GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Dubya’s IMs Go Unanswered

by

This is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time! (Maybe it is funnier cuz I’m on pain medication??)

Bush’s IM Buddies Go Offline – The Huffington Post (Danielle Crittenden)

Kickass43: heck

Kickass43: my posses awol

Kickass43: waz happenin Karen

Kickarabbootay: Undersecretary Hughes cares about what you have to say. She is offline right now because is doing important work on behalf of the President and for all Americans, whatever their faith or background. She will be happy to discuss your concerns at another time.

Kickass43: shud never have let her go

Kickass43: thats y im in this dam mess

Kickass43: she kept my sorry ass in line

The whole thing is priceless!

-Bruce (GayPercoset)

Comments

  8. Goin down? Considering his second term approval numbers are way higher than Clinton’s second term numbers, he has a way to go before reaching anywhere near Clinton’s level of disapproval.

    What’s more, history will only unkindly remember the Clinton presidency as the one who spent his presidency shooting his ever dissatified wad.

  12. “Considering his second term approval numbers are way higher than Clinton’s second term numbers, he has a way to go before reaching anywhere near Clinton’s level of disapproval.”

    Are you Nuts? Clinton’s numbers ROSE in his second term, Stupid. To what, 60-65%? And you think Bush’s 38% is higher than 60-65%. What an Idiot you must be!

    Jesus, only on Gaypatriot.net…

  15. The lowest approval ratings for the last seven presidents:

    Johnson: 35%
    Nixon: 24%
    Ford: 37%
    Carter: 28%
    Reagan: 35%
    Bush I: 29%
    Clinton: 37%

    W’s approval rating stands at 39%.

  16. What I find confusing is that “Bush going down” is considered important, somehow.

    Can’t remember where I read it but opposing Bush is sort of pointless because Bush isn’t going to run for office again. So being triumphant about Bush “going down” is, ah, well… what’s the point? Bush isn’t the Republican Party, he’s not running for President ever again, lots of people always have picked and chosen from his policies what to support and what to oppose. So? A bunch of Republicans are on his case because of Meirs… he’s been continually criticized for his border policies… his fiscal policies…

    And #12… lots of time for approval ratings to go up again, or else down further.

  19. The Democrats lost an election by the biggest margin in 16 years, a year ago, it’s three more years to the next election, in which Bush is not a candidate, and they’re bragging about “Bush is going down”? Someone seriously needs to get a clue.

  21. Ah yes, gaycowboybob, they’ve gone silent. The Current Occupant has crashed through the 40% barrier — down now to 37% in the latest CBS/NYT poll.

    Say, gaycowboybob, did you know that at almost the exact same point in William Jefferson Clinton’s golden 8 years in the WH (Nov., 1997), Mr. Clinton was at 58% in the same poll? Monica took him to 68% a year later and he stayed there the rest of his term. I say give the man a cigar!

    That’s 21 points higher than Shrub. My, even the day he left office, Mr. Clinton was at 68%. Just imagine that — 68% approval after all the shit he had to put up with from people like the gaypatriots. These people deserve every micro-second of every miserable moment they’re having with this blinking, wincing, homophobic idiot they helped foist on us!

    (There GP, that should get your clicks going again.)

  23. And now ladies and gentlemen, the biggest jump in inflation since Carter inherited it from Ford and Nixon.

    I think that Bush should get out those old W.I.N. buttons the Repubs have hidden away some where.

    Whip
    Inflation
    Now!

  24. No. 21, you must be a cousin. I’ll have to look you up. What a marvelously clear thinker and succinct writer. And I agree with you: they (the so-called “gay” patriots) do want to think Mr. Bush’s numbers (mid-30s now) are as good as President Clinton’s were (high 60’s). Pussy, this is all just more evidence of the delusion rampant in the ranks here. I’ve been here a month or two and have found this to be the case in most subjects discussed here: like their beloved Mr. Bush, they do the day-is-night/night-is-day, black-is-white/white-is-black thing all the time.

  25. QP, it’s not *intelligent* to selectively ignore that 37% is the *same* as the other guy’s low of 37% by chosing to look only at “at the same point in the presidency” and hoot… hey look! 37% to 60%! I’m sure we could selectively look at Bush’s highest approval ratings and reverse things. What would that prove?

    Yeah, 37% is pretty low… could go down farther, could go up.

  27. Syn, we weren’t talking about Bush “at his high point”, were we? We were talking about Bush today — late in Year 5, when the comparable on Clinton was 20+ points higher. If you want to go to Bush’s high, right after 9.11, you’d have no point of comparison for Clinton, since Mr. Clinton never put us in a position of grieving the deaths of 2,700 fellow Americans. By the way, check out today’s Gallup — more bad news for you Bush worshippers. Going “down, down, down in the burning ring of fire…and it burns, burns, burns — ring of fire”.

    Love Pussy.

  28. If you want to go to Bush’s high, right after 9.11, you’d have no point of comparison for Clinton, since Mr. Clinton never put us in a position of grieving the deaths of 2,700 fellow Americans.

    Actually, Clinton had plenty of opportunities to show his response to terrorism directed at US targets that killed and injured thousands of people, both inside and outside the United States — the first WTC bombing, Oklahoma City, the Cole, the Khobar Towers bombings, the African embassy bombings, the list goes on. Why did he never make it to anywhere near Bush’s peak level?

    Oh, and by the way….given that the majority of those attacks were carried out under Osama bin Laden’s direction, plus the fact that the Clinton administration knew since 1996 where Osama was located and what he was doing, PLUS knowing that he was directly threatening the United States and was an extreme danger to US interests…..

  29. Syn is not me. We are two separate people so please do not shorten my name. It is confusing.

    And thanks so very much for making my point. Late in year 5 is pointless for comparison when world events are variable.

    Duh.

  30. #28’s point is Clinton KNEW about OBL and therefore should have taken care of the problem. As we know, President Clinton protected us with minimum losses throughout his 8 years. Took Shrub 8 months to get 2,700 of us wiped out in one fell swoop (followed by another 2,000 wiped out and 15,000 maimed in a stupid, stupid war that continues, thanks to the support of enthusiastic non-combatants such as yourself). And re: 9/11, Shrub had a month’s direct warning, didn’t he? And even when faced with the reality of it, he sat there in the schoolroom like a dope reading “My Pet Goat” and proceeded from there to fly about the country all day to make sure he was personally in no danger. This is who you adore, and to whom you always assign such honor — which speaks to nothing more than the mindless partisanship that you personally represent so well here.

    And, #29, if you wait around for comparable world events, why would you EVER compare the ratings of any two Presidents. Which of course you did — above! “Duh” right back at ya, baby.

    Love Pussy.

  31. Actually, I think that reading My Pet Goat, calmly, is the epitome of good leadership in the situation. Bush’s *most important job* at that point was to be publically calm and controlled. That’s how a good commander behaves. Even when the whole dang world is one big cluster f*ck (a military term, if you haven’t heard it) the commander, no matter how much he or she wants to cry or scream or otherwise indulge in emotional outbursts, knows that leadership requires something else. Bush started with the children and went from there. We are not alarmed. We are not afraid. No matter how bad it seems to be, we are confident.

    Guiliani did a fabulous job as well.

    Let’s contrast this with, oh, Nagin.

    Rather than present a face of calm, of control, of confidence to rally the people of NO, rather than make speeches that took for granted that everyone would pull together and make it through and so encourage people to make that assumption reality, he had a breakdown on national television.

    At least no one doubted that he cared.

    Though I don’t know why I’m responding to you. You’ve been nasty to me for no reason at all… personal attacks quite unlike anything I’ve gotten from the liberal regulars who post here. Not that there isn’t enough nastiness to go around but I generally stay out of it. If it was just that you confused me with another person an apology would be nice.

  32. Synova/syn (and what does it matter, since you’re both saying the same thing): You want an apology from me for countering idiotic comments on Presidential poll ratings with plain language? Don’t hold your breath dear. And, by the way, shouldn’t you and “syn” get together and decide who’s going to use that handle or variants thereof?

  34. #33 QP, If you don’t get it, you don’t. But isn’t it nice that both you and Bin Laden regurgitate Michael Moore? Wonderful company.

    What would good leadership look like? The dems don’t have a clue when they put wishy washy fellas like Kerry up there… Hillary might do okay though. I don’t have to like her or agree with her to say that I can’t even imagine her breaking down in public.

    It’s one thing that makes it possible she won’t get the democratic nomination. She doesn’t act enough like a democrat.

  35. And QP, I’ve always been puzzled by criticisms of Bush continuing to read the story. Truely, I didn’t care who won in 2000 and wasn’t particularly impressed by Bush, so my initial reaction was not motivated by a need to stand by my guy. No doubt there are other ways he could have responded that would have been just as acceptable, but there were just as many things he could have done that would have been disasterous.

    Perhaps my reaction has to do with having been in the military. I’ve been in an emergency situation where the person I had to obey was having a nervous breakdown. The man couldn’t sit still, he had to move move move. He couldn’t order his thoughts. He was utterly useless. He was unable, even, to follow the group commander’s instuctions. Ultimately we simply ignored him and worked around him… but that was at the lowliest levels, how does one work around a President?

    What was he supposed to do? Leap up and start running around to assure everyone that he was doing something? You think this would have been reassuring to anyone but Bin Laden?

    Considering that Bin Laden intended for the US President not simply to react, but over-react, it seems that continuing to read confounded the expectations of the enemy. Bin Laden’s plan, published, available, and his own words, not speculation, depended on the US President to respond rashly and without thought.

    Sure, it makes sense that people still wallowing in outrage over the election (that sure was surreal to watch when you didn’t care who won) would leap at any opportunity to find fault, and Michael Moore presented the goat story as if it was a harsh criticism… Bin Laden obviously took Moore’s word for it when he issued a statement so similar to Fahrenheit 9-11’s narrative that he had to have been sent a copy of the movie, because no one else cares about the goat story.

  36. As we know, President Clinton protected us with minimum losses throughout his 8 years.

    Actually, what we know is that Osama bin Laden carried out no less than four, and possibly more, terrorist attacks against US-related targets, resulting in thousands of casualties. Moreover, he did so with “minimum interference” from the Clinton administration, who despite knowing where he was and who was sponsoring him since 1996, left him free to carry out the embassy bombings, the Cole attack….you get the idea.

    One should never forget that the 9/11 attacks were masterfully planned and depended on the very safeguards built into the system with the admirable goals of protecting our civil liberties to cover and shield these individuals’ activities. One should also remember that the primary activities related to these attacks had been going on for years prior to the attacks.

    Synova brings up an excellent point — hysterics mean nothing. Liberals have been whining since the first day that Bush “should have been” somewhere, as if it were a wise decision to put the President of the United States in imminent danger. Bush did what needed to be done on that first day of uncertainty, and then went to the 9/11 site when it could be secured and when the country needed that action.

    Osama bin Laden’s miscalculation was that he thought all Americans were like Cindy Sheehan and the Democrats — absolutely unable and unwilling to use our military and ready to collapse into a nihilistic heap about how awful we were and how we deserved our fate. “Paper tigers”, he called us, and he was right — after all, two men in a rubber boat under his direction just had practically sunk a powerful US naval vessel with no reprisal whatsoever.

    Could more things have been done in advance? Of course. However, that would have included getting rid of bin Laden when he was first recognized as an imminent danger, and you don’t want to go there.

  37. I think, NDT, that Bin Laden thought there were two sorts of Americans… the ones you described and the trigger happy ones that could be counted on to retaliate indiscriminately against Islam and so cause Islam to rise and overthrow the West and take over the world. (The man certainly didn’t think small.)