A Republican Tells The Truth!

[X-Ray]

Stop the presses, a conservative talk radio host admits he erred when voting for Bush...

::::::::
http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/listingsentry.asp?id=432586&pt=mcintyre+in+the+morning

By Doug McIntyre

Host, McIntyre in the Morning

Talk Radio 790 KABC



There’s nothing harder in public life than admitting you’re wrong. By the way, admitting you’re wrong can be even tougher in private life. If you don’t believe me, just ask Bill Clinton or Charlie Sheen. But when you go out on the limb in public, it’s out there where everyone can see it, or in my case, hear it.



So, I’m saying today, I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush. In historic terms, I believe George W. Bush is the worst two-term President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. I also believe a case can be made that he’s the worst President, period.



In 2000, I was a McCain guy. I wasn’t sure about the Texas Governor. He had name recognition and a lot of money behind him, but other than that? What? Still, I was sick of all the Clinton shenanigans and the thought of President Gore was… unthinkable. So, GWB became my guy.



For the first few months he was just flubbing along like most new Presidents, no great shakes, but no disasters either. He cut taxes and I like tax cuts.



Then September 11th happened. September 11th changed everything for me, like it did for so many of you. After September 11th, all the intramural idiocy of American politics stopped being funny. We had been attacked by a vicious and determined enemy and it was time for all of us to row in the same direction.



And we did for the blink of an eye. I believed the President when he said we were going to hunt down Bin Laden and all those responsible for the 9-11 murders. I believed President Bush when he said we would go after the terrorists and the nations that harbored them.













I supported the President when he sent our troops into Afghanistan, after all, that’s where the Taliban was, that’s where al-Qaida trained the killers, that’s where Bin Laden was.



And I cheered when we quickly toppled the Taliban government, but winced when we let Bin Laden escape from Tora-Bora.



Then, the talk turned to Iraq and I winced again.



I thought the connection to 9-11 was sketchy at best. But Colin Powell impressed me at the UN, and Tony Blair was in, and after all, he was a Clinton guy, not a Bush guy, so I thought the case had to be strong. I was worried though, because I had read the Wolfowitz paper, “The Project for the New American Century.” It’s been around since ‘92, and it raised alarm bells because it was based on a theory, “Democratizing the Middle East” and I prefer pragmatism over theory. I was worried because Iraq was being justified on a radical new basis, “pre-emptive war.” Any time we do something without historical precedent I get nervous.



But the President shifted the argument to WMDs and the urgent threat of Iraq getting atomic weapons. The debate turned to Saddam passing nukes on to terror groups. After 9-11, the risk was too great. As the President said, “The next smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud.” At least that’s what I thought at the time.



I grew up in New York and watched them build the World Trade Center. I worked with a guy, Frank O’Brien, who put the elevators in both towers. I lost a very close friend on September 11th. 103 floor, tower one, Cantor Fitzgerald. Tim Coughlin was his name. If we had to take out Iraq to make sure something like that, or worse, never happened again, so be it. I knew the consequences. We have a soldier in our house. None of this was theoretical in my house.



But in the months and years since shock and awe I have been shocked repeatedly by a consistent litany of excuses, alibis, double-talk, inaccuracies, bogus predictions, and flat out lies. I have watched as the President and his administration changed the goals, redefined the reasons for going into Iraq, and fumbled the good will of the world and the focus necessary to catch the real killers of September 11th.



I have watched the President say the commanders on the ground will make the battlefield decisions, and the war won’t be run from Washington. Yet, politics has consistently determined what the troops can and can’t do on the ground and any commander who did not go along with the administration was sacked, and in some cases, maligned.



I watched and tried to justify the looting in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. I watched and tried to justify the dismantling of the entire Iraqi army. I tired to explain the complexities of building a functional new Iraqi army. I urged patience when no WMDs were found. Then the Vice President told us we were in the “waning days of the insurgency.” And I started wincing again. The President says we have to stay the course but what if it’s the wrong course?



It was the wrong course. All of it was wrong. We are not on the road to victory. We’re about to slink home with our tail between our legs, leaving civil war in Iraq and a nuclear armed Iran in our wake. Bali was bombed. Madrid was bombed. London was bombed. And Bin Laden is still making tapes. It’s unspeakable. The liberal media didn’t create this reality, bad policy did.



Most historians believe it takes 30-50 years before we get a reasonably accurate take on a President’s place in history. So, maybe 50 years from now Iraq will be a peaceful member of the brotherhood of nations and George W. Bush will be celebrated as a visionary genius.



But we don’t live fifty years in the future. We live now. We have to make public policy decisions now. We have to live with the consequences of the votes we cast and the leaders we chose now.



After five years of carefully watching George W. Bush I’ve reached the conclusion he’s either grossly incompetent, or a hand puppet for a gaggle of detached theorists with their own private view of how the world works. Or both.



Presidential failures. James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Jimmy Carter, Warren Harding-— the competition is fierce for the worst of the worst. Still, the damage this President has done is enormous. It will take decades to undo, and that’s assuming we do everything right from now on. His mistakes have global implications, while the other failed Presidents mostly authored domestic embarrassments.



And speaking of domestic embarrassments, let’s talk for a minute about President Bush’s domestic record. Yes, he cut taxes. But tax cuts combined with reckless spending and borrowing is criminal mismanagement of the public’s money. We’re drunk at the mall with our great grandchildren’s credit cards. Whatever happened to the party of fiscal responsibility?



Bush created a giant new entitlement, the prescription drug plan. He lied to his own party to get it passed. He lied to the country about its true cost. It was written by and for the pharmaceutical industry. It helps nobody except the multinationals that lobbied for it. So much for smaller government. In fact, virtually every tentacle of government has grown exponentially under Bush. Unless, of course, it was an agency to look after the public interest, or environmental protection, and/or worker’s rights.



I’ve talked so often about the border issue, I won’t bore you with a rehash. It’s enough to say this President has been a catastrophe for the wages of working people; he’s debased the work ethic itself. “Jobs Americans won’t do!” He doesn’t believe in the sovereign borders of the country he’s sworn to protect and defend. And his devotion to cheap labor for his corporate benefactors, along with his worship of multinational trade deals, makes an utter mockery of homeland security in a post 9-11 world. The President’s January 7th, 2004 speech on immigration, his first trial balloon on his guest worker scheme, was a deal breaker for me. I couldn’t and didn’t vote for him in 2004. And I’m glad I didn’t.



Katrina, Harriet Myers, The Dubai Port Deal, skyrocketing gas prices, shrinking wages for working people, staggering debt, astronomical foreign debt, outsourcing, open borders, contempt for the opinion of the American people, the war on science, media manipulation, faith based initives, a cavalier attitude toward fundamental freedoms-- this President has run the most arrogant and out-of-touch administration in my lifetime, perhaps, in any American’s lifetime.



You can make a case that Abraham Lincoln did what he had to do, the public be damned. If you roll the dice on your gut and you’re right, history remembers you well. But, when your gut led you from one business failure to another, when your gut told you to trade Sammy Sosa to the White Sox, and you use the same gut to send our sons and daughters to fight and die in a distraction from the real war on terror, then history will and should be unapologetic in its condemnation.



None of this, by the way, should be interpreted as an endorsement of the opposition party. The Democrats are equally bankrupt. This is the second crime of our age. Again, historically speaking, its times like these when America needs a vibrant opposition to check the power of a run-amuck majority party. It requires it. It doesn’t work without one. Like the high and low tides keep the oceans alive, a healthy, positive opposition offers a path back to the center where all healthy societies live.



Tragically, the Democrats have allowed crackpots, leftists and demagogic cowards to snipe from the sidelines while taking no responsibility for anything. In fairness, I don’t believe a Democrat president would have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately, I don’t know if President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. And that’s one of the many problems with the Democrats.



to be continued...

[X-Ray]

The two party system has always been clumsy and imperfect, but it has only collapsed once, in the 1850s, and the result was civil war.



I believe, as I have said countless times, the two party system is on the brink of a second collapse. It’s currently running on spin, anger, revenge, and pots and pots and pots of money.



We’re being governed by paper-mache patriots; brightly painted red, white and blue, but hollow to the core. Both parties have mastered the cynical arts of media manipulation and fund raising. They’ve learned the lessons of Watergate and burn the tapes. They have learned to divide the nation for their own gain. They have demonstrated the willingness to exploit any tragedy for personal advantage. The contempt they have for the American people is without parallel.



This is painful to say, and I’m sure for many of you, painful to read. But it’s impossible to heal the country until we’re willing to acknowledge the truth no matter how painful. We have to wean ourselves off sugar coated partisan lies.

With a belated tip of the cap to Ralph Nader, the system is broken, so broken, it’s almost inevitable it pukes up the Al Gores and George W. Bushes. Where are the Trumans and the Eisenhowers? Where are the men and women of vision and accomplishment? Why do we have to settle for recycled hacks and malleable ciphers? Greatness is always rare, but is basic competence and simple honesty too much to ask?



It may be decades before we have the full picture of how paranoid and contemptuous this administration has been. And I am open to the possibility that I’m all wet about everything I’ve just said. But I’m putting it out there, because I have to call it as I see it, and this is how I see it today. I don’t say any of this lightly. I’ve thought about this for months and months. But eventually, the weight of evidence takes on a gravitational force of its own.



I believe that George W. Bush has taken us down a terrible road. I don’t believe the Democrats are offering an alternative. That means we’re on our own to save this magnificent country. The United States of America is a gift to the world, but it has been badly abused and it’s rightful owners, We the People, had better step up to the plate and reclaim it before the damage becomes irreparable.



So, accept my apology for allowing partisanship to blind me to an obvious truth; our President is incapable of the tasks he is charged with. I almost feel sorry for him. He is clearly in over his head. Yet, he doesn’t generate the sympathy Warren Harding earned. Harding, a spectacular mediocrity, had the self-knowledge to tell any and all he shouldn’t be President. George W. Bush continues to act the part, but at this point whose buying the act?



Does this make me a waffler? A flip-flopper? Maybe, although I prefer to call it realism. And, for those of you who never supported Bush, its also fair to accuse me of kicking Bush while he’s down. After all, you were kicking him while he was up.



You were right, I was wrong.

[twentyshots]

emphasis here.

With a belated tip of the cap to Ralph Nader, the system is broken, so broken, it’s almost inevitable it pukes up the Al Gores and George W. Bushes. Where are the Trumans and the Eisenhowers? Where are the men and women of vision and accomplishment? Why do we have to settle for recycled hacks and malleable ciphers? Greatness is always rare, but is basic competence and simple honesty too much to ask?





can any sane person even argue against this anymore or has mediocrity become the american way?

[markalot]

He's a DJ. Is he even a republican? I agree with everything he says, but I'm wondering if this is just a media ploy.

can any sane person even argue against this anymore or has mediocrity become the american way?

I believe, like he does, that the two party system is starting to collapse. It's not that we accept mediocrity, but it takes a while for people to realize, in mass, that they need another choice.

[akip]

i think this is a very bad decade to have a sub-par president at the helm. he's there because certain big money elites backed him to advance their own agenda and they've figured out how to manipulate the paranoia of common people to vote against their own economic interests.

this is coming from someone who believes, however, that we have to adjust to the tough realitities of the global economy. i'm really no populist. there's no turning back, but you've gotta have a smart pragmatist with tremendous leadership abilities to steer this ship. bush showed us the dangers of a president who gets just little pieces of it and gives too much power to smarter, but dangerous men---some of whom were not elected.

anyway, we really have to keep looking at the money in politics. that's what's created this monster. as long as neither party can compete without it, we're gonna have the same bullshit---and, btw, you'll never have a viable third party run in this cash-driven landscape either.

[winston thrane]

A lot of historians have speculated on how things would have turned out if Lincoln or Roosevelt were not at the helm during those troubled times and some half baked idiot was at the controls instead. I guess we are going to find out out what kind of impact a mediocre-at-best president will have on human history in the face of a war that will define the next half century.

[slopechz]

On the other hand John McCain and "W" are growing oh so close.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/us/03mccain.html?ei=5094&en=4413651bd6a4b111&hp=&ex=1151985600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
The New York Times
July 3, 2006
A New Partnership Binds Old Republican Rivals
By JIM RUTENBERG and ADAM NAGOURNEY

After years of competitive and often contentious dealings, President Bush and Senator John McCain of Arizona are building a deepening if impersonal relationship that is serving the political needs of both men.

Given their history of intense rivalry and sometimes personally bitter combat, their newfound partnership is seen by some Republicans as born more of political calculation than personal evolution. Either way, it could prove valuable to Mr. McCain in his efforts to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 by sending a signal to Mr. Bush's conservative base and fund-raising network that, at a minimum, the White House will not stand in the Arizonan's way.

The president had Mr. McCain to the White House three times in one week recently to talk about how Mr. Bush should make the case for the war in Iraq and how to break the wall of conservative opposition to the immigration measures proposed by both men. Mr. McCain was back in the Oval Office again on Tuesday to talk about ways to win approval of the line-item veto.

Behind the scenes, during a month in which he repeatedly came to Mr. Bush's public defense, Mr. McCain called the president to offer words of support, he recounted in an interview.

"I said, 'Look, hang on, things are bad,' " Mr. McCain said. "I said, 'I'm proud of the job you are doing, and I wanted you to know that I will continue to do what I can to help.'

"I've tried, when his numbers went down, to be more supportive and outspoken, because I'd love to pick him up," Mr. McCain said.

The senator showed that again on Sunday in an interview on the ABC program "This Week," saying he was "proud" of the president's leadership on immigration and emphasizing cooperation with the administration on a former issue of serious contention, the treatment of American-held prisoners of war.

Aides said a thaw that began when Mr. McCain campaigned alongside Mr. Bush in the 2004 election has continued through the tougher days of Mr. Bush's second term. The appearances began after top aides for the two men met to hash out some of their differences. During private moments in joint appearances — at the White House, at campaignlike events pressing for immigration reform and on Air Force One — the two even chat about baseball and golf.

"He calls me Johnny Mac," Mr. McCain said.

Still, for all the talk of reconciliation, both sides describe the relationship between arguably the two highest-profile leaders of the Republican Party as almost entirely professional, a little stiff and the product of the pragmatic calculation by two politicians who see potential gain in striking a peace with a powerful rival.

"This is a very odd partnership that is almost founded at the moment on mutual need," said Tom Rath, a Republican leader in New Hampshire and a longtime ally of the Bush family, who hastened to add that Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain share more convictions than people realize and would not be working so closely if that were not the case.

But Mr. Bush has not had Mr. McCain to Camp David or the White House for dinner or a movie, and Mr. Bush has not visited Mr. McCain's cabin in Sedona, Ariz., since 2001. Mr. McCain, who served 22 years in the Navy, rises to his feet whenever he takes a call from Mr. Bush, even in the privacy of his office. But Mr. McCain's friends say he is fonder of Mr. Bush's father.

Even as he called Mr. Bush a friend, Mr. McCain described their relationship as a function of their positions and their shared views on such big issues as Iraq and immigration. "I believe if I were not in the Senate and not working on these issues, we might communicate once in a while, but not the way we do," he said. "We have a very good personal relationship, but it's primarily based on the agenda."

Mr. Bush is in need of a loyal Republican at a time when there is so much wariness within the party of a president whose popularity has declined. Mr. McCain would like the support of Mr. Bush's supporters and contributors in 2008 and could not afford to have a hostile White House that could trip up his own presidential bid.

Whatever the motivation, the relationship has potentially big political implications for the 2008 race, although Mr. Bush's aides have said that he would almost certainly stay out of the Republican primary contest. And some aides declined to comment publicly for this article out of concern, they said, that they would appear to be giving the White House stamp of approval for a McCain campaign. But the president appears to have stronger ties to Mr. McCain than to the other likely presidential candidates.

There has been a steady stream of Bush advisers who have ended up in Mr. McCain's orbit. Most recently, Republicans close to both candidates said that Nicolle Wallace — who just stepped down as Mr. Bush's communications director and has long been close to the president — was likely to serve in some formal or informal role in a McCain campaign. Her husband, Mark D. Wallace, Mr. Bush's deputy campaign manager in 2004 and now an ambassador-level representative to the United Nations, is already lending advice. In another high-profile move, Wayne L. Berman, a longtime supporter and fund-raiser for Mr. Bush, has signed on to help Mr. McCain.

On the other side of the divide, some of Mr. McCain's supporters made it clear in interviews that the McCain camp viewed Mr. Bush's brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, as an ideal running mate for Mr. McCain. This news would presumably be pleasing to President Bush, who has made it clear in recent weeks that he would like his brother to move onto the national stage; Governor Bush has made it just as clear that he has no interest in running for national office in 2008.

And Mr. Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, was said by associates to have put aside his suspicion and dislike of Mr. McCain. The two spent time together during the 2004 campaign when, Mr. Rove told associates, they drew close. Mr. Rove gave Mr. McCain a pair of antique Theodore Roosevelt presidential cufflinks at the end of that race.

John Weaver, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain, said that accounts of animosity between Mr. McCain and Mr. Bush had been at least slightly exaggerated.

"There's heat in a campaign, and it can get pretty raw," said Mr. Weaver, who had a particularly famous feud with Mr. Rove. "I can speak for ourselves: after we lost the nominating process in 2000, it was time to move on. It took longer for some of us on the staff level to get to that point, but we did."

Still, it was just last year when Mr. McCain, a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, led something of a revolt in the Senate to push a ban on cruel or inhumane treatment of prisoners in American custody, over Mr. Bush's threat of a veto. And for much of Mr. Bush's first term, the senator had a reputation as one of the few Republicans who would publicly criticize the administration, on issues like Mr. Bush's tax cut proposals, the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal and the administration's postwar planning in Iraq.

But Mr. McCain has become one of the biggest defenders of Mr. Bush, even on some of the president's most unpopular moves, including the administration's decision this year to approve a deal giving control of several American ports to a company owned by the Dubai government.

"On a series of very tough issues, McCain's been there," said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary.

The jelling of the McCain-Bush relationship has included a series of gestures, some odd, on both sides. When Mr. McCain visited Mr. Bush at his ranch in Texas during the 2004 presidential campaign, he suggested to the president that he try cooking turkey with a turkey fryer, promising to rustle one up for him. Mr. McCain apparently forgot the promise until White House aides started calling Mr. McCain's office, saying the president was still waiting for his turkey fryer.

And aides said there were long memories in both camps stemming from the bitterly fought presidential primary season of 2000, in which Mr. McCain embarrassed Mr. Bush with a defeat in New Hampshire, and Mr. Bush responded with a searing campaign — which provoked charges of dirty tricks — that knocked Mr. McCain out in South Carolina.

A Republican with ties to the administration said there was lingering resentment among some Bush aides at Mr. McCain for so regularly going on television, especially during Mr. Bush's first term, to criticize the president. And Mr. McCain, a politician who is given to speaking his mind, could certainly still say something critical of the White House that would set back this rapprochement, his aides said.

But Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain have both instructed their aides to cease their hostilities. "We both made it very clear to all of our supporters that that's over," Mr. McCain said. "What people find difficulty understanding," he said, "is that we're capable of putting that behind us."