Republican National Convention: Where Was the 43rd President of the United States For 8 Years?

Coffrey: Two questions for Republicans:

1. Where was Bush?
Considering the DNC invited the 42nd president of 8 years to give a big primetime speech, where was the guy that Republicans voted for TWICE?

2. Was Eastwood speech the best out of the whole RNC?
Pew results show that his speech was equal to or better than Romney's speech.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2344/clint-eastwood-speech-republican-convention-mitt-romney-election-2012

OCD_OCD: Bush doesn't seek the spotlight. He has already said he would not second guess a president after him and he has not.

Coffrey: All the fervor surrounded this particular campaign..... you think Republicans wouldn't take every advantage? If Bush speaking at their convention would have given Romney a bigger bump, you honestly think that he wouldn't have spoke? This nonsense about getting out of the spotlight, no one who is timid or wanting to remain private and away from the public eye wouldn't have become the president in the first place. What about Cheney? You probably know what I'm going to say, but why not. Republicans are embarrassed of Bush, they want to erase that 8 years where they essentially didn't even act like conservatives and think that there was Clinton, then Obama and that's why we have all the problems we have now.

What was the best speech of the convention? Was it Eastwood?

OCD_OCD: You can believe what you will, Coffrey but the man does not want the spotlight. he lives here in Dallas and will quietly walk into a class at SMU and speak and answer questions. There is no pomp and fanfare.

Coffrey: If Bush wasn't a historically unpopular president and where every speech didn't give us a new "Bushism" or some other gaffe, I might actually agree with you. But if you think about it, if they rolled Bush out, people would remember him again (as well as his prominent cabinet), but they obviously don't want the people to remember again, they want to be able to lay all the blame of the conflicts and deficit on Obama and pretend they didn't start under a "fiscal conservative".

Sarcastic Dots: Your first question could have several answers, but we'll never know for sure. He may not seek the spot light. He may be busy making money. He may not like Mitt Romney. He may be tired of politics. It could be anything. Oh, and he may also realise that he speaks to the republicans, but having Bush there would be like giving the kiss of death to undecided voters.

But...

2. Was Eastwood speech the best out of the whole RNC?
Pew results show that his speech was equal to or better than Romney's speech.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2344/clint-eastwood-speech-republican-convention-mitt-romney-election-2012

If this is true then it'd get a hearty laugh from me. I imagine it's the most publicised speech of the conference, so that might have attributed to its popularity-- but it's not exactly popular for the right reasons.

Coffrey: I just think about it like this. If on the last night of the DNC they had George Clooney bumbling and yelling at an empty chair, obviously representing Romney, would it had been the most publicized speech of that whole convention? Not a chance, I think.

Sarcastic Dots: I think it would, but unless it happens, we aren't really going to get a decisive answer ;]

OCD_OCD: Bush was only unpopular with the people he was unpopular with, Coffrey. He was popular with people he was popular with. Same can be said of any president.

Coffrey, Bush tried to stop the real estate melt down three different times and he was roundly ridiculed and lambasted by whom? Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

On September 11, 2003, the New York Times ran a story with the headline:

“New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae”

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."

OCD_OCD: Frank 'no crisis.' The New York Times reported on Sept. 11, 2003:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

OCD_OCD: President Clinton put it best today to Chris Cuomo of ABC News:

"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

OCD_OCD: The Boston Globe, Nov. 22, 1991:

The federally chartered mortgage company Fannie Mae yesterday agreed to modify its rules restricting purchases of two-family and three-decker homes -- rules that housing advocates contend unfairly exclude low- and moderate-income families from buying homes in Boston.

After a nearly three-hour meeting with members of the Home Buyers’ Union, a local advocacy group, and representatives of Mayor Flynn and Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy 2d (D-Mass.), Fannie Mae officials agreed to substantially alter rules to allow what one termed “hundreds if not thousands” of buyers a chance to own two-family homes and three-deckers. …

Fannie Mae national spokesman David Jeffers said yesterday that the mortgage company restricted purchases of mortgages on multi-family homes after it saw many such mortgages go into default during the real estate slowdown.

He said the default rate on mortgages on two-family homes is twice that of single-family homes, and the rate for three-deckers is five times the rate for single-family dwellings.

But Jeffers said that after discussions with area homeowners, housing advocates, Kennedy and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Fannie Mae officials agreed to purchase the mortgages made under the state’s “soft second” program, the primary source of mortgages for first-time homebuyers of low and moderate means.

Sarcastic Dots: "Clint Eastwood "empty chair" skit was great"

Ryan was pretty good at infusing his political base, but I honestly can't believe anyone thi Clint Eastwood's speech was good.

Coffrey: You think I hate Bush because he was a Christian? Are you really that retarded? Listen, I live in a country that is predominantly Christian so living here, I have to deal with you people all the time. Do you think hating the president for being Christian (by the way, ALL presidents were Christian, does that mean I hate all presidents?), that I can legitimately function in society than if I'm so consumed by hatred? Haha I'm more angry that is what you think than Bush being a Christian.

I guess I should clarify, I don't hate George W. Bush the person, I hate the puppet that Cheney brought for speeches every once in a while. And again, it's not just the Bush admin's fault, I also blame the pussy ass Democrats. I mean, when Obama got into office, Republicans played major fucking hardball, record number of filabusters and obstructions, it was actually pretty amazing to see. When Bush got into office, Democrats just rolled over, I think it where "bipartisanship" began as code for Repubs and Dems screwing you together.

But I digress. He took a multi-billion surplus and turned it into a multi-billion, though one can argue a trillion, deficit. Clinton spent money, of course, but he paid for shit through taxes or some other mechanisms. Bush did horrible things and didn't pay for it, let it go on the deficit, because hey, he won't be president when that shit becomes an issue. And I think if Obama would have came immediately after Clinton, he would have been great and hope and change and all of that shit in his ads. What Bush did isn't erased 4 years into the next guy's presidency, it isn't a mulligan at the time of the next guy's term, projects that are created, executive orders that are signed and money that is spent cannot be taken back in one term, just as Obama's legacy is going to last longer than 4 years of the next guy's term, just as Clinton's legacy is still going now.,

By the way, salve, on a personal note, I do like your Sarah Palin impersonation you've been using the whole time I'm here, it really is spot on, you've done your homework I only have one critique. Your spelling and grammar is a bit too good, you need more "u"s instead of you and "r"s instead of "are"

Coffrey: As with the Sarah Palin impersonation, there's the same hatefulness with a smile, the same partisan hackery that seems to always fall in line with party talking points but not in the smart meaningful way, and just a general ignorance on what actually goes on, with a magnifying glass on what buttresses your point and blinders on things that are a detriment to your point, all with a relative simpleness. Haha maybe some gross generalizations in there, but I just watched Palin speak about something right after we talked on here and.... it just clicked that's why I said your grammar and spelling is too good, it doesn't fit with an accurate Palin impersonation. But on to the issues! Oh wait, one thing. Google and other search engines aren't news. They only pop up the most poplar, i.e. clicked on, links associated with your query. Of course it's a good way to get instantly to a bunch of sources, the thing is to pick sources that are credible. Now on to the issues.

Okay fine, so Bush inherited Clinton's recession (I assume by naming it that you assign responsibility) and never complained. This is the same guy who declared "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" after conquering Iraq in 2003, not only was it a blunder, but obvious that these guys will publicize anything. They also outed a CIA agent just to get at her husband. He blamed previous adminstrations (except his father's, conveniently) for 9/11 and blamed the Democratic congress for the economy. Does this sound like a guy who wouldn't publicly assign blame elsewhere if we were in dire straits in 2000? Also, if it's fair to say that a recession occurred on Clinton's watch and that is his responsibility, then it's also fair to say that the giant recession, almost depression, that happened on Bush's watch is his responsibility and thus assigning blame isn't hiding behind a shield of superiority, but just pointing out the facts, right?

By the way, don't know if you know this, but presidents have this thing called a veto. Clinton supported DOMA, a stupid move if you ask me, and that's on him, not congress.

America isn't under attack right now. America isn't under attack no more than if there was a riot in LA or Detroit. Governments are not attacking us, they are protesters, some violent, some not. I mean, to imply we are under attack would mean that we must defend ourselves, so what is your suggestion, we invade, let's pick one and say Egypt, and start shooting protesters?

I think ridicule and name-calling has its place. If someone comes at you with a ridiculous and/or stupid idea or assumption or whatever, and you don't call them some variation of stupid and ridicule them, you are doing a disservice to them and everyone viewing the conversation. Some people, and I won't name names but we all know who it is, insult left and right as their argument and that is childish. My original insult or name calling or whatever was your assumption that I hate Bush because he's a Christian. If you or anyone thinks that, then yes, you would be retarded. If you don't think that, then you aren't retarded and I'm not referring to you. It's the same as hating Obama because he's Muslim

blackclouds: Obama I like

Coffrey: Hmm, curious, I'm not a democrat and I'm supporting a former Republican candidate, now libertarian candidate for president. Explain to me again how I'm oozing democrat/liberal

Yeah, there might two sides of the equation, I agree, conservative and liberal. Except neither party follows conservative or liberal policies or agendas. Wait, I take that back, the tea party might be legitimately conservative, but you see how they act. If you notice, most of the time, anything that passes can be liberal or conservative or whatever, but if you notice, it helps corporations or big donors who give to both parties. The reason I call you a political hack is because you are locked and stocked behind the Republicans, no matter what. You have the worst Republican candidate that they have had in many decades and yet you're still behind him. Why? Because there's an R in front of his name. That's political hackery. And yeah, I'm liberal, I don't make any bones about it. But when it comes to an issue that has two legitimate sides, I can respect the conservative position. Except we don't have those kinds of issues now, we have issues like "Can non-forcible rape abortions be covered by insurance companies?" or "How long should we incarcerate pot smokers?" or "How much should we cut social and welfare programs and how much of a tax cut should we give corporations?"

I don't claim to be an expert, I only claim to not have a bias for either side, I care not for republicans or democrats, but I have more of an aversion to republicans because of their preference to buck responsibility and to take people's rights away, which I don't think is even a liberal position

Coffrey: Well you're right in the sense that I haven't made whole posts about how bad Obama is because you assholes have it covered. I haven't seen anyone on here, any regulars anyway, carry Obama's water like you conservatives carry Romney's water, that's why. But I say all the time, Obama speaks great, but governs horribly. Obama is essentially Bush 2.0, with all his policies. Anything good he's done, he's willingly watered it down because he's a scared little bitch, which means he has no convictions and thus is at the mercy of whims, either by his lack of backbone or by his campaign donors, chief among them is possibly the worst corporation on corruption, Goldman Sachs. So yet again, how can you say I'm a political hack when I think and say all of that? Come on, salve, don't reinforce the idea that conservatives don't actually listen to facts because they have a liberal bias

Why would I lie about voting for Obama? The argument could be easily made "Well he's pretty bad, but Romney is worst so to prevent Romney from winning, I'll vote for Obama" really easy. So why don't I say that and instead say I'm voting for Johnson?

Outbackjack: The Bush brand is highly toxic and it is in the republicans best interest to keep him out of sight.

Its a bit like that mad uncle that everyone has to put up with at Xmas.You tolerate him in a small circle but dont dare invite to a huge event like your daughters wedding because you can guarantee his presence will embarrass the hell out of you.