’)The latest chapter in the story of the narcissistic moron who almost destroyed the Demcratic party.
Sources have told WRAL News that they expect former U.S. Sen. John Edwards to admit that he is the father of his former mistress’ 18-month-old daughter.
Shocking.
Fucking scumbag. Beware the blow-dried guys.
Totally dodged a major bullet with this guy. To think he was the netroots favorite at one point.
Almost destroyed the country, more like.
…so, in a sense, Bush and Cheney saved the Democratic party and the nation in 2004?
J.
By spending more years killing people? Not exactly. Even a philanderer like Edwards is preferable to monsters like Bush and Cheney.
Also, if Kerry and Edwards had won, the circumstances leading to Edwards having an affair would have been averted. (yes, yes, it was the personal decision of Edwards to do this anyway, so the blame should still rest on him… but as long as we’re discussing counterfactuals, then I’ll have at it.)
Actually Bush/Cheney did do the Democrats a huge favor in a way. Had Kerry been elected, he would have been a one term president with minimal ability get anything done, since Congress would still be dominated by the GOP. So better to let them completely fuck everything up to the point of people realizing how toxic the GOP as a brand is, which paved the way for Obama.
Yup. I remember a Molly Ivins column that used the metaphor of fixing a dog that raids the henhouse. Tie a chicken around its neck and let it rot and fester and stink. Let the dog get stuck with the putrid evidence of its transgression. It’ll lost the taste for chicken forever. Hopefully the last 4 years were putrifying chicken years.
In the alternate universe where Kerry / Edwards won, including the popular vote, Congress would also have been more Democratic.
Also, the Republicans would have been a bit more chastened, perhaps.
But I just want to know – why don’t cheating politicians use birth control? Dicks.
Burned, you’re saying that Bush/Cheney failed, and your glad they failed. Only it doesn’t sound that out of the ordinary, since many liberals feel this way. They just won’t admit it now that they’ve acted shocked that Limbaugh said he hopes Obama’s policies fail.
Burned, you’re saying that Bush/Cheney failed, and your glad they failed.
In retrospect one can be glad about the one or two good consequences that inevitably attend a major failure, but that is a far far cry from hoping in advance that the major failure occurs in the first place.
When the willow tree falls on your house it lets the sun get to your cherry laurels, and they grow like mad. Good for the cherry laurels, eh? But that doesn’t mean you were hoping that the willow tree would fall on your house.
You do understand the difference, don’t you, Dennis?
Depressing. The fucker should rot in hell.
Bush and Cheney DID fail, idjut. Bush will be remembered as one of the absolute worst presidents this country has ever suffered.
Me wanting them to fail does not factor in the equation at all. They failed because they were horribly incompetent and corrupt. I never rooted for them to fail, I just sat back and watched them fuck up every single thing they touched.
After 9-11, I wanted them to do the right thing, I really did. I didn’t vote for him, but I wasn’t frothing at the mouth the moment it was announced they won the election. I was totally willing to give them the benefit of the doubt to run the country.
But slowly and surely it became glaringly apparent Bush had no fucking clue what he was doing or what was going on, and that he was just a feeble minded, incurious dunce out of his league, being manipulated by others.
It means I’ve got a roof to fix, a willow tree to cut up and haul away, and cherry laurels I’ll have to do more work on next spring keeping pruned back that I never had to before, Wilbur. Good for the cherry laurels, but a lot of work for me.
Yes, I understand. Others call it a Pyrrhic victory. I don’t see the difference either way. If you think Bush’s policies failed and you’re glad they did, it’s not all that different from hoping Obama’s policies fail, but from that good things can flow, too. It all depends on how you frame it.
limulus: Almost destroyed the country, more like.
Wow. How fragile a country are you living in?
that John Edwards is kinda a creep.
Dennis: If you think Bush’s policies failed and you’re glad they did, it’s not all that different from hoping Obama’s policies fail
People think Bush’s policies failed because of the results of those policies. Limbaugh wants Obama to fail because he doesn’t want to see him succeed, the actual policies don’t figure into it.
Not expecting you to see the difference, but there is a big one.
See, the thing is, and I’m pretty sure you and I have had this conversation because I think it was you who said you listen to him fairly often, he said specifically it was his policies he wanted to fail because he thought his polices would do great harm to this nation. He framed in that manner. Sean, I won’t do to you what you are attempting to do on the other thread, but it is dishonest to say that the policies don’t figure into what Limbaugh said about hoping Obama fails. I don’t think you’re dishonest, but that is not an accurate statement.
People think Bush’s policies failed because of the results of those policies. Limbaugh wants Obama to fail because he doesn’t want to see him succeed, the actual policies don’t figure into it.
Sean, I think you’re doing a good job of hair splitting here. You’re not going to find many me many Democrats who wanted President Bush to succeed. Let’s not forget that a good portion of the Democrats were still calling Bush a thief and a squatter the morning of 9/11. Then they blamed him entirely for 9/11 which goes along with Democratic thought that everything bad that happened the first year of his Presidency was totally his fault. IE, he only ‘inherited’ good stuff.
Democrats WANTED President Bush to fail. They just didn’t have the balls to say it.
Democrats WANTED President Bush to fail.
This is what you don’t get. Unlike you guys we don’t want a president to fail to prove a political point. I was despondent over the 2000 election, but I thought, maybe he won’t fuck it up. And then on 9/11 I said, okay, he’s the president and I’ll have faith in him to do the right thing. And then he let Bin Laden go and invaded the wrong country. We gave George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt, and he failed time and time and time and time again and now his enablers have been talking down our new president before he was even sworn in.
Bush was a failure. To wit, I wanted Osama bin Laden brought to justice and it didn’t happen. I wanted a decent economy, like all Americans. Didn’t happen.
I didn’t want a costly, failed occupation of Iraq. We’ll be paying for that one for quite a while, literally and figuratively.
That’s one of the stranger things about the GOP. They don’t think their actions as president should be held against them.
“Then they blamed him entirely for 9/11″
Not entirely, no. But certainly the people he chose to surround himself with like Rice. You guys kept trumpteting how America wasn’t attacked after 9/11. But by that logic, you own 9/11.
It was a tragedy, but a preventable tragedy that happened under the GOP’s watch.
Party of personal responsibility my ass. You guys are basically children waiting for adults to come along and correct your mistakes, as Obama is doing. And like Clinton and FDR did.
But I just want to know – why don’t cheating politicians use birth control?
Who says he didn’t?
Personally I’m glad he was in the Presidential campaign and I’m glad he went practically nowhere. I think his presence helped shift the agenda, and then thankfully he was knocked out.
…so, in a sense, Bush and Cheney saved the Democratic party and the nation in 2004?
By what? Fucking and not having an abortion? Isn’t that how wingnuts prove they ever get laid?
From SaveFerris’ linked article above:The condom’s biggest flaw is that those using it to prevent the conception of another human being are offending God
…and here I always thought it was that odd latex smell.
Who gives a shiat? Did he actually break a law?
The laws of human decency, yes.
what a scumbag — not so much for the philandering, but for the pathological lying thereon. and to think i once loved him… sniffle. moving on.
so when is Jay Tea, Dennis, etc. going to criticize David Vitter for banging prostitutes and not resigning??? Oh no, never because IOKWRDI
Dennis: and I’m pretty sure you and I have had this conversation because I think it was you who said you listen to him fairly often
Whatever conversation you’re remembering, Dennis, I didn’t say I listen to him fairly often. I can barely stand to listen to Limbaugh for more than literally 2-3 minutes before the sheer weight of the lies he’s spewing forces me to switch back to my usual stations. And only tune his show in about once every couple of months. And only then because I can’t tolerate those who want to ban books they haven’t read or picket movies they haven’t seen because someone told them they were bad, so I listen to Limbaugh on rare occasions so that I can form my own opinion of himm from first hand experience.
he said specifically it was his policies he wanted to fail because he thought his polices would do great harm to this nation. He framed in that manner.
First thing out of the gate, setting the stage (the frame) for his view:
Yeah, that’s a statement on Obama’s policies. “Wah, they didn’t give Bush a chance, so I’m not going to give him one.”
Then he does describe policies:
Except they aren’t policies that Obama has ever supported or tried to enact. The “absorption of as much as possible by the gov’t”? Nope, never what Obama has stated or done. It’s a straw man Limbaugh sets up. Not much different from “He’s wants to killing your Grandma to save on medical costs. And I’m opposed to that.” Well, who wouldn’t be? But that isn’t what Obama was doing.
So he isn’t objecting to Obama’s policies. He’s objecting to what he claims (falsely) Obama’s policies are. His objection is to Obama. It is the man that he wants to see fail. IF it was truly the policies, then he would attack the actual policies, not mocked up, distorted versions of them.
Jay: Democrats WANTED President Bush to fail. They just didn’t have the balls to say it.
Wingnut mind reading abilities, ladies and gentlemen.
If I see a kid playing with matches and yell at them to stop, I’m not “hoping they fail” to start a fire. I’m hoping to God they don’t burn the house down.
Bush burned the fucking house down. Opposing the moronic invasion and occupation of Iraq was the only patriotic, American thing to do.
Jay: Democrats WANTED President Bush to fail. They just didn’t have the balls to say it.
Wingnut mind reading abilities, ladies and gentlemen.
No, a wingnut’s projection of his own bitter selfishness, and his confusion of patriotism with tribalism.
I was hoping for a delightful surprise with Bush. That he’d just DO NOTHING. I was hoping he would be a nice, successful Millard Fillmore, snoozin’ his way to the next brush clearing adventure at his ranch.
Turns out he did a bunch of shit. I didn’t want him to do the shit that he did. Did I hope for him to fail? No, strangely enough I wanted him to not turn 8 years of progress and prosperity into war, economic crisis and the trampling of the Constitution, but he did, despite my fervent longing to the contrary. I did not hope for Iraq to turn into a pointless quagmire, but it did. I didn’t hope that Bush would drag us into the mud with illegal detentions, wiretapping and torture, but he did. If giving away tax breaks to the rich actually turned out to be for the benefit of us all, well, that’s one on me and good on him for his principles. Except it wasn’t principles and it didn’t have that effect.
Do I think he’s a complete piece of shit for doing these things, yes, yes I do. I didn’t have to hope for him to fail, he did that on his own.
I try not to mix up “hope” with “expecting the likely and predictable consequences of policy decisions”.
Like, if you had asked me whether or not I hoped that Bush Jr. would wreak destruction upon this and one other nation, the answer was “no”.
If, however, you asked me if certain policy approach X could even possibly lead to some desired outcome, I would have in most of Bush Jr / GOP policies said “no”.
Not based on what I “hoped” but because of what I know of reality and the world.
If a neighbor of mine was truly in a desperate situation and declared his intention to get out of his problems by building a staircase to the Moon, what do I “hope” for and what do I “expect”?
I would “hope” that the neighbor would change his mind and abandon his destructive folly.
Instead, the Bush Jr. years were like a lot of people screaming at me about why I was opposed to letting this man reach the Moon.
Wingnut mind reading abilities, ladies and gentlemen.
In 2006, there was a poll taken that said, “Regardless of how you voted, do you want to see President Bush succeed?”
51% of Democrats said NO.
In short, they wanted him to fail. Independents meanwhile, polled 63-34 for him to succeed.
Mind reading my ass.
http://patterico.com/files/2009/03/poll-should-bush-succeed.jpg
Succeed at what? Turning Iraq into Iran’s fellow Shia BFF?
Mission accomplished.
Nice of you to like to an image file, rather than provide some context for your bullshit.
Bullshit? It’s a direct link to a question from a poll. Do a Google search for details for crying out loud.
Sean D. Martin: Wow. How fragile a country are you living in?
It was hyperbole, and so is Oliver’s notion that Edwards almost destroyed the Democratic party. The party would have survived the scandal had Edwards been nominated, and I’m sure the country would manage to survive a term or two of McCain/Palin.
I’m sure the country would manage to survive a term or two of McCain/Palin.
Don’t be so sure. In 2000 I didn’t think Bush could cause too much damage.
Since J was too lazy, here is the Fox News poll.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX_230_release_web.pdf
Jay: In 2006, there was a poll taken that said, “Regardless of how you voted, do you want to see President Bush succeed?”
At what? Succeed at what?
You’ve taken question #10 in isolation out of a poll. It doesn’t do anything to back up your point.
Bullshit? It’s a direct link to a question from a poll. Do a Google search for details for crying out loud.
Why didn’t you do that, Jay. It’s your point that you’re trying to make. You don’t’ seem to be aware of this, for crying out loud, but it isn’t up to us to provide support for your argument.
At what? Succeed at what?
Oh now it has to be something specific for him to succeed at? Give me a break Sean. I noticed that in the same poll, Republicans and Independents didn’t need specific examples.
Good grief.
You’ve taken question #10 in isolation out of a poll. It doesn’t do anything to back up your point.
Sure it does. The contention is that Democrats didn’t say they wanted President Bush to fail. This poll question is evidence that a majority did want him to fail.
Why didn’t you do that, Jay. It’s your point that you’re trying to make.
And I cited what my evidence was and posted a link to it. Jaim wants to be an intellectual lazy ass. It’s not my responsibility to provide with a trail of breadcrumbs to the details. Enter “patterico poll bush fail” into the Google toolbar and it would point him right to the full entry. Is that what you people are going to bitch about now that the whole, “We didn’t want him to fail!” whine has been exposed as nonsense? Give it a rest.
2006, there was a poll taken that said, “Regardless of how you voted, do you want to see President Bush succeed?”
51% of Democrats said NO.
My apologies, Jay, you did have some evidentiary basis for your statement, after all.
I would note, however, that this poll, if accurate (this is FOX we’re talking about, after all) was taken after 5.5 years with Bush as president, and is in response to a rather open-ended question. What is going through the respondent’s mind in answering the question: I hope Bush fails to what…? Retain his majority in congress?
Somewhat different from Limbaugh and the hope-he-fails chorus of Limbots who have been screaming ever since the day Obama was elected.