In Wake of Tea Parties, Left’s Anger Reaches Fever Pitch
even as their side controls levers of political power
While we on the right side of the blogosphere spent the better part of last week promoting the Tea Parties and celebrating their success, this week, many of us are (once again) considering the phenomenon of the angry left. Perhaps that’s because their hysterical outbursts reached fever pitch with the success of those parties.
A grassroots movement at odds with their ideology was being born.
If they were as confident in their ideas as we conservatives were in the 1980s, they would welcome such challenges as giving them another chance to make the case for the programs the President proposes–and which they supposedly support. Shouldn’t they welcome this opportunity to defend Obama and his policies?
Instead, despite their victories last fall, they appear increasingly angry. Byron York wonders why:
These should be happy times for liberals and the Democratic party as a whole. They control the White House and both houses of Congress, while opposition Republicans are leaderless and lost. So why do some Democrats, particularly those farther to the left, appear so angry?
Just look at the tone of some of those who comment to our posts. If they had more confidence in their ideas and Democrats’ further political success, they would likely be more gracious to their adversaries, knowing we were just crying in the wilderness. More confident victors wouldn’t need slur their adversaries; they would know that their arguments would help sustain their success.
Instead, they’ve been sore winners. And as York puts it, they would rather bat down than answer such questions about the Tea Parties as “What if the protesters weren’t racists, weren’t violent, weren’t mentally defective? What if their point was legitimate, or even partly legitimate?”
Over at Protein Wisdom, Jeff Goldstein believes that the mere posing of these questions
Which supposes that, given the time and inclination, most “progressives” could formulate and then articulate an answer to such questions. Sadly, I think such supposition gives the rank and file of the left far too much credit: in my experiences dealing with the politically engaged leftist who visits this site (not a scientific sampling of rank and file leftists, to be sure, but my hunch is that those progressives who trolls “wingnut” blogs in search of “argument” conceive of themselves as politically well-versed and generally astute), their positions tend to be rote learned and attached to a kind of knee jerk tu quoque-ism, both as a defensive fallback and as a constant ready-made assertion-in-waiting.
Emphasis added. Seems he attracts the same sort of left-of-center readers as we do. They do seem to come here with a fixed view of the right, using our comment section to repeat positions they learned elsewhere by rote.
It’s almost as if they’re struggling mightily to convince themselves that we really are the narrow-minded troglodytes their university professors taught them that we were. If they were really convinced of the merits of their arguments, why do they expend so much energy making mean-spirited misrepresentation of our motivations while avoiding careful consideration of our arguments?
64 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“It’s almost as if they’re struggling mightily to convince themselves that we really are the narrow-minded troglodytes their university professors taught them that we were. If they were really convinced of the merits of their arguments, why do they expend so much energy making mean-spirited misrepresentation of our motivations while avoiding careful consideration of our arguments?”
I would love to hear them try to answer that one. Spot on analysis!
Comment by Lorie Byrd — April 21, 2009 @ 3:07 pm - April 21, 2009
For conservatives, a win is 51% and a loss is 49%, better luck next time. For a liberal, oh, say, Jeanine Garafalo, a win is total obliteration of anyone who doesn’t think like she does, and a loss is a single incandescent light bulb using up extra energy somewhere in the world. Liberals are so sure of their grasp of truth that they won’t be happy until every thought of every man, woman, child, and dolphin is taken captive to their ideology.
Comment by Ashpenaz — April 21, 2009 @ 3:35 pm - April 21, 2009
Said this before, will say it again: Lefties secretly know they’re wrong. They secretly know that Obama is a giant misstep… that his deficits are a disaster… that they won’t be able to discipline themselves to do anything about them… that lefties’ whole underlying philosophy sounds like B.S. and doesn’t work in reality… etc. So they’re in “destroy the messenger” mode… as they always are.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2009 @ 4:08 pm - April 21, 2009
Angry? Are you conservatives listening to yourselves. This man has been in office not even 3 months and Rush is off his rocker wanting President Obama to fail, stating he has a God complex. Glen Beck is crying and off his anti-depressants about the state of our country going to socialism after Bush got us into a needless war, tortured, tapped phones, suspended habeas corpus, but now Beck is scared! Have your tea parties, and keep telling yourselves it is all about the taxes and not the man.
Comment by DaveA — April 21, 2009 @ 4:18 pm - April 21, 2009
Its like Dave has totally blocked out the eight years of the Bush administration and all the Bush = Hitler stuff.
Comment by Dark Eden — April 21, 2009 @ 4:26 pm - April 21, 2009
I don’t know which is more bothersome — that the Left is angry or that people like Byron York wonder why.
Come on, fellas. This is Leftism 101. Anger is sine qua non.
Comment by rrpjr — April 21, 2009 @ 4:29 pm - April 21, 2009
Thank you, Dave A, your very comments confirms my point.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 21, 2009 @ 4:33 pm - April 21, 2009
Nope.
No, he didn’t do that either.
You mean that he tapped terrorists’ phone calls – a program that Democrats in Congress gave their consent to at the time, and that Obama has since blessed and defended?
Wrong again. NOTHING remotely like that ever happened.
DaveA – LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2009 @ 4:48 pm - April 21, 2009
The Byron York article was thought-provoking. (Delighted to see him in print again.) But, to be fair, he interviewed a conservative psychotherapist for his views. We condemned this kind of arm-chair analysis from the left (1964, anyone?) and rightly so.
Not that I necessarily disagree with his larger point. To try to accomplish as much as possible before public support collapses can get you pretty strung out.
Let’s hope we all survive to the next baton pass.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — April 21, 2009 @ 4:52 pm - April 21, 2009
I’ve read almost every article on GayPatriot today, and am commenting to this specific article to make a number of observations:
As a straight Christian, I’m impressed. You go!
While we may never agree on everything, the positions of your organization are exceptional. I believe sincerely that yours will do more to bring about positive change in how the gay community is perceived than any other.
I agree that the left is hypocritical and abusive in their attacks on the right, and could benefit from a little introspection.
As for why they’re angry, perhaps because they feel truly threatened by the TEA Party movement among other things, in part because support for the movement is growing in the general population, and they see a corresponding drop in support of the Obama Administration as well.
Finally, while I will never change my opinion about matters of faith (and my reading of your site tells me you would never dream of asking me to, and in fact respect them), I am very aware that I live in two worlds: the world of faith, and the world of man. The 1st requires that I respect God and what I beleive He says to us. The 2nd requires that I respect the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of this nation, as well as the positions of others.
Folks, you have my respect.
Comment by David Schroeder — April 21, 2009 @ 5:01 pm - April 21, 2009
Dan, I don’t understand why anyone would be angry about the Tea Party protests. It’s anyone’s right to join any protest of their choice. I fully respect your choice and understand your choice.
I respect anyone’s choice to be angry about the protests, although I don’t understand it. I guess the other thing I don’t understand is why you are concerned about what liberals, or anyone else who opposes the protests, think about it.
If those opposing the Tea Party protests are being irrational, which is what I believe you are suggesting, then let them continue in their irrationality. It only hurts their cause, not yours.
Comment by Pat — April 21, 2009 @ 5:13 pm - April 21, 2009
MFS, I saw that too. But at least he noted that it was a conservative psychotherapist.
Comment by Beverly Lynn — April 21, 2009 @ 5:25 pm - April 21, 2009
I think DaveA is an example of a leftist who just hated Bush so much he had to come up with some justification for it, so he invented a bunch of crimes and accused Bush of them.
Comment by V the K — April 21, 2009 @ 6:13 pm - April 21, 2009
your incessant need to make posts about liberals’ supposed beliefs and motives is getting old. why don’t you just focus on what you think and let us liberals figure out what we think.
Comment by bob — April 21, 2009 @ 6:28 pm - April 21, 2009
bob, your love of fascism has been documented. so we don’t need to speculate in your case.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 21, 2009 @ 6:40 pm - April 21, 2009
um…i know yesterday was 4/20 and all, but lay off the drugs, dude.
Comment by bob — April 21, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - April 21, 2009
Dan-
Great post. The angry Left comments speak for themselves.
Last night I read a number of articles regarding the “Angry Left” — one of which was from none other than the WaPo’s Dana Milbank. Yep, he sees it too.
Dan asked in his post: “Shouldn’t they welcome this opportunity to defend Obama and his policies?”
Well, based on the comments at the WaPo and other places on the topic — they [Angry Left] can’t do what Dan says.
Why?
They are too busy figuring out how to justify their false claims against the Bush Administration (ILC covered them above), and many Angry Left commenters are eager to see ALL Republicans thrown in jail and persecuted for their political beliefs. (I wish I were kidding)
No wonder they weren’t upset when their man Obama hugged Chavez. They are eager for the same type of one-man rule in the USA.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — April 21, 2009 @ 6:52 pm - April 21, 2009
bruce,
you are embarrassing yourself. i mean that sincerely.
Comment by bob — April 21, 2009 @ 7:00 pm - April 21, 2009
Bob-
Go to this website and read the comments yourself, moron.
http://tinyurl.com/dmetr4
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — April 21, 2009 @ 7:07 pm - April 21, 2009
Oh yeah, and about calling you a moron — I meant that sincerely.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — April 21, 2009 @ 7:08 pm - April 21, 2009
Boob, if you don’t like the posts here, please go somewhere else. For 8 years we conservatives were hated reviled and of course called every name in the book by the oh so tolerant left. MSM did it’s best to disgrace and demean the President. Discent was patriotic having 3 year olde call the president ‘poopy head’ was the sign a great parenting.
We had an election, we lost. We’re upset with the new dirction our. We president is taking the country and we’re expressing those views in forums we are comfortable with – like this blog.
Then you and your ilk come along and spew your hate and anger. If you were calmly explaing why Obama is so wonderful for us, I’d understand but all you do is exactly what Dan said in this post.
Dan won’t say this cuz he is a gentleman but I will. Shut up and go away!
Comment by Leah — April 21, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - April 21, 2009
where did i spew hate, exactly?
and your reaction to those with whom you disagree to “shut up and go away” is telling.
Comment by bob — April 21, 2009 @ 7:25 pm - April 21, 2009
bruce,
so after looking at some comments on a website, you make the sweeping conclusion that the “left” (which right now is larger than the “right”) wants us to be a dictatorship and wants to imprison everyone who doesn’t espouse liberal ideology?
i’m a big ol’ liberal, and i don’t want a dictatorship, nor do i want ANYONE imprisoned for his or her beliefs. in fact…imprisoning someone for his beliefs is the very antithesis of being a “liberal”.
i know you thought you were cute by calling me a moron, but perhaps you should reevaluate at whom that comment was directed. hint: got a mirror handy?
Comment by bob — April 21, 2009 @ 7:31 pm - April 21, 2009
Bob, I think Leah raises an excellent point. Why not just explain why you think Obama and the left are right- um let’s make that correct- and leading us in a positive direction, restoring the Constitution and all the other generalities you make regularly (without once bringing up Bush). Why do you think the left is still so angry or do you think that’s untrue? Why do you personally subject yourself to a group of people you clearly feel are intellectually inferior and condescend to on a regular basis? I’m asking sincerely. You can make this a ‘teachable moment’ if you like or you can snark and/or disappear for a couple of days- your choice.
Comment by Patriot Goddess — April 21, 2009 @ 8:08 pm - April 21, 2009
bob,
you’re the one who thought that emulating Hitler was a good idea.
Checkmate
Comment by The_Livewire — April 21, 2009 @ 8:16 pm - April 21, 2009
Bob, unlike other commenters from the left, I’ve yet to see you make an inteligent comment. You always come out attaching us and our former president.
I for one have had enough. I will repeat since you hate us so much, please go away. I’m in favor of inteligent discourse but with you it’s all about attacking us.
So just go away and find someone else to insult. Up until now I’ve simply ignored you. But if you keep up your vitriol I will be there to insult you right back.
Comment by Leah — April 21, 2009 @ 8:26 pm - April 21, 2009
nor do i want ANYONE imprisoned for his or her beliefs. in fact…imprisoning someone for his beliefs is the very antithesis of being a “liberalâ€
Well, bob, that seems to be EXACTLY where the left is taking us. While speechcrime and thoughcrime may not be criminal offenses in the US (yet), it’s certainly trending that way in much of the world (especially in countries with left wing governments).
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDI0ZTliZGQ2ZjU4NjlkNzc3OGE5YmEwYmEyMzNjMmE=
Comment by SoCalRobert — April 21, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - April 21, 2009
leah: if you want to encourage “inteligent” discourse, i recommend you learn how to spell the word “intelligent” first. sorry for “attaching” you.
patriot goddess: i’m not sure i agree with the premise of your comment, although i at least appreciate the civil tone of your response. i’m not angry (nor, in my view, are most on the left). in fact, politically speaking (and personally, for unrelated reasons), i’m the most content i’ve been in my adult life. as for why i frequent this blog when i clearly have a different point of view…i dunno, i guess i enjoy debate? maybe i hope some of you will come to realize the error of your ways? if you actually look back, i often contribute substantive, thoughtful comments. in fact, GPW has emailed me on more than one occasion and mentioned that, although he usually disagrees with me, he finds many (not all) of my comments insightful and good for the discussion. you can ask GPW yourself.
do i occasionally resort to ad hominem or have a little fun w/ other commenters? guilty. frankly, i don’t take myself or this blog too seriously, and sometimes the things you guys say on here are so outrageous i can’t do more than chuckle and make a smart ass comment.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 21, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - April 21, 2009
Filtered again.
Comment by SoCalRobert — April 21, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - April 21, 2009
#23: bob – see this.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDI0ZTliZGQ2ZjU4NjlkNzc3OGE5YmEwYmEyMzNjMmE=
Comment by SoCalRobert — April 21, 2009 @ 9:29 pm - April 21, 2009
and livewire: i’m glad you have the reading comprehension skills of a squirrel.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 21, 2009 @ 9:32 pm - April 21, 2009
and socal: so you send me a link to an article about some obscure story in britain to support a comment about lefties in america wanting to silence (and imprison) political opposition? hm.
i don’t know the validity of that article, but i would strongly disagree with any attempt to infringe on an individual’s right to believe and say what she believes (within reason, obviously…no shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre, etc.). i could just as easily give you examples of super conservative countries (socially, at least) resorting to activities we could label “fascist”. how about the police in iraq literally hunting down and killing gay people b/c they’re “immoral and bad for the state”. and do we really want to go down this road? do conservatives (think: mccarthyism) really want to talk about the thought police?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 21, 2009 @ 9:42 pm - April 21, 2009
The democRats in power are listening. That is why they are trying to change the subject or scream how crazy the movement is.
They hear, they may try to ignore it but they are listening.
Just continue to make the phone calls to congress, media and TOTUS.
We are planning a May Day rally here in Tampa. It will be our biggest to date. We had about 100-150 on March 21, nearly 2000 April 15 at 12:00 pm & another 2000 at 5:00 pm with lots of horn honking in approval.
We are having an awakening here in Florida!
Comment by EDinTampa — April 21, 2009 @ 9:54 pm - April 21, 2009
Nice move dodging the Obama issue/s Bob- leaves me to think you find his actions and policies as indefensible as I do.
Comment by Patriot Goddess — April 21, 2009 @ 10:05 pm - April 21, 2009
if you have a specific issue you’d like to discuss, PG, by all means, bring it to my attention. i’m not going to respond to broad generalities.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 21, 2009 @ 10:16 pm - April 21, 2009
#32 – bob, the point is that liberals in the US hold up left-leaning governments in Canada and Europe as models.
I’m not talking about Islamic countries (that’s another rant) – I’m talking about what’s left of western liberal (in the classic sense) democracies and the fetish American liberals seem to have for the UN (a group that holds “serious” meetings where the loony president of Iran lectures the world on racism).
Comment by SoCalRobert — April 21, 2009 @ 10:26 pm - April 21, 2009
It’s almost as if they’re struggling mightily to convince themselves that we really are the narrow-minded troglodytes their university professors taught them that we were.
Aw, you poor Republicans. Everyone’s got it out for you, huh? Yes, certainly, the only reason that I come here and communicate with you is because I was brainwashed by my professors to hate Republicans for no reason. It’s not like I was ever given the opportunity to see Republicans control the executive branch and both houses of Congress for four years, and thus never had the chance to determine for myself the quality of their leadership or the sincerity of their politics…..
Oh wait!
I’ll answer York’s question, ‘what if they’re legitimate?’ That’s easily covered. Conservatives think spending will hurt the economy, liberals think it will help. Liberals are in control of things right now, so conservatives, with their ‘legitimate’ concerned, don’t have much choice but to watch what happens. Elections have consequences, and all that.
But now, let’s put the shoe on the other foot. What if I’m legitimate, and am not just a non-thinking construct regurgitating my professors instructions? What if instead of being angry, dismissive, and hateful, I was actually pointing out something that made sense, that the tea party movement seems to be not much more than ‘juvenile reactions to political change, and not economic reality?’
Comment by Levi — April 21, 2009 @ 10:32 pm - April 21, 2009
Levi-
What “economic reality” is it that exists in your parallel universe resulting in our country headed to bankruptcy in one budget cycle?
Do tell, Mr. Economics Professor!
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — April 21, 2009 @ 10:43 pm - April 21, 2009
Levi-
What “economic reality†is it that exists in your parallel universe resulting in our country headed to bankruptcy in one budget cycle?
Do tell, Mr. Economics Professor!
I’m not sure you understood that correctly.
Thanks for ignoring my main point, too. Much appreciated.
Comment by Levi — April 21, 2009 @ 10:51 pm - April 21, 2009
Deep breaths, Levi.
“Conservatives think spending will hurt the economy, liberals think it will help. Liberals are in control of things right now.”
You do understand that right-thinking folks are not anarchists. This is a straw man and not even a very interesting one. Of the three Republican proposals presented as alternatives, none were “do nothing.” None of them.
A payroll tax holiday or even a targeted corporate tax cut – to give our companies a fighting chance against global competition – would have cost a fifth of the Democrat’s eventual plan and the money would be in the economy now. As I understand it, only ten percent of the stimulus funds have been paid out thus far.
On the merits, our proposal would have the backing of most economists and cost a fraction of the wish-list giveaway. I’d put that against anything Team Krugman has proposed.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — April 21, 2009 @ 10:52 pm - April 21, 2009
I’m loving how the leftists are still attacking Bush praying that America doesn’t get attacked by terrorists while Obamateleprompter is weakening the country. This administration is so full of boobs and bumblers it’s hysterical. Obama goes to South America and buddies up to every two bit dictator and nutt down there and again rips on his own country. Doesn’t the guy know about cameras, mics and video equipment? Limbaugh made a great point about Obamateleprompters approval ratings amongst the Democrats. It’s at 90%. Even Reagan didn’t have 90% of Republican support. Who are the mind numbed robots here? hehe I think Hitler and Sadaam had 99% approval ratings. So to all the lower case boobs in here, keep it up you’ve got room to grow amongst your own kind. hehe
Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — April 21, 2009 @ 11:15 pm - April 21, 2009
#40 MFS the business people I know have decided to show solidarity and not spend any money, to lay off workers and not hire until at least the end of 2010 to put pressure on the socialist govenment of Obama. We still have power to effect things. If we can push unemployment to 11%, inflation is going to 10% maybe by election time next year due to the deficiet spending. the mysery index will do in the Democrat Congress, and by extension Obama Michelle and BOO. If the loud mouth losers in America think the producers are inpotent they are mistaken.
Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — April 21, 2009 @ 11:19 pm - April 21, 2009
oh oh Obamateleprompters daily tracking poll numbers are down. According to Rasmussen, Strongly approve 34%, Strongly disapprove 32%. Only a 2% gap the lowest of his Presidency. oh oh, looks like Independents are no longer drinking the kool aide. Could it have been the releasing of the CIA memos? The laughing and joking with Raul Castro and Chavez? No, maybe the 8.5% and climbing unemployment.
Maybe it was the constant criticising of America while on foreign soil. Or maybe it was lying about getting a shelter dog instead of a $10,000 super breed. It could be Michelle digging up the White House lawn. Either way the bloom appears to be off the rose. And just after 90 days. Nutts I really wanted our new young inexperienced President to do some good. Oh well.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — April 21, 2009 @ 11:28 pm - April 21, 2009
Dude, you should update the post with links to the Left’s fever pitch hysterical outbursts. I totally want to see the ‘bursts.
Comment by dave maven — April 21, 2009 @ 11:39 pm - April 21, 2009
I’m loving how the leftists are still attacking Bush praying that America doesn’t get attacked by terrorists while Obamateleprompter is weakening the country.
I’m mildly curious, and I say mildly only because I feel I already know the answer to this question, but if there were another 9-11 style terrorist attack on the United States, would conservatives rally around Obama, as liberals rallied around Bush?
There’s no doubt in my mind that you wouldn’t. You’d blame the President, wouldn’t you? If the conservative reaction to this month’s piracy episode was any indication…. well, like I said – ‘mildly’ curious. Really, I’d just like to know if you’ve got the guts to admit it.
Comment by Levi — April 21, 2009 @ 11:56 pm - April 21, 2009
Levi-
And Obama would be partially to blame since he has publicly rolled back the post-9/11 protections that have kept our nation safe since then.
Would you disagree?
Comment by GayPatriot — April 22, 2009 @ 12:57 am - April 22, 2009
I’m mildly curious, and I say mildly only because I feel I already know the answer to this question, but if there were another 9-11 style terrorist attack on the United States, would conservatives rally around Obama, as liberals rallied around Bush?
That depends. Would Obama act like Bush, or would he do like he and his spiritual and intellectual advisors already have done about 9/11, blaming America, shrieking “God damn America” from the podium, and claiming that the people who were killed were “little Eichmanns” who deserved to die?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 22, 2009 @ 1:09 am - April 22, 2009
Levi-
And Obama would be partially to blame since he has publicly rolled back the post-9/11 protections that have kept our nation safe since then.
Would you disagree?
Well, George Bush was not blamed by conservatives for 9-11, who attributed absolutely every one of our national security failures to the Clinton administration. Why would that standard no longer be applicable in a theoretical attack during the Obama administration? Bush gets to blame Clinton, but Obama doesn’t get to blame Bush? That doesn’t seem consistent.
Comment by Levi — April 22, 2009 @ 3:22 am - April 22, 2009
Well, since that’s the position of the KOSholes, MSM, MorOn.org etc. crowd, it will NEVER be something that makes sense. Well, maybe in the lame-brained bastard lemmings who cheerlead for massive debt, but can’t explain why (you, boob, gillie etc.).
Rally around the country, yes. Rally around an arrogant SOB who’s been parading around trashing his country, displaying weakness and undermining the GWOT, NEGATIVE.
I keep wondering if you’ve got the guts to explain why you think massive debt is good for the country.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 22, 2009 @ 6:40 am - April 22, 2009
Oh yeah, do you have the guts to share with us just what the hell Il Douche has done to protect this country and improve our security in the last week, particularly in regard to publicizing interrogation methods and refusing to release what was learned from those methods including any attacks that may have been prevented?
Do you have the guts to demand that Il Douche release ALL of that information?
Or are you just the usual sniveling liberal twat that whines incessantly about us standing up for ourselves?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 22, 2009 @ 6:43 am - April 22, 2009
One more:
Because BJ was more interested in screwing interns than doing anything to protect the country. He was too busy gutting the military to they point they couldn’t afford the equipment that the liberals demanded of Bush when they were pretending they gave a crap about our soldiers. Do you have the guts to demand to know what Sandy Burglar stole from the National Archives?
Bush has actually taken steps to protect this country as partially evidenced by the fact that we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11.
Comrade Obama is doing his damndest to undermine our national secuirty insisting that it’s our moral obligation to do so. He sees his own country in a lower light than he does these guys:
http://tinyurl.com/d76syc
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 22, 2009 @ 6:53 am - April 22, 2009
So Levi AGREES that it was Clinton’s lack of preparedness, lack of intelligence sharing between CIA, FBI, NSA, & even the adminstration itself and funding CUTS of those agencies that led to the planning and execution of 9/11/01 attacks.
The Obama administration is taking us back to those good old Clinton days as I and a growing number of Americans see it.
So, yes, another attack on the home land is all Obama as he has given our enemies the green light with his hate America tour in his first 100 days.
Comment by EDinTampa — April 22, 2009 @ 7:53 am - April 22, 2009
If another terrorist attack is carried out by a terrorist released from GITMO by Obama, can we blame him, then?
If another terrorist attack is carried out by people who sneaked in across the southwestern border that Obama and Napolitano refuse to enforce, do we get to blame him then?
If another terrorist attack happens because Nappy Napolitano pulls resources away from monitoring foreign terrorists in order to keep track of those right-wing pro-gun, pro-life folks she has identified as a threat, do we get to blame him then?
If another terrorist attack is facilitated by Iran, Venezuela, Syria, or any of those other countries whose leaders are Obama’s BFF, then, do we get to blame him?
If Pakistan falls to Islamists and then facilitates a terror attack, do we get to blame Obama then?
Comment by V the K — April 22, 2009 @ 8:04 am - April 22, 2009
Quite right, V the K!
God help us all…
Best bwishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — April 22, 2009 @ 8:35 am - April 22, 2009
Translation of DaveA:
“What do you mean we’re angry?!??!!! rage! insult! vomit! spew! gnash! bile! etc, etc”
Comment by American Elephant — April 22, 2009 @ 8:43 am - April 22, 2009
V the K,
Obama has claimed he has already made us SAFER than we were under Bush. He has exceeded the utmost threshold of Bush safety and now made us “OBAMASAFE” ™.
That means he is entirely to blame for anything that happens.
Comment by American Elephant — April 22, 2009 @ 8:47 am - April 22, 2009
I wish I had put it that way, AE. You are, as usual, correct.
Comment by V the K — April 22, 2009 @ 9:27 am - April 22, 2009
“Bush gets to blame Clinton, but Obama doesn’t get to blame Bush? That doesn’t seem consistent.”
Bush never blamed Clinton. sure many people did like pundits. But Bush never did. He didn’t blame Clinton for 9/11, he didn’t blame Clinton for the recession that started immediately when he took office.
Indeed if you look back at conservative blogs many were complaining that Bush needed to go on the attack and start blaming the former administration, but he never did, nor did he allow other Republicans to further pursue Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors which many wanted to do.
Comment by plutosdad — April 22, 2009 @ 10:23 am - April 22, 2009
Of course libbies are mad. When you lie to the American voters so often in order to get elected, the last thing you want are people calling attention to the fact that you lied.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 22, 2009 @ 1:39 pm - April 22, 2009
[...] on the left, however, would rather smear this movement than understand our concerns. I’ve blogged on this before, and more than once. The latest to do so is Bill Maher who took to the Los Angeles [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Bill Maher & the Use of the “Tea Bag” Smear — April 26, 2009 @ 10:00 am - April 26, 2009
[...] more bitter than magnanimous in the wake of their victories last fall. We’ve addressed this before. Byron York asked, “In time of victory, why is the left so [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » No Magnanimity from Victorious Democrats — May 5, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - May 5, 2009
[...] more bitter than magnanimous in the wake of their victories last fall. We’ve addressed this before. Byron York asked, “In time of victory, why is the left so [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » No Magnanimity from Victorious Democrats — May 5, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - May 5, 2009
[...] to respond to gay marriage opponents and others offering a politically incorrect point of view and In Wake of Tea Parties, Left’s Anger Reaches Fever Pitch even as their side controls levers of pol… MavTV: Perez Hilton costs hot chick the Miss USA title Mark Epstein: Blood in the Streets Part III: [...]
Pingback by High & Low Roads: Rush Ignores Wanda Sykes’ Hate, Meghan McCain a Spoiled Brat at WH Dinner, Donald Trump Supports Miss California Carrie Prejean « Frugal Café Blog Zone — May 12, 2009 @ 5:19 pm - May 12, 2009
[...] First Amendment Jim Blazsik: MSM babies and others reactions to the Tax Day Tea Party GayPatriot: In Wake of Tea Parties, Left’s Anger Reaches Fever Pitch even as their side controls levers of pol… Frugal Café Blog Zone: Mark Levin: I’m in No Damned Mood to Surrender to These People [...]
Pingback by He Doesn’t Get It: Axelrod Joins ‘Tea Party Bashing’ Bandwagon « Frugal Café Blog Zone — May 27, 2009 @ 10:42 am - May 27, 2009