Posted on 11/14/2007 2:13:23 AM PST by Aristotelian
Hating the president is almost as old as the republic itself. The people, or various factions among them, have indulged in Clinton hatred, Reagan hatred, Nixon hatred, LBJ hatred, FDR hatred, Lincoln hatred, and John Adams hatred, to mention only the more extravagant hatreds that we Americans have conceived for our presidents.
But Bush hatred is different. It's not that this time members of the intellectual class have been swept away by passion and become votaries of anger and loathing. Alas, intellectuals have always been prone to employ their learning and fine words to whip up resentment and demonize the competition. Bush hatred, however, is distinguished by the pride intellectuals have taken in their hatred, openly endorsing it as a virtue and enthusiastically proclaiming that their hatred is not only a rational response to the president and his administration but a mark of good moral hygiene. . . .
Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy. Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims--who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance--to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil. Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
It’s not ideological, because Bush, unlike Reagan, is not noted for his “vision.” Nor is it corruption. This administration hasn’t been hit with a raft of subpoenas or trials as was the Clinton administration.
Perhaps the hatred is a reflection of frustration — frustration by the libs that their message isn’t very attractive to voters.
BDS.
I don’t hate Bush. I just think he’s the worst “repbulican/conservative” president we’ve had in my lifetime.
Rep Bulican
If you ask me, it’s Bush’s faith that creates the hatred. Telling a liberal ‘I love Jesus’ will do it everytime.
The name Jesus is a very powerful word.
Bush, like his father and Dole, was a product of the GOP machine. The wise men got together pre-2000 and decided what was needed was a Southern governor with name recognition. That boiled down to George and Jeb. They picked GW.
It was the Gore thing. The old message board I posted on was never the same.
And, this is undeniable proof that anyone believing this tripe is suffering from BDS. The reason is simple and is as old as the Republic itself. This notion that the 2000 election was "stolen" from Owlgore proves that they are not remotely intellectual at all, but rather morons who have neither read, nor understand the United States Constitution. Presidents are not elected by popular vote in this country. Anyone in the Democrat Party who thinks the 2000 election was "stolen" from Owlgore should read Article 2, Sections 1-4.
Bush’s clumsy speaking style and general demeanor are a slap in the face to the institutional media culture. That he doesn’t especially seem to care turns media-cult irritation into fury.
Bush’s apparent contempt for media culture is what really makes them crazy, it threatens the media-industrial complex and its millions of disciples right where they live.
We would not take this off a DEM yet because Bush is a Republican it's all just fine? What about Alberto Gonzales the man who never met a database on private law abiding citizens he didn't like? Bush and his cronies have all but destroyed the Republican party and made Hillary Clinton a far bigger threat to us than she ever could have been otherwise thanks to his new powers and programs the Stupid Party Republican Congress gave him. The name Bush should draw the disgust of all Conservatives. When will the GOP ever learn it's lesson? Bush is the Republicans Jimmy Carter. What is to like about the man? He wasn't Al Gore? Well Al Gore would have at least possibly faced some opposition by the GOP Congress.
I disagree to a point.
I don't think it's his faith as much as they see it as code to the religious right.
“Bush and his cronies have all but destroyed the Republican party”
Here in Austin, I’ve heard people say that Bush is the best thing to happen to democrats since Herbert Hoover
In reality the GOP Congress may have faired better controlling Al Gore's liberalism than Bush's. We saw this happen in Tennessee with our last GOP governor. He was a nightmare that made a DEM self professed liberal who took his place look conservative in comparison. Actually the DEM has been a better governor sad to say.
Oh, yes, and remember “Read my lips”?
“In reality the GOP Congress may have faired better controlling Al Gore’s liberalism than Bush’”
I agree, and I also think that’s why the Republican Brand is looking pretty frazzled at the moment. I don’t think a majority are anti-conservative, just anti-Republican. The GOP congress did seem to “Rubber Stamp” plenty of things that IMO would have been squashed had the president been a dem.
That is true enough. GHW Bush stood against everything Reagan stood for and began proving it in 1989. Had he stayed the Reagan course he would have had an easy second term. Unfortunately Poppy's son is a bigger liberal than his Rockefeller Republican dad was.
Remember, each in their own time, Washington and Lincoln were reviled by their contemporary masses for instigating what were, at the time, very unpopular wars, but while theirs saved this nation, Bush's will save the entire world from Islamo-fascist dictatorship.
But don't worry, it won't happen in your lifetime, thus you'll never have to admit that I was right, and you can die as stupid as you were born.
;-/
“Once the middle east has been democratized and brought out of the carnage-strewn stone age, all because of Bush’s prescient efforts and leadership beginning with Iraq, he will be hailed by history as the greatest president in our nation’s history, surpassing Washington and Lincoln in scope and genius.”
That’s some powerful crystal ball you have there pardner.
I tend to doubt your scenario for the ME, not because I don’t wish it were true, but rather because 2000 years of history doesn’t support it.
“But don’t worry, it won’t happen in your lifetime, thus you’ll never have to admit that I was right, and you can die as stupid as you were born.”
Wow, a personal attack for stating an opinion.
The fundamental premise of the story is wrong.
The people the writer describes are not "intellectuals" at all.
They are low grade, parasitic commie thugs, with an overwrought send of their own intelligence.
I wonder some times if the old man ever really figured out how badly he got hosed by that evil rat George Mitchell and the DemocRAT Congress.
Bush has managed to do something in the Middle East no other POTUS has managed in history. To get every nation but Israel mad at us and even his policy on Israel is enough to make any God fearing Christian cringe at his prophetic Road Map to peace. Bush is clueless as to what war actually is to be honest about it. Had he been POTUS in WW2 we would now be under Nazi and Imperial rule.
My short answer is that on the long day of September 11, 2001, there was a President George Bush. I remember praying and giving thanks for GWB on that terrible day.
Can you just imagine if it had been Al Gore?
“(The one election that I know of that was stolen in U.S. presidential history was 1960, when JFK stole the election by fraud in Illinois — and also probably Texas — from Nixon.)”
Yes, and it was my first presidential vote. For Nixon, naturally.
Well, if Hillary is elected we will no doubt see a level of loathing on par with Bush hatred, if not exceeding it.
“Well, if Hillary is elected we will no doubt see a level of loathing on par with Bush hatred, if not exceeding it.”
We’re seeing it already, and she hasn’t even won anything yet
Yea I can. Same results. Look at the names and nations of origin of the attackers and go after another nation. Gore like Bush would have been limited to what Congress allowed. Here is the problem. Bush had a bunch of bad ideas and because he was a fellow Republican the GOP congress who BTW was also an enabler to Clinton/Gore on such issues as gutting our military and their nation building gave Bush a blank check.
Bush is bad enough but my real contempt is for the Do nothing Republicratic Congress. Not the Conservative Republican Congress of 1995 but that of 1996 of which took over control and direction of the party. The North East elitist who helped usher in the Bob Dole GOP. The sellouts!
“My short answer is that on the long day of September 11, 2001, there was a President George Bush. I remember praying and giving thanks for GWB on that terrible day.
Can you just imagine if it had been Al Gore?”
That fact that President Bush admirably did his duty on 9-11
doesn’t negate his other, less than stellar decisions. He came through in a time of crisis, but that doesn’t make everything he does right.
And they were justified, at least in the cases above. Clinton and LBJ were utterly corrupt, and FDR was a Commie wanna be.
IMHO, think cross, think demon....the imagery works....and unfortunately makes more sense than almost anything else.
Kennedy didn't steal the election. He would up with 303 electoral votes. If Nixon had won in Illinois then Kennedy would still have had 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246, more than enough to win. And Kennedy won Texas by 55,000 votes and 2 percentage points.
Early primary states, like Iowa and New Hampshire trend liberal. I read a post on another thread about some people from Houston who were very conservative in their beliefs, but unfailingly voted Dem. Up here in PA, I have run into a lot of die hard Republican voters, who don't even consider voting Democrat, yet they believe in abortion rights, gay rights, etc. I have often said that a Southern Democrat is to the right of a North or Northeastern Republican.
Conclusion: We need to let southern states vote first in the primary and we will get a conservative Republican nominated.
Thankfully we don't have a system that involves the voters. </sarcasm>
No, it is a tactic fomented and support by the Progressives to do exactly as Berkowitz says - blind one to the arguments of conservatives. It is hate substituted for thought.
To be sure, GW has not thrilled me on many fronts, but he is the CINC and we are at war with an ideology that will burn the leftists haters first should they win.
It really is a disgusting anathema.
“We saw this before when the Gipper was in the WH”
Not like this. I remember that well, but today’s Bush haters are literally deranged... like that lunatic on Rush a week or so ago who was claiming that Bush and Chaney were behind the WTC “bombing” because they’d taken insurance out on it, and Condolezza too, who was able to get insurance even after her “trial”... (?). Hell, the LIBS are SO whacked out I remember one of them telling me that the government had secret bases on the dark side of the moon... just to watch us.
Reagan, they just hated... but they still fuctioned as members of the human race. The current crop of RATS are so demented they shouldn’t be ALLOWED to vote (since they’d probably vote Osama into office)... hell, they shouldn’t be allowed to DRIVE.
Gore wouldn't have "gone after" anybody. Maybe that would have been better.
I’m voting for Duncan Hunter who has been in the Congress for 26 yrs. This is a man for whom “sellout” is a four letter word. Remember the House banking scandal? Hunter was touched by it, only because of the incredible foul-ups by the admin staff of the House. Hunter took his checks and set up a card table in front of San Diego City Hall. For three days, Hunter stood at the card table and answered any questions regarding those checks. If Hunter gets a “blank check” from the Congress, I just know it’s going to be spent on defense and rebuilding our heavy manufacturing base. He’s already got the money for his border fence!
Ding, Ding Ding! You win the prize!!!!
GW Bush did much to get us a DEM majority or even worse RINO's by pushing his long time RINO buddies over solid conservatives. Had any other DEM POTUS Canidate in 2000 got the nod but tainted Gore Bush could not have won. It would not have even been close. Sad part was Bush was telling the nation just how liberal he actually was and yes even FR was helping to create Urban Legend Myth Conservative Bush.
As for 1992 and Perot the RINO's favorite whipping boy? LOL had Poppy simply stayed the course Ross would have stayed in his corporate office. Perot was the symptom of growing problems inside the GOP not the disease.
“To paraphrase, Gore’s Global Warming Circus is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. He puts it above terrorism because it makes him a “rock star”.”
You’re correct it does make him a rock star, but he’s not running for anything, so his bad ideas don’t factor into this much. I have no idea what would have happened had Gore been President on 9-11, but neither does anybody else, including probably Gore himself, so the argument that GWB is beyond reproach because Gore would have been worse doesn’t hold water.
Speaks volumes, doesn’t it?
You seem to suffer from the brain-blocking hatred described in this article. You are long on bluster and short on facts.
You have nailed it perfectly, my friend!
For what it’s worth, here from Wikipedia on 1960 election controversy:
Some Republicans and historians have alleged that Kennedy benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas and Illinois, and that Nixon actually won the national popular vote despite the fact that Republicans tried and failed to overturn the results in both these states at the time—as well as in nine other states. These two states are important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have won the election in the electoral college.
Kennedy won Illinois by a bare 9,000 votes, even though Nixon carried 92 of the state’s 101 counties. His victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago’s vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes, thus (barely) overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was “stolen” for Kennedy.
In Texas, some Republicans argued that the formidable political machine of Lyndon Johnson had stolen enough votes in counties along the Mexican border to give Kennedy the victory there.
According to Nixon partisans, the Republican party urged Nixon to pursue recounts and challenge the validity of some votes for Kennedy, especially in the pivotal states of Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey, where large majorities in Catholic precincts handed Kennedy the election. Nixon publicly refused to call for a recount, saying it would cause a constitutional crisis; he also convinced Mazo and the Herald Tribune to not print any stories suggesting that the election had been stolen by the Democrats. Privately, however, Nixon encouraged Republican National Chairman Thruston Morton to push for a recount, which Morton did in 11 states, keeping challenges in the courts into the summer of 1961; the only result was the loss of the State of Hawaii to Kennedy on a recount petitioned by the Kennedy campaign.
Kennedy’s defenders, such as historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., have argued that Kennedy’s margin in Texas (46,000 votes) was simply too large for vote fraud to have been a decisive factor; in Illinois Schlesinger and others have pointed out that even if Nixon carried Illinois, the state alone would not have given him the victory, as Kennedy would still have won 276 electoral votes to Nixon’s 246[citation needed] (with 269 needed to win). More to the point, Illinois was the site of the most extensive challenge process, which fell short despite repeated efforts spearheaded by Cook County state’s attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, a Republican, who also lost his re-election bid. Despite demonstrating net errors favoring both Nixon and Adamowski (some precincts—40% in Nixon’s case—showed errors favoring them, a factor suggesting error, rather than fraud), the totals found fell short of reversing the results for either candidate. The Republican-dominated State Board of Elections unanimously rejected the challenge to the results.
These lost challenges did not deter the belief that Nixon actually won the popular vote in the various recounts Because he still lost the electoral votes needed for the Presidency. Furthermore, there were signs of possible irregularities in downstate areas controlled by Republicans, which Democrats never seriously pressed, since the Republican challenges went nowhere.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1960
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.