As many Republicans continue to buck their party’s nominee and nominate Vice President Harris for the White House, calls are mounting for former President George W. Bush to denounce former President Trump.
The Harris campaign has touted that more than 200 Republicans have endorsed the vice president, including former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and many former Trump insiders. It also includes former vice president to Bush, Dick Cheney.
…
He noted that Bush is “apparently above such petty concerns,” pointing to recent reports that said he is not endorsing anyone in the race for the White House. Multiple outlets reported that Bush’s office released a statement that said: “President Bush retired from presidential politics years ago.”
“But it doesn’t work that way. When your country calls, you can’t just roll it over to voicemail because you don’t want to deal with it, especially when you are an elder statesman like an ex-president. Patriotism is for life,” Truax wrote, noting that former President Jimmy Carter said he hopes he can live to cast his vote for Harris.
Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
Man who subverted democracy with the help of his brother and the supreme court…is okay with another man subverting democracy. Startling. ¬_¬
Honestly, it’s much more troubling the amount of people who seem to have come round to ‘George is just a bumbling buffoon but a great guy really’.
Is it just time? Wishful thinking? Or Trump making his presidency seem less destructive - even though Bush was waaaay worse for the planet as a whole? (Obviously that latter part would no doubt be trumped if he actually gets a second term)
People seemed to forget what a ghoul Mitt Romney is too, the instant he denounced Trump that one time. It’s weird, right? And, just because it’s always relevant: Dick Cheney can fuck all the way off.
Do you think it could be because there was some semblance of following the rules when those fuckers were being awful (even if those were rules they changed so recently the ink was still wet, ahem definitionoftorture ahemhem), compared to the outright lawlessness of this lot?
Getting Cheney’s endorsement isn’t the flex folks seem to be acting like it is. “Huzzah, a lesser devil supports us instead of a literal fascist”
For real. I will never understand it, myself. I can’t imagine anyone is going to change their vote because he slithered in here and rasped “Haaaaarriiiiiiiissssssss”. He didn’t do anything that required a spine, he’s still a despicable old bastard.
deleted by creator
I think a lot of people have decided Dick Cheney was the main person responsible for the W administration’s crimes.
Yeah, there’s a lot of contradiction and apologetics when it comes to Bush. He can’t be an evil, cunning, crafty, bumbling ignoramus, all at once. He’s definitely an idiot who knowingly employed some evil people. In my mind, that makes him pretty awful, but some people feel differently for some reason.
Honestly, it’s much more troubling the amount of people who seem to have come round to ‘George is just a bumbling buffoon but a great guy really’.
Didn’t you see when he gave Michelle Obama a candy from his pocket? He’s just America’s sweet ol’ grandpa.
/S
I really liked how Jon Stewart addressed Cheney’s endorsement.
He stared directly at the camera and said “Fuck off Cheney.”
Same goes for Bush. FUCK OFF BUSH. It would be an insult to have Bush or Cheney on “our” side. Goddamn war criminal, money grubbing, pieces of shit. Rest in piss when the time comes Bush.
Dude keeps an office staff to respond to this formally but claims to have retired from politics? Bullshit. If I have a political staff, I have not retired from politics. I want him to denounce, and I would still tell him to fuck off, so that everyone’s on the same page.
Condemning Trump doesn’t make anyone on anyone’s side. It means they’re NOT on Trump’s side.
It’s a statement about how much Trump dominates political and social discourse that people think the Democratic party is the “anti-Trump” party.
Obviously people like Cheney are against Trump, but that doesn’t mean that everyone that is against Trump is a Democrat. It usually just means they’re relatively rational.
Wonder if it would even change any remaining independents or right wing people still on trump.
GW was a useful idiot puppet like Reagan and they tried to make trump.
Dick Cheney already endorsed Kamala, he doesn’t need to stick his hand back up GWs ass and make him say something again.
Even if he did, it doesn’t mean hes against what trump wants just mad his dad’s buddy Dick Cheney isn’t in power.
Like, the only positive of trump was getting rid of Cheney. Of course Cheney doesn’t like trump
I think that dubya would make a difference with older voters. Also, Fuck off Dick Cheney.
I’m a bit more optimistic about Dick nowadays. I imagine father and daughter share similar views, so as Liz Cheney has evolved as a politician, her father probably adopts more of her views as well.
Sadly, the Bush family doesn’t have a similar family figure. But I doubt it would make much difference anyways, considering things like https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/17/449415843/pathetic-trump-bush-spar-over-9-11-remarks-maybe-neither-will-be-the-nominee and the fact that Bush didn’t vote for a presidential candidate back in 2016 are already old news.
So fucking ridiculous Dems are going after Republican endorsements like this while still ignoring the left wing of their own fucking party.
We don’t need republican votes if we give Dem voters what they want to vote for.
It’s just the donors want the same things as republicans, so moderates will always go right for donors
We need to start treating votes as the important part
We don’t need republican votes if we give Dem voters what they want to vote for.
The elector college is based on States, not population.
Right…
And if you want to see someone flip red states more than Obama, you have to go back to FDR…
Progressive campaigns flip red states
We have literally over a century of election data. We know what works.
It’s just not what the wealthy do saying to both parties want.
Are you still confused about anything
People actually on the left only have one choice, people in-between have two, no matter how progressive you go young people (who tend to be on the left) don’t vote (we also have data from other countries to prove that they don’t vote even when there’s parties that actually want to work for them).
So, where do you think there’s more votes to be gained?
People actually on the left only have one choice,
If they vote…
You know the most common reason?
Both parties are too similar.
If the party moves left, that disappears and Dems donate, up and down the ballots.
But we don’t do that, when it happens the party fights it as much as possible
So, where do you think there’s more votes to be gained?
The incredibly large segment of possible voters who think both parties are shit and don’t fight thru red state voter suppression regularly…
But will turn out for a charismatic dem who runs a progressive campaign…
Neoliberal moderates tho. Can barely beat trump…
You legitimately don’t understand the difference between a campaign like Obama’s to Biden and Hillary’s?
If they vote…
This is a good lesson. My understanding is that the fewest people ever voted in 2016, when the GOP won, and the most in 2020, when the GOP lost.
So definitely need to encourage eligible folks to get out and vote, and it goes without saying that a platform that attracts voters is a must.
You legitimately don’t understand the difference between a campaign like Obama’s to Biden and Hillary’s?
One key difference is that Obama was first elected in 2008, before the GOP’s plan in 2010 with redistricting was able to take effect - https://billmoyers.com/story/in-2010-republicans-weaponized-gerrymandering-heres-how-they-did-it/
(I know he did win re-election 2012, but he had the incumbent advantage back then and the GOP had only had two years to take advantage at that point, instead of the six years of experience they had later in 2016.)
Neoliberal moderates tho. Can barely beat trump…
Obama was one of these. Remember how in 2008 he wasn’t for gay marriage, but he eventually supported it after his views “evolved” while he was in office?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/evolution-obamas-stance-gay-marriage-flna763350
Obama’s Wednesday announcement was a reversal of his 2004 view that “marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
The other thing worth pointing out, is that while record numbers voted in 2020, there were some who voted an otherwise straight GOP ticket but for Biden-Harris, as per https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/16/split-ticket-voting-texas-republicans/
Also check out these charts https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/10/PP_2020.10.21_split-icket-voting_0-01.png from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/10/21/large-shares-of-voters-plan-to-vote-a-straight-party-ticket-for-president-senate-and-house/
4% of voters split R/D. I can’t imagine anything more than a negligible amount were from Dems who voted for orange voldermort. Therefore, that 4% can be attributed to Republicans who voted for Biden.
So even with record turnout, the difference was small. 42 vs 38? Give that 4% back to the GOP and, with their Electoral College advantage, they’d have won in 2020.
All this goes to show that while you are correct about needing to encourage turnout, and keep ahold of the Dem voters, you’re wrong about not needing Republican votes.
Obama was economically right of Reagan.
Obama was economically right of Reagan.
Whut?!
I understand that the people you want the party to cater to don’t vote no matter the options presented to them (as is proven by every free elections in other countries, I know some people have a hard time understanding that other countries exist, but make an effort here) and that even if they did, gerrymandering and voter suppression makes it so they can’t flip their State.
A lot has changed since Roosevelt believe it or not.
Wait…
So you think we should ignore voters on the left unless they already want to vote D?
gerrymandering makes it so they can’t flip their State.
What does gerrymandering have to do with the electoral college?
Do you think they’re redrawing state lines?
Or do you just not know what that word means?
What does gerrymandering have to do with the electoral college?
Nothing directly, but it’d be naive to say it has no effect whatsoever.
Do you think they’re redrawing state lines?
I believe OC is talking about gerrymandering within a State to ensure all of that’s State’s electoral college votes go to the GOP.
Or do you just not know what that word means?
So normally gerrymandering doesn’t apply since the electoral votes in a State are awarded based on the popular vote within the State - so if the GOP wins Texas 51% to 49% for Dems, all of Texas’s votes go to the GOP.
Gerrymandering could only has a direct effect in States like Nebraska and Maine, who distribute part of their votes by congressional district.
Where it might have an indirect effect is when people get confused and end up voting in the wrong place because of redistricting. Combine that with stricter rules on voter id and voting in general, and it’s easy to see how some votes can be justified as being thrown away.
What are they expecting out of not voting? Do they not care if Trump or Harris win? I just really don’t get why you wouldn’t vote here.
There also were enough people who didn’t vote for or against the NSDAP because they also disagreed with the other parties… It’s not about voting for a party you agree with, it’s about voting for the party with which you agree more / disagree less than with the other parties.
Well, it’s roughly based on population, but the inclusion of two electoral votes for each state “just for being a state” tips the scale in favor of voters in less urban, more rural states.
The extreme left is much smaller than the center. And they already have most of those lefty votes.
It would be stupid to alienate centrists over leftists if you are looking to win.
The “extreme left” isn’t what I’m talking about
I’m talking about 08 Obama who would be a down the middle.moderate everywhere else being our most “extreme left” president and flipping a shit ton of red states blue
Healthcare and 99% of the progressive platform is what the average American wants. Who the fucl.is calling that “extreme” except trumpets and Joe Biden level “moderates”?
When Obama was running for President in 08, he had to say he was against gay marriage, signal his approval of school vouchers because he was trying to appeal to people in the center and republicans who were very, very, very unhappy with Bush.
And the rightward march continues.
When Obama was running for President in 08, he had to say he was against gay marriage
Who is telling you things?
And why do you keep listening to them?
And yes, when we run a progressive campaign, we lose a very very tiny amount of “moderates” the “Puma” Clinton supporters from 08.
But we more than make up for them by gaining nonvoters, and yes, even Republicans will cross to vote for a progressive.
All the more reason to stop moving to the right when shown over and over again that’s a bad move for getting votes.
It’s just what donors want.
We’ve come full circle, I truly hope this helped you
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama publicly opposed same-sex marriage, advocating instead for civil unions that would provide similar legal rights to marriage. This stance was largely seen as a political decision influenced by the prevailing social and religious sentiments at the time, particularly within the black church community, which held significant opposition to gay marriage[1][3][4].
Obama’s position on same-sex marriage during the campaign was consistent with his statements at events like the Saddleback Presidential Forum, where he described marriage as a “sacred union” between a man and a woman[2][7]. Despite his public opposition, it was later revealed by David Axelrod, his former political strategist, that Obama privately supported same-sex marriage but chose not to express this publicly due to political considerations[1][4].
Obama’s stance began to evolve publicly after his election, culminating in his endorsement of same-sex marriage in 2012, following Vice President Joe Biden’s public support for it[3].
Citations: [1] Axelrod: Obama opposed gay marriage for politics - The Hill https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/232272-axelrod-obama-opposed-gay-marriage-for-politics/ [2] See Obama’s 20-Year Evolution on LGBT Rights | TIME https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/ [3] Obama: I didn’t lie about same-sex marriage - POLITICO https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/barack-obama-gay-marriage-david-axelrod-115107 [4] David Axelrod: Barack Obama Misled Nation On Gay Marriage In 2008 https://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/ [5] Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_campaign [6] FACT SHEET: Obama Administration’s Record and the LGBT … https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/09/fact-sheet-obama-administrations-record-and-lgbt-community [7] Campaign Issues and Candidate Positions https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/instructors/setups2008/campaign-issues.html [8] Barack Obama: Campaigns and Elections | Miller Center https://millercenter.org/president/obama/campaigns-and-elections
So you think incremental progress is the opposite of progress?
That’s like saying Obamacare makes him anti-M4A…
But thanks for explaining why you believe that, I genuinely couldn’t even come up with a guess.
You went from Obama won because of his strong left-wing appeal to Obama won because of incremental progress after getting his stance on gay marriage in 08 wrong.
While you’re moving your goal posts, please consider that Kamala is also doing the whole incremental progress thing.
🥰
Healthcare and 99% of the progressive platform is what the average American wants.
Those are hardly the only issues before voters today.
Who … is calling that “extreme” except trumpets and Joe Biden level “moderates”?
I don’t see any “moderates” calling that extreme. I’d say it’s just the former.
I’m talking about 08 Obama who would be a down the middle.moderate everywhere else
Agreed.
flipping a … ton of red states blue
In other words, this is a winning strategy!
We don’t need republican votes if we give Dem voters what they want to vote for.
So this is a bit insightful,
We need to start treating votes as the important part
Of course that’s important, but keep in mind how the Electoral College disadvantages States with large populations and gives greater weight (on a per-vote level) to those voting in smaller states. https://www.vox.com/2021/1/11/22224700/electoral-college-joe-biden-donald-trump-bias-four-points-one-chart
So there’s a need to win over voters in particular states, hence the parties shifts to the “center”.
“But it doesn’t work that way. When your country calls, you can’t just roll it over to voicemail because you don’t want to deal with it, especially when you are an elder statesman like an ex-president. Patriotism is for life”
It’s almost like he didn’t want to be and shouldn’t have been president or something.
George Bush Jr. has the most impressive ability to sound like the dumbest motherfucker in the room always. He should also be tried as a war criminal.
He sure can dodge a shoe though
He did look pretty cool landing a fighter jet on that carrier before those embarrassing photos where he briefly thought the Iraq war ended with Saddam being deposed, too.
He did complete his mission though, getting Saddam for daddy. The rest of the wars were just to allow his industry friends to siphon money from the tax payers, which they intended to go on as long as possible.
Dick Cheney: Ok, I’ll clean up the mess.
Narrator: He said “up” but meant “out”.
yes clean out the mass, clean up the mess, potato, potato
if only we all could retire from politics.
Can the Democratic Party stop openly fantasizing that it is the Republican party? Please?
Edit: don’t be mad at me y’all. You DVn MFs are gonna pretend you knew this was a bad sign later on when it turns out I’m right so why not skip ahead to that part now?
You can be ahead of the curve for once
Nope, the Dems goal is to try and scoop up all the disenfranchised Republicans. They understand that the modern GOP is in their death throes, so they’re happy to shift the Overton Window further right. Republican policy is what their donors want anyway, it’ll be a lot easier to push when they’re a coalition of conservatives and centrists.
The goal for leftists is to start organizing grassroots campaigns for Senators and Representatives now, so that once the Dems have finished feasting on the ghouls’ corpse, we’re ready to fill the power vacuum.
The Democratic party is what it has always been… progressive conservative. What we’re seeing now is that this is much closer to the ideology of traditional Republicans than what the Republican party has become today.
What we’re seeing now is that this is much closer to the ideology of traditional Republican
Right? They’re actively courting moderate Republican voters, but those voters are to the right of right-wing Dem voters. At the same time, Dem Party is punching down at the left side of its own “big tent”, giving in to none of the demands asked.
So far the only thing on offer from Dem party to leftists is derision and shame, and while shaming (and Trump fears) might work short term, if the Dem party won’t budge the leftists will simply leave. Then one morning “moderate” dem voters will wake up to find themselves on the “extreme” left of the party they thought they knew.
Well, we know R and D have flipped sides of the ideological scale before… maybe when the current R self-destructs, actual progressive liberals and socialists can claim the moniker for themselves….
That’s not what’s happening here.
All of this is the Republican party dissolving. The “old guard” GOP is splitting from the MAGA-fascists, explicitly and publicly, not just in whispers behind closed doors or off the record and anonymously.
Imagine if the Republican party had split like this two years ago, actually forming up and running a “third party” candidate (I put that in quotes, because in this hypothetical, there would definitely be a fight about whether Trump or the postulated “old guard” candidate would be the “third party” one) in addition to Trump and (at the time) Biden. Splitting the vote like that would have the same effect, putting a Democrat back into the office of President, unless the combination would end up with no candidate reaching 270 electoral votes.
The same thing is essentially happening now, except there’s no third party. Instead of fielding their own candidate, that old guard is throwing in behind Harris. The message being sent is “That’s how bad we think Trump is, so bad that we’re endorsing the Democrat.” It’s permission for life-long Republicans - who have been well-taught to stay in line behind R candidates - to reject fascism.
Of course the Democratic party is going to support and amplify the GOP falling to pieces, and rejecting fascism is a good thing.
That’s not what’s happening here.
I don’t see why we can’t both be right. The R’s are fracturing and the Democratic party is moving rightward as it absorbs the moderate Rs.
Of course the Democratic party is going to support and amplify the GOP falling to pieces.
Yes, they do. My larger point (mentioned in a separate comment) is, after the dust of the election settles, which voters will the Democratic party cater to? They aren’t just gonna let those modeRate voters sit and spin, right? Leftwing Democrats are democrats too and they’ve been hoping for a chance to pull the party left. Things important to leftists are kinda getting ignored this campaign in favor of hard right Dems, and leftists of course must vote for kamala and hope to use their voices, after getting her elected, to try n move the party left.
For leftists, watching the DNCs embrace voters to the right of the entire Democratic party is like watching that dream die in real time.
I’m sure there’s some principles we can jettison or some vulnerable minority we can throw under the bus that can get him to come around.
Make a decision deciderman.
But he can. He has enough privilege that it doesn’t matter to him who gets elected. He’s not a good person.
Bush is doing exactly what he should be doing, hiding like the war criminal he is. The only thing is he has a ranch in Texas instead of a hole in the ground like Saddam.
deleted by creator
The Cheney controlling him already put in his bid, so he just has to power on his brain long enough to do the same. Only a matter of time. Just give it a minute.
I think being openly endorsed by the collective that laid the groundwork for Project 2025 undermines how serious you are about it. But that is just me. Harris is fine with Dick Cheney and the GOP. The shift right continues. Bush is a piece of trash.
IMO he’s going to do it, just a matter of when.
