Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

George W. Bush Sewage Plant

By

Here’s the word from the NY Times.

An Honor That Bush Is Unlikely to Embrace

By JESSE McKINLEY

Published: June 25, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO – Reagan has his highways. Lincoln has his memorial. Washington has the capital (and a state, too). But President Bush may soon be the sole president to have a memorial named after him that you can contribute to from the bathroom.

From the Department of Damned-With-Faint-Praise, a group going by the regal-sounding name of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is planning to ask voters here to change the name of a prize-winning water treatment plant on the shoreline to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

The plan, naturally hatched in a bar, would place a vote on the November ballot to provide “an appropriate honor for a truly unique president.”

More on the NY Times website.

Of course, this story inspires great headlines.  From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Keeping Bush’s name in circulation

By AMAN BATHEJA, JOHN MORITZ, MARIA RECIO and ANNA M. TINSLEY

Star-Telegram staff writers

With fewer than 200 days until President Bush leaves the White House and moves to Dallas, some people are already working to commemorate the outgoing commander in chief.

But not necessarily in ways Texas’ former governor would appreciate.

This column from the Austin American-Statesman deserves a read.

President’s legacy could end up in the sewer

By John Kelso

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Friday, July 04, 2008

What better way to celebrate the Fourth of July than to highlight something special that’s never happened before in the history of our country?

Some smart-aleck citizens in San Francisco have held a petition drive to rename a large sewage treatment plant after George W. Bush. If they are successful, what is now known as the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant would be renamed the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

That’s one small step for mankind and one big flush for the White House. Still, the administration isn’t real happy about it.

“I just don’t think it dignifies a response,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino. I guess Bush is worried about his legacy in the history books. Actually, with some of the stuff he’s pulled off, a poop-cleaning operation might be a step up.

Column Continued Here

BBC reports signatures delivered to the city clerk, photo of the sewage plant targeted in the initiative:



Meanwhile, in SF a columnist offers another way to remember George W. Bush.

A Better Way to Remember George Bush

by Paul Hogarth‚ Jun. 09‚ 2008

A group of San Franciscans are collecting signatures for a November Proposition to rename a local Sewage Treatment Plant after George W. Bush – which, if passed by the voters, would take effect on January 20, 2009. Complete with an impressive website, the “Presidential Memorial Commission” believes this is the most appropriate way for San Francisco to remember George Bush’s legacy. But as much as I hate our sorry excuse for a President, I strongly oppose this idea — because it is terribly unfair to sewage treatment plants. Instead, like I proposed a year ago, San Francisco should change the name of Bush Street. And to sweeten the deal, we should change it to Obama Street – and have it go into effect on January 20, 2009.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I know you think this is funny.  I know it makes you snigger.  I also know it loses you votes.

    <

    p>We hated Bill Clinton.  Still do, to some extent.  But we have enough respect for the office of the Presidency not to pull a lame stunt (and that’s all it is – a stunt) like this when he left office.  Progressives will continue to be seen as irresponsible apologists for their own, and immature savagers of any who deviate from their color-coordinated diet of ideas.

    <

    p>Who votes to give people like that genuine power?  I mean outside of Massachusetts?

    • And it shows. That’s why Clinton was impeached over a blow job. Nothing lame about that stunt, especially considering all the GOP leaders who were sleeping with actual hookers or cheating on their cancer-stricken wives at the time.

      <

      p>Peter, the GOP ceded the high road a loooooooooong time ago, so get off your high horse and stop pretending your party is better than this. It’s not.

      <

      p>And if the GOP had respect for the office of the presidency, Bush would have been impeached a long time ago, or at the very least the president and vice president would be run out of the Republican party for the disgrace they brought upon the office by the shear disdain for the rules and abuses of power.  

      • Everything always boils down to preschool level arguments: “He started it!”

        • …I’m more or less saying PP should look in the mirror. Dems and lefties don’t have a monopoly on pettiness and stunts, so let the Republican who is without sin cast that first stone. I have no problem with criticism of naming a Sewer Plant after Bush; but let’s not pretend anyone involved with politics – especially someone well known to be a political operative of the party of Watergate, Swift Boating, Faulty Intelligence about WMDs and Nukes, John McCain’s illegitimate Black baby, the politicizing of the Justice Department, and so on – is above the fray. I mean, come on. It’s like poop telling vomit that it stinks.  

        • PP is right to call this a lame stunt.

          <

          p>(Not only is this a lame stunt, it’s a dumb one.  They got it wrong.  Sewage treatment plants turn shit into something less noxious.  The GWB administration generally worked in quite the opposite direction.)

          <

          p>But that’s all it is- a dumb stunt.  If the neocons et al. had spent the last eight years on dumb pranks, rather than consequential things like dumb wars and dumb economic policy, we’d all be the better for it.

      • And if you think that doesn’t matter, tell it to jailbird Martha Stewart.

        <

        p>Bill lied because he never in a gazillion years thought anyone could prove him wrong; none of those other women had ever been able to prove anything.  He lied because he thought he could get away with it, and lost his law license as a consequence.

        <

        p>Blade – my comment was intended as a warning and constructive criticism.  It hurts you with voters – VOTERS – who DO respect the office, if not the man.  And it accomplishes nothing at all.  Because who can take crybaby criticism like that seriously?

        • The Republican’s role was an embarrassment to the office and our country.  I hope we agree.  

          <

          p>While I do think the sewage plant is down right hilarious and fitting, I wouldn’t vote for it.

        • …because Tom Delay and other Republicans wanted a political show case in order to form a GOP legislative majority and aid in the 2000 election for Presidency. How many other scandals did they throw at Clinton that were baseless before the found one that stuck? Why was he asked about Monica Lewinsky anyway, if not for political motivations to embarrass and possible ensnare him in controversy.

          <

          p>As for perjury, Clinton was never convicted of perjury. Clinton agreed to a suspension of his law license as a result of a contempt of court citation. I’m not defending Clinton, I’m just saying if that anyone who cares about the law has to see that Bush and his executive branch cohorts are far more lawless and their activities are far more egregious than perjury, especially considering the severity of the consequences of crimes likely committed and covered up.

          <

          p>And no one is not going to vote for Obama or any Dem outside the SF city council because of this sewage plant business. Especially since it’s being named after a President that has disrespected the office as much as Bush and only has any sort of approval rating with fringe nutcases. You might have hated Clinton, but Everyone dislikes George; he is absolutely indefensible.  

        • My wife the schoolteacher thought Clinton was providing a terrible model for her students, who tended toward “what can we get away with” behavior too often.

          <

          p>But impeachment?  Come on.

          <

          p>If Congress had gone after GWB with the intensity that it did a decade ago with WJC, you’d be counting the days to the end of President Pelosi’s adminstration (or maybe Senator Byrd- did you know he’s 4th in line? Wow).

        • She didn’t belong in jail anymore than Clinton should have been impeached.  Actually, as I recall the simple perjury count in the Paula Jones case didn’t get past the House.  I see jail as being for those whose liberty would make me fear walking the streets at night.  In the case of Clinton the original act was not illegal so nailing him for perjury would be an overreaction.  Besides, the judge in Arkansas ultimately threw out the Paula Jones case so in my opinion all subsidiary charges should have disappeared with it.  I realize this may not be the way the law is written, but it seems to make the most sense.

            • …the question was asked pursuant to the Paula Jones case, which was thrown out.  As far as I’m concerned no case means no question and no question means no perjury.

                • That being said, I believe he lied about exposing Valerie Plame, which is itself a crime.  To me that is the distinction, whether the act being lied about is a crime itself.

                • Unfortunately he didn’t do “anything more serious”.  I’d prefer they “nail” many politicians, but they too haven’t committed any prosecutable offenses.  

                • I also thought he was more directly involved with the leak of her name than simply lying about it after the fact.

                • doesn’t really matter. Facts of the case. Let’s stick to the facts. Reality based, right?

                • Honestly my memory of the details is a little fuzzy, but I said what I said in good faith.  In any case the focus of any prosecution should have been on whomever actually leaked the name.  I would have to be reminded exactly what constituted Libby’s perjury to comment further on that aspect.

              • As far as I’m concerned no case means no question and no question means no perjury.

                 

                <

                p>Is that how you’d expect a perjury statute to function?  

                <

                p>It’s ok to lie in a judicial proceeding so long as  underlying matter is settled or, for some reason, doesn’t go to trial.

            • The acts which you call perjury (but no court has) happened well after his second election to the Presidency.  

              <

              p>What did Bill Clinton do, before that, that merited your hatred?

    • Bill Clinton left America with a budget surplus, and no occupation in Iraq.

      <

      p>Bush, in addition to deficits and a prolonged occupation in Iraq (BTW, Iraq’s people and leaders want our troops out soon), hardly showed responsibility when he was given a Presidential Day briefing in August of 2001 entitled,

      <

      p>BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S.

      <

      p>Bush stayed on vacation.

      <

      p>Republicans really shouldn’t accuse non-Republicans of being irresponsible.

          • Bill Clinton left America with a budget surplus…

            <

            p>Your data link.  President Bush assumed office and submitted his first budget for year ending 9/30/2002. I think we can agree that the final Clinton budget was F/Y 2001, yes?

            <

            p>Now again, your data, observe the “on budget” deficit in that year.

            <

            p>It is also noteworthy that National debt increased from F/Y 2000 to F/Y 2001 by approximately $133 Billion. US Treasury

            <

            p>So, not to green-eye-shade this too much, but how can National debt INCREASE if there’s a surplus?

            <

            p>Answer:  If you (you=government) borrows funds from Social Security and include those excess funds in the calculation of the otherwise deficit budget, which is clearly indicated in your link.

            • National debt, 1/19/2000: 5,727,150,582,479.46
              National debt, 1/19/2001: 5,727,776,738,304.64 (inauguration was 1/20/01).

              <

              p>Difference:  626,155,825, or 0.01% of the total.

              <

              p>Looks pretty damn balanced to me.

              <

              p>This data comes from your link.

              • The assertion was that Clinton left us with a surplus.  

                <

                p>That comment is widely and often stated, and even by your numbers, using the inaugeration date as the benchmark, it’s simply wrong.  Not even debateable.  Just wrong.

                <

                p>

              • From the nightmare he has created for himself. We’re here for you man: BMG runs 24/7/365.

                <

                p>The plain fact is that Clinton had an impressive economic record, and Bush has had a lousy one. We can have an interesting discussion about whose fault that is, and how best to recreate a budget surplus given current conditions, but the data with respect to the national budget really is pretty clear, as syphax and others have pointed out.

                • Let’s try again, just for the hell of it:

                  <

                  p>Total national debt, 1/19/2001:   5,727,776,738,305
                  Total national debt, 12/31/1999:  5,776,091,314,225

                  <

                  p>So, over the last calendar year + 3 weeks that Clinton was president, the national debt went down.

                  <

                  p>So, by my parameters, the answer is yes.

                  <

                  p>My argument is no less inane than your line of reasoning.  Let it go.

                • Gary, if you don’t want to take my word and that of syphax, not to mention the reality-based statistics that have been offered you, consider the words of Richard W. Fisher, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas on 28 May 2008:

                  <

                  p>

                  Eight years ago, our federal budget, crafted by a Democratic president and enacted by a Republican Congress, produced a fiscal surplus of $236 billion, the first surplus in almost 40 years and the highest nominal-dollar surplus in American history.

                  <

                  p>Dear Lord.

                • Consider the context of your quote and the sentences that followed it:  

                  For a brief time, with surpluses projected into the future as far as the eye could see, economists and policymakers alike began to contemplate a bucolic future in which interest payments would form an ever-declining share of federal outlays, a future where Treasury bonds and debt-ceiling legislation would become dusty relics of a long-forgotten past. The Fed even had concerns about how open market operations would be conducted in a marketplace short of Treasury debt.

                  <

                  p>True, there was and were PROJECTIONS that indicated surpluses. The dot com bust and the 2001 recession quickly ended that.  In Clinton’s final budget, there simply was no surplus.  Joelpatterson’s link shows the on-budget deficit for that year.

                  <

                  p>Syphax data, even cherry picking the inaugeration date as the end of Clinton’s budget, shows that the the national debt INCREASED.  He says ‘see, it only increased a little’ and figures that since a small increase is almost balanced, and almost balanced means almost surplus, then there was a surplus.

                  <

                  p>I know, I know, you want to believe, but talking points aside, there’s simply no data to support the talking point that ‘clinton left Bush with a surplus.’  It’s just a myth.

                  <

                  p>

                • …it depends on what the meaning of the word surplus is.  This is something I’ve wondered about myself.  He obviously did not pay down the entire national debt, both principal and interest, THEN have money left over.  However, deficits and surplusses generally refer to individual fiscal years.  By the time he left office Uncle Sam was taking in more money than it spent for one fiscal year, hence a surplus in that sense.

                • By the time he left office Uncle Sam was taking in more money than it spent for one fiscal year, hence a surplus in that sense.

                  <

                  p>If true, then why did the National debt increase?  Where did the ‘more money than it spent’ go?    

                • …the national debt DID decrease over the course of his presidency, or at very least did not increase except as a result of interest.  It has ballooned again over the past bew years thanks to the current incumbent.

                • Clinton with a Republican Congress had an impressive economic record.

                • The key economic stimulus package that got the ball rolling was passed in 1993, with Democratic majorities and not a single Republican vote.

                • The key thing that got the ball rolling was the Bush (the elder) with Democratic Congress 1990 budget that hiked taxes and reduced Uncle Sam’s role in consuming investment capital with lots of bonds.  The impact of this was delayed because (i) Congressional Republicans torpedoed spending cuts to screw Bush for his “betrayal” on the tax hike; and (ii) without Republican support in Congress, Dems got to increase spending.

                  <

                  p>The 1993 “stimulus” was more or less a feelgood nothing, “stimulating” an economy that by then was already fixing to have itself a pretty good decade.

                  <

                  p>Clinton got dealt a lucky hand; the hand was in no small measure dealt by Presdient Bush.

              • Furthermore, it’s wrong, AND simplistic.

                <

                p>The dot com bubble yielded high capital gains tax and high employment tax.  That tax rolled in so quickly and unexpectedly that the pirates Federal government didn’t have time to spend the booty.

                <

                p>The dot coms were going down, after peaking in March of 2000 with a NASDAQ top.  Federal revenues started dropping, and neither the increase in revenue nor the decrease can reasonably be thought of as the result of Clinton or Bush.

                <

                p>  

                • Now you are talking.  Surely Clinton got dealt the right cards.  But he played ’em fairly well.  GWB got a fairly crappy hand and tried bluffing/borrowing, to ill effect.

                • I’m not defending the economic performance of the Bush administration, I’m just stating that the inane talking point used by Democrats that ‘clinton left bush with a surplus’ is just that, a talking point.

                  <

                  p>And, it’s factually incorrect. For every single fiscal year of the Clinton administration, the national debt increased.

            • Bill left in January, and by June 2001, Bush’s signature tax cuts (with rebates for the 2000 tax filers!) passed into law–drastically cutting the government revenue that was keeping our nation in the black.  Sure, Clinton planned and submitted a budget for 2001–but George Bush’s team was the one actually taking in revenue and signing the checks for most of that FY.  This historical data is different from the proposed budgets.

              <

              p>So, I stand by the assertion that Clinton left us with a surplus.  

              <

              p>If the Congress hadn’t cut the taxes the way Bush wanted, it most likely would have stayed a surplus on the FY.  Seriously, gary, wasn’t the point of those tax cuts to create deficits?  Isn’t the goal of the conservative movement to shrink government spending on things like public health & public education, and the chosen method for that is big tax cuts?

    • This is easily as childish, petty, and downright stupid as “Freedon Fries” any day.

      <

      p>And it reflects upon its authors and supporters in the same way.

    • We hated Bill Clinton.  Still do, to some extent.  But we have enough respect for the office of the Presidency not to pull a lame stunt (and that’s all it is – a stunt) like this when he left office.

      <

      p>So I guess you didn’t consider the effort to construct the Counter Clinton Library lame? Oh the hypocrisy.

      <

      p>

      I know you think this is funny.  I know it makes you snigger.  I also know it loses you votes.

      <

      p>Why would I take a Republican’s advice on would lose Democrats votes? If you seriously thought it would lose Democrats votes, I suspect you would be all in favor of it.

      <

      p>Personally, I don’t see anything particularly wrong or necessarily “lame” about the naming. If it’s not lame to name things after presidents to express gratitude, why is it lame to express displeasure?

      • Was it ever even done?  Did it receive national news coverage?

        <

        p>And it IS lame.  If, in fact, it ever happened beyond a single NewsMax story.

        • From wiki:

          In 2002, LeBoutillier spearheaded an effort to create a “Counter Clinton” Presidential Library, alongside former President William Jefferson Clinton’s presidential Library in Little Rock. The proposal attracted little interest, even from many conservatives. Plans for the library were shelved in early 2005 after little money was raised for the project.

          <

          p>Former Congressman from NY led the effort. The fact that six years later you never heard of it speaks more about your memory as well as their effort to attract coverage and sponsors than the integrity and seriousness of your party.

          <

          p>I haven’t heard of any US Representatives being involved in the Bush Sewage plant. And I’ll venture a guess that in six years the equivalent of PP in the Dem party will no more remember it than you do the LeBoutillier effort.

          <

          p>Seriously, this isn’t even a decent sized mole hill. It’s funny and fitting, though.

  2. impeached Bill Clinton, thus helping to distract him from the business of being president at a crucial time, as Bin Laden was likely beginning his preparations for 9/11 and other national issues demanded the full attention of our federal government. You impeached him essentially for having an extramarital affair, and we all had to sit through an unspeakably embarassing and sordid ordeal that brought a lot of X-rated talk into the headlines and onto prime time television, accomplishing nothing except perhaps helping to elect a clownish toady of the oil industry to the highest office in the land. It’s sad that the effort to hold Bush and his friends accountable has come to this, but Democratic leaders like John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi have proven themselves so utterly spineless (Rove refuses to comply with subpoena??!!!) that renaming a sewage plant is the best that average people can do to register their loathing of the current president and his cohorts. You had your fun with Bill- go ahead, name a brothel after him, but spare us the sanctimonious “respect for the office” nonsense.

  3. In the other thread, Eabo is all for selling naming rights of public landmarks to generate revenue for local governments. I also remember Eabo saying that he was against laws preventing people from buying political advertising around election time because it’s an affront to free speech.

    <

    p>I say in the spirit of bi-paritisanship, let’s combine these two Republican ideas for a compromise on the renaming of this San Francisco sewer plant – sell the naming rights of the plant to the highest bidder on Ebay.

    <

    p>This will wipe the city’s hands clean and it will allow other voices to have a say in whether or not we bestow this honor on the worst president in history. We could see if more people wanted to donate to buy the rights to call it the Bill and Hillary Clinton Memorial Sewer Plant – wait…according to some, Republicans are far too dignified and respect the office of the presidency, so that wouldn’t work – Or they could name it after Michael More or Barbara Streisand or whoever it is that it’s fashionable for GOP peeps to hate on now adays and see if that raises more money then naming it after GWB.

    <

    p>The left has shown a clear advantage in netroot fundraising, and with no limit on the amount donated and Hollywood’s penchant for celebrity fundraisers for all sorts of causes, I think a lot of money could be raised for the city of San Francisco under the auspices of naming a sewer plant for Bush and I think competition brings out the best.

    <

    p>What do you say, GOP? Are you up for the challenge? Do you stand by your ideas of naming rights and the government not interfering with political free speech? Do you think you could out fundraise the left and defend your precious president’s honor?  The gauntlet has been thrown down!

    • If there’s a market for naming a particular government building, and the politicians ignore the funding they’re sticking it to the taxpayers if they ignore said value.

      <

      p>You can however bet it won’t be the GOP or Democratic party with the winning bid:  It’ll go corporate. Charmin Sewer Plant, and probably be at least as meaningful as the Kennedy Building this, or the O’Neal Building that….

      • Or perhaps some sort of hybrid, like the Hustler Magazine George W Bush Sewer Plant? I think there are some corporate opportunists like Larry Flint that might throw their lot in with the will of the people. But who knows, that’s why the competition element makes it so much fun – the possibilities are limited only by imagination and funds. I mean, what if the government of Iran comes in with a last minute high bid for the right to name it the The George W Bush / Death to Israel Sewage Plant? This could get out of hand and provide months of entertainment.  

  4. The voice of the people is stifled by a political process hijacked by the wealthy.  The people, realizing their loss of input, freedoms and voice, make a little joke.  Hats off to the people of the city by the bay.  

    <

    p>With the lack of faith in our other Federal politicians perhaps we can look forward to the “Senate Hazardous Waste Holding Facility” and the “Congressional Manure Aging Pit”.  Or maybe just use individual politician’s names for such sites.  While the bordellos will get named real fast, there are so many more places to name after our 545.  

    <

    p>Hmmmm… What to name for Nancy…

    <

    p>”Pelosi Leeching Field”?  

    <

    p>Then there are our local pols…

    <

    p>So little time, so many sites.

  6. Great post by pablo, one of the ever-shrinking handful of cooler heads, but…

    A s#@tstorm erupts in the comments. All of which goes to show how excellent it is to have a wide variety of viewpoints represented on BMG.

    <

    p>Methinks thou dost protest too much, Bob.  Secretly wishing for a little more light and a little less heat, but unable to get out of the demolition-derby business?

    <

    p>I made it all the way to the bottom of said s#@tstorm looking for the evidence that supports your conclusion, but what I got for “variety of viewpoints” was blatantly transparent partisanship weakly disguised as “respect for the office of the presidency”, and “Bill Clinton didn’t balance the budget”, from your exalted guest wingnuts.  The only thing missing was “JFK murdered Amelia Earhart and escaped to Mars with Elvis”.

    <

    p>I suppose that a discussion on whether the world was flat or whether two plus two equals six would be ‘excellent’ as well — in its way — but it wouldn’t move the discourse ahead, either.

      • Actually, the ‘3’ was for i) name-calling and ii) poor use of the rules of grammar.

        <

        p>As a refresher, when one uses quotation marks, it is typically because they are, you know, quoting something.  So, when you say:

        <

        p>

        … “Bill Clinton didn’t balance the budget”,

        you aren’t quoting anyone, and deceptively and intentionally setting up a strawman…

        <

        p>Obviously that misattributed phrase “Bill Clinton didn’t balance the budget” differs mightily from “Clinton left us with a surplus” the latter of course, being a myth and easily refuted.  

        <

        p>Lack of understanding between the two phrases, merits a ‘4’.  Add irrational and unecessary name calling, downgrades to a ‘3’.  And finally comparing that ‘3’ to a “medal of honor” (observe the quotes?), is, just a little weird.
         

    • “Shitstorm” was a facetious remark used to capitalize on a rare BMG opportunity to make a poop joke when promoting a user diary.  It was a silly comment for a lighthearted diary.  

Archives