Ironic, considering that the Democrats were in a similar position with Clinton at the end of his second term. Fast forward to Bush's departure and the Republicans find themselves exactly where the Democrats were about a decade or so back.

The more I watch the two parties, the more alike they start to look.

Weaver95:Ironic, considering that the Democrats were in a similar position with Clinton at the end of his second term. Fast forward to Bush's departure and the Republicans find themselves exactly where the Democrats were about a decade or so back.

The more I watch the two parties, the more alike they start to look.

It will end up with pretty much people voting for the party that promises not to get all killed in one fell swoop.

fark off, nytimes

Bush is the best Democrat recruitment tool of all time.

Operative word being TOOL.

/my daily Bush-bash is done
//can I go out and play now?

Of course Republicans aren't interested in bush, otherwise they'd hang out in women's restrooms.

Bet the GOP is scared Bush will give McCain a surprise neck-rub.

Andrew Wiggin:Of course Republicans aren't interested in bush, otherwise they'd hang out in women's restrooms.

Dick is their vice.

Obvious tag on holiday?

Weaver95:The more I watch the two parties, the more alike they start to look.

Both parties have problems, but to claim they're indistinguishable is ludicrous, particularly after the past seven years under the Bush administration you supported. Your guy gave us 40% growth in federal spending, record deficits, spiraling debt, plummeting dollar, a poorly planned and executed war with no end in sight, a corrupt Justice Department, torture, warrantless wiretaps, attacks on habeus corpus, and more. That's what you voted for twice and that's what we all got.

They're not all the same. Both sides are not equally bad. I know you need to convince yourself that it would have been just as bad if you hadn't voted for Mr. Bush twice, because that allows you to avoid taking even the slightest responsibility for your own actions. But it's simply not true.

lohphat:Obvious tag on holiday?

More of an unlikely they'll be successful in keeping him away.

They need a version of Valtrex that prevents Dubya breakouts...though they may still spread Dubya even when they're breakout-free.

rufus-t-firefly:They need a version of Valtrex that prevents Dubya breakouts...though they may still spread Dubya even when they're breakout-free.

How about Compound W? Gets rid of embarrassing, ugly warts and it even has W in the name.

Ron Paul Revere:I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess what he meant by saying "the more alike they start to look" was that they have more in common than that which is different.

This doesn't mean indistinguishable. It means two sides of the same coin.

The proof is in the pudding. Weaver voted for Bush twice, and if, as you claim, he's saying both parties are two sides of the same coin, then he'll have no problem pulling the lever for Mr. Obama in November, right?

See, I've read his posts as well. He's the founder of the "I'm the independent third party guy who holds both major parties in equal disdain even though I voted for Bush twice and I'd never vote for a Democrat" club. It's easier for him to pretend his votes didn't matter because "hey, they all suck" rather than to face the fact that he didn't do his homework.

I thought Weaver WAS voting Obama.

Weaver95:The more I watch the two parties, the more alike they start to look.


Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Weaver95:Ironic, considering that the Democrats were in a similar position with Clinton at the end of his second term. Fast forward to Bush's departure and the Republicans find themselves exactly where the Democrats were about a decade or so back.

The more I watch the two parties, the more alike they start to look.

They had to distance Clinton from Al Gore because people were still upset about his extramarital affair. For Bush, it's largely a result of the Iraq war and his tanking of the economy.

In other words, I don't blame the parties, nor do I think they're the same. I blame the public who get just as enraged over oral sex as they do with the murder of 4,000+ Americans.

The Why Not Guy:It's easier for him to pretend his votes didn't matter because "hey, they all suck" rather than to face the fact that he didn't do his homework.

Indeed. But also, Fark Independency™ requires mastery of false equivalence. In a choice between death and cake, where Republicans vote unanimously for death and Democrats break evenly, the two parties are therefore exactly the same (incidentally, this scenario perfectly exemplifies D.C. "bipartisanship").

Weaver95: The more I watch the two parties, the more alike they start to look.

The parties are similar in structure and function, because there's only so many ways under our system to run a national political organization. But at their core, the Republicans are about death and the fear thereof, while the Dems are about eros, and the difference in all its ramifications is vast. The FARK Independent™ analysis is about as deep as a pie plate. Don't fall for it.

Megain: fark off, nytimes

Dude, biatching about compulsory free registration on the interwebs is soooo 1998. And besides, you've found a site that's republished the NY Times article without requiring you to enter a fake name and zip code! Way to stick it to the MAN!

You didn't use Google to locate it, by any chance...?

Your Faith is Creepy:You didn't use Google to locate it, by any chance...?

no, i didn't. why, is that relevant?

WFern:Weaver95:Ironic, considering that the Democrats were in a similar position with Clinton at the end of his second term. Fast forward to Bush's departure and the Republicans find themselves exactly where the Democrats were about a decade or so back.

The more I watch the two parties, the more alike they start to look.

They had to distance Clinton from Al Gore because people were still upset about his extramarital affair. For Bush, it's largely a result of the Iraq war and his tanking of the economy.

In other words, I don't blame the parties, nor do I think they're the same. I blame the public who get just as enraged over oral sex as they do with the murder of 4,000+ Americans.


Most Americans didn't give a shiat about Clinton's extramarital affairs, or him trying to keep them secret:

"After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's rating reached its highest point at 73% approval. He finished with an approval rating of 68%, which was higher than that of any other departing president since polling began more than seventy years earlier."

If Al Gore had embraced Clinton (and picked someone other than Lieberman, who was picked because of his criticism of Clinton) he'd be the one at the end of his 2nd term.

Stopped reading at subby's headline cuz its all bullshiat.

Since January Bush as raised more money himself than the entire
DNC has, so SOME ONE likes seeing him.

Fark the NYTIMES and the gratuitious Bush/Rep haters.

mfaby:Since January Bush as raised more money himself than the entire
DNC has, so SOME ONE likes seeing him.

Like I said the other day, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Bush is raising money because it's for some other guy, and not for Bush himself. In other words, he's not a catalyst for fundraising, he just happens to be in the same room as the money being thrown around. Bush's presence really has little to do with the fact that Republicans will put out any money necessary to keep Obama out of office.

And if you can't see that the Republican Party is having serious problems figuring out how to elect their new guy while their current guy is facing 28% approval ratings, then you're blinder than Stevie Wonder.

First line of the article = Republicans don't want Bush at the convention!!!

Half way down the article: We found this one guy from California who said that he thinks alot of people don't want him there. They just don't want to say so out loud.

Journalism at its finest.

I'm not saying that convention goers are clamoring to get Bush on the stage, but if you're going to claim that no one wants him there, atleast back it up with more than one quote and a couple of weak suppositions based on it.

mfaby:Stopped reading at subby's headline cuz its all bullshiat.


Ah, the mark of a truly informed individual - make a judgment based on the headline, since Fark headlines are always a perfect barometer for the article linked. Don't let something like actual information cloud your judgment, just take your first impression and run with it.


Since January Bush as raised more money himself than the entire
DNC has, so SOME ONE likes seeing him.


So by that rationale, Barack Obama is vastly more popular than any other politician in American history, since his campaign has raised over a quarter of a billion dollars in 6 months - and he doesn't even have to make appeals for the money in person.

The DNC hasn't raised as much money because people have been donating to their candidates - Hillary and Obama in particular - and not to the general party coffers.

So, your two points are refuted by the facts. Much like the Republicans and Bush.


Fark the NYTIMES and the gratuitious Bush/Rep haters.

"gratuitous: not called for by the circumstances"

Ha!

Weaver95:Ironic, considering that the Democrats were in a similar position with Clinton at the end of his second term. Fast forward to Bush's departure and the Republicans find themselves exactly where the Democrats were about a decade or so back.


No, it's NOT ironic. Clinton never had approval ratings this low. Clinton never started two wars, tanked the economy to the brinks of bankruptcy, and defecated all over the Constitution like Bush has.

Bush vs other presidents in regards to approval ratings in the second term. (new window)

The First:Bush vs other presidents in regards to approval ratings in the second term. (new window)

FAIL

Welcome to 2005...

The First:BigGary_:The First:Bush vs other presidents in regards to approval ratings in the second term. (new window)

FAIL

Welcome to 2005...

???

Date of your linked article: Nov. 2, 2005.

However, this line made me laugh, at least they found SOMETHING positive:

"Bush's rating is higher than Richard Nixon's was at the same point in his administration."

Now Nixon is the more popular guy. Hell, I like him more than Bush.

rufus-t-firefly:Date of your linked article: Nov. 2, 2005.

However, this line made me laugh, at least they found SOMETHING positive:

"Bush's rating is higher than Richard Nixon's was at the same point in his administration."

Now Nixon is the more popular guy. Hell, I like him more than Bush.


Well, my point was Clinton's lowest rating was no where near Bush's lowest rating. I'm sure Bush's rating will plummet more.

They're not all the same. Both sides are not equally bad. I know you need to convince yourself that it would have been just as bad if you hadn't voted for Mr. Bush twice, because that allows you to avoid taking even the slightest responsibility for your own actions. But it's simply not true.

Exactly.

If you voted for Bush once--let alone the utter insanity of doing it twice--you have no credibility judging the worth of the other party.

Zero, hero.

Maybe they can just stick him in that cage at the RNC they call the Free Speech Zone(tm).

And I thought the whole country was a free speech zone. Silly me.

The First:Bush vs other presidents in regards to approval ratings in the second term. (new window)

i'm surprised he's still more popular than Nixon

Goodfella:Maybe they can just stick him in that cage at the RNC they call the Free Speech Zone(tm).

And I thought the whole country was a free speech zone. Silly me.

Yeah - the First Amendment is malleable but if you say the Second Amendment says what it appears to say (collective right, not individual) then you want to take everyone's guns away so teh gheys can come molest our children and break up our marriages by force and make us read the Koran.

But here's the thing - I think it was a collective right, but now the Supreme Court says it's an individual right, and THAT'S FINE. That's how the system works. However we need a President Obama appointing the next few justices to make sure we don't get a radical redefining of our Constitution.

And a President Obama would actually know what the Constitution isn't just an annoying impediment to try to get around. And court decisions are something to be respected even when they don't go your way.

Bucky Katt:The First:Bush vs other presidents in regards to approval ratings in the second term. (new window)

i'm surprised he's still more popular than Nixon

oh, crap. that was 2005. i fail.

Bucky Katt:Bucky Katt:The First:Bush vs other presidents in regards to approval ratings in the second term. (new window)

i'm surprised he's still more popular than Nixon

oh, crap. that was 2005. i fail.

Okay, here's something current (new window):



Mr. Bush received a 66% disapproval rating in The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll for June, tying his own record for the highest ever for any president in the Journal/NBC poll. The previous highs were a 56% rating for Mr. Bush's father in late 1992, and a 50% score for President Clinton in 1993. In the long-running Gallup Poll, Mr. Bush's disapproval rating reached 69% this spring -- a record going back to the Truman administration.

His disapproval rating in the Journal poll is particularly striking among a number of key voter blocs for Mr. McCain in the November election: older voters (67%), women (71%) and independents (75%).


So, if he could run for a 3rd term, he'd probably lose to this guy:

CokeBear:Weaver95:The more I watch the two parties, the more alike they start to look.


Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.



Why settle for a lesser evil?

Truth be told, there are some pretty impressive differences between them. The real trick, however, is not just the executive office. There is also Congress to consider. You can't sign what doesn't hit the executive desk.