Bush Gets Re-Election Off to Fast Start

[IrishJohan]

Excerpt:

After all the name-calling, fingerpointing, muckraking and flip-flopping, the Democratic president primary may yield a winner who is not even a Democrat: President Bush.


Democratic rivals are tearing each other asunder, exposing weaknesses that Republicans might exploit in the general election, while the incumbent sits on the sidelines, surveying the carnage.

Even front-runner Howard Dean, who leads in polls and picked up a key endorsement Friday from Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, has experienced troubles that could haunt him if he wins the nomination.



He has waffled on tax cuts. He wouldn't take a stand on Osama bin Laden's legal standing. Years-old tapes forced Dean to explain past comments. And he has been forced to defend a record as Vermont governor that doesn't always square with the antiestablishment image he covets.

Not to mention what rivals say about Dean, and each other.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040110/D80057M80.html

This is why I relish Dean as the Democrat nominee. I can see Bush's ads now featuring a number of current Dem candidates criticizing the man...

 

[ThePhoenix]

I relish the thought of campaign ads with verbatum Bush quotes.

 

[IrishJohan]

I relish the thought of campaign ads with verbatum Bush quotes.

Ha! Oh the tongue-twisters like the ol' "strategerary" should be a hoot...

Heck, just to be a good sport here's some still photos I recommend:

Dubya Helping Little Girl Read -- Sort Of...

One Ring to rule them all...

How the Left views Bush re: the Middle East...

 

[Silvio Dantay]

Is it just me or does the camel look more intelligent than W has done for the last three years....

 

[IrishJohan]

Is it just me or does the camel look more intelligent than W has done for the last three years....

Ah but here is photographic evidence that Dubya isn't dumb...well sort of:

In all seriousness, I do hope the Dems keep up with the "Bush is dumb" routine. He beats 'em everytime they try it...

 

[Silvio Dantay]

LOL....

 

[burrow_owl]

[Dean] wouldn't take a stand on Osama bin Laden's legal standing.

What the? How Dean thinking that OBL should get a fair trial (what he actually said) morphed into Dean isn't sure OBL is guilty is beyond me (and let's all remind ourselves that fair trials sholdn't be so controversial - even Bush thinks Saddam should get one).

I'm no particular fan of Dean (that WashPost column about the obnoxiousness of doctors hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned), but certain media outlets have really been pushing the "look at the craaazy things Dean says!" meme too hard. For example, yesterday or the day before, I saw something in the NYPost claiming that Dean had said something like it might be good if Hamas got more power. Turns out he had said years ago that it might force Hamas to be more open in their dealings and more accountable to Israel and to the rule of law, if they became part of the official government. Not that crazy (that strategy worked pretty well with the IRA, after all), but the NYPost tried to spin it as "Dean supports Hamas! Is Al-Qaeda next? Turn to page 8 to find out!"

(Paragraph edited: wrong AP author)

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

What the? How Dean thinking that OBL should get a fair trial (what he actually said) morphed into Dean isn't sure OBL is guilty is beyond me (and let's all remind ourselves that fair trials sholdn't be so controversial - even Bush thinks Saddam should get one).

It's an exagerated lie designed for meme-infection.

 

[antigoat]

I'm no particular fan of Dean (that WashPost column about the obnoxiousness of doctors hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned), (Paragraph edited: wrong AP author)

I know this isn't the main point of your quote, but I'm curious about your statement of the 'obnoxiousness of doctors' . (I havn't seen the article you refer to). Like any group of people, there are sure to be doctors in medicine for the wrong reasons, but as a whole, I think it is a pretty noble endeavor. And many doctors do things like provide free medical services to the poor in third world countries such as Haiti.

Doctors do make high salaries, but nothing close to the salaries of top lawyers, not to mention those in the business world selling things to people that they don't need. No point to even bring up athletes, actors, etc. There are very few people who make higher salaries than doctors who should.

RE Bush re-election. He pretends that he is not even thinking about the election yet, but the amount of fund raisers, and other things that I've read tell otherwise. Everything a president does during his first term has the next election in mind.

 

[burrow_owl]

I know this isn't the main point of your quote, but I'm curious about your statement of the 'obnoxiousness of doctors'.

It was something of a flip comment. Two things: I'm good friends with a med student, and roomed with her in college, and was always singularly unimpressed with the doctors-to-be - they absolutely do believe that theirs is a noble profession, and it makes a lot them think that they're little prometheuses, bringing light to the unenlightened masses. So it's not the nature of the profession, but the fact that a lot of them buy into the high-and-mighty rhetoric that relentlessly enshrines their job with sainthood. Additionally, the structure of the patient-doctor relationship is radically paternalistic and asymmetrical: the doctor Knows Best, and has all the information, which the patient is denied (hence the WashPost op-ed making a big deal out of the doctor preventing the patient/writer from looking at her own chart - it may seem like a small thing, but it's symptomatic of the larger paternalism inherent in the doctor-patient relationship).

For me, this is more a fun-type critique: it's not very substantive, and to the extent that it is, it relies on a lot of assumptions (ie Dean is one of those holier-than-thou doctors). At most, it makes me raise my eyebrow and say "maybe...." (much as the Bush-Cheney oil industry connections do).

Anyhoo, here's the article.

Here's a representative passage: Where else but in medicine do you find men and women who never admit a mistake? Who talk more than they listen, and feel entitled to withhold crucial information? Whose lack of tact in matters of life and death might disqualify them for any other field?

Interestingly, the article neatly sums up a line of critique that's been advanced by some feminist scholars for 30 years or so (which some within the medical field have grudgingliy admitted is, in fact, a problem. After 30 years [hence the spate of articles many a year back about doctors acknowledging that they had to be more open and friendlier with their patients]). Just a coincidence, but interesting nonetheless.