We've been hearing a lot about the left's irrational, vicious and personal hatred of the President. It seems to me that Bush's supporters, unable to defend his actions, are trying to turn the tables and condemn every criticism as irrational vitriol. I'm sure others would disagree. So what I'm wondering is, how do people characterize their own feelings about the President? Is it personal, is it political, is it based on his record?
You wanna know why? OK, I'll tell ya why. It's that look he gets. You know the one. That furled brow, slightly puzzled, deer in the headlights look that makes him resemble a befuddled chimpanzee. He makes that overly rouged, bad-dye-jobbed Reagan and that smirking lech Clinton look downright presidential by comparison.
Wow - that does sum it up pretty well. My favorite bits: however immaterial or inconvenient the fact may be, it remains true that Bush is just not a terribly bright man. (Or, more precisely, his intellectual incuriosity is such that the effect is the same.) On the rare occasions Bush takes an extemporaneous question for which he hasn't prepared, he usually stumbles embarrassingly. When asked in July whether, given that Israel was releasing Palestinian prisoners, he would consider releasing famed Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, Bush's answer showed he didn't even know who Pollard is. "Well, I said very clearly at the press conference with Prime Minister [Mahmoud] Abbas, I don't expect anybody to release somebody from prison who'll go kill somebody," he rambled. ... The persistence of an absurdly heroic view of Bush is what makes his dullness so maddening. To be a liberal today is to feel as though you've been transported into some alternative universe in which a transparently mediocre man is revered as a moral and strategic giant... But then you conclude that you're actually not missing anything at all. You decide Bush is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in his pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest, and a man who, on those occasions when he actually does make a correct decision, does so almost by accident.
I never cared much for Clinton after NAFTA, and him calling labor unions "neandorthals," so I wasn't going to get motivated for a Bush v Gore fight, what with bush claiming he was a "compassionate conservative," a "new kind of republican", and all that other stuff which soon turned out to be absolute b---sh-t. John Ashcroft compares rather favourably, I suppose, with the craziest of Reagan's appointments, but in general its clear that these were the same old civil liberty hating, environment destroying, tax-cut for the rich givin' suns of bitches, only with a kindler, gentler, pr department.
I think Bush is alright! Everyone seems to blame this one man for the whole world being a shithole, easier that way isnt it? He's ok! No matter what anyone says, the guy got rid of Suddam, and when you attack the war, you should remember that Suddam's "government" was the alternative. Either way, this is all getting boring, to many leftist wannabe's getting all excited over nothing. I think people on the left enjoyed the war more than anyone, getting a chance to march and pretend it's the 60's all over again! They should be thanking Bush for the opportunity!
Fantastic article. God bless America. p.s. I can see a clear similarity with italian Berlusconi hatred. It is not for nothing they're buddies.
So then you are saying that American leaders that did not depose Saddam (like, say, Bush the Elder) are hearless, amoralists while leaders that actively helped Saddam (like, say, Reagan) are immoral accessories to mass slaughter?
Bush has taken average intelligence & good family connections to the pinnacle of American politics. Not exactly an easy thing to do considering Jeb was supposed to be the political "star" of the family. I am dismayed that as a president he's not more intellectually stimulated. But something like reading the major papers and watching tv news should be ingrained in someone at an early age. He just decided to skip that news "stuff" at one point or another. Pretty amazing considering all that's going on in the world now. He's got to be considered one of the greatest over-achievers ever. Not to slam Clinton......but IMO he's the flip side of Dubya. Great intellectual gifts, a goal to become President since he was conceived in a watermelon patch in Arkansas and superior people & public speaking skills. He COULD'VE done much, much more with his presidency than he did. A booming economy will be the thing he's most remembered for and he can't take all the credit for it. I think he'd really like 4 more yrs. to set things right with his legacy. He seems like a sad man without a mission nowadays.
Not that anyone's taking you seriously anyway, but you might see about brightening up your arguments by spelling people's names correctly.
But that's part of his schtick to make him seem like a spotty 14 year old. At least, I hope that's a schtick....
you have now discovered the root of my angst. But seriously i hate the *#*#*#*#ing Blues. Blackhawks suck, but they are still my Mighty Blackhawks.
You know, I started out liking Bush. But his sh1t has just plain wore me down. That editorial was awsome.
This is such a rediculous statement, that it proves this writer has no credibility, on defining who is radical.
Uh, the guy's solution to the Social Security problem during his campaign was to privatize Social Security. Yes, calling this a return to pre-New Deal government would be an exaggeration, but not much of one, which is exactly what was written.
Do you have any clue what the amount of non- military spending by the federal government prior to the New Deal was relative to Bush's budget? To claim that they are in any way comparable is non-credible. If anything Bush has not been nearly as agressive as conservatives would like in reducing spending. I'm sorry but I don't buy the we hate Bush because he is a radical right winger argument, just like I didn't buy the argument that the right made that Clinton was a dangerous radical left winger because of his health care proposals.
Today, specifically, I hate Bush because of this: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/24/politics/24PREX.html We know he doesn't read the papers, but, how isolated is this guy? Is it really possible for the President of the USA to be SO out of touch with world opinion?
Not surprising at all, but maybe GW's even more out of touch with his own country. That ariticle adds to the theory that Bush is merely a puppet and our country is run by the people surrounding him. Maybe GW isn't the evil person liberals like to paint him as but that he's just that out of touch with reality and the negative consequences of the Administration's choices and policies. Surely the postives of their choices are getting to him as they are recycled over and over and over..