I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I’m tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so. His favorite answer to the question of nepotism–“I inherited half my father’s friends and all his enemies”–conveys the laughable implication that his birth bestowed more disadvantage than advantage. He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school–the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks–shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks–blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one’s social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.
Yeah, hates that kid who was goven the car on his 16th birthday…sounds like plain jane envy to me.
Social superiority? Have you listened to any congressman or senators talk lately, or over the past 200 years or so? Give me a freaking break, is this guy your twin brother McCullough?
That’s bullshit Mister Tim “I’m so smart” Elhajj! He has the goddamned RIGHT to fuck up his sentences! And you’re just going to have to suck it up, my friend. :P
What issue is/will this be in? I just got the one before it I think. (Why the fuck does Milwaukee get magazines so late? We’re 90 minutes from Chicago!)
[size=2]I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I’m tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so. His favorite answer to the question of nepotism–“I inherited half my father’s friends and all his enemies”–conveys the laughable implication that his birth bestowed more disadvantage than advantage. He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school–the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks–shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks–blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one’s social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.[/size]
yes, unlike the above fountain of logical reasoning and tounge tapestry of restraint, I’m sure Ponnuru is too much for you to handle.
I’d love to see them. I don’t even like Ponnoru all that much, but I have never seem him produce anything to match the likes of the ad hominem, juvenile criticisms leveled by this Chait you so laud.
But Bush hatred has taken on a life of its own. It is now a sentiment that unites the Democratic Party, from Iraq hawks to Iraq doves, from moderates to liberals, from policy analysts at the Democratic Leadership Council to readers of The Nation, from union leaders to the people who wear “Impeach Bush” t-shirts.
Uh, no. You’ll just have to take my word for this as a member of the Democratic party.
And, since the left’s attacks on him have, more than any factor besides the war on terrorism, bonded the right to Bush, they have actually freed him to be more moderate.
Does anyone actually think Bush has been more moderate since 9/11?
Clinton got in trouble in 1993 because his initiatives had not been vetted during the campaign: Bush père hadn’t challenged him on the military gay ban, and Clinton hadn’t talked about raising taxes.
Bush says when he’s elected, no new taxes. Clinton says when he’s elected he’ll raise taxes. Now you can’t vote for Bush because he might be lying and you can’t vote for Clinton because he might be telling the truth. --Leno, 9/28
For some people, the dislike is personal. It’s not the unearned privilege Bush was born into (his detractors don’t have anything against the Kennedys).
Ponnuru apparently missed the part where the Kennedys refrain from claiming they’re self-made hardscrabble businessmen.
I don’t see that many that show him under 50%, and most of those are heavily tinged in specific questions rather than general “do you like Bush” sort of things.
Uh, no. You’ll just have to take my word for this as a member of the Democratic party.
Complete and utter bullshit, and even you knew it when you wrote it. Bush loathing, however justified or irrational, is the only thing the left can fully agree on. No matter how many caveats you attach to it (but I didn’t hate him before Iraq, etc etc blah blah), you know the truth is you’ve hated him, viscerally, from the moment he first lurched across the political stage.
Does anyone actually think Bush has been more moderate since 9/11?
Yes, I do. I seem to recall voting for a “conservative” president, not a half-assed tax cuts + war president. If you are arguing “moderation” in terms of degree alone, then of course the extent of his ambitions has increased; but you (and Ponnoru) are both talking about his place on the political spectrum, where I think he has been moderate bordering on ineffectual. Remember, it was not that long ago that poorly planned foreign adventurism was the province of Democrats as well.
[quote]Clinton got in trouble in 1993 because his initiatives had not been vetted during the campaign: Bush père hadn’t challenged him on the military gay ban, and Clinton hadn’t talked about raising taxes.
Bush says when he’s elected, no new taxes. Clinton says when he’s elected he’ll raise taxes. Now you can’t vote for Bush because he might be lying and you can’t vote for Clinton because he might be telling the truth. --Leno, 9/28
[/quote]
I’m really confused at the Leno quote and the preceding. What?
[quote]For some people, the dislike is personal. It’s not the unearned privilege Bush was born into (his detractors don’t have anything against the Kennedys).
Ponnuru apparently missed the part where the Kennedys refrain from claiming they’re self-made hardscrabble businessmen.[/quote]
Now I know you’re scraping the bottom. These are the sort of magnificent lies? That you don’t think anti-wealth bias on the part of the Democratic faithful is hypocritical, and a Republican does? SOUNDS LIKE A MATTER OF OPINION.
[quote]Yes, They’re Anti-Catholic.
(argues that Senate Democrats are anti-Catholic)[/quote]
The substance of his article is directed at establishing that Senate Democrats are opposed to Catholic ideology in principle and in practice. Some shocker.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
He’s a political hack, the equivalent of Terry McAuliffe.
Not based on what you’ve offered. And, still, nowhere remotely near the macabre level of childishness that the cause of this thread lay bare in just that one article.
