Is it "the mildest criticism" to say Bush is no different to the Democrats, a party that Ann Coulter makes a strong case as being treasonous? is it "the mildest criticism" to liken voting Bush to driving off a cliff?
Is it saying "Republicans can do no wrong" to point out that some of the rhetoric used to criticize Bush is just plain nuts? (that last one is not aimed at you, or the person who started this, but at someone else who is likely to make his way to this thread- hey there RJ!)
There is plenty or reason to criticize Bush. CFR was a complete farce, for example. But frankly, if someone tries to say there is no difference between him and a Democrat or tries to say that the Patriot Act formed a Gestapo and we live in a police state, they really should expect people to call them on it.
In this statement, I think you sum up much of the problem here. You seem to recognize that Maceman's comments were not "just plain nuts" as you put it. You have a problem with his "cliff" analogy, and I'd like to answer that issue shortly. However, the first point is who started the demagoguery.
I don't think Maceman's comments represent demogoguery. He expressed praise for what President Bush has done well. He expressed criticism for what the president has not done well. I think you're taking his analogy a little more strongly than it was intended. Maceman said that he would vote for the president if he thought failing to vote for the president could allow a Democrat to be elected. His criticism of President Bush didn't start the demagoguery.
On the other hand, I think Mason was clearly engaging in demagoguery when he tried to reduce the original criticism to a claim that President Bush is a "great satan." He was being untruthful when he tried to portray those criticisms as a willingness to elect a Democrat. I'm not sure who "RJ" is, but I think Mason engaged in the same tactics that you criticise from RJ.
Regarding the cliff analogy, I share the feeling that the country is going in the wrong direction and that President Bush is only slowing us down and not really turning us around. I understand the situation he faces. He was not elected with a mandate for true conservative reform. He didn't really campaign for that mandate, and while he won the election fairly, the margins didn't give him a mandate. Maybe he doesn't yet have the political capital to do what must be done. Furthermore, a president doesn't have complete control. What we need is a change in the people's hearts and minds and for that change to be communicated upward. There's only so much that a president can do from his "bully pulpit."
Still, when the president signs campaign finance reform, we're going towards the cliff. When he signs a bill to create a prescription drug entitlement, we're going towards the cliff. When he supports extending the "assault weapons" ban, we're going towards the cliff. When we allow people to enter our country illegally and then give them all kinds of benefits, we're going towards the cliff. These are not the actions of a healthy society. I recognize that there's only so much that the president can do, and the terrorist attack changed many priorities. In many ways, I think President Bush may be trying to "steer into the slide" so that he can gain control to turn us in the right direction. However, I can't pretend that he's taking us in that direction right now. To a small extent, that's a criticism of the president, but it's a bigger criticism of the country as a whole. The president simply represents the country by the nature of his position.
If the original posts had really equated President Bush to the Democrats, I wouldn't have responded as I did. If they said he just wanted to sell us out to the trilateral commission or whomever, I would agree that those posts deserved criticism. The "Bush is satan" sarcasm would have been justified. However, that sarcasm is not justified when good people express honest, thoughtful concerns about the direction the country is going.
WFTR
Bill