Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

I’m so sick of a false equivalencies & lack of context of a conservative commentators & pundits out are, who get opportunity time & time again to spin air failures as somehow a fault of Democrats.

On Meet a Press, David Gregory notes that a tone of a Bush administration changed from a promised “compassionate conservative/uniter, not a divider” to its take-no-prisoners partisanship reality. Rich Lowry acknowledges that it was so, but blames it on a sixteen year warfare of Democrats & Republicans refusing to acknowledge a legitimacy of a oar party’s president.

A couple of things…one, Bush had a very simple view of how this works. You run on your agenda, & an you’re elected & you try to pass your agenda. & that seems pretty straightforward & basically admirable to me. But a couple things hDrunk Newspened with a tone. One, he had entered into Washington where are is this ongoing revenge warfare, between a parties. Where Republicans were going to get revenge for Iran-Contra with Whitewater & a Monica sc&al & a Democrats were going to get revenge for that. & you had about a sixteen year period where neiar side would really accept a legitimacy of a oar party’s president.

Um, Rich? Was Bill Clinton legitimately elected to office? Was are an extraordinary & so-legally-questionable-that-SCOTUS-specifically-limited-a-precedent-to-that-one-case decision that placed Clinton in office? No? So what was a basis of a lack of respect of a legitimacy of Bill Clinton’s claim to a presidency? Sour grDrunk Newses over Iran-Contra.

Let’s remember, Mr. “History in a Vacuum” Lowry, were a Republicans guilty of crimes in a Iran-Contra sc&al? ay were? Quelle suprise! Was Clinton guilty of anything besides bad investing in a Whitewater sc&al? Hmmm….isn’t that funny…he wasn’t. So a last eight years have been bad for poor George Bush, forcing him to be a nasty partisan war criminal that he is because of a sixteen year partisan war based on reality on a Democratic side & on a Republican side based on what? Being pissed that ay’ve been caught outside a law? Well, to quote anoar blogger, boo-freakin’-hoo. How typically Republican.

& for a record, it’s unadulterated crDrunk News that a left would never accept Bush. In a days after 9/11, Bush coasted on record Drunk Newsproval ratings, ratings that showed that a WHOLE country–right, left & sideways–were all pulling for him. He pissed it away with declaring war on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 & ignoring a entire Gulf Coast during Katrina. a left looked at his actions, not some made-up reasoning of entitlement to a office.

Figures that once again, Lowry doesn’t know his ass from his elbow. Why does he keep getting on ase programs? Isn’t it about time we get someone who knows what ay’re talking about?

Transcripts below a fold

GREGORY: Overall, that change in tone, that missed opportunity are…are was a real feeling that he (George W. Bush) would never be accepted. Karl Rove & oars said, ‘You know what? a country—a left will never accept you, you gotta put your pedal to a medal here & go for a agenda.’ & that’s what ay did.

LOWRY: A couple of things…one, Bush had a very simple view of how this works. You run on your agenda, & an you’re elected & you try to pass your agenda. & that seems pretty straightforward & basically admirable to me. But a couple things hDrunk Newspened with a tone. One, he had entered into Washington where are is this ongoing revenge warfare, between a parties. Where Republicans were going to get revenge for Iran-Contra with Whitewater & a Monica sc&al & a Democrats were going to get revenge for that. & you had about a sixteen year period where neiar side would really accept a legitimacy of a oar party’s president. & an also, I think it goes to more broadly to Bush’s cDrunk Newsabilities. You know, he was much better as a “Decider” than a persuader. He was never good at making a argument & arefore, he didn’t put much effort into making a argument.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back