Almost since Bruce’s first post on this blog, we have been faulted for not criticizing the president enough. And while on the whole, we believe he has done a good job, each of us is aware of his faults (and his flaws). I have made clear my opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment (which the president supports) and have taken him to task for failing to follow Ronald Reagan’s vision of federalism. I have not said as much as I would like about his inability to hold the line on federal spending or about his inadquate solutions to deal with illegal immigration and border-control.
While I acknowledge that George W. Bush has been far from a perfect president, I frequently find myself in the position of Roger Simon who asked yesterday: “Am I the only one who likes Bush more every time he is excessively attacked by the mainstream media?” Roger’s “case in point” is Hurricane Katrina. Instead of seeing the Administration’s mistakes in the context of the size of the storm and the accomplishments of federal (as well as state and local) agencies in providing relief (see here for a partial listing of what went right, HT: Powerline), the MSM focus on the mistakes — so as to create a legend of his failure.
As Roger put it, “The willful ignorance of the media in their zeal to get Bush is peculiar.” And adds, “The more these attacks continue in this manner the more Bush will thrive. That’s the way humans react to unfairness.” And perhaps that’s why we have spent more defending the president than dwelling on our areas of disagreement. We see how unfairly the media, particularly the gay media, has treated the president.
An LA Times columnist (in a puff piece on Bill Maher) writes that “media [is] actually doing a credible job on Katrina,” he congratulates the media for creating a legend based on its own bias against the president. (The real sad thing is that this guy really believes the media is doing a good job covering the hurricane and its aftermath.) Similarly, many in the gay press, particularly the columnists, routinely distort the facts to present an image of the president which conforms to their own diabolical images of the man.
In a column in the latest Advocate, Charles Kaiser repeats a number of unsubstantiated slurs (and a few outright lies) against presidential advisor Karl Rove. He’s not offering commentary on the facts, but twisting those facts (and inventing new ones out of whole cloth) in order to present a negative portrait of the president and his closest aides.
No wonder bloggers like Bruce and I have devoted so much time to defending the president. No wonder our affection for the man has grown even as we find fault with some of his appointments and policies. When the president’s adversaries and the media, especially the gay media, exaggerate his wrongs, distort the facts of his Administration and ignore the good things he has done, most Americans will measure the president’s actual record against that bitter rhetoric and, as a result, may well become more sympathetic to the man and his administration.
Just as Bruce asked yesterday, “Why are gay liberals so hateful toward gay conservatives” I ask today, why are the media, so many left-wingers and so many gay activists so hateful towards President Bush?
The president is, like his predecessors, an imperfect man, but also a man who has done some good. He may have backed the FMA, but he refused to accede to social conservatives’ demands that he repeal President Clinton’s Executive Order barring discrimination against gay and lesbian federal employees. The federal response to Katrina may not have been ideal, but even Donna Brazile, a Democratic activist who managed Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, thought the president spoke “from the heart” Thursday night and was proud of him “and the plan he outlined to empower those who lost everything and to rebuild the Gulf Coast.”
It’s unfortunate that the president’s critics are not more like Ms. Brazile, willing to acknowledge his good intentions and able to praise him when he puts forwards policies they support. Until those critics do as she has done, I will wonder at the bile of the Bush-bashers and their allies in the mainstream and gay media and defend him against their false accusations and rhetorical excesses.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Oh . . . and, if you haven’t yet read Roger’s piece, read the whole thing.
Dudes, there are at least 50,000 blogs devoted to nothing but non-stop Bush-Bashing. It’s not as if any anti-Bush talking points are going to fail to circulate because GP doesn’t devote a thread to them. And why is it your job to repeat what 50,000 other blogs are saying? Especially when the anti-Bush folks post beauties like this, From the Democratic Undergound Message Board (DUMB) via LGF
And the subsequent DUMB comments are even more demented.
i.e. If you’re a Democrat nutcase, the most logical explanation for Bush remaining in power… is that he’s the devil incarnate.
GP,
Why not tell everyone the truth? You asked certain liberal posters to leave yet bitch about not being able to advertise on another blog. So much for censorship.
Will you admit to this? Will you fess up to why the liberal bloggers have left??
Monty
The answer is:
YOU ASKED THEM TO!!
Do you admitt this or not?
Monty
This is why the libs have left. They’ve been censored by a letter from Bruce.
What say you Bruce and Dan? Do you dare to disagree, you hypocrites? Did you, or did you not, ask people to leave? And…don’t give me the “upsetting the board” crap. THATGAYCONSERVATIVE is still floating around.
Let’s take this to the final round. Have you got the guts to fess up?
Monty
VtK-
I actually see hope in questions like the one you cite. That guys is really asking “how can things not be happening as I was so certain they would?” — that’s the next-to-last step in realizing that there’s something wrong with his beliefs about how the world works.
Hmmm….well, Monty, why don’t you tell us a few more details about this alleged “letter” and who got it?
Great substantive post and great links. Thanks for that.
I think I wouldn’t feel so alienated from today’s Democrats, if it didn’t feel like their criticism of this President were so….alien. You can make honest criticism, but what I find, is that the sensible criticism is drowned out by the hateful rhetoric that has no reasonable basis in reality. I know reasonable Democrats who are able to distinguish spin and substance; but on occasion, they too fall victim to the Democratic Underground vomit. That’s because that sort of “Bush is dumb, Bush is Hitler, Bush doesn’t care about black people”-type language is seeping into the mainstream; and if you hear it enough times without being vigilant, you begin to believe it. I know many Democrats and moderates who don’t follow the news closely, and get their information from tv and mainstream papers.
And yes, the more this President is hated by those far-Left extremists and criticized by the world at large, the more I feel like he must be doing something right.
Dan-
I suspect there are plenty of Bush critics who are capable of speaking in complete thoughts — like Donna Brazile. But the media really isn’t interested in giving them a forum. They’ve become addicted to the Jerry Springer news model — and respectful disagreement on substance is Boooring!
The “willfull ignorance”? What a wonderful turn of phrase, and a complete twist on all facts on hand. It’s amazing to see to what length that the right blogs go to to defend the president, going so far to say “We never went to Iraq for WMDs, we went to liberate Iraq!” despite the state of the union addresses before the war and one after claiming “We’ll find them” and having over 70% of his argument being for that.
Your “ignorance” of the president goes quite far. He’s made a mistake in Iraq and other places, yet you say “It’s ok” or “it’s for the best” or “It’s to defend us.” and it all falls quite frankly flat, and is growing tiresome.
Actually, what’s ignorant and tiresome is left-wing dead-enders pretending that GWB was the only person in the world who believed in 2002-2003 that Iraq possessed WMD. What’s ignorant and tiresome is left-wingers who pretend that Saddam was innocent as a lamb with regard to terrorism despite murals like this being found in his palaces. And what’s really tiresome is the attitude of left-wingers that democratizing the Middle East “just isn’t worth it,” and we should just sit at home and hire a few more police and firefighters to sponge up the blood after the next terrorist attack, rather than take the fight to the terrorists.
The American leftists are so obsessed with hating George W. Bush that they sound like they don’t understand he’s not running again. Are they going to spend the next three years taking pot shots at “Chimpy* McBushitler,” or are they going to start putting together a platform, articulating it intelligently to the electorate, and vetting potential presidential candidates? Would they rather win elections in 2006 and 2008, or would they rather devote all their time and energy to moaning and whining about “pee-Resident Select” Bush? They’re still arguing about WMDs! That doesn’t get them any closer to winning elections.
Actually one of them told me he’s afraid Bush will change the Constitution so he can have a third term in the White House. I tried to explain how Constitutional amendments get ratified, but he wasn’t buying any of it. “Bush will just tell his new Supreme Court to change the Constitution.” This is the level of sophistication we’re dealing with.
So Joey, why do you think anyone would defend or like President Bush? Is it because we’re stupid? Is it because we’re evil? Or is it because we’re stupid and evil?
I like Roger Simon, but a 40 percent approval rating is “thriving”? That kind of statement is equivalent to plugging your ears and going LA LA LA LA to drown out contrary information.
Malcontent, I saw a recent Gallup Poll which showed the president’s approval in the mid-40s — and this just before the speech which is sure to give him an additional boost.
I remember NYC Mayor Guiliani basher’s constantly referred to the Mayor as an Hilter/evil Nazi Repug extremist throughout his term until 9/11. All change after that. Guiliani supported gay marriage.
What I find so ridiculous about bash-Bush BS is that the next Republican President will be bashed all the same as all the previous Republican Presidents. Endless display of obvious bigotry is most likely the reason that sane Democrats cannot identify with their own party. I would venture to say that most Americans generally are fed-up with the constant and endless bashing as much as we are fed-up with a media which has deemed itself ‘heroes of the people’ manipulating facts to prove their factually vacuous idea that they can save us all from wreck and ruin. The Media, like the bashers, are simply goulish grave diggers without decency.
What’s that guy number 3 talking about? A “letter” asking the Libs to leave Gay Patriot? No way guys. Just read some of the threads below. The loons are all over the place, or were up until a few days ago. As Joe said in another thread, it’s just a statistical lull. They’ll be back. Probably took the weekend off. But Gay Patriot would never censor them. There’s a whole post below where Gay Patriot is talking Against censorship, not For it. Right?
Number 14 has got it right on the President’s ratings. After that great speech last week, he’ll be back at 60% in the next polls. Maybe even 65%. That was a home run in any ballpark. The crazies are going to do flips when they see how much Americans love W. And the guy before that in number 13 was talkign about “40%”. Where did you get that? The lowest I saw for W was 48%, Gallup poll or something. And that was After all the bad news that the President has had to deal with, none of it of his own making. He’ll be at 60%+ this time next week, because the people love him or they would not have reelected him.
As a liberal, Bush-hating bloke, I have to admit that a lot of what I read here has opened my eyes to a broader view – so with a slightly begrudging thank you – keep it up
You know, I’ll never quite understand the intense hatred of Bush. I think 90% of it is mired in Florida 2000. This president spends like a liberal Democrat. Federal education spending is up 50%, spending on social poverty programs is up something like 33%. If this were Clinton, the liberal left would be slipping in self-puddles of pure ecstacy.
Instead, we get a persistant refrain that Bush hates the poor, doesn’t care about education, and on and on and on.
In what universe?
“What I find so ridiculous about bash-Bush BS is that the next Republican President will be bashed all the same as all the previous Republican Presidents. Endless display of obvious bigotry is most likely the reason that sane Democrats cannot identify with their own party.”
The GOP bashes Democrats at every single possible chance it can. The only think different is that the Democrats don’t have a President in office. So Bush is a more obvious focus for criticism. Clinton got the same treatment that Bush is getting now. Except that Bush isn’t getting impeached.
The meme of this thread portrays Bush as some sort of victim. I just don’t buy it. He and is team have proven themselves able manipulators of headlines. Better than the Democrats. The GOP controls the frame of any debate that takes place. Anti-War? Must be anti-American and anti-troops. Pro-Gay Marriage? Must be against “traditional values”.
And the fact that the GOP Congress and President are the largest spenders of tax dollars in history barely mentions an occasional article.
So no, Bush is not a helpless “victim” of bashing. Please. Cry me a river.
Clinton got the same treatment that Bush is getting now.
I call Bullshit.
The Mainstream Media did not go out of their way to gin up hatred against Clinton the way they do against Bush. If anything, they covered Clinton’s ass. Remember Dan Rather saying to Bill Clinton, “If we could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners.” Hardly the same treatment Bush gets.
You also didn’t see the MSM coming up with phony memos to try to damage Bill Clinton. When Bill Clinton was stonewalling Ken Starr, the media did everything they could to protect the Clintons and make Ken Starr the enemy. Compare and contrast with how the media treat, for example, Linda Tripp (to the MSM a traitorous bitch because she turned on the president) and Cindy Sheehan (to the MSM a people’s hero because she turned on the president).
The more outrageous critcisms of Clinton were on the outermost fringes of the right. Bush-Hatred is the central organizing principle of the mainstream left and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself). I didn’t see the makers of ‘The Clinton Chronicles’ sitting in the presidential box at the RNC convention, but Michael Moore got that treatment from the DNC.
Gryph-
No one said he (Bush) was a “helpless victim” of bashing…
It’s the undifferentiated hatred that discredits SOME on the left. (like Howard Dean)
If you can’t name a couple of things Bush has done well or right… your criticism doesn’t come in reaction to what he does, but to the man himself. Much of the bashing of Hillary from the right does carry the same self-defeating stridency — one of the reasons she worries me as a candidate.
Just out of curiosity — can you name three things Bush has done well or right?
I’m not a Bush fan, but I am far from being liberal. The problem with comparing anyone (even a moderate conservative) to Bush is that because he is so far to the extreme right on social issues, everyone looks like a fucking extreme liberal next to him.
Katrina — let’s see, he spend 2-3 days on vacation and taking trips to San Diego while the storm hit. Ms. Rice went shopping in NY and Cheney was on vacation in Wyoming. Apparently, Katrina just came at a bad time — since they were on vacation. Now, I know that Katrina could have been much worse, because it was coming in as a Category 5 Hurricane and it was reported (all over the media) that the levees in NO were only designed for Category 3 maximum. That’s should have been a red flag to everyone.
Media — the media has been so light on Bush it is disgusting, all because the press was afraid of not being invited back if they didn’t ask the right questions. That’s why FOX News got all the interviews during the election, because they simply spewed the party’s talking points. It was only with Katrina that the media finally grew a fucking backbone again. The Press’ job is to question the President. If he can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Spending — This President, not surprisingly because he’s never held a real job, spends our future dollars like a kid in a candy store. There’s no fiscal conservatism in this man to save his life. He makes the Democrats look like misers (and that’s saying a lot). Our future has been hocked so that Bush can play war and give tax cuts. I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy (and have made enough to feel the pain of AMT tax hit me before), but you can’t just borrow, borrow, borrow. The next generations are the ones that will suffer horrible inflation, horrible economic devastation as a result of this type of policy.
Federal Government — for a conservative (and this goes for the whole fucking leadership), they sure don’t mind growing the federal government’s powers (Homeland Security, Patriot Act) and interfering on a personal level (Schiavo). That’s not very conservative and counter to all the bullshit the Republican Party claims is on their agenda.
Term Limits — Finally, remember when the Republicans spewed out Term limits? Where has that energy gone? How is it that the Judiciary Committee has people in office for longer than I’ve been an adult? Funny how the attitude changed once they were in power. I say throw them all out of office. The President, the House of Representatives and the Senator. If you’ve been in office more than 2 terms, GOODBYE. Go home and get a real fucking job you Gov’t Welfare Whores (remember, they get their salary for LIFE as a pension)!!
Clint makes a good point (and one that should make sense even to those caught up in the hate-bush culture).
I really have not met (or read) anyone who is “pro” Bush who doesn’t also have disagreements with some (or many) of his policies. People who oppose Bush ought similarly be able to point out a thing or two that they think he does right. If they can’t, it should raise questions in their own minds. Just like the DU folks in a crisis because everything ought to be falling apart and it’s *not*.
If I were to say that I believe that History will reveal Bush as one of the great leaders… I’m NOT engaging in an unthinking love-fest, and may well be wrong, but think… who in our History do we view that way and just how *flawed* were those leaders? Guessing how a little bit of temporal displacement will change our view of things is difficult.
As for Hillary… she used to give me the heebie-geebies… she doesn’t any more. I’ve made peace with the likelyhood that she will be our next president. Have I decided that I *like* her? No. Am I ignoring some of the social issue things that upset me so much in the past (keep your nasty village away from my kids!) No. I may not be a complementary thing to say but I trust her sense of self-interest. And she’s not *stupid*.
Neither is Bush for that matter. Not even a little bit. But he’s scary because of his *lack* of self-interest. The man intends to remake the world. Any one who’s not scared, should be. Yet, anyone who can’t see the *need* to remake the world, is wearing blinders.
Term limits is a dead issue (and always has been) because there isn’t a voter in their right mind who is willing to give up the seniority of their own congresspersons and senators.
Fact of life. Deal.
Newt and his merry band of Democratic attackers lowered the bar on Presidential attacks. They lowered the bar on First Lady attacks. They lowered the bar on Vice Presidential attacks.
What goes around comes around.
MONTY:
Here’s the deal, pal. LIBERALS ARE THE MINORITY IN AMERICA…YOUR “SIDE” LOST THE ELECTION LAST NOVEMBER…YOU GOT ANGRY AND BECAME UNHINGED…PRESIDENT BUSH WILL BE IN POWER UNTIL 2009….YOU MUST CONTINUE TO SUFFER…THE MORE YOU LASH OUT IN RAGE THE MORE DELICIOUS OUR VICTORY IS.
If you wanted to WIN the election, your side should’ve tried harder. But you didn’t, and therefore you lost. Blame yourselves.
There. Does that explain it all to you? It brings great joy to me and many others to know that it hurts people like you so much. You all deserve to be consumed by your own frustrated hate. BWAAAA HAAA HAAAA HAAA!
Bush’s political/PR handling of Hurricane Katrina was botched, and the massive spending since Katrina is going to be boondoggle upon boondoggle. But any realistic assessment of what actions were taken in the days leading up and immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit the coast shows that Bush was working harder to get people evacuated and resources in place while he was “on vacation” than Louisiana state and local officials who were supposedly on the job.
Chandler is correct. I remember seething at all the disrespect Repubs gave to Clinton simply because they couldn’t beat him in an election. I remember thinking that the Repubs would regret it when their candidate won again. At the time I didn’t believe I would support the Republican candidate but then all Clinton’s sins were unknown to me at the time and Al Gore had still seemed sane before the campaign began. I wanted to vote for Bush and was rewarded for doing so. My choice of candidate has always won so perhaps I just won’t be able to appreciate the bitterness of defeated voters. My hope is that I will be capable of putting the US above my personal political expectations should that event occur.
Officially, the Reps shouldn’t be lecturing on presidential treatment but the unseriousness and trivial points the Left makes at this time is simply unforgivable with our nation facing the enemies we have today. My only comfort is that the Left only slides lower in the public eye with these attacks and with their reputation goes their ability to dismantle this nation and surrender it.
Seems Reality Check needs a reality check himself. Anybody who thinks this media has been “light on Bush” has spent the past 6 years (since W. first announced his candidacy) reading the left-wing press and blogs.
And no, it’s not the job of the press to “question the president,” but to report the facts. (Yes, of course, they should ask questions of him, but in order to get the facts, not to prove their pre-existing theories about the man.) Their coverage of Katrina doesn’t show them growing backbone, but revealing their bias. The president (& the Administration) did make mistakes, but most MSM outlets have been covering the story as if FEMA was the only federal agency handling relief. As the link I provided in the post shows (here it is again), a lot went right in the recovery effort.
The more information that comes out about the hurricane and its aftermath, the more we see how the local authorities bear the brunt of the responsibility for the mistakes made. And yet, the MSM (as if the mouthpieces of Nancy Pelosi) dwell on the Administration’s errors (or alleged errors).
And no, Chandler, it wasn’t Newt Gingrich who lowered the bar. Remember, Newt came after Democratic attacks in the 1980s on Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy. And after the attacks on Vice President Quayle. It was Democrats who first lowered the bar and some Republicans who, in the 1990s, followed them into the fever swamps.
Monty- Please send ME the letter (the one that doesn’t exist…)
I DID have a very civil online IM conversation with “Reader” this past week where I asked him to leave if he couldn’t tone down the personal attacks. He agreed to do so. I had to point out to him (as I do now to the rest of you), that I systematically deleted a NUMBER of postings last week that used offensive language and personal attacks. TGC was one victim, as were some of those who disagree with this site.
I have NEVER deleted a post solely for its substance of disagreement.
But I say again, I will not let those who continue to track mud into my home here on the Web.
Monty — show me the letter, please. And by the way, that was a great way to sidetrack the entire purpose of Dan’s posting. Typical.
YESSS!!! GayPatriot banned reader!! I thought so and I was wondering if that might have happened and said so a couple of days ago. Way to go GayPatriot! It’s about time. Don’t recall him doing personal attacks but that stuff about chickenhawks I gues qualifies as a personal attack. You rock GayPatriot. You got red of the #1 loon Lib.
COMMENT DELETED DUE TO OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE
ND30,
Ask them? Isn’t that fair??
Monty
If they deny it, then I will stop. However, if they are honest………..?
What say you Bruce and Dan??? Honestly?
Monty
Psst. GayPatriot there’s antoher one right above. Go get him. We can pick these Liberal loonistas off one at a time, and have the site to ourself for some good conversation. I’ll show you a couple of others too (the Chandelier is one). And these do plenty of personal attackes.
#34
This is why you guys scare me.
Censorship. Show where I offended? You can’t.
What a bunch of facistists!!
Monty
GayPatriot see what I mean! Do It Now. Ban that subversivve trolle.
I’m working on an essay (that I might give to Dan and Bruce for posting) on the curiosity I call the “Personalization of Politics”. Lately, there have been far fewer arguments about policy than there have been about personalities. I.e., it’s hard to get a good conversation going about gay marriage without it devolving into Bush (or Santorum, or DeLay, or whomever) hating gays.
This really hit home a couple years ago when it occured to me that the hysteria about Iraq coming from the left sounded eerily familiar. The resonance was my own voice over Bosnia and Kosovo. I was so ashamed when I looked back and saw how my hatred (which, upon honest–and frankly embarrassing–reflection, is the only fair way to describe what I was feeling at the time) for Clinton so clouded my vision of what it truly meant to be a lover of freedom and liberty that I was willing to sacrifice my own moral stand and oppose our actions in the Balkans (which, by the way, my boyfriend at the time was involved in) and therefore implicitly side with the likes of Milosovic.
Anyway, point being that in today’s politics, it’s like the old Hollywood game: It’s not so much what you believe in as who you feel you have to defend or attack.
#32….
This was removed because it didn’t conform to GP’s concepts. Otherwise, he would had censored other CONSERVATIVE concepts.
You are SUCH A BLINKING HYPOCRITE !!!
And you haven’t the guts to fess up to it.
Monty
GayPatriot. You must be busy. Let me do it.
MONTY YOU ARE BANNED.
There now go away. You’re not allowed herea anymore. And go wash out your mouth PottieMouth.
The global media’s obvoius ability to provide and sustain the talking points of US Dems, willfully provide sympathy and assistance to the larger world socialist movement and unmatched power to peel off to the left what moderates still exist is unargueably real, and decidedly wrong.
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas proudly and publicly promised Kerry a boost of 15 points in the 2004 election for the most powerful post in the world. Just a couple days ago Tony Blair took the state-owned BBC to task for obvious and blatant anti-US/Bush coverage of Katrina. The NYT admitted as no big deal the practice of exchange of the next days front page with the “rival” Post to coordinate headlines. It’s not just the MSM, it’s hollywood, the creatives in advertising and damn if I didn’t play a popular “historic” video game recently where the heroine tells a US calvary officer “please just help me now and then you can go back to killing Mexicans and Seminoles and stealing their land or whatever it is you do…”.
With those examples being just a single flake on the tip of the tip of the iceberg, how can the anyone on the left say the mass media machine is soft on the right? Easy, the MSM-Hollywood-Pop culture triad has convinced most that Fox news, a handful of daily papers and Rush somehow require the odds be 50 to 1 against them to provide “balance”.
The subtle effectiveness and cohesion of the media is truely “Rovian”. Objectivity? How naive are you? They’re all writers and artists and journalism school grads who want to change the world! And I doubt they want to do it by eliminating the estate tax.
So what youre saying is it is all a plot by former Communists. Ive beensaying the same thing to my friends for years. Some people might think thats a little harsh, but the fact is Rush (and megga dittoos to other good heads here), Fox News, Washington Times, and not a lot else, is all thats stands between us and a resurgence of the Commies we thought we beat off back in the 80s. Well we just have to beat them off again. Should be just as much fun as last time.
Way way waaaaaaay back in high school, in a speech competition category that involved researching a question for 30 minutes and then doing an extemporaneous speech defending your conclusions, I did a speech concerning our civil rights vs. the rights of property owners to control what goes on on their own property. In the public square we have the right to free speech limited only slightly by libel laws. Other “public” places are, in fact, not public at all, but private and opened to the public. Retail stores are a good example. So are blogs… though no one had ever conceived of such a thing way back then.
It’s not censorship to ask those without manners to leave or to require a standard of behavior while in this “house.”
There is, however, a certain romance involved in being persecuted… a certain social dynamic of reverse proof associated with being the subject of persecution. (I’ve met preachers who manipulate this dynamic… persecution supposedly proof that they are a threat to Satan when in actuality, it only proves that they are jerks.)
Which brings us all the way around to Bush again. The same dynamic, in addition to the feeling of unfairness, will lead many people to believe that Bush is more right rather than less right everytime someone launches into a salivating rant against him.
Human nature.
ColoradoPatriot (38)-
Great minds think alike — if you’re interested, I wrote a post (…Politics of the Personal (Attack)) on how Democrats seem to turn every policy dispute into a personal attack, though I focused just on their formal leader, Howard Dean. Of course, that was even before Senate democrats took to questioning whether John Roberts has a heart…
#42: Where did Joseph McCarthy (whisper: McCarthy) and others during his era look for Communists? Hollywood, the State Department, Big Media, and Academia, among other places. Seems to me all of these places remain strongly leftist/socialist today, despite the best efforts of McCarthy and HUAC.
Cons. Guy, I agree with you 100%. Anne Coulter called it too in her book on McCarthy. Anybody else read her book? She’s not afraid to take them on and neither is GG Liddy. And I am sure Rush and Sean would too if more people started talking about it.
Makes me want to see our big majority in Congress bring back the HUAC. Nows the time. We should do it. Get rid of all the commies like MOveon, the Pink Coders, ANSWER, etc. We know theyre commies, but the rest of the country does not. We have to get the word out that theyre just commie cells. Need to expose them.
GayPatriot sir, can you do a post please on going after all the remaining Communists and their sympathizers in Congress, especially the Cong Black Caucus. They should all be in jail or in one of those FEMA camps they like to talk about.
You want Bush Criticism, I’ll give you Bush Criticism
This is Reader — the real Reader, not the one whose name was purloined by some Gay Patriot 2 weeks ago, resulting in the tumult which led to the IM discussion mentioned by Bruce in #30 above. I did not plan on posting here again, but I have to set a couple of things straight.
1) Contrary to the above claim by the ever so aptly named M. Petain, I was not “banned”. As Bruce noted, I left voluntarily after the IM exchange with him.
2) Bruce’s recall of the IM discussion is more than a bit skewed. He implies it was all about him asking me to “tone down personal attacks or leave”. It wasn’t. First of all, it was a long IM exchange – 30+ minutes, with Bruce coming back to talk about one thing or another long after I thought we were done. 90% of that IM discussion was about his frustration with the recent degradation of the comments at the site. And he doesn’t tell you that I was supportive of him and tried to cheer him up, or that I insisted that I leave the site (in the interest of less dissension), or that I thanked him for having provided a place where I could come and try to figure out why a gay man or woman can be a Republican. Nor does he mention that he and I (and Dan and I) have had other “civil” discussions in the past, most recently when I pointed out to both of them that someone was mis-using the name “Reader”. (BTW, Dan said he’d “look into it”, and then Bruce followed with – paraphrasing from a string of e-mail, “you know, maybe you ought to use another name – that one’s pretty generic. I’ve used it myself on occasion.”)
3) The definition of “personal attacks” at Gay Patriot depends entirely on who’s doing the defining. For example: my generalized (but never personalized) use of the terms “collaborator” (to describe the Gay Republican dance with the GOP) and “chickenhawk” (to describe Conservative cheering for a war they would never join) ARE considered personal attacks. But very personally directed use of “leftist”, “leftist trash”, “loon”, “communist”, “moonbat”, “ass clown”, “asshat”, “mofo” and worse, are NOT. Lesson for remaining Patsies: call anyone any name you want and, if Bruce shares your politics, you’re OK. Is this hypocrisy? Of course it is.
Well, enough of all that. Nothing lasts forever, and so it is with Gay Patriot, which was once a near-shining example of how two very different sets of opinions could co-exist with minimum incivility, but still sharp debate, and often humor. But the site appears to be devolving now – perhaps to what Bruce wanted in the first place: a refuge where Gay Republicans could come for support and validation.
Enjoy.
Hey little Joey Petain,
Your pattern of just barely over the top rants is highly curious. I formed my own tiny HUAC and re-read your posts; now I’m on to you dude!
You need to drop the curtain on your little theater of the absurd – designed to flatten the intellectual curve of this blog in the eyes of the casual reader.
Some leftists have way to much time on their hands.
Hey, “Joey”:
Don’t ya think we all know that YOU and “MONTY” are the same person? You can only post 2 mintues apart under separate “names” so many times before it becomes all too apparent that you’re the same ****knob.
And Reader, can we take your latest overly dramatic soliloquy to mean that you won’t be coming back anymore? Boo hoo. More’s the pity. 🙁
I thanked him for having provided a place where I could come and try to figure out why a gay man or woman can be a Republican.
So, who was it that taught ‘Reader’ that the best way to gain an understanding of people was to call them names and ridicule their beliefs?
Stinger51 you posted 7 minutes after Chandlier above. DOes that make you Chandlier? And come to notice it, you always post right BEFORE V the K. What’s up with that? Sounds like it’s something a leftist loonie would say.
And evan, what problem do you have with other patriots? Sheesh, this place must be full of leftists.
Sure. His speech before the Nation after 9-11.
The decision to invade Iraq. Telling the UN to go to hell. (figuratively)
Limits on embryonic stem cell research. Insisting on joint talks with N. Korea.
Things screwed up:
The invasion of Iraq. Forget having enough troops to hold the country, he didn’t even send enough troops to guard the massive ammo dumps. The materials of which are now in the hands of terrorists and hostile governments around the world.
Federal Budget and deficit. Even putting aside costs for the War on Terror, Domestic spending on pork jumped to an all time high. Yet no Veto from Bush.
New Medicaid entitlements. See above.
Tariffs on imported steel. (Later removed).
The problems and mistakes Bush has made simply convince me that he is wrapped in a cocoon of political animal advisor’s with little contact with the outside world. In short, his problem is the same as his Father’s. He is simply out of touch.
_____
I’m not commenting on the commie thread, because I’m still laughing too hard.
Gryph-
Fair enough. I even agree with most of your stated positions. (I’m closer to Frist on stem cells and more positive on how Iraq has been handled — time will tell on that, but it’s important to remember the plethora of bad outcomes we were defending against.)
Petain, I was talking about plain old “Joey”. Hence, the salutation.
I actually am closer to Frist on this as well, but I give high marks to the President for wading into the debate. It’s a national discussion that has needed to take place for some time now.
I think it telling that I actually forgot to mention the obvious big thing he did that I don’t like. His support for the DOMA in the US Constitution. Regardless of feelings on the issue, the Constitution is not the appropriate place to work out this argument.
And in fact the amendment he supports would limit States rights, which are the places the Founders often viewed as the correct area to experiment with new laws. I have a difficult time seeing, even if he believes personally in what he is says, that his actions were anything but crass political pandering to the more radical elements that now control the GOP. It stinks of Rove. He should can his ass.
#4
Boogity Boogity!!!
The coolest thing just happend. PatriotWest just wrote me to let me know he edited my comments to take into account his deleting some sick piece that showed up here. Isn’t that the neatest thing? Thank you man. That was really soimething. I LOVE this site!!!!
Regarding Katrina spending,
Isn’t the federal government required by law to spend at least 75% on reconstruction after a disaster?
#60 — The Government is required by the Stafford Act to pay 75% of the cost of rebuilding infrastructure. The government is not required to borrow all that money from the Chinese and deficit spend subsequent generations into penury. Cut the pork out of the highway bill. Cut corporate welfare. Eliminate the $90 billion spent annually on programs that don’t work. Cut back the Prescription Drug Giveaway so it only helps people who actually need help.
#61
I think that’s actually what’s going on.
How many here think there’s any chance of the Federal budget being cut by even $1 to fund Katrina reconstruction?
No. 59, what possessed you to choose THAT particular name to use on THIS website?
Happens to be my family name dickbreath! Some of us dont choose fairy fag names like you. You loon.
Well, little Joey (may I call you little?), you hold tight and proud to that name, for never did God assign a commenter a name more fitting to this website.
Lessee… people react to unfairness by giving the attacked person more credit…. teasing other kids about their names is the worst example of schoolyard juvenile behavior, therefore I feel a strong need to give Joey more credit and inclined to view whatever he writes next in his favor if at all possible. I’m not even going to take notice of the work dickbreath, which in normal circumstances I would.
Thanks, Queer Patriot, for such a good example of what GayPatriotWest was talking about.
Synova, I’m sorry to have to tweak the boy, but he invites it: he hasn’t a clue of the historical value of the Petain family name nor its humorous relevance to a website that some of the past liberal writers here once described as “collaborationist”.
OK, Queer Patriot, you hateful cow loon. I did my research. Turns out my famly is an old french family. From Quebec, you evil bitch. We have been Quebecois forever. So what are we saying here you puffed up old Tarte? You couldn’t hold my spit. The real stuff. But you’d like to try wouldnt you, you dykelike old cum catcher!! Youre banned! You hear me? Dyke bitch.
I don’t think Joey, at least not yet. Though I’m sure that will follow in due time. Meanwhile, any cousins en France Joey?
I found interesting Bruce’s comments that gay liberals see the world as they want it to be — isnt that what George is doing in spreading his form of democracy and how a nation should get to it in Iraq? I believe so. There’s not enough time to discuss why George Bush and Conservative America see us — Gay Americans — as either the moral decay of society (last I think I read in the Bible, Jesus Christ “HELPED” the poor, needy, sick) or simply not worth the time to meet or look at legislation that will make us equal. But if the fact that George Bush and his conservative followers and agenda put OUR equal rights as Americans on the ballot in many states — including mine — and figuratively “on the ballot” in 2004 is not the overriding reason to NOT support conservative, republican America, then I pitty you. Your rights as Americans should trump Iraq, a “so called” tax break, fighting terrorism (by the way, terrorism isn’t a country, it’s an ideal…don’t think we can fight something that is not a physical place or people) stem cells, etc when you go to the ballot box. Bruce and others…how many of you had to vote for YOUR equal and civil rights in 2004 because Bush and his conservative crew put YOUR equal rights on the ballot box. If you did not, I wish you better than me.
But if the fact that George Bush and his conservative followers and agenda put OUR equal rights as Americans on the ballot in many states — including mine — and figuratively “on the ballot” in 2004 is not the overriding reason to NOT support conservative, republican America, then I pitty you.
And you provide an excellent example of why every one of those ballot initiatives passed, ed…… you have made of gay rights being against fighting terrorism, against removal of brutal dictatorships, against tax breaks for Americans, and against restricting the act of producing life for the sole purpose of destroying and harvesting it.
People don’t want to vote for gay rights, and I daresay it has a great deal to do with the fact that the most vocal members of our community run around half-naked, desecrate churches, call people of faith “ignorant, superstitious bigots”, and make disparaging remarks about the vast majority of people in our country.
Thirty dear, in your rush to the school marm position, you wildly overstate the rambunctiousness of your gay brethern and fling some charges that thinking Patriots will find difficult to accept.
You say “the most vocal members of our community run around half-naked” (you watch too many TV news clips of Pride parades); that they “desecrate churches” (where, when, how?); that they “call people of faith ignorant, superstitious bigots” (only the ones who are — Falwell, Sheldon, Robertson, et al. — and you don’t?); “and make disparaging remarks about the vast majority of people in our country” (I don’t think so — you just made that one up).
You clearly have a problem with gay people not as prim as yourself; or else you’re masquerading here AS a gay person — which wouldn’t surprise me after all the costume changes I’ve seen here in the past few days.
#69
RE: Joey Petain,
Ma p’tit pet,
You certainly let it rip, where most people would gave just tried to sneak one by. You name calling has risen like a cloud of stench to choke off the most prudent of readers. I only hope you have not stained the reputation of the noble Quebecois as you have left skid marks on the propriety of this noble bog, ugh, blog.
Have you ever thought of changing the family name to Beignet?
H@@@