Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

goMac · Apr 1, 2007, 12:06 AM

The Bush 04 campaign chief strategist has gone public with his regret in helping get Bush elected:

“I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/wa...mp;oref=slogin

I thought it was interesting that the man who started the famed "Kerry flip flop" thing now wishes Kerry would have won.

subego · Apr 1, 2007, 12:46 AM

That just made me feel dirty.

ROFF · Apr 1, 2007, 01:08 AM

If this was any day except April 1st........

goMac · Apr 1, 2007, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by ROFF

If this was any day except April 1st........

I read before I posted, and the whole thing seems legit.

BlueSky · 02:17 AM

The title of the thread alone made me smile. Hope the story helps wake up a few sheep.

Atomic Rooster · Apr 3, 2007, 12:10 AM

Snow-i · Apr 3, 2007, 12:52 AM

yes...more bush bashing...

this is going to solve our problems how?

Chuckit · Apr 3, 2007, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Snow-i

yes...more bush bashing...

this is going to solve our problems how?

The same way that convincing people their building is on fire and they should probably get out will solve a problem. As long as people continue to wear blinders with regard to Bush, they're probably just going to elect a similar ****-up next time.

That said, I still think Kerry would have been an even worse choice.

goMac · Apr 3, 2007, 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by Snow-i

yes...more bush bashing...

this is going to solve our problems how?

Because the person talking about Bush explains as part of it the course this country should take?

Big Mac · Apr 3, 2007, 01:52 AM

He worked with Bush through at least 2004, and only now he regrets that choice? What's wrong with this guy - is he king retard? If Bush is the same president in his second term as he was in his first, then this guy should have recognized that he disliked Bush as president back in the first term. Crying about it now, after assisting Bush to a second term, is just plain stupid.

goMac · Apr 3, 2007, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

What's wrong with this guy - is he king retard?

What can I say, Bush likes to keep like minded people in his ranks.

(I'm sorry. It was just begging for a reply.)

Face Ache · Apr 3, 2007, 02:16 AM

Rightist Indignation
GOP Insider Vic Gold Launches a Broadside at the State of the Party

Vic Gold heard from Lynne Cheney a few weeks before George W. Bush was sworn in as president in January 2001. Cheney had an assignment for her old friend: She wanted Gold to write the profiles of her and her husband, the new vice president, for the official Inauguration program.

The veteran journalist and GOP campaign operative was a natural choice. After all, he had shared an office with Lynne Cheney at Washingtonian magazine before she became chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities -- and they even worked on a satirical novel together.

Gold was also an old friend of the new president's father, having worked with George H.W. Bush on his campaigns and co-written his autobiography. The association dated back to 1964, when Bush 41 was an unsuccessful Senate candidate in Texas and Gold a press assistant to unsuccessful presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.

So Gold was also asked to write the official bios of the new president and first lady.

"With Texas deep in his heart, America's 43rd president is an optimistic man of faith and family," he proclaimed in the program.

Gold was equally effusive about Dick Cheney : "A man of gravitas with a quick and easy wit; a conservative who'll see a road less traveled; a political realist who sees his country and the world around him not in terms of leaden problems but golden opportunities."

At a lunch recently at a downtown Washington hotel, Gold, 78, hands over the program, now an artifact of seemingly ancient history. He is trying to explain why it was so hard to write his new book, one whose title encapsulates what he now thinks of his onetime friends: "Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP." The two men at the top, he says, were men he knew pretty well -- or at least he thought he did.

"What I described there was the Cheney we all thought we knew," Gold says ruefully.

His book, to be published this month by Sourcebooks with an initial print run of 20,000 copies, offers quite a different assessment of the two most powerful men in Washington. Under Bush and Cheney, he argues, the GOP has moved away from principles of small government, prudent foreign policy and leaving people alone to live their private lives -- all views Gold associates with his hero, Goldwater. "Invasion of the Party Snatchers" makes plain Gold's contempt for the direction of his party and the guidance of its leaders.

"For all the Rove-built facade of his being a 'strong' chief executive, George W. Bush has been, by comparison to even hapless Jimmy Carter, the weakest, most out of touch president in modern times," Gold writes. "Think Dan Quayle in cowboy boots."

Gold is even more withering in his observations of Cheney. "A vice president in control is bad enough. Worse yet is a vice president out of control."
...

It goes on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101211_pf.html

tie · Apr 3, 2007, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

I thought it was interesting that the man who started the famed "Kerry flip flop" thing now wishes Kerry would have won.

Political strategists are expected to be scumbags; I can't say this is a surprise.

Snow-i · Apr 3, 2007, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The same way that convincing people their building is on fire and they should probably get out will solve a problem. As long as people continue to wear blinders with regard to Bush, they're probably just going to elect a similar ****-up next time.

That said, I still think Kerry would have been an even worse choice.

you and i think alike.

Sucks how when it comes to American politics its always choosing the lesser of two evils. There's no such thing as a "good" candidate anymore.

osiris · Apr 3, 2007, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Snow-i

you and i think alike.

Sucks how when it comes to American politics its always choosing the lesser of two evils. There's no such thing as a "good" candidate anymore.

Yes, it is a GD shame.

Jawbone54 · Apr 3, 2007, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The same way that convincing people their building is on fire and they should probably get out will solve a problem. As long as people continue to wear blinders with regard to Bush, they're probably just going to elect a similar ****-up next time.

That said, I still think Kerry would have been an even worse choice.

Out of those with significant power, none would be a good choice. I can't stand politicians. I wish some no-name independent would shock the world in the next 20 years and get elected President over the anguished howls of the Democrat and Republican parties.

After watching Gore's movie, I think he'd have been almost as bad as Kerry. I voted for Bush, and would again if faced with the same two decisions.

Gossamer · Apr 3, 2007, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The same way that convincing people their building is on fire and they should probably get out will solve a problem. As long as people continue to wear blinders with regard to Bush, they're probably just going to elect a similar ****-up next time.

I don't think the analogy holds very well. Telling someone their building is on fire calls for immediate action. We're stuck with Bush until the next elections, and it's impossible for him to be reelected, so there's not much of a point to the mindless bashing.

tie · Apr 3, 2007, 03:39 PM

I don't really agree. The more unpopular Bush is, the more politicians will distance themselves from his policies. Given that Bush's policies have been disastrous for this country, I can't see how this is a bad thing. This is definitely "immediate action" and given the urgent threats to our nation (Iraq, terrorism), I think the fire analogy is reasonable.

Gossamer · Apr 3, 2007, 04:08 PM

So what's analogous to "getting out?" Leaving the country?

tie · Apr 3, 2007, 06:16 PM

That's called stretching an analogy too far.

Chuckit · Apr 3, 2007, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

So what's analogous to "getting out?" Leaving the country?

The point is that knowing your house is on fire will not save the house just like knowing that Bush has ****ed things up won't magically fix things. But if you don't acknowledge the problem, things are only going to get worse for you. That's why continuing to point out Bush's failings is useful — so people can say, "Oh, the house really is on fire. I probably can't save it, but I can grab my stuff and rebuild rather than relaxing as I roast."

Gossamer · Apr 4, 2007, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The point is that knowing your house is on fire will not save the house just like knowing that Bush has ****ed things up won't magically fix things. But if you don't acknowledge the problem, things are only going to get worse for you. That's why continuing to point out Bush's failings is useful — so people can say, "Oh, the house really is on fire. I probably can't save it, but I can grab my stuff and rebuild rather than relaxing as I roast."

Okay, that makes sense.