Bush Legacy Bus Comes To Oregon

Jo Ann Hardesty

On July 23rd join us in welcoming the Bush Legacy Bus Tour @ Waterfront Park at Yamhill & Taylor from Noon-2:00PM. This 28-ton rolling reminiscence on just how awful this administration has been.

Think you know how bad the last eight years have been? The Bush Legacy Bus is a unique, interactive museum on wheels that neatly encapsulates the now-discredited Conservative ideology of President Bush and his allies. Through video, guide-by-cell-technology, artifacts and more, this bus makes clear the failure of the Bush Administration were not his alone.

Oregon Action along with many other community leaders will be hosting the bus at Yamhill and Taylor on July 23, 2008 and again at the state Capitol Mall in Salem on July 24, 2008 from 10:00AM-Noon.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Dang, can't make that time. I'd love to see that though. Any chance of scheduling a future stop at PSU?:)

  • (Show?)

    Not to toot our own horn too much, but as no other State disapproves of George Bush as much as the people of Oregon do, the Bush Legacy Bus is just preaching to the choir here. Where that bus is really needed is down in the South.

    But more power to them, not matter what. We need the message spread far and wide.

  • Brian (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Food for thought. Hmmm...how bad has this administration been all things considered? In this old mans humble assessment, I'd have to say worse than Nixon & Ford, better than the Carter Administration, far worse than the Reagan years, way worse than father Bush or Clinton. Yep, W. passes the suck test with flying colors, barely surpassing the ineptitude & malaise of Jimmy Carter.

  • (Show?)

    Oregonian37-Sorry the bus has been traveling all over the country. We are fortunate to get it for two days!

  • Bill McDonald (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I hope they have a section on how Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress rolled over for this war criminal time and time again. That's part of American History now too. At a time when the system of checks and balances reasserted itself and all was set to stop President Bush from further damaging this country, Nancy Pelosi and company decided to phone it in. Anything that happens in this last 6 months including martial law and an extension of this nightmare, falls on the Democratic Party as well.

  • (Show?)

    Brian, I'm having trouble recalling how many wars were started based on lies, how many Americans died in combat in nations that did not attack us, how many buildings knocked over due to hubris and lack of interest, how many trillions of dollars borrowed from China due to stupid economic policy, how many multi-million dollar tax breaks for the top 1% of earners, how many American bridges fell down and cities were destroyed from lack of commitment or preparation, how many schools failed due to unfunded mandates, how many energy companies had record profits while consumer prices doubled, how many million Americans were illegally spied upon, how many soldiers and veterans committed suicide because of a worn out military and VA, how many American jobs moved to foreign nations, under Jimmy Carter. Tell me one thing the Bush administration has consistently done better than Carter, that has made a positive difference for regular Americans.

  • Frankly Speaking (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bush's tour of his disaster is making the news:

    <embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/videoplayer/flvplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="355" flashvars="file=http://www.theonion.com/content/xml/82237/video&amp;autostart=false&amp;image=http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/BUSH_TOURS_article.jpg&amp;bufferlength=3&amp;embedded=true&amp;title=Bush%20Tours%20America%20To%20Survey%20Damage%20Caused%20By%20His%20Disastrous%20Presidency"></embed>
    Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

  • johnnie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Worst President ever and still twice as popular as Congress.

    What a horrible Federal Government we have.

  • (Show?)

    johnnie, it doesn't obviate your point, but with two parties in Congress and neither both parties doing stuff that alienates some of their most active supporters, the very low Congressional ratings probably result partly from two-way negatives. If pollsters asked ratings of each Congressional party, I suspect they'd be comparable to Bush, at any rate. Which remains a phenomenally low standard.

  • johnnie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris. Here is a breakdown by party:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/108856/Congressional-Approval-Hits-RecordLow-14.aspx

    Presidential approval rating here:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/108883/Bush-Quarterly-Average-Establishes-New-Low-29.aspx

    I know I have seen party breakdown in prior survey's.

    Pelosi/Ried are horrible. The took over the K street project instead of killing it like promised.

    People see politicians for what they are - people who garner power and greed at the public trough.

    The longer I live the more I become a libertarian.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Johnnie:

    You almost got it. Your link showed what citizens of each party think of Congress as a whole. What I think is more interesting is what citizens as a whole think of each party in Congress. I couldn't lay my hands on that number quickly. The closest I got was who registered voters prefer control Congress.

    NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). June 6-9, 2008. N=1,000 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.1. "What is your preference for the outcome of this year's congressional elections: a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?" Democrats 52% Republicans 33% Unsure 15%

    Everyone may have a low opinion of Congress, but they clearly prefer Dems. A way to interpret this is they feel that Congress is still too far to the right. It's telling that Republicans have a higher opinion of our current Congress than Democrats.

    Personally, I think the main issue is the war. The overwhelming majority of Americans want us out of Iraq. They're disappointed that the Dems in Congress didn't get us out, but they know the Republicans are a lost cause on this issue, so they're hoping a stronger Dem majority will do the trick.

  • dartagnan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This sounds like fun. Any chance of getting the bus to make a trip to Bend, Oregon?

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ... better than the Carter Administration,...

    There is a major difference between the Carter and Dubya presidencies. Bush has had a pliant Congress with both parties complicit in all his actions. Carter had both parties - Democrats led by Tip O'Neil in the House and Robert Byrd in the Senate and Republicans - ganging up on him. Apparently the Democrats were upset with Carter because he wouldn't do the oligarchs' bidding. Who the hell did he think he was? The president?

    And while we are bashing Bush, deservedly, let's not forget the old adage about a nation getting the kind of government it deserves.

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bert Lowry said, "Everyone may have a low opinion of Congress, but they clearly prefer Dems."

    I prefer the Fascisti to the Nazis, but I wouldn't have supported either.

    The problem with a Bush Legacy bus is that Bush isn't running. The claim that McCain is the same as Bush ignores the fact that, on the issues most important to progressives, Obama is also the same.

    A vote for McCain or Obama is a vote for Bush III.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    San Francisco has a more permanent "honor" for Bush on its November ballot. Anything similar planned in Portland?

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill Bodden said, "...let's not forget the old adage about a nation getting the kind of government it deserves."

    Here's what David Sirota (In search of the American 'center') has to say:

    "As the Associated Press claimed in a typical description, Obama's shifts are designed 'to appeal to the center of the electorate.'

    However, empirical data prove 'the center of the electorate' is exactly the opposite:

    -- Polls by Quinnipiac University and the Mellman Group found majorities support warrant requirements for wiretaps and oppose immunity for companies that released private consumer information without such warrants.

    -- Surveys by Fortune magazine, CNN and the Wall Street Journal report that most Americans oppose NAFTA-style trade policies.

    -- For years, major polls have consistently shown Americans want a firm timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. As just one of many examples, five separate USA Today surveys since 2007 have shown majorities want the president to 'set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq.'

    So, the undebatable evidence tells us precisely where the center of public opinion is. Yet when a presidential candidate moves away from the center, we are told he is moving toward it. What gives?"

    And so, those who support Obama's or McCain's campaigns may indeed be getting the kind of government they deserve, but the rest of us, the majority in the center, do not.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And so, those who support Obama's or McCain's campaigns may indeed be getting the kind of government they deserve, but the rest of us, the majority in the center, do not.

    Harry K: I agree with the first part of the above abstract but give little credence to the claim that there is a majority in the center. With polls showing McCain having support from somewhere in the lower 40% and half of the Democratic voters were strong supporters of Hillary that means well over half of the people are right of center. Before Obama began doing things (AIPAC speech, FISA vote, more troops in Afghanistan) instead of just making pretty speeches it was possible to be persuaded that his supporters thought he had some progressive credentials, but they should have been disabused of that nonsense by now.

    The polls quoted in David Sirota's article indicate that the people SAY they are to some degree in the center or left of it, but there is also evidence this is another case of talk being cheap. What are they DOING to promote the positions they claim as theirs? I have signed many petitions on line and added my signature to letters of protest. The sponsors claim there are tens of thousands of people who have done the same thing - out of 350 million people!!! Rep. Bob Wexler (D-FL) had a petition pushing for impeachment. The last I read it got about 250K signatures - out of this supposed majority in the center. How many people in this supposed center would you like to guess have phoned their representatives or senators in Congress to let them know what is on their mind?

    There used to and may still be anti-war protests every Friday afternoon in Bend. The handful of devoted protesters there brought into question the claims of polls that 60-some percent of the people opposed the war. The anniversary protest in March managed to attract somewhere around 250 supporters. Bend has a population of around 75,000. Deschutes County is double that. The only difference I noted the last time I joined this persistent group is that a few drivers passing by gave some sign of support instead of the fingers or other obscene and hostile gestures that were more common in the earlier years.

    I would also beware of polls for assessing the American people. There are two groups of people in these United (?) States that remain fairly constant - the left and the right. The majority in the middle continually shifts right and moves left or towards the center depending on what talking heads on television, commentators or radio, or columnists and editors in mainstream media have to say.

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill - My wife found your name on an ACLU petition she was signing today (which I also signed). We're trying, aren't we?

    The poll numbers and the behavioral discrepancies are disappointing to me, also. However, I do think that poll numbers are meaningful; they just aren't translating into action. How we can cause that translation to happen, I don't know, but we have to take heart from the fact that, in spite of massive attempts by the propaganda elites to manufacture consent, people are not buying it.

    The fact that our non-representatives feel that they have to lie and deceive is another reason to take heart. They fear that people may one day translate their beliefs into action. Let's remember that the uprisings of the sixties were the work of a relative few.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    However, I do think that poll numbers are meaningful; they just aren't translating into action. How we can cause that translation to happen, I don't know,...

    I like to think that speaking out on blogs like this and other venues helps, especially if we get it right and others appreciate that fact. If Obama had been what he appeared to be at first glance then this nation could have made an ascent - as Izzy Stone put it in an essay I read today - "further up the ladder from ape to angel." With better knowledge about apes since Stone wrote that perhaps we might now say "further up the ladder from homo sapiens to apes and angels." Unfortunately, as you have recognized, Obama offers little hope.

connect with blueoregon