Home / President’s Day the W Way

President’s Day the W Way

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

So today is President’s Day… which means, besides getting a well-deserved day off of work, that I’m supposed to be thinking about the men who have led our country since 1789. I decided to think about how other American presidents might have been different if they had been more like George W. Bush. Here’s a few ideas:

George Washington: “I cannot tell a lie… the Spanish chopped this tree down. Not only did the Spanish chop down this cherry tree, but they possess hundreds – if not thousands – of axes, ready to chop down all the freedom-loving American cherry trees. In fact, the Spaniards have tried to acquire yelllowcake ash wood, which they would use to build handles for axes of mass destruction. So the Spanish represent a threat to the American way of life, and must be stopped. I propose we send US troops to Spain to remove the King from power. Wait… what? The British are the ones who attacked us? And you think that we ought to be fighting them instead? But the Spanish have axes! Do you not understand the threat from Spanish axes? They could deploy those axes in 45 minutes against American cherry trees, and then where would we be? See, you just aren’t patriotic. Shut up, you liberal!”

Abraham Lincoln: “Four score and seven tax cuts ago, our fathers – no, not your fathers, you middle-class jokester; our fathers, us rich white guys from privleged families – brought forth on this continent a new economic structure, conceived in greed and dedicated to the proposition that rich men are created better than everyone else and should be allowed tax breaks to stay that way. Now we are engaged in a record budget deficit, testing whether this economy – or any economy so staggered to benefit the wealthy – can long endure… It is for us the wealthy rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who were born into privlege have thus far so shamefully advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from my tax cuts for the rich we take increased devotion to that cause for which my and Dick Cheney’s rich friends gave the last full measure of devotion — allowing us to rack up a $130 million war chest. We here highly resolve that the rich shall not be rich in vain, that this nation under God (no, not your God, silly… I’m talking specifically about my God) shall have a new birth of offshore incorporations, and that government of the people, by the rich, for our own benefit, shall not perish from the earth.”

Teddy Roosevelt: “Speak stupidly, and carry a big stick.”

Woodrow Wilson: “We must create a League of Nations, and use its resolutions to justify the invasion of another country. But when the League of Nations disagrees with us and says that a case for war has not yet been made, we should ignore and belittle it, taking great care to offend and alienate every other country on the planet.”

Franklin Roosevelt: “In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world… except in America if you want to critize me or my war effort, in which case we’ll brand you unpatriotic and encourage a climate in which you are intimidated into shutting your mouth. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — as long as it’s my God, and it’s the way that my evangelical friends and I say you should worship Him. The third is freedom from want. . . everywhere in the world. Because my tax cuts for the rich will mean that the rich will spend more, and that will trickle down to you! What? They’re not spending it, they’re offshoring jobs and incorporating in Bermuda instead? Shut up, you liberal! The fourth is freedom from fear. . . anywhere in the world. Unless you’re an American citizen whose politics or affliliations I don’t like… in which case, I’m gonna have Ashcroft use the Patriot Act to violate your privacy and make you afraid that you’re being watched or could be brought in for questioning at any time.”

Bill Clinton: “My father did not… have… diplomatic relations with that tyrant – Mr. Hussein.”

Powered by

About The Chronic Curmudgeon

  • Tom

    You are neither funny or have any comprehension of good, let alone great, political thought.

    Your beliefs are inspired by pure hatred of the man (George W. Bush). You are blinded to have even the most coherent thoughts, and everything you say should be taken as just rantings from a deranged political hack, who, along with most of the other eliteist liberals are just bitter and angry that the populus chose the conservative agenda over your worn out, tired one.

  • I found it funny, but I thought today was a day for exchanging presidents, so what do I know.

  • bhw

    that the populus chose the conservative agenda

    Um, no. It was *almost* a 50/50 split, with the so-called elitest liberal agenda getting more votes from the populous.

  • Tom

    Hey BHW, we have a Republican House and Senate. Most state houses and governorships are Republican.

    The state of the Democratic party is BAD.

    /evil me giggles with delight.

  • bhw

    Hey, Tom, you said, “Your beliefs are inspired by pure hatred of the man (George W. Bush)” not “Your beliefs are inspired by pure hatred of the House and Senate”.

  • Roland

    The country in general seems to have some pretty unhealthy feelings about Bush. It seems tha either you think he can do no wrong, or you could never be convinced tovote for him. The last poll I saw indicated that on 20 percent of the respondees were undecided, with 37 percent voting for him and 43 against.

    Bush is no evil mastermind. But to point out that he is a dim witted malaprop is not equivalent to hatred of the man. To point to the fact that many of his claims prior to the second Iraq war have not come to pass is not being blinded by rage.

  • Doug

    There is no such thing as “Presidents’ Day”! I can not believe you people are such morons! The holiday celebrated today is “Washington’s Birthday”. Do some research before you write a lame blog that attempts to be comedic. I can see now why you are blogging and not doing the comedy club circuit.

  • I can’t speak for Chris (whose entry I do find amusing,) but I don’t hate George Bush. I just dislike him. But, then, I tend to dislike sneaky people, period. So, a sneaky person who can affect our lives so drastically is bound to rub me the wrong way. If I had been old enough to be cognizant of Richard Nixon and all he was about, maybe I would have hated him. But, I don’t think so. Political figures seem too distant to get that emotional about.

  • Doug

    So then, Mac Diva, do you dislike Bill Clinton? I can’t think of a more sneaky person in recent memory.

  • At times I disliked Bill Clinton. For example, having the affair with Monica Lewinsky and then lying about it was stupid. A smart guy like him should have known better. I also didn’t appreciate his attack on my former prof Lani Guinier, which was filled with misleading information. His ‘welfare reform’ package caused needless suffering by throwing people off the rolls where there were no jobs available.

    However, I agreed with Clinton on policy issues much of the time. That is what matters most.

    Let’s raise another aspect of this. I tend not to love pols, even when I support them. The nature of politics in a money driven society is suspect in itself. But, it seems to me that extreme Right Wingers like David Flanagan do fall in love with the pols they support. He will dissemble about it, but the bottom line is that he will no more find fault with Shrub than he will sprout wings and fly. It is possible I am confusing a personality type (the cheerleader and sycophant) with a political type (conservative), but this almost sexual desire in regard to pols seems to be more common on the Right to me.

  • Tom: “The state of the Democratic party is BAD.”

    Here in California, it’s the other way around: The Democratic party of the state is bad.

    And it’s getting worse.

    Back in 2000 in what the L. A. Times called a “Devil’s Pact,” Democrats and Republicans got together and gerrymandered the state to create districts in which incumbents were all virtually guaranteed re-election. That locked in a legislature that’s 60/40 Democrat/Republican.

    That wasn’t too bad because taxes and budget items require a 2/3rds vote, so Californians have a bit of protection from predatory politicians.

    But now the Democrats are trying to change that: they’ve introduced a ballot initiative that would drop that 66.7% requirement to 55%. With the redistricting, if Proposition 56 passes, the Democrats will have total freedom to tax and spend with no controls.

    The problem isn’t the parties, it’s the politicians.

  • From Dictionary.com:


    n : a genus of trees of the family Salicaceae that is found in the northern hemisphere; poplars”

    So am I to understand that the majority of trees voted for the conservative agenda in 2000? 😉

    All kidding aside, thank you all for proving my point – that today is about thinking about Presidents. (It’s my personal belief that when the populace does so, they will realize that Bush is not a good one, but that’s my opinion, which I do have the right to have.)

    Was I trying to be funny? Perhaps, though it’s a matter of individual taste whether I was. I do find it interesting that none of you who criticized my post could think of any defense except to personally attack me. How about trying a logical, well thought out defense of Bush’s policies? Or is that too much to ask from a conservative? You all seem very good at personal attacks – on me, on Clinton, on the “elitist liberals” – but can you have a rational debate? Let’s give that a try, shall we?

    I’d remind you, by the way, that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000 – hard to win the popular vote if your agenda is “elite,” isn’t it? And there are many who believe that but for some shenanigans in Florida, Bush would have lost the electoral vote too. I’m not for re-hashing 2000 – what’s done is done – but at BEST Bush got in with less than 50% of the vote. That’s hardly a mandate for any agenda – left or right.

    Next time you want to talk about what the people “chose,” remember that the plurality of the people chose against Bush.

    Now… all that aside, can either of you (or better yet, another conservative out there who is more able to make a point without insulting their ‘opponents’) engage in a logical debate?

    (And you’re right… my post dealt largely in rhetoric. However, most people would be able to look at it and realize that I was making a tongue-in-cheek statement rather than putting my best arguments forward.)

  • Shark

    MD: “I also didn’t appreciate his attack on my former prof *Lani Guinie…”

    Surprised you didn’t write, “my former student…”


    You forgot to casually mention that you’re an American Indian African-American journalist lawyer who interned at Dallas Morning News, but EXTRA POINTS for slamming David Flanagan totally out of nowhere.

    Obsessive much?

    PS: Diva, you’re not Forrest Gump using a pseudonym, are ya?

  • Shark

    re. “…eliteist [sic] liberals are just bitter and angry that the *populus [sic] chose the conservative agenda over your worn out, tired one.”

    Um….Tom… um… Bush didn’t receive a majority of votes, ‘kay. You should know that; don’t you write most of his speeches?

    Tom’s Definition of the Day:
    Liberal “elitists” – people who can spell at a junior high level

  • Doug

    Thanks Mac Diva for responding to my question in a civilized manner. I too am not fond of pols in general.

    Shark…what the?? What does Mac Diva’s ethnicity and former work experience have to do with anything?

    Perhaps, Shark, you have a problem following logic? I, for one, had no trouble following MD’s line of thought and her reference to Flanagan was a valid point to support her thoughts.

  • Shark has been in the blogosphere two or three weeks, Doug. He arrived at Blogcritics and immediately began harassing me. Kind of speaks for itself, I think. And, yes, that hint of racism you noticed, is real. He also doesn’t like uppity women or people who use big words. I’ve spoken to Eric about letting anyone who shows up at Blogcritics join. I believe Shark, a loose cannon who attacked Eric himself in one of his first posts, may convince Eric of that.

  • I thought it was a clever and funny post and it made me laugh. Thank you.

    Don’t worry about poor Tom… he’s just jealous that he can never come up with anything as clever and amusing to prove his points.

    (there is a reason why his site is called “the naproom”. I will put you to sleep!)

  • I thought it was a clever and funny post and it made me laugh. Thank you.

    Don’t worry about poor Tom… he’s just jealous that he can never come up with anything as clever and amusing to prove his points.

    (there is a reason why his site is called “the naproom”. It will put you to sleep!)

  • Doug

    Interesting Chris that you chose FDR, and that you inadvertantly echoed reality. FDR did actually squash freedom of speech during WW II. FDR had people who were overheard questioning the war effort questioned by Federal agents…and more. Again I can see why you should stick to your day job.

  • Doug, while I do know that the holiday being celebrated today is officially Washington’s birthday, it’s called “President’s Day” because of the popular conception that we’re also celebrating Lincoln’s birthday as well. Even the official White House educational Web page on the holiday (http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/presidentsday/) shows both Washington and Lincoln. So if only Washington’s being honored, even the White House has it wrong.

    Presidentsholiday.com explains the holiday this way: “Apparently, while the holiday in February is still officially known as Washington’s Birthday (at least according to the Office of Personnel Management), it has become popularly (and, perhaps in some cases at the state level, legally) known as “President’s Day.” This has made the third Monday in February a day for honoring both Washington and Lincoln, as well as all the other men who have served as president.”

    So, with all due respect, before calling me a “moron” for using a popular conception to try and make a point (again, whether I was successful or not, I’m not to say – clearly you did not think so), please remember that in many cases, popular conception is the currency we all deal in.

    As for the entire direction this thread seems to be going, I’m kind of saddened by it. I’ve only joined BlogCritics three days ago, so as a newbie I may sound naive. But don’t we all owe one another a little respect and courtesy? We don’t have to agree with one another – god knows I expect people to think I am wrong about lots of things – but can’t we engage in conversation and discussion in the comment threads without name calling?

    Oh well. What do I know? I’m just an elitist liberal. 😉 Have a good evening, all… I’m out.

  • Doug

    “please remember that in many cases, popular conception is the currency we all deal in. ”

    Therein lies the problem, and the reason your defense fails. If popular conception were correct than we would be living in a Democracy. We don’t, we live in a republic. There’s a big difference. Calling our system of government a democracy doesn’t make it one, regardless of popular conception. IMO, one of the biggest problems our nation faces is that people blindly believe popular conception instead of doing some research for themselves. It’s also the reason why every true Democracy has failed (along with bread and circuses)throughout history AND it’s the reason the founding fathers created a republic.

    BTW, Chris, sorry about the moron comment. I was just trying to get into the name calling groove that seemed to be starting. Guess I need to make sure to put Big Sarcasm tags around some things.

  • Eric Olsen

    I am not sure why this post is the place to discuss our admittance policy, but it is basically open to those who have a blog or blog-like site. Once in, due to the severe nature of “peer review” around here, the wheat pretty well sorts itself out for the chaff. And by “wheat” I include those who are tenacious or masochistic enough to put up with the abuse, which is an attribute to be admired on par with sparkling wordsmanship and rapier-like logic.

    Variety is good, if it can tolerate the abuse.

  • “President’s day” . . . ? I thought today was the just a day to find incredible savings on sofa/loveseat combinations.

  • Tom, I’m heading out to Sharper Image. They sent out an email coupon offering from $20 to $60 off any purchase. (I think it may also be available on their site.) Using up my Christmas gift certificates, along with the coupon, will be my celebration of this holiday.

  • Shark

    Ms. Tek, thanks for the kind words. I’m here to entertain.

    You also get extra credit for being the first person on BC who has exhibited a sense of sardonic humor.

    The *certificate is in the mail.

    *cheese not included.

  • Laura Bush

    I think the peanut gallery should be blogging at daycare.blogspot.com. I think the post is hilarious. Even if you’re a hardcore Bush supporter, you have to admit, it is a very clever post. This kind of stuff ends up on SNL – disgruntled people with immature comments end up as “data entry computer analysts.” Oh wait – that’s probably your day job, Doug?

  • Wow, thank you, Laura, whoever you are. Very nice of you to defend me – or my sense of humor at least. Thanks!

  • Eric Olsen

    Humor is very subjective and written humor is very difficult and dodgy to pull off, so I say let’s give our original humorists some latitude because we all need a good laugh and we are all going to laugh at different things.

  • Don’t get me wrong – I can take it if/when I try to be funny and someone thinks I flopped. That’s not the issue. Turning such instances into opportunities for personal insults, or turning opportunities to engage in legitimate discussion (if you think I’m wrong, argue that I’m wrong – with facts, not insults)… that’s what I had issue with.

    To his credit, Doug for one apologized, and apology accepted, Doug – thank you.

    However – feel free to gong me if I aim for funny and you think I missed. My skin’s not that thin. I’m afraid I came off as a little bit the baby here, and it’s not the intent. I just saw the whole thread get disrespectful in a hurry – moreso toward others than to me – and was bothered by that. Oh well. Done & over.