Bush's biggest hope: 'Come up short'

I don't really see how you can "change the tone" while simultaneously ratcheting up the partisan rhetoric to unprecedented levels. How did Bush do that? By calling more than half of the country who
disagreed with him "unpatriotic" "unAmerican"and irresponsible," and he did this repeatedly over the course of 3-4 years. Karl Rove advised him to do that. So it's a little late in the game to be pretending like he "regrets" the division in the country that he created and exacerbated. The man is a pig, and soon, the pig will be gone. Hurrah for our country.

Dan Bartlett is a liar and a disgrace. Bush told us all he would restore honesty and integrity to the White House. He also said he would work across party lines. He did none of the above. History will judge him as the worst President in the history of the U.S. He lied to, mislead, and deceive the American people since the first day he was in office. Bush is the one who is most unpatriotic. When you think about it...everything he has tried in his life has been a failure.

Right. You bring to the White House partisan hacks like Rove and Antonio Gonzales, and a VP who acts in secrecy and goes to war with Congress--that really sets a tone, but not of bipartisanship.

I could not agree more. This man and his administration were the most partisan and "across the aisle" bashing I have ever seen. Stop trying to re-write history.

No surprises here. The Bushies never, ever, take responsibility for anything:

9/11? Not my fault

Iraq WMD intelligence: someone else screwed up

Katrina: States' fault

Etc.

No surprise they now claim it was not their fault that partisan rancor got worse during their tenure.

Good riddance.

The reality is the Bush administration went overboard is playing nice with the Dems and liberals. The nasty tone largely came from the Dems and the Left. Comments made by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, Al Gore, Moveon.org, Lefties here in the Swamp and countless others set the negative and nasty tone in recent years.

You can not possibly set a bipartisan tone when your chief advisor, Karl Rove, is from the most partisan wing of your party.

It will not happen.

Bush may have been more successful as a prez had he been more open to discussion and opposing views from others, more well-read about the issues (domestic & foreign), led more by reality than by gut feelings, less liable to personalize political opposition, more of a chief executive other than in name only. He was elected to put the welfare of America first, but his actions in office smack more of pursuing a personal agenda which screams of "me and my friends first."

"The new process has been frustrating, no doubt about it,'' he said, "and at the end of the day it is going to require two parties that want peace.''
~ Dan Bartlett
---------------------

And why would it be any different in dealing with the partisan hacks in the U.S. Senate. I never saw or heard Harry Reid being non-partisan. Never saw or heard Chuckie Schumer, Patrick Leahy, or Dick Durbin extending themselves to work with President Bush. Ted Kennedy did all that he could to trash Bush at every opportunity after Bush supported Kennedy's Education bill. Jimmy Carter thinks that he runs the State Department. Sure, Bush failed here, but it does take two to set any kind of tone of cooperation or conciliation. Bush, like Israel, is always the Sole Principal Party Always At Fault Here, but how do you work with someone who is bound and determined to NOT be a part of any kind of crafted solution. The question is rhetorical.

Regards, John D. You and I saw the same movie. In High-Definition.

When the President would give the State Of Union address, some networks with have a hand-picked group of democrats and others totally incapable of processing a coherent thought, as a focus group to critique his speech. In general, their comments may as well have been prepared the night before. They don't even bother to listen or take a non prejudiced approach. President Obama will surely be treated better, as I think that he should, for the good of this country that we are forced to live in.

I'd respect Bartlett a lot more if he just admitted to the fact that the whole Changing the Tone in Washington mantra was simply a campaign trick that nobody who was saying it believed would ever happen.

What is this "bipartisanship" of which Washington insiders seem so fond? Is it the absence of opposition enjoyed by the victor, or a common commitment to shared goals? I suspect George W. Bush wanted us to believe the later, when he meant the former definition. He had no intention of sharing my goals. I understand that, because a lot of us who worked hard to elect Obama have little interest in sharing what we perceive to be the goals of "W" and the Republicans that were his base.

Poor Dan. He tried so hard to change the tone in Washington, but was misunderstood.

When he said that electing Democrats would get us politicians who would "wave the white flag of surrender in this war on terror," he didn't really mean to be partisan. He was saying that Senators and Congressman should have others wave their white flags for them, since they've got more important work to do!

When he said Dems wanted to "want to handcuff our generals on the battlefield in the middle of a decisive security mission," he was really just joshin'. Generals don't go on battlefields! Especially the middles of battlefields! That would just be silly, so obviously he was just joking.

When he said that Democrats "aren't providing alternatives or hope or optimism or any constructive criticism about how we can succeed in Iraq or elsewhere when it comes to the issues here at home And they seem more interested in name calling and trying to put out talking points" he really meant to say "they ARE (doing those things) and we can't wait to work with them hand-in-hand!" All simple mix-ups, really.

I blame the liberal media for not explaining properly that it's only cynical partisanship when Democrats say bad things about Republicans!

Listening to the Bushies and Palin reminds me of my days in college. I was always telling my instructors about how hard I was working when I was spending my carefree evenings leaching off my hard working parents. This was something I grew out of thankfully. How has it come to pass that this is what passes for leadership in the GOP?

"Came up short" should be the inscribed over the entrance of the Bush Presidential Library. So sorry that Bush failed "to change the tone" but it rates far down the list of his failures. I hoped for a competent President who would protect American interests and American lives and I too suffered regret. So can someone please tell me what was the point of the Bush Presidency?

Everyone in the GOP and particularly, associated with this Adminiration, is incapable of a genuine thought or statement. Why do they get air time or print space?

How can he change the tone in DC when he announced "I'm the decider"?

Just wait till the Cook County crew shows up with all their pals - I can't wait for the show to begin, starting Monday with Burris and I hear Blago may make the trip also - talk about a freak show!

"one of the things that Bush regrets most about his time in Washington was his inability to "change the tone'' here."

Bush changed the tone alright, he was one of the most partisan Presidents in history. He ran all eight years of his Presidency like he was still in campaign mode.

President Obama will surely be treated better, as I think that he should, for the good of this country that we are forced to live in.

Posted by: Django - N Exile In/Around the 30th Parallel | January 2, 2009 11:56 AM

As was pointed out to numerous "loony libs" when they complained during the past 8 years by various compassionate Conservatives, ain't NOBODY forcin' you to stay here against your will, junior. If you hate this country that much, GET OUT! And don't bother to come back.

Right until the bitter end, the Bush Administration is in lock-step on Talking Points aimed at painting a "warm and fuzzy" portrait of Bush's time in office. Everywhere I turn around, there are Bush loyalists spouting off about how intelligent the President is and how he wishes he could have done more to end the bitter partisan tone in DC... HOGWASH!

Never in his 8 years do I recall Bush reaching out to Democrats. He dug his heels in [at the behest of Cheney, Rummy and the rest of the neo-con cabal] and methodically ran this country into the ground.

Now, in the midst of the Second Great Depression, Bush and his cronies seem more interested in spewing propaganda than governing. I have no respect for people who cannot admit their failures and flaws. I watched with horror as Bush made one mistake after another and always had the same frat-boy smirk on his face the entire time. I mean, this is a President who joked about not finding WMDs in Iraq -- who joked about Wall Street getting too drunk on profits; and who could not even keep his word about not golfing out of respect for the troops at War.

Bush never struck me as a serious or intelligent man, and his Advisors can come out of the woodwork and claim all kinds of positive sentiments about "missed opportunities" but the factual record does not support these latest batch of lies.

JohnD said: "The reality is the Bush administration went overboard is playing nice with the Dems and liberals ..."
.
Ri-i-i-i-i-ght. For example, when Cheney told Patrick Leahy "go f--k yourself."
.
Actually, to a lot of 'pubs, that would be an example of "going overboard" to "play nice" with the Dems -- they think the Dems deserve a lot worse. And that, more than anything else, explains the "tone" in Washington.

Notice how the Democrats appear "blameless" for anything during these last eight years...does not Congress write and pass laws and resolutions and appropriate all funds for government...approve the budget...I even believe that the power of war rests within Congress...their hands are all over our country"s problems...it"s the myopic MSM view that ya"ll accept too readily. Bush wasn't ruthless enough. He be judged correctly by history. Better get your kicks in, only 18 days left...then who you going blame.."you know".

Bush wanted to change the tone alright, he wanted to be treated like the king with everyone else bowing before him.

I've got Shrubs "legacy" right here:
.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/bush%20dodges/AsSeenOnTV6/Bush_dodges_shoes.gif
.

Bush wasn't ruthless enough. He be judged correctly by history. Better get your kicks in, only 18 days left...then who you going blame.."you know".

Posted by: Bubba Porter | January 2, 2009 5:22 PM

Bush's deplorable legacy, unfortunately, is going to be the gift that keeps on giving for years to come. The only one's who don't recognize this are the morons who supported his eight year crime spree, like "you know", you.

Op109 @ 4:00 p.m.,

Ya just keep giving me more advice than I can really use. No one, I know, is really "forced" to live in America. Possibly you may have known that, but just probably forgot somewhere along the way. Sure, I'm in exile somewhere, but I can expatriate on my own timetable. Thanks. I was only parroting something you Leftists are so fond of fronting. You know, "Reaching out", trying to relate to the people of the party of diversity and inclusion.

Your advice is so "right on", but why won't you Leftists ever give it the due consideration that it so richly deserves. You knew that, but just probably forgot. Have a nice night.

Idiot wind:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/bush-oral-history200902

Good riddance.