Among the Bush haters (Why isn't the news media decrying Bush Hate like they did Clinton Hate?)

TownHall.com ^ | August 19, 2003 | Rich Lowry

[Timesink]

Among the Bush haters
Rich Lowry

August 19, 2003

In the 1990s, a few lunatics accused President Clinton of murder and other crimes, leading to the coinage of the phrase "Clinton-hating." Thereafter, anyone who said a discouraging word about Clinton's sex-and-lies scandal, his slipperiness with the truth or his poor performance was tarred as a "Clinton-hater" and considered somehow illegitimate. The charge of Clinton-hating, constantly retailed by the media, became one of the most useful tools of the president's defenders.

It is curious, then, that the press, which lately was so sensitive to any "hatred" directed toward a sitting president, has shown no curiosity about the bile routinely directed toward President Bush. Byron York, in the latest National Review, has dipped into the anti-Bush fever swamps and come back with evidence of "Bush-hating" to rival anything directed at his predecessor.

Bush is routinely portrayed as a Nazi on left-wing Web sites, which post pictures of Bush with a Hitler mustache and sell T-shirts with Bush's name spelled with a swastika. The anti-war Web site Takebackthemedia.com features a Flash movie complaining that "the media will not tell you of the Bush family Nazi association" and theorizing that in order "to offset their reputation as World War II traitors, former President Bush joined the U.S. Navy as a pilot." (Clever, those Bushes.)

"It's going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933," writes a judicious Dave Lindorff in "Bush and Hitler: The Strategy of Fear" on the left-wing Web site Counterpunch.org. "Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. But comparisons of the Bush administration's fear-mongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels ... are not at all out of line." Lindorff, a contributor to The Nation magazine and Salon.com, maintains that Hitler "would be proud that an American president is emulating him in so many ways."

A staple of Clinton-hating in the 1990s was the accusation that he was involved in murder. Clinton defenders often referred to these accusations. Hillary Clinton noted on her famous "Today" show appearance in 1998 that enemies had accused her "husband of committing murder, of drug running." George Stephanopoulos said Clinton's critics were "accusing him of murders. ... That's unheard of." Clinton observed in a 1999 press conference: "I've been accused of murder and all kinds of things."

So has Bush. The Web site Bushbodycount.com lists hundreds of murders in which Bush and his family have allegedly been involved, including the John F. Kennedy assassination. The abbreviation on left-wing sites for the Bushes is BFEE, the Bush Family Evil Empire. A book detailing the Bush family murders called "The Immaculate Deception" outsells mainstream anti-Bush books -- by Al Franken, et al. -- on Amazon.com, according to York.

The Clinton White House maintained that the ravings of an anti-Clinton fringe mattered because they seeped into the mainstream. It produced a 300-page report to this effect, the "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce." By this standard, the anti-Bush lunacy should be considered important as well. The Democrats have a largely Bush-hating field of presidential candidates, including one -- Sen. Bob Graham -- who has talked of impeaching Bush, and another -- Howard Dean -- who fuels his surprisingly strong campaign with anti-Bush animus.

In 1994, Time Magazine ran a story called "Clintonophobia!" that quoted historian Alan Brinkley saying that Clinton was "the first president who has generated this kind of right-wing hatred" and that such negative passion could never be directed toward a Republican. "Liberals tend to value tolerance highly," he said, "so there's a greater reluctance to destroy enemies than among the right."

This is demonstrably false. There is a vocal Bush-hating chorus on the left that resents his narrow victory in Florida, that will never forgive him for invading Iraq and that can't stand his cowboy mannerisms. It spreads anti-Bush poison far and wide -- but don't hold your breath for the Time story about "Bushophobia!" For the media, only the right is capable of "hating."

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review, a TownHall.com member group.

[Timesink]

Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal. Especially liberal media.

[Timesink]

This is the nascent Mainstream Media Shenanigans ping list. Please freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Please note this will likely become a high-volume list.
Also feel free to ping me if you come across a thread you would think worthy of the ping list. I can't catch them all!

[Torie]

The Clinton hate term got traction because Newt embraced going after him, along with much of the GOP leadership. Give the Dem leadership time, they may get there vis a vis Bush, but they lack the raw material. So I tend to doubt it. What fringe types say don't matter much. One experts them to see things in Manachian terms.

[Mo1]

Bush is routinely portrayed as a Nazi on left-wing Web sites

It's not just on websites .. did ya catch Ed Asner in Hannity and Colmes tonight?

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

[(Why isn't the news media decrying Bush Hate like they did Clinton Hate?)]

To ask the question is to answer it, grasshopper. :O)

[Lancey Howard]

The question is rhetorical and the answer is obvious, but it is still a question which needed to be posed if only to shame the handful of liberal newsroom scum who still try to pretend they are "objective journalists", LOFL.

[King Prout]

perfect, sublimely perfect response.

[swilhelm73]

You know it is funny, but if Bush adopted the actual policies of the NAZIs sans racial genocide, the left would be pretty darn happy with him.

Of course, NAZI, in leftist lingo, along with fascist, just means something/someone I don't like; ie;

The Bush administration is run by a NAZI cabal of Jews beholden to Israel.

[smoothsailing]

Where were you when Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter won the Cold War?

Hey, and what about Clinton and his heroic deeds?

Well, Ketchup Boy Kerry is here to save us.

Dingbatocrats all.

[MJY1288]

"(Why isn't the news media decrying Bush Hate like they did Clinton Hate?)"

That's simple...... The Liberal hatred towards Bush is portrayed by the mainstream media as "healthy debate which is good for America."

When Conservatives challenge the Liberals on policy and/or philosophy, we are considered "Right Wing Wacko's who never compromise"

Proof of this can be seen in how the media covered the "Black Out" the other day. They claimed that it was the "Far Right" who killed the Energy Bill, because they insisted on drilling for oil in ANWAR. Yet, no mention of the obstruction by the democrats on the Energy Bill, because they refuse to allow environmentally safe oil exploration at ANWAR....... GO FIGURE!

[Mo1]

Those whack jobs dressed in black with masks over their heads, trashing buildings and starting riots sure aren't conservatives

And conservatives don't go around carrying signs hoping for our solders to be killed like the left do ..

Conservatives love their country .. the left doesn't

I will NEVER forget what the left has done.

[swilhelm73]

Hey, and what about Clinton and his heroic deeds?

This one always gets me actually. I know lefties love Clinton because he was one of them...but their ranting of his 'greatness' is just too much. During Clinton's eight years in the government he had a hand in the following issues;

1) Enacted NAFTA (Republican congress)

2) Enacted welfare reform (Republican congress)

3) Raised taxes

4) Raised pork spending alot

5) Brokered peace in the Middle East (snicker)

6) Attacked Serbia

7) Ignored the growing threat of Islamic terrorism

So, being kind here, Clinton's "great" achievement was Kosovo. And that's it. At least FDR and Reagan, the two most commonly named great presidents won wars...

[TheCrusader]

Seems like the mutual hatred on both sides goes deeper than politics, it's more like a spiritual battle between good and evil that's going on. Objects of contention used to be things like which programs our tax money was going to be spent on, or how many troops should we send to this country, or which economic trade policies should we develop and implement, etc. Today, the battle lines are drawn between issues like abortion, homosexuality, anti-Christian public policies, pornography, morality, Islamic terror, etc. In other words, the major Party divisions have switched from political ones to primarily religious/spirital ones. These are indeed strange times we live in; something's going on all around us that I don't think everyone comprehends.

[swilhelm73]

That's simple...... The Liberal hatred towards Bush is portrayed by the mainstream media as "healthy debate which is good for America."

Yes. Claim that Clinton bombed that Sudanese aspirin factory to get Monica off the front page and the Democrat's media will call you a right wing extremist Clinton Hater.

Claim that Bush invaded Iraq for something to do with oil (lefties are never sure about this part), and the Democrat's media calls you a centerist presidential candidate.

[upchuck]

The question is rhetorical and the answer is obvious, but it is still a question which needed to be posed if only to shame the handful of liberal newsroom scum who

Handful? I would propose the MAJORITY of newsroom scum are Bush hating RATS or at least sympathizers.

[Mo1]

it's more like a spiritual battle between good and evil that's going on

Exactly ..

[upchuck]

I agree with you Crusader. Something strange, indeed, is going on. Glad I'm gonna be on the winning side when it gets series.

[okie01]

"...but it is still a question which needed to be posed if only to shame the handful of liberal newsroom scum who still try to pretend they are "objective journalists"

They are incapable of shame.

[Lancey Howard]

Sorry, I wasn't clear.
I meant that of all the liberal newsroom scum, only a handful have any shame. And even that may be too generous.

[MJY1288]

Why was there never an investigation on the "Intel Reports" (Threat Assessment) Clinton used to Bomb Yugoslavia? We all heard Clinton make the claims of Genocide and the hundreds of thousands in mass graves as a reason to order NATO's Supreme Commander "Wesley Clark" to commence the bombing of Yugoslavia, Where is the investigations on this adventure?