When it comes to criticizing the president, it seems some people just can’t help themselves. I’ll do a post on some topic or another without mentioning the president and one of our critics will rant against the president or rail against “Bushco” whatever that is. And it’s not just on this blog. No matter how short my drive is in West Hollywood or Hollywood, I am certain to catch sight of a number of cars sporting anti-Bush bumper stickers.
This weekend at the pro-Israel rally in Los Angeles was no different. The two primary partisan speaker’s, the Golden State’s Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the City of Angels’ Democratic Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, stuck to the theme of the event, delivering strong speeches supporting the Jewish State’s right to defend itself against Hezbollah terrorists. Neither man attacked his political adversaries, nor even directed asides against them.
Democratic Congressman Howard Berman, however, felt it incumbent upon himself to attack the Administration and congressional leadership. He was trying to make the point that despite the deep partisan divisions in Washington today, both parties were united around their support for Israel. He could have said all that without attacking the Administration.
I don’t how many times I have heard people, for no apparent reason, launch into broadsides against the president — even in a conversation which has nothing to do with politics. While people should speak up and voice their concerns when they disagree with a political leader’s actions or words, I wonder why these people are so obsessed with their hatred of the president that they blame him for everything that goes wrong in the world — and sometimes even in their own personal lives.
No wonder John Kerry recently said in Michigan that if he were president the current crisis in the Middle East would not have happened. He knew that his liberal audience would warm to any notion which lay the blame for the latest world crisis on George W. Bush.
Our adversaries falsely accuse us of taking issue with anyone who utters the slightest criticism of the president. Some claim we — and other conservatives — worship him as some Great Leader who could do no wrong. Yet, they seem to think he’s quite the opposite, a demon who can do no right. So obsessed are they with their demon that they attack him at any given moment, just so they can make clear how much they hate him.
But, their obsession makes me wonder not so much about the president’s faults, but why they hate so much — and so readily express their animosity.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
The issue is power. Not America or ethics. Just power. I seethed many a year listening to Republican surgeons bitch and moan every single day about Clinton. It wasn’t that I was all that protective of Clinton but it just didn’t make sense dealing with a duly elected American that way.
What happens now is much worse due to the far different circumstances our nation faces and the sincere insanity of the Left in this nation. At least Clinton’s critics could still be counted among the productive and patriotic portion of our people. Those green haired freaks, bitter leftovers from the 60s, and those race and ethnicity dividers hating Bush are another matter.
Vera believes its religion in general – and Judaism and Christianity in particular.
Living in a blue state, Vera is privy to some of the most disgusting and deranged rants on Bush and his religious beliefs from otherwise civil and polite people. While they are coy about their anti Semitism – (Israel is ‘too aggressive’, too unyielding, too willing to use military force, blah, blah, blah)- they come right out and mock Christians about their moral beliefs (abortion, stem cells, the death penalty) and teachings. They detest the Catholic Church and all it stands for. The only people they consider real pedophiles, must wear Roman collars. No counseling for them- they want prison sentences.
The exceptions: Scientology, Ralians, Wicca, and, of course, Islam. The left shows a fetish like tolerance for any religion that opposes the liturgy of Judaism and Christianity or was invented after 1850 (excluding Mormons: they consider them freaks, too.).
The fact that religion isn’t a democracy, subject to the whims of the followers, that G*d doesn’t focus-group questions of right or wrong, that you can’t vote for the Pope or make women priests, shows – in their minds – it’s an evil institution that should be opposed.
As for why the left is willing to give Islam a free pass on all the truly evil and vile things it advocates in the Koran? The old saw: The enemy of my enemy is my friend (or at least my comrade in arms). Moral idiocy at its worst.
Vera forgets (it’s the gin) who said:
“If you believe in nothing – you’ll fall for anything”.
How true.
It’s interesting how you’ve ignored a few things. One interesting tidbit in the last few days was the ABA: A panel made up of distinguished, bi-partisan lawyers has taken the president to task for ignoring more laws of this country than any other president in history, by the fact of his “signing statements”. The idea that he has now vetoed only one law presented to him by congress in reality means nothing. (then again, we have a congress that is trying to push more and more laws that are exempt from passing constitutional muster)
Supposedly, we hold that we are land that is supposed to be bound by our laws, but if they don’t mean anything to the President of the US, then why exactly should anyone else follow them? This guy is causing more damage, both long and short term than any terrorist will ever do. Here’s looking forward to January 21, 2009
The idea that he has now vetoed only one law presented to him by congress in reality means nothing. (then again, we have a congress that is trying to push more and more laws that are exempt from passing constitutional muster)
Which is exactly why Bush is making signing statements. They are specifically to say that the administration believes that a portion of the law is unconstitutional.
If you were smart, Kevin, you would be trying to sue in Federal court using these signing statements as a means of demonstrating that Congress is overstepping its constitutional authority. However, you would likely be slapped down by the court pointing out that signing statements do not carry the force of law and are merely a directive to the executive departments.
What this is happens to be a group of disgruntled trial lawyers and ex-appointees with an ax to grind who are looking for a reason to attack the Bush administration with something that very few people understand — yourself included.
Yeah… instead of obsessing about the war and stuff, liberals should be focusing instead on Bush’s sexual orientation… you know, the way conservative Republicans have always done about Hillary and are now doing about Bill.
I was a Republican, until they lost their minds…
4: I simply delight on how Republicans turn so viciously on those who aren’t 100% in step with ideology of current regime. I’m not even talking about people like Arianna Huffington, Imena those who still consider themselves conservatives. It seems that any Republican who dares speak against even one little policy or idea is branded some kind of traitor.
And I’m sorry…but Bush and constitutional simply don’t go together. It’s laughable you think that he makes signing statements about the constitutionality of a law. He simply decides whether he feels like following a law or not. If he really believed that a law was unconstitutional, then why would he even sign it? Puh-lease.
Well, it is kinda like most of the posts on here where a topic is being discussed and then there is the attach on gay liberals and The Gay Left.
#4, shorter version: “Leave Bush alone to do whatever he wants…and if you keep talking I will have to start saying Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Gore…”
It is interesting to see how often Left-leaning people will bring up their political views (aka hatred of the President) at random times. My husband and I attended a Christmas in July party over the weekend. About 45 min after we got there, when no one was talking anything remotely related to politics, the host loudly stated “If you like Bush leave now.” We did leave a short time later. The randomness of the statement struck me. It also lowered my opinion of him, which up to that point was favorable, because by his statement, liking the President made a person not worthy of his hospitality.
dr. nic
#6 That’s a rationalization, Kevin. People who disagree with “one little thing” don’t get branded as disgruntled traitors. Which is what Dan said in his post and I repeat. In fact, rather than fantasy, Republicans can criticize the president and disagree with him on a great many issues without getting tossed from the fold. I mean, don’t we hear crowing about Bush’s abysmal approval ratings among Republicans regularly? Yes, we do. Doesn’t he get ripped regularly about immegration? Yes, he does.
The people who will get tossed from the fold are the Democrats who *agree* with some tiny little thing Bush says or does. (Which explains the Dem congressman… he had a dilemma. He *had* to do something to keep his Bush hating creds or he’d be in political hot water.)
Shall I add… a person is far more likely to be tossed, unwilling, INTO the Republican fold than tossed out of it.
Kevin, to say that they ABA is bi-partisan is to ignore its increasingly liberal agenda over the past few decades. This is just one example from today’s Wall Street Journal. That said, you haven’t addressed the issue of the left’s obsession with the president, bringing up their hatred for this good man at every chance they get — even when the conversation doesn’t involve politics.
Anonymous, since you hide behind you anonymity, we have no way of knowing whether or not you were ever a Republican or are just making that up in a desperate attempt to score rhetorical points.
Well said, Nicole in #9, very well said. A good succinct statement of my thesis: “It is interesting to see how often Left-leaning people will bring up their political views (aka hatred of the President) at random times.” Thanks for commenting!
Dan (GPW). this comment isn’t directed at you because I pretty much agree with everything you said in your post.
However, some of the people who regularly comment are a little too quick to twist disagreement with them (or President Bush) into hatred for the president. It happened to me a few days ago. In a comment I said I am voting Democratic this fall and (unless Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee) am likely to vote Democratic in 2008. North Dallas 30 immediately responded that I hate Bush (and religion).
While I agree with many of President Bush’s foreign policy positions I disagree with almost all of his domestic policies. That does not mean I (and others who think like me) hate the president. In fact, I like the president personally and think he’d make one hell of a next door neighbor and friend.
If he really believed that a law was unconstitutional, then why would he even sign it? Puh-lease.
Because it is possible for portions of a bill to be constitutional, but other portions to be unconstitutional.
I simply delight on how Republicans turn so viciously on those who aren’t 100% in step with ideology of current regime.
You’ll have to speak up; we can’t hear you over the roar of your fellow Democrats screaming for Joe Lieberman’s head for not being 100% in step with the leftist ideology.
seems that any Republican who dares speak against even one little policy or idea is branded some kind of traitor.
You must understand, Kevin, that these people are pretending to be “Republicans” when what they really are is “anti-Bush”. They will endorse any number of anti-Republican things, as they have, if it is anti-Bush.
I’m sorry, but all this whining about the “screaming Left” is awfully puzzling. Is anyone surprised? Isn’t this what politics now is all about? Does anyone remember 1992 when within days of Billy Boy’s election the Repubs began a non stop assault that lasted on and off for two terms. File gate, Travel gate, Gate Gate (yes I’m being facetious). And the worst part, and I believe this to be true, those Republicans did not give a hoot about any Truth, a hoot about the country, the state of Monica’s dress or Ethics or the “sanctity of the Lincoln bedroom”. The had lost the White House to slick Willie and they were pissed. And they were going to do or say whatever it took to get it back. It was absolutely shameful. And I was not a supporter of Bill Clinton, either. Let’s remember all that before we point a finger.
Kevin, had you even heard of signing statements before this week? I never had.
A couple of things about the reporting on this ABA statement were very partisan, despite claims to the contrary. Looking at the Lou Dobbs piece on CNN.com:
1. The assertion that Bush’s signing statements were a violation of his oath of office, and then in the next paragraph just to show how bad Bush really is, pointing out that Bush’s 800-some signing statements outnumber the 600 of all previous presidents. SIX HUNDRED? Considering we’ve had only 42 previous presidents, that’s plenty to go around. So by issuing signing statements, all of those other presidents must have violated their oaths of office too, right? The article doesn’t comment.
2. The piece I read also mentioned NAFTA, and how that was really a treaty that ought to be ratified by the Senate, and not an executive agreement as claimed by “the last three presidents.” That’s bending over backwards not to mention and thereby tarnish the name of Clinton.
#6 You state “I simply delight on how Republicans turn so viciously on those who aren’t 100% in step with ideology of current regime.” I think that the evidence disproves your assertion. For example. I’m very active in Log Cabin. We didn’t endorse the President for re-election. Yet I certainly haven’t been viciously attacked. In fact I personally have met with White House staff, the Senate Majority Leader and the officials at the RNC in the past year. Kevin, I feeling a lot more love than hate.
#12. Goes to show how much projection is going on! You must hate Bush, because that is how you are imagined. You are attacked as you are imagined, not as you really, really are…
Ok, Jim G, fair point. Some conservatives did get go a bit overboard over Clinton. I’m not here to defend them. Nor do I do so in this post.
But, the level of vitriol makes those Clinton adversaries seem tame. And I wonder if as many of them blamed every problem on Clinton as Bush-haters blame the world’s woes on his successor.
You wrote, .”…a demon who can do no right.” Excluding demon, what exactly has Bush done right? In the years that he’s been President, I am grasping for policies that were right or implemented correctly. In your response, don’t turn it around and say, “Well what did Clinton do right?” because that is not an answer. Thanks. Daniel
I voted for Clinton both times but I will ask you, what did Clinton do that was right and wonderful? You don’t get to dictate people’s answers Daniel. A key problem with Leftists thought, it seems.
#19: 10 Things Bush did right:
1. The tax cut, even though it was modest and fell short of the tax reform we needed and still need, was something Bush got partially right.
2. He pushed for social security reform, and that was the right thing to do, even though the Democrats demagogued the issue. (Thanks, Democrats, I’m so grateful that I can continue to have 12.6% of my income confiscated every year to pay into a retirement system that goes bankrupt before I retire. Thank you so bloody much).
3. He signed the ban on partial birth abortion, which Clinton did not.
4. He appointed two superb supreme court justices, and would have appointed the superb Miguel Estrada to the First District Court of Appeals if racist democrats hadn’t filibustered him.
5. He got us out of the idiotic ABM Treaty.
6. He appointed John Bolton to the UN.
7. He responded to the terrorists militarily, he tore down the wall of separation between law enforcement and intelligence that had disabled information sharing prior to 9-11 (a wall Clinton had made higher), and instituted NSA surveillance of terrorist cell phone calls (opposed by Democrats, BTW).
8.Advocated the development of nuclear power, alternative fuels, and the opening of untapped US energy reserves to ease dependence on foreign oil.
9. His Justice Department prosecuted the robber barons of Tyco, Enron, and Adelphia for scams they committed under the Clinton administration, which had looked the other way.
10. The Bush administration has done an excellent job of improving US relations with India.
I’ll grant that Bush has done much, much more wrong than right, and I count in the wrong column his reckless spending, the NCLB act, the Amnesty Bill, signing McCain-Feingold, retaining too many Clinton holdovers. And even where he has done right, he has often been tepid and tentative, as in his conduct on the war and his habit of abandoning domestic initiatives in the face of opposition. On the whole, my approval of Bush’s job performance is about where the polls have it, 35%. But I do recognize that his office has done some things which I support.
Daniel in FTL, the question you ask is entirely rhetorical and, frankly, no matter what anyone cites as accomplishments of Prez Bush, you’ll dismiss them like old sunblock on a Florida beach. “You’re srasping”? My ass.
When you offer this tidbit “The Republicans have sqandered billions of tax dollars over the past decade. What did we get for all that money? A federal government incapable of managing a national disaster and a President too busy playing a guitar to be bothered. I guess he’s got to get on with his own life. He’s too busy strumming to be a real leader.”
Right… and you endorse Elliot Spitzer for NYGovernor… right, you’re really interested in dialogue with conservatives or anyone from the GOP.
Save your rhetorical querries for the DailyKos. Or maybe you can dance with the sockpuppet of raj/ian.
If I were a lefty, on the other hand, and assuming I were an honest lefty, not consumed with foaming Bush hatred and judging “what Bush did right” by the same standards I would hold Democrats to, I could still find several examples of “what Bush did right.”
1. Massive spending increases on education and a greatly expanded Federal role in education.
2. Massive entitlement expansion through the Prescription Drug Giveaway.
3. Signed McCain-Feingold into law.
4. Signed Sarbanes-Oxley into law and prosecuted corporate offenders, even friends like Ken Lay.
5. Appointed two successive African-Americans as SecState and a Latino as Attorney-General… positions that were “whites-only” under Bill Clinton.
6. Maintained and continued most of Clinton’s environmental policies.
7. Supports open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.
8. Went out of his way to encourage multi-culturalism and tolerance of Muslims after 9-11.
9. Poured massive amounts of federal aid into New Orleans after hurricane Katrina (much of which was apparently spent on booze, hookers, and luxury goods) amount to over $600,000 per resident of New Orleans.
10. $15 Billion in spending to combat AIDS in Africa (most of which will probably be spent as well as the Hurricane Katrina relief funds).
But like I said, only an honest lefty who judged Bush by the same criteria he judged Democrats, would give him credit for those things.
#15 Conservative Guy — July 26, 2006 @ 11:09 pm – July 26, 2006
The piece I read also mentioned NAFTA, and how that was really a treaty that ought to be ratified by the Senate, and not an executive agreement as claimed by “the last three presidents.”
Irrespective of the “last three presidents” issue, I’m sure that you are aware that the federal judiciary disagrees with you on the issue of whether a trade agreement is necessarily a treaty. Trade agreements normally require implementation legislation, that need only be passed by a majority of both houses of congress, so why should ratification of the agreements (not treaties) require anything more?
That would put me in a weird place. I don’t like Bush, but I would want to leave anyway because I don’t like the host for being so rude and intolerant. But then, I’m sure I dislike him for the “wrong” reasons anyway so maybe I should count myself in the “like Bush” category.
Actually, that describes my take on him as well. I’m not even completely sure I agree with his foreign policy, but I’m far from wanting to get on the America-is-evil bandwagon.
#21) Good post, V the K. I honestly needed a little reminder myself and that helped.
I recall someone asking on Democratic Underground why the thread on the railway bombings in Mumbai wasn’t receiving more attention, and one of them quipped “Because you can’t blame it on Bush.” To which someone responded that in fact the Bush administration had created an environment which encouraged this bombing, and then others agreed. So there you are: in the world of the American Left, there is nothing which cannot be blamed on Bush.
Trace, here’s the problem:
While I agree with many of President Bush’s foreign policy positions I disagree with almost all of his domestic policies.
Which, as V the K pointed out, in several ways mirror Democrats’ domestic policies. Indeed, the biggest criticism of Bush from Dems is that he isn’t doing ENOUGH regulation, escalated government spending, control of education, welfare increases, etc.
Then we come to this statement:
In a comment I said I am voting Democratic this fall and (unless Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee) am likely to vote Democratic in 2008.
In short, you’re going to vote for someone with whom you likely, given the Dems’ promise to vastly increase taxes, vastly accelerate spending across the board, including on entitlements programs like Medicare, impose new and punishing regulations on corporations and businesses, will disagree on BOTH foreign and domestic policies — just because they aren’t Bush.
That’s irrational. And I don’t know what else to call it — other than hatred.
#24: raj, I made no comment whatsoever on the issue of whether a trade agreement is or is not a treaty. I was simply pointing out how Lou Dobbs glossed over and omitted the name of Clinton in his discussion of same.
Kerry did not say, “If I were president…..
He said. “If I WAS president…
John
“Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Thank you very much, Mr. Shakespeare.
Enough said.
Eric in Hollywood
North Dallas 30, in comment #29, (with sincere apologies to your mother) you are one smug S.O.B.!
George W. Bush isn’t on the ballot in 2008 and as far as I am concerned isn’t a factor in choosing his successor. No rational person can really believe that my refusal to support any of the GOP presidential hopefuls, other than Rudy Giuliani, is hatred for George Bush.
It’s a shame people can’t enjoy this forum to express opinions or debate issues without people like you knocking opinions as irrational, disagreement as hatred and dissent as anti-American. It frequently seems that you’re not as upset about disagreements with the president as you are if anyone dares to disagree with your opinions.
Gay Patriot West, In post #18 you bring up some good points as well, though I don’t consider that period as tame at all, more like political blood-lust. I do remember, though, wondering where the anti-war Left was when Clinton was bombing the hell out of Belgrade.
#30 Conservative Guy — July 27, 2006 @ 4:32 pm – July 27, 2006
#24: raj, I made no comment whatsoever on the issue of whether a trade agreement is or is not a treaty. I was simply pointing out how Lou Dobbs glossed over and omitted the name of Clinton in his discussion of same.
What purpose would it have served for Dobbs to have included the name of Clinton in a story on NAFTA? NAFTA was started and largely negotiated during the presidency of GHWBush. Clinton signed it in Sept 1993 after concluding the negotiations. GHWB attended the signing ceremony and lauded its having been brought to conclusion. It was a bi-partisan affair. Indeed, during the 1992 election debates, Ross Perot chastized candidates of both parties for pursuing trade agreements like NAFTA–remember his “great sucking sound” remark?
#33 Trace Phelps — July 28, 2006 @ 12:42 am – July 28, 2006
No rational person can really believe that my refusal to support any of the GOP presidential hopefuls, other than Rudy Giuliani…
Simmer down. Don’t let NDXXX get under your skin. He’s just a nutcase who can type a lot, but doesn’t have anything to say. Query why, since he can type so rapidly, he doesn’t volunteer to type for the FedGov over in Iraq, since he supports the Bushies so much.
On Giuliani, much as I might like to support him, I cannot, for the reasons I stated here:
Nothing to do with gay issues. And nothing to do with 9/11. All to do with his grandstanding.
Just to let you know, I am an equal opportunity disparager. The lead candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor in Massachusetts is the state’s current Attorney General, Tom Reilly. I would never vote for him. Why? Not because of his defense of the state’s ban on same sex marriages while he was AG. It’s because of his completely unethical–bordering on criminal–persecution of the Amirault family during the Fells Acres Day School fiasco during the child molestation pre-school scare in the 1980s. Remember, that was the time of the McMartin day school prosecutions and others? Most of the convictions were overturned in the same time period Reilly was unwilling to admit that his evidence during his persecutions of the Amiraults had been tainted by psychologist snake-oil salesmen. I’m still livid about that, and as far as I’m concerned, Reilly’s unrelenting persecution of the Amiraults makes him unsuitable to be governor.
/rant
BTW, I’m sure that NDXXX or Matty or V the K will now accuse me of supporting child molesters. It would be a typical response from them.
#35 re “What purpose would it have served for Dobbs to have included the name of Clinton in a story on NAFTA? ” Perhaps because it was a top priority of Clinton to get passed and is listed as a key part of his “legacy” today. In fact DADT is part of the price paid to ensure it’s passage. Every time a soldier is discharged under DADT we can mark it as yet another addition to the proud Clinton “legacy”
raj/ian writes: “BTW, I’m sure that NDXXX or Matty or V the K will now accuse me of supporting child molesters. It would be a typical response from them.”
raj/ian, you’ve been spending too much time reviewing Oliver Stone movies in your little trailer in Newton… come out into the light of day. While that might be acceptable to GayLeft anti-American types like you, it isn’t to me.
I doubt you are a child molester. But that’s no ringing endorsement because, like most here, I simply doubt most of what you say… silly man.
No rational person can really believe that my refusal to support any of the GOP presidential hopefuls, other than Rudy Giuliani, is hatred for George Bush.
Let me remind you of what you previously said, Trace:
In a comment I said I am voting Democratic this fall and (unless Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee) am likely to vote Democratic in 2008.
I repeat myself. You are going to vote for people with whom you likely, given the Dems’ promise to vastly increase taxes, vastly accelerate spending across the board, including on entitlements programs like Medicare, impose new and punishing regulations on corporations and businesses, will disagree on BOTH foreign and domestic policies — just because they aren’t Bush.
And then you’re going to do the same thing in 2008.
It’s a shame people can’t enjoy this forum to express opinions or debate issues without people like you knocking opinions as irrational, disagreement as hatred and dissent as anti-American.
Unfortunately, Trace, the fact that I knock things as irrational, hatred, or anti-American is not based on the fact that I disagree with them, per se; it’s based on whether they actually are irrational, hatred-oriented, or anti-American.
Like I pointed out, someone who criticizes Bush for certain acts, but then plans to vote for people who will do MORE of those acts, is acting irrationally and, in this case, out of hatred for Bush.
Nancy Pelosi and her puppets are manipulating peoples’ anti-Bush hatred like yours, to help people to rationalize voting for them; they know anti-Bush hatred is the one thing that kept John Kerry from losing in a landslide.
#39 — I wish with all my heart and soul that the Democrats were a viable alternative to the Republicans. But wishing a thing does not make it so.
I do remember, though, wondering where the anti-war Left was when Clinton was bombing the hell out of Belgrade.
Well, he was one of them, wasn’t he? My guess is that they figured that he probably knew what he was doing and they should give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course, we’ve seen what happens when a guy who spent absolutely NO time on the anti-war Left marches onto the battlefield – they waste no time calling him a warmonger.
North Dallas 30 is such a smug, opinionated S.O.B. it’s a waste of time trying to reason with him. He’s donwright hateful toward anyone who disagrees with his opinions and observations. No matter what he thinks, I know in my heart and mind that neither love nor hate for George W. Bush is influencing the possibility (or likelihood) that I’ll vote Democratic in 2008. It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the likely GOP candidate in ’08.
For comment 20 VinceTN, as others have made imminently clear on this blog and in this forum, this is not a place to discuss anything positive about Dems, Clinton lovers, leftys, liberals, America-hating, or whatever I and others are supposed to be today. It is, I believe, the conservative gay supporter’s opportunity to explain his or her ideas and hang out with like-minded individuals. For comment 21, I believe these things are subjective. Reading them, I disagree with the outcome or result of many of them and this one post is one of the most interesting because I disagree with almost the whole list, yet you, V the K, do not. That is interesting to me. For comment 22 to Matt in Michigan, my views are irrelevant on this forum. I was asking supporters and those with similar views of Bush what he has done right or which policies were correctly implemented. The defensiveness does not astound me, but with your DK comment (“you’re really interested in dialogue with conservatives or anyone from the GOP. Save your rhetorical querries for the DailyKos. Or maybe you can dance with the sockpuppet of raj/ian.,” you’re holding me to a standard to which you yourself must not meet. For comment 23, I admit I dislike Bush, and freely admit it. I read here not to argue or foam as you suggest, V the K (because you won’t find any post of mine that foams as all we “leftys” do), but rather to try to understand how gay readers can actually be Republicans and like Bush (I would call that inquiry), to understand how they can vote for Republicans, and to attempt to “hear their views.” As for the rest of your post, I guess these things, as with all things in life, depend on how one looks at them. You look at some of them one way, and I another and we both see things with a particular set of lenses. When it comes down to it, one could say that I cannot see with your lenses and you cannot see with mine. However, it is not necessary for us to see with each other’s lenses. It is almost as if when two people exchange glasses just to see what happens. When I try on someone else’s glasses, it is blurry, and I can only see with my own.
In comment 43, I meant eminently, not imminently. My bad. It was 5:30am when I wrote it. =) Daniel
You set the tone and everyone responded accordingly, Daniel. “What has Bush ever done right? Tell me. Don’t tell me anything about Clinton (or anything else I don’t want to hear). You Reps defend yourselves now!”
You don’t set the agenda and you don’t dictate the answers. Matt and VdK have given you some fine points. Why don’t you deal with the dialogue they’ve provided and that you claim to want instead of whining about how hard and hostile everyone else is. You’re no lamb at the slaughterhouse.
VinceTN, you misquoted me and I didn’t tell anyone to tell me anything. I asked a question and you misquoted it in post 45. Indeed, I was hardly “whining” about anything. Certainly not in my original post and also not in my subsequent post.
It seems to be a running theme on this blog that when anyone questions the popular belief, or asks frequent posters to explain their positions, they get defensive and change the subject as you have done in post 45. I’ll certainly say it now in this post that when one gets defensive about the inquiry, it is usually an indication that he or she is not able to explain their views…or feels guilty about them. I expect this from freerepublic.com, not from gaypatriot.net.
When one turns the focus of a topic from the inquiry to the poster him or herself, no credibility is gained and the point of view gains no ground.
In post 21, the poster provided a list, interesting to me, although I disagree with most of the list, and stated so in my second post, and was in fact, a response that one should expect in response to my initial post.
Finally, in post 23, the same thing was done, albeit with a completely unneccessary opening paragraph.
Members of this community will go further when they drop the name calling and stop taking everything so personally. Said advice applies equally to Democratic Underground for any other readers here from that community.
Daniel Reimann
North Dallas 30 is such a smug, opinionated S.O.B. it’s a waste of time trying to reason with him. He’s donwright hateful toward anyone who disagrees with his opinions and observations. No matter what he thinks, I know in my heart and mind that neither love nor hate for George W. Bush is influencing the possibility (or likelihood) that I’ll vote Democratic in 2008. It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the likely GOP candidate in ‘08.
Again, Trace, I repeat your previous quote:
In a comment I said I am voting Democratic this fall and (unless Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee) am likely to vote Democratic in 2008.
And I repeat my response.
You are going to vote for people with whom you likely, given the Dems’ promise to vastly increase taxes, vastly accelerate spending across the board, including on entitlements programs like Medicare, impose new and punishing regulations on corporations and businesses, will disagree on BOTH foreign and domestic policies — just because they aren’t Bush.
While I admire your attempts to studiously avoid what you said about the 2006 elections, they will not work. Furthermore, I think the fact that you will vote for people with whom you disagree in 2006 just because they’re not Bush only strengthens the argument that your vote in 2008 will be based on your anti-Bush hatred as well.
In short, Trace, your actions in 2006 reveal your true motivations.