Today I was working the counter at at a convenience store when everyone started talking politics because of the election coming up. Regardless of how conservative I am (or you are), it'll never make a difference because the people in NJ are crazy and are still waiting for the Stalinist revolution to hit our shores and will thus vote Democrat until the end of time. We have a state that has been literally bankrupted and a former governor who was disgraced and resigned just a few years ago. We have ridiculous pockets of poverty in NJ that make the state the laughing stock of the East coast. And I guarantee you, that we will have Democrats as governor until I die in a threesome at the age of 99 (with two women).

Anyway, being that everyone in NJ has Obamaphelia (this term apparently hasn't been picked up by spell-check which scares me), I knew I'd run into some Bush hater. I can understand why a lot of people hate Bush. I think a ton of criticism gets thrown onto a man that, quite frankly, has a lot less to do with the situation in the country than his detractors want to admit. I personally agree with both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the poor state of the economy has something to do with that, but not nearly much as you might think. I told this one lady that Bush might be better judged by history than the people now, especially if Iraq turns out well. She said that no, this wouldn't happen because the economy was poor (apparently it never has had any recessions or depressions ever ever ever). I said Bush wasn't primarily to blame for this, and then blamed it on Alan Greenspan for his attempt to create endless economic growth, even when it clearly wasn't possible. Greenspan, the former head of the Federal Reserve, has done everything to make sure that economy never ever ever slows down its growth and, God forbid, people not be able to get car loans or morgtages that don't have a job. I read half his book a while back and it might be worth it to give you some quote from it, but that's too much work for me. Basically, all he did was constantly give (basically) free money to banks that could give loans to people who didn't deserve them. This problem was most noticeable in the mortgage market and then every bit of money that was backed up by a mortgage security was in trouble. Credit retracted and banks went bust because they had too many bad assests. How is that Bush's fault when a lot (most) of this was done under Clinton?

Regardless, if Obama gets elected, I am fairly sure that every one of his failures will be put onto Bush. If McCain wins and literally everything becomes perfect, I am sure that it will be put somehow on Obama and the commerce his face created with all the stupid merchandise I now see people wearing with him on it. It bothers me because Bush's successes have been muted and will continue to be for a long time. Look at Nixon, for example. He opened up trade with China and nearly won the Vietnam war despite toning down our troop presence dramatically. But what do people remember him for? Or look at Clinton. What did Clinton do that was so great? Why is his legacy so positive? The reason is because no one remembers him for ANYTHING he actually did, other than the whole oral sex thing (blush... I said sex). He didn't screw up royally so everyone thinks he's so wonderful. That's why I wish God would just come down and tell everyone that Bush was the greatest president ever and he hates the state of NJ except for one young man working at a convenience store in NJ who has a great blog. Anyway, I sincerely hope I made this woman think or, even better, made her go home and cry. Maybe it'll stop her from chanting "No blood for oil" or "Bush lied, kids died" some time in the next century.