In which I continue my Bush obsession: I prefer trimmed, not shaved

When you're going through a massive writer's block, the easiest way to get out is to write a big Bush-bashing post. There are so many angles to hit, the shit practically writes itself.

But I've already commented on Dubs prior to his prime time speechery 2 weeks ago and nothing much has changed since.

And guest blogger Crunk Raconteur at Cole Slaw looks at how accountability is no longer Bush's BFF, and how his appointees share his distaste for taking responsibility.

Meanwhile, Time becomes the latest mainstream media outlet to try testicles on for size (again, where were you when the country was going to war?) and asks How Many More Mike Browns Are Out There?.

At this point, I have to ask my readers who voted for Bush (assuming I have any Bush supporting readers) - if you could go back to 2000 or last November, would you vote for him again? If so, why?

He has failed to deliver on almost everything he promised (see: accountability, compassionate conservatism, laissez-faire foreign policy, small government). Well, except maybe his folksy charm. He still sounds dumb as shit and I guess liberals still tend to misunderestimate him for his perceived stupidity. That's about it, right?

And this, in a nutshell, is precisely what is wrong with American political discourse. Both sides are more interested in "winning" and their ideology trumping the other than carrying out policy that makes sense.

The result is a President in office who can win elections but can't carry out policy for shit, appoints sycophants and campaign contributors to posts and remains loyal to incompetent underlings beyond their sell-by date.

If winning's your thing, great, keep voting for whoever Karl Rove is pushing in 2008. If seeing liberals (or Clintonian centrists) lose to a bait-and-switch faux-conservative gets your schadenfreude going, I understand. Just remember that your winning turns this country to shit.