Gay Patriot Header Image

Bush-Hatred: Defining Idea of the American Left?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:06 pm - April 30, 2009.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Hysteria on the Left

You’d think that with George W. Bush’s departure from the political stage, those on the left who spent the better part of the past eight years seething with contempt for the man while he was chief executive of these United States would be delighted to see the end of his political career.

Yet, they’re obsessed with the man in a manner reminiscent of a man spurned by a lover who rejected him.  Years after the break-up, he continues to rant on and on (and on and on) about his ex’s faults.

I mean, if the guy were so bad, shouldn’t he be grateful the relationship is over?

Not only did the immediate past president provided exemplary cooperation with his successor in the transition (the then-President-elect said he “provided invaluable assistance” to his team), but he has refrained from criticizing his successor.  He has done more than make himself scarce, he’s become silent on matters of state.  Classy that, both the smoothness of the transition and the silence of his early retirement.

He’s gone now, yet all too many of his critics can’t won’t let go of their resentment.  In a line in a recent comment, one of our readers revealed the depth of that resentment.  He has decided that since I have called the former president “decent,” I can’t possibly have criticized him.  (That should cheer my Dad ’cause that makes him a perfect father; none of his children ever faulted him.  While my siblings and I all consider my Dad is a great man, remarkably decent and good-hearted, we have criticized him at various times in our lives, especially during our adolescence.)

In response to my post on how W was classier and less divisive than his successor, this reader wrote, “If you really were critical, and we both know that you weren’t, you’d be able to recognize that Bush is neither good nor decent.” It’s not enough to criticize the guy, you have to believe he was a bad man.

Well, by Levi’s standard, then, Obama has never criticized Bush.  Just before the inauguration, the then-president-elect said that he thought Bush was a “good man.”

What is it about such people that they can’t find a single thing to praise about W?  Even his Democratic successor has praised him (even as recently as last night).  Why can’t they let go of their resentment?  Why do they insist that your criticism is legitimate only if you hate the guy?

No wonder they can’t stand Ann Althouse.  She isn’t sufficiently anti-Bush for their taste.

ABC News Outs CIA Employees

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 8:41 pm - April 30, 2009.
Filed under: Media Bias

Astounded. That’s the only word I can use to describe the latest bit of treason (yes, I did use that word, and I meant it) coming from the Old-School Media (I refuse to refer to them as “mainstream” anymore).

ABC News has a lengthy expose on two psychologists who helped develop the interrogation TTPs for the CIA. In doing so, they have put up these patriots’ names and faces for all America’s enemies to see, and their lives at risk.

I can’t really put into words right now the rage I’m currently seeing. I imagine that’s probably for the best. I’ll leave it to you all in the comments section to discuss.

For my part, the best I can consider is taking a (another!) page from the left-wing-nut crowd and target their advertizers. Can we get a list of them? Who (if anybody) is still advertizing on ABC, and specifically their news?

– Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HQ

“Do your homework, first:” Condi Confronts a Critic

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:04 pm - April 30, 2009.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,War On Terror,Where W went wrong

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confronts a misinformed critic of the Bush Administration:

Wish more of her colleagues had challenge critics as directly as she did above and wish that the Bush White House had done more to promote such challenges.

Had W had Obama’s public relations commitment, he would likely have left office with much higher approval and the angry left would find less traction in the MSM for many of their allegations, nearly all of which are based on an incomplete knowledge of the facts.

(H/t:  Reader Leah.)

Tea Party Success: Libertarian Ideas Still Resonate

In his excellent piece on the appeal of the Tea Parties and the hysteria they generate on the left, Matt Kibbe writes:

Judging from the left’s hysterical reaction, something really big must have happened. But the only way to really understand the left’s misinformed and paranoid attacks is to realize that the protests represent tangible proof that basic libertarian values continue to resonate with the American electorate. That, apparently, is a difficult thing for some to accept.

Emphasis added. (H/t:  Glenn).  How fitting that I read that in the same week that I paid homage to the most successful President in the past sixty years, a man who said “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

What Kibbe say in Atlanta was similar to what I saw in Santa Monica:  a diverse array of protesters:

This was not a typical conservative Republican rally, with local GOP activists, Ron Paul enthusiasts, and single-issue obsessives. . . .  The difference was the new people: Young hipsters, families, angry moms, and retirees alike left their normal routines and work obligations to show up in protest of government policies that they passionately believe will ruin what is unique about America.

But, the “left-of-center reporters” didn’t pay them much heed, instead “most simply regurgitated the talking points supplied by partisans in the blogosphere.”  Kibbe find evidence of their success in the reaction they drew:  “One reasonable measure of progress may be the sheer volume of vitriol produced by their critics.

The Tea Parties have given the left something to demonize since they don’t have W to kick around any more–though they still try.


W: Classier and Less Divisive than his Successor

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:30 am - April 30, 2009.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Noble Republicans

Recall how many Democrats, left-wing bloggers and their allies in the MSM dismissed former President George W. Bush as “divisive.”  He engaged in name-calling, a friendly acquaintance of mine alleged recently.  It was refreshing, he said, to have someone in the White House whose rhetoric is more uplifting, less acrimonious.

He later acknowledged that he has grown tired of watching the news, so hadn’t heard much of Obama’s presidential rhetoric.  Methinks that with Obama’s increasing ubiquity on the airwaves, that may be a good thing for the Democrat’s standing among Americans.

But, my acquaintance’s words notwithstanding, the president has been more critical of his fellow Americans than have perhaps any of his predecessors at least since Nixon.  As to his immediate predecessor, can anyone recall when George W. Bush mocked ant-war rallies, using a descriptor cooked up by the most extreme conservative blogs?  Did he try to dismiss the various organs of the news media which criticized him on a regular basis (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, MSNBC) as outlets where he’s “not very popular”?

Commenting on the President’s recent statement, “Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around,” Moe Lane observes;  “He’s not really all that gracious when it comes to dealing with people that don’t already love him, is he? Kind of smirky, with a faint flavor of exasperation.”  As Glenn opines in linking the post, “Say what you will about George W. Bush, he had a skin whose thickness wasn’t measured in Planck lengths.

The Fading Appeal of Bill Clinton

I believe one reason Barack Obama tapped Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State in large part to buy her husband’s silence.

As the most popular Democrat in the country until Obama came along, Bill Clinton could give “blue dog” Democrats cover should he ever even hint that he opposed one of the President’s initiatives, particularly those undermining his own legacy (like the provisions in the “stimulus” weakening the landmark welfare reform he signed in 1996).  But, with Bill’s wife in the cabinet, Obama effectively tied that Democrat’s tongue.  Not an easy task.  And a politically shrewd move.

Somewhere deep down, Clinton may well resent Obama.  The incumbent, unlike his Democratic predecessor, actually won a majority of the popular vote.  Not just that, Obama deprived him of his position as de facto head of their party, a position he “held” from April 7, 1992 (when he easily won the New York Democratic primary) until January 3, 2008 when Obama won the Iowa caucuses, a run of nearly sixteen years.

Few outgoing presidents succeed in getting their man elected a Chair of their party, but Clinton helped his friend and fundraiser Terry McAuliffe win election as head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) right after he left office.  While Clinton’s power was beginning to wane soon after Bush’s reelection in 2004, his standing helped ensure his wife’s status as frontrunner for their party’s nomination.

That began to fade with the emergence of Obama.  Now, Jennifer Rubin wonders if the 42nd President no longer a crowd magnet. (more…)