December 30, 2003
OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL STUFF, A VALID COMPARISON:
Bush-Hatred: Fearful Loathing . . . (Robert J. Samuelson, December 30, 2003, Washington Post)
Genuine political hatred is usually reserved for true tyrants, whose unspeakable acts of brutality justify nothing less.More than the language is butchered. Once disagreement turns into self-proclaimed hate, it becomes blinding. You can see only one all-encompassing truth, which is your villain's deceit, stupidity, selfishness or evil. This was true of Clinton haters, and it's increasingly true of Bush haters. A small army of pundits and talking heads has now devoted itself to one story: the sins of Bush, Cheney and their supporters. They ruined the economy with massive tax cuts and budget deficits; the Iraq war was an excuse for corporate profiteering; their arrogance alienated foreign allies.
All ambiguity vanishes. For example: The economy is recovering, stimulated in part by huge budget deficits; and many traditional allies of the United States like having Bush as a political foil to excuse them from costly and unpopular commitments.
In the end, Bush hating says more about the haters than the hated -- and here, too, the parallels with Clinton are strong. This hatred embodies much fear and insecurity. The anti-Clinton fanatics hated him not simply because he occasionally lied, committed adultery or exhibited an air of intellectual superiority. What really infuriated them was that he kept succeeding -- he won reelection, his approval ratings stayed high -- and that diminished their standing. If Clinton was approved, they must be disapproved.
Ditto for Bush. If he succeeded less, he'd be hated less.
All well and good, except for this part: "anti-Clinton fanatics hated him not simply because he occasionally lied, committed adultery or exhibited an air of intellectual superiority". Let's concede that folk can justify their hatred of Bush on the basis of his displayed intellectual inferiority; where though are the public immoral acts to match Clinton's? Posted by Orrin Judd at December 30, 2003 6:44 PM
I'm anti-bubba, but it wasn't of fear and insecurity. It's contempt of the 60s boomer.
Posted by: Sandy P. at December 30, 2003 8:03 PMClinton was a very clever follower, who found himself at the front of the herd. He had NO idea how to be a leader, other than a cheerleader.
(Which makes it ironic that Bush was an actual cheerleader).
That's the gist of the articles posting here about Dems who intend to vote for Bush - They may disagree over policy, but are impressed that Bush decided on a plan, then implemented it, in the face of very significant opposition.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at December 30, 2003 11:11 PM"[W]here are the public immoral acts to match Clinton's?"
How about starting with actively and coherently defending the country he has pledged to lead?
And then move on to actively and coherently defending those who don't wish to be defended?
With more than a pinch of exposing progressive humanists to be the utter hypocrites they are.
Along with a dash of freeing more tyrannized people than anyone could have possibly imagined (or would like to give Bush credit for having done).
For his sheer insolence, arrogance, stupidity, his faith in God, his mangling of our precious English language, and quite possibly mostly for his luck. That "dumb hick" simply does not deserve to be so lucky.
One can't begin to imagine the number of transgressions Bush has committed. Or the depth of his immorality.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 31, 2003 7:55 AMFor proving conservatives know better and that the world is safer when they are in charge. Scandalous and unforgiveable.
Posted by: Peter B at December 31, 2003 9:50 AM