« psa | Main | meeting mr. g. »

setting the record straight...again

I swear, I am either going to turn off my email or make a separate email account for hatemail@asmallvictory.net, so I can just make a standard reply form.

For those of you who assume that I love everything Bush does, you are absolutely wrong on so many counts. I am not a blind loyalist.

For those of you who assume that I am voting for Bush in the next election, try again. I still don't know who I'm going to vote for and I probably won't for a long time. Just because I am a registered Republican - and pro-war - does not mean that I vote Republican all the time.

I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, a member of Free Republic. Extremists on either side of politics scare me.

Are we all clear now?

Comments

An interesting link for those that can't stand Bush.

The Girlfriend keeps threatening me with bodily harm if I vote for Bush... I keep telling her the same thing; I will vote for the person with the best platform. People get entirely too worked up about a candidate's hair, tie, or Baseball team affiliation. (Yay Braves! 12-in-a-row)

For those of you who assume that I love everything Bush does, you are absolutely wrong on so many counts. I am not a blind loyalist.

You'd be a lot more convincing about this if you learned the difference between "I think George Bush is doing a terrible job" and "I think George Bush is Satan".

The occasional post criticizing Bush wouldn't hurt, either.

"I think Rush is funny," I tell my wife, who's even less Bush-fan than I, "He's really got some funny things to say."

Often times, I feel that way about Mr. Bush, too.

No hate-mail scheduled.

But all this is superfluous. The /point/ is this:
"Extremists on either side of politics scare me."

Yes, Yes, YES!!

I think Bravo Company took out the last sniper, Sarge!

Thayli: Why is that required?

Here's a thought for you to ponder:

Howard Dean, Commander-In-Chief.

Thlayli,

I'd be far more impressed if my fellow "enlightened" "liberal" Democrats learned that difference first.

If you've read Michele for any substantial length of time (and it seems quite clear you've not), you'd know that she is very far from a kowtowing Republican.

The occasional post criticizing Bush wouldn't hurt, either.

See that Michele? You have to actually criticize him or you're nothing but a sycophant.

I wouldn't bother to be honest. It doesn't matter. If you agree with Bush about anything, you are the enemy to many.

Witness John Kerry and Howard Dean questioning whether or not Wesley Clark is a 'real' Democrat because he may voted for Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

Just confess, Michele. You want him. You fantasize every night about W. grabbing you by the hair on the back of your head and making wild monkey love to you. He can do no wrong, because he is your perfect man.

Just 'fess up. You think he's the New Messiah, and hang on his every word.

We all know it's true.

Hey, on Free Republic, we have all sorts... of extremists, that is.

Ah, heck... I get the "justify your support of the Bush Regime" all the time. Doesn't matter I've made plain my disgust on his cowtowing to Uncle Teddy's bloated education bill (or is that bloated Uncle Teddy's education bill? whatever) or that Tom Ridge is as useless as nipples on a bull and must be flushed...that I give credit to GW for ANYTHING, including getting up in the morning and finding his way to the bathroom PROVES I'm the helpless sheep of the Zionist/Xtian cabalists who pulled a coup d'etat and are shredding the Constitution as we speak and shipping dissenters off to underground bunkers in Colorado.

For the acolytes of the Bush-is-Satan Church, I am an apostate.

The Angry Left has now surpased in sheer vitriolic lunacy the Angry Right's foam-at-the-lips sputtering during the Clinton years.

Why is that required?

Her claim that she's "not a Bush cheerleader" has no credibility if the only time his name comes up here is when she's blasting somebody for disagreeing with him (cf: Rall, T.)

You have to actually criticize him or you're nothing but a sycophant.

Well, if you're trying to establish that you're not a sycophant, some evidence would be helpful.

"I'm not a blind Bush loyalist, but if you say anything bad about him I'll scratch your eyes out" doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"Free Republic... Extremists..."

Now how did that Goldwater quote go. Extremism in the purse of liberty is no vise? Moderate defenestration is no virtue?

sigh My poor brain cells are going. Fried from spending too much time on FreeRepublic!

I still enjoy reading your web log, and it's okay for you not to like FR... sniff.

Well, if you're trying to establish that you're not a sycophant, some evidence would be helpful

I read Michele's blog every day. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a whole lot of Bush cheerleading, except when it comes to the war on terror.

Ed Koch, a hardcore Democrat says he is going to vote for Bush next year precisely for that reason as well.

I am certainly not happy with the way Bush has conducted his domestic agenda outside of tax cuts. There's way to much spending, and this prescription drug proposal is a joke. However, the thought of any of the current crop of Democrats running for President (especially Howard Dean), being in control of our national security and fighting terrorism is something that keeps me up at night.

And Darleen is exactly right. Defend Bush on the Iraq war and fighting terrorism, and suddenly you're nothing but a supporter of the BFEE (Bush Family Evil Empire) and somebody that doesnt give a shit about this country. It's sickening really.

Silly. Haven't you realized the internet is for hating, not for thinking?

Thayli wrote:
Her claim that she's "not a Bush cheerleader" has no credibility if the only time his name comes up here is when she's blasting somebody for disagreeing with him (cf: Rall, T.)

Uh-huh. The "but MOM! you don't say anything about THEMMMMM!" tactic. How trite.

Odd, here I was thinking Michelle blasts "Rall, T." because he's an ignorant asshole.

What's next? The "silence means consent" fallacy?

Thayli:
Well, if you're trying to establish that you're not a sycophant, some evidence would be helpful.

Oh, how cute. The "guilty until proven innocent" concept of proving political loyalties.

One might expect you to come up with better evidence that Michelle is a sycophant, rather than picking lazy "proofs" besides the "Well, she isn't making the required criticisms for the Great Evil One so she must be a blind loyalist" tactic.