Obama Derangement Syndrome

MeeMie

No Spam Here
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Posts
7,328
(well worth the long read)



The Danger of Obama Derangement Syndrome

Undoubtedly, it has happened to us all.

It has happened in the checkout line at the neighborhood supermarket, in a perfectly-manicured backyard eating burnt barbeque chicken at an obligatory summertime gathering of co-workers, or while trapped at a large round table adorned with an oversized centerpiece and half-full champagne glasses as inebriated groomsmen and bridesmaids take to the dance floor for the latest Euro-trash dance craze. Sometimes, it happens with complete strangers. Other times, it’s friends. At worst, it happens with family. Inevitably, talk turns from football or grandkids or the office to politics, and the end result is hardly ever pretty.

Ideally, a healthy debate over policy and ideology can be a learning experience. Different people bring different perspectives, different backgrounds lend to different worldviews. Ideally, we could all stand to learn a little from one another, no matter how far apart in beliefs, in values, in principles we may be. Over the past eight years, however, visceral emotion has trumped common sense, blind hatred has supplanted rational thought.

It hasn’t taken long to grow weary of how many of those on the left responded to cogent, empirical or fact-based arguments with raw emotion and brutal hatred. Any discussion of foreign policy was met with “BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED” or "THIS IMMORAL WAR." Any attempt at weighing options in terms of energy policy was spurned by vile, hateful comments about Dick Cheney and Halliburton, or President George W. Bush as the puppet for the oil companies. There were "failed policies," failed "just because, well, they were." Bush was a liar, plain and simple. Cheney ate puppies. The Iraq war was immoral and illegal. Every time, every conversation was “God Bless America? No, no, no – God DAMN America,” only without the microphone and pulpit.

With the exception of a few of my many left-leaning friends and acquaintances, it progressed to the point where I could no longer stomach more than 30 seconds of political discussion with anyone who considered themselves to be a Democrat, liberal or progressive. Even the occasional worthy argument on their part was met with rolled eyes on mine.

It was tiresome, and it only cheapened any attempt by honest, hard-working and hard-thinking Democrats to argue the merits of their ideology. Had it not been for Barack Obama, perhaps the perfect political candidate for his time and place considering the state of the mainstream media and the American populace, I’m not so sure the Oval Office would have a Democrat in it this afternoon.

The raw emotion and response to rational arguments with hatred-fueled irrational thought could very well have led to the demise of the Democratic Party. If the keys to the White House had been turned over to whichever Republican would offer a perceived third term of George W. Bush instead of to Barack Obama, the ensuing wrath and fire and brimstone and venom and vitriol from the fringes of the left would have undoubtedly consumed whatever credibility the Democratic Party had in reserve. The inmates were truly on the verge of running the asylum. Those who honestly wanted to rationally argue the merits of nationalized health care and a laissez faire, détente-at-all-costs approach to foreign policy would be lumped into the same uppity, bitter crowd as those with the “1-20-09: The End of an Error” bumper stickers on the back of their diesel Volvos.

The rational left was nearly consumed by the radical left. Now, however, as we watch the crowd gather in Washington, D.C., I fear that those of us on the right are stepping right in where they left off. I worry about the consequences of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Between ACORN and the accounts of rampant voter fraud in a dozen states, between the ongoing Internet-driven debate about his constitutional eligibility, a certain segment of the American political right believes wholeheartedly that Barack Hussein Obama has no place being sworn in today as the 44th president of the United States. I cannot say that I blame them – there is no question as to whether ACORN and others fraudulently obtained registrations and cast votes and, contrary to popular belief, the cases and lingering questions regarding Obama’s eligibility and Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution still have not been adjudicated on their merits.

The problem, however, is drawing the line. Where does it end? Is Berg v. Obama—or any of the others—destined to become the Bush v. Gore of the next four or eight years, fueling cries of “selected, not elected” from the very crowd who thumbed their nose and rolled their eyes at those who made the same such pleas years earlier? Are “Obama The Usurper” bumper stickers on pickup trucks and luxury sedans destined to replace the “Bush Lied” and "Endless War" bumper stickers seen on so many Subaru wagons and hybrid sedans? Will cries of "he's a socialist!" really have any effect if those screaming are too blinded by hatred to even know why?

What of the arguments that need to be made? How can we stand up when we need to if those we’re standing up against merely roll their eyes at us like we had at them? Just like the Democratic Party could have been doomed by those who stood outside of courthouses with “Bush is a War Criminal” signs, how is the Republican Party to make the necessary adjustments while weighed down with a segment of its base that cannot get past the very name on the door to the Oval Office?

We’re in for the fight of our lives, people. In case you haven’t noticed, our values and our principles and our sovereignty are being attacked from all sides and all angles. We need to stand firm, and it may be difficult to do so encumbered by people who just cannot see the forest for the trees.

When a wickedly liberal Congress prepares to place the Freedom of Choice Act on the Resolute desk for President Obama to sign, we need to call our senators and representatives and remind them of the brutality that is partial-birth abortion -- not simply sit back and mutter, under our breath, that Obama shouldn’t even be president in the first place because of voter fraud in Ohio, or because some faceless Internet guru said that Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth was a forgery.

When Obama’s own Global Poverty Act reaches his desk imposing an $845 billion global tax onto the United States on top of what America, already the most generous nation on the planet, does to fight poverty and respond to disaster across the globe, we must stand up against the forces of global socialism -- not just chant, over and over again, “Obama The Usurper! Obama The Usurper!” and hope that, finally, someone is going to listen.

When Nancy Pelosi dusts off the Fairness Doctrine, or when Democrats in the Senate look to reinstate the “Assault Weapons” Ban, we absolutely must stand and fight for our rights under the First and Second Amendments of the Constitution -- not ignore the more pressing constitutional issues in favor of focusing on Article II, Section 1 and the "Natural Born" Citizen Clause.

When Barack Obama--inevitably with John McCain’s help--attempts to enact his cap-and-trade legislation and other energy policies which, just this week, Obama himself said would “cause energy prices to skyrocket,” we must be able to argue that enacting such policies would countermand his campaign promises and actually harm the middle class, we must be able to argue that increasing the regulatory burden on business and industry in the name of junk science and a thinly-veiled facade for global socialism would drive industry, and therefore jobs and tax revenue, out of and away from the United States in favor of a more friendly climate -- not merely chime in that all of Obama’s decisions will be rendered moot if he’s finally "exposed as a usurper."

Look at what is at stake. Look at how the Democrats, who have been planning their moves for the better part of fourteen years, are working tirelessly to not only capture but maintain power. Obama’s addition of more than 500,000 government jobs, undoubtedly with most in Maryland and northern Virginia, could forever tilt a voting base in hotly contested states; the Democrats’ permissive attitude toward illegal immigration could provide the left with more and more voters for years and years to come -- provided, of course, that the ballots are printed in Spanish.

And don’t forget the schools! Look at what is being taught in our schools! While watching the Philadelphia Eagles get ruined by the Arizona Cardinals this weekend, I was talking with my wife’s 15-year-old cousin and, inevitably, the topic of Barack Obama’s inauguration came up. "Oh, I wish I could go," she said, saying that her Social Studies teacher had told her class that "there’s a lot of hope for my generation,” and that “Barack Obama’s policies will surely get us out of this economy."

Oh really, how?

"Well, we spend the money, um, even though we’re in debt, and that will get us out of it!" she said in her adamant support of the president-elect, admitting after a few minutes that she couldn’t remember everything the teacher had told her.

Look at what we need to fight against. This new generation knows only the superficial traces of the ideas they’re being brainwashed with by the aging bespectacled hippies in their schools. My God, we’re going to "spend the money, um, even though we’re in debt?" Really? In cases such as these, we must be able to respond to these open minds by providing an informed, reasoned explanation of the merits of conservatism or the free market -- not with "he stole the election" or "it's ACORN's fault" or "he’s a usurper and an illegal alien and his father is Frank Marshall Davis and he shouldn’t be there in the first place."

Listen – I am no fan of Barack Hussein Obama. I see a charmer, a man who has laid down with pigs—Wright, Pfleger, Khalidi, Rezko, Ayers, and more—and somehow managed to conceal the mud from a loving media and hypnotized public. I see a globalist, a man who feels that America’s days as a global superpower should be numbered. I see a collectivist, a man who perpetuates the wrongheaded liberal attitude toward business, industry, success and capitalism. I see an idealist, a man who greatly underestimates the threats facing us from without and within.

Today, however, I see the 44th president of the United States of America, a man who will be forced because of extrinsic circumstances to curb his socialist and ultraliberal predilections in favor of polls and pragmatism. As a conservative, I am not nearly as intimidated by Barack Hussein Obama alone as I am of his inability to fight off Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their progressive flunkies.

We are in the political and ideological fight of our lives. As the economy continues to slide and the government seeks more and more control, we must be able to stand firm and say "no more." As fundamentalist Islam creeps further and further into our daily lives through political correctness and a populace devoid of vigilance due to blind trust in government, we must make our voices heard with regard to confirmation of Obama's appointments to the bench, the final insulation between free America and Jihad From Within. As the new face of global socialism--the so-called green movement--permeates every aspect of America and demands changes which could cause more harm than good, we must be ready with arguments rooted in fact and science rather than steeped in blind hatred and raw emotion.

We cannot do any of this if we're the ones in the checkout line who, after hearing some ignorant tattooed pubescent pincushion say that we should increase taxes on the rich because it’s fair, are only able to respond with "HE STOLE THE ELECTION" or "HE’S A USURPER." Remember how ridiculous those liberals sounded, blinded by hatred of President Bush? We simply cannot allow ourselves to become those people, and I see it happening, right before my very eyes.

It’s time to grow up. It’s time to dry our eyes and get ready to fight. Mark my words -- Obama’s policies will fail. Like FDR added seven years to the Great Depression, Obama’s economy will get worse long before it gets better. Like what we see in Canada and the U.K., socialized health care will bring less quality, longer lines, and more complications. Furthermore, diametrically opposed to what we saw after Iran released hostages upon Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, those across the world who hate us and dream of our destruction will only become emboldened by Obama’s laissez-faire, tea party approach to foreign policy, and we will be hit again. Hard.

I hope I’m wrong. As an American who stands to benefit from a strong economy and successful approach to national security, I hope the new president succeeds. In the likely case that he does not, however, we all must be ready to state our case from a perspective completely unencumbered by emotion, completely unburdened by hatred, completely unrestrained by the trappings of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
 
Why do you waste time posting CP articles you find online? Not one person will take the time to read this bullshit.
 
"The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas -- a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish,
and the ideals to which we are dedicated."


--- Ronald Reagan (1911-2004) ---
 
Jack_Da_Ripper said:
"Well, we spend the money, um, even though we’re in debt, and that will get us out of it!"

This new generation knows only the superficial traces of the ideas they’re being brainwashed with by the aging bespectacled hippies in their schools.

Even as demonstrated here, over and over again, Obamaites shouting down any other discussion of actual facts, know only what they have been brainwashed with through a well manipulated main stream media and liberal blogs.

Do you think the fellow faux-quoted above took the time to read the article?

Of course not.

Within seconds he devalued the post as a copy and paste.

Soon, he will be followed by others, as close minded, who will either question or fault the source, rather than read and discuss the article.

Maybe this time, there will be one or two readers who will actually open their minds to an objective thought, read what was said and perhaps comment on it.
 
You are right

FUCK THEM

keep posting

at least one person reads this

ME!

I too am called a C n P creep,

Its easier to call someone that

then take 1 minute to read something worthwhile

KEEP POSTING!
This new generation knows only the superficial traces of the ideas they’re being brainwashed with by the aging bespectacled hippies in their schools.

Even as demonstrated here, over and over again, Obamaites shouting down any other discussion of actual facts, know only what they have been brainwashed with through a well manipulated main stream media and liberal blogs.

Do you think the fellow faux-quoted above took the time to read the article?

Of course not.

Within seconds he devalued the post as a copy and paste.

Soon, he will be followed by others, as close minded, who will either question or fault the source, rather than read and discuss the article.

Maybe this time, there will be one or two readers who will actually open their minds to an objective thought, read what was said and perhaps comment on it.
 
Losers and Crazies

News & Opinion
Tuesday, January 20, 2009


Battered Liberal Syndrome

Perhaps there is something in the soul of Democrats, scarred by the stolen :rolleyes:election of 2000 and a close loss in 2004, that anticipates setback. Call it Battered Liberal Syndrome. This time, it’s not electoral defeat Democrats fear, but a devaluation of last November’s victory, a scenario in which progressive policy is undermined and Democratic dreams are once again deferred.

A number of liberal bloggers and columnists, most notably the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, worry, hint or state outright that Obama appears to be selling his mandate short. Their indictment of the stimulus—or recovery plan, as Obama prefers to call it—is that the plan is both less efficient and less fair because it includes tax cuts. Then there’s Obama’s reluctance to pledge to investigate and prosecute a wide array of misconduct in the Bush administration. Obama is reproved for his resolve to focus on the future, not the past. At the least, dissenters on the left insist, he should establish a truth finding panel, with subpoena power, to rake through the Bush detritus and expose it to the world.

I decline to join these pessimistic premonitions, this wallowing in disappointment before Obama’s presidency has even begun. Obama will read and respect criticism coming from progressive precincts; after all, he promptly invited Krugman to offer ideas on the stimulus. But he’ll continue to reach out to the other side too, from dinner at George Will’s house to conferences with Congressional Republicans.

I’m convinced Obama’s right to pursue the politics of change in his own remarkable fashion. Americans are fearful, but they yearn to be hopeful; that’s why they voted for Obama. They want solutions, not ideological battle. His stratospheric approval rating as transition yields to inauguration suggests how far he has moved beyond his Election Day majority and how effectively he has harnessed the public will. This could be a powerful force for advancing his agenda—and he’s not going to jeopardize it by letting his presidency be cast in partisan terms.

That doesn’t mean he’s not progressive; he clearly is. But like FDR and JFK, he’s also pragmatic. He knows that an inquisition into Bush & Co.’s alleged crimes would divide the public square, suck up political oxygen and constrict his potential base of support in Congress. If there’s a specific allegation that must be pursued, so be it. But better to close Guantanamo, ban torture, and reinvigorate Constitutional guarantees—and yes, move on—than to engage in psychic satisfaction at the price of America’s future.

That’s why Obama includes tax cuts in the stimulus: He wants a victory that crosses party lines, not a reprise of Bill Clinton’s 1993 economic plan, which passed the Congress without a single Republican vote. Obama views his recovery plan as the start of his legislative success, not the end. Krugman and others have a fair point about the greater efficiency of spending versus tax cuts; but it’s a classic case of the perfect as enemy of the good. Obama wants the best stimulus he can muster. But he won’t put it through the eye of an ideological needle.

That same pragmatism will guide each successive stage of what will prove to be a bold agenda. Obama will not duplicate Clinton’s mistake of delaying health care. He will move to enact it before the summer is out. He will listen to business as well as progressives, Republicans as well as Democrats; his transition team and Ted Kennedy’s staff have been doing so for months now.

The final product may not be everybody’s ideal; but this President is less interested in making a point than in taking the historic step of establishing health care as a right rather than a privilege. Of course, not every Republican—or Democrat—will vote for the legislation; but it will pass precisely because Obama is casting beyond his own party for support.

Listening has its limits. When it comes to energy and global warming, for example, there’s not much to be learned from climate change deniers like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. So Obama will advance legislation without the faintest Inhofe imprint.

Everyone assumes that partisanship ultimately will reassert itself—in a year or two, or certainly four. Differences will remain and debating them will always be the essence of democracy; the sense of a new dawn may fade. Yet maybe there is a chance we’ll see change here, too—that the political clashes of the future will be more respectful, less angry, more open to finding common ground. For the moment, the incoming president has marginalized fevered agitators like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. Today, Obama speaks for America in part because he respects and responds to voices across the American spectrum. At times, this may discomfort progressives. The end result, however, may be a cure for Battered Liberal Syndrome. It may also usher in a new, if imperfect, progressive era.

- Robert M. Shrum has been a senior adviser to the Gore 2000 presidential campaign, the campaign of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and the British Labour Party. In addition to being the chief strategist for the 2004 Kerry-Edwards campaign, Shrum has advised thirty winning U.S. Senate campaigns; eight winning campaigns for governor; mayors of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and other major cities; and the Democratic Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. Shrum's writing has appeared in the Los Angeles Times , The New York Times , The New Republic , Slate , and other publications. The author of No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner (Simon and Schuster), he is currently a Senior Fellow at New York University's Wagner School of Public Service
 
This new generation knows only the superficial traces of the ideas they’re being brainwashed with by the aging bespectacled hippies in their schools.

Even as demonstrated here, over and over again, Obamaites shouting down any other discussion of actual facts, know only what they have been brainwashed with through a well manipulated main stream media and liberal blogs.

Do you think the fellow faux-quoted above took the time to read the article?

Of course not.

Within seconds he devalued the post as a copy and paste.

Soon, he will be followed by others, as close minded, who will either question or fault the source, rather than read and discuss the article.

Maybe this time, there will be one or two readers who will actually open their minds to an objective thought, read what was said and perhaps comment on it.

reply of the year to date...well done.
 
He is too stupid to do anything else.

Originally Posted by MeeMie
This new generation knows only the superficial traces of the ideas they’re being brainwashed with by the aging bespectacled hippies in their schools.

Even as demonstrated here, over and over again, Obamaites shouting down any other discussion of actual facts, know only what they have been brainwashed with through a well manipulated main stream media and liberal blogs.

Do you think the fellow faux-quoted above took the time to read the article?

Of course not.

Within seconds he devalued the post as a copy and paste.

Soon, he will be followed by others, as close minded, who will either question or fault the source, rather than read and discuss the article.

Maybe this time, there will be one or two readers who will actually open their minds to an objective thought, read what was said and perhaps comment on it
 
Poor Meme, not an original thought in that big old empty noggin.

The entire post, including most of the "masterful" :rolleyes: reply, was stolen from America's Right.
 
Who cares? We all know your expectorations come from the American left. :D

Cited when applicable. :cool:

Meme is a plagiarist, winding the words of others amongst it's own, un-cited, in an attempt to bolster it's weak arguments. America's Right seems to be the source of the week, finally found a blog horrendously ill informed and on the "right" side of the topic, regardless of truth.

This is me being unsurprised that one of Meme's "brothers in arms" in the Birth Certificate fiasco is here backing this spew of bullshit. You're as marginalized in your political position as Meme and Dizzybooby are. You're in like company at least.

Enjoy at least 8 years far, far in the minority, probably the remainder of your existence. You can always become a "Not Republican" and hope the Libertarians find someone that's not insane to run for them.
 
Did I call it, or WHAT? HA!!!

You should expect someone to call you on your repeated attempts to claim other people's writings as your own.

You should really look into stealing from someone a bit more learned though.
 
You should expect someone to call you on your repeated attempts to claim other people's writings as your own.

You should really look into stealing from someone a bit more learned though.



You should really try to read the subject matter before shooting off your mouth. It makes you look ignorant and closed-minded.

Talk about the article posted. Or, can't you?

You are typical of those described throughout. A mindless warrior who is limited to namecalling and pseudo charges rather than being able to discuss differing opinions in a logical and polite manner.
 
You should really try to read the subject matter before shooting off your mouth. It makes you look ignorant and closed-minded.

Talk about the article posted. Or, can't you?

You are typical of those described throughout. A mindless warrior who is limited to namecalling and pseudo charges rather than being able to discuss differing opinions in a logical and polite manner.

I read it, after I tracked down the actual source. It's utter tripe along with the rest of the material on that site. How far and wide did you have to search to find a like-minded moron to steal from?

Discuss your opinions? Your threads read more and more like a Karen Kraft load of shit insisting that everyone debate the merits of her specious arguments. You're nothing but a mindless guttersnipe swiping what you think is brilliance from ultra right wing idiots and trying to pass it off as your own, un-cited.

You aren't worth the time to debate any point, you don't HAVE an opinion that hasn't been spoon fed to you by someone else. Go ahead, post one original thought, just one without swiping half or all of your post from some blog or another.
 
I read it, after I tracked down the actual source. It's utter tripe along with the rest of the material on that site. How far and wide did you have to search to find a like-minded moron to steal from?

Discuss your opinions? Your threads read more and more like a Karen Kraft load of shit insisting that everyone debate the merits of her specious arguments. You're nothing but a mindless guttersnipe swiping what you think is brilliance from ultra right wing idiots and trying to pass it off as your own, un-cited.

You aren't worth the time to debate any point, you don't HAVE an opinion that hasn't been spoon fed to you by someone else. Go ahead, post one original thought, just one without swiping half or all of your post from some blog or another.




Again ... you so typlify everything that is wrong with the radical left.

Since I know that you did not read the article, I will point to the parts that perfectly describe your continual, blindsided hatred, as an explanation for your horrid behavior: (emphasis mine)

Ideally, a healthy debate over policy and ideology can be a learning experience. Different people bring different perspectives, different backgrounds lend to different worldviews. Ideally, we could all stand to learn a little from one another, no matter how far apart in beliefs, in values, in principles we may be. Over the past eight years, however, visceral emotion has trumped common sense, blind hatred has supplanted rational thought.


It hasn’t taken long to grow weary of how many of those on the left responded to cogent, empirical or fact-based arguments with raw emotion and brutal hatred.


The raw emotion and response to rational arguments with hatred-fueled irrational thought could very well have led to the demise of the Democratic Party. If the keys to the White House had been turned over to whichever Republican would offer a perceived third term of George W. Bush instead of to Barack Obama, the ensuing wrath and fire and brimstone and venom and vitriol from the fringes of the left would have undoubtedly consumed whatever credibility the Democratic Party had in reserve. The inmates were truly on the verge of running the asylum. Those who honestly wanted to rationally argue the merits of nationalized health care and a laissez faire, détente-at-all-costs approach to foreign policy would be lumped into the same uppity, bitter crowd as those with the “1-20-09: The End of an Error” bumper stickers on the back of their diesel Volvos.

The rational left was nearly consumed by the radical left.



We understand where you're coming from UD ........ all too well.
 
It hasn’t taken long to grow weary of how many of those on the left responded to cogent, empirical or fact-based arguments with raw emotion and brutal hatred.

Lie. Also projection.

The rational left was nearly consumed by the radical left.

Ditto.

Had it not been for Barack Obama, perhaps the perfect political candidate for his time and place considering the state of the mainstream media and the American populace, I’m not so sure the Oval Office would have a Democrat in it this afternoon.

Bullshit. Hillary would've picked her teeth with McCain. Heck, Kucinich could've won this thang!

Between ACORN and the accounts of rampant voter fraud in a dozen states . . .

Lie.

. . . between the ongoing Internet-driven debate about his constitutional eligibility . . .

Pathetic and laughable irrelevancy.

We’re in for the fight of our lives, people. In case you haven’t noticed, our values and our principles and our sovereignty are being attacked from all sides and all angles.

What is happening is that we have passed a tipping point. American electoral demographics now favor liberals and will for the foreseeable future. See here and here. The Pubs might as well resign themselves to loyal-opposition status -- indefinitely. All the screaming on the Interwebs won't change that.

When a wickedly liberal Congress prepares to place the Freedom of Choice Act on the Resolute desk for President Obama to sign, we need to call our senators and representatives and remind them of the brutality that is partial-birth abortion . . .

Really laughable irrelevancy.

"Well, we spend the money, um, even though we’re in debt, and that will get us out of it!"

Bush never hesitated.

Today, however, I see the 44th president of the United States of America, a man who will be forced because of extrinsic circumstances to curb his socialist and ultraliberal predilections . . .

He has not got any. IF ONLY!

As fundamentalist Islam creeps further and further into our daily lives through political correctness . . .

Record-setting fatuous nonsequitur.

As the new face of global socialism--the so-called green movement--

It ain't. IF ONLY!

. . . we must be ready with arguments rooted in fact and science . . .

Utterly hilarious coming from a Pub! :D

Remember how ridiculous those liberals sounded, blinded by hatred of President Bush?

They didn't and weren't. Bush deserved the hatred; it "blinded" nobody.

We simply cannot allow ourselves to become those people . . .

Too late by at least twelve months.

Like FDR added seven years to the Great Depression . . .

Lie.

Next time you C&P something like this, MeeMie, please include a link so we know what sources to discount in the future.
 
Last edited:
Bush and the Bush-Haters
By J.R. Dunn

There is one thing certain to go through Barack Obama's mind during the inauguration: at one point or another, while glancing at George W. Bush, he will consider the treatment that Bush got as president and hope to God he suffers nothing even vaguely similar.

It can be stated without fear of serious argument that no previous president has been treated as brutally, viciously, and unfairly as George W. Bush.

Bush 43 endured a deliberate and planned assault on everything he stood for, everything he was involved in, everything he tried to accomplish. Those who worked with him suffered nearly as much (and some even more -- at least one, Scooter Libby, was convicted on utterly specious charges in what amounts to a show trial).

His detractors were willing to risk the country's safety, its economic health, and the very balance of the democratic system of government in order to get at him. They were out to bring him down at all costs, or at the very least destroy his personal and presidential reputation. At this they have been half successful, at a high price for the country and its government.

Although everyone insists on doing so, it is impossible to judge Bush, his achievements, or his failings, without taking these attacks into account. Before any serious analysis of the Bush presidency can be made, some attempt to encompass the campaign against him must be carried out. I hope no one is holding his breath.

It's quite true that other presidents have suffered baseless attacks. Lincoln was generally dismissed as an imbecile, an unwashed backwoodsman, and an orang-outang (as they spelled it then). There exists an infamous Confederate cartoon portraying him with devil's horns and one foot on the Constitution. Next to no one at the time could have foreseen the towering stature Lincoln would at last attain.

Richard M. Nixon probably stands as the most hated president prior to Bush. But that was largely thanks to a relatively small coterie of east-coast leftists and their hangers-on, angered by Nixon's early anti-communism (which had become more "nuanced" by the time he took office, as the 1970 opening to China clearly reveals.). Nixon had the support of most of the country, the famed "silent majority", during his first term, and if not for his own personal failings, he would unquestionably have prevailed over his enemies. Difficult though it may be to believe, Nixon was only one paranoid slip away from being considered a great or near-great president

With Reagan, the coterie was even smaller and more isolated. His enemies continually underestimated him as a "B-movie actor" (which, by the way, showed a serious misunderstanding as to how the old studio system actually worked), and were just as continually flummoxed by his humor, his intelligence, and his unexcelled skill at communication. As the outpouring of public emotion surrounding his state funeral made clear, Reagan today stands as one of the beloved of all modern presidents.

Bush is alone at being attacked and denied support from all quarters -- even from many members of his own party. No single media source, excepting talk radio, was ever in his corner. Struggling actors and comics revived their careers though attacks on Bush. A disturbed woman perhaps a half step above the status of a bag lady parked outside his Crawford home to throw curses at him and was not only not sent on her way but joined by hundreds of others with plenty of spare time on their hands, an event covered in minute-by-minute detail by major media.

At least two films, one produced play, and a novel (by the odious Nicholson Baker, a writer with the distinction of dropping further down the ladder of decency with each work -- from sophisticated porn in Vox to degrading the war against Hitler in last year's Human Smoke) appeared calling for his assassination -- a new wrinkle in presidential criticism, and one that the left will regret. And let's not forget that tribune of the voiceless masses, Michael Moore, whose Fahrenheit 911 once marked the end-all and be-all of political satire but today is utterly forgotten.

While FDR was accused of having engineered Pearl Harbor (as if even an attempted attack on the US would not have been enough to get the country into WW II in real style), no president before Bush was ever subjected to the machinations of an entire conspiracy industry. The 9/11 Truthers, a mix of seriously disturbed individuals and hustlers out to pull a profitable con, accused Bush and his administration of crimes that put the allegations against Roosevelt in the shade, and with far less rational basis. These hallucinations were picked up the mass media, playing the role of transmission belt, and various fringe political figures along the lines of Cynthia McKinney.

But even this pales in light of the actions of the New York Times, which on its downhill road to becoming a weekly shopper giveaway for the Upper West Side, seriously jeopardized national security in the process of satisfying its anti-Bush compulsion. Telecommunications intercepts, interrogation techniques, transport of terrorist captives, tracking of terrorist finances... scarcely a single security program aimed at Jihadi activity went unrevealed by the Times and -- not to limit the blame -- was then broadcast worldwide by the legacy media. At one point, Times reporters published a detailed analysis of government methods of searching out rogue atomic weapons, a story that was no doubt read with interest at points north of Lahore, and one that we may all end up paying for years down the line. The fact that Bush was able to curtail any further attacks while the media as a whole was working to undermine his efforts is little less than miraculous.

As for his own party, no small number of Republicans (not all of them of the RINO fraternity) made a practice of ducking out on their party leader. Many refused to be photographed with him, several took steps to be out of town when he was scheduled to appear in their districts, and as for the few who actually spoke out in his favor... well, the names don't trip easily into mind. This naked pusillanimity played a large role in the GOP's 2006 and 2008 electoral debacles. Until the party grasps this, don't look for any major comeback.

And last but not least (I think we can safely overlook the flying shoes, which have been covered down to the last aglet), Bush is the sole American chief executive -- perhaps the sole leader in world history -- to have had a personality disorder named after him, the immortal Bush Derangement Syndrome. Few at this point recall that this was an actual psychological effort at diagnosing the president's effect on the tender psyches of this country's leftists. Was there a Hitler syndrome? A Stalin syndrome? The very existence of BDS says more about the left in general than it does about Bush.

What were the reasons for this hatred and the campaign that grew out of it? We can ask that question as often as we like, but we'll get no rational answer. All that we can be sure of is that Bush's actual policies and personality had little to do with it. Al Gore's egomaniacal attempt to defy this country's constitutional rules of succession merely acted as a trigger, giving the left a pretext to open up the attack. The same can be said about lingering bitterness over Bill Clinton's impeachment. While certainly a factor, it by no means accounts for a complete explanation. After all, did the GOP of the 70s go overboard in avenging Richard Nixon's forced resignation by working over Jimmy Carter? The best course was actually that which they followed, to allow Mr. Peanut to destroy himself.

As in all such cases, Bush hatred involves a number of factors that will be debated by historians for decades to come. But one component that cannot be overlooked is ideology, specifically the ideologization of American politics. It is no accident that the three most hated recent presidents are all Republican. These campaigns are yet another symptom of the American left's collapse into an ideological stupor characterized by pseudo-religious impulses, division of the world into black and white entities, and the unleashing of emotions beyond any means of rational control. The demonization of Bush -- and Reagan, and Nixon -- is the flip-side of the messianic response to Barack Obama.

There's nothing new about any of this. It's present in Orwell's 1984 in the "Five-Minute Hate" against the imaginary Emmanuel Goldstein, himself based on Leon Trotsky. The sole novel factor is its adaptation as a conscious tactic in democratic politics. That is unprecedented, and a serious cause for concern.

Being a Democrat, Obama has little to worry about, even with the far-left elements of his coalition beginning to sour on him. The ideological machinery is too unwieldy to swing around in order to target a single figure. Even if circumstances force him to violate the deeper tenets of his following, personal factors -- not limited to skin color -- will serve to protect him.

For the country as a whole, the prospects are bleaker. The left is convinced that hatred works, that it's a perfect tactic, one that will work every time out. They have already started the process with Sarah Palin, their next target in their long row of hate figures. They're wrong, of course. In a democracy, hatred is not a keeper, as the Know-Nothings, Radical Republicans, segregationists, Birchers, and many others have learned to their eventual dismay. But the process can take a long time to work itself out -- nearly a century, in the case of racial segregation -- and no end of damage can occur in the meantime. One of the byproducts of the campaign against Bush was to encourage Jihadis and Ba'athists in Iraq with the assurance of a repetition of Saigon 1975 as soon as the mad and bad Bush 43 was gotten out of the way. This time, the price was paid by the Iraqi people. But in the future, the bill may be presented somewhat closer to home.

And as for the "worst president in history" himself, George W. Bush has exhibited nothing but his accustomed serenity. Despite the worst his enemies could throw at him, his rehabilitation has already begun (as can be seen here, here, here, and here). He will be viewed at last as a man who picked up the worst hand of cards dealt to any president since Roosevelt and who played it out better than anyone had a right to expect. As Barack Obama seems to have realized, there is much to be learned from Bush, a man who appears to personify the golden mean, never too despondent, never too overjoyed, and never at any time overwhelmed.

Other presidents may encounter the same level of motiveless, mindless hatred, others may suffer comparable abuse -- but we can sure that no one will ever meet it with more equanimity than George W. Bush.
 
I edited this for you.

"It can be stated (sniff sniff sob) without fear (sob mixed with genesis of tears) of serious argument that no previous president (boohoo sob boohoo)has been treated as brutally (sob), viciously (boohoo), and unfairly (tears) as George W. Bush. (sob boohoo sob tears).

Bush 43 endured a deliberate (boohoo) and planned assault (sob boohoo sob)on everything he stood for (tears, gasping for breath), everything he was involved in,(sob) everything he tried to accomplish (tears flowing). Those who worked with him suffered nearly as much (stomps Buster Browne buckled shirt onto ground, unfolds arms from infront of puffy shirt, clenches fists at sides before stomping in place while swinging head from side to side in a full tantrum mode)."

(Later found in fetal position, weeping impotently, shaking, crying....and then comforted by a drunk Dick "the Iron Horse" Cheney).
 
I edited this for you.

"It can be stated (sniff sniff sob) without fear (sob mixed with genesis of tears) of serious argument that no previous president (boohoo sob boohoo)has been treated as brutally (sob), viciously (boohoo), and unfairly (tears) as George W. Bush. (sob boohoo sob tears).

Bush 43 endured a deliberate (boohoo) and planned assault (sob boohoo sob)on everything he stood for (tears, gasping for breath), everything he was involved in,(sob) everything he tried to accomplish (tears flowing). Those who worked with him suffered nearly as much (stomps Buster Browne buckled shirt onto ground, unfolds arms from infront of puffy shirt, clenches fists at sides before stomping in place while swinging head from side to side in a full tantrum mode)."

(Later found in fetal position, weeping impotently, shaking, crying....and then comforted by a drunk Dick "the Iron Horse" Cheney).
I now you like to run EVERY TIME you assert

that Fundy Christians and Zionists are as dangerous to the WORLD as is ISLAMIC TERRORISM

and I axe you to explain

1- Explain how they are

or

2-Run away
 
I now you like to run EVERY TIME you assert

that Fundy Christians and Zionists are as dangerous to the WORLD as is ISLAMIC TERRORISM

and I axe you to explain

1- Explain how they are

or

2-Run away

It's pretty obvious now isn't it?

What's the big area of trouble in the Middle East right now? OH gee, a battle of Muslim extremists and Zionists. Case closed.
 
Back
Top