As a moderate, I have to reinterpret that "resume" as follows. I have cut the details I think are irrelevant or "strange" - (like that Air Force One thing, what's up there?) and have reorganized the rest. I added comments as I saw appropriate.
-------------------------------
Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
The first part is forgiveable. Loudmouth cynics might want to suggest that the inability to find oil in Texas is evidence that he's "stupid," but I think that's too crass. People make mistakes. What's less forgiveable is his abandonement of the company. Completely irresponsible. Sure, many of us might have done the same thing, and I guess it's technically not illegal, but it's still cowardly and dishonorable, no?
Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.
I guess the facts might be debatable, but anybody who knows anything about the economics of professional sports will tell you that its very corrupt and abuses the public sector immensely. The fact that Bush had anything to do with it simply calls his character into question further.
Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.
Here's where I'd like to point out a flaw in some of your thinking - "subjective wording." First, removing any bias from something is impossible, but second, statements like this aren't "subjectively worded" at all. (Okay, "smog ridden" pulls at the emotions slightly, but that's it for this passage). It's funny, people use "subjective" as a blanket buzz word to snub anything remotely questionable. Thing is, all facts are up for grabs to an extent. If you mistake "subjective" for "possibly untrue" than you have to accept
everything as "subjective," which in turn requires you to reject everything, at which point you might as well run off into the wilderness yelling "Nothing is real! We're all imaginary!" Update your analytical skill, please. Here's the difference between objective and subjective:
Objective: While Bush was governor of Texas, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog ridden city in America.
Subjective: Bush was a terrible governor because while he was governor of Texas, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog ridden city in America.
Which statement sounds closer to what was written above? "Yeah, but the 'terrible governor' part was implied!" you might say. Maybe, but - and this is gonna be hard to swallow -
you created the implication, not the writer. A writer has no control over your mind - your interpretation is entirely up to you - so if your mind infers the 'terrible governor' part it's the result of either your own paranoia or wishful thinking.
Fact of the matter is, most of this article is "objectively" written. The facts might be up for grabs, and specific numbers might be more useful, and yes it could be "more objective," but it is for the most part presented in a way that leaves the interpretation up to you. Us wimpy Americans aren't used to this sort of treatment, (we prefer to be spoonfed the interpretation - too much brainwork to take information and use it to form our own opinion!), so we shun this sort of writing as "manipulative" or some junk when it's actually the exact opposite.
That rant out of the way, the above information would seem to suggest that Bush has no regard for public health, environment, and if this information was combined with other information, it might suggest that he is easily swayed by the private sector. Again, I'd like to point out that I haven't actually said whether or not these are bad things. That's up to you to decide.
Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.
Look, I don't like to hammer this point around. For one, it's trite, and for another, he
did legally win the election, regardless of how fishy things seemed. Liberals don't like to admit that, but it's true. However, we shouldn't forget that he
did lose the popular vote, no matter how you count the pregnant chads. According to the electoral system, this doesn't mean he shouldn't be president, but it does mean that we as thinking human beings should respect the fact that more people approved of another candidate. To take this idea further, I find it a little silly that hardline Republicans would demand unilateral solidarity behind a leader to whom most citizens preferred somebody else. If
I were elected in the manner that Bush was, I would be taking extra care to please the opposing factions. But what do the Republicans do instead? They call all liberals and moderates traitors to their country. Real mature!
Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
Again, just objective statements. Interpret it as you will. Was there a good reason to spend all that extra money? If you think so then these statements don't work against Bush.
First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.
Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
Look, I'm gonna be nice and give Bush the benefit of the doubt here. People can change, right? Just because he and all of his buddies have done some bad things before doesn't mean they can't transcend their past. Still, I'd like to point out that 30 "reformed criminals" are more suspicious than one.
First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.
Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
These details are simple enough, and if you exclude the bit about "security failure," I'm sure they'd be easy to verify if they are true. What they suggest is that Bush is irresponsible and does not speak with his constituency enough. What's he doing taking so much time off? Not what a good President should be doing. Couple this with...
Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
Okay, so he wants to take vacations and he refuses to hold press conferences, but he's willing to dump money into figuring out how to pander to joe blow and keep himself in office. Raise your hand if this sounds kind of like your dad. Unwilling to talk to you but eager to learn how to sell you the "happy family" image.
Look, I don't have time to look up names so I'm admitting that what I'm about to say sounds kind of sketchy, but consider this:
A member of Bush Jr's cabinet quit shortly after he took office. This cabinet member had loyally served other Republican administrations, dating back at least to Reagan. He quit out of disgust with the current administration and was quoted as having said that the current administration's primary goal was simply to get Bush reelected. The above statement is in keeping with this notion.
It seems that Bush is more concerned with keeping his job than he is with actually doing his job. He's like the guy at work who devises elaborate strategies just to make it look like he's working while he goes and downloads porn or something.
But if the nuts and bolts of presidency bore Bush, then why does he want to keep the position so much?
Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.
All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
Look, it's a trite complaint, but it shouldn't be ignored. Bush, like just about any president ever, is swayed by special interest groups and uses the presidency to smash and grab at some ill-gotten gains before he leaves office. This is corrupt, pure and simple.
Oh, and in regards to the last comment, I don't want to blame Bush for failures in the economy, but when it's revealed that he has ties with some of these offenders it becomes more apparent why he ignored the situation and distracted us with the war on Afghanistan.
Look, an attack on Bush is not an attack on conservative ideals, regardless of what Ann Coulter would have you believe. An attack on Bush and the current administration is just that: an attack on Bush and the current administration. Like the man who left Bush's cabinet in the name of decency and honesty, perhaps the conservatives in this country should swallow their pride and admit it: The Republican party does not represent your ideals. It is self-serving and manipulates your emotions and your sensibilities so it can further its own ends. Gee, does this sound like any other major political party we know of? *cough* Democrats *cough*
The Republicans are hypocrites. Observe.
Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
Excuse me, but is it not hypocritical for the party which parades around the bravery of our tropps to cut their benefits? I've read articles by Rush Limbaugh discussing the tragedies suffered by war veterans and the lack of support and respect they recieve from government and society.
So again, why are their benefits being cut? Especially by an administration which seems so intent on spending money every chance it gets.
Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
This isn't so obvious, but one of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq outside of "imminent danger" was that the oil reserves could be freed up so that the global oil market could return to a more honest, democratic, capitalist model.
I can understand conservation of resources, but if Bush was willing to use up the financial surplus, why were the oil reserves such a hard call? Why couldn't gas prices have been alleviated in the interim while the US military had its way with Iraq? More importantly, now that the oil is safely in the hands of Halliburton, why aren't the prices dropping?
Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
Wait, hold on. Republicans are anti-big government right? Right?
And why are they so? Because they know that bureaucracy is the greatest enemy of democracy.
Right?
Again - this administration does not represent your ideals, conservatives. Stop clinging to your mindless, straight-party vote. If you're truly conservative, go vote Libertarian for cripes sake!
Oh, and what else has Bush done to circumvent democracy?
Refused to take drug test or answer questions about drug use.
All records of tenure as governor of Texas have been removed to George Bush Sr.'s library, sealed in secrecy and are un-available for public view.
All records of any SEC investigations into insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
All minutes of meetings for any public corporation on which George W. Bush served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
Any records or minutes from meetings George W. Bush (or the vice-president) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.
Established the Carlyle Group to manage post-war revenues. Heading up the Carlyle Group is (surprise, surprise), George Bush Sr. and James Baker.
"So what?" you say. They gotta right to privacy, right? No. First of all, rights of privacy are Democrat inventions, so don't you dare hide behind them, Republicans. Second, even with ideals of privacy wide-spread, the ideals of the American Constitution have always been in favor of keeping the government under constant scrutiny. That's what freedom of the press is about. Thomas Jefferson spoke out against obstructing public investigation of the government. Heck, the ideals of John Locke and social contract theory clearly suggest that it is the people's duty to constantly scrutinize their government.
"Now hold on," you say, "Saddam refused to allow investigation of his stuff and it turns out
he wasn't hiding anything either." It's true. Saddam was holding onto his pride and it cost him his Empire. Perhaps the Bush administration should learn from Saddam's mistake.
"But there
are WMDs in Iraq!" you might shout. Okay, sure, but aren't you contradicting yourself at this point?
Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
(http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)
Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.
Lastly, you can't ignore global opinion. You think you can, but you're wrong. Look, even if Bush is the greatest thing since canned tuna and the people of Europe are a bunch of nutbags, and all those global, diplomatic councils are a threat to our sovriegnty you still got one thing working against you:
Majority rules.
Even if you're a hardline Republican who refuses to give credence to the opinions of other nations you can't ignore the fact that most of the world really despises us right now, and it's Bush's fault. He has disrespected the opinins of others, and we as a country will likely pay for it. Imagine if you're walking next to your friend and you pass a group of bullies.
Feeling brave, your friend talks some well-deserved smack to these bullies; let me make myself clear - you're friend is completely right and the bullies are completely wrong. The bullies then proceed to pound on the both of you.
Now you're in the position where your life would be a lot more pleasant if your friend had just kept his mouth shut, but at the same time, your friend hasn't really done anything wrong. But he has, actually. He put you in a vulnerable position. Fact is, flouting UN sanctions and European publiic opinion endangers us. This may sound ridiculous, but that's what the radar controller at Pearl Harbor said when his radar picked up the approaching Japanese fleet: "That can't be right, they can't possibly be coming for us."
The Bush administration, and Republicans at large, have a complete apathy for what other countires think. If these were feudal times, would you be comfortable with a noble lord who enraged the other nobles around him? No, you wouldn't.
Anyway, that's my take on it. You'll notice that I did take a lot out of the original article - general bickering about the economy, or vague comments about taking away our freedoms really aren't apprpriate here.