Something I find disturbing... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

irateplatypus · 12-03-2003, 08:50 AM

What is it about President Bush that some people find so offensive? I've seen people who are usually calm and reserved practically foam at the mouth at the mention of his name. I know there is room for disagreement w/policy, but there is something else going on here. I'm often surprised at the virulent and malevolent attitudes that some regard him with. Discussions about politics turn into blatantly hateful insults that have little to do w/the topic.

I'm not saying that everyone who disagrees w/the President is like this, but there is definitely an element of hate involved for some people.

Have you seen this also? Do you feel this way about the President? What is the cause?

Sparhawk · 12-03-2003, 09:10 AM

I'll just modify this a little bit to give some perspective:

What is it about President Clinton that some people find so offensive? I've seen people who are usually calm and reserved practically foam at the mouth at the mention of his name. I know there is room for disagreement w/policy, but there is something else going on here. I'm often surprised at the virulent and malevolent attitudes that some regard him with. Discussions about politics turn into blatantly hateful insults that have little to do w/the topic.

I'm not saying that everyone who disagrees w/the President is like this, but there is definitely an element of hate involved for some people.

Have you seen this also? Do you feel this way about the President? What is the cause?

Ustwo · 12-03-2003, 09:13 AM

I can see why the left hates Bush. They think he is everything they are not, and on top of it they hate him for being loved by so many of the American people (who they then think of as stupid). Now George is not far right by any means, but most of the left doesn't really look at deep, they see him as the quintessential evil, homophobic, white, male, republican. Now take that he barely won the election, ignored the precious Kyoto treaty, became greatly respected after 9/11, decided to stop playing the politics of the UN, and they hate him. They hate him because he, that cowboy from Texas, who can hardily speak in public, who is sooooo STUPID, can make them look bad at every turn or even utterly ignore them. He has pissed on everything they hold dear and most Americans like him for it. And now to add insult to injury the economy is improving! This lying, deceitful, stupid, evil, warmongering, buffoon is going to get re-elected!!! If ONLY the STUPID American people could see how WRONG GWB was!!! Oh how they hate him!!

But Bush is just a symbol of this hate. The real hate is for the American people and way of life. Anyone who voted for Bush must be stupid, selfish, and/or evil.

Ustwo · 12-03-2003, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
I'll just modify this a little bit to give some perspective:

You mean there was a 'Hate Clinton' gathering and I wasn't invited?

Macheath · 12-03-2003, 09:56 AM

I think it has a lot to do with the era in which we live. This is a time of great uncertainty. The cold war is over and the old paradigms do not apply in the same way. Great doubt has been cast on the ideas of what used to constitute conservatism and liberalism.

Bush is the representative or figurehead of a new right wing activism. One part of that activism during the Gingrich years of the 1990s, as Sparhawk alluded to, was a white hot and calculated hatred of Bill Clinton. Perhaps the left fears that this new right wing activism will destabilize the global order unless they can temper it with their own new perspective.

A large part of their currently unfocussed energy involves a visceral fear and loathing of George W. Bush and what will happen to international relations during his tenure. This energy should be focussed on finding and communicating a new left wing alternative perspective. The success or failure of this effort will dictate the future of political argument.

Phaenx · 12-03-2003, 10:07 AM

I didn't really have a problem with Clinton until the whole DNA evidence thing.

But anyways, there was a lot of hate for Bush before he even began his presidency. While he was running people were still foaming at the mouth. The "Bush is a moron!" mantra was evident even then, he got crucified for misusing a few words, and making one up.

I don't think it has to do with his policies, a lot of people just hate him on a personal level for whatever reason. Calling someone a moron/idiot typically does denote something personal, I probably didn't need to analyze in that context.

lurkette · 12-03-2003, 10:14 AM

I hate that he is smug, intellectually challenged and proud of it (and I don't mean stupid, I mean intellectually incurious), assumes that he has a monopoly on moral truth, and couldn't give a shit what the 50.1% of the country who didn't vote for him think. I don't find him compassionate at all - quite the contrary. I think he is mean-spirited (go find that interview of him discussing granting a stay of execution for that woman right before the election), small-minded, lacks any capacity for nuance, and is easily led by the ideologues he has surrounded himself with. After 9/11 we needed a strong leader to bind us together, and he did that for about 5 minutes before he manipulated the situation to push through his and his advisors' vision of America's role in the world, which has been in the works (by Cheney and Wolfowitz) since his father's administration - they saw an opportunity to grab the hegemonic golden ring, and the grabbed at it, consequences be damned. He's at heart a selfish coward who ran from service on all levels and is callously expending our military for questionable aims.

That's it in a nutshell.

Rodney · 12-03-2003, 10:20 AM

We mealy-mouthed liberals are often willing to give somebody the benefit of the doubt. But Bush says one thing and does another -- constantly.

There was the No Child Left Behind initiative -- big fanfare, then most funding yanked.

Bush came out in favor of Americorps as a model institution ; then slashed funding.

Bush Administration talks about support for troops. Then slashes subsidies to public school districts that serve child from military bases (that don't pay property tax).

"I'm a uniter, not a divider," or something like that. That didn't work out, either.

The Bush administration was going to clean up Wall Street and protect the investor -- but aside from a couple of high-profile prosecutions, it's business as usual and the SEC is still a lapdog. How can the markets work if confidence is lost? How much of the current "good news" that hopefully will point to higher employment is actually due to cooked books and offshoring jobs?

We conquered Afghanistan -- are now are losing it because no money was originally put in the budget to rebuild it. (Republican congressmen put $400 million in the budget for it to avoid embarassment). We're losing the country again.

Too many Bush policies are obvious payoffs to Halliburton, energy interests, big corporations at the expense of the population and our armed forces.

I'm wholly in favor of a two-term Bush presidency -- because at the end of that time, this country will be so screwed up the people will be ready for socialism!

Ustwo · 12-03-2003, 10:52 AM

You made to many statements to go point by point, so lets take a big one.

Quote:

After 9/11 we needed a strong leader to bind us together, and he did that for about 5 minutes before he manipulated the situation to push through his and his advisors' vision of America's role in the world, which has been in the works (by Cheney and Wolfowitz) since his father's administration

I can’t think of anyway or anyone who could have bound us together better then GWB after 9/11. About the only people trying to change that are the democrats who are so desperate for a victory in 2004 they will oppose this president on all fronts including the war on terror, some going so far as to claim that Bush knew about 9/11 and allowed it to happen for his own political gain, (tinfoil hats for everyone!). Also I find it amusing how everyone assumes he was manipulated into Iraq. You assume he is so stupid/naive that he was led around by the nose into Iraq, but maybe HE wanted to do it, and has Cheney and Wolfowitz working for him because THEY agree with HIM. You can’t even see him as a leader, even if the worst of your motives for him were true.

Like it or not GWB IS a leader, he is not the kind of man who worries about the current poll and what a focus group is going to say. He has good people around him, he does what he thinks is best, and he doesn’t just talk about what should be done, he DOES it.

Superbelt · 12-03-2003, 10:59 AM

I hate Bush. I hate him for reasons that affect me though, unlike those who hated Clinton.

I hate him for happily presiding over more destructive environmental practices.

I hate him for increasing my burden of national debt by giving our money back to rich people rather than those who would really need it.

I hate him for giving tax breaks to a dying breed of energy producers rather than give it to the future. To renewable energies. Upwards of 23 billion to fossil fuels in the current energy bill. What was it, 1.5 to renewables? And most of that went to ethanol, which is a waste of time. it's pork.

I hate him for screwing schools with No Child Left Behind. A clear effort to open the doors to vouchers. I hate him for appointing a man who has a 40% failure rate in Houston schools as head of the nations educaton efforts.

I hate him for literally ignoring information that goes against his already settled course. I hear information about how his own advisors say that once he latches on to something he doesn't even want to hear evidence to the contrary and can never be swayed.

I hate him for doing things he thinks is right, regardless of what the best minds of the field think. He doesn't care about what america would want. He doesn't listen to a balance of academics on the subject. He just does something. That isn't right.

That is not a leader. That is an opportunist.

Redlemon · 12-03-2003, 11:03 AM

There is an AMAZING article in last week's Time Magazine, and you can still get to it online: The Love Him, Hate Him President. Worth reading for everyone who either loves him or hates him, and wants to know why other people don't agree with them.

I won't say which side I fall on.

Conclamo Ludus · 12-03-2003, 11:22 AM

Hate is just misplaced fear. Its self-destructive and counterproductive. Look where all the Bill Clinton-hating got the republicans. Most people laughed at them for it.

That aside, hate can be a motivator if it is recognized as fear. But I don't think many people take that leap enough to say they are afraid of the "other guy" succeeding. Hating Bush or Clinton, for that matter, has always seemed like a waste of emotional energy. When you have a person in office that you disagree with, you swallow your pride, calm yourself down, and learn how to work with him to fix the problems you want fixed, while you bide your time until the next election. You do whatever it takes to get the problem solved, even if you can't take "credit" for getting it solved. If you want to see a solution to a problem, you work with him to get it done. If the solution isn't good enough? Tough shit, you go back to the drawing board and try to fix it again, and then you vote him out. If he gets voted in again? Tough shit, you rinse and repeat. You work your ass off and don't waste time standing around fuming about him which is where hate can easily lead you.

The nice thing about democracy is that things don't stay the same for too long.

The other problem with hate is that it can easily turn others off from your cause. Its fine to campaign on hating Bush, if you only want people who hate Bush to vote for you. People are suspect when it comes they see someone so filled with anger, as they should be. This is why I see it as a counterproductive emotion.

Vote.

irateplatypus · 12-03-2003, 02:19 PM

sparhawk, thanks for hijacking the thread on the first response. outstanding.

irateplatypus · 12-03-2003, 02:33 PM

rodney and superbelt,

thanks for your responses, but that isn't the thrust of the thread. see, you listed reasons for disliking the President. I don't share your viewpoint or trust the figures on many of the listed concerns, but at least you know why you dislike him and can back it up with examples from his policy. what baffles me is the volume of people who cite reasons like "He is stupid", "He is evil" or "He thinks he is a cowboy." Granted, the direction of this thread will tend to veer towards those who do not think this way (because who would admit to being so caustic?) but have ran into people who argue w/them like this. So, I suppose that most of the insight will come from observations rather than reasons from a person who attacks the President in this way.

lurkette · 12-03-2003, 02:53 PM

irateplatypus, you asked "Do you feel this way about the President? What is the cause?" I'm not sure what you expected as answers, but it seems to me that people have pretty much stayed on topic. And I don't think Sparhawk threadjacked - I think he pointed out legitimately that you could probably apply the same statements to most presidents, particularly ones like Bill Clinton and GWB who seem to polarize people for one reason or another. The TIME article Redlemon refers to talks about the polarization of the American people, and like it or not, it's going to be very hard to find someone these days who doesn't produce fear and loathing in a large segment of society.

Sparhawk · 12-03-2003, 02:56 PM

Well, it doesn't look like I hijacked it at all, actually.

My point is that if the right wants to understand why the left hates Bush, they need only look as far back as 3 years ago at how they felt about Clinton.

little limey · 12-03-2003, 08:02 PM

George Bush bases all of his decisions on religion and morals. He turns everything into a fight against evil. This just makes him seem close minded and stupid. If he didn't depend on religion so much, therefore being more of an intellectual, I would respect him more.

OFKU0 · 12-03-2003, 08:21 PM

I think that people hate Bush just like they may hate their regional city councillors. When a councillor sticks his nose into other councillors wards,people get ticked cuz that councillor isn't honoring the counstituents who elected him.

I think if Bush was less interested in saving and changing the world to what he thinks is right and paid more attention to domestic affairs,he'd have more support.

If he is doing what he is doing cuz he feels people think he is an intellilectual lightweight,well then I would say that has backfired.He looks dumber now than before. He should have tried to shake the redneck image rather than promoting it.

shakran · 12-03-2003, 10:04 PM

Because he's a poor president, whether you agree with his policies or not. I'm sorry, but anyone in his position who not only admits, but is proud to state, that he purposely avoids reading any news papers, listening or watching any news casts, and instead relies on his advisors (read: Cheney and Rumsfeld) to tell him what's happening in the world is a dangerous man to have at the helm.

Let's look at an example. If you were driving down the road, would you rely solely on your passengers to tell you which way to drive and where the obstacles are, or would you open your eyes and look for yourself?

They hate him because he and his administration are a pack of compulsive liars.

Cheney said, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, "we know where they [WMD] are. They're in an area around Baghdad and Tikrit." That's clearly a lie, because we have yet to find them.

The administration claimed Iraq had vast stockpiles of WMD's. If we can't find them nearly a year after the invasion, I'd say that's not true.

The administration purposely led the american people to believe that the 9/11 terrorists were iraqi, to the point that 70% of Americans believe it. In fact, none of the terrorsts were Iraqi.

The administration can't even tell the truth about a PR gift. They're all set to get heaps of great PR over the thanksgiving President in Baghdad stunt, yet they can't resist spicing up the story a little with the yarn about the British Airways pilot who "saw" Air Force 1 and asked about it on the radio. British Airways has categorically denied that any of their pilots saw anything. The white house has responded by changing the story to say that it was a conversation between a British Airways pilot and the control tower, and that they never saw Air Force 1 at all. Well, if that is to be believed, then the administration was lying about the BA pilot seeing Air Force 1. Sure, it seems trivial, but it points to the fact that these guys are compulsive liars.

Bush has invaded, taken over, and is now occupying, a country which had not threatened us, did not even have the capability of threatening us, and was even attempting to comply with our directives.

When Bush told Hussein "destroy the missiles that have too long of a range or get invaded," Hussein finally agreed to destroy his weapons. When Bush found out about that, he changed the rules to "destroy the missiles AND Hussein and his family have to leave the country or you get invaded." That clearly points to the fact that Bush wanted a war and he was going to get one no matter what.

We hate Bush because he has failed to do his duty of defending us. While he's dicking around in Iraq, bin Laden and al Qaeda are still free and are still working on their terroristic plans. In fact, Bush has made our daily lives MORE dangerous because, through his actions, he has pissed the terrorists off even more.

Bush is a foriegn relations moron. After 9/11 the ENTIRE world, except for the terrorists themselves, rallied in support of the United States. Even Iranians, who are well known for their dislike of our country, marched in the streets waving American flags and crying for us. How does Bush respond? He informs Iran that they are now in the "axis of evil." Immediately, the same afghanis who showed us such support rallied in the street calling for our collective heads. Bush has singlehandedly taken the best foriegn relations atmophere we have had in decades and has turned it into the worst.

Bush will, on reflection, go down in history as the worst president we have ever had.

Xell101 · 12-04-2003, 04:48 AM

Bush, I just don't like where he is steering the country, other than that he is doing an acceptable job.

2wolves · 12-04-2003, 05:18 AM

G.W.B.; there's no there there. I don't hate him personally because I don't know him. The majority of policies which I've had the opportunity to examine are worthy of being loathed. He's Akron, Ohio without bowling or the NFL Hall of Fame.

Overall, imo, its blowback for twenty-five years of abuse heaped upon anyone not considered far enough to the right. paybacks are a motherfucker.

2Wolves

onetime2 · 12-04-2003, 05:40 AM

I think the whole debate is funny as hell. Some say that you either love him or hate him. I don't fall into either camp. Some of his policies I like and some I don't. I end up defending him on this board more often than not because the arguments used against him are so petty and without realistic justification.

It's amazing to me how many people stoop to personal attacks when that would never be acceptable in any real life situation. If you disagreed with the way your boss was doing his or her job, would it be acceptable to run around shouting "he's an idiot" "he's a coward" "he's a ___"? Of course not. But for some reason it's fully accepted in "political" discussions. Would you do that to a family member or friend? Again, no. Even to your worst enemy, it's looked upon by most people as either rude or tactless.

As far as the Clinton argument, again, I didn't love him or hate him. I accepted him for what he was. I didn't like his morality as I expect a leader to show more integrity. Go ahead and claim that Bush is as big a liar as Clinton, but IMO that's a load of crap. If I thought Bush was blatantly lying about things when he knew the statements to be absolutely false, I would rail against him as hard if not harder than the Bush haters. I haven't seen a case for that. The WMD argument, he chose to believe some intelligence over other intelligence, I don't believe he completely fabricated it. AND despite what his opponents want you to believe, that was not the sole justification used to invade Iraq. Clinton completely fabricated the "I did not have sex with that woman" statement, it was NOT open to interpretation. The "Mission Accomplished" banner flap, another case where Bush is said to have lied. He said it wasn't his people's idea, the military said the same thing. His people supplied the banner in the format of other banners, big deal. Different interpretations but not a lie.

Oh well, I guess it's all part of what brings me back to this board on a daily basis. Keep up the entertaining work, one and all.

Conclamo Ludus · 12-04-2003, 05:55 AM

I think hate is the last thing we need in politics. Its a roadblock. It pissed me off when conservatives did it, and it pisses me off now to hear it from the other side of the aisle. When you bring such a strong emotion to politics, it becomes a hurdle to any sort of compromise. Of course if you "hate" him, you can always blame him for your "hate". Its a vicious destructive emotion that needs to be curbed. It leads to blind frustration and partisanship that hurts us all and stands in the way of getting anything done.

goppers · 12-04-2003, 07:15 AM

I'm kind of mad that tax cuts and war are causing the NIH to cutback. Really in the end this means people will die, but it's tough to get from the abstraction of a percentage change in NIH funding to folks dead from research that couldn't happen.

i guess when it comes between guns and butter the guns are going to get the cash. It's also too bad i work for the butter.

(not that this is my largest complaint about the admin, because it isn't)

Ustwo · 12-04-2003, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by goppers
I'm kind of mad that tax cuts and war are causing the NIH to cutback. Really in the end this means people will die,

You might want to do a bit more research on this goppers.

The NIH budget wasn't cut. It has has a 15% growth or so for the last 5 years (this includes years with tax cuts), and this year it will have a 2.7% growth. The only real cuts are to new building funds, everything else still has growth. Every year the funding for grants has increased.

But please, won't somebody THINK of the children.

OFKU0 · 12-04-2003, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shakran

They hate him because he and his administration are a pack of compulsive liars.

Cheney said, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, "we know where they [WMD] are. They're in an area around Baghdad and Tikrit." That's clearly a lie, because we have yet to find them.

The administration claimed Iraq had vast stockpiles of WMD's. If we can't find them nearly a year after the invasion, I'd say that's not true.

The administration purposely led the american people to believe that the 9/11 terrorists were iraqi, to the point that 70% of Americans believe it. In fact, none of the terrorsts were Iraqi.

These are good points however what most people forget is the amount of asinine false claims made by the Pakistani,Kuwaiti and Isreali intelligence agencies.

The Pakistani's wanted a foot up on India and would say anything especially concerning Iraq's so-called WMD to patch up the strained relations with the U.S regarding their own WMD program.

The Kuwaiti's,..well who could blame them. They're a little country right next door to Iraq and haven't forgotten the Gulf War yet.

And who could forget CNN running paranoid clips of Isreali's duct taping their doors and windows, sitting in candlelit rooms and hysterically almost trampling people to buy gas masks. Even Ariel Sharon said Mossad had iron clad evidence that Saddam had 45 scud missiles pointed at Isreal, with between 19 and 28 carrying biological agents.

Yet now the only ones with tarnished images are the U.S and Britain. You certainly don't hear a squeek coming from the aforementioned countries.

Conclamo Ludus · 12-04-2003, 08:22 AM

Here's an interesting response to the "hate bush" meeting coming from a liberal opinion. I agree with her, that its not going to do the party any good to advertise their hatred.

Quote:

Susan Estrich
Politics of hate won't beat Bush

December 4, 2003

Anyone up for a "Hate Bush" meeting in Hollywood? Doesn't it sound like just the sort of thing conservatives would invent to make liberals look stupid and open the conservative spigots?

But this was no right-wing conspiracy. Matt Drudge may be the one selling the idea that Hollywood held a "Hate Bush" meeting, but he didn't come up with the title. This is a self-inflicted wound by another silly Hollywood liberal giving honest politics a bad name.

The meeting in question was chaired by two longtime Democratic operatives, Harold Ickes and Ellen Malcolm, who have recognized that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be at a severe financial disadvantage as compared to the president.

The Republicans have an institutional advantage when it comes to raising money, because they are the party of business, and because they have a larger small-donor base; they also have an advantage because they control the White House and both houses of Congress.

So what are Democrats to do?

Under the new campaign finance laws, neither party is allowed to raise "soft" money. But independent groups can. So longtime Democrats have created two independent groups. One, headed by Ickes, focuses on providing media cover for the nominee beginning this spring, when the president is expected to start spending heavily; one headed by Malcolm and former AFL-CIO political director Steve Rosenthal will focus on field organizing in target states for the general election.

Invitations were sent to the usual Hollywood suspects, a collection of people with an interest in politics and money to give, to attend a meeting Tuesday with Ickes, Malcolm and Rosenthal. It was titled a "Meeting to Change the Leadership in America in 2004." Hardly worthy of Drudge.

Then Laurie David sent an e-mail forwarding invites to the "Hate Bush 12-2 Event," and the right went nuts.

Who is Laurie David? In news clips, she is identified as Larry David's wife. Who is Larry David? He's the star of "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

Maybe his wife should curb hers. It is only helping Republicans.

The way to defeat Bush is not to advertise how much you hate him. Hard-core ideologues who hate Bush are not going to decide this election. They'll vote for the Democrat, as they do every four years, but there aren't enough of them to elect a Democrat. You need swing voters to do that. Hatred may motivate the left to contribute money, but it is hardly an effective talking point for public consumption if you want to win elections.

Ari Emanuel, a talent agent who represents Larry David and whose brother served in the Clinton White House and now in Congress, knew just how bad the Drudge story was for Democrats. "People are assembling over a political issue -- the 2004 election," he told the press in response to the ruckus about hating Bush. "The invite didn't say 'Hate Bush,' and I don't think (the Drudge story) was productive."

Productive? I bet it produced a lot of money for George Bush. And worse, it helps produce votes for him.

The people whose votes Democrats will need to defeat George Bush don't hate him. On a personal level, they like him. They need to be convinced not to vote for him, for reasons that have to do with the war, or special interests or the economy. "Hate Bush" headlines do just the opposite.

Enemies are one thing, but with friends like Laurie David, the Democratic nominee is going to need all the help he can get.

Estrich is professor of law and political science at the University of Southern California. Contact her at sestrich@law.usc.edu

Story Link

2wolves · 12-04-2003, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
Here's an interesting response to the "hate bush" meeting coming from a liberal opinion. I agree with her, that its not going to do the party any good to advertise their hatred.

Story Link

Get rid of the hyperbole and what is left, factually, to hang your hat on in that piece?

Conclamo Ludus · 12-04-2003, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2wolves
Get rid of the hyperbole and what is left, factually, to hang your hat on in that piece?

Nothing, its an opinion piece. I just stated I agree with her. It probably won't help with getting any swing voters.

oldman2003 · 12-04-2003, 08:38 AM

I don’t hate him; I despise him and his administration. I can’t even watch him on tv anymore. I get so upset I have to turn it off and do some relaxation exercises…

Macheath · 12-04-2003, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
Here's an interesting response to the "hate bush" meeting coming from a liberal opinion. I agree with her, that its not going to do the party any good to advertise their hatred.

Story Link

You know, this allegation that the email was titled "Hate Bush 12-2 Event" was a <a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/matthb.htm">Drudge Report "Exclusive".</a> Drudge was the primary media source for this information that Susan Estrich incorporated in her article.

<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/12/04/hollywood/index.html">Laurie David said she never called it that.</a> Matt Drudge said she did. I have considered Matt Drudge to be a lying scumbag ever since he slandered Sidney Blumenthal as a wife beater in 1997. I have not, on the other hand, ever been given reason to not trust Laurie David. You can see who I would be inclined to believe in this situation.

For the sake of a well rounded discussion though, here's a different perspective on this so-called "Hate Bush" meeting:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ood/index.html

Quote:

Drudge does the Democrats a favor

A misrepresentation by the right-wing gossipmonger draws hundreds of high-powered Hollywood liberals to a beat-Bush meeting Tuesday night.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Tim Grieve

Dec. 4, 2003 | Laurie David is a major player in liberal Hollywood politics. The wife of "Seinfeld" creator Larry David, she is an activist, organizer and donor who spends her days railing against SUVs, George W. Bush and the abuses of the right. But there she was on the phone from Hollywood Wednesday, making nice about Republican gossipmonger cum news hound Matt Drudge. "I owe him, and I'm trying to think of what I can do to thank him," David said. "I think I'm going to bake this guy some cookies."

OK, so maybe David was being just a little bit facetious. Maybe she won't be zipping down to Whole Foods tonight for baking soda and a bag of chocolate chips. But the fact is, David owes Drudge today. And so does everyone else hoping to beat Bush in 2004. The reason: Through hyperbole bordering on misrepresentation, Drudge turned what should have been a small meet-and-greet session for two pro-Democratic political organizations into a star-studded spectacle of publicity and support for the groups.

Earlier this week, Drudge began trumpeting the news of a "Hate Bush" meeting planned for Hollywood Tuesday night. In a breathless "exclusive" report, Drudge claimed that "top Hollywood activists and intellectuals" were planning to "gather in Beverly Hills for an event billed as 'Hate Bush.'" Recovering addict Rush Limbaugh played along with the tune, warning of a coming confab by a bunch of "left coast Hollywood kooks" and suggesting that the likes of Jane Fonda would be involved.

The event to which they referred was something less -- and, ultimately, something more -- than they suggested. It was, in fact, an informational presentation by America Coming Together and The Media Fund, two groups working to raise money -- and spend it -- in support of the Democratic candidate in the 2004 presidential race. Organizers expected about 100 politically active Southern Californians to turn out for the event Tuesday at the Beverly Hills Hilton. But with Drudge and Limbaugh on the rampage, approximately three times as many Hollywood Democrats made the scene.

Actor Ed Asner was there. So was director Rob Reiner and "The West Wing" creator Aaron Sorkin, producer Lawrence Bender and actress Christine Lahti. "There were so many people there that we had to change rooms, and we had to turn people away," said David, who organized the event and was one of its celebrity hosts. "There were people from every part of Hollywood there -- celebrities, producers, agents, line people, directors, political activists. It was amazing."

And by the time the presentation was over, David said, many in the crowd were ready to write checks to Joint Victory Campaign 2004, the groups' collaborative project aimed at getting the message -- and the vote -- out in 17 swing states between now and November.

America Coming Together, founded by former AFL-CIO political director Steve Rosenthal and Emily's List president Ellen Malcolm, and The Media Fund, led by former Clinton campaign chief Harold Ickes, are two examples of a new breed of political organization, groups aligned but not directly affiliated with political parties. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law prohibits "soft money" contributions to the political parties themselves, but it does not prevent big-money donors from giving money to ostensibly independent groups that -- coincidentally or not -- happen to advance the political agenda of one party or the other.

Republicans have begun to investigate and attack these "527" groups -- so named for the tax code provision that applies to them. The Republican-led House Administration Committee is investigating whether the groups really are independent from the political parties with which they are aligned. After several of the groups declined "invitations" to appear at one of the committee's hearings, the Republicans on the committee voted to give its chairman, Ohio Rep. Bob Ney, the authority to subpoena them to testify.

A spokesman for Ney said Wednesday that he is considering his next step. "He has some basic questions about whether or not they're coordinating with" the political parties, said Brian Walsh, Ney's press aide.

Steve Weiss, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, said McCain-Feingold was supposed to address the "corrupting influence" of soft money pouring directly into party coffers. The concern about the 527s, he said, is that "they're so closely affiliated with the political parties and run by former party operatives" that they may be a way for the parties to skirt the McCain-Feingold prohibitions.

"These groups are in many cases just a hair's width of distinction from the political parties," Weiss said. "The people who support McCain-Feingold would say that the corrupting influence of the soft money dollars is still there."

Lorraine Voles, a former spokeswoman for Vice President Al Gore who now serves as a consultant for America Coming Together, said that the group is operating within the rules established by McCain-Feingold. And she said the negative attention from the right -- first from the House committee, now from Drudge -- is a sign that these groups have the Republicans worried, despite the fact that Bush has already raised more than $85 million for his reelection campaign, three times more than any Democratic challenger. "We're clearly doing something right," Voles said Wednesday. "We've definitely got their attention."

On its Web site Wednesday, America Coming Together talked of its plans to "inform and mobilize" voters in 2004, and it asked its supporters to help spread the word and solicit contributions. In a dig at Drudge and Limbaugh, Malcolm wrote, "We won't count on the conservatives to keep up the free publicity forever."

In the backlash that preceded the meeting this week, David saw something beyond Republican fear at work. She saw signs of the right's ever-increasing hostility to all things Hollywood. "I think that, for some reason, Hollywood is a hot-button for people," she said. "People on the right, in particular, go out of their way to try to marginalize anything that comes out of this community. But they will not succeed because regardless of whether you're a celebrity or not, you have the right to speak and have a meeting and discuss politics."

As for whether or not Tuesday's get-together was in fact the "Hate Bush" event Drudge described, David says that she never called it that. Still, she says of the current White House resident: "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention."

salon.com

goppers · 12-04-2003, 09:33 AM

Quote:

The NIH budget wasn't cut. It has has a 15% growth or so for the last 5 years (this includes years with tax cuts), and this year it will have a 2.7% growth. The only real cuts are to new building funds, everything else still has growth. Every year the funding for grants has increased.

I'm sort of new here, so please excuse me if you are an expert on this field and im wrong about what im going to say. It looks to me like you just googled NIH Budget then read the first 5 or so paragraphs of a year old doccument.

at some level you are correct though. The NIH will get more money this year than last. The large increases of the past were a comitment made to double the budget over 5 years. That ended in 2003. and you are correct that the planned increase for the year after that is 2.7%, which does beat inflation by a whopping .6% if im not mistaken. You could say that funding increases that go from 13%ish a year to 3% a year is a cutback as I did. You could also call me crap for saying that when a budget goes from $X to $X+$Y a "cutback." Thats fine. Also, it's fair to say that my war and tax cuts thing is incorrect, but money for those things does come from somewhere.

Those numbers aside I'll give you two things to support what I was saying from the start.

A) on a conference call yesterday i was told by a representative of the NIH that all studies were being evaluated for anything that could be cut to meet budget restrictions.

B) an article that says some of what im thinking - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/201534.shtml

Again, you don't have to buy it, and you can joke about who will think about the kids, but bush is throwing 27 billion it must be pretty important. I just think it's closer to 10% a year important than 3%.

All of this said, this isn't my largest issue with Bush. It's just one i hadn't seen brought up in this thread.

Lebell · 12-04-2003, 09:39 AM

Interesting.

Whether or not that event was billed by anyone as a "Hate Bush" fundraiser, it certainly turned into one.

What I think the left fails to realize is that the swing vote, Ma and Pa Kettle in Iowa, isn't impressed by Hollywood shinanigans and that such meetings only further convince them that the left is out of touch with their concerns.

If the Dems want to win in 2004, they need to abandon these sorts of tactics and give good reasons why the rest of the country should vote Democratic and not Republican.

Unfortunately for them, because they "hate Bush", isn't going to work.

Ustwo · 12-04-2003, 09:45 AM

The whole point of the 'new groups' is to avoid the campaign finance laws and to shield DNC money from Howard Dean since everyone assumes if he gets the nomination using it will be a waste of money.

No matter how someone tries to spin the 'Hate Bush' event, it can only hurt the democrats.

Conclamo Ludus · 12-04-2003, 09:56 AM

Quote:

from Laurie David,

"If you're not angry, you're not paying attention."

Its assumptions like these that lose swing votes.

Sparhawk · 12-04-2003, 10:43 AM

I think the big assumption 'Reps' are making is that only Democrats are angry.

Conclamo Ludus · 12-04-2003, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
I think the big assumption 'Reps' are making is that only Democrats are angry.

Maybe. Its easy to get the angry votes, and if the majority is angry, then the dems are fine. If the angry ones are just a smaller, and louder minority, then they're in trouble. Its hard to say.

From what I understand, and I may be wrong, traditionally 30% vote dem all the time no matter what, and 30% vote rep no matter what, its that 40% that decide elections. If that 40% is as polarized this time as they were in 2000 were in for another nerve-racking election.

But statements like "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention," are somewhat insulting to those that lie within that 40% that aren't angry, but may be open-minded to someone new in office, maybe there aren't many of these people though, but there is no need to cut them out, expecially when it comes down to a tight election.

2wolves · 12-04-2003, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
I think the big assumption 'Reps' are making is that only Democrats are angry.

If I may disagree; In my recent experience the G.O.P. believes only the far left is dissatisfied, as always. Unless painting with the broad brush any who are angry as extreme leftists is a tactic and not an error in judgement.

2Wolves

Sparhawk · 12-04-2003, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2wolves
If I may disagree; In my recent experience the G.O.P. believes only the far left is dissatisfied, as always. Unless painting with the broad brush any who are angry as extreme leftists is a tactic and not an error in judgement.

2Wolves

Check out Superbelt's quote for the answer as to whether it's a tactic or an error in judgement...

onetime2 · 12-04-2003, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
I think the big assumption 'Reps' are making is that only Democrats are angry.

If that were true, GWBs popularity would be declining rather than increasing in the polls.

12-03-2003, 08:50 AM	#1 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	Something I find disturbing... What is it about President Bush that some people find so offensive? I've seen people who are usually calm and reserved practically foam at the mouth at the mention of his name. I know there is room for disagreement w/policy, but there is something else going on here. I'm often surprised at the virulent and malevolent attitudes that some regard him with. Discussions about politics turn into blatantly hateful insults that have little to do w/the topic. I'm not saying that everyone who disagrees w/the President is like this, but there is definitely an element of hate involved for some people. Have you seen this also? Do you feel this way about the President? What is the cause?

12-03-2003, 09:10 AM	#2 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	I'll just modify this a little bit to give some perspective: What is it about President Clinton that some people find so offensive? I've seen people who are usually calm and reserved practically foam at the mouth at the mention of his name. I know there is room for disagreement w/policy, but there is something else going on here. I'm often surprised at the virulent and malevolent attitudes that some regard him with. Discussions about politics turn into blatantly hateful insults that have little to do w/the topic. I'm not saying that everyone who disagrees w/the President is like this, but there is definitely an element of hate involved for some people. Have you seen this also? Do you feel this way about the President? What is the cause? __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

12-03-2003, 09:13 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I can see why the left hates Bush. They think he is everything they are not, and on top of it they hate him for being loved by so many of the American people (who they then think of as stupid). Now George is not far right by any means, but most of the left doesn't really look at deep, they see him as the quintessential evil, homophobic, white, male, republican. Now take that he barely won the election, ignored the precious Kyoto treaty, became greatly respected after 9/11, decided to stop playing the politics of the UN, and they hate him. They hate him because he, that cowboy from Texas, who can hardily speak in public, who is sooooo STUPID, can make them look bad at every turn or even utterly ignore them. He has pissed on everything they hold dear and most Americans like him for it. And now to add insult to injury the economy is improving! This lying, deceitful, stupid, evil, warmongering, buffoon is going to get re-elected!!! If ONLY the STUPID American people could see how WRONG GWB was!!! Oh how they hate him!! But Bush is just a symbol of this hate. The real hate is for the American people and way of life. Anyone who voted for Bush must be stupid, selfish, and/or evil. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-03-2003, 10:07 AM	#6 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	I didn't really have a problem with Clinton until the whole DNA evidence thing. But anyways, there was a lot of hate for Bush before he even began his presidency. While he was running people were still foaming at the mouth. The "Bush is a moron!" mantra was evident even then, he got crucified for misusing a few words, and making one up. I don't think it has to do with his policies, a lot of people just hate him on a personal level for whatever reason. Calling someone a moron/idiot typically does denote something personal, I probably didn't need to analyze in that context. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

12-03-2003, 10:14 AM	#7 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I hate that he is smug, intellectually challenged and proud of it (and I don't mean stupid, I mean intellectually incurious), assumes that he has a monopoly on moral truth, and couldn't give a shit what the 50.1% of the country who didn't vote for him think. I don't find him compassionate at all - quite the contrary. I think he is mean-spirited (go find that interview of him discussing granting a stay of execution for that woman right before the election), small-minded, lacks any capacity for nuance, and is easily led by the ideologues he has surrounded himself with. After 9/11 we needed a strong leader to bind us together, and he did that for about 5 minutes before he manipulated the situation to push through his and his advisors' vision of America's role in the world, which has been in the works (by Cheney and Wolfowitz) since his father's administration - they saw an opportunity to grab the hegemonic golden ring, and the grabbed at it, consequences be damned. He's at heart a selfish coward who ran from service on all levels and is callously expending our military for questionable aims. That's it in a nutshell. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

12-03-2003, 09:56 AM	#5 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	I think it has a lot to do with the era in which we live. This is a time of great uncertainty. The cold war is over and the old paradigms do not apply in the same way. Great doubt has been cast on the ideas of what used to constitute conservatism and liberalism. Bush is the representative or figurehead of a new right wing activism. One part of that activism during the Gingrich years of the 1990s, as Sparhawk alluded to, was a white hot and calculated hatred of Bill Clinton. Perhaps the left fears that this new right wing activism will destabilize the global order unless they can temper it with their own new perspective. A large part of their currently unfocussed energy involves a visceral fear and loathing of George W. Bush and what will happen to international relations during his tenure. This energy should be focussed on finding and communicating a new left wing alternative perspective. The success or failure of this effort will dictate the future of political argument.

12-03-2003, 10:20 AM	#8 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	We mealy-mouthed liberals are often willing to give somebody the benefit of the doubt. But Bush says one thing and does another -- constantly. There was the No Child Left Behind initiative -- big fanfare, then most funding yanked. Bush came out in favor of Americorps as a model institution ; then slashed funding. Bush Administration talks about support for troops. Then slashes subsidies to public school districts that serve child from military bases (that don't pay property tax). "I'm a uniter, not a divider," or something like that. That didn't work out, either. The Bush administration was going to clean up Wall Street and protect the investor -- but aside from a couple of high-profile prosecutions, it's business as usual and the SEC is still a lapdog. How can the markets work if confidence is lost? How much of the current "good news" that hopefully will point to higher employment is actually due to cooked books and offshoring jobs? We conquered Afghanistan -- are now are losing it because no money was originally put in the budget to rebuild it. (Republican congressmen put $400 million in the budget for it to avoid embarassment). We're losing the country again. Too many Bush policies are obvious payoffs to Halliburton, energy interests, big corporations at the expense of the population and our armed forces. I'm wholly in favor of a two-term Bush presidency -- because at the end of that time, this country will be so screwed up the people will be ready for socialism! Last edited by Rodney; 12-03-2003 at 10:26 AM..

12-03-2003, 10:59 AM	#10 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I hate Bush. I hate him for reasons that affect me though, unlike those who hated Clinton. I hate him for happily presiding over more destructive environmental practices. I hate him for increasing my burden of national debt by giving our money back to rich people rather than those who would really need it. I hate him for giving tax breaks to a dying breed of energy producers rather than give it to the future. To renewable energies. Upwards of 23 billion to fossil fuels in the current energy bill. What was it, 1.5 to renewables? And most of that went to ethanol, which is a waste of time. it's pork. I hate him for screwing schools with No Child Left Behind. A clear effort to open the doors to vouchers. I hate him for appointing a man who has a 40% failure rate in Houston schools as head of the nations educaton efforts. I hate him for literally ignoring information that goes against his already settled course. I hear information about how his own advisors say that once he latches on to something he doesn't even want to hear evidence to the contrary and can never be swayed. I hate him for doing things he thinks is right, regardless of what the best minds of the field think. He doesn't care about what america would want. He doesn't listen to a balance of academics on the subject. He just does something. That isn't right. That is not a leader. That is an opportunist. Last edited by Superbelt; 12-03-2003 at 11:02 AM..

12-03-2003, 11:03 AM	#11 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	There is an AMAZING article in last week's Time Magazine, and you can still get to it online: The Love Him, Hate Him President. Worth reading for everyone who either loves him or hates him, and wants to know why other people don't agree with them. I won't say which side I fall on. __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.

12-03-2003, 11:22 AM	#12 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	Hate is just misplaced fear. Its self-destructive and counterproductive. Look where all the Bill Clinton-hating got the republicans. Most people laughed at them for it. That aside, hate can be a motivator if it is recognized as fear. But I don't think many people take that leap enough to say they are afraid of the "other guy" succeeding. Hating Bush or Clinton, for that matter, has always seemed like a waste of emotional energy. When you have a person in office that you disagree with, you swallow your pride, calm yourself down, and learn how to work with him to fix the problems you want fixed, while you bide your time until the next election. You do whatever it takes to get the problem solved, even if you can't take "credit" for getting it solved. If you want to see a solution to a problem, you work with him to get it done. If the solution isn't good enough? Tough shit, you go back to the drawing board and try to fix it again, and then you vote him out. If he gets voted in again? Tough shit, you rinse and repeat. You work your ass off and don't waste time standing around fuming about him which is where hate can easily lead you. The nice thing about democracy is that things don't stay the same for too long. The other problem with hate is that it can easily turn others off from your cause. Its fine to campaign on hating Bush, if you only want people who hate Bush to vote for you. People are suspect when it comes they see someone so filled with anger, as they should be. This is why I see it as a counterproductive emotion. Vote. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

12-03-2003, 02:19 PM	#13 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	sparhawk, thanks for hijacking the thread on the first response. outstanding. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

12-03-2003, 02:33 PM	#14 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	rodney and superbelt, thanks for your responses, but that isn't the thrust of the thread. see, you listed reasons for disliking the President. I don't share your viewpoint or trust the figures on many of the listed concerns, but at least you know why you dislike him and can back it up with examples from his policy. what baffles me is the volume of people who cite reasons like "He is stupid", "He is evil" or "He thinks he is a cowboy." Granted, the direction of this thread will tend to veer towards those who do not think this way (because who would admit to being so caustic?) but have ran into people who argue w/them like this. So, I suppose that most of the insight will come from observations rather than reasons from a person who attacks the President in this way. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

12-03-2003, 02:53 PM	#15 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	irateplatypus, you asked "Do you feel this way about the President? What is the cause?" I'm not sure what you expected as answers, but it seems to me that people have pretty much stayed on topic. And I don't think Sparhawk threadjacked - I think he pointed out legitimately that you could probably apply the same statements to most presidents, particularly ones like Bill Clinton and GWB who seem to polarize people for one reason or another. The TIME article Redlemon refers to talks about the polarization of the American people, and like it or not, it's going to be very hard to find someone these days who doesn't produce fear and loathing in a large segment of society. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

12-03-2003, 02:56 PM	#16 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Well, it doesn't look like I hijacked it at all, actually. My point is that if the right wants to understand why the left hates Bush, they need only look as far back as 3 years ago at how they felt about Clinton. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

12-03-2003, 08:02 PM	#17 (permalink)
little limey Psycho Location: Room Nineteen	George Bush bases all of his decisions on religion and morals. He turns everything into a fight against evil. This just makes him seem close minded and stupid. If he didn't depend on religion so much, therefore being more of an intellectual, I would respect him more.

12-03-2003, 08:21 PM	#18 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	I think that people hate Bush just like they may hate their regional city councillors. When a councillor sticks his nose into other councillors wards,people get ticked cuz that councillor isn't honoring the counstituents who elected him. I think if Bush was less interested in saving and changing the world to what he thinks is right and paid more attention to domestic affairs,he'd have more support. If he is doing what he is doing cuz he feels people think he is an intellilectual lightweight,well then I would say that has backfired.He looks dumber now than before. He should have tried to shake the redneck image rather than promoting it. __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

12-03-2003, 10:04 PM	#19 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Because he's a poor president, whether you agree with his policies or not. I'm sorry, but anyone in his position who not only admits, but is proud to state, that he purposely avoids reading any news papers, listening or watching any news casts, and instead relies on his advisors (read: Cheney and Rumsfeld) to tell him what's happening in the world is a dangerous man to have at the helm. Let's look at an example. If you were driving down the road, would you rely solely on your passengers to tell you which way to drive and where the obstacles are, or would you open your eyes and look for yourself? They hate him because he and his administration are a pack of compulsive liars. Cheney said, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, "we know where they [WMD] are. They're in an area around Baghdad and Tikrit." That's clearly a lie, because we have yet to find them. The administration claimed Iraq had vast stockpiles of WMD's. If we can't find them nearly a year after the invasion, I'd say that's not true. The administration purposely led the american people to believe that the 9/11 terrorists were iraqi, to the point that 70% of Americans believe it. In fact, none of the terrorsts were Iraqi. The administration can't even tell the truth about a PR gift. They're all set to get heaps of great PR over the thanksgiving President in Baghdad stunt, yet they can't resist spicing up the story a little with the yarn about the British Airways pilot who "saw" Air Force 1 and asked about it on the radio. British Airways has categorically denied that any of their pilots saw anything. The white house has responded by changing the story to say that it was a conversation between a British Airways pilot and the control tower, and that they never saw Air Force 1 at all. Well, if that is to be believed, then the administration was lying about the BA pilot seeing Air Force 1. Sure, it seems trivial, but it points to the fact that these guys are compulsive liars. Bush has invaded, taken over, and is now occupying, a country which had not threatened us, did not even have the capability of threatening us, and was even attempting to comply with our directives. When Bush told Hussein "destroy the missiles that have too long of a range or get invaded," Hussein finally agreed to destroy his weapons. When Bush found out about that, he changed the rules to "destroy the missiles AND Hussein and his family have to leave the country or you get invaded." That clearly points to the fact that Bush wanted a war and he was going to get one no matter what. We hate Bush because he has failed to do his duty of defending us. While he's dicking around in Iraq, bin Laden and al Qaeda are still free and are still working on their terroristic plans. In fact, Bush has made our daily lives MORE dangerous because, through his actions, he has pissed the terrorists off even more. Bush is a foriegn relations moron. After 9/11 the ENTIRE world, except for the terrorists themselves, rallied in support of the United States. Even Iranians, who are well known for their dislike of our country, marched in the streets waving American flags and crying for us. How does Bush respond? He informs Iran that they are now in the "axis of evil." Immediately, the same afghanis who showed us such support rallied in the street calling for our collective heads. Bush has singlehandedly taken the best foriegn relations atmophere we have had in decades and has turned it into the worst. Bush will, on reflection, go down in history as the worst president we have ever had.

12-04-2003, 04:48 AM	#20 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	Bush, I just don't like where he is steering the country, other than that he is doing an acceptable job.

12-04-2003, 05:18 AM	#21 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	G.W.B.; there's no there there. I don't hate him personally because I don't know him. The majority of policies which I've had the opportunity to examine are worthy of being loathed. He's Akron, Ohio without bowling or the NFL Hall of Fame. Overall, imo, its blowback for twenty-five years of abuse heaped upon anyone not considered far enough to the right. paybacks are a motherfucker. 2Wolves __________________ Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

12-04-2003, 05:40 AM	#22 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I think the whole debate is funny as hell. Some say that you either love him or hate him. I don't fall into either camp. Some of his policies I like and some I don't. I end up defending him on this board more often than not because the arguments used against him are so petty and without realistic justification. It's amazing to me how many people stoop to personal attacks when that would never be acceptable in any real life situation. If you disagreed with the way your boss was doing his or her job, would it be acceptable to run around shouting "he's an idiot" "he's a coward" "he's a ___"? Of course not. But for some reason it's fully accepted in "political" discussions. Would you do that to a family member or friend? Again, no. Even to your worst enemy, it's looked upon by most people as either rude or tactless. As far as the Clinton argument, again, I didn't love him or hate him. I accepted him for what he was. I didn't like his morality as I expect a leader to show more integrity. Go ahead and claim that Bush is as big a liar as Clinton, but IMO that's a load of crap. If I thought Bush was blatantly lying about things when he knew the statements to be absolutely false, I would rail against him as hard if not harder than the Bush haters. I haven't seen a case for that. The WMD argument, he chose to believe some intelligence over other intelligence, I don't believe he completely fabricated it. AND despite what his opponents want you to believe, that was not the sole justification used to invade Iraq. Clinton completely fabricated the "I did not have sex with that woman" statement, it was NOT open to interpretation. The "Mission Accomplished" banner flap, another case where Bush is said to have lied. He said it wasn't his people's idea, the military said the same thing. His people supplied the banner in the format of other banners, big deal. Different interpretations but not a lie. Oh well, I guess it's all part of what brings me back to this board on a daily basis. Keep up the entertaining work, one and all. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant. Last edited by onetime2; 12-04-2003 at 05:48 AM..

12-04-2003, 05:55 AM	#23 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	I think hate is the last thing we need in politics. Its a roadblock. It pissed me off when conservatives did it, and it pisses me off now to hear it from the other side of the aisle. When you bring such a strong emotion to politics, it becomes a hurdle to any sort of compromise. Of course if you "hate" him, you can always blame him for your "hate". Its a vicious destructive emotion that needs to be curbed. It leads to blind frustration and partisanship that hurts us all and stands in the way of getting anything done. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

12-04-2003, 07:15 AM	#24 (permalink)
goppers Tilted	I'm kind of mad that tax cuts and war are causing the NIH to cutback. Really in the end this means people will die, but it's tough to get from the abstraction of a percentage change in NIH funding to folks dead from research that couldn't happen. i guess when it comes between guns and butter the guns are going to get the cash. It's also too bad i work for the butter. (not that this is my largest complaint about the admin, because it isn't)

12-04-2003, 08:38 AM	#30 (permalink)
oldman2003 Crazy Location: Over the Rainbow	I don’t hate him; I despise him and his administration. I can’t even watch him on tv anymore. I get so upset I have to turn it off and do some relaxation exercises…

12-04-2003, 09:39 AM	#33 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Interesting. Whether or not that event was billed by anyone as a "Hate Bush" fundraiser, it certainly turned into one. What I think the left fails to realize is that the swing vote, Ma and Pa Kettle in Iowa, isn't impressed by Hollywood shinanigans and that such meetings only further convince them that the left is out of touch with their concerns. If the Dems want to win in 2004, they need to abandon these sorts of tactics and give good reasons why the rest of the country should vote Democratic and not Republican. Unfortunately for them, because they "hate Bush", isn't going to work. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-04-2003, 09:45 AM	#34 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The whole point of the 'new groups' is to avoid the campaign finance laws and to shield DNC money from Howard Dean since everyone assumes if he gets the nomination using it will be a waste of money. No matter how someone tries to spin the 'Hate Bush' event, it can only hurt the democrats. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-04-2003, 10:43 AM	#36 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	I think the big assumption 'Reps' are making is that only Democrats are angry. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."