Who Voted For This Guy?

An upbeat President Bush points out that "Sure, Democrats won two houses of Congress, but we still hold the rest of 'em."

President Bush had many explanations for what he called the "thumping" his party took on Tuesday…

…The president, who started his appearance with an admission that "I share a large part of the responsibility," went on to blame everybody else.

He blamed corruption: "People want their congressmen to be honest and ethical, so in some races that was the primary factor."

Yes, and people want their President to be honest and ethical, which is why your approval rating has bottomed out at the 35% of Americans who'd rather drink cyanide than admit that they were wrong about the coffee tasting a little bit like almonds.  Christ, even Republicans didn't want to get sullied by association with Bush.

Plus, doesn't anyone find it amazing that a Republican President explaining a Republican trouncing in an election says, "Well, people want their congressmen to be honest and ethical.  So we lost."

From a guy who ran on restoring honor and integrity to the White House?  At the head of the party representing "traditional American values"?

A couple of times a week, I get an email or a comment from some right wing lunatic calling me shrill and unbalanced and a moonbat for my ranting about the unethical and dishonest behavior of the modern Republican party.  So I thank the President for clearing up this point of contention between me and the mouthbreathers.

And, in the future, kindly address your insane scribblings to your War President.

After all, I'm just a guy on the internets drawing attention to what a bunch criminals and liars and hypocrites Republican congressmen are.  Bush is saying it on live Tee Vee!

He blamed Mark Foley, whose name remained on the Florida ballot: "People couldn't vote directly for the Republican candidate."

Because the "traditional American values" representing Republican who was actually on the ballot was in hiding after trying to molest teenage boys.

He blamed ballot rules. "You could have the greatest positions in the world . . . but to try to get to win on a write-in is really hard to do."

And it's impossible if you have Republican positions!

He blamed Democratic organization: "I'm sure Iraq had something to do with the voters' mind, but so did a very strong turnout mechanism."

If only Republicans could have kept Americans from voting they would have won!

He blamed bad luck: "If you look at race by race, it was close."

So says a guy who lost the popular vote in 2000 and then, after "winning" "reelection" by the smallest margin in about a hundred years, declared he had a "mandate" to fuck things up as he pleased.

Implicitly, of course, he blamed Donald Rumsfeld, by firing him as defense secretary in favor of the "fresh perspective" of Robert Gates.

And, not least, he blamed the uncomprehending voters: "I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security. But the people have spoken, and now it's time for us to move on…"

There it is, again.  The "leader" of the free world, with his "freedom agenda", promoting democracy around the globe, telling The People of the greatest democracy the world has ever seen that they are too stupid to govern themselves.

Clearly, Bush was trying to tone down the rhetoric from the campaign, when he said the Democratic "approach comes down to this: The terrorists win, and America loses." Yesterday, he voiced soothing notions of "consultations" and "bipartisanship."

But he seemed unsure how much to concede. He began by saying "Iraq had a lot to do with the election." He amended that to "Iraq had something to do with it." And finally he cited cases where "I'm not sure Iraq had much to do with the outcome."

The ol' Straight Shooter, saying what he means and meaning what he says.

A lot of rats sucked the pipe this week.  A lot of them deserved it.  But, unless you're a moron, you know full well that it was Bush who handed out the pipes.  And he takes responsibility by blaming them for opening their mouths.

I sincerely hope Democrats are just blowing smoke up David Broder's ass with all this "bipartisan" talk.   Because working with this national catastrophe of an accidental President is very nearly as bad as voting for him.

Comments

[Sandals]

I'm pretty sure when the Democrats are talking about bipartisanship, they're rubbing relatively moderate republicans faces in how much they were petty assholes during the Republican Reich. Maybe they'll be so pathetically grateful about actually being able to get meeting rooms and having a voice in the process that they'll be, I don't know, bipartisan.

And Nancy Pelosi is trying to make sure she can pass legislation without getting vetoed out of petty spite.

[Kit E]

Broder would claim that bipartisanship is going to prevail even if Pelosi stated plans to tar and feather every republican rubber stamper; Broder does this reflexively, he can't help himself.

He didn't seem to have any problem with the "neutering" comments that came from the neocons when they were in power, because threatening Democrats who are even thinking of putting up a fuss is OK with little Davie.

I want to see just enough bipartisanship to get things done and to not look obstructionist, but other than that put thier important parts in a vice and threaten to start turning the handle any time they try to pull that old BS we've had to endure for the last 6 years. Arrogant pricks.

[Rob]

Bottomed out at 35%? He's down to 31!