultimately, however, you and I view the Obama phenomenon through different lenses, both temperamentally and culturally.

Politically, I think we are pretty close on the issues, and that's what matters in the long run.

Fair enough, and I definitely agree with your closing thought.

Quoting Wonderment:
What disturbs me now slightly is the emerging personality cult of Obama. It's probably harmless, like the Kennedy cult of the 60s.

This should scare everyone. It's not harmless. This is dawning at a time when groups like Accountability America aim to harass and intimidate regular citizens who happen to contribute to the other side. Obama's personality cult is like nothing before seen in national American politics. This is a movement about one man, and a man who has accomplished nothing significant in life beyond selling himself to increasingly large audiences. Kennedy was a war hero whose service was distinguished. Obama's election, in terms of the grossly disproportionate spending (and furtive fundraising), overwhelming media bias, and personality cult, is the greatest threat to American democracy since the Civil War.

Obama's election, in terms of the grossly disproportionate spending (and furtive fundraising), overwhelming media bias, and personality cult, is the greatest threat to American democracy since the Civil War.

You just had a sadistic idiot who shredded the Constitution, tortured and "disapperared" people, orchestrated and approved the "bad apple" practices of Abu Ghreib, inflicted a lie-based (and hence,illegal) war on Iraq, secretly spied on Americans and invaded other countries (Syria, Pakistan, Iran) on the grounds that US troops can invade anyone they want. And you think Obama is a threat to democracy?

Ralph Nader has a admirable background and accomplishments. I don't know where he lives but perhaps he should run for a local office. In my opinion, he does not have the temperament to hold high elective office. He has a tendency to come unglued too easily. There is enough of that already - for example, my congressional representative, Maxine Waters. John

Quoting Wonderment: You just had a sadistic idiot who shredded the Constitution, tortured and "disapperared" people, orchestrated and approved the "bad apple" practices of Abu Ghreib, inflicted a lie-based (and hence,illegal) war on Iraq, secretly spied on Americans and invaded other countries (Syria, Pakistan, Iran) on the grounds that US troops can invade anyone they want.

And you think Obama is a threat to democracy?

Sadistic idiot? Ouch and I thought I was being harsh on Obama Honestly now, sadistic idiot...Idiot would imply a lack of intelligence, yet the rest of your post implies that Bush has a scheming intelligence. One can not be devious but not intelligent. As for sadistic...come now. Do you know any sadists? One of my great grandfathers had a sadistic side. He used to drag his kids out of bed in the middle of the night and beat on them for no reason other than his sadistic personality. If we're going to throw around accusations, let's at least address the terms we're using. Do you really think Bush takes pleasure in the torment of others? Can you prove torture? Not just waterboarding. I've read of perhaps two incidents of waterboarding, and nothing above that that would constitute

You forgot the part where the "lie based war" was caused by Saddam misrepresenting that he held weapons of mass destruction.

I will give only the short answer to your questions, just to let you know I stand by what I said.

If we're going to throw around accusations, let's at least address the terms we're using. Do you really think Bush takes pleasure in the torment of others?

I think he has a sadistic streak, yes. I saw this on display when he was governor of Texas and smirked his way through executions. I grant, however, that any psychological portrait is debatable.

Can you prove torture?

Yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Not just waterboarding.

Why would waterboarding get a pass? We executed Japanese torturers for waterboarding detainees in WWII.

And, I've seen absolutely no evidence that Bush had knowledge of or was complicit in the abuses at Abu Ghirab. I think you're reaching quite a bit with that one.

I suggest you watch the documentaries "Ghosts of Abu Ghreib" and "Taxi to the Dark Side." Alex Gibney, the Oscar-winning director of the latter was on Bheads a few months ago.

Can you prove Bush intentionally lied?

Yes. The Bush administration asserted that Saddam had WMDs. That assertion was false. They didn't say, "We think he might have WMDS." They claimed to know he did, which was a

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Well, care to cite some proof?

Why would waterboarding get a pass? We executed Japanese torturers for waterboarding detainees in WWII.

We executed no Japanese soldiers for wasterboarding people. It is true that waterboarding was included on some laundry lists of offenses, but to claim that we executed someone for waterboarding is absurd.

I suggest you watch the documentaries "Ghosts of Abu Ghreib" and "Taxi to the Dark Side." Alex Gibney, the Oscar-winning director of the latter was on Bheads a few months ago.

I've heard of the former, not of the latter. The latter's title doesn't bode well for it. Anyway, I'd care to see a cite of a specific revelation that Bush personally authorized the abuses at Abu Ghirab.

Yes. The Bush administration asserted that Saddam had WMDs. That assertion was false. They didn't say, "We think he might have WMDS." They claimed to know he did, which was a lie.

I asked for proof that he knowingly lied. They went with intelligence, some of which proved to be faulty. Some of that was thanks to Saddam's continual deception, as bookofdisquiet wisely points out.

So?

So complaining about Bush doing it is a bit

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I asked for proof that he knowingly lied. They went with intelligence, some of which proved to be faulty. Some of that was thanks to Saddam's continual deception, as bookofdisquiet wisely points out.

I agree with most of what you said, but I'm less sure about this bit: from what I know, Bush's case--at least, the case that Powell presented to the UN--was based on circumstantial evidence. The closest thing they had to hard evidence was the uranium tubes, but the people who were talking to the Bush administration were divided on what the tubes were to be used for. So I don't how they could have said they knew there to be WMD, as opposed to "the best evidence suggests that they have WMD, although we cannot prove that." Still, while we're asking for proof, it's important to note that Cheney at least spoke as though he knew Saddam had WMD. My guess is that Cheney and Bush lied in this sense: they strongly believed that Saddam had WMD, but they thought that if that was all they said, the nation would be less likely to go to war.

Quoting bjkeefe: That is because, at this point, it is useless to spend the time typing it out. If you haven't figured it out for yourself by now, there will be no convincing you.

Maybe it would help to point out that many of the underlined words in our posts are actually what are called "hyperlinks" and if one clicks on them using a graphical user interface, the pages that the hyperlinks point to should load in one's internet browser. This saves the poster time in cutting and pasting the information from the site, but are often used to provide factual backing to our arguments. Like, for example the extensive laundry list of Bush failures that are Clintons fault or the CIA's fault, or the FBI's fault, or the pentagon, or could have been Cheney's fault, but he's not a member of the executive branch....etc.

Quoting Bobby G: I agree with most of what you said, but I'm less sure about this bit: from what I know, Bush's case--at least, the case that Powell presented to the UN--was based on circumstantial evidence. The closest thing they had to hard evidence was the uranium tubes, but the people who were talking to the Bush administration were divided on what the tubes were to be used for. So I don't how they could have said they knew there to be WMD, as opposed to "the best evidence suggests that they have WMD, although we cannot prove that."

Still, while we're asking for proof, it's important to note that Cheney at least spoke as though he knew Saddam had WMD.

My guess is that Cheney and Bush lied in this sense: they strongly believed that Saddam had WMD, but they thought that if that was all they said, the nation would be less likely to go to war.

I don't think you're too far off the mark. But I wouldn't call it a deliberate effort to mislead, but rather a prime example of groupthink. A bunch of very smart people convinced themselves of something, closed off dissenting opinions

Quoting cragger: I don't think that is true. There are various reasons people join churches. People are social animals, and many feel a need to be connected to something. The local church has been a traditional source of community, and offers acceptance and belonging to those seeking such things. Some join for such reasons, and religion comes along with the package.

Some non-religious people also turn to religion for comfort in times of loss. A fundamental message of the Christian religion is that no loved one is ever really lost. They aren't gone they are just temporarily out of touch, as though they moved away and have no phone. In a few years, you will be together again, and in a far more blissful state. People like to believe things that make them feel better.

I leave it to others to suggest that non-believers can also suddenly realize the truth of their particular beliefs.

"Everybody want to go up to heaven, they say - but none of them want to die ..."

No, I agree with you there. I probably wasn't terribly clear, what I meant to say was: people may go back to their own faith later in life, or to a

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Obama's election . . . is the greatest threat to American democracy since the Civil War.

Wow. Why is everyone here engaging this person in rational, intelligent debate, which he so clearly does not deserve? That sort of bottom-dwelling rhetoric is of course typical in the Coulter/Milkin/D'Souza sewers, but hopefully is not welcomed on a site where people actually think. CM: here is some suggested reading on self-deception, hyperbole and groupthink. Good luck forging your way back to the reality-based community.

I wouldn't call it a deliberate effort to mislead, but rather a prime example of groupthink.

Yes! When a bunch of crooks get together and lie, it's not a lie. It's a group think. That's a relief. No one is to blame. It's not like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice lied to us. It's merely that Bushcheneyrumsfeldpowellrice groupthunk us. I feel better already.

Quoting Wonderment: Yes! When a bunch of crooks get together and lie, it's not a lie. It's a group think.

I'm guessing you're fairly unfamiliar with political psychology...

Quoting MemeInjector3000: Wow. Why is everyone here engaging this person in rational, intelligent debate, which he so clearly does not deserve?

Yes, we should shun dissenting opinions, that way we can become more tolerant and thoughtful individuals. Instead of hurling ad hominems and other insults, perhaps you should try addressing my points. The personality cult has been noticed by plenty of people, including some more rational Obama supporters. The campaign fundraising is a real issue.

I'm guessing you're fairly unfamiliar with political psychology...

I'm guessing you're fairly unfamiliar with the English language and the meaning of the word "lie." I'm also guessing you're unfamiliar with logic so that you can't distinguish truth from falsehood in any language. Last word is yours. Bye.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I don't think you're too far off the mark. But I wouldn't call it a deliberate effort to mislead, but rather a prime example of groupthink. A bunch of very smart people convinced themselves of something, closed off dissenting opinions or evidence, and didn't consider alternative options. Not all that different, in terms of the psychology underlying the action, than the Bay of Pigs. It's more self deception than anything else

OK, I've seen your call for proof and examples, and you could search the archives of this site and see this debate going way, way back, and find hordes of them. I think you just want to keep beating the tired point that Bush is competent, and did no wrong. Well, a large majority of Americans, 73% of those recently polled on this, disagree. Why? I can only speak for myself, but, just last night, I saw Bush interviewed on CNN, and committed the usual truth twisting or group think, or lying, or bullshitting he so often does: Click here for a link to the CNN story on the interview.
Now here is quote from the article:
"They had a sign that said 'Mission Accomplished.' It was a sign aimed at the sailors on the ship, but it conveyed

Quoting handle: OK, I've seen your call for proof and examples, and you could search the archives of this site and see this debate going way, way back, and find hordes of them. I think you just want to keep beating the tired point that Bush is competent, and did no wrong. Well, a large majority of Americans, 73% of those recently polled on this, disagree.

You're caricaturing my statements here. Of course Bush made mistakes; all presidents have, because all presidents are human and all humans are fallible (simple little syllogism, I know). If you can't detect my stance as being between the 10% or so that feel Bush has done nothing errant and the commonly held view on here that Bush is essentially the devil incarnate, then your perception is flawed. An inability to detect middle ground reveals one to be far too out on a fringe.
ABOARD USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) -- From the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush announced in a nationally televised address that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." "In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this

Quoting cognitive madisonian: You're caricaturing my statements here. Of course Bush made mistakes; all presidents have, because all presidents are human and all humans are fallible (simple little syllogism, I know).

Guilty as charged.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: If you can't detect my stance as being between the 10% or so that feel Bush has done nothing errant and the commonly held view on here that Bush is essentially the devil incarnate, then your perception is flawed. An inability to detect middle ground reveals one to be far too out on a fringe.

You are in denial about your pro-Bushiness, as evidenced by the rest of your post. Perhaps not as enthusiastic as many other posters here, though.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: ABOARD USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) -- From the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush announced in a nationally televised address that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

"In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment," Bush told the Navy men and women aboard the warship Thursday. (Transcript)

The 'mission accomplished' line was a screwup. I think few people would argue anything to the contrary. It showed hubris, nothing more.

You missed