Finally getting caught up on my reading after the craziness of these past few weeks and discovered this gem in Peggy’s column last week:
To criticize the White House–if the criticism is serious, well-grounded and well-meant–is helpful, and part of a long and good tradition. But allowing philosophical estrangement to leave you wishing the administration ill is to give in to the destructive spirit of the age. That too has a tradition, but not a good one. Five years ago this September history took a dark turn, and though we can forget it in the day to day, we’re all in this together.
With this paragraph, Peggy provides words which help me better describe what so irks me (and so many others conservatives) about Bush-hatred. Every time some conservative takes issue with an unhinged critic of the president, those critics (or their defenders) say we can’t tolerate criticism of our, to use an expression oft-heard in the fever swamps (but not among Bush supporters and others on the right), “Dear Leader.” What bothers us though is not criticism of the president, but Bush-haters’ manner of expressing it.
Odd how some of those who refuse to see anything positive in the president’s actions assume that his supporters never see anything negative in his actions — even when there is abundant evidence that many such supporters often criticize “our” man.
When getting back to regulalry reading blogs (after returning from my trip to the Buckeye State), I realized that every conservative blog I read regularly has criticized the president at some time or another, some quite frequently, others less so. Not only that, many conservative columnists like my Athena herself, while usually supportive of the president, are often quite critical of him.
The difference is one of tone. They do not wish ill on the Administration — or delight in the suggestion of scandal. (And yes, there were many conservatives who wished ill on the previous Administration and delighted in its scandals.) It is this wishing the Administration ill that so troubles us, especially, as Peggy notes, in the days after 9/11 when we are ever aware how much certain islamicists hate us — and are willing to devise diabolical means to murder thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians.
When I wrote my piece “Grading the President on Reagan’s Legacy, Bruce asked me to make two sentences into a separate paragraph of their own:
Perhaps, we spend so much time defending the president because his critics, particularly those on the gay left, make such outlandish (and very often inaccurate) accusations against him. Had they made more responsible critiques, they might find us less critical of them.
I didn’t realize until Bruce called my attention to this passage how significant it was. Our critics assume are such slavish followers of the president because we spend so much time defending him. But, we wouldn’t be defending him so often if they weren’t attacking him with such venom and ill will.
Peggy has penned a powerful piece where she offers a smart agenda for the last one thousand days of the president’s term. And once again, my favorite columnist* has taken issue with the president and like this column and this one, she not only criticizes, but also offers suggestions for improvement. Perhaps as part of the shakeup at the White House, new Chief of Staff Josh Bolten could bring Peggy in for regular briefings with top Administration officials — and the president himself.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
*Though Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson give Peggy a run for her money.
UPDATE: Over at Classical Values, Eric Scheie fisks Paul Krugman’s latest where that columnist claims that “administration supporters” have “built a personality cult around” the president. Sounds like some kind of reverse projection to me. Instead of acknowledging that he (and his Bush-hating ilk) have built some kind of negative personality cult around the president, blaming him for no end of ills and seeing him as incapable of doing anything right, they claim his supporters worship the man. At least, Krugman helps confirm the accuracy of the second paragraph of this post.
#0 – Dan, and of course the “difference of tone” in Bush-haters’ criticisms of the President arises from an even more basic difference of intent.
I’m talking about the most intense / idiotic of the Bush-haters here. They WANT to hate him. They visibly ENJOY hating him. They visibly enjoy making outlandish criticisms – the more outlandish and (they think) hurtful, the better.
Sometimes, the Bush-haters pull the kimono open far enough so we can begin to see why. Some may be occasionally or slightly patriotic, but desperately want something or someone upon which they can shift the blame for their own, personal unhappiness and failings. Some others may truly hate America or what it stands for, and as a white male Texas Christian (though oddly, NOT a true conservative!!), Bush seems the essence and symbol.
But equally often, the Bush-hater doesn’t give us enough evidence to speculate plausibly about their motives, and we only note their destructive “tone”.
Some of these people (not dignifying them with names here) quite simply hate the values I want in politics or public life: individual responsibility and independence, capitalism, progress, the freedom to achieve, the freedom of man FROM other men (like these people). I must recognize their hatred or opposition to my values as a fact of reality… but without letting it control me – i.e., merely brushing aside these non-entities, as much as possible.
Calarato, with the 2nd week’s numbers in for ‘United 93’, are you willing to admit yet that my initial projections, based on United 93’s opening day, are going to end up being right?
United 93’s box-office receipts saw a decline of 55% from its opening weekend and just squeaked by the $20 million mark today. So, if anything, I think it will now likely struggle to reach the lower end of my $40-50 million dollar projection. It’s numbers will only continue to dwindle with Poseidon next weekend, The Da Vicini Code after that and X-Men 3 on Memorial Day weekend.
And yet, when I made me projection last weekend you said my numbers were bogus and attacked me personally. What sayeth you now?
Thus, I will say again; Who would have thought a movie about gay cowboys would out-gross a film about 9/11?
I donno Erik. Which movie did *you* go to?
For what it’s worth, the projections that I saw pretty much agreed that United 93 would probably not be a huge box office success but will probably do much, much better in long term DVD sales.
So what exactly is your point? That mediocre box office for a movie that can’t really be considered *entertainment* has political significance? And how does this relate to Bush? Or is it just that *everything* relates to Bush?
My liberal friends used to rail about what idiots the Clinton haters were during WJC’s administration. I agreed with them; you could be critical of Clinton without believing that he was having dozens of associates murdered or hiding millions of bucks in Swiss accounts.
But.
I would say that the lefties have outdone themselves when it comes to perpetuating hate for the Commander in Chief, and then some. You’ve captured exactly what is going on with Bush Derangement Syndrome, Bruce!
#2 –
Erik – Kindly point out where I would have claimed the numbers were bogus and/or attacked you personally?
Strong hint: I didn’t.
I will repeat what I said last time, though, that (1) your obsession with United 93’s box office is trivial and not worth my addressing; and (2) I advise you to stay away from the movie because you would feel embarassed after seeing it.
I could go on about how L-O-N-G it took Brokeback to earn its paltry (for a movie Hollywood wanted to push so badly) $83 million – but again – that is not my game – it’s yours. You can have it. OK? Peace out.
And just in case the point is not clear:
– I probably won’t respond again on your United 93 thing.
– Let’s get back to our regularly scheduled programming now – in this thread, it’s the topic of Bush haters, and of Peggy Noonan’s new column, etc.
For the rest of my life I will rue the day I voted to elect George Bush in 2002*, but I don’t dislike the man. (As I continually post at leftist loon John Aravosis’ blog) I really resent those on the Democratic Party left who’ve let their hatred of George W. Bush warp their their ability to be fair.
It’s one thing to disagree with and criticize Bush administration policies but hateful personal attacks on Bush’s motivies, integrity, competence, etc., cross the line. So, Dan, I agree with what you have posted.
Having said all that, let me add something: many of the things Bruce and some of those who comment here say about Democrats like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Murtha, et al, come close to being as vicious and hateful as those things you (and they) criticize leftist Bush-haters for saying. And, I know you don’t like leftists posting comments at this site, but some of the things rightwingprof, Eric in Hollywood, north dallas thirty, V the K, et al, say in response to the leftists (and in some cases, moderates) posting comments seem awfully mean and hateful and totally unnecessary.
(*I also regret that the only alternative to Bush in ’02 was Al Gore. Had I voted for him I probably would’ve cut my wrists in shame by now. I did vote to re-elect Bush but only because it made me sick to think of John Kerry as president. Had the alternative to Bush been Lieberman or Gephardt I would’ve — for the first time — voted Deocratic.)
Um, Trace was elected in 2000, not 2002.
And I don’t mind leftists posting to this site–in fact I encourage them to do so. What bothers me is when the post to this site and instead of addressing points we’ve made, attack us personally or smear the president, his aides and supporters.
Er, Trace was elected in 2000?
Dan, even you make typos. Yes, I know it was 2000.
#7 “It’s one thing to disagree with and criticize Bush administration policies but hateful personal attacks on Bush’s motivies, integrity, competence, etc., cross the line.”
You’ve got to be kidding! Criticizing Bush’s competence is crossing the line? Good grief, if someone’s self-esteem is THAT fragile, perhaps they shouldn’t be in politics. And while, as Dan admits, the right wing character assassins spent 8 years trashing Clinton and the last 6 blaming him, we are suddenly supposed to play nice because Bush is President? Actually, we DID play nice: for months after 9/11 even if we wondered just WTF the Bush administration had been doing about al Qaeda prior to the attack, we supported the effort to get bin Laden. Many of us who questioned the attack on Iraq nonetheless rationalized that since key officials like Rumsfeld were making such ABSOLUTE statements about the existence and location of WMDs that they must have info to which we weren’t privy. Boy were we wrong to have ANY faith in Bushco. And it’s simply gone from bad to far worse. We are at the point where many of us TRULY believe that Bush and his administration are wrecking this country either through negligence or, yes, design.
I really hope that the Dems can take back both the House and the Senate. I want to see oversight and full investigations of the crap this country has suffered due to the GOP hegemony of the last few years. I doubt impeachment is feasible even if it might be warranted. Certainly the bar for that drastic step was lowered by the GOP only a few short years ago. More important would be that the Bush administration be restrained from its worst excesses and the country’s slide slowed until competent grownups can be put back in charge in 2008.
And, I know you don’t like leftists posting comments at this site, but some of the things rightwingprof, Eric in Hollywood, north dallas thirty, V the K, et al, say in response to the leftists (and in some cases, moderates) posting comments seem awfully mean and hateful and totally unnecessary.
As I posted over on The Malcontent, Trace, understand the context.
I repost:
Maybe some of us are just a bit more sick of being called “Uncle Toms”, “mentally ill”, “traitors”, “Jews for Nazis”, “kapos”, “murderers”, and such by people who dropped tens of millions and “pro-gay, gay-supportives” on people who were just as homophobic and bigoted by their standards as the Republicans they blast.
I’m happy to play nice with others, even when they don’t at first. But this relentless barrage of shit as perpetuated by gay Democrats, leftists, and Bush-haters…has simply gone far enough. They fling load after load of crap, and then, when cornered, try to weasel out of it as “I was only being facetious” or “I didn’t mean ALL of you”, or “I wasn’t really referring to…”
I have simply reached the point at which I am no longer willing to tolerate or accomodate their behavior — because doing so only perpetuates it.
To put it in terms of reacting to bullying, instead of changing my route, bringing extra lunch money, switching schools, or complaining to the teacher, I am carrying Mace, and I am using it.
And I’m sure it’s annoying that they come whining and crying to you about how unfairly I’m treating them, then telling their friends and driving away your traffic count. But when they openly admit they were posting stuff just to be provocative, THAT doesn’t “wash” with me.
In short….if they want to treat me or my fellow conservatives like dirt, their faces are going to end up ground into it.
To quote a line from one of my favorite pieces of literature…..”“We give all we have, lives, property, safety, skills …we fight, we die for a simple thing. Only that a man can stand up.”
Criticizing Bush’s competence is crossing the line? Good grief, if someone’s self-esteem is THAT fragile, perhaps they shouldn’t be in politics.
And if gay kids can’t stand namecalling, they shouldn’t be in school. Right.
Funny how leftists like Ian demand the right of endless and truthless insult, but blow blood vessels and demand that freedom of speech be abridged when someone does it to them and their ilk.
wow When did it become wrong to have your own ideas about whoever the president is. I am tired of the smear campaigns whether against the right or the left, Dem or rep. Th3e only real objection I had to Clinton was his none support of the military and His perjury in the court case. While Bush has made mistakes at least he has given the military it’s due and done what he can in the war on terror. Yes mistake have been made but they also were in any war and this war as he told us would not be easy or quick and that once started we would have to stay the course to win but al quaeda is like many in that they realize that the american people have a shorrt attention span and if they hold out long enough the people here will give up. And some people do not realize that Bush is not really happy wiuth yes men otherwise he would not have sked Tony Snow to join his team. Snow has many time called Bush to task for what he is doing wrong in snow’s eyes. As have many coumnists from Bill Oreilly to Newt Gingrich. We need more in the media to put aside their partisianship and just try to say what really needs to be done to help America. I really am not conserned about else where as much as I am here. Yes we have allies but we also have enemies and if we do not close our borders starting with a military deployment to the borders to back the Border agents until a wall can be built to close it . One last comment about the smear campaigners for either side. This has gone on since the beginning of our country and will go on in the future I am sure. But I can always hope that in the future we all media and the people will put what is best for our country ahead of what is best for the rest of the world or our own political views and give whoever the president is support for his agenda unlessit is going way off the wall. After all he does not set taxes or make the laws congress does and they are the ones who built their little fiefdoms and hold office many until they deside to stop be powermongers. And that is really what this is all about at the very bottom of both parties POWER AND WHO HOLDS THE MOST.