Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Neocon Nuttery
See other Neocon Nuttery Articles

Title: Record Unemployment? Bush Says Market Is 'Fair,' 'Equitable'
Source: RAW STORY
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/2009/10/unemplo ... ket-fair-equitable-democratic/
Published: Oct 27, 2009
Author: RAW STORY
Post Date: 2009-10-27 12:16:53 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 1342
Comments: 35

Former President George W. Bush is now on the lecture circuit as a motivational speaker -- and he has a message for America's unemployed: The marketplace is "fair."

Speaking in Forth Worth, Texas in his debut as a motivational speaker, Bush's speech echoed some of his themes as president. But his comments on the economy are sure to rankle the millions of Americans who've been laid off.

“The marketplace works," Bush remarked. "It is fair. It is equitable. It is a fair form of democracy.”

Bush addressed a crowd of 11,000 who paid for a verbal injection of enthusiasm from the former president.

“Every single day I was honored to be your president by bringing honor and dignity to the office,” a local newspaper quoted Bush as saying during the day-long "Get Motivated" seminar.

His message to those whose decisions have made them unpopular?

“It’s so simple in life to chase popularity, but popularity is fleeting," Bush quipped. "It’s not real."

Bush also sought to mollify critics who've argued that politics played too much of a role in his decisionmaking in going to war, saying he'd never sell out "their loved ones for the sake of pure politics."

"And let me tell you," he added. "I never did.”

Also in the crowd was Bush's first Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who praised the president's legacy, positing that Bush had kept America safe after 9/11.

Bush also highlighted his faith in God as contributing to the success of his presidency.

"I don't see how you can be president without relying on the Almighty," the ex-president declared. "Now when I was 21, I wouldn't have told you that, but at age 63, I can tell you that one of the most amazing surprises of the presidency was the fact that people's prayers affected me. I can't prove it to you. But I can tell you some days were great, some days not so great. But every day was joyous."

The Washington Post, who had a reporter at the event, said Bush looked "younger than his 63 years and relaxed."

"Many people interviewed afterward said they liked Bush, perhaps even because he wasn't the best speaker of the day," the Post reported added. "He could have said a thesaurus was a big scaly creature that roamed the planet millions of years ago and they would have applauded."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.

#1. To: Brian S (#0)

Bush isn't President any longer.

Pointing fingers at him was fine when he was in office, but he's no longer in office. At some point, Obama and his minions are going to be forced to take responsibility for things.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-10-27   12:27:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: SonOfLiberty (#1)

Bush isn't President any longer.

Oh spare me. You nattering neocons still blame most everything imaginable on Bill Clinton to this very day...

Brian S  posted on  2009-10-27   12:33:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Brian S (#3)

ha! SonOfLiberty a neocon?

what's your definition of a neocon? not a democrat?

christine  posted on  2009-10-27   12:38:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: christine (#5)

what's your definition of a neocon? not a democrat?

Yeah, that works for me. If I'm a commie, socialist, liberal, nazi, nigger-lover then the rest of 'you people' can be nattering neocons. Besides, if one just scratches the surface on your friends you will indeed find a neocon under all that righteous rhetoric.

Brian S  posted on  2009-10-27   12:48:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 15.

#18. To: Brian S (#15)

Besides, if one just scratches the surface on your friends you will indeed find a neocon under all that righteous rhetoric.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Not in an ignorant kind of way, but in an intentionally obtuse kind of way. Some people, back when words meant things, would have called that dishonesty and lying in order to smear.

You've scratched no surface, and it seems you don't have the capacity to do so, or you'd know my positions and realize how idiotic your pronouncements are in retrospect.

Being against your man-child king doesn't mean one is for neoconservatism. Since I spout none of their terms nor endorse any of their policies, then what you say is merely a smear. However, when you come out for things that are socialist, and others call you on it, that is a fair call. It's only when your status is *not* the term applied to you, that you can claim some kind of silly exemption.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-10-27 12:54:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: bs (#15)

Best you leave for nestier pastures then, eh NEOCON-Kommie duhmerrriKan shit stain excuse of a carbon form ?

Rotara  posted on  2009-10-27 12:55:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Brian S (#15)

None of my "friends" are these.

What's the difference between "conservative" and "neoconservative"? Who are the "neocons," anyway? And were they, as some charge, an unduly influential cabal of intellectuals who talked President Bush into going to war in Iraq after 9/11 as part of their long-planned crusade to plant democracy in the Middle East? To seek enlightenment on things neoconservative, I rang up four of the biggest names in the punditry business and asked them the same questions. Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. Paul Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. Paul Gigot is editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. And George Will is the famous syndicated columnist:

Q: What is a neoconservative and who are they?

Rich Lowry: Historically, 30 years ago it meant a former liberal who became a conservative. The cliche was because "they were mugged by reality," but it was because they saw the empirical failures of liberal welfare, state and foreign policies, and they were therefore less ideological than other conservatives and brought much more of a social science background to their argumentation.

They were associated with Irving Kristol's journal, the Public Interest, that had a lot of social-science pieces poking empirical holes in liberal theory. These people were former liberals, former Democrats, and in some cases former communists, but gradually over 30 years they really merged into the conservative mainstream, and the difference was very difficult to tell.

In fact, one of the foremost neoconservatives, Norman Podhoretz, wrote an obituary for this distinction several years ago because it just seemed to no longer matter. We've seen the rise of it again, first of all, with John McCain's candidacy in 2000, where the segment of conservatives that supported Sen. McCain tended to have more neo-kind of tendencies and tended to sort of self-consciously describe themselves as "neoconservatives," foremost among them Bill Kristol and David Brooks.

Neoconservatives are less skeptical of government than other conservatives. They are less worried about reducing the size of government, less enthusiastic about tax cuts, more concerned about forging national crusades that can tap either the American public's patriotism or its desire for reform. You saw this in McCain with his campaign finance proposal and a little bit in his foreign policy.

And with the war on terror, you saw neoconservatives emerging as a distinct tendency within conservatism, mostly on foreign policy; its hallmarks being extreme interventionism, extremely idealistic foreign policy, and emphasis on democracy building and spreading human rights and freedom and an overestimation, in my view, of how easy it is to spread democracy and liberty to spots in the world where it doesn't exist currently.

Paul Weyrich: They are mostly ex-liberals, by and large out of the intellectual community. These are people who came to the realization that modern liberalism was not the kind of liberalism that they had subscribed to. They are a fairly small group of people, both in and out of government. Those who are out of government are in either the media or academia. They are influential because they promote each other. They are very skilled at that.

Paul Gigot: I think of neoconservatism as having a very specific meaning related to history. That is, the neoconservatives were people who in the 1970s were former liberals, in some cases socialists, who moved right in reaction to the left's shift on cultural mores, personal responsibility and foreign policy. So I think the term "neoconservative" has that narrow meaning of that historical period. I think of them as the Podhoretzes and the Kristols and others. I don't think "neoconservative" means much anymore. I don't know what it means now or who they're referring to.

George Will: Oh gosh, that's not simple. Neoconservatives are persons who in domestic policy often were former Democrats who felt that conservatives had erred in not accepting the post-New Deal role of the central government. They were in their early incarnation focusing on domestic policy and were distinguishing themselves from Goldwater conservatives.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_196286.html

christine  posted on  2009-10-27 13:00:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest