Shrubby is soooo busted! That elitist asshole.

you gotta love the ironic name of the tape recorder's owner - "Doug Wead".

Guess Bushie really did.

Wead taped about 9 hours of conversations with George W but has released only a small portion, so far. Is there a strategy on Wead's part? Is this a message to George W and his Administration that perhaps more tapes will be released as Wead deems appropriate? There must be more background to this than promotion of Wead's book. The released tapes do not really reveal that much more than what was already in the public domain. Weeding out what Wead has on the rest of the tapes and his motivation will take some good journalism. Will the Blogosphere once again outdo traditional journalism?

Am I the only one who finds the timing of this "release" interesting? I mean, these tapes have been around for a long time, and Wead just now is releasing them. Something about this just doesn't pass the smell test . . .

Wead is a very wealthy Texan (oil, I believe.) Does anyone believe a Texas oilman is anti-Buish? Anyone? Hello?

This is coming from the Great International BushCo Criminal Conspiracy. It's a put-up job. These tapes were probably recorded within the last 6 months.

They're scamming us again.

Will you guys please explain how in one breath Bush is the dumbest person ever to walk the face of the earth, and in the next breath, he's a pompous elitist only looking out for the creme de la creme? (sorry, no accent marks)
How is he anymore elitist than a Kennedy? Lurch, I think this is the real thing. But from what I've seen, it's pretty much a non-story (granted, there are many more hours). News flash, somebody growing up in '60's and '70's smoked pot! He said he didn't want to answer a question about it becaus he didn't want to appear to be a bad role model for a young kid. What's so terrible about that? He said that Forbes was his biggest competition for 2000 - he was wrong about that - Forbes is an idiot. What else?

He's not an "elite" in the sense of "cultural elite" or "intellectual elite." More in the sense of "elite who inherited his money."

Or in the sense of "failed in business several times but got bailed out by his daddy's rich friends." That kind of an elite.

Heya:
That makes more sense, but I don't really see how that constitutes an "elitist." Lucky, maybe. Silver spoon in his mouth, probably.
Bush screwed up numerous times in his early days, without a doubt. I'd bet he would be the first one to tell you that. How many people didn't screw up in their early years? Not many. The difference is that Bush, with some sizable help from his family, overcame those screw ups. But I don't think that makes him an elitist.

pot..bad...lying...good. hey preznit shithead, i'd rather have you loaded than continuing to sell this incessant crock of bullshit. so smoke away, oh great jesus freak, and come clean about your oil grab in the mideast.

Actually, Regular, what makes him an elitist is the fact that he views himself as part of a very small, very lucky, very favored group - the Ultra-Wealthy. The privileged few.

Here's a guy who's a multi-millionaire and has never had to work a single day in his life. He's never told the truth in public about anything. He learned his politics from some of the most fivisive, lying scum in history.

Some bloggers have postulated what is called "WPS" - Winger Projection Syndrome. The Facsist Party accuses us of exactly what they're doing themselves. Since they know they have the paid-off, lazy, cowed and terrified members of the Media to carry forth any message they create, they feel very safe in painting any ideological opponent in false colors.

While the Liberals and Progessives actually do hace a bit of intellectual elitism in their programs, the only elitism visible among the ranks of the Fascist Party seems to be greed, theft, lying, and (lately) openly public homosexuality.

Oh yeah.

And he's a bully and a coward.

Gosh, his example of lying to children about past behavior is probably why his own children are such exemplary young women...

http://bushfordummies.com/thumbs/jenna_falling.jpg

http://blogd.com/bushrecord.html

April 27, 2001: Jenna Bush arrested for possession of alcohol as a minor.

May 31, 2001: Jenna and Barbara Bush arrested trying to purchase alcohol as minors. This is Jenna's 3rd arrest, but she avoids the three-strikes law her father signed 4 years earlier.

Do we assume it's ok to teach our young people that lying is ok as long as it's done for a "good cause"? Where is the personal responsibility, the rugged individualism, the moral compass and on and on etc. etc. etc. that these folks espouse to us unwashed heathens? I understand his reasoning but two wrongs don't make a right. Is it better to lie about your past or just not answer the question? Here's a novel idea. Tell the truth in all it's horrible glory! Then let the people make up their own minds instead of giving us the Karl Rove version of events.

Elitist is the right word for somone who can rationalize that by lying or remaining silent that they somehow protect the masses from some harm. The right way to approach the situation is to put the truth out and explain why it happened and illustrate the harm from a first hand perspective.

So is Alfred E. Neuman (don't you think W looks like the MAD magazine guy?) an elitist?

In the interest of fairness Bill Clinton is also an elitist but at least he didn't put us in the crapper like this guy has.

Interesting perspectives from everyone except Drunken Cheerleader. It seems DC has grabbed on to a few buzz words and only writes them down, instead of actually making some sort of argument or point. "Jesus freak" "oil" and "preznit shithead" (used interchangably with "preznit dipshit") seem to be in every DC post that I've run across.
Plane Capt, I agree with you to an extent about coming clean and telling why drugs are bad based on first hand experience. But, when you look at politicians like Al Gore or Bill Clinton, who have admitted to recreational drug use, it didn't really help their image by coming totally clean. On a sidenote, it was Democrats who, when Clinton was being questioned about his marital indiscretions at the beginning of his second term, said that private life is private life. Judge him on the merits of his presidency, not on his personal life. If you want to roast Bush about his policies, go right ahead. But take a cue from your own Party, leave his personal life out.

As for the Bush daughters, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. Any 18 or 19 year old that is perfect, please call the Museum of Natural History - you're one of a kind. And the three strikes law applies to felonies - not misdemeanors. Underage drinking is NOT a felony - otherwise, 75% of underage Texans, and the rest of underage America, would be felons.

Reg,

I think you have hit on the point without meaning to. While you are correct about Clinton and Gore is it not the position of most conservatives that substance should be placed far in advance of style(image)? To me that's what is so funny about the whole thing. Cons love to hate Clinton and roast him about his ethics or lack thereof but are perfectly willing to emulate him. Then claim "He started it".

I would leave W's personal life out of it but when you say to take cue from the Dems and leave that sacred, I have to look back at the aftermath of the past few elections and say "They started it".

Look into Karl Rove's campaign tactics or the Cons 12 year assault on the Clintons (I admit they have not helped themselves very much). Now does it happen on both sides? Absolutely! But one difference - the Cons place themselves above moral reproach. When they get caught they always manage some high minded(do as I say, not as I do)excuse.

Capt. I certainly agree with you. I personally think that both parties are, in general, guilty of gross hypocrisy. Personally, I wish that personal lives of our leaders (dare I call Bush a "leader" on this site) would be off-limits because (1) nobody is perfect and everyone is going to have a skeleton or two in their closet - so we all need to get over it; and (2) this probing of personal lives is going to discourage future candidates from running because of the constant scrutiny into personal lives.
Honestly, it didn't bother me that Clinton had the affair with Monica. It's his personal life and it should have been between him and his wife. What bothers me is that he lied under oath. You can debate all day whether he should have been forced to testify or whether Ken Starr was on a witch hunt, or whatever. But once Clinton took the stand and testified, he should have been honest. It's a felony to testify falsely - whether it's your personal life or not.
But, your point is not lost on me. I wish that both parties could agree - and make the media agree - that personal lives are off-limits. And I wish some Repubs would quit acting morally superior - because everyone's got flaws.

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams