To Understand Bush-hatred, Just Study the Haters
Going through my accumulated e-mail after my weekend without ready access to my online in-box and just chanced on one from a reader alerting me to JammieWearingFool’s most excellent commentary on the very Huffington Post piece which inspired John’s post yesterday.
Describing that latest post as “More ugliness from the web’s Home Office for Hate,” JMF wrote:
Remember now, insulting John McCain is edgy satire. Pointing out the truth about Democrats is a smear.
As I read those words and reflected on the HuffPo piece, It struck me how quickly the left has shifted its venom from the incumbent Republican president to the man from his party who wants to succeed him.
Just goes to show that when trying to understand the left’s Bush-hatred, we’d do better to focus the subject than on the object. It has more to do with them than it does with W.
42 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
It’s hilarious the way they recently realized that Bush isn’t running again, so they have to make a half-assed attempt to paint McCain as Bush’s third term. And that’s by the same ass clown who wants to be Carter’s second.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 17, 2008 @ 4:02 am - June 17, 2008
Good point about the McCain-W ploy by the Dems. It won’t work for them ultimately because McCain is so not conservative.
Comment by KevinQC — June 17, 2008 @ 4:13 am - June 17, 2008
I wish they would grow the fuck up and call people by their names … if McCain wins, I’m going to go nuts if I have to hear them say McBush for 4 years.
Comment by Vince P — June 17, 2008 @ 4:19 am - June 17, 2008
My theory on this is, some people just need to hate. People with a need to hate will gravitate to places where hatred is acceptable (or in the case of the foaming left, applauded). Natural-born haters have a home in the left. They’re a bunch of Che Guevara wannabes, except Kos hasn’t green-lighted butchering the teenage kids of your political opponents… yet.
Comment by V the K — June 17, 2008 @ 7:05 am - June 17, 2008
Emphasis on “wannabe”. Most of them haven’t the courage to kill people directly, even if that is where their emotions and convictions would take them; they need certain leaders, and worship them as “historical”.
Obama is relatively benign; he will only kill people - such as poor people - through slow, indirect means like the tax code, destruction of the economy, encouragment of terrorists, etc.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2008 @ 9:15 am - June 17, 2008
we hate bushco for his actions and inactions. invade and occupy another country without just cause; do nothing while New Orleans drowned; sell out his energy and war policies to allow his cronies to pocket fat payouts; and on and on and on and on.
bushco has made one disastrous decision after another. the ‘decider’ will forever be remembered as the WORST president in the US.
that’s why we hate him; he deserves the venom.
Comment by rightiswrong — June 17, 2008 @ 9:49 am - June 17, 2008
No you don’t, rightiswrong. You just HATE, period. Admit it. Every one of the “reasons” you’ve just citing for your hating him is false.
Further, consider this: I view Jimmuh Carter as the worst President in my lifetime… he totally “deserves” (your word) my hatred… ***and yet I still do NOT hate him***. I pity him, and hope God has mercy on him. See how that works? Only haters hate. Take a little responsibility for your own state, rightiswrong.
Now, what I came back to say: This is getting a little off topic, but still ends up being on the topic of the Left’s perverse hatred of Bush and other things as well… Why Iraqis Back McCain:
The whole thing is worth reading. This bit particularly struck me:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2008 @ 10:00 am - June 17, 2008
IOW, “why don’t you concentrate on what you have *achieved* in Iraq?”… from the mouths of foreigners. Sometimes it takes a foreigner, to point out the obvious. And the answer is: Because the hating Left, which dominates our media, is too busy hating.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2008 @ 10:04 am - June 17, 2008
#7-8: Very well put, ILC. Bill O’Reilly had a commentary last night that said pretty much the same thing - the anti-war MSM has much invested in an American defeat there.
If victory is achieved — and that means a stable Iraq friendly to the USA and the West — then the libtard moonbats lose the issue. And the Dhimmicrats’ call for immediate withdrawal would be viewed as a bad move.
Of course, seagulls like #6 don’t see the whole donut, just the hole.
Probably because it matches the one in his head.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 17, 2008 @ 11:20 am - June 17, 2008
Clearly the left is invested in hate for hates sake. It is now clear that they probably never hated Bush the man, but simply for what he represented. All the conservative and not so conservative values he stood for.
Now that he is on his way out the door, after having a very successful tour in Europe, the left is turning it’s hate to McCain. The easiest thing to do is simply label him the next Bush - keep the hate going.
Comment by Leah — June 17, 2008 @ 11:24 am - June 17, 2008
you act as though it is some fringe group of left nuts that hate him personally. Maybe in America you could get away with saying it is less than half of the population (and that is more and more not the case), but i don’t see how you can classify the majority of people around the globe as fringe. Frankly, MOST of the world is scared to death by the way all of american politics has acted in the last 8 years.
Calling worldwide dread and hope for change fringe is to really miss the boat.
Comment by david — June 17, 2008 @ 11:33 am - June 17, 2008
#11 - “you act as though it is some fringe group of left nuts that hate him personally.”
Pot, meet kettle.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 17, 2008 @ 11:53 am - June 17, 2008
Rightiswrong in #6, the very language of your comment makes my point. First, to say what you do in the first paragraph, you have to ignore the evidence. Evidence, for example, the president provided of Iraq’s (under Saddam Hussein) violations of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire & numerous UN resolutions. Evidence that the federal government did far more than nothing in the wake of Katrina, even as it bungled some of the rescue & relief operations (but not nearly as many bungled at the city and state level).
Or just the basic fact that you have to call him the worst president ever.
So you say he deserves the venom while misstating his record, again shows the issue is you and your cohorts, you “need” to call him the worst president.
And you don’t even address how I get to the point of the post & it’s short so you have been able to read it: why now have so many on the left redirected their venom to John McCain?
David in #11, you read the polls to say what you want them to say. Just because a majority of people disapprove of the job the president has done doesn’t mean they hate him.
And where did I call “hope for change” fringe?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 17, 2008 @ 11:56 am - June 17, 2008
truly.. i don’t mean to defend anyone for personal vendetta. i don’t believe anyone can defend hatred as being just. And it certainly isn’t something that a leftist demographic has the corner on.
I interpreted your calling out of hatred to be synonymous with disloyalty or disapproval, which is certainly the prevailing notion in the global politic.
I’m equally bewildered with someone who would call McCain a change in perspective. When someone sings the fate of a nation to the tune of a pop song from the sixties (fifties?) it doesn’t provide much hope of change from the regime that wanted to “smoke em out of their holes”
Comment by david — June 17, 2008 @ 12:53 pm - June 17, 2008
Here is GPW’s topic:
david at #11, I’m fascinated that this is what you made out of it:
Huh? Where did GPW “call worldwide dread and hope for change fringe”? Either you are responding to some completely different topic… or perhaps you feel defensive, classifying yourself in your heart as one of the haters?
I’m also fascinated by your appeal to numbers, or to alleged “worldwide” hatred of Bush. It’s bad method: The fact that any number of others share an error is never justification for the error. But it’s equally wrong on basic facts. Many Iraqis love Bush. And Canada, France, Germany, Greece, and several other countries have all replaced anti-American leaders with pro-American leaders, in the last five years. Some “worldwide” hatred.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2008 @ 1:09 pm - June 17, 2008
#15 - And don’t forget Italy and Colombia as well. Especially the latter - they’re the ones keeping Comrade Hugo in check.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 17, 2008 @ 1:11 pm - June 17, 2008
David in #14, your interpretation shows why it is difficult to engage with some on the left. Where in my post (or any of my posts) could you find justification for such interpretations.
One quick reason to see McCain as change in perspective. He was proposing a shift in Iraq strategy for at least two years before the president changed tactics there. That shift led to a remarkable improvement in the situation there.
And McCain’s current rival for the White House hasn’t yet factored those changes into his Iraq policy–as per this article (via Instapundit)
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — June 17, 2008 @ 1:13 pm - June 17, 2008
it was my assumption that i wouldn’t be able to engage with your point of view that prompted me to interpret you in that way. That was my fault entirely. I’ll own that. My frustration with american foreign policy stems more from the fact that i’m a believer in non-violence, not from my left leanings. So any such improvements still ring hollow in my ears.
I’d like to add that I am really glad that there is such reasonable dialog here. And once again I am sorry for make such broad assumptions.
[Thank you for admitting your error. Apology accepted. I hope my supporters will take note of this. --Dan]
Comment by david — June 17, 2008 @ 1:24 pm - June 17, 2008
Oh, I think all of us, given the opportunity, would much prefer non-violence to violence.
However, a great example: lunatic decides to beat baby to death, ignores repeated entreaties to stop, fights off numerous attempts to restrain him and, when he turns to head back to the child, is shot by a police officer.
Saddam was such a lunatic. Slobodan Milosevic was such a lunatic. Hitler was such a lunatic, and Osama bin Laden is such a lunatic.
Furthermore, one should keep in mind that Saddam had developed a relatively perfect means of putting world opinion in his favor; he bribed European governments and UN bureaucrats. Faced with the loss of cheap oil and billions of dollars in kickbacks, what do you think they’re going to do; admit that the man was a problem and that they shouldn’t have supported him, or smokescreen with propaganda about “American imperialism”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 17, 2008 @ 2:16 pm - June 17, 2008
NDT, I agree. All responsible people are anti-war and believe in non-violence - including Iraq war supporters.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2008 @ 2:29 pm - June 17, 2008
(The whole point of the Iraq war having been to *stop* threats of even greater violence.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2008 @ 2:32 pm - June 17, 2008
wow. this will probably take us way off topic.. i didn’t mean that i am for non-violence and anyone who supports a war believes that we should be in a perpetual state of violence.. this isn’t something i’m wanting to debate in Dan’s platform.
suffice to say, here is the crux of it for me.. there is a difference between principled nv and strategic nv. i should probably write more on that in my own space.
Comment by david — June 17, 2008 @ 2:55 pm - June 17, 2008
david, this could be a thought to help you get started.
- Non-violence as a principle would be when someone *really* wants violence in the world to go down, and hence, appreciates and supports those who protect the good from the violence of the evil.
- Non-violence as a mere strategy would be when someone wants their political party to gain power, and hence, maligns and slanders those who protect the good from the violence of the evil.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2008 @ 6:50 pm - June 17, 2008
Dave, as long as you are open to being reflective, perhaps you could reread what you wrote (#11) and clarify your source:
You are telling us that a majority of the population of the world “hate him (Bush) personally.” Really?!!!
Then you state the “fact” that “MOST of the world is scared to death by the way all of american (sic) politics has acted in the past 8 years.” MOST would be a large majority. Now, this might be your opinion, based on who knows what reasoning, but I know you can not produce the data to prove your statement of “fact.”
Calming down the rhetoric is a good start. I appreciate your effort. But radical projection is just as foolish. Perhaps you might work on that, also.
Comment by heliotrope — June 17, 2008 @ 6:56 pm - June 17, 2008
My best observation of the Bush haters is that they are uneducated. They don’t know about Lincoln’s efforts to win the civil war and what he had to do to critics, supreme court justices etc. They are uneducated about America 100 years ago, about what it took to win WW2, they don’t know about Jimmy Carter’s Administration and that was just 30 years ago. If a President isn’t a Democrat they feel he or she is illegitimate. They can’t explain the Electorial College it’s creation and it’s reason for being. They think we live in a democracy. They’ve no clue as to why that would be a horrible system of govenment. They are uneducated, ignorant and maybe worse yet not curious.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 17, 2008 @ 9:09 pm - June 17, 2008
I’ve a few buds in the UK who are liberals not so odd in socialist Europe. But when we discuss Iran for example, they both want to know what America is waiting for. They want us to act and take out whatever nuclear crap Iran is working on. I try to explain that Americans are tired of all the carping about whatever action we do take. Now they disagree about Iraq, but say the rest of the world needs the USA to take action when no one else will. How cozzy eh? I try to dismiss the critics in Canada and other safe warm places. Most have little or no armed forces of their own thus no defense expenditures. They know or assume that if any crap hits the fan, the nice Americans will come pull their onions out of the fire. So any criticism of the USA needs to be taken with a grain of salt. American leftists are giddy when anyone criticizes our country. They’d rather the whole world was neutral and average. No excellence, no trophies.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 17, 2008 @ 10:15 pm - June 17, 2008
Don’t worry so much. Much to his chagrin, we always wander off topic. Besides, we’re curious about your POV. Since your comments weren’t drive-by shootings, as you see in #6, we’re intrigued and more inclined to read it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 18, 2008 @ 1:05 am - June 18, 2008
I should add “As long as you’re honest”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 18, 2008 @ 1:06 am - June 18, 2008
The UK paper, Telegraph, has a Foreign Correspondent Blog. They have two reporters in America who contribute to it. They’re totally in the bag for Obama.
In this thread:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/trailmix/june08/mccainwomen.htm
I have made the following comments..
I was reading a Mark Steyn article about Obama .. and I think this part distills this election down to its essense. Here he is talking about Obama’s speech after the last primary:
BEGIN QUOTE
By the time he wrapped up his “victory” speech last week, the great gaseous uplift had his final paragraphs floating in delirious hallucination along the Milky Way:
“I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people … . I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal … . This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation.”
It’s a good thing he’s facing it with “profound humility,” isn’t it? Because otherwise who knows what he’d be saying. But mark it in your calendars: June 3, 2008 – the long-awaited day, after 232 years, that America began to provide care for the sick. Just a small test program: 47 attendees of the Obama speech were taken to hospital and treated for nausea.
Everyone else came away thrilled that the Obamessiah was going to heal the planet and reverse the rise of the oceans: When Barack wants to walk on the water, he doesn’t want to have to use a stepladder to get up on it. There are generally two reactions to this kind of policy proposal. The first was exemplified by the Atlantic Monthly’s Marc Ambinder:
“What a different emotional register from John McCain’s; Obama seems on the verge of tears; the enormous crowd in the Xcel Center seems ready to lift Obama on its shoulders; the much smaller audience for McCain’s speech interrupted his remarks with stilted cheers.”
The second reaction boils down to: “‘Heal the planet’? Is this guy nuts?” To be honest I prefer a republic whose citizenry can muster no greater enthusiasm for their candidate than “stilted cheers” to one in which the crowd wants to hoist the nominee onto their shoulders for promising to lower ocean levels within his first term. As for coming together “to remake this great nation,” if it’s so great, why do we have to remake it? A few months back, just after the New Hampshire primary, a Canadian reader of mine – John Gross of Quebec – sent me an all-purpose stump speech for the 2008 campaign:
“My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.”
END QUOTE
I’m in the “Is this guy nuts” category. It’s amazing to me how reporters are being struck down in awe and adoration for Obama. I think to myself.. just how gullible are these people that they’re falling for this charalton.
Use your brains people.. how could someone whose entire political history consists of associating with Nation of Islam, Marxists, Far Left Terrorists, the most corrupt politicians in Chicago/Cook County/State of Illinois, Communists, Pro-HAMAS Palestinians, Black Liberation Theology (fusion of mutant Christianity and Latin American Marxism)/Deranged Catholic Priests
and think this guy has been Mr. Hope and Change!
You’re being manipulated by masters of PR.
And you’re lapping it up.
If the United States is great now.. why does Obama keep emphasising he wants ***** RE ***** make it?
We’re great because we didn’t go the European way. We’re great because we explicitly REJECTED European ways. Europe is in its last throws, WW-I has started a process which has resulted in a culture that is on the road to Cultural and Demographic Suicide.
America must not be remade.
Comment by Vince P — June 18, 2008 @ 7:52 am - June 18, 2008
#27 I really appreciate that. But, honestly, I’m not sure I’m going to stick around here.
Here’s the deal - I have a bias. Because I am human I have bias. The people that I talk to and am informed by have biases. Left, right and spinning in circles biases. Five years ago I was a completely different person with subjective thoughts that were much more in line with those expressed en-mass here. Now I have different subjectivities.. not better - different.
I read and comment in many places around the internet and IRL where I do not share the same subjectivity as those i converse with. But what is absolutely necessary is that they own that. Just as I need to own it.
In this I am in no way referring to the proprietors of this space. Bruce and Dan have impressed me to no end with their respectful and confident attitudes. They own their bias proudly.
However, many of the comments here are a different animal. Reading through this site i have found far too many folks claiming freedom from bias, claiming centrality of opinion, claiming purity of motives and claiming the same for their source material. That’s just not honest or helpful. I’m not ready to get picked apart by folks who believe themselves to be the only objective creatures on the planet.
I’ll most definitely continue to read here, but will never comment.
thanks for hearing me.
david.
Comment by david — June 18, 2008 @ 10:42 am - June 18, 2008
MOST of the world is also concerned that “man-made’ Global Warming is destroying the Earth, indeed, MOST of the world thinks the Earth is warming when in fact it not only hasnt warmed in the past 10 years, but has actually cooled. MOST of the world is scared of bird flu and I would not at all be surprised to hear that MOST of the world believes 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government.
MOST of the world was scared to death of Ronald Reagans approach to the cold war.
MOST of the world gets their information from the same lockstep liberal sources: AP, BBC, AFP, CNN etc
OH, and by the way, MOST of the world thinks homosexuality is a sin. I suppose you think homosexuals should all repent and change their evil ways?
MOST of the world is pretty damn ignorant.
Another fabulous reason not to vote for the party that puts so much stock in what MOST of the world thinks.
Comment by American Elephant — June 18, 2008 @ 11:14 am - June 18, 2008
In ref to #15 I believe it was that many European Countries have replaced an anti’American hating administration with ones who are more friendly. Which must say something about the mood of the voters in these countries that is apparently being distorted by AP polls showing how much they hate America. I think the story of the Iraqi’s delegation who went to Walter Reed and were amazed by the smiles and good spirits of the wounded, and then went to meet with Obama and were treated to a meeting with a staffer who gave them a list of all the things America had done wrong in the war. The Iraq delegation was not impressed and while admitted that mistakes had been made, good was also done and the Democrats are loathe to even admit that. I did not think Clinton was the worst president we ever had , but I did not hate him. I did not like a lot of his policies or personal behavior…but I find it really a scary statement on the state of our spiritual being in this country that so many go on blogs and spew out venom against Bush, the Military (no apologies yet for the falsely accused Haditha troops) Christians, and any political policy that leans right. I fear truly that we are going to tear our country apart in short order if we don’t get our out of control emotions under control.
Comment by Linda Strickand — June 18, 2008 @ 11:25 am - June 18, 2008
If Obama gets elected this year, then Americans will get a chance in 2012 to replace an anti-American administration with one more friendly to America’s values and strategic interests.
Comment by V the K — June 18, 2008 @ 12:27 pm - June 18, 2008
#33 - V, only if there is still a USA standing after his administration, provided he doesn’t get enough Congressmen to try and repeal the 22nd Amendment.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 18, 2008 @ 3:11 pm - June 18, 2008
Oh there will still be a USA after Obama. The problem is that it may very well be a very different, much more socialized USA. And the changes, as history indicates, may be impossible to reverse.
Democrats have a very simple and very effective formula: the more they promise to do for people, the more dependent on government people become. The more dependent they become, the more you can offer to do for them. And other than very modest welfare reform, when has any of it ever been reversed?
Comment by American Elephant — June 18, 2008 @ 4:03 pm - June 18, 2008
It occurs to me that if we’re going to call out the left on their deranged paranoia about Bush, we should really try to avoid sounding even a little bit like we have a deranged paranoia about Obama.
Comment by V the K — June 18, 2008 @ 5:10 pm - June 18, 2008
Pardon me if I’m not as edumacated as some, but isn’t that a part of life? If you have strong convictions in what you believe in, why would you care?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 18, 2008 @ 7:10 pm - June 18, 2008
#30: By all means.. please comment.
The only people who get the angry responses are the semi-regular troublemakers who aren’t interested in just talking but come here to stir trouble.
Comment by Vince P — June 18, 2008 @ 7:56 pm - June 18, 2008
House Democrats Call for the Seizure of the Refining Industry
I hardly think taking people at their word is paranoia.
Thinking that a party that has given us the New Deal and Great Society wont nationalize the health care and oil industries when they are openly calling for it, on the other hand, strikes me as naive.
Comment by American Elephant — June 18, 2008 @ 9:05 pm - June 18, 2008
david, if you truly believe that Truth is a matter of personal “subjectivities”, then I believe you are making the right choice in not offering more of your opinions here.
Opinions formed by subjective, emotional methods - and which, consequently, suffer greatly in quality of facts/logic - and whose authors claim that everyone is just like them: Not what the world needs more of.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 18, 2008 @ 9:14 pm - June 18, 2008
(clarification - I meant “…and whose authors claim that everyone does the same thing…”)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 19, 2008 @ 1:45 pm - June 19, 2008
#31: Most of the world is not steeped in the ideals of liberty and individual rights. In European elections you basically get a choice between a communist and a fascist.
Comment by Attmay — June 23, 2008 @ 8:45 am - June 23, 2008