George W Bush

Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich

I have been discussing this year’s Presidential elections and been trying to work out which candidate is this year’s Giant Douche and which is the Turd Sandwich.

That argument has now been settled…by South Park, who invented the terms:

Leave it to South Park to make fun of nostalgia while flagrantly indulging in self-referential memories of its own.

Comedy Central?s animated mainstay hit a big milestone Wednesday night, kicking off its 20th season, fortuitously enough, during an election year. Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone?s prankishly prescient approach to political satire has produced some of the show?s most memorable episodes in the past?and one of those episodes, Season 8’s ?Douche and Turd,? just got an encore.

As in Season 19, Mr. Garrison served as a Donald Trump proxy in the season premiere?although it looks like he got a little spray tan in between seasons.?Hillary Clinton, who also made a brief appearance last season, returned this season sporting a new blue suit. However, this episode introduced a new nickname for her: Turd Sandwich. And Garrison?s new moniker? Giant Douche. ? Read more »

No endorsements for Trump from Bush 41 and 43

Donald Trump won’t be getting any endorsements from George H W Bush nor George W Bush.

I suspect he won’t care.

For the first time since his own presidency, George H.W. Bush is planning to stay silent in the race for the Oval Office ? and the younger former president Bush plans to stay silent as well.

Bush 41, who enthusiastically endorsed every Republican nominee for the last five election cycles, will stay out of the campaign process this time. He does not have plans to endorse presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, spokesman Jim McGrath told The Texas Tribune.

?At age 91, President Bush is retired from politics,? McGrath wrote in an email Wednesday. ?He came out of retirement to do a few things for Jeb, but those were the exceptions that proved the rule.? His son Jeb Bush dropped out of the GOP presidential race in February.

Bush 43, meanwhile, “does not plan to participate in or comment on the presidential campaign,” according to his personal aide, Freddy Ford. ? Read more »

Did Obama create Trump?

Simon Heffer at The Telegraph explains that after 7 years of being run by a clever incompetent the voters are revolting.

The morning after Barack Obama was elected, in November 2008, I put the television on in my hotel room in New York to watch the reaction. Fox News was putting on a brave face, though the sourness and anger were barely contained: but MSNBC, an avowedly liberal network, was in a state of almost convulsive ecstasy.

As dawn broke a woman, interviewed outside her run-down house somewhere upstate, shed tears while telling an interviewer what the victory meant for her. ?I now know,? she sobbed, ?that my house won?t be foreclosed on.? I hope she was right: but the evidence of the seven years since Obama the miracle-worker took office suggests she may have been disappointed.

America was angry after two terms of George W Bush. Though he could not stand, his party?s candidate would be punished for how Mr Bush and the lunatics around him had made America an international pariah. The financial crisis of 2008 ? the collapse of Lehmann Brothers came between the conventions and polling day ? was the last straw.

Read more »

Getting your message right for the audience

Many people mock Donald Trump, but he seems to get his message across.

How does he do it?

Here is a video that explains how.

Read more »

Claims that Islam is a “religion of peace” is a shameful lie

Douglas Murray at ?The Spectator explains why it is a shameful lie to describe any religion, but in particular Islam as a “religion of peace”.

The West?s movement towards the truth is remarkably slow. We drag ourselves towards it painfully, inch by inch, after each bloody Islamist assault.

In France, Britain, Germany, America and nearly every other country in the world it remains government policy to say that any and all attacks carried out in the name of Mohammed have ?nothing to do with Islam?. It was said by George W. Bush after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7 and Tony Abbott after the Sydney attack last month. It is what David Cameron said after two British extremists cut off the head of Drummer Lee Rigby in London, when ?Jihadi John? cut off the head of aid worker Alan Henning in the ?Islamic State? and when Islamic extremists attacked a Kenyan mall, separated the Muslims from the Christians and shot the latter in the head. And, of course, it is what President Fran?ois Hollande said after the massacre of journalists and Jews in Paris last week.

All these leaders are wrong. In private, they and their senior advisers often concede that they are telling a lie. The most sympathetic explanation is that they are telling a ?noble lie?, provoked by a fear that we ? the general public ? are a lynch mob in waiting. ?Noble? or not, this lie is a mistake. First, because the general public do not rely on politicians for their information and can perfectly well read articles and books about Islam for themselves. Secondly, because the lie helps no one understand the threat we face. Thirdly, because it takes any heat off Muslims to deal with the bad traditions in their own religion. And fourthly, because unless mainstream politicians address these matters then one day perhaps the public will overtake their politicians to a truly alarming extent.

If politicians are so worried about this secondary ?backlash? problem then they would do well to remind us not to blame the jihadists? actions on our peaceful compatriots and then deal with the primary problem ? radical Islam ? in order that no secondary, reactionary problem will ever grow.

We must confront radical Islam, otherwise it will grow.

Yet today our political class fuels both cause and nascent effect. Because the truth is there for all to see. To claim that people who punish people by killing them for blaspheming Islam while shouting ?Allah is greatest? has ?nothing to do with Islam? is madness. Because the violence of the Islamists is, truthfully, only to do with Islam: the worst version of Islam, certainly, but Islam nonetheless.

Last week, a chink was broken in this wall of disinformation when Sajid Javid, the only Muslim-born member of the British cabinet, and one of its brightest hopes, dipped a toe into this water. After the Paris attacks, he told the BBC: ?The lazy answer would be to say that this has got nothing whatsoever to do with Islam or Muslims and that should be the end of that. That would be lazy and wrong.? Sadly, he proceeded to utter the second most lazy thing one can say: ?These people are using Islam, taking a peaceful religion and using it as a tool to carry out their activities.?

How many times have we heard this? …from Obama, to Cameron, to many other politicians.

It is a lie. ? Read more »

Good indicator the Jeb Bush is serious

Jeb Bush is looking more and more certain as a contender for the GOP nomination after he resigned from all his board positions.

Potential US Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush has resigned from all of his corporate and non-profit board member positions, the Washington Post reports, as the former Florida governor explores a run for the White House.

The Post, citing a statement emailed to the paper by one of Bush’s aides late on New Year’s Eve, said he even stepped down from the board of his education foundation.

The statement added that he was still evaluating next steps for businesses for which he serves as an owner or principal partner, including consulting firm Jeb Bush & Associates, the Post reported.

Reuters could not independently verify the report. Representatives for Bush were not immediately available. Read more »

The problem with St Helen…she isn’t

Helen Clark wants the top UN job

I’ve noticed a few things about Labour, but the one thing that sticks out is the absolute deference they all hold towards Helen Clark.

I despise her politics, but am mature enough to recognise a superb politician.

Helen Clark took over the labour party when it was in disarray, she withstood a coup attempt and ruled the party with an iron fist for 15 years.

She moulded the party into her likeness and the two became synonymous.

The labour party was Helen Clark and Helen Clark was the Labour party.

That was Labour’s strength and it was also its Achilles heel.

Eventually the voters tired of her and Labour lost to John Key’s National party.

Now this is where it gets interesting.? Read more »

White House visits – Compare and Contrast

Two visits to?the?White house, different presidents, different Prime Ministers.

The left wing didn’t think Helen Clark was sucking up when she went:

Helen Clark and George W. Bush on 21 March 2007

Helen Clark and George W. Bush on 21 March 2007

Read more »

R-S-P-E-C-T….really Obama?

If George W. Bush couldn?t spell R-E-S-P-E-C-T would we have heard the end of it? … or Mitt Romney?

It?s all about narrative media want. I doubt you will see this on a left wing blog, or in Sideswipe or any other mainstream news outlet.

Read more »

This will be handy for Matt McCarten

Foreign Policy has an article on “How to Justify Any Policy, No Matter How Bad It Might Be“.

This will be real handy for Matt McCarten as he deals with the two David Cunliffe’s, the one who tells business in private he will be moderate, and the very public lurching left David Cunliffe.

I think they may well have interviewed Winston Peters for some of these techniques.

Whatever your circumstances might be, here’s a simple 10-step program for excusing bad behavior. (It may also come in handy in your personal life, if you’re not good at resisting temptation or making sound decisions.)

Step 1: “It’s a lie. It never happened.”

When accused of bad behavior, the first instinct of many politicians (or their supporters) is denial. Bill Clinton told us he “never had sex” with “that woman” (Monica Lewinsky), and the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria at first denied that chemical weapons?had even been used. Similarly, when Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked him about the NSA’s domestic surveillance activities, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s first response was to deny it was happening, a lie he later described as the “least untruthful” statement he felt he could make. Step 1?is tempting for an obvious reason: When a bald-faced lie works, the problem goes away.

Step 2: Blame someone else.

If you can’t hide what happened, blame it on someone else. This line of defense has at least two variants. The first option is to acknowledge that wrongdoing occurred, but pin the blame on one’s opponents. Once the use of chemical weapons was confirmed in Syria, for example, Assad’s defenders tried to pin the blame on the regime’s opponents. Similarly, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan now seems to think any criticism of his government or domestic political setback is the result of some sort of foreign conspiracy.

The second variation is to admit that somebody did something wrong, but pin the blame on subordinates. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie claims he knew nothing?– “Nothing!”?– about Bridgegate, while George W. Bush administration officials claimed that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were just unauthorized acts by low-level enlisted personnel. If you successfully make someone else the fall guy, the people at the top can skate away scot-free.? Read more »

×