« Photo Sunday: Putting Along | Main | Notice(s) »

SBHFS (Updated)

I woke up mad at the world today, due partly to a simmering disgust towards the behavior of so many people in this country, and due partly to the fact that the climate of our country invades my dreams to the point where I can't get away from it. Sure, I can blame myself for readily engaging in the war against Bush by reading and digesting every single article, interview, bulletin board ranting and blog post available on the subject. But I've given up on the idea of living my life in ignorant bliss by turning off the tv and the computer. I'd rather know my enemy than be unaware of it. James Lileks hit the nail on the head today when he defined his own malaise as SBHFS: Sudden Bush Hatred Fatigue Syndrome. I'm 41 years old. 16 days away from 42. I've been following politics since I took an unhealthy interest in the Vietnam war at the ripe old age of seven. I don't remember a time when our nation sagged under the weight of such hatred. Perhaps the hatred is more palpable now because there are more venues in which people can make their feelings known. Voices are louder because they are amplified through the internet. But it's not just us regular people - the unwashed masses, so to speak - that are participating in this war of ideals. Our own elected officials are taking part in the War Against Bush. Sure, politics has been filled with snideness, ridicule and finger pointing probably since the first caveman was elected keeper of the flame, but it's reached the point of combustion. We're making a mockery of America. bq. Bush administration officials used Sunday's talk shows to defend last week's heightened security alerts in three cities and to underscore the administration's focus on terror threats. Because the timing of every single thing Bush or his administration does is questioned by everyone from bloggers to appointed officials, he must spend his time defending every move he makes. bq. U.S Leak Harms Al Qaeda Sting: But some observers have said that Islamabad should not have been compromised by political considerations in Washington.

One senator told CNN that U.S. officials should have kept Khan's role quiet. Maybe if Bush wasn't forced to justify every move he (or his administration) makes, this wouldn't have happened. But, no. As it is "our duty" as Americans to question authority, we must force the President and his cabinet to go on tv and tell us why he decided to tell us we are in danger. Of course, were al Qaeda to strike, say, the Prudential building, then those same people would be forced to go on tv and tell us why they didn't tell us we were in danger. Lose, lose. So the pundits on the left use their venues - whether it be the internet, the newspaper or a wooden box on a street corner - to dispense their hatred towards their president. They promote change for America. Vote Kerry, they cry, and everything will be better. Better for whom? See, I don't hate Kerry. I don't think he would make as good a president as Bush, but I don't harbor any hatred for the guy. In fact, I almost feel sorry for him. Because if Kerry wins this election, he is in for a rude awakening. Oh, the party will start off grand, but three months into his presidency the same people who are promoting him as just the thing America needs will be protesting him. Most of these Anybody But Bush warriors don't even like Kerry. A cursory glance through sites like Democratic Underground or Indymedia (and even some lefty blogs) will find internal arguments over whether Kerry can really run this country or not. But he's not Bush, which seems to be the greatest thing he has going for him. So if Kerry wins, there will be further split in the political map of America. The left will split into two separate and very disparate portions. The ABBs will morph into the ABKs and the moderate Democrats will be left scratching their heads. They voted for this guy, but he doesn't really represent them. They succeed in getting Bush out of the White House, but in the end they're still not happy. Then what? Form another party? Seek out another candidate to push towards a 2008 run? Sadly, it's the ABBs who are the most vocal crowd in this whole carnival. They are most likely to be the ones crying that President Kerry sucks. One can only hope that these people never get their way. Because what they want in a candidate, and in this country, is something that would drive us to the brink of disaster. Free health care for everyone. Free college. Completely open borders, with benefits for all the non- citizens that come through. Free day care. Free food. Free Mumia. Their key word, obviously, is free. They want the world handed to them but they want to do nothing to earn it. Can you imagine this country led by someone who subscribes to those views? You go ahead, I don't want to. Back to the SBHFS (Sudden Bush Hatred Fatigue Syndrome) I've been afflicted with. It's everywhere. It is, like Lileks noticed and I did as well, in our bookstores. It's in the way the anti-Bush books are piled up by the front door. It's in the unapologetic headlines splashed across magazines and newspapers. It's not just you they're sending the message to. It's your kids as well. Planned Parenthood wants your teen to know that Bush is evil. Bruce Springsteen and NOFX are no longer just recording artists your kids listen to. They are telling your children how to vote. They're not just saying, hey get out there and vote and make a difference. No, they've crossed the line between stage and audience. They have grabbed your kid by the collar and said Bush is Evil. Vote Kerry. We look to the media to dispense information to help us make our choices. But what do you do when you're met with journalists who don't even hide their biases? The hatred towards the president is emblematic of a hatred towards country. Am I questioning your patriotism, ABBs? Damn straight I am. If you loved this country you wouldn't stoop to the levels of hatred that you have. Have you seen this? It's A book about assassinating the president. The sitting president. Put that in your "crushing of dissent" pipe and smoke it. No, stuff it. Speaking of assassination, Jeff Jarvis on Bush hatred: bq. ....we don't know where this will lead, but I fear it could lead to assassination. No, Michael Moore will not pull the trigger (he doesn't like guns, remember). But this atmosphere of hatred could inspire and embolden someone to try. The ultimate extension of presidential hatred could be assassination. Oh, don't think that ugly little thought hasn't been running around in my head for months. Embolden. The hatred is sure to do that. And I'm sure that dissenters the world over, all the socialist-loving conservative haters, are looking at America right now with wide-eyed wonder, reveling in the anti-America feel coming from the haters. How soon before one of those comrades in arms decides to make his venomous brethren happy and do America a favor? In a couple of years, I've gone from far left to moderate left to center and now, I must admit, to the right. And each day I go farther and farther to the right, pushed their by the fact that I want to remain as far away from the left as possible. Each time I read Atrios or make a run through DU, I feel like a grade school kid in need of a cootie-shot. And while I'll never complete the transformation wholly and end up on the far right I've certainly removed myself from the center. I don't think even centrists know what they want anymore. They don't hate Bush, but they hate themselves for thinking that maybe they should hate Bush. What's worse, president loathing, country loathing or self loathing? For the life of me, I can't tell the left from the far left anymore. They've embraced Michael Moore to the extent that even Kerry is mimicing his talking points. People who consider themselves fair and balanced Democrats are actually shills for George Soros, one of the masters of the Bush is Hitler movement. I don't hate the Bush haters. I pity them. I can only imagine what's going to happen when this election is over. Either the Bush hatred will get ramped up and it's going to get uglier than it is now, or they will turn in their ABB hats for ABK hats and start over again. Lose, lose. Update: Read this. It's a good companion piece to my thoughts above. Update II: Read Faith.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SBHFS (Updated):

» Where's the breaking point? from The Shape of Days
Michele Catalano writes about what James Lileks calls "sudden Bush hatred fatigue syndrome," or SBHFS. I woke up mad at the world today, due partly to a simmering disgust towards the behavior of so many people in this country, and [Read More]

» Careful, I'm Going To Write About Politics from Faithiepoo!
Guess I've been doing that alot lately. My daily dose of Michele tends to infect my brain in strange ways... [Read More]

» FOR THE LAST FREAKIN' TIME... from Semi-Intelligent Thoughts
"They did it first" is not a valid defense of any kind of dumb@ssery. That's the kind of thing little kids say when they want to avoid being blamed for something. Grow up. (Inspired by the comments on this post.)... [Read More]

» Why I'm Tired of Politics from LilacRose
More and more, I find myself wanting to avoid reading or watching anything about politics or the election. Well, I'm... [Read More]

» SUDDEN BUSH-HATRED FATIGUE SYNDROME from The Protocols of the Yuppies of Zion
Michele has an excellent post up about the aforementioned malady. Read the whole thing, it's spot-on, but the highlights are here: "See, I don't hate Kerry. I don't think he would make as good a president as Bush, but I don't harbor any hatred for the ... [Read More]

» It sucks when the tables are turned, eh? from The People's Republic of Seabrook
Sudden Bush Hatred Fatigue Syndrome I find it rather comical that Conservatives are crying "Foul!" now that Progressives have begun to use the same proven smear tactics that have been employed by the Far Right. No, I'm not about to say I'm proud of thi... [Read More]

» Sudden Bush Hatred Fatigue Syndrome from MartiniPundit
A Small Victory is suffering from SBHFS - I know how she feels. The Bush hatred books in Borders outnumber the alternatives by about 10 to 1 making me wonder why I even shop there anymore. The hatred is the worst I've ever seen (far worse than... [Read More]

» Send Lawyers, Guns and Corporate "NEWS"men... from Who Tends the Fires
The Word for the Day is: "Pop Quiz" "John Kerry vaulted into public life on the bloodied backs of the millions of slaughtered, enslaved and expelled Indochinese who suffered their fates - and still suffer their fates - because he... [Read More]

» The Most Massive Link Dump In Recorded History from Thief's Den
I save a lot of links in my blog surfing, thanks to FeedDemon's NewsBin feature. Too many. But see, I usually have no time to blog. Thus, these entries are filed away in my newsbin, ported back and forth from home to office computers and back again, ju... [Read More]

» The Most Massive Link Dump In Recorded History from Thief's Den
I save a lot of links in my blog surfing, thanks to FeedDemon's NewsBin feature. Too many. But see, I usually have no time to blog. Thus, these entries are filed away in my newsbin, ported back and forth from home to office computers and back again, ju... [Read More]

» The Most Massive Link Dump In Recorded History from Thief's Den
I save a lot of links in my blog surfing, thanks to FeedDemon's NewsBin feature. Too many. But see, I usually have no time to blog. Thus, these entries are filed away in my newsbin, ported back and forth from home to office computers and back again, ju... [Read More]

Comments

It sucks when the tables are turned, doesn't it? You're bemoaning the same thing Conservatives have been doing to Progressives for years. Now you have a man in office who is a divider, and you hate in when Progressives strongly voice their displeasure.

I will agree that the "politics of personal hatred" has been over the top at times, but how conveniently you've forgotten the vitriol that was directed at Bill and Hillary Clinton.

We did not invent this game, but now that people on boths sides have learned to play, you seem disappointed.

The pro-Kerry forces were not the first to go negative, but you cannot expect us to sit back while "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (now there's a misnomer if ever there was one) slander John Kerry's and his service record.

This is a sad state of affairs, but Progressives did not set the ground rules. Don't blame us for learning how to play the game every bit as well as Conservatives.

That was a good read. At first I was an ABB, then I began to research Kerry and his platform for myself. I think I'm slowly resigning myself to the fact that four more years of Bush is probably better than four years of Kerry. The lesser of two evils in my opinion, but it's too early to go there.

That's great Jack, but preach to someone else. I never hated Clinton. I voted for him. I wasn't part of that hatred so I don't think that I have to take a pass on bitching about the hatred now just because my fellow right-leaning folks took part in it.

And I'm sorry, but the hatred going on today pales in comparison to the Clinton stuff.

Hey lol, that answer makes perfect sense to me; I don't think YOU understand the relationship between the federal government and tribal land.

Ah Jack, the old "they did it first defense"... grow up, huh. By example, did I and most conservatives EVER think that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster? No. Do you think that the contentions in F911 are true?....

Whine, whine, whine

Where was this same complaint when Clinton was being attacked? (Feel free to produce an archive entry showing it and I'll apologize.)

Maybe you're seeing anti-Bush signs everywhere because that's how people feel. Maybe it's not just the crackpot far left, but the MAJORITY.

It stops being a conspiracy when a significant number of people are involved. Then it's a movement, and eventually in our democracy - the national position.

And I agree with Jack above - don't be mad at the left for learning to use the tactics of the right.

Perhaps it does pale in comparison, but Bush has only himself to blame for the hatred. For someone who campaign on being a "uniter" and not a "divider", he certainly has the "divider" part down pat.

I am also tired of the current atmosphere, but we did not create it. Now that we're playing the games by the new rules, there's a problem? I'm all for changing the way the game is played, but who's going to disarm first?

The big question is will the right rally behind Kerry if he is elected or begin the same campaign that the left is has been waging on Bush?

Where was this same complaint when Clinton was being attacked? (Feel free to produce an archive entry showing it and I'll apologize.)

An archive entry about what? I've only been blogging since 2001? You looking for something I said defending the Clinton bashing? Like I said above, I voted for the guy.

Actually, I was looking for something that you said decrying the attacks on the President. On Clinton having to defend every action as they could have been an attempt to take the country's mind off Monica.

Since you weren't blogging back then, I do apologize for that line.

Jack, the Bush hatred started with the recount; not anything he did to divide like:

1) Working with Ted Kennedy on the education bill.
2) Adding Medicare prescription benefits
3) Seeking Congressional approval for the War on Terror (including Iraq).

Yep, he's a divider alright.

So if the 'majority' has fallen in line behind the left's ABB banner, and in four years they will all have followed the progression to ABK; who is going to be the ABK candidate? Will the pendulum swing back to the right, or will it continue on some hellbent left trajectory, and the Dems will have Nader or someone on their ticket?

Hmmm...President Michael Moore?

Free Mumia in every pot? I'm down with that. Do we get to pick which part we want?

Yea, it is starting to make me a little weary also. It has not come down too, who is the better man, but who has the best cheerleaders.

Well written, michele, as always.

I'm wondering how much insanity will ensue if Kerry wins. I'm with you, though. The ABB's become ABK's within months.

And frankly, the above commenters who blame conservatives are off base. I watched the Dems becoming more vitiolic since Clinton took office. It was part of his style and it continues to degrade.

This is a President who plummeted from one of the highest job approval ratings in the history of the office and the most united phalanx of public support, both in this country and in the world, since the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Do you think this happened by Black Magic? I don't.

I think it happened because of his decisions since then, NONE of which he, his officials, or his followers are willing to consider as anything but strokes of genius, no matter what their consequences.

Do some people hate GWB? Of course. Some people hated (and still hate) Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ronald Regan, Richard Nixon, Ted Kennedy...

But it is not hatred to assert that a President's policies are wrong or his job performance inadequate or the ideology of his followers is in error.

I couldn't agree more, Michele.

The level of hate by the left is unprecedented.
Clinton made his own bed, and cried foul when held accountable. I was no Clinton hater either, in fact news of his perjury hit me like hammer because he was the sitting President, and he lied. Kenneth Starr did not make him harrass Paula Jones, nor have an affair with Monica, nor lie under oath about something material and relevant to the suit.

The "Bush lied!" crowd took off and ran with this mantra void of any evidence. When, over a year later, evidence to support the fact that President Bush did NOT lie was made public, it was brushed under the carpet.

As a nation, we know where President Bush stands on issues. He has lots of integrity. On the other hand there is Kerry, and I get the sense that Kerry himself doesn't really know what he stands for sometimes. It doesn't make him a bad person, but it does make him someone I don't want to see in the White House.

President Bush has had to deal with celebrities talking about vacating the U.S. even before was he elected. Then he got slammed with accusations, false ones, that he "stole" the election. Then he was accused of knowing about the 9-11 attacks before-hand and not doing enough. Then he was TOO proactive. He worked for 14 months to get support for toppling Saddam, and he is to this day accused of "rushing to war." He is accused of not building a coalition, even though we have 30 nations working with us at this moment. The ones who logjammed us were participants in the United Nations oil-for-food scandal; allies who lined Saddam's pockets as well as their own.

There is so much hysteria on the left, and such an underwhelming grasp of the facts.

I am sick and tired of it too.

If Bush wins, I fully expect someone to shoot -- or worse -- at him within six months. And what's even more frightening than the anger and weirdness the left's working up is their denial about it.

Also, the way Susan Estrich acted on Hannity and Colmes on Aug. 5th and 6th was a perfect example of the seething, lunatic rage exhibited by the left. I was waiting for pea soup to come shooting out of her mouth and her head to start spinning around.
She freaked on Van Odell of the Swift Vets, and greeted the Dem Mayor of St. Paul who is voting for Bush with, "Dontcha think that makes you a traitor???" UGH.

I agree for the most part with what Michele said. But I think the level of rancor was worse during Vietnam, especially under Nixon. That said, I think we're getting to that contentious place we were in the 60s and early 70s.
Of course, there was a draft in those days ...

The comments reflect perfectly the atmosphere of politics. The Dems invent and/or perfect tactics (politics of personal destruction), then blame the right for doing it.

As for the Swifties, I believe they're due their own voice. They served in the same conditions as JFK, and none of them got home in four months with two self-inflicted wounds. I've not critized Kerry's war record because I wasn't there. They were, and this is the home of free speech.

Tell me, is "Progressives" now the accepted term for the uber-left? Don't yell at me, I'm just asking. I want to know where they are on the center-left spread.

They're used to be two kinds of people in the US. Those who loved Elvis and those who loved the Beatles.

Now it breaks down into those who hate Bush and those who hate Clinton.

Let's be fair. I think the seething anger is on both sides. And no matter who wins in November, about 50% of the country is going to be PO'd.

"For the life of me, I can't tell the left from the far left anymore."

I think this is the big story of the year. I'm not sure exactly how it happened, but it looks to me like the Moveon.org crowd has pretty much taken control of the Democratic Party. And when you get right down to it, Moveon.org is just a DU that's learned to use a knife and fork and not throw its own feces while sitting at the dinner table.

What I can't figure out is why "normal" Democrats aren't appalled by this sort of thing, and/or why they think it's somehow going to bring them a great victory.

So if Kerry wins, there will be further split in the political map of America. The left will split into two separate and very disparate portions. The ABBs will morph into the ABKs and the moderate Democrats will be left scratching their heads. They voted for this guy, but he doesn't really represent them.

I just want to make the point that the ABB crowd is not moderate democrats (at least not any that I know). ABB seems to mostly consist of the people who would be voting for Nader (ie Michael Moore) and the people who would be writing in Mao because even Nader isn't left enough for them (ANSWER). John Kerry is a moderate democrat, so I imagine when he gets elected, the moderate democrats are going to be chuckling silently at how they tricked the extreme left loonies into supporting Kerry. The wingnuts who trot out the "Kerry is the #1 liberal in the Senate" meme (a claim that is as phony as a $13 bill with even a cursory examination) are really just aiding in this deception.

Also, I would like to address the claim that Bush hatred (BH) is worse then Clinton hatred (CH). Let's compare:

BH: a book is published musing about assassination
CH: Clinton is attacked multiple times (including an attempt to crash a plane into the White House!)

BH: Conspiracy nuts continually attribute phony motivations to his actions (ie war for oil, etc). Published books suggest that he's a mean liar based on selective interpretation of the facts.
CH: Conspiracy nuts continually attribute phony crimes to him (ie running cocaine in Latin America). Publish books include "death lists" of 60+ people Clinton "may have" (wink, nudge) killed or directly ordered killed based on paranoid fantasies and the obituary page.

BH: George Soros
CH: I wouldn't even know where to start listing the rich and powerful who wanted to bring him down. Rev Moon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Robertson/Falwell, Rupert Murdock, etc etc.

PS: In music celebs news, Kerry's got Bruce Springstein and President Bush has ... Britney Spears. Hrmmmm.

Thank you for this.
I was beginning to think I was the only one feeling this way.
The absolute hatred from the left tends to be over-bearing at times.
I used to consider myself a moderate, but if it means being lumped in with this crowd, I will have to pass.
I used to like Clinton & was disgusted with the attacks made on a sitting President, right up to the moment he went on TV, looked me in the eye & lied to me. I became a Republican that day.
The more I see, the farther right I go.
Here is an example, one guy has a Bush bumper sticker & one guy has a Kerry sticker. Which car is most likely to get vandalized?
This one is a no-brainer, & that is the problem with the left.
Before you start in with the "Bush lied" nonsense, check your facts...if Bush lied, so did Clinton, Gore, every intelligence agency IN THE WORLD, the U.N., John Kerry, John Edwards, the CIA, the FBI...everyone was sure he had WMDs, so give it a rest.

The Constitution is a specification. It's not an implementation. The laws that conform to the constitution provide the implementation.

I love the Constitution. I think the current implementation of it, the laws, the party system, the country as a whole, does not conform to the Constitution, in short, it breaks the specification.

If JBoss didn't comply with J2EE, or if blogger didn't conform to the trackback protocol, something would be broken. That's the way I view America under Bush. It's the way I viewed America under most presidents this century, but it's been consistantly broken for a long time.

Key Word: Consistant. Now there's movement again... change. Change isn't bad. My problem is that I feel the change is leading us further from teh Constitution, rather than closer. Will Kerry bring us closer? Probably not. Will he stop us from disregarding it altogether? I hope so.

But it doesn't matter to me anyway, because I'm still writing in Dean.

The Constitution is a specification. It's not an implementation. The laws that conform to the constitution provide the implementation.

I love the Constitution. I think the current implementation of it, the laws, the party system, the country as a whole, does not conform to the Constitution, in short, it breaks the specification.

If JBoss didn't comply with J2EE, or if blogger didn't conform to the trackback protocol, something would be broken. That's the way I view America under Bush. It's the way I viewed America under most presidents this century, but it's been consistantly broken for a long time.

Key Word: Consistant. Now there's movement again... change. Change isn't bad. My problem is that I feel the change is leading us further from teh Constitution, rather than closer. Will Kerry bring us closer? Probably not. Will he stop us from disregarding it altogether? I hope so.

But it doesn't matter to me anyway, because I'm still writing in Dean.

On some days, I think it is a real division and it is here to stay for awile. I think it is a problem larger than any blog can address - but the blogs help outline some issues. I think it has to do with large issues of international socio-economic changes and criminal corruption of which many Republicans and Democrats are major players. The rule of law doesn't get applied to them and that confuses people. And then, to add gas to the fire, I just look at Bush and his scary Dominionist supporters and see the social change they want to implement and know that for as long as people like Alan Keyes, George Bush, Pat Robertson, John Ashcroft, Doug Feith etc. keep pushing their social/religious Dominionist ideology, there will be strong opposition. And then add in a consistent dosages of fear and I see the nation continue to be divided by class, gender, religion, and reaction to fear.

This is too bad, but I think the "division thing" works out just fine for the powers.

Of course, the day to day reality is that these divisions don't and can't work on a community level or else we would never get anything done in our PTAs, churches, and local governments. Sure we disagree on issues, but we have vacation bible school to put on, and houses to build for the poor and fundraisers for the schools, and ice-rinks to build... and so on.

So on some days, I think the "hatred" issue is all a red herring.

What ever happened to thinking the opposition was good people who had a different way of reaching the same goals (OK maybe it was never like that) what seems to seperate out the ABB crowd (which started before he was sworn in) is the idea that Bush is part of a cabal that wants to personally destroy you. It is a far cry from "Clintons policies will screw us over and he doesn't care" to "Bush's policy will screw us over and thats exacly how he wants it."
George Bush attacked a peaceful country because he wants to suspend the constitution? What color is the sky in your world and do you check under the bed for Karl Rove?

Soli (and others); I don't really give a shit as to how great the hate was during the Clinton years. I care about here and now and what it's doing to our country.

As someone else noted, the hatred for Bush started long before Iraq, long before WMDs were ever mentioned. It started the night he WON the election. It just escalated from there.

Clinton is gone. He - and the hate he generated - makes no difference to me right now. Nothing is at stake because of it. It has no bearing on the political climate right here, right now.

Being on the westcoast, if I stay up late enough, I'm able to catch Lileks latest bleat before retiring. SBHFS is so perfectly coined! And what I've just been witnessing in this comment section is again a complete denial that both the tone and scope of BusHate has outstripped the oft mentioned and agreedly whacky Clinton hate.

Let me deal with just one little conspiracy theory that runs with the "BusHitler has shredded the Constitution!" mantra. How many times have the Bushiephobes screamed that election 2000 constituted a "coup"? How many times have we read on leftist-liberal sites that 2004 will be "stolen", the "fix is in"? yadda yadda yadda...So we get Democratic congress members writing to Kofi Annan just before July 4th asking for the UN to monitor our elections, and John Kerry attempting to field thousands of lawyers across the country to "monitor" polling places and to have boilerplate lawsuits ready to challenge any vote that doesn't go his way.

Bush is determined to keep his "stolen" position through cheating, right? So how many of you know that in Florida 2002 Bush had European observers and advisors come to this country and monitor the election? How many of you know he did it again, inviting OSCE to observe the 2004 elections?

Really sounds like a conspiracy to steal, eh?

so-called Mainstream Media has not been shy in their abject partisanship of anti-Bush. They are trying to dominate the information stream, deciding what stories to run and how to run them. IE not covering the Berger story on what he actually stuffed down his pants, but writing story after story about the "timing" OF the story!

Lastly, regardless of who is in the oval office, s/he will be MY President. I will feel it my right to disagree with policy and decisions, but I will not (and in the past have never) call for his/her death or dismemberment as I've seen from those who label GW "President Select" "the Fraudistration" etc.

Michele, I agree that there are a lot of wacko people on the left who hate George Bush with an altogether irrational intensity. However, I cannot go along with the notion that Bush is just an innocent victim of leftist hysteria. Throughout his tenure in office, the right wing members of his administration - personified by Cheney and Rumsfeld - have consistently held sway, and the moderates - people like Powell and Whitman - have essentially been marginalized. The looney left would hate Bush no matter what, but the reason that many more mainstream Democrats hope Bush is not re-elected is what he's done in office - not some mindless, hyper-emotional hatred of all Republicans. I've said many times that I would gladly vote for John McCain over John Kerry, if given the chance. Unfortunately, I will not have that chance.

Darleen,

And what I've just been witnessing in this comment section is again a complete denial that both the tone and scope of BusHate has outstripped the oft mentioned and agreedly whacky Clinton hate.

I'm okay with not caring about Clinton hate. I don't care about Clinton hate. I didn't vote for him either time (Perot then Dole for me). However, if you want to make the easily debunked claim that "BusHate has outstripped" it, you should cite some factual evidence. Don't give me this "oh they are complaining loudly BS." People on the fringe were actively trying to kill President Clinton and the more moderate wingnuts were just trying to throw him in jail and ruin his life. I don't care how loud they scream, a semi-automatic rifle is louder. I don't care how much they whine, trying to crash a plane into the White House drowns it out. When Air America manages to get 600 radio stations and starts telling me that President Bush has murdered one of his cabinent members and stashed the corpse at a secret apartment owned by his wife until he can set it up to look like a suicide, then we can talk.

MikeR

Truly, this is a serious question, and one I bring up whenever someone saying what the GW "extremists" have "done" to this country.

Exactly what are you talking about? I can rarely get any clear specificity in answer.

IMHO I find the majority of BusHate is based on perception, not reality, IE check out Michele's link above to the Planned Parenthood "Choice Chick" POS and try and tell me what universe those people live in.

Michele, Great post.

I would question your position though. Is it possible that you have not moved more and more to the right, but that you are stationary, and the train is moving? Well, in this case it would be "stretching" but I think you get my point.

Flat out, BOTH sides have issues. Each b**ching about the other and trying to force them to change is of no use. The left needs to police itself, and so does the right. And the only way that will work out is if the moderates are the ones who take action.
The extreme left tries to lure moderates to their side. The extreme right does the same. It's time for the moderates to go to their respective extremists and bash them upside the head a few times until they either calm down or go into a coma.
If that does not happen soon, the hatred of the extremes will plunge this country into a very bad situation.

Look, Soli and MikeR. Anyone who condones actively trying to kill the President is wrong. Left, right or center.

Frankly, I think the rhetoric from the far left help color more moderate Dems perceptions. So they see the VRWC in everything Bush does.

Nonsense. He's done more centrist stuff than right wing stuff. I disagree with some things he's done, agree with others. And he has held steady to a set of values in the face of almost maniacal attacks on everthing he does.

Soli

Any President is subject to assassination, and not necessarily from ideological positions. The CNN link you provided gave no motivation to the people involved, indeed, since the pilot of the stolen Cessna was killed in the crash are at all sure he was trying to assassinate Clinton?

I certainly accept Hinkley tried to assassinate Reagan from mental illness, not a lefty fringe position.

I don't recall a major publishing house releasing a "kill Bill [Clinton]" book prior to Nov. 1996.

"The pro-Kerry forces were not the first to go negative, but you cannot expect us to sit back while "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (now there's a misnomer if ever there was one) slander John Kerry's and his service record."

LOL...what pro-kerry forces? There isn't any. This is an anti-Bush movement. Everytime Kerry goes on vacation his poll numbers go up. And the anti-Bush movement has been in full swing since he was sworn in.

Though I have to laugh at a so-called Progressive touting the war record(20 kills!) in what is supposedly(ie: according to the gospel of the left) the greatest mistake made in American history. I don't have a problem with Kerry's war record. He volunteered, he served and he was wounded in action. What I don't get is why you wouldn't?

What do you think will actually change if Kerry gets elected? Personally I'm at the flip a coin stage as neither candidate is as appetizing nor as distasteful as the claims about them are.

This comment thread supports the point of the post. Comments that voice a dislike of extreme Bush-hating by Kerry voters are conspicuous by their absence.

They're used to be two kinds of people in the US. Those who loved Elvis and those who loved the Beatles. Now it breaks down into those who hate Bush and those who hate Clinton.
There is some overlap here. I know some people who do.
Let's be fair. I think the seething anger is on both sides. And no matter who wins in November, about 50% of the country is going to be PO'd.
It's undeniable that there was a raving "clinton hatred" during the 90s. But 1 of the lessons the left should learn is that this irrational Clinton hatred didn't win the white house for the GOP. And the clinton hatred was really a response to anti-Republican sentiment that was similarly hostile in the 80s and early 90s.

Michelle, I think you're wrong about the ABBs metamorphosing into ABKs if Kerry is elected. They will still be ABBS and thus any contretemps or disaster on Kerry's watch will still be Bush's fault.

And as for you clowns claiming "this is just what the evil baby killing nun raping right has been doing for years", grow up and get a clue. That's bullshit.

Darleen,

You think he just happened to crash land on the White House lawn by accident? I don't mean to minimize BusHate, I just think it's a whole different scale when people are talking about doing something versus actually doing it. I have not read the book in question and I never will, as you are correct, it is beyond the pale to speculate, even in a "fictional" setting, about killing our president. Everyone who ever stands for the anthem, who has any respect for this nation must acknowledge that.

I would say the same thing about those dispicable individuals who try to compare President Bush to Hitler or say that "Kerry is Osama's man." If you convince someone with that kind of disgusting propaganda, there is an implicit understanding that the person you duped may decide they need to "do something about it." Clinton hate reached that point (I know people who, to this day, believe that Clinton is a rapist and murderer), and I will, without hesitation, denounce anyone who tries to push "BusHate" or Kerry hate to that point.

I'm a self-described centerist (social liberal, fiscal conservative), and what I'd like is to see John Kerry elected because I think his policy proposals are a little better in the areas that concern me most (homeland security, scientific research, and the economy). Also, I think with a Democratic president, the Republican congress would stop their irresponsible massive increases in spending. However, if President Bush makes the cut, I'm fine with that. All in all, I'm pretty happy with the choice of both sides.

Soli

No, I don't think the Cessna crash was an accident. But I don't know the motivations of the pilot. If you do, please inform me, otherwise it is entirely possible it was a suicide with attendant publicity (variation on theme of suicide_by_cop).

BH: a book is published musing about assassination
CH: Clinton is attacked multiple times (including an attempt to crash a plane into the White House!)
No attacks against Bush ?

Michele

I've read the links in both your updates. Excellent! Thanks. If I may quote from the Novak column
To repeat my main theme: Democrats are confident about a victory this year. Maybe they are right. Still, if, as I anticipate, President Bush wins solidly in 2004, many people will be profoundly unhappy. As one wrote, "First we will vote, then if we lose, we will fight." If such passions win out, it could be ugly.

My question is, will Democrats be content to "fight" only in the courts? That I even have to ask that question is worrisome.

Darleen,

I find motivation speculation in general to be unhelpful in making an informed judgement (ie the morons who say "No War for Oil" are claiming to know something that can't possibly know, that the motivation for going to war in Iraq was oil). I cannot claim that I know why people were attempting to do terrible things to President Clinton and his family, any more than Faith can claim that the attackers knew if their attacks would harm President Clinton and his family or not (thankfully they didn't). I do know that Rush Limbaugh came out at the time and denouced those attacks without any hesitation which made me feel better about Rush.

I do agree with Jeff Jarvis when he said "But this atmosphere of hatred could inspire and embolden someone to try. The ultimate extension of presidential hatred could be assassination." I certainly would question anyone who would claim to know that Clinton hatred had nothing to do with those events. I am fairly certain in regards to the pilot that either he was completely insane or he wanted to hurt someone. Crashing a cessna is nothing like an empty shotgun charge (which lends itself to the motivations you suggest). You can't just expect to make a crash like that and not cause collateral damage.

Here is my point. Regardless of the motivations of the men who attacked the White House, the statement they made with those attacks was more pro-assassination then anything that anyone could possibly write in a book. We can't prove the author of that book hates President Bush (even if you ask him, he might lie about it ... he's obviously not a solid reliable person functioning with the same understanding of the world that rational people have), but the fact that we can discuss is that he is making a despicable statement.

Now you have a man in office who is a divider,

Jack, Jack, Jack, until the boomers are senile, dead or learn to finally take no for an answer, this country will be divided.

Look at W's record in TX - 30% of blacks voted for him his 2nd time around, IIRC. Lots of hispanics, too.

It's not that we're getting a taste of our own medicine, it's that "progressives" are getting a taste of what they've been dishing out for 3 decades.

We're not sitting down and taking it anymore.

You'd never consider W a uniter. You've got medicare, more money for schools, and other liberal programs and all we hear is more whining. 7.5 million blacks have their own businesses, partaking in the American dream. Home ownership is at an all-time high.

"Progressives" will whine until they get everything they want. Therefore, we will never be "united."

Get over it, dude, EUtopia/transnational progressivism won't happen in your lifetime.

Reality has intruded as it usually does.

And as to assassination, Kerry really didn't have a problem w/it, just left the group so he wouldn't be tainted by it, it's not like he reported them or anything.

Hey, whatever works for the "revolution!"

Soli, we don't have a republican congress, I don't have my judges.

And what makes you think the pubbies will dig their heels in? To "unite" and "get along" so they can be elected in the future, you just might get the spending you don't think you will.

I also don't understand the brouhaha over stem cell funding.

If there's a market for embryonic cells, private funding will find its way in, the feds don't have to do it.

I've been following politics since I took an unhealthy interest in the Vietnam war at the ripe old age of seven. I don't remember a time when our nation sagged under the weight of such hatred.

That's just silly.

I believe your supposition that the hatred seems more intense because of the number of media outlets is essentially correct. Because really? There's not much happening. You say you can't remember a time when the hatred was more intense?

Days of Rage? '68 Democratic Convention? Watts riots? COINTELPRO? The assassination of Fred Hampton? SLA? The Weathermen? Any of this ringing a bell?

Or, heck, step back a generation. Ever hear of General Smedley Butler? Or another generation: Centralia Massacre? Everett Massacre? Or another generation: Haymarket Martyrs? the Molly MacGuires? And of course, the generation before that there was the Civil War.

Things have been much much worse than this. In fact they've been quite a bit worse than this for most of American history. They've just never been this fucking loud.

Social animosity has been intensifying along left/right lines since the '60s created a large class of white collar leftists whose primary goal was a social agenda with very little in the way of an economic or policy component (as long as they can have legal abortions and smoke pot, they're basically pretty happy). But it's closely akin, in my mind, to the kind of animosity you get between sports fans; very loud and very angry, but basically trivial.

All other bullshit aside, Bush's presidency is defined by preemptive invasion. That's a genuinely new chapter in U.S. foreign policy, and it comes with a whole raft of secondary concerns. While the necessity for preemption may seem obvious to you, many Americans disagree and many of them have good reasons for their disagreement. What it ultimately comes down to is, which set of problems do we, as Americans, want to have: the problems that come with preemption, or the problems that come without it? Many Americans believe that the net danger created by preemption exceeds the net danger of forgoing preemption. It's a relatively straightforward decision, and we'll all go to the polls and vote on it this fall.

All this shit about Bush and Kerry and who's a better person and who kisses more babies and who means it more when they kiss babies? Flip-flopping and taking too many vacations and whatnot? Sports team bullshit, as far as I'm concerned. Deck chairs on the Titanic. There's an iceberg out there. We're just deciding whether to turn left or right.

Soli, I'm not endorsing the attacks on Clinton. But clearly you can't see that the author of that book is endorsing attacks on Bush.

Sandy P,

Soli, we don't have a republican congress, I don't have my judges.

Really? You don't have your judges? Are you sure?

And what makes you think the pubbies will dig their heels in? To "unite" and "get along" so they can be elected in the future, you just might get the spending you don't think you will.

Historical evidence (yes, I admit it's quite thin) and the very divide we are currently discussing make me think they might dig their heals in. However, I don't see any reason why we would expect a second term with President Bush to change the current irresponsible spending policies, so if it doesn't work out that way I'll just have a new guy to blame (as I have said before, nothing would make me happier then to see Kerry defeated by a real fiscal conservative in 2008).

I also don't understand the brouhaha over stem cell funding. If there's a market for embryonic cells, private funding will find its way in, the feds don't have to do it.

It's simple economics. President Bush created 60 privileged lines which could be funded by federal research grants. Although many of these lines have proven to be non-viable or contaminated, if one of these lines can be established viable it would be a gold mine for the company that pulls it off. Creating new stem cell lines is thus undervalued because a newly created line has an artificial limit that it cannot ever receive federal funding.

Basically, the situation is this. A man hands out 60 seeds and says I will give you a billion dollars if you can make one of these seeds grow. I will never give you money for growing other seeds besides these, but if do plant a different seed, and the seed grows into a plant, and the plant has useful properties, and you discover those properties and find a way to use them, you will probably make a billion dollars. Yes, there are people doing #2, but the market scales are being artificially unbalanced by the artificial distinction.

I'm a self-described centerist (social liberal, fiscal conservative)

Interesting...ever notice that no one ever refers to themselves as the opposite of the above -- a fiscal liberal and a social conservative? Are there any such people?

Faith,

Soli, I'm not endorsing the attacks on Clinton. But clearly you can't see that the author of that book is endorsing attacks on Bush.

I didn't say you were endorsing the attacks on President Clinton, Faith. Nor do I claim to know why those attacks were made or why the book we are discussing was written. What I object to is that you seem to be claiming to know something that you can't know: "Soli would say that Clinton [was] attacked multiple times, but attacks with unloaded guns or at times when he wasn't in the vicinity are hardly comparable." (emphasis mine). You are claiming that the attackers knew that President Clinton and his family would not be hurt. The guy with the empty shotgun, yes. However, the guy who shot up the White House was convicted of attempted murder and the plane crasher died directly from his stupidity.

I have stated flat out that the man who wrote the book is dispicable. I make no excuses for him. In fact, there has never been any valid excuse for writing a book of presidential assassination fantasies and I hope the secret service has a long chat with the author. If they find that he is endorsing attacks on President Bush, it is my understanding that such an endorsement is, in fact, a crime and he should be arrested. My only statement is that attacking the President is a worse act then writing about attacking the President. Not only do I stand by this position, but I don't see how you can possibly challenge it.

RMc,

The answer to your question: Joe Lieberman.

Yes, don't have Estrada. I know about the move. Don't have them all. What does it say that it has to be done that way? And why did it take so long?
----

Oh, like ag pork. To the rich.

You know, Harvard could take some of its $10 billion +++ endowment and do a joint funding w/Oxford or another world university and profit just as handsomely.

It would be a win-win. Europe is feeling left out in science, just what their self-esteem needs.

So now stem cell research is down to simple economics, eh? Since when has government funding ever been efficient? Seems it throws more things out of whack than brings them in line.

As I said, the private money will find the way in if they're viable. At this point in time, I thought at this time they mutate too easily, adult stem cells have more capabilities.

George Soros seems to have some spare cash lying around, he could set up a center in Hungary. Buffet might have already set something up in his will, since he won't be paying his fair share in estate taxes and most of it will be going to medical research. And just to shove it to the government.

I still remember the brouhaha about the human genome project.

IIRC some government people got very pissy when the private co said they could crack the code a lot sooner than fed research, wasn't that estimate about 15 years?

Sandy P,

President Bush could have done Estrada at the same time if he wanted to.

I didn't say government funding was efficient. As for your suggestions, as an avowed capitalist, I try not to advise people to make investments that I would not make myself. If I was investing in the stem cell market, the best bet is to shoot a little bread and butter money to everyone who's doing something different with the 60 special lines. All they need to do is find something interesting enough to put in a grant proposal and the government will take care of validating the basics.

The genome project would indeed make an interesting case study, but it's really another issue. Private research investment is much better at doing things like that, where the basics are all established and the advantage goes to nimble implementation.

I don't like Bush. He's putting our country at risk.

search on:

Bush%20-%20Tribal%20Sovereignty.mp3

Ray, can you find one single word I ever said that had anything WHATSOFUCKINGEVER to do with encouraging assassinations?

No, because there are none. Expressing relatively mild disapproval of the President is not tantamount to encouraging assassination in any universe with which I am acquainted.

Darleen - Christie Whitman resigned and Colin Powell is planning to resign because they tired of being ignored. Bush's overall environmental policy in which he virtually never says no to anything big business wants, his startling lack of adequate planning for the long-term conflict in Iraq (which includes garnering more support from our allies before we started), and the dangerous lack of attention that's being paid to Afghanistan are sufficient examples for me. And there's also the small matter of the cultural war that will be ignited when a second-term Bush starts nominating anti-choice, anti-liberty justices to the Supreme Court (unless you believe that pro-choice folks will just lay down and give up without a fight when Bush attempts to re-criminalize abortion).

Those factors added together are more than enough to convince me to oppose a second Bush term.

OK, I feel like an idiot for even posting in this thread. Nothing any of us says is going to change anyone's mind - we're all wasting energy that could be put to far better use discussing rock & roll or movies...

Great post. The level of vitriol is not yet at the point where it was during the Vietnam war era, but it is getting there.

A couple liberal friends of mine know I'm blogging Kerry Haters. At first they were pretty amused about it, until my traffic meter started spinning. Now they're upset and bitter, wondering when I'm going to say something against Bush (I hated the steel tariff).

.

at 3 months, 8 months, 9 months, what?

Most Americans can live w/3 months.

In another generation or 2 we won't be discussing this. Med tech has made it a non-issue.

What environmental issues do you have problems with? Can't be arsenic. Scrubbers? Removing underbrush? What?
Can't be diesel standards.

Even Cabana Boy can't get our "allies" on board.

What is this obsession w/france? What magical powers do they and Germany have that we don't?

NATO doesn't have the manpower, our "allies" supply about 55K troops, IIRC to our million(?) or at least few hundred thousands. Belgium is union, work 9-5 and has 3x as many trupeters as other soldiers. The Dutch are also union, Germany and Japan are prevented from doing a lot of things because of a misunderstanding during the mid-20th century and a set of rules was written down. Plus, Germany is changing over from a draft to professional army - one reason because of the budget.

Russia won't because they're really not an ally, forget China, anything they can do to damage us they will, Britain and Canada are cutting their armed forces budget, Europe is still arguing about an EU army and who's going to fund it because they chose over the past 60 years to pour money in welfare, not arms.

So, just what allies are you talking about? And what do they have to offer? And who in their right mind would let that radiation-leaking DeGaulle anywhere near them?

No manpower, no high-tech weaponry, no money they really want to spend.

So, who are you going to call? Whether you like it or not, we are the defenders of western civilization. Our betters can't and won't.

BTW, what makes you think we don't have a long-term strategy in Iraq? Should we telegraph it for all to see? w already did, BTW, a general overview of the ME and democracy.

Good thing we had such a plan for the aftermath of WWII, otherwise there would have been famine, disease and death.

Oh, wait, there were those things. And that death, disease and famine lasted a lot longer.

However, Iraq's economy is growing at 60%, they have a shortage of electricity partially because people are buying things that need electricity to run, they have internet cafes, food and medicine. They also added about 1 million cars in the 9 months after the war ended. The hinterlands are actually getting water, wells and schools. And their stock market opened, one was quoted saying that Iraq could become the Japan of the ME.

I'm still waiting to get out of Sork and Germany.

--

No, Soli, Estrada waited almost 18 months and then said no thanks. W played ball nicely for a long time.

--

The basics are established. Stem Cell research has been federally funded since 2000, how long does it take for the basics to be established?

MikeR,

Ease up on the caffeine. Admittedly I could have made that comment a little more clear. The first line was to soli, the second line to you

Sandy P

Congrats, you really nailed the high points.

Again, Mike, many of your points are speculation.. Colin Powell "will resign" because he's "tired of being ignored"... and you discussed this with him, when?

What's an "anti-Liberty" judge?? (that's a new charge!)

IMHO, we are just splitting down political lines, but cultural ones, too. There are those that are embarrassed that America is hated abroad, and those that consider that hate and, in large part, find pride in it.

Sandy P

Congrats, you really nailed the high points.

Again, Mike, many of your points are speculation.. Colin Powell "will resign" because he's "tired of being ignored"... and you discussed this with him, when?

What's an "anti-Liberty" judge?? (that's a new charge!)

IMHO, we are not just splitting down political lines, but cultural ones, too. There are those that are embarrassed that America is hated abroad, and those that consider that hate and, in large part, find pride in it.

OOo...that was weird...

much apologies for the double post!

I say let's get it on. Let's take the hate all the way to the edge. Let's break out the guns and ammo. The armies of the left can go head-to-head with the armies of the right. May the best army win. Winner takes all.

Is that what we want? Or is that what our enemies want? Will we/are we so preoccupied with hating each other that we don't see the real enemy lurking in the shadows?

Remember, only by dividing America can we become weak. And the only people that can do that is ourselves.

I'm shocked that even the talk about hate is so hateful and mean spirited. A lot of people need to look in the mirror and ask themselves are they just making points for the sake of scoring or are you really trying to do what's right for the country? Are you really seeking the truth or just pushing an agenda?

After all, if all that matters is winning then hate is just as valid a strategy as any other. If anything, the terrorists have taught us that.

I don't think even centrists know what they want anymore. They don't hate Bush, but they hate themselves for thinking that maybe they should hate Bush. What's worse, president loathing, country loathing or self loathing?

Perhaps part of the problem is the incredibly prevalent lumping that goes on. You're red, blue, or, well, you're so self loathing you don't know what you want.

And if your current position doesn't truthfully fit into one of those three ugly cubbyholes, what are you? Canadian?

You'll have to forgive me if this makes me gnash my teeth a little bit. For the past three years, people who do not support the Right Wing White House have been sneered at, condescended to, accused of treason and being secret supporters of Al Quaeda.

The shoe is firmly on the other foot now. So suck it up. If you really believe in the president and his policies, then none of this should bother you. Go to the polls in November and vote your conscience. But for god's sake, quit yer belly-achin' right wingers! You have doled it out to the rest of us for long enough. It's your turn, now, so enjoy. You've all earned your spot at the table. Tonight's special is crow. Served rare.

I love my country and that is why I despise our current president and believe that January isn't soon enough to inaugurate someone else.

Ray,

Admittedly I could have made that comment a little more clear. The first line was to Soli, the second line to you

I guess I should repeat MikeR's statement. I figured you just put my name in your first line because you were repeating the same thing I said. Without further ado, find me a somewhere that I disagree with your statement that: "Anyone who condones actively trying to kill the President is wrong. Left, right or center."

If you want to attack my argument, which is: actually trying to kill the president is objectively worse than writing a book about it, please go ahead. I thought it went without saying that both of these activities are horribly wrong, but I have clarified for the record: there is absolutely nothing at all good, right, or sane about writing such a book about such a thing. Nor do I deny that the so named "BusHate" is a driving force in politics today, although I think it is more fringe them most posters here. It has not affected any of my liberal friends and if it did, I would actively disagree with them.

"Maybe if Bush wasn't forced to justify every move he (or his administration) makes, this wouldn't have happened. But, no. As it is "our duty" as Americans to question authority, we must force the President and his cabinet to go on tv and tell us why he decided to tell us we are in danger."

The only "compulsion" the President or his cabinet are under in this matter is the compulsion to have it taken for granted that George is "better" at fighting terror than John Kerry.

Tony Blair's government has to not only deal with the same press pressure (and if anyone thinks the way we talk about each other here is "hatred", they should spend a week reading nothing but the British political press and learn something of what real political invective is like)he also has to deal with a major and ongoing revolt over it in his own political party.

Despite that, this is what the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, had to say about "terror alerts" in the Sunday Observer:

"Is that really the job of a senior cabinet minister in charge of counter-terrorism? To feed the media? To increase concern? To have something to say, whatever it is, in order to satisfy the insatiable desire to hear somebody saying something?"

"Of course not. This is arrant nonsense. I've never been known as a shrinking violet and I'm the first person to say something when I've got something to say. But it is important to be able to distinguish if there is a meaningful contribution that helps to secure us from terrorism. And to understand if there isn't."

There is no reason on earth, except for naked electioneering, why Tom Ridge, Condoleeza Rice, or George W. Bush could not make the same statements.

-- A lot of people need to look in the mirror and ask themselves are they just making points for the sake of scoring or are you really trying to do what's right for the country? Are you really seeking the truth or just pushing an agenda?--

Well, there's the rub, Cap. We're discussing what's right for the country?

I'm a tail-end boomer - I think the 60s boomers have gone too far to the left. I now have a chance to speak my mind, digital brown shirt that I am. I've been silent for far too long, and am now finding my voice. Which is the problem, isn't it?

The 60s rockers should just rock on off to the porch, it's time for us young uns to have a chance. It's time for the Jones generation.

We're not bellyaching, David, we're just pointing out another side of the argument.

It's not like we own the media or anything, via the Blogfather:

The Boston Democratic convention featured a rich side menu of interesting seminars. One of the most controversial was a workshop for new Democratic campaign press secretaries that sounded like a call to arms in its advice on how to deal with the new media universe.

Lecturers urged press secretaries to confront what one warned was "media that are no longer tilted in your direction." Bullying was openly encouraged. "When it comes to the media," suggested Democratic strategist James Carville, "intimidation works." "Challenge them," added David Brock of Media Matters, a new liberal group set up to criticize conservative media outlets. Democrats used to rail at the likes of Reed Irvine and his conservative group Accuracy in Media, accusing them of nitpicking at media stories and ginning up public complaints against them. No more. It will be interesting to see what, if any, "intimidation" success stories the Democrats will be touting in coming months.

--John Fund

---

media that is no longer tilted in your direction.... hmmmm, that could make one pissy.

Soli, I do hope you're not being intentionally obtuse here. I was frigging agreeing with you.

As to whether actually pulling a trigger as opposed to inciting it being worse. I'm not really sure it's as objectively clear as you think it is.

Let me ask you a question: is one who incites genocide any less guilty than the ones who actually commit the murders? If your answer is that the inciter is as guilty as the killer, then why is it not exactly the same for a single murder?

Now deep philosophical questions aside, this discussion has veered off the original point of michele's post, so let's drop it.

You think he just happened to crash land on the White House lawn by accident?
We know that he was a crackhead and had a history of drug or alchohol problems.
Interesting...ever notice that no one ever refers to themselves as the opposite of the above -- a fiscal liberal and a social conservative? Are there any such people?

Note too that they use the term "fiscal conservative" and not "economic conservative". The label "fiscal conservative" only says that you dislike running deficits; it doesn't say you don't like more government spending and the higher taxes to pay for it.

Ray,

Ah, I appologize. That's what I thought at first, but then MikeR went on a rant about it and you sorta said he was right, so I was confused. My fault completely.

As for inciting versus doing, I agree there are circumstances where they could be held equal. An easy example is that I hold Osama equally responsible for 9/11 as the actual hijackers. It's even possible, for example in a high intensity military operation, that the person who orders the action could be more responsible than those who carry it out. On the other end of the spectrum, it's extremely problematic to hold Einstein responsible for North Korea having nukes, even though he wrote things about nuclear weapons.

My statement is specific to the level of involvement of writing a novel, but not being involved with anything beyond that (at least as far as we know, but I'm sure the Secret Services are checking). Basically, I'd say it's about the same thing ethically as calling in a phony bomb threat or sending someone a package of white powder that's just sugar.

I actually like Kerry for all the reasons that seem to matter to me as a person; he seems to have principles, is guided by the desire to do the right thing, determined, dedicated and according to some, brave and courageous, but unlike those who say "anyone but Bush" if I vote for him it will because I think he is the right person to lead this country.

I just wish I could make a decision either way without a whole host of "what ifs" plaguing my brain.

i think bush has been doing the right things, and i'm for him in this next election. but i have to agree with your first commentator who implied that this presidential hatred phonomenon is not new. i was amazed at how the republicans went against clinton; that too seemed like irrational hatred. our friends were willing to drag this country through an impeachment process just to humiliate the guy (i think they knew it would not succeed), expose this nation's children to all this sex talk (yes, conservatives did this!) and so on just because of this virulent, irrational clinton hatred. i'm proud of those republicans who voted against their party in this impeachment process.
but did those republicans who went after clinton do it in revenge for what the democrats did to nixon, another victim of venom and hatred?
what to do? well, if people have always been this irrational there is nothing one can do. if it's something in the culture, we should try to change it. but i agree with you. i was struck dumb one day when i mentioned to a well educated woman that i thought that the democrats had really gone off the rails by welcoming al sharpton into their party. she said that she would prefer him to bush, actually, because at least he opposed the iraq war. what can one say to someone who prefers sharpton running the country. just change the subject, which i did. rationality was not in play anymore.

Hatred of elected and unelected officials is older than this country.

We're still a divided country. Our two parties can't contain all our nuance any more than the two "official" positions on abortion can be used to describe how most of us feel about it. And our third parties are generally one-note laughingstocks.

I hate Bush. Not in a stockpiling ammo with his name on it kind of way, but in an I hate his statist, Christian conservative policies kind of way. I think, Michele, that the fact that he's your choice makes such opinions more noticable than the anti-Clinton chatter was. I also think the anti-Bush crowd is more visible today than the anti-Clinton crowd of yesterday because of the Internet (damn you, Al Gore!). Before, the "Let's heckle Clinton" pamplets might have reached hundreds. Today's anti-Bush rally press release makes it to hundreds of websites. Twenty people still show up, but the effect of the increased exposure makes the country seem even more divided than it actually is.

It doesn't matter if this election is 50/50 or 70/30, there are going to be many disgruntled fors, antis, and indifferent folks spewing their opinions all over the place.

Jon,
So, in light of your positive contribution, why vote for Kerry?
While you are at it, please show how Bush has lied?
No general mantras or blatherings, please. Those get old and tiresome.

One more very important question: Can you define what we can expect from a John Kerry Presidency, without mentioning President Bush?
Pretend John Kerry is running a positive campaign, and there is no Bush-bashing.
Put forth a case for John F. Kerry without making mention of President Bush.

KJC,

A John Kerry presidency will continue to win the war on terror abroad while making common sense improvements to our security like a cabinet level official with budget authority to push the CIA and FBI to work together and an increase in port security for our most vulnerable ports.

A John Kerry presidency will fund stem cell research in a way that provides economic incentives to the most promising new developments.

A John Kerry presidency will attempt to spend way too much money, only to run into the brick wall of a congress that suddenly remembers they are supposed to be conservative, causing (by complete accident) a reduction in the size of government and stopping the growth of the deficit.

only to run into the brick wall of a congress that suddenly remembers they are supposed to be conservative, causing (by complete accident) a reduction in the size of government and stopping the growth of the deficit.

You hope, depends on the win margin.

What statist Christian policies?

Blowing open SS??

School accountability?

pre-emption?

Removing deadwood?

Changing health care?

A John Kerry presidency will continue to win the war on terror abroad

How?

He's going to get out of Iraq. Democracy is not important.

Sandy P,

You hope, depends on the win margin.

Oh come on, it's going to be close no matter who wins. This isn't even in doubt.

He's going to get out of Iraq. Democracy is not important.

What are you talking about? There is absolutely no difference in proposed Iraq policy between John Kerry and President Bush.

Frankly, do I believe a Kerry Presidency would be a disaster? No. Do I think he's a opportunistic fraud? Yes.
When he starts channeling Moore, I know he's a panderer. When he brags up his heroism, I wince. I have known men with much more service than him, who have done truely heroic things. They do not brag. Most are reluctant to talk at all about their medals. In more than a few cases, I have found out how they won their medals from others because the medal bearer would not discuss it at all. They are not ashamed, just too humble to brag.

Since he and his supporters think his four months in Viet Nam qualifies him for the Presidency, my son's 6 months in Iraq (so far) means he must be more qualified than Kerry.

OT, my son is coming home on leave next week. Can't wait to smoke a cigar with him.

Statist Christian-Reconstructionist (Dominionist) policies can be found in the latest Texas GOP platform. http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2004.pdf
Tom Delay is a Dominionist - Christian Reconstructionist himself. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5376&abbr=cs_&security=1001&news_iv_ctrl=1085#1

Dominionists (Christian Reconstructionists) believe the federal government should recede into the background. This would be achieved through massive tax cuts. Then the Church would assume responsibility for welfare and education. Tax cuts, Faith-based initiatives and school vouchers are the cornerstone of Bush administration domestic policies and recommended in the Texas GOP Platform. These policies are putting the U.S. on the path toward becoming what the Platform calls a "Christian" nation. The policies are just a stepping stone for a bigger plans of making everyone a Christian.

Many men in the GOP are Dominionists. Women cannot be a dominionist because only men are allowed to have dominion over the world. Anthony Scalia is one. Scalia is also a member of Opus Dei just to put in all in context. Here is how he see the government imposing his version of Christian Reconstruction on all of us:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html

"Our aim," according to Pat Robertson at a banquet in 1984, "is to gain dominion over society." The path to dominion was made clear when Robertson told the Denver Post in 1992 that his goal was to "take working control of the Republican Party."

Here is how the Dominionists-Christian Reconstructionists plan to change the Constitution:
http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=266

Alan Keyes is another Dominionist that is on the scene today and now he is in my state and I'm learning even more about the kind of end-times world these people envision. He says the US should be a theology - weird. This cult-like group in the GOP doesn't hide their intent to implement and dominate and mandate their religious belief systems using the government.

Dianna,

Please post on the DU where you'll feel more at home.

KJC: I don't actually think Bush lied. I don't think he told the truth about WMDs, but I don't think he did so deliberately. I'm not even sure where I am alleged to have said he lied. Not telling the truth doesn't equal lying. Lying is deliberate. What Bush did was tell a mistruth based on bad information that he found credible.

As for statist Christian conservative stuff, look at his speeches and his judicial nominees. I don't want any of that.

Ray,

I've known people who were real heros and were not humble about it. I do know exactly what you're talking about, however. I never even knew my grandfather had a Distinguished Service Cross from WWII until my grandmother had it displayed at his funeral. I asked her about it and even she didn't know what he'd got it for. I do think that one of the most insulting things you can do to anyone stood up and did their duty for this country is to call them unpatriotic.

I know you are concerned about Kerry's military service, so you probably already know that "4 months" is just the time from his second tour of duty in Vietnam. His first tour, which he served out completely, was on the USS Gridley. He also has the experience as a leader in the VVAW and 20 distinguished years in the Senate. In general he's just been very successful in almost every part of his life and that's the kind of person I want as president. That's just a little more then being qualified by "four months" don't you think?

I did not question his patriotism. I question his motives. And I find his bragging and swaggering extremely offensive.

His activities in the VVAW, we have discussed before. You know where I stand on that. What he did is not forgivable. Period.

What exactly has he accomplished in the Senate, though. I'd really like to know. Since as far as I can tell he really hasn't done much.

I think the Dem's made a horrible mistake with this man.

Ray,

What is the DU? And why are you telling me to go there? And who are you - can you post your website? I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Ray,

What I meant to suggest is that one reason he has to do all that bragging you find objectionable is because his patriotism is continually being questioned, not that you personally were doing the questioning. For example, the RNC hate machine ginned up all these phony charges about his Senate voting record on military spending. Now, if these charges were serious, it would be a fair discussion to have, but because they are phony (which we've talked about before) they end up being essentially "Kerry is unpatriotic" repeated over and over.

I also think it's very important that the people who actually served with him support him strongly. Those guys are the ones who lived or died based on the decisions that he made under fire, so their opinions count for a lot with me. I think the recommendations his commanding officers gave for him at the time, when those recommendations meant that they thought he should be up to take more responsibility in the future are important. If those same commanders changed their minds well after Kerry was no longer under them in a position of making life and death decisions, I really don't care.

I know we disagree about the VVAW activities. I think he was right, I think he helped us get out of a useless war earlier than we would have otherwise. Smarter people than us have beat that issue to death on both sides long ago. Since we are talking about what Kerry supporters (such as myself) consider qualifications, I'd say this counts, even if non-Kerry supporters such as yourself find it objectionable. The fact that he was so involved in that movement clearly and irrevocably is also a real blow against the claim that his is unprincipled or blows with the wind.

As for his Senate career, he's taken serious stands (including unpopular but principled stands) on many issues (he has fairly impressive budget cutting cred for example, which we have discussed before). He's been on committees (yes I know, it's basically impossible to make Senate work sound sexy) that did interesting things. A good read is the BCCI Affair ir you're interested in examples of that sort of thing.

Of all the Democratic candidates, the only one I really liked better was Wes Clark. I wouldn't even really say that Clark had better qualifications, but I think he would be more interesting and that he has views closer to mine than Kerry does.

Soli, Viet Nam was business. Vodkapundit has a new post up kind of covers it.

I also think it's very important that the people who actually served with him support him strongly.

Some do, some don't, but if he got them moved to a safer billet after he left....I can see why they would support him strongly.

---

You hope, depends on the win margin.
Oh come on, it's going to be close no matter who wins. This isn't even in doubt.

Define close, Soli. What is your margin?

He's going to get out of Iraq. Democracy is not important.
What are you talking about? There is absolutely no difference in proposed Iraq policy between John Kerry and President Bush.

Really? Did he flop again?

I could have sworn certain parts of the blogosphere were abuzz with a comment or 2 he made about not being as interested in democracy in Iraq and his goal of bringing the troops home by the end of his term. Or maybe I'm just inferring. Maybe he should be more clear.

IMHO, Kerry's going to give them a hudna or an outright win - psychologically. He's going to Viet Nam us again. We won it, and because we thought we lost it, we've been fighting it internally for 30 years. We are winning this current battle, we can't bring them home.

No hudnas, win, lose a battle we press on. We're in a different kind of battle, got to fight it a different way.

Spin aside, you might want to look at Factcheck. He did have a pretty strong track record against defense spending - which he now says was a mistake. But it's there (including the votes against the B-2 bomber that I thought I recalled). I take all campaign stuff with a grain of salt the size of a house.

I'm not worked up over the Swift Boat Vets thing only because it really comes down to "he said" stuff. Except the one about Christmas in Cambodia. It appears that Kerry has been telling an outright lie about that over the years.

By now you realize I would not vote for this man under any circumstances.

By now you should also realize I detest extremists on either side of the political spectrum. But the far left have reached a level of derangement that is getting scary. I was never as frightened by the far right because the mainstream Republicans reigned them in. The Dem's are embracing creeps like Moore.

Sen. John Kerry often tells a story about John and Mary Ann Knowles. The Democratic Presidential nominee points to this local coupleís difficulties as evidence of the failure of the Bush administrationís health care policies.

According to the Massachusetts senator, itís the story of a man who lost his job, and a woman undergoing debilitating cancer treatments who feared she would lose their health insurance if she did not work every day.

But while the Knowles couple, by any measure, has had a rough go of it lately, John Knowles told the New Hampshire Sunday News a different story last week.

He said Mary Ann could have taken disability leave without losing health insurance, although her pay would have been cut somewhat. She did not take time off, he said, but that was to conserve her sick days, not to protect her insurance. They both say she has good health coverage.

Mary Annís employer suggests that Kerry misstated the situation.

The Kerry campaign yesterday defended the candidateís statements, but said that Mary Ann did take time off during chemotherapy.

---

Next thing he'll be trotting out grandmas who have to pick up aluminum cans to pay medical bills. Of course she's picking up the cans while driving her Winnebago.....

New Hampshire Sunday News 8/8

Good Lord. More evidence....

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/87446.html

This is dangerous.

Monday the LA Times, not Fox News, had a front page story that claims that Kerry's pledge to get the UN to come in and replace our troops with theirs is a myth. They have quotes from Europeans that state what this blog (Roger L. Simon's place) has been saying for months. France and Germany have no intentions of sending any troops to Iraq. Russia and China will not donate any either. They are the only countries that have the types of forces that could reasonably be expected to take our forces place. So the cornerstone of Kerry's secret plan is dead before he takes office.The only option Kerry has is to keep our troops in Iraq or to pull them out. But Kerry says he is not going to cut and run and he says a bulk of our troops are going to be home in a year.Please read the LA Times article and explain how Kerry will pull off his plan without the troops.

--

Comment off of RLS's blog - Soli, did you read the article?

In the USA Today editorial: "Kerry suggests that sharing economic opportunities, such as oil contracts, would bring others in."

Off of Pejman.

Gee, sort of sound like coalition of the bribed to me.

And as the poster pointed out, now that Iraq controls the contracts, we really can't go doing that, can we?

Ray,

We had this whole conversation already. I agree with everything the Fact Check article says (it supports all my points completely). It could go into more detail explaining the reasons for things like the fact that after winning the cold war it made total sense to cut the military. Here's the flaming liberal quote I gave you last time we talked:

Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own because they are the right thing to do. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. - President George H.W. Bush in SotA address

Sandy P,

Here's what I said: "There is absolutely no difference in proposed Iraq policy between John Kerry and President Bush." I stand by this statement and I think you do have a fairly accurate understanding of the plan proposed by both candidates. Iraq is a soverein nation. The second we get it stable, we will move out (except the military bases they let us have) and let them take care of it. That's the plan. Now both candidates have made predictions about when the stability will appear and how much the UN will help us that seem to be extremely optimistic. That doesn't change the fact that both of them have committed to stay after these predictions predictably turn out to be wrong.

Define close, Soli. What is your margin?

It's going to be close enough that the Republican Congress will not think the margin is so big that they should support his spending :). I would be shocked if either gets 50% of the popular. I would say Congress would not give him credit for a "mandate" without 60% of the popular.

Soli, You know that quote is out of context and is just a Dem talking point. That was made AFTER the USSR folded. Kerry was voting BEFORE. That is not equivalent.

Kerry rates as a 92 (out of 100)lifetime liberal on the AFL/CIO vote tracking site. Higher than Kennedy. Not a RNC talking point, something I found on that site.

Even the MSM is beginning to report that many of his stated plans won't work.

I repeat, the Dem's really blew it picking this guy. He's a cypher.

Ray,

Here are you go:

Against the bombers:
Kerry voted often against nuclear missiles and bombers in the '90s, but GOP claims that he opposed a long list of conventional weapons are overblown.

The wall was down in 1989.

Kerry called for B-1's cuts in 1984, not B-2's (as I think I said before, there's a reason we don't buy bows and arrows for our guys today). If you've got a Fact Check that says something different, let me know.

Here's the AFL-CIO votes page. You can tell me which of those votes you have a problem with if you want, but if you think you get meaningful statistics out of 10-15 votes a year in a subset chosen by the AFL-CIO, I disagree.

The Main Stream Media's (MSM) opinion on complex policy proposals is good for a laugh. I'd rather here your opinion with some facts to back it up.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147 mentions repeated efforts to cut the B-2 along with several other systems.

I didn't state that the AFL/CIO pages was particularly meaningful. Just wanted to point out that a.) he's considered "Liberal" by at least one organization out there that is not affiliated with the VRWC and B.) that WHAT is voted for means a lot more than just a raw vote count. Should have clarified that.

Frankly his "Secret Plan" to get more international support is a bunch of hooey. Does he honestly believe the French, German and Russians are going to send troops because he asks? I doubt they will change their foriegn policies because he gets elected.

I don't think much of the MSM, as I'm sure you know, but the fact that they actually are noticing that JFK's plans don't work may be significant. He's been getting a free ride from the press all through this campaign.

I'm sorry. I thought the commenters, like Ray, wanted an answer as to why there is "hatred" and why many Americans are reacting negatively to Bush's policies.

I explained a common opinion that there are some powerful right of the right wing people in the GOP now and they want to put an end-times type of Christianity (called Christian Reconstructivism or Dominionism) in everyone's lives through the government.

And I was told to basically go away - to DU - whatever that is, because it is an extremist position.

Look, you can call me extremist - fine. All I did was post what these right of the right-wing people are quoted as saying.

To call me extremist and tell me to go away, isn't going to make the right of the right wing people go away - they are real and their are serious about their calling.

You can call me an extremist and tell me to go away. It doesn't change the fact that I'm just a church-going, PTA, suburban soccer Mom who is very concerned about the current and proposed policies of this administration. And I'm not alone - as you know - many Americans dislike the policies of this administration.

The people I know in my community, a GOP county and town, share my concern. Yes we love Jesus, but not the way the Bush administration has been doing and proposing.

And most in my community aren't on the internet and they profess to not care about politics although they do vote.
They are too busy getting the work of the community done, working, taking care of their kids, which is what I should get back to. I just dropped in because it looked like a conversation was going to happen.

If you consider my opinions extreme, then I predict, one day, you will REALLY wonder why so many Americans have walked away from the GOP. It won't just be a rhetorical question.

Ray,

He voted repeatedly to cancel the B-2 Stealth bomber, for example, in 1989, 1991 (twice ) and 1992. - the Fact Check article we both cited

Thus, Kerry voted against the B-2 after the Cold War was over.

Soli, You know that quote is out of context and is just a Dem talking point. That was made AFTER the USSR folded. Kerry was voting BEFORE. That is not equivalent. - Ray

I am not taking the quote out of context at all. It, along with Kerry's votes against the B-2, were both after the Cold War. They are equivalent. If it is a talking point, it is a correct talking point.

I've never heard of any "Secret Plan." I agree that the UN is not going to step in at the scale either of the major candidates for office have predicted.

Also, if you follow the AFL-CIO link which I posted, it does not have him listed as a "Liberal" as you claim. Maybe it's somewhere that I didn't look. What they actually claim to be judging is: "each member's lifetime record of support for working families." I don't think "support for working families" is exclusive to liberals. It sounds more like the sort of generic, meaningless phrase that is regularily tossed out from both sides.

The cold war didn't end in 1989. It took a bit longer to wind down. It didn't end when the wall fell.

Anyway, I haven't seen you respond about the Christmas in Cambodia issue.

And Kerry was quoted talking about his secret plan. Which is, of course, too secret to reveal......hooey.

Dianna,

you wrote:

I explained a common opinion that there are some powerful right of the right wing people in the GOP now and they want to put an end-times type of Christianity (called Christian Reconstructivism or Dominionism) in everyone's lives through the government.

Common to whom?

I actually looked at some of the stuff you posted as "proof" of your assertions.

I'm guessing you believe that the imposition of another's belief system upon another is wrong. Fine. I go along with that. Absolutely correct.

So why do you think the au. types have the right to impose their beliefs on me?

Better to impose some vague, yet vaguely threatening-sounding name on the people you disagree with. "Dominionist", "Neo-con", etc.

You seem to think you're sounding an alarm. A modern-day Paul Revere. One if by land, two if by sea.

How about three if by moonbat?

Tom Delay CANNOT impose religious rule upon the United States. This is an absolutely absurd accusation. Are you really so easily led that you would vote for any such thing? Or any such people who would impose this?

This is DU conspiracy theory crap. Period.

I really must stop feeding the trolls. Forgive me, michele.

Ray,

I don't know a damn thing about the "Christmas in Cambodia issue." I have nothing to add to the discussion. They should have a Jerry Springer show on it or something.

The end of the Cold War is somewhere in 1989-1991. You can say whatever you want about it, it's not like you can point to a day they made an official surrender. If you ask me, communism lost the day it tried to compete economically with capitalism. The only thing that made it scary at the end were the nukes, which they had basically backed down on even before the wall came down.

Communism hasn't lost, it just went into hiding for a decade until we gave them a reason to come out.

Do you think that all those peace marches in Europe contained pacifists?

Read, if you can, that EU "Constitution."

Start reading EURSOC. It wasn't done correctly the last time, but, by gum, they're giving it another shot. Of course THIS TIME it will work, and they will be equal to the US. But of course they won't call it that.

There's also EU Referendum for the Brit view.

You've never heard of Kerry's secret plan? He has a plan but refuses to tell it before being elected so it can't be picked apart. Same w/his economic plan, that's what R. Rubin said a couple of weeks ago.

And today on John Gibson, one of his foreign policy experts, Rice, didn't know that Germany, France and Russia already said they're not helping, they're not going to commit more. John quoted from the LA Times article and the FT also mentioned it.

NATO has 30K troops. Great, but NATO's total EU troop contribution is 55K, IIRC.

I just wonder if to get the troops, he's going to put us into the ICC, goodbye 4th 5th and 6th amendment rights or buy them off w/Kyoto or some such manoeuver.

Then you can really kiss those 10m jobs he's going to create goodbye. Plus millions more.

If your heart can stand it, Soli, or you don't get the vapors easily, start reading Rantburg. Stick with them and you'll learn a lot.

My real question is, why aren't you paying attention to what your candidate is saying? Why do we know this and you don't?

I'm not exactly sure who wrote it, but it's in the LA TIMES:

...Not only in the Cold War but also in other events that foreshadowed today's challenges, Kerry consistently got it wrong. In 1986, Reagan bombed Moammar Kadafi's residence when intelligence intercepts showed that the Libyan dictator was behind the terrorist bombing of a nightclub full of American soldiers in Germany. Kerry denounced the U.S. retaliatory strike as "not proportional." And when Saddam Hussein swallowed Kuwait in 1990, Kerry opposed using force to drive him out, calling instead for reliance on economic sanctions.

All in all, in his 20 years in the Senate, Kerry ranks as one of the five most dovish or liberal members on foreign policy if you tally up the key votes selected by the liberal advocacy group, Americans for Democratic Action. Is it any wonder that Kerry is seeking to focus voters' attention on his courage as a Navy officer rather than his judgment as a political leader?

---

Odd that was printed and today Libya announced it's paying compensation to the victims of the Berlin bombing.

Ahh, now some red meat:

Kerry's campaign documents, according to Bush Cheney '04, show his proposed tax rollback would apply to single filers earning as little as $147,000 and married couples' joint income as low as $179,000.

Via Econopundit.

Sandy P,

My real question is, why aren't you paying attention to what your candidate is saying? Why do we know this and you don't?

That is a good question. Probably because I'm just not in touch with my internal Limbaugh. I understand that you believe that Kerry has some "secret plan." Then I can work back from what you said and generally come up with the original material after working through only 5 or 6 of the exact same contentless howls (is citing your sources really that difficult?) and then it turns out it's something like Kerry claims he can play better hard-ball negotiator then Bush and Rush extrapolated a 20 minute conspiracy rant from that. The truth is, some reporter asked Kerry/Edwards a good question, to explain their plan is different from the current plan. They don't have an answer, because their plan is the exact same thing, so they just claim that somehow being John Kerry makes it magically better. I called BS on that 6 months ago and it's just as true today.

Okay, now we're back to exactly what I said already. Kerry and Bush have the exact same plan on Iraq. Neither Kerry nor President Bush is going to get Europe to bail us out of this one. Both of them are wildly exaggerating this possibility. Why don't you know that?

Soli,

I've already let my feeling on Kerry's bragging be known. But his repeated claims to have been IN Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 are beyond the pale. michele has an extensive round-up this morning.

Ray,

Missing from all those links: what's the damage? What makes this "beyond the pale"? I think we have a very different definition of what that means. Worst case: Kerry made up a war story 30 years ago. I don't care. Beyond the trivial.

"Kerry's campaign documents, according to Bush Cheney '04, show his proposed tax rollback would apply to single filers earning as little as $147,000 and married couples' joint income as low as $179,000.

Via Econopundit."--Sandy P

As LOW as $147K? That's the stupidest thing I've read since the woman who aborted two out of three to keep out of Costco. I'm sorry, but my sympathetic heartstrings aren't exactly getting strummed there.

He appears to have lied on the Senate floor. This doesn't bother you?

Ray,

You're upset that a Senator (in the worst case interpretation) lied on the Senate floor about trivia? It wasn't even a lie to get a bill passed on false pretenses or anything, just some sort of bizarro personal puff. If I got upset every time that happens, I'd be upset all the time. I get a little upset when someone comes out and says their bill will only cost $400 billion in 10 years when they know it's actually going to cost more than $500 billion, but far from "beyond the pale" outrage. That's something that's a real issue which may have affected the outcome of a serious vote. If you want to talk about lying in the Senate or elsewhere, are you applying that standard equally?

I am being a little under-dramatic with "I don't care." It's a relevant point, and he deserves to take a hit for it. However, to call it "beyond the pale" is just silly. People lie all the time, in the Senate and elsewhere, about stuff way that's more important. "Beyond the pale" is the guy who writes about assasination of President Bush or the guy who burns our covert agents. "Beyond the pale" is not business as normal for a politician. This is the sort of stuff you could get our of your system by rioting on Jerry Springer.

It's the military family background. This is just not done.

Next, I understand he was, indeed, using this to try to get a bill passed.

More importantly, it goes directly to character.

The phrase beyond the pale was probably a bit strong. Reacting to your just don't care comment.

Ray,

I think the record clearly shows that your "beyond the pale" comment was made before my "I don't care" comment. I think you were responding to my "I don't know anything about it" comment. Now we are so far off the original topic I don't even know how we got here :).

You are correct.

The dems are trying to spin this, but it LOOKS like spin. That's usually a bad sign.

There are a lot of people who will think this matters, Soli.

Soli (and others); I don't really give a shit as to how great the hate was during the Clinton years. I care about here and now and what it's doing to our country.

Then prove it. When Kerry wins, use your blog to advocate uniting the country behind him rather than continuing the division of the Clinton and Bush II Presidencies.

And if you think Bush hatred outweighs Clinton hatred - where are the impeachments against Bush?

Interesting...ever notice that no one ever refers to themselves as the opposite of the above -- a fiscal liberal and a social conservative? Are there any such people?

Er, the current Bush Administration?

Jack Cluth--

The left DID invent this game. The Weathermen, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the Black Panthers. All vilified America and its leaders. Go back and read what was commonly written about Reagan. Remember Bork? Clarence Thomas? The left has been stuck in a hate mentality for decades. Too bad it can't save some scorn for America's enemies.