Every now and again, we get a left-wing reader who will offer regular comments, telling us exactly what Republicans and conservatives think.  When we try to correct him (it’s invariabily a “him”) by articulating our point of view, even linking pieces that we have posted on this blog–or on other right-of-center blogs, it is to no avail.  He has his set view of the GOP, drawn mostly from the “reporting” on MSNBC and the coverage on leftist blogs.

I’ve realized now that it makes no sense to engage these people.  They’ll frequent conservative blogs, chiming in as often as their free time allows, but pay little heed to our arguments.  They have a set view of the world which even reality cannot correct.  These are the type of people who will claim up and down that Obama never said this or never said that, and when provided video or a transcript of the Democrat saying just this or just that will hold forth that he misspoke.

Well. on Sunday, I came face to face with just such a liberal.  This man was convinced that anti-gay attitudes would end if the Republican Party stopped promoting them.  I hated to tell him this, while, the GOP may from time to time appeal to social conservatives by opposing policies popular among the gay left (and even the gay middle and right), our party is not the source of such attitudes.  And this won’t go often, even if the GOP (as I long have advocated) avoids gay issues altogether.

Some people see the GOP as institution designed primarily to please the straight white male status quo and subjugate all people who are different.  They are as clueless about the GOP as James Dobson is about gay people.

And when those with such an attitude publicly demonize the GOP, all they do is flaunt their ignorance, ironically in an attempt to show their intellectual (and moral) superiority to the rest of us.  Or to cement kinship with their fellow leftists, by denouncing the devil of their shared faith.

The abundance of evidence that the Holocaust shooter harbored strong animosities against the two most recent Republican presidents and  had little in common ideologically with the mainstream of modern American conservatism notwithstanding, certain left-of-center pundits and bloggers have attributed his murderous actions to (what they define as) “hateful” conservative rhetoric.

And yet, as they make the jump from the shooter’s actions to their ideological adversaries, they do little to illuminate his motivations, exposing only their own prejudices against conseratives.  Because, they believe, the shooter hated Jews, he had to be a “right-winger” because the right wing is the source for anti-Semitism in America.  Such an attitude shows that while they accuse those of us on the right of living in the past, their understanding of anti-Semitism dates back at least forty years.

Their views of conservatives have little to do with the reality of the conservative movement in America today, indeed, with the conservative movement as it has been evolving at least since William F. Buckely, Jr. launched the National Review in 1955.  And yet, all too many in the MSM, equally clueless about the ideas undergirding American conservatism, don’t challenge them on their misunderstanding.

And when they do get challenged, well, they don’t know how to react.  Witness Barney Frank earlier this week.   When the unhappy Massachusetts Democrat accused CNBC host Mark Haines of “wanting to do ‘nothing’ about the economic crisis, which isn’t at all what Haines said,” the host tried to correct the record.  Instead of acknowledging his error, the Congressman “played victim and whined his way off the stage.”

It seems this mean-spirited liberal has bought into the propaganda his party has used to discredit the opposition, believing critics of Democratic plans just want to “do nothing.”  When faced with evidence to the contrary, he becomes disoriented, lashing out at the misrepresented party and refusing to engage in any kind of dialogue.

Thus, since conservatives don’t fit their narrative of what we’re supposed to be, they have to resort to name-calling because arguing with us would mean acknowledging our ideas.  And by dint of acknowledging our ideas, they undercut their (at that point, previously) prejudiced worldview.

They might find it easier to talk to us, if they tried to see us as we are and not as their prejudices define us.

It seems some on the left, including the President of the United States, just can’t help themselves.  They seem to feel it necessary to politicize everything, including Memorial Day.  In his radio address Saturday, Obama took time off from saluting our servicemen and women to take a swipe at his predecessor:

Our fighting men and women - and the military families who love them - embody what is best in America. And we have a responsibility to serve all of them as well as they serve all of us.

And yet, all too often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility. We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve. That is a betrayal of the sacred trust that America has with all who wear - and all who have worn - the proud uniform of our country.

Even if his predecessor failed to show service members the respect they deserve (and there is no evidence he did), a Memorial Day message is not the place to make political statements.  It is the time to honor the troops.

That’s what I, like so many columnists and bloggers (on both sides of the political aisle), did yesterday.  In my post, I made no political statement, attacked no Democrat, praised no Republican (politician).  I saluted only those who sacrificed, singling out the last surviving World War I veteran for praise.  Yet, one of our perennial critics felt it incumbent upon himself to use the comment section to that post to snap at us and, like Obama, take a shot at the immediate past President of the United States.

With Obama, such cheap shots belie his rhetoric of being a post-partisan leader.  With our critics, is is the mark of a strange obsession.  Some feel they just have to attack us–and by extension all conservatives.  Others feels compelled to badmouth Bush whenever they can, bringing up the former President in comment threads attached to posts where we don’t even mention the Republican’s name nor refer to him in any manner whatsoever.

According to Zarathushtra, the great prophet of Zoroastrianism, “the world is divided into good and evil“, with Angra Manyu, “the spirit of darkness and lies,” ruling the forces of evil.  While today’s left doesn’t have a Zarathushtra, they do have their Angra Manyu, George W. Bush.

Even now, nearly three months after that good man has left the White House, the left is still obsessed with him; some acolytes of that faith eager to prove that we (and others who have defended him) are remain the devil’s W’s disciples.  Even after taking the time to provide several examples of the times we here at GayPatriot (despite our defenses) did take issue with then then-President, it will not alter the creed of those adherents to this new faith.

Despite evidence of our criticism (even a whole category devoted to where he went wrong) of that decent, but flawed man, they refuse to alter their conviction that we are “unquestioning defenders of George Bush and his policies.”  The abundant evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.  Thy do not let facts get in the way of their faith.

To do so would mean departure from their doctrine.  Bush is the devil.  And those who defended him were are devout devotees of him and his dangerous dogma.

I posted a piece this morning to address our critics’ contention that we never faulted Bush or the Republican for overspending when the Republicans were in charge.  But, to some, the evidence of our mixed feelings for the past president matters little.  They so want to see us not as we are, but as they’d like us to be, so that they may more easily dismiss our ideas more readily hold firm to their faith.

As they repeat their mantra over and over and over again, they further reveal the tenets of that faith. It’s amazing how Manichean is their world view.  Just like the Zoroastrianism, but without its nuance and appreciation for the potetial blending of the cosmic division in the real world.

Bush Derangement isn’t just a psychiatrist’s term.  It’s a religious creed.

This morning while reading Robert Johnson’s Lying with the Heavenly Woman: Understanding and Integrating the Feminine Archetypes in Men’s Lives, for my dissertation, I chanced upon this passage:

Many men in our culture are permanently stuck in this contamination, and they are constantly fighting a mother.  What a variety of forms there are!  A man’s own mother only begins the long list.  The poor waitress in the restaurant who elicits a man’s rage because she brought the wrong order, the woman office manager, the woman traffic officer, the Republican Party, and the mother in a thousand other disguises incur the wrath of the man who has not made this differentiation between the inner complex and the outer form.

Emphasis added.

It is interesting that he included the Republican Party on the individuals or institutions who elicit certain men’s rage.  Must be that a lot of this psychologist’s clients vent against the GOP.  (I’m sure that some extreme social conservatives with similar psychoses frequently mention “homosexuals”.)

It just all goes to my point about the psychological basis of such animosity.  It’s not the object so much that they hate, but the demon they’re trying to exorcize.

Last night I watched the wonderful (though dated) Mister Roberts on DVD where James Cagney’s Captain Morton (with a thick New England accent) helps us understood another mean-spirited New Englander, the unhappy Barney Frank.  Cagney, resentful of “college guys” who pushed him around when he was growing up, takes it out on his crew, bullying them, saying he knows “how to take care of smart boys:”

I hate your guts, you smart college guys! I’ve been seeing your kind around since I was ten years old… working as a busboy. “Oh busboy, it seems my friend has thrown up on the table. Clean up that mess, boy, will’ya?” And then when I went to sea as a steward… people poking at you with umbrellas. “Oh, boy!”, “You, boy!”, “Careful with that luggage, boy!” And I took it. I took it for years! But I don’t have to take it any more.

As I’ve suggested before, it seems that in bullying corporate executives and Republicans, Barney’s venting inner demons which built up in his psyche when he was bullied in grade school.

But, just as their are sanctions for the schoolyard bully, it seems there are also sanctions for his congressional counterpart.  Yesterday, when he accused Republicans who criticized of suffering from “psychological disorder,” may have violated the rules of the House.  His behavior reminded me of that of his former Bay State colleague, though he had less grounds for his insults than did Tip O’Neill nearly a quarter-century ago.

In May 1984, then-Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich faulted

. . . Democrats for believing “America does nothing right.” [Then-]House Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.) called Gingrich’s attack “the lowest thing I’ve ever seen in my 32 years in Congress.” But Gingrich and an ally, then-Rep. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), demanded that O’Neill’s attack on Gingrich be struck from the record and it was, marking the first time since 1798 that a speaker had been rebuked in such as way.

Turns out members of Congress “are forbidden from making personal attacks on one another.“  Now, saying your fellow Congressman suffer from a “psychological disorder” certainly sounds like an insult to me.

Seems an investigation is in order.

Is there no end to Barney Frank’s insults?

Can’t a man as intelligent as he express in disagreement in the form of counterarguments?  Will the media continue to let this unhappy man get away with his mean-spirited remarks?

When Texas Republican Congressman John Culberson today “blasted Democrats for passing the stimulus, which permitted AIG to lavish billions on executives after the de facto federal takeover,” the Massachusetts Democrat fired back, saying Republican criticism was part “of a psychological disorder I am not equipped to diagnose.”

This from a man who grandstanded about AIG bonuses even after he had voted to allow them, a man who refuses to acknowledge his own role in the financial meltdown, errors of judgment he made about the financial soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Can you imagine how the media would react if a senior Republican so smeared his partisan adversaries?  They went after Tom DeLay for much less.

Barney Frank owes Representative Culberson and GOP critics the same kind of apology then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey offered him in 1995.

Sometimes, when I bring White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel with conservative friends, they say they want him to stay on because his presence in the president’s office serves to sharpen the distinctions between the parties.  His partisanship sets him apart from the mainstream of America and the unifying message of Obama’s fall campaign.

Democratic partisans like him because he is an unapologetic champion of their side and critic of ours.  With Rahm by his side, the president will continue to steer a left-wing course, pandering to the various liberal groups eager for additional federal handouts and hoping to influence federal policy.

But, if the president replaces Emanuel with a less partisan Democrat adept at Administration and respectful of Republicans, say like former Clinton White Hous Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, he would stand a greater chance of uniting the country and succeeding as president.

The simple question is whether or not the president sees his partisan affiliation as incidental to his Administration or as its defining aspect.  In the campaign, he made it sound like the former.  In the past two and one-half months, he made it seem the latter.

Replacing Rahm Emanuel, a hyperpartisan gunslinger, with a dispassionate administrator, even one, like Panetta, committed to Democratic ideals, would help the president fulfill the promise of his campaign and would put my party on the spot, making it far more difficult for Republican leaders to be confrontational.

With Rahm on the job, however, we have only the promise of a confrontational policy and increased partisan warfare.  And that’s not good for this great nation.

Turns out hyperpartisan White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was in the meeting when the language allowing for the AIG bonuses about which Democrats have been grandstanding overmuch in recent days was inserted into the “stimulus” bill”

“Right now, you get the feeling this is all about protecting [White House Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel,” says a former Treasury Department lawyer, who worked in that department’s counsel’s office on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) before joining a D.C.-based law firm in February. “At the time, we were led to believe there were basically three or four people from the Administration at the table when the final deals were cut and one of them was Emanuel.”

“Emanuel isn’t talking” as White House officials try to pass the buck.  Doesn’t sound like the Administration is doing much to follow through on the president’s recent pledge to break “a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.“

If the president wants to live up to his campaign pledge of post-partisanship, his commitment “new kind of politics,” he needs to fire Rahm Emanuel, a man who embodies the worst excesses of that old kind of politics against which Mr. Obama ran such an effective campaign.

Not just that, as I’ve said before, given the president’s particular strengths*, he need a Chief of Staff with a different skill set, a man who can serve a kind of prime minister, effectively running the government while the president sets the broad agenda.  A master of scripted eloquence, Obama needs a detail man as his right-hand man.  Not a partisan gunslinger with an axe to grind.

*UPDATE:  Jennifer Rubin suggests Obama might see his new job as preferring to “campaign and hold summits, leaving the governing to others.“  It would then follow that he should entrust that govering to competent and dispassionate indiviuals.

In my preliminary research of presidential chiefs of staff, I don’t think I’ve discovered any as partisan as the incumbent, Rahm Emanuel.  More than any of his predecessors, he has an ideological axe to grind.

He cut his teeth in Chicago politics, his first job in national politics was national campaign director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 1988.  Seventeen years later, he would take over that operation which, by definition, is highly partisan.  That job seemed particularly suited to the Chicago Democrat.  Throughout his career, he has shown a ruthless partisan streak, dedicated to electing Democrats and defeating Republicans.

Indeed, he seems to have long harbored a particular animus against his partisan adversaries.

This seems hardly the individual to administer the executive office of the President of the United States, a man elected, albeit by partisan means, to serve the entire United States.

Given that this particular president who had, before taking office, almost no experience as an administrator, it would seem he would want a gifted experience as his chief of staff, someone who could balance the president’s preference for rhetoric with a competence at administration.

Where he needs a dispassionate administrator, the president has instead appointed a partisan gunslinger.  Take a gander at Emanuel’s defense of Obama’s tack of blaming his predecessor:

Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, denied that the president has changed his tone toward the previous administration. He said Obama is “not trying to place blame, but he is trying to say clearly: Here’s what we’ve got and here’s our way out of it. He’s offered a positive alternative to their criticism.”

“The truth is that 98 percent of his speeches are about the future, and 2 percent are about inheritance,” Emanuel said. “Whereas I think for Republicans it’s 2 percent about the future, and 98 percent hope that the people have amnesia.”

He just had to offer that dig in against Republicans.

Shouldn’t a White House chief of staff be above politics?

It is revealing that the president would tap such a partisan for the most important administrative job in the White House.  Not a man who whose political experience fits with the new type of politician Mr. Obama claimed to be in the campaign.

(more…)

Whenever a prominent Republican does something which offends the sensibilities of the politically correct gay élite, they rush to release a statement condemning said individual in particular and the Republican Party in geneeral. At times, they do with good reason as a number of Republicans over the years have said some pretty obnoxious things about gay people and proposed some pretty odious policies.

But, when a Republican shows a degree of tolerance for gay Americans, indicating perhaps that he (or she) believes we should welcome gays into the party’s ranks, he is met mostly by silence from the major gay organizations. Yeah, a few might say something ever once in a while, especially if the MSM picks up on it, but their words seem forced, perfunctory.  And to be sure, some of the left-of-center gay blogs will pick up the story. Towleroad and Queerty have a pretty good record on things like this.

How many gay organizations, for example, praised Mary Cheney for giving more money to defeat Proposition 8 than did Matt Foreman, the immediate past executive director of the far left National Gay and Lesbian Task Force?

On the whole, any openness a prominent Republican shows to gay men and lesbians does not draw the attention as does intolerance. It simply doesn’t fit their narrative of narrow-minded Republicans.

And sometimes, Log Cabin, an ostensibly Republican organization, eager to join the chorus of criticism of a politically incorrect Republican, remains silent when a prominent Republican reaches out to gays.

In today’s Washington Blade, two former Log Cabin officials, Christopher Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia, provide yet another example of this phenomenon. After the new Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele indicated opposition to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage and his support for “legal protections for gay couples,” he was met by silence from leading gay organizations:

(more…)

A blog reader emailed me a link to his post where he offered some insights into the left’s attacks on Rush.  He contends that “emotionally, leftists are stuck in middle school.“  I’m not sure that I agree with this hypothesis, but believe he may well be onto something.

I grant there is this adolescent nature to their attacks, focusing on Rush’s physical attributes and personal failings rather than the quality and content of his argument.  To this reader, Rush’s critics are like the popular kids picking on the outsider.

Perhaps, I link the post because it called to mind a theory I’d been toying around with about why the left, particularly those who considered themselves intellectuals, so hated (and still continue to hate) the immediate past President of the United States, George W. Bush.

The people who, in that blogger’s parlance, now pick on Rush were themselves not the popular kids.  They were more likely to be the geeky kids whom the popular kids (the cool crowd) picked on.  And they so hated George W. Bush because he reminded them of the guys who seemed to glide through high school socially while they struggled.  And as such guys glided, they taunted those less popular.

Their anger, their wishing failure, humiliation, impeachment and imprisonment on W was for them, a sort of revenge of the nerds.

Again, I’m just throwing this out there, as much for discussion as anything else.   My reader makes a point that, I believe, is definitely worth consideration.  Given the nature of the rage of the left against any outspoken conservative who gains a foothold in American politics or popular culture, I am convinced that their animus has a strong psychological component.

(more…)

On Wednesday after first blogging on the eagerness of the Administration and its MSM allies to attack Rush Limbaugh personally rather than address his criticisms of their policy directly (or just plain ignore him), I realized they reacted to this outspoken entertainer in the same manner as many on the gay left (alas)  react to any opposition to gay marriage.

In both cases, those on the left side of the political aisle demonize their opposition in a manner reminiscent of a political campaign where the goal is to prevent an opponent’s election.  In short, they seem to see politics as a battle of personalities not ideas.  They always need a villain.  Yes, I grant this is true for many on the right, especially certain extreme social conservatives.

Why is it they believe they can best advance their argument not by taking apart their opponent’s case, but by taking that opponent apart (or defining someone as their opponent so as to eviscerate him)?

In the case of gay marriage, the adopt-a-villain strategy is backfiring, in large part, because they lose support from many otherwise sympathetic to the villian du jour.  But, when you make a case for gay marriage, some of those “sympathicoes” who might otherwise be turned off by your rhetoric might end up listening to your argument.

In my post yesterday, The Prejudiced Minds of Those Who Call Us, “Self-Hating,” I mentioned the appearance of Janeane Garofalo on Keith Olbermann’s show where the one-time comedienne used the “self-loathing” slur most to describe Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. She told Olbermann that there had to be “something wrong” with people who follow the GOP.

Well, the folk at FoxNews Channel’s Red Eye with Greg Gutfield had fun with that as they wondered why people on the left just have to use the Hitler reference. With great humor, they took on the humorless duo, noting how easy it is to marginalize a group when you don’t know anyone who belongs to it. (We’re talking about liberal attitudes towards conservatives here, not social conservative attitudes toward gays.)

Via Olbermann Watch via RedState.

I can no longer remember the first time someone called me, “self-hating” for being a gay Republican. Such language has become a ready response of many of our critics.  While using the comment section of our posts to offer this standard left-wing view of gay conservatives, they rarely address the arguments actual gay conservatives have made.

In a post yesterday, Michelle Malkin reminds us that it’s not just gay Republicans who are so labeled. She finds that some liberals trot out the slur on a regular basis when describing minority conservatives:

Minority conservatives hold a special place of gutter contempt in the minds of unhinged liberals, who can never accept the radical concept of a person of color rejecting identity politics.

The haters have it bass-ackwards. In fact, “self-loathing” minorities love themselves, their families, and their liberty too much to succumb lazily to Big Nanny, race-card ideology.

One-time comedienne Janeane Garofalo used the “self-loathing” slur most recently to describe Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.  So narrow-minded are these people that they assume that an individual’s skin color, ethnic background or sexual orientation means he or she has to hold a particular point of view.

That’s a pretty prejudiced attitude toward minorities as it assumes individual members of those groups can’t think for themselves.

Once again, I wonder why it is that so many on the left so readily label those holding different points of view rather than respond to (or even recognize) their arguments.  Garofalo thinks there’s “something wrong” with people who “follow” the GOP.  That attitude is not too far removed from that of Soviet Communists who would submit those who disagreed with the regime to psychiatric treatment.

Let me repeat:  why do such liberals choose to insult their ideological adversaries rather than consider our ideas?

Like Bruce, I did not see Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s response to the president’s address to Congress on Tuesday night, so won’t comment on it, save to note that the reviews I have read have been mostly bad.  What amuses me in reading some of those reviews is how many have branded him a failure merely because he did not come across well.  As if poor presentation for one speech scuttles any chance he had of success on the national stage.

As if that matters more than his very real accomplishments.  But, the again, critics of conservatives will use anything to fault an up-and-coming Republican leader.  As Mary Katharine Ham put it, “Liberals who thought Sarah Palin’s brilliant RNC speech performance meant absolutely nothing are sure that Jindal’s off night means everything.“

To such liberals, it seems, a polished performance (save those by charismatic women) matters more than accomplishment, more than substance.  Look how quickly they flocked to Barack Obama when all the man had done was show that he could wow audiences with his formidable presence and elevating oratory.  (If Palin’s RNC speech mean nothing, how come Obama’s DNC speech four years previously meant everything?)

At this point in his career, Governor Jindal has accomplished far more that had then-Senator Obama when he made his debut on the national stage.  So, now we know that for Obama fans, presence is all, substance doesn’t matter.

And they accuse us of being shallow.

UPDATE: In a similar vein, Jim Treacher tried to watch Jindal’s speech “but it was too awkward. He seems to be the inverse of Obama, in that he’s much better at speaking extemporaneously than reading from a teleprompter. Which seems like a good thing, to me anyway.“

In a comment to my post on the president’s divisive rhetoric, Kurt calls the Democrat’s retreat into “attack mode . . . a major tactical win for the Republicans:”

After all, many Republicans warned that Obama had no record of bipartisanship time and again during the election. And here he and his party’s leaders are whining that they’re not getting Republican support for their porkfest bill—this after he turned away Republican suggestions about the stimulus by saying “I won” during his first week in office.

He’s right. It was a tactical win for the GOP.

And it’s more than just that. It’s a defining moment of the Democrats’ arrogance. Note how when, even when Democrats are in the majority, their defenders blame Republicans for their setbacks. Did conservatives so blame Democrats when, four years ago, they thwarted many of Bush’s efforts at reform? (Yes, I realize that in writing this, after we realized the consequences to pass Republican legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we did fault Democrats for successful efforts to thwart those reforms.)

It’s as if Democrats believe their victory means they can govern without opposition, while Republican victory means that the GOP must be opposed. To wit, the president’s statement to elected Republicans (who also won their respective elections) that “I won.”  Imagine how Democrats would have reacted if his predecessor had said that.

Democrats act, in Jonah Goldberg’s words, as if their victory “settles the issue. Funny how that argument didn’t work for the last president when he tried to reform Social Security.“

Just a few moments ago, while at my local Trader Joe’s getting my weekly supply of groceries, I overheard a woman bemoan “evil Republicans” in a rather audible tone.

No longer closeted about my politics in this “bluest” of enclaves, I said she should careful of what she said since I was a Republican.  Startled to find dissent in the heart of Hollywood, she said, oh, but not you, just but those Republicans “on the Hill.”  Well, I responded, they’re standing up for the taxpayers.

Now, this woman certainly has a right to her opinion and to express her criticism of Republicans in whatever language she deems appropriate.  And I might just dismiss her as some eccentric in the supermarket who used hyperbolic language to describe her political adversaries.  But, the mean-spirited language she uses corresponds with that I read in anonymous* e-mails from critics alerting me to posts on left-wing blogs

Why is it that so many on the left must describe their political adversaries as “evil” while accusing conservatives of playing the politics of hate?

And why need these people so berate Republicans when Democrats control both Houses of Congress–and the White House?  They could pass the “stimulus” without a single Republican vote.

RELATED: How Is It the GOP’s Fault if the Democrats Can’t Pass Their Stimulus?

* (more…)

Yes, Bush-hatred is mostly psychological, quite possibly pathological, but only partially political.  Last night, the first full day of the Obama Administration, when George W. Bush was in Texas far from reins of power in Washington, D.C., Keith Olbermann devoted a significant portion of his show to bashing the former president.  You’d think the guy would have something else to do now that his nemesis has left town.

But no, it seems people like him have some kind of need to attack Republicans, particularly Bush.

One of the best things about Obama’s victory is that we can confirm just how obsessed these people really are, proving points we first made during their early rantings against Bush.

While I pedaled away on the elliptical trainer (is that the verb I wanted?), I watched Olbermann pitch a fit at how Senator John Cornyn (more on that in my next post) had placed a hold on the nomination of former First Lady Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State (more on that in my next post).  He called the Texas Republican obstructionist.  In similar terms, he faulted Republicans on the Judiciary Committee for putting a one-week hold on the nomination of Eric Holder for Attorney General.

The editors at the Washington Post seem to share the sentiments of this angry announcer.  Eight years ago,  when then-President Bush tapped John Ashcroft for Attorney General, Democrats on the Judiciary Commitee also placed a hold on his nomination.  The Post then called the nomination “highly contentious,” headlining the article, “Vote On Ashcroft Is Delayed A Week; Democrats Cite Need for More Review.”  Today, the headline reads “Republicans Obstruct Holder’s Path to Justice Dept.“

Here’s my challenge to Keith Olbermann and his supporters.  At any time, in the last eight years, did he (or the editors at the Post for that matter) call Democrats obstructionist for thwarting Administration policies and placing holds on President Bush’s appointees?  Which they did on more than one occasion.

Remember, when Republicans play the same hardball politics the Democrats play, it’s called, “obstruction,” but when Democrats do the same thing, the actions are, by definition, noble, just and right.

Ever since I started regularly reading conservative blogs sometime in 2003 or 2004, I loved the level of discourse of my favorite right-of-center sites.  Or maybe, I should say non-leftist.  Then, Andrew Sullivan offered a balanced perspective on President Bush, hailing him for his tenacity in the War on Terror, yet faulting him for his occasional arrogance and political short-sightedness.

Glenn Reynolds thought him a decent man, but berated his big-government conservatism.  Powerline offered a more pro-Bush perspective, yet even those fine fellows took issue with the Bush Administration from time to time, particularly on legal issues.  Hugh Hewitt, while always offering trenchant political analysis could be pollyannish about the president (and the GOP for that matter).  Roger Simon focused on the shenanigans of the Hollywood left, wondered about the influence of social conservatives on the GOP, but took a tough line on terrorism.  And then there are the others, Gateway Pundit, the Anchoress, the Corner, CampaignSpot too many to list here.

Some, like Hugh, may have cut the president a little more slack than he may well deserve, yet none called “Dear Leader” or even treated him as such.  Yet, all too many of our critics and left-wing bloggers assume we so reverence the outgoing president, with many writing in the vein of this commenter, “conservatives have publicly labeled anyone who disagrees with ‘Dear Leader’ as a traitor.”  Or this one:  “When will you all get the idea that patriotism and loyalty to this country is not the same thing as showing loyalty to single person and his cronies?“

Yet, they can find no words to back up their claim, not on this blog, not on any mainstream conservative blog, not even on Hugh’s and, of the thoughtful conservative bloggers, he has been the president’s biggest cheerleader.

A few days ago, while perusing an old post, I caught that latter comment.  And on the day before Bush leaves office, I wanted to share with y’all my reply, my brief attempt to explain left-wingers assumptions about those conservative (and libertarian) bloggers who, from time to time, have defended the outgoing president:

Where, oh, where did liberals get the idea that we so venerate Bush? Or call him Dear Leader? Could it be they drew the notion from their own psyches, given how eagerly these people revere his successor?