“He has always been a gutbucket populist egalitarian. That was, in part, a Texas rebellion against the starchy Greenwich, Conn., aristocracy of his family, but it was also hardwired, a consequence of Bush’s native predilection for studying people rather than books”

I DID manage to finish the article, but that phrase, “gutbucket populist egalitarian” almost made me lose my breakfast. Bush? Egalitarian?

See for yourself, if you have the stomach:
http://www.time.com/time/press…..47,00.html

Likening Bush’s bearing in Baghdad to his bearing as he strutted about the aircraft carrier is not an act of admiration; it’s a clear reminder to the reader that Bush’s smugness and cocky [sic] swagger is totally unrelated to his actual grasp of the situation.

Yes, the original song was “someone left the cake out in the rain.”

Digby was punning when he said “someone left the cakewalk out in the rain.” Got a chuckle out of me.

Remember? Iraq was supposed to be a cakewalk?

“[President Bush,] you were in Baghdad for six hours. You weren’t even in the real Baghdad. You were in the Green Zone. That’s like going to the Olive Garden and saying you’ve been to Italy.”
—Jon Stewart

Joe, you are a miserable, self-loathing shit-stain not fit to lick Kerry or Murtha’s shoes clean. If you had even a small particle of honor you would be using your “lofty” position to help your betters END THE DAMN WAR rather than further fluff Bush’s hummer.

How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

And no, I don’t feel better now, because while I typed this, more people have needlessly died in Iraq. Wrap your head around that reality motherfucker.

Or did you all just skip these paragraphs?:

“And so, a mystery: How is it possible—with 2,500 U.S. solders dead, no discernible progress on the ground and a solid majority of the public now agreeing that the war in Iraq was a mistake—for the Democrats to seem so bollixed about the war and for the President to seem so confident? A good part of it is flawed strategy. Democrats keep hoping that the elections can be framed as a referendum on the Bush policy, and Republicans keep reminding the public that elections are a choice, not a referendum. Last week, in the opening salvo of the 2006 congressional elections, Bush and Rove were reminding voters that the choice would be between the Democratic strategy of “cut and run” and the Republican war against Islamic “fascists,” as the President called them. It was clear, yet again, that Bush and Rove would surf the complexities of the conflict for their political advantage. “See, Iraq is part of the global war on terror,” the President said. “And if we fail in Iraq, it’s going to embolden al-Qaeda types.” Rove helpfully added in a New Hampshire speech that al-Zarqawi wouldn’t have been nailed if we had pulled out of Iraq, as Representative John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, recommended last winter.

Rove’s assertion was scurrilous and inaccurate. Al-Zarqawi had been eliminated through terrific intelligence work and air power, neither of which required a substantial U.S. ground presence in Iraq. The President’s line of attack was accurate but lethally incomplete. His poorly planned invasion of Iraq created the atmosphere that enabled al-Qaeda—and the local sectarian conflicts—to flourish. Iraq had become, in small part, a war against al-Qaeda; for the most part, it is a local sectarian conflict—because of American incompetence. If the President had not allowed General Tommy Franks to “cut and run”—that is, to close his headquarters and begin drawing down the U.S. military presence on May 1, 2003, the very same day as Bush’s first cockpit stunt—the U.S. forces might have had a better chance to contain the insurgency. But those are complicated arguments to make in a political campaign. And even the wildest accusations, like Rove’s disgraceful Murtha gambit, will force a candidate onto the defensive.”

I’d say Klein dug his claws into Bush et al. pretty deep there. He bashes the Dems as well for not getting it together and presenting what he considers a “responsible” alternative to Bush, but… come on! You all really need to read more than just the first two paragraphs of a 5 ‘graf story.

Think about it – the manipulation, the arrogant disregard for truth, the preference for trivial games over the actual professional demands of their job – all of it wrapped up in their ability to get on tv. I think Watergate, and Woodward and Bernstein’s resultant fame, attracted to many of the wrong people to journalism. Our entire national debate has been subordinated to cleverness and petty, partisan end games.

Getting Bush isn’t fun because Bush is the guy the too many of the press corps wants to be – entitled by birth, arrogant, able to get away with being arbitrary and abusive and powerful. He validates them.