Despite the fevered imaginations of some, it was fair to say Bush wasn't going to hang around for more than eight years. Ol' Hosni did for thirty.

But - way to go Egyptians!

@2 Omar Suleiman is not president of Egypt at this moment. You cannot change my moment of inspiration.

You saying we should've protested until Bush handed the White House to *his* vice-president?

Hush, don't give the tea party any ideas.

Wow, that's exactly what I thought when I heard he resigned!

(Sorry to have been rude, Jen - I do share the inspiration, but encourage you to resist drawing conclusions a bit longer. What I've read convinces me Mubarak waited to step down until the military told him the moment was ripest for them to take over as heroes. My sense is that the Egyptian people are in no less danger today under overt army control than they were yesterday under disguised army control. Let's not call triumph just yet.)

You could have done it in 2004, but you put up flip-flopper John Kerry.

That's why we had 8 years of solid rule by Bush...and we loved it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1_NhnXMC…

Jen,

I dare you to step out of your liberal enclave and travel to the middle of red-state America and try this.

In fact, I double dare you.

Of course, first you will have to remove your foot from your mouth.

NO WAY, We were too busy making fun of bush and not doing anything to do anything, Think back to that time, it was all Bush jokes and rolling over for "terrorism".

We could have, if he had declared a permanent state of emergency and stayed in office longer than constitutionally allowed. But he didn't; he was voted in fairly and squarely (even went through the courts, which made it legal whether you liked it or not) and left office at his appointed time. What basis would there have been to protest? Forcing leaders out of office is a last resort after legal means fail (not after you don't like the perfectly legal conclusions that don't go your way).

And it still would have taken 30 years.

And some of us tried. Thanks for joining us in the streets.

@10 Bush was not a popular president. You didn't have to be in an enclave to see that.

@12 The claim that Bush was elected "fairly and squarely" in 2000 is wildly revisionist history.

The closest anyone came to doing that was the dude who threw his shoe at Bush, and that guy weren't no American.

But hey, Twitter wasn't that big in 2004, so . . .

@16: Like I said, just because you didn't like the outcome doesn't mean it wasn't legal. Maybe not fair and square, but legal.

@8 Totally. I agree that one man stepping down in Egypt does not ensure reform, and assuming it does could be dangerous. It's just the symbolism of the many over the one that I'm celebrating. And knowing someone on the ground, and seeing her personal transformation, is powerful.

Not without the army, we couldn't.

As somebody who marched against Bush and Bush-era policies many times, no, I don't think we could have done this. Bush was a disaster, but he was still reelected in 2004 and left at the end of his second term like he was supposed to.

What? Come on. I know the courts played a questionable role in his election in 2000, but his victory in 2004 was admittedly solid. We voted, he served his terms, now he's gone. America moves forward, now we have Obama, the democratic process survives.

I'm glad you're inspired, but come on.

@18 No, you equated "fairly and squarely" with legal, which is a certain stretch.

Even the right-wing crazies on Free Republic who are suggesting today that this be done to Obama are being slapped down by their own kind. Our Constitution works. Sometimes we get shitty leaders, but we don't have to have month-long street brawls that shut down the whole country to get them out of office after 30 years. Grow up, Jen. There's a lot of shit wrong with this country, but we're pretty lucky to have stability and a regular chance to change course electorally

Jen,

Bush was unpopular? OK I'll indulge you in that, but that does not further your ridiculous claim that people would rise up to over throw him in favor of Cheney.

You must really enjoy the taste of your own foot.

No, no, and no. This is the stupidest thing I have ever read from a Stranger writer, and really expect more from Ms. Graves.

We have a system in the United States that disallows what happened in Egypt with respect to leaders serving just about forever. We do have free and fair elections, and while we complain about fraud and intimidation in pockets of the country, it is not nearly as widespread as it was in Egypt.

We don't ban political parties from participating (although some will say that the individual state rules for qualifying to appear on the ballot amount to as much).

Ours is a system of ideas, and a system that allows anyone with the passion and know-how to enter elective office. People may be jaded by aspects of our government and political process, but we cannot, and should not, ever clamor to the streets and demand our elected - elected - leaders step down.

Bush being there for eight years was a result of poor campaigning in 2000 (Gore should have been able to take N.H.), and a shitty candidate in 2004. It was poor organization, and the attitude of just giving up, that gave him six years of a Republican controlled Congress.

What we could have done was a better job of ensuring checks and balances. Instead, we had low participation in areas that should be high Democrat performing. But to even suggest that maybe, just maybe, we should have taken to the streets and shut down the country because we didn't like what we elected is complete bullshit, and as anti-American as any terrorist out there.

Stick to art reviews.

What 27 said.

You guys!

"We could have done this to Bush, you guys."

What a terribly sexist thing for Ms. Graves to say.

I would expect more from a far-left liberal at a free alternative Weekly.

Ms. Graves does not value the political input of women when it comes to political uprisings. Shocking.

Yup, that might be the dumbest Slog post of all time.

I marched in just about every anti-war, anti-Bush protest in Seattle from 2003 to 2007, and I remember us protestors being snidely mocked in august publications like The Strangler.

Where were you?

Wow, this is shockingly ignorant.

Interestingly, I saw a link just yesterday to a story about Tea Partiers encouraging just what you're suggesting. Something tells me you would object in that case.

Dumbest Slog post of all time? I don't know - she's got some pretty stiff competition there. But it's certainly the dumbest thing I've read in a long, long time.

The problem is that Bush would use Law Enforcement and the Courts to clear any central meeting place. If the cops, local, state and Federal refuse direct orders to do the mass arrest and clear areas that would had resulted in many deaths, then a Egypt like protest in the US could had a chance. Combine with work stoppage and shutdown of the US economy.

I definitely think that people power (mass mobilizations in the streets/civil disobedience/disruptions of business as usual/creation of alternatives) can be successful in the USA, but I think we also have to acknowledge the differences (cultural, historical, religious, ideological, etc.) between ourselves and other countries, in thinking about how to create change, and how such things have failed to create change (for example, we failed to stop the Iraq war, even with millions of the streets). We can have millions of people in the streets, but without them doing something more substantial than holding signs and chanting, and without them doing it for longer than one day (the way protests usually go in this country), it doesn't do enough to disrupt business as usual. If we could get our shit together enough to have general strikes and other types of actions that disrupt corrupt political and business practices on an ongoing basis -- a campaign, instead of a day of protest here or there, on a mass scale -- we might be able to begin to affect things in the government.

But even so, I think a lot of things need to be addressed before folks could really do anything like this...the fact that while we may not be the same as Egypt, we have a massive military apparatus that would have no problem with defending its own interests, let alone the interests of whatever administration, in putting down really troubling dissent. That we are a country with a history of cultivated amnesia about how injustice and oppression has been part of our fundamental development and existence as a nation. That we have such a skewed definition of politics (compared to other countries) that a centrist like Obama can even be called a socialist or extreme lefty without the accusers being able to be laughingly dismissed. That we live in a country with plenty of resources to provide health care and shelter to everyone, and we don't do so because there is this refusal to believe ourselves a true community, where such a thing would be common sense (as in most European countries).

All this is not to say I think a people-powered mass revolution can't do anything or create massive change here. Just that we have to think of what would work in this country, with all its specific characteristics. I don't think the USA is exceptional, just different, and thinking about how to create change here (as opposed to just thinking we can have a one-size fits all version of revolution) seems crucial, if we're ever really going to address the major issues -- militarism, poverty, unaccountable power, etc. -- we have to, if we really want a better country.

You guys! Stick to anonymous commenting, and you'll go far!

Being inspired when hundreds of thousands of people peacefully come together to ask for better government is human.

Nobody wants Suleiman. Your Cheney references are birdbrained.

For those who are asking where the fuck was I when protests were going on, you are right. (I never mocked any protesters, for the record.)

The times to take to the streets (which is not inherently a barbaric or "clamorous" act, as @26 suggests—how do you suppose we might get reform on checks and balances if voting is not working? What is gained by demonizing peaceful organizing in public spaces that our rightfully ours to occupy?) would have been two: One, when the Supreme Court declared Bush president; two, when Bush declared an illegal war.

We don't have free and fair elections as there are effectively only 2 parties that collude at the party leadership level to maintain the status quo. The reality is that the dems and repubs are essentially the same
- both support these senseless, unprovoked wars
- both support repressive regimes (such as Egypt before today, Saddam ...)
- both support restriction of our rights via the Patriot Act
- both support torture as a means to an end
- both support the deprivation of legal and Geneva Conv. rights to detainees
- both support the expansion of the executive powers beyond the constitution and reason
- both collude to make the presidential debates unchallenging and predetermined
- both follow the lead and dollars of big business at the expense of the citizenry

I think Jen's comment has the right idea but is wrong to focus on Bush. We should be inspired by the citizens of Egypt to peacefully turn back the US Gov to the will of the people.

Our presidents are constitutionally limited to 2 terms. Don't trivialize Egypt's struggle for democracy.

We did do this, with the 2008 elections. (Sure, Bush would have been gone anyway, but it was still a repudiation of his administration even if McCain was the direct loser.)

The jubilation of the Egyptians does remind me of how I felt on election night a couple years back. But imagine if Bush had been president four times as long and every election was fixed and not just the first one. So, like November 2008 times a thousand.

I'm concerned by that, Jen. No, we couldn't have done that to Bush. We have fair and open elections and a Constitution that, by default, we all agree to uphold, and it protects us from a dictator. In turn we agree that every 8 years, no matter how much of a saint or a fucking nitwit the President is, his or her term will end. No, we couldn't have done that. It would have meant throwing out everything that our democracy precariously balances upon. Egypt doesn't have that. One of the few choices for ridding the populace of a dictator, is revolution. When we start thinking that revolution is one of our few or last options, that will be the time to buy that one-way ticket to South America.

@37: Much to think about, thank you.

@39 -

The thing is that voting does work. The key is getting people to actually vote. The people who make the decisions are the ones who show up, and sometimes that's a frightening thought.

Now, I am in no way "demonizing" peaceful organizing in public spaces, and encourage it. The anti-war protests (which I took part in some) served as an opportunity for people to see that it wasn't just them that felt the way they did, and may have helped motivate people to actually go to the polls - because that's what we do in America.

That said, in 2002, leading up to the invasion of Iraq, our liberal base of Capitol Hill/U-District/Wallingford had a voter turnout of 40%. Sure, we were going to re-elect Jim McDermott, but what is the message that is being sent - we'll complain, and that's about it.

But we don't overthrow governments in this country. In fact, while just about everyone who has any respect for the law would agree that Bush v. Gore was improperly decided, and the votes were opposite of the traditional views of the respective justices, the U.S. Supreme Court is still the highest Court in the country.

But what that decision didn't do was say that GWB could be President for Life, or get all of his appointments, regardless of what the Senate believed.

So, I stand firm in my opinion that your belief that we could have protested for weeks in order to overthrow the government is anti-American.

@43 Which country in South America are you thinking of leaving for?

This post is more crackheaded than most of what Mudede posts. But Jen is absolutely right! We should have thrown out Bush and Cheney when we had the chance!

Jen,

Did you walk out in protest when Mr. Savage supported/endorsed what you called "an illegal war"?

Did you forgo your paycheck that week?

@45: The idea that revolution is anti-American demonstrates just how far (in the wrong direction) we have come.

@48: I was not working at The Stranger then, but if I had been, I should have. See my previous comment.

We are such pussies here.

We say the words, but our actions belie our words.

@45 for the Americans are Pussies proof.

Lots of good points. I'd like to bring up another angle. Doesn't anyone remember the WTO riots in 1999? Troops marching in the street! The US has much more firepower than Egypt could ever have. Any protests that get out of hand in the US are squelched quickly.

Jen @39, mind us your faithful readers - we may seem anonymous to you, but here on Slog our handles are no less authentic than the one that happens to be spelled "Jen Graves".

@26, I think you're wrong wrong wrong that we shouldn't clamor in the streets if we like, for any reason we like. But I do love the way you stick up for the glories of the framework we do have at hand.

@49 - Now this is just fun.

You may recall that the American Revolution had to do with our desire to have representation. At the time, the Parliament in Britain included no representation from the colonies, and the Monarch shat on the colonies at every turn. SO, we had a revolution in order to create the system, more or less, that we have now.

We don't have revolutions for revolutions' sake.

Again, we have an elected government, and over time it became even more representative of the people (direct election of Senators, women and African Americans able to vote), and we continue to make it better. And I will say that plenty of these changes came via protest.

But we don't topple our own government.

Also, on a separate point - you say we could have done "this" following Bush v. Gore - wrong. Democrats and hyper-partisans were pissed, and the general public not necessarily pleased, but there was no groundswell against Bush.

With respect to the Iraq War - again, there was not a groundswell against the Iraq War at the time. Protest after protest did little to move public opinion against the invasion. So, on a more technical level, you're also wrong.

@54 - I just re-read that...came out completely wrong. Protest - yes. Topple government? No.

Uprising is what we needed back then!

Like I said, you just called Americans Pussies.

Revel in your insight. But don't try to put the Genie back in the bottle, cause the stopper won't fit any more.

@55: "We don't topple our own government."

For me, the important word here is not "topple." The important words are "our own." You and I may simply disagree at what point representation becomes meaningless despite a representative system.

The other important word for me is "We." As in "there's stuff that we, as the civilized Americans we are, would never do such a thing." I'm not digging that. Maybe not what you intend, but that's where it's taking me.

@39 gloomy gus: Why not use real names, then? I don't know your name, although I do appreciate your reading.

@57 If I read you right, you're calling out a sense of convenient nostalgia I'm exhibiting here, and I take that critique to heart. It reminds me of David Bowie's line, "Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow." We (me very much included) are never far enough from comfort to get much done, it has seemed.

@59: Actually, I'm just taking the opportunity to roll in this bread.

@59 - I was partially wrong - we do topple our own government, and have an opportunity to do so on a regular basis. Via elections.

As for my use of the word "we" - I use it to mean "we" as Americans. We have a system of government and a constitution that we abide by. To not do so would be to institute chaos.

When we, as Americans, disagree with laws or parts of the constitution, we push to pass new laws, or to amend the constitution.

I believe that "we" as Americans can and do do things via the ballot box, which is what has made our country as strong as it is, and as (relatively) stable as it has been throughout history.

I suppose my question to you would be - do you support insurrection when a group disagrees with the administration? Would you support a Tea Party revolution in the United States?

Will seems to think that I'm saying Americans are "pussies", but he's only half-American. We are a strong nation, and that is because we don't change our government with violence, we do it with words. We do it by changing opinions and spreading ideas.

That is not to say it has always been peaceful, or that we are near where we can and should be, but it is an amazing system, complete with ways to peacefully change the government, more or less every two years.

Jen, @16:
Then how come multiple newspapers and universities recounted the Florida recount, and none ever found that Gore won? George W. Bush won, fair and square.

Jen @59, these *are* real names.

michaelp - "But to even suggest that maybe, just maybe, we should have taken to the streets and shut down the country because we didn't like what we elected is complete bullshit, and as anti-American as any terrorist out there."

Interesting, pro-authoritarian, Rovian argument.

You're a little naive if you think our system works just fine and it's the same kind of crap I hear from rightists who elevate Constitutionalism with a cap C above plain old constitutionalism. I'm not saying that we should've taken to the streets to remove Bush: the election of 2006 was definitely a mandate to check his authority and the Democrats utterly failed to act on that mandate. Obama failed to act on his mandate as well. So, the system is broken.

Notice that when the government acts extra-constitutional--as it repeatedly has and continues to exceed previous levels, we're supposed to work through the system. But when the people act extra-constitutionally, the government should squash those anti-American scum. That's not a social contract I am comfortable with.

"there was not a groundswell"-Ok, might as well not try then; move along, we're totally different. No lessons to learn here.

@ michaelp,

That's surely one reason I don't support an insurrection. Given the backward, sadistic, right-wing nature of our society, whatever replaced our current despicable government would be 1,000 times worse--a Handmaid's Tale-style neofascist theocracy more than likely.

like. :-)

@64 Amen.

@63 No, they really aren't.

Really, the current civic, moral and ethical collapse of our country can be traced back to two factors:

1) Upon attaining a certain point of material wealth for the population, our society reached inertia, where most people don't know or care what the government does

AND

2) We live in a conservative, far-right country, and even if people do become somewhat aware of the fact that our government regularly commits barbaric atrocities--torture, extra-judicial executions, wars of aggression, etc.,--the jingoistic, submoronic majority will agree with these actions and enthusiastically demand more.

@67, if we all had to post using the names on our ID cards, Slog comment threads would become simultanously more cautious and less able to seriously hash things out. This isn't Facebook, where future employers can examine our lives for flaws, after all. Handles let us speak our minds freely without fear of disapprobation based on a lowly "real world" social status.

That's not to say I don't admire you wanting to "make a name for yourself" as you - David Bowie always made sure we knew who was behind Ziggy Stardust after all.

@69 Mm-hmm.

@69 you mean you don't LIKE Windows Live or RealID?

Why not be a sheep like CPAC wants?

A blogger criticizing commenters for not using their real names is the Internet version of "I know you are but what am I".

gloomy gus @8 has it right, in my view. I'm with Aung San Suu Kyi when she says she doesn't want Burma to follow Egypt's path. She doesn't want the army in charge, even if it's on her side. "What we want is value change," she said. "Regime change can be temporary, but value change is a long-term business. We want the values in our country to be changed. We want a sound foundation for change... if these basic values have not changed, then one regime change can lead to another regime change and so on and so on." http://tinyurl.com/45mze72

@64 - notwithstanding your taking comments out of context, and attempting to twist them to fit what you're trying to say, the fact remains that we have a system. Some people don't like it. Some people clearly would prefer anarchy, or riots every time they disagree with the government, completely ignoring the fact that we elect that government.

But this remains the United States of America. This remains our constitutional republic. Overthrowing the government with force I would say is un-American, and I have no qualms saying that. You call it authoritarian and Rovian, and I completely disagree. Things don't move quickly, but they are what they are.

With respect to Obama - Obama did basically what he said he would do. People who are super-liberal that thought Barack Obama was going to be the liberal Jesus Christ of government weren't paying attention. He had always come off as a pragmatic, as someone who was more concerned with building coalitions around moderate ideas than ideology, and, aside from calling for a time-table on Iraq, was to the right of his main primary opponent. He came in to office, and pushed through a lot of legislation that was center-left, at best. Just what he said he would do.

Either way, when the government acts "extra-constitutional" (which I implore you to cite specific examples where the government has continued to act outside of the Constitution after the U.S. Supreme Court has told them otherwise), it is the right and duty of the people to get involved in the process, and create the change they seek.

It is further incumbent upon the people to stay involved, and be in it for the long haul. Otherwise, they shouldn't be surprised when things don't go their way.

We had overwhelming evidence our President had authorized war crimes (torture, pre-emptive war of aggression against a sovereign nation) and the infringement of our civil rights (warrantless wire-tapping) and overwhelming evidence that no one intended to hold him accountable for these crimes. We saw our government openly acknowledge for all to see that they considered the President above the law. If that's not a riotable offense, I don't fucking know what is.

EricaP @72, not only thanks for the nod, but SUPER THANKS for taking this to a whole 'nother level with Aung San Suu Kyi. She suggests that riot-led regime change is no substitute for the long-term business of value change. And she is so specific that the change she wants comes from a sound foundation in the rule of law and democratic institutions. Which, again, seems to be what you're on about too, michaelp.

What an interesting thread this became!

@76 I was protesting at his visit to UW last fall. The guy thinks it's ok to assassinate US citizens and permanently detain people, both without trials. He ain't my messiah by a long shot, Jack.

@77 Definitely an interesting thread!

@74 "Overthrowing the government with force." Nobody has used or promoted the use of force.

Bush V. Gore was the unconstitutional completion of a coup. that should have meant riots in the streets, and the titution-worshipping Teabaggers should have been out there too.

the invasion of Iraq was/is a war crime, as bad as the Phillipines. war was NEVER declared by congress as the constitution requires. that should have meant riots in the streets, and the titution-worshipping Teabaggers should have been out there too.

the criminal negligence by the bush administration of NOLA during Katrina meant the deaths of perhaps 2000 people (we never got an official count, did we?). that should have meant riots in the streets, and the constitution-worshipping Teabaggers should have been out there too.

No, Jen, absolutely wrong. And I say that as a die-hard liberal who despises everything Bush did or stood for.

The constitutional process worked. It led to an awful outcome. The constitutional process to correct that awful outcome was impeachment - of Bush, Cheney, and five members of the Supreme Court.

We, the voters, could have elected enough new members of Congress to ensure impeachment. But we didn't. End of story.

@81 - perfect!

@79 - I'm starting to confuse myself. I think I need to stop drinking before commenting.

The simple, verifiable facts are: The vote in Florida was in dispute. The governor of the disputed state was the brother of the Republican candidate. The issue went before the Supreme Court, a court where two of its members had been appointed by the father of the Republican candidate.

I truly fail to see how any reasonable person could fail to conclude that The Republican Guard stole the 2000 election in Florida, and as Florida went, so went the nation.

The Chairman of the Diebold corporation promised Bush Ohio in 2004. There were several counties in Ohio where more votes were cast for bush than were voters in those counties.

I truly fail to see how any reasonable person can believe that the regime of anti-president Bush had any legitimacy whatsoever. But we let him serve for eight years anyhow.

I remain very glad that anti-president Bush had the good sense to step down when the second of his two stolen terms expired. I hope he lives long and enjoys excellent health so that the next generation can make him pay for his crimes.

Jen's right. We didn't have to accept his illegitimate rule. We could have organized a general strike and shut down the country until The Republican Guard handed power over to the duly elected. We could have, we should have, and we didn't. Some of us are going to live long enough to have to answer for that once our grandchildren get born, grow up, and go to college.

I'm proud that I'll get to point to my archived writings from the period and say that my only shame is not having done more.

short version of @74 "Americans are pussies".

Yeah, good idea @83.

@85 wrong. Our left wing (aka Democrats) are slightly right of center. Our "moderates" are right wing. Our "conservatives" are extreme right wing.

Try traveling some time. Go to other countries.

You might learn something.

Did Jen Graves really just admonish us for using anonymous handles?

Slog has just replaced The Onion as my favorite comedy website. This place gets crazier every day!

@84 How did my "out of context" quotes distort what you said or color my response differently?

"Un-American" is so lazy, pedestrian and nationalistic...where to begin? Neither Jen nor I implied we wanted to take our AKs and Molotovs to the streets during the Bush years. Did the Egyptian people use force, michaelp? The title of the post was, "We Could Have Done This to Bush." You're not even being intellectually honest there.

I think your response to my questioning the validity of the system or the continual breach of social contract on the part of the political and financial elites in this country is lame and I wish you could do better. How was this country founded? By bloody revolution! Oh, yes, we don't topple our own government, indeed! Nothing you say justifies a People--that actual sovereign entity delineated in the US constitution--acquiescing to stolen elections (yes, 2000 and 2004) and the collateral of illegal wars. BTW, the US Supreme Court also was acting extra-constitutionally when it appointed Bush president. (I don't believe the USC is the sovereign either. I don't see labor unions or corporations mentioned in the constitution, yet they supposedly now have rights that aren't delegated to them.)

Also, have you read the excellent book by Sheldon Wolin, called Democracy, Inc? I recommend it.

You also claim that we still have a constitutional republic, which is a stretch when that constitution expressly prohibits a standing Army unless there is a declaration of war. This is an empire, I am sorry to say.

Re: Obama. (Interesting you never really defended the Democratic Congress of '06-'10, which was supposed to be our check on Bush--but impeachment and defunding the wars was off the table immediately. How's that for electoral change!) I never expected him to be Liberal Jesus and I am not surprised that his administration is simply Bush Lite, especially when he voted for Telco immunity and started appointing Clintonites during the transition. Actually, yes, wrt kinder, gentler warmongering Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama did what he said--and it has been a bloody awful mess.
But did people "have a seat at the table" in the healthcare negotiations or did PHRMA? Did we get to see those negotiations on CSPAN or did they take place in secret months before we learned that Obama personally bargained away the public option? Who wrote the bill? Did Obama campaign on assassinating American citizens without due process? Did he campaign on bringing in a "coalition" of corporate executives and people with neoliberal sympathies into his cabinet? Did he campaign on keeping prisoners permanently detained without due process through either the Geneva conventions or the US constitution? Did he campaign on destroying legitimate whistleblowers and the media organizations that disseminate information of US corruption? This is news to me.

@85--Ah, I see Seattleblues has taken to posting anonymously.

Um, we live in a democracy. We don't throw people out -- we vote them out.

Ok, Seattleblues, whatever you say.

True, we -could- do it, but we never would, because the majority of we prefer bitching while we get worked over, as we work on our restaurant reviews, our clever designs, our fab thighs, and our plans for a sunny retirement in Hawaii.

Not until 90% of us are pulling plows (because we ate all the oxen) and can't recharge our electronic reality-escape boxen will today's American Reamers get off their collective ass. And DC knows it.

Gus--

I say we overthrow Jen Graves. Not real names indeed. How does someone who works in a forum that relies upon reader commentary not understand the structure of that forum.

What the fuck ever

I'd like to point out that Bush "won" the first election by stealing it, the second by more or less a combination of long term planning,lies, subterfuge and manipulation that more or less fit within the accepted political rubric.

He probably could have hung onto control for another decade. Clearly despite the fact that he was the worst and least popular president ever we were unable to push him from the locus of power.

He had the advantage of having his fathers power structure behind him, he was able to frame and control discourse in the country, and he ratcheted up the fear level in the US, already a country of timid cowed consumers, to an unprecedented level.

It looks to me as though he accomplished everything on his (Cheneys") agenda, two very profitable long term foreign wars, a huge permanent spike in the price of oil, destabilized the middle class, and
stalled/killed healthcare reform.

What else was left to do that he needed the presidency for? Is there anything he needed to accomplish that could not be done more effectivley by proxy?

Oh, and oc course someone will say "Bush was just a pawn he had no part in the actuall blah di blah...."

Uh, no kidding, As stated above, the "bush agenda" is shorthand for the consortium of oil, military and moneyed interest that supported and benefited from having Bush in power.

And, without any resevervation on my part, I wish to add, that Bush and Cheney are criminals, whom should hang.

That is a goal we could focus on, he is slightly more vulnerable now.

I agree with Jens' sentiment, but , many of us tried to get him out of office, we failed. I'm not certain we could roust anybody. I remeber getting assualted by the Police here during the wto misisterials.
Which were peaceful. Weaponized teargas is no joke.

Rusty

One often overlooked quality in the Egyptian situation is the consequence of having an national Army of conscripts. Because so many ordinary folks had served their time in the Army they felt like there was a strong popular institution to fall back on.

I'm not trying to make excuses, but I don't think we have anything like that here.