I think that set of comments reflects the Left's penchant for married obsessions as well as anything I've seen.

We've been hearing from the Left that "the personal is political" for quite a number of years, in one form or another. The earliest version I can remember is from the Sixties: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." (Strictly speaking, that's not correct: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. But let's stay on point.) In every formulation, the core idea is to eliminate all boundaries between that which, being properly private, is one's own personal responsibility to tend to, and that which, being inherently public, demands the attention, input, and collective decisions of some relevant "community."

I could note here that if there were no true separation between private and public matters, we wouldn't have a Constitution. We also wouldn't have two distinct words with opposed meanings. But I won't bother, this being such an astute audience.

The best thing about being a liberal is that nothing is your fault. Incontent? George Bush. Impotent? GB. Got fired? GB. Your life sucks? GB.

If Hillary gets elected, your life will still suck, who will you blame?

Incontent? George Bush.

Just like most the lefty trolls here, their reason goes out the window. They are totally on hate mode. Hate of all things GW and those that support or think like him. ww

If Hillary gets elected, your life will still suck, who will you blame?

Bush. Blame has no expiration.

Best of all, being able to blame Bush means it's not YOUR responsibility to make your sucky life better! You've got a golden ticket to ride the Blame Train for the rest of your life... until people look at you and go "Damn - give it a rest already! He's been out of office ten years, and you blamed your stubbed toe this morning on him, as well as your divorce last year, your car crash the year before that, your maxed out credit cards, your defaulted loan two years ago, AND your getting fired five years back. Isn't ANYTHING your damn fault?"

At which point the light might dawn... but it's doubtful.

Yes, libtards have been providing a veritable font of "schadenfreude" with their pranks that have blown up in their faces.

From the floor of the House, to TNR and their false attrocities stories, the NYT and LAT printing what is at best 'news' from dubious sources that gets disproved when the facts come out, the supply is unending.

You could almost say its what they do best.

Your wife caught you with the babysitter? It's Bush's faulty!

The cops arrested you for mugging an old lady? It's Bush's fault!

The city seized your home under emminent domain, and gave it to the Sierra Club? It's, er..Bush's fault!

This from one of the responses......

"Bush, I blame you for my new-ish extra 20 pounds."

Geesh, they think Bush is an incompetent and an idiot and yet he is able to have this kind of control over their lives. Does this make any sense????

My years of study in Sociology often involved the use some German terms due to the precision of their language. Both my great grandmother and grandmother spoke German.

Typical liberals- always need to blame someone other than themselves for what's going on in their lives. I'm not a bit surprised.

Bush made them fat!?!
dsflkj dlkgjfdl gkglkglk ......oh, sorry, I fell on my keyboard I was laughing so hard.

Did Bush make them stupid, too? Or is that a prerequisite for being a "progressive"?

Bush made them fat!?!

Oh, cheeseburgers, loneliness and Bush are a dangerous combination. (Apologies to Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons).

"Blog bottom"????

The Twenty First Century version of "secretary's spread"?

I love how the very first comment quotes 'Imagine' from John Lennon. 'Imagine' is a pretty song, but to liberals it's not only possible but an example of a perfect society. And therein lies their first fallacy.

I tried to read some of that garbage on the Daily Kos - I still am without an answer to the question: What exactly did Pres Bush do that made him the worst president ever? Going to war with WMD as one of the main reasons? (Everyone agreed at the time incl the libs & the UN); taking away our civil rights? (have they heard of FDR & WWII?) We could go on and on about the causes for BDS, but I'm convinced they are all just pissed because they think they had the ultimate "right" to the presidency in 2000 and 2004.

Liberals would rather find someone else to blame rather then the crinimals i mean they even blame parents for not being a couple of whinny tre hugging gun banning sue the bums pair of wussietards
depp=true

GemininiChuck. Where do you want to start? If you are a gemini you should be interested in a lot of different things..Here is long list of Bush's scandals (yes from a leftist source) ..it is not just the war,...I'm sure you will say blah blah, but his conception of the constitutution "just a piece of g...d...paper" (supposedly) and his conception of executive power..but it is not all grim.. Bush has a good sense of humor.

Steve Crickmore,

Interesting link. There are indeed some things on that "list" that I was not happy with the President about... But there are many, many more which are unsubstantiated and/or subjective and/or have little to do with the office...

"He vetoed XXX" is not a scandal.
"Blackwater was mean during Katrina"... Bush?
etc.

One can certainly play "6 degrees of seperation" with the presidency, but it dilutes your argument.

Creekmore,

I looked at your list. It shows just how deranged you people are. You attempt to criminalize standard political fare. There is no "scandal" there, unless you count simple political disagreements as scandals - as you obviously do.

For the record, I have been skeptical of DHS since its inception. All we need is another bloated government agency. But it is hardly criminal or scandalous. Really, get a life.

Steve C. -
The "long list of Bush's scandals" actually reads more like "here are all the things since 2000 that I don't like." It's not even good enough to be labeled Unconvincing. Derangement On Parade is more like it.

Mr. Crickmore,
I think you're spending too much time with the mutual "stroke each other fest" going on over a WizbangBlue. Mr. Blogworthy is correct. Disagreement in judgement is not a scandal.

Steve Crickmore nailed to the wall. Come back again moron.

Bwahahahahahahahahah......

Crickmore's list is amusing in that as slanted and ridiculous as it is, it illustrates that the Bush administration has really been the cleanest, least power abusive, least-scandal ridden administration that this nation has seen in decades, if not centuries.

SPQR,
least scandal-ridden, etc... I presume you are being merely rhetorical, but in case you aren't, the one department, more than any other closely associated with Bush and Rove, was the Justice Department, run by Bush's former personal lawyer in Austin and at the White house. Here is its scandal roll call..... Gonzales, Bush Rove's defenders will say 'it was only politics.' but then Jay's word, shadenfreude is a very good word.

Wait, resignations are a sign of a scandal?
Perhaps they just didn't do a good job? The firing of those attorney's was perfectly legal, they serve at the whim of the president.
The handling of the subsequent "outrage" by the Dems was cause for dismissal and vindication for those of us who thought and said that Gonzalez was not ready for the job.
The answer should have been, "Because Bush didn't want them to work there anymore." and that's that.

Oooo. People have resigned from the Bush administration. The horror. Has there been some ineptitude? (I'm thinking of Gonzales.) No argument there. Criminality? No. Ethics and competence are two different things.

Criminality no. I wouldn't be so sure. I think the jury, or rather The U.S. Inspector General is 'still out' on this one. Gonzales could be prosecuted, McKay says. We shall see.

Crickmore, your lack of memory of history is pretty amusing, almost as amusing as the silliness of your faux list of scandals in Justice from TPM which is just a list of people who decided to resign over a trivial issue of Gonzales and .

I'm really serious here, it is a shame you are not. The Bush administration has indeed been one of the cleanest if not the cleanest administration this nation has seen. You can't name a cleaner past administration.

You've gotten yourself excited over an extraordinarily trivial pseudo-scandal, Gonzales' incompetent preparation for testimony over the firing of a handful of US Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the President. Whoopee.

Name for me an administration that lasted two terms where NOBODY resigned.

I blame Bush for not introducing me to the girl in the "True" ad over on the right column.

Freakin' neocon bastages!

I love how the very first comment quotes 'Imagine' from John Lennon. 'Imagine' is a pretty song, but to liberals it's not only possible but an example of a perfect society. And therein lies their first fallacy.

If you want to tic a liberal off, when they get all 'imaginey' on you, sing my favorite part:
"Imagine there's no gravity..."

I was skimming through the comments and found this little gem:

"Before my head began exploding a few years ago in response to Busharama..."

Which is an almost perfect example of the words you were describing in your first paragraph, Jay, only in English. This is the same one that blamed her weight gain on Bush. Comedy in its purest form! :D

It's really sad and pathetic how the left must grasp at straws to find some hint of a scandal in the Bush administration, especially in regards to the justice department, after the debacle of the Clinton/Reno years. All this faux concern over civil rights and the "cowboy mentality" makes me sick. Zero people were unjustly attacked and killed by the BATF under Gonzales' tenure. Zero FBI files on his political enemies are found in the possession of the Bush administration.

The left does not hate Bush because of scandal; they hate Bush, therefore they must find scandal.

Jeff..It is not exactly straws..The last two federal elections have been extremely close in which voter fraud was an important deciding issue..This is the main reason why Gonzales fired the 9 state attorneys (he and Rove felt they were not doing enough, for the GOP, on this front) and this has roiled the DoJ. The politicization of the Civil rights Voter section has become been pretty blatant. One example..John Tanner, Civil Voter Rights Chief.

He had claimed such laws (picture id requirements) were just fine by him since, though they may disenfranchise some elderly voters, "minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first."

This is were the nitty-gritty of the next federal election is going on, now.(particularly if it becomes close again).

(Editor's Note: the author of this piece was NOT Jeff Blogworthy, but appears to have been Steve Crickmore. Normally this sort of behavior is grounds for banning, but there is circumstantial evidence (Crickmore's e-mail being listed, the directly addressing Jeff) that it was accidental. I'm going to give Crickmore the chance to clarify before I swing the hammer. J.)

I'm being impersonated now? I'm flattered.

Positive voter IDs prevent voter fraud. The lack of same precipitates voter fraud. How much common sense does it take to understand that?

Wow. Creepy. I know a couple of people with this syndrome. I feel for them.

Sorry..Jeff (and Jay) I don't recall even typing the name Blogworthy..I think what may have happened, is the previous poster name in this case Jeff Blogworthy's name somehow stuck in my blog space entry, if that's possible, and I didn't think to type in my name..(which we are doing at wizbangblue for better or worse).

ACKK!

Incompetent typing! Scandal! Outrage! Its a conspiracy, I tell you! And it must be Bush's fault!

No wait, intelligent and compassionate web administrators, no it, no it can't be! Not on a Right Wingnut Blog!

Note: the author of this piece was NOT Jeff Blogworthy, but appears to have been Steve Crickmore

Maybe his name should be Steve Crookmore