Join 3,500 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Presitorial
January 3, 2007 2:55 PM   Subscribe

A second career? The President pens an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. For extra credit compare and contrast attitudes towards bipartisanship in the op-ed to this speech or this one. Gold star for the best answer.
posted by jourman2 (60 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
Well it looks like he worked real hard on this, like a really hard worker. Jesus Christ it is terrible.
posted by radiosig at 3:01 PM on January 3, 2007


Wow. GWB could be the next Joel Stein.
posted by Faint of Butt at 3:03 PM on January 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


He's almost as big a dumbass in print as he is speaking live.
posted by docpops at 3:04 PM on January 3, 2007


Such eloquent determined lying... will take that speech-writer to second careers anywhere.

As for the the most wanted mass-murderer though, I don't think his plans will involve much outside of his army fortified cocaine cartel style Paraguayan compound.

All the best, lame duck dictator. Hopefully his head torqued sideways over basement noose will soon be broadcast on cell phone videos everywhere.
posted by sarcasman at 3:04 PM on January 3, 2007


one more for the wsj op-ed loony bin
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:04 PM on January 3, 2007


I mean it's like a somebody wrote a computer program to string words into sentences! There is nothing here that means anything at all! Is there? Is there a single sentence or passage that communicates an argument any more complex than "Do not fucking cross me?" Not a rhetorical question.
posted by radiosig at 3:05 PM on January 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Hopefully his head torqued sideways over basement noose will soon be broadcast on cell phone videos everywhere.

no, the best revenge I can hope for is Bush Brand compassionate conservative BS being discredited for the remainder of his hopefullly long life.

Saddam went out on top, so to speak, given how his country went to hell after we took him out.

What a strange world we live in. Collectively, we're quite the idiots.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:07 PM on January 3, 2007


Our priorities begin with defeating the terrorists who killed thousands of innocent Americans on September 11, 2001--and who are working hard to attack us again. These terrorists are part of a broader extremist movement that is now doing everything it can to defeat us in Iraq.

And even now, after everything else, he is still trying to convince us that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
posted by quin at 3:08 PM on January 3, 2007


Y'all don't go making me look bad, ya hear?
posted by furtive at 3:08 PM on January 3, 2007


Hey everybody, the election didn't cancel the "laws of economics". I bet you figured it would and that the dems would all start shitting Susan B's. Sorry to break it to you, but no.

Thanks for the update, GWB.
posted by GuyZero at 3:10 PM on January 3, 2007


I prefer "pens" an op-ed.
posted by nevercalm at 3:11 PM on January 3, 2007


"Pens," nevercalm? "Crayons," more likely.
posted by Faint of Butt at 3:11 PM on January 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


lame duck dictator

How can a dictator be a lame duck? They, by definition, rule without limitation. Whereas, a lame duck leader is one who by rule must leave soon.

Oh, wait... were you going for the vapid shrill factor instead of reasoned discourse? Nevermind, then. Carry on.



Everyone agrees this op-ed sucks... so why is it a post?
posted by dios at 3:15 PM on January 3, 2007


That guy never seizes to amaze me
posted by apuestas at 3:15 PM on January 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Poops an op-ed.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:16 PM on January 3, 2007


For some reason it makes me really uncomfortable when he refers to America as "her". As if the whole country's just a sophisticated lady whose flights of fancy can all be cured by luring her down from her ivory tower for a roll in the hay with a good ole boy who knows just how to please her.
posted by hermitosis at 3:17 PM on January 3, 2007


Weird that he didn't spell out how his administration will be dealing with congressional subpoenas. 'Cause that's basically what it's going to be doing for the next two years.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:18 PM on January 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Mr. Bush is the president of the United States.

Hey, thanks for the reminder! 747 freaking days left according to my little firefox GWB days-left-in-office countdown.
posted by tula at 3:22 PM on January 3, 2007


MetaFilter: Collectively, we're quite the idiots.
posted by CynicalKnight at 3:23 PM on January 3, 2007


"we met our goal of cutting the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule..."
that's an outright lie, on top of all the other lies we've heard over the last six years. we had surpluses under clinton.
posted by bruce at 3:25 PM on January 3, 2007


Metafilter: Let them say of these next two years: We used our time well.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:27 PM on January 3, 2007


     Democrats will control the House and Senate, and therefore we share the responsibility for what we achieve.
So, will the Republicans take responsibility for what they've "achieved"/failed/f*cked up in the past six years, then?
posted by qcubed at 3:36 PM on January 3, 2007


I read this op-ed as follows:

"We did a lot in the last six years. Now that the Democrats are in power in Congress, I hope we can keep doing all this good stuff."

In other words, a desperate plea for the opposition party to not make his life miserable.

Both sides seem to be trying for bipartisanship. It will be interesting to see where it falls apart.
posted by A dead Quaker at 3:41 PM on January 3, 2007


Is it just me, or is asking for something he's not going to get (the line-item veto) just another way to look like he's failing at everything?

Unless, of course, you're a Republican, in which case it's just another instance of those nasty, vindictive Democrats spiting the President, just for fun.
posted by god hates math at 3:42 PM on January 3, 2007


So, will the Republicans take responsibility for what they've "achieved"/failed/f*cked up in the past six years, then?

CLINTON!
Whew. That was close. People, refresh your internets more oftener.
posted by hal9k at 3:44 PM on January 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


"My principles are no secret. I have campaigned on them in my races for governor and in two presidential contests, and I have worked hard during my presidency to translate these principles into sound policy.

I believe that when America is willing to use her influence abroad, the American people are safer and the world is more secure."

I thought he campaigned on no nationbuilding and basically not getting entangled in foreign alliances. This is as far as I could get, about 2 paragraphs, before I ran into my first lie and had to stop reading this thing.
posted by walla at 3:49 PM on January 3, 2007


Mr. Bush is the president of the United States.

They must have considered and decided against "Mr. Bush, a onetime cokehead and mediocre businessman, is the decider."
posted by veggieboy at 3:52 PM on January 3, 2007 [9 favorites]


Everyone agrees this op-ed sucks... so why is it a post?

Because it's a sucky op-ed by the President, man. Figures of massive authority doing questionable things, etc.

posted by cortex at 3:56 PM on January 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


That's a really poorly-written column. It reads about like his speeches usually sound, particularly the ones where he describes a new appointee's career. They always remind me of a third-grader's book report:

"I liked this book. It was a really good book. I liked the part with the rabbits. I really liked this book."
posted by EarBucket at 3:58 PM on January 3, 2007 [3 favorites]


A 10-Step Program For Democrats
posted by homunculus at 4:14 PM on January 3, 2007


The interesting thing about the Wall Street Journal is that, even with a limited focus, it is a REALLY good newspaper - EXCEPT for the swill that fills the editorial page. It is as if there is a dark slimy room filled with editorial writers, completely seperate from the good and talented folk that put out the rest of the paper. (Plus that newer, smaller format looks somehow... castrated.)
posted by R. Mutt at 4:22 PM on January 3, 2007


"Because revenues have grown and we've done a better job of holding the line on domestic spending..."

How about the $350+ billion for that foreign debacle? Wanna talk about that????
posted by leftcoastbob at 4:26 PM on January 3, 2007


Wow. GWB could be the next Joel Stein.

Dubya don't listen to no one, so he's got that going for him.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:26 PM on January 3, 2007


The first lesson of 9/11 is that you can get away with a lot of shit by saying 9/11 over and over again.

The second lesson of 9/11 is that it causes Rudy Giuliani to still think he's relevant.

The third lesson of 9/11 is to not elect dipshits to the presidency.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 4:28 PM on January 3, 2007 [4 favorites]


And this: Remarks by the President at Indiana Victory 2006 Rally is just plain scary with all the "BOO's" and the chanting of USA! USA! USA! It makes it sound like a high school pep rally. Except creepier.
posted by leftcoastbob at 4:32 PM on January 3, 2007


Our priorities begin with defeating the terrorists who killed thousands of innocent Americans on September 11, 2001

That priority ended in November-December 2001, when the administration started planning the invasion of Iraq and let bin Laden escape at Tora Bora.

and who are working hard to attack us again

We were already attacked again, in what President Bush himself described as "a second wave of terrorist attacks upon our country." Why doesn't the media bring up the anthrax attacks and the Bush administration's failure to solve the case every time they claim we haven't been attacked since September 11, 2001?
posted by kirkaracha at 4:37 PM on January 3, 2007


"A 10-Step Program For Democrats"? No, that would be too smart. But a country wide wireless network would be so sweet.
posted by crispynubbins at 4:46 PM on January 3, 2007


What a change from the arrogance of his "Bring it on" period to the "Let's cooperate" groveling now that his rubber stamps have been retired from office.
posted by Cranberry at 4:47 PM on January 3, 2007


I believe this clarifies matters.
posted by Rumple at 5:04 PM on January 3, 2007


When Bush wins an election, he lies before he is elected. Looks like when his party loses, he lies before and after the election.

Pretty neat strategy, imho.
posted by zekinskia at 5:14 PM on January 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


When Bush wins an election, he lies before he is elected. Looks like when his party loses, he lies before and after the election.
Huh?

At what point, after what election, are you implying that Bush stopped lying?

I'm not trying to be a wiseass. I'm honestly stumped by what you're getting at. The guy's administration has been the 24 Hour George Orwell Network.
posted by Flunkie at 5:16 PM on January 3, 2007


Why Bush still won't change his strategy.
posted by homunculus at 5:33 PM on January 3, 2007


Mr. Bush is the president of the United States.

You know what's funny about this? According to AP Style, you're supposed to capitalize President in journalism.
posted by eparchos at 5:34 PM on January 3, 2007


A couple years ago Pelosi asked for a "Minority bill of rights" and the republicans told her to get bent, now republicans are asking Pelosi for the exact same thing
posted by delmoi at 5:37 PM on January 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's all about proper blame assignation: "Whatever bad happened during 6 solid years of Republican control was a by-product of the previous Democratic regime. And now, whatever else bad that may happen in the future will immediately be the fault of the in-coming Democratic congressional majority. Furthermore, the Iraq war will last long enough that the final pullout and failure there will be the fault of my successor in the White House. Thank you, and good night."
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:44 PM on January 3, 2007


Only partly correct, eparchos. AP style says President gets capitalized when used as a title, not as a job description. So President George W. Bush would be correct, but so would "Mr. Bush is the president of the United States."

Unless there's been some recent change to AP style, anyway.
posted by emelenjr at 5:53 PM on January 3, 2007


Dubya don't listen to no one, so he's got that going for him.

He don't reply to my emails, neither.
posted by Infinite Jest at 6:40 PM on January 3, 2007


Wait - why the hell does this exist? An Op-Ed written by a sitting President? He has myriad methods and mediums available to him to communicate his views, principles, and plans (ludicrous and horrifying as they are), and I would think the written word is the very last thing he should be trying to conquer at this point. Why write an Op-Ed? Why the WSJ? Why where what, the flying fuck?

This is like some kind of sci-fi or Lynchian plot device that deliberately and constantly flicks you on the brain, begging for an existential explanation. A small, weird, seemingly inconsequential detail, but there must be a reason... there's no need for this, no advantage to be gained... is it some kind of trick? I'm being tricked, right?

Totally going paranoid. It's okay. If they weren't out to get me, I'd stop being paranoid. It's okay.
posted by krippledkonscious at 6:50 PM on January 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


we have a chance to serve the American people by solving the complex problems that many don't expect us to tackle, let alone solve,

Um, maybe I'm all screwed up on this, but is it not the job of our leaders to keep our economy strong and keep us safe and out of war? That doesn't really seem like a complex problem that I didn't expect to have tackled.
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 6:52 PM on January 3, 2007


An OpEd? Not quite the Bully Pulpit. The WSJ is a huge step up from my local Webster-Kirkwood Times but it's still proportionately local in a socioeconomic sense. While I expected the content to be what frustrated me most, the platform I find more perplexing. This strikes me more as "let's get going" speech type stuff made in public than a "Why We Need a Coldstone Creamery in Kirkwood" letter from the public. Can't you speak and persuade man? Well, I mean, I know, but. If he meant these sentiments he'd say them in public, in discourse with his fellow public servants, and have it out.

Yet more fakery from Mr. Fake Fake man. I hate my fucking PoliSci degree.
posted by MarvinTheCat at 7:04 PM on January 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


krippledkonscious: Spot on. This is another in a myriad of indicators that the press is no longer (if it ever really was) separate from the government. At least, not sufficiently enough to serve the purpose of a functioning press in a free society. This cannot be said enough.

Furthermore - did the president fire all of his speech/op-ed writers? This drivel reads, as said before, like a 4th-grade book report. It seems obvious that he may have actually written this all by himself, without anyone's help. And that's horrific.
posted by odinsdream at 7:16 PM on January 3, 2007


There's nothing wrong with compassionate conservatism, on paper.
posted by djeo at 7:39 PM on January 3, 2007


R. Mutt, I work at the WSJ and your guess is spot on: the editorial page is a physically separate department...
posted by AJaffe at 7:59 PM on January 3, 2007


Only partly correct, eparchos. AP style says President gets capitalized when used as a title, not as a job description. So President George W. Bush would be correct, but so would "Mr. Bush is the president of the United States."

How'd I know you would beat me to this?
posted by Mikey-San at 8:04 PM on January 3, 2007


"There's nothing wrong with compassionate conservatism, on paper.
posted by djeo"

Toilet paper.
posted by daq at 8:12 PM on January 3, 2007


Metafilter: I liked the part with the rabbits.

(What? Why are you looking at me like that?)
posted by smashingstars at 8:37 PM on January 3, 2007


Wow. GWB could be the next Joel Stein.

Or Ben Stein even.
posted by peeedro at 8:59 PM on January 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


How can a dictator be a lame duck?

um? But that's rather graphic and oughtn't to be clicked on. Perhaps this or that are more palatable answers? Not that I mean to make any sort of comparison. But I suppose one could infer a "former" elided to avoid redundancy?

As to the presitorial, I'm left wondering, were the President to express himself in his own words, what sort of words they would be? It's a shame myspace wasn't around when he was in college.
posted by cytherea at 3:56 AM on January 4, 2007


If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate.

As a foreigner I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that your Congress is an elected political body, where it should be quite commonplace to pass bills that are political statements. At least I thought so when the republicans were in power.
posted by hoskala at 4:23 AM on January 4, 2007


If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate.

mirror, mirror. or pot, kettle ...

political statements = anything Bush doesn't agree with
posted by nofundy at 9:16 AM on January 4, 2007


« Older “Maybe, yes, I am a diva.”...  |  To commemorate their 25th anni... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments