Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The psychopathology of Bush hatred
American Thinker ^ | December 26, 2008 | James Lewis

Posted on 12/26/2008 6:46:21 AM PST by vietvet67

The Bush hatred we are seeing in the media today belongs in the long catalogue of human psychopathology -- not rational behavior. The latest version is the shoe-throwing incident in Iraq. Iraq happens to be a hot war zone, in which tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed by hidden bombs. Bush' protective detail had no way of knowing whether an assassinaton attempt was under way, in just the way Saddam tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush, Sr. At the end of his two terms of office, the President flew to Iraq, into harm's way, knowing the dangers, to hold an open press conference.

But our media harbor such bitter hatred for him that they turned a potential bomb-throwing incident --- by one of their own --- into a joke, just another reason to sneer at the President. If anybody threw a cream pie at Obama, screaming headlines would be launched for days afterward. Nothing but sneers followed the potential attack on George W. Bush, which he fended off with his usual grace and humor. I have never known a US president to be treated as disgracefully as this one. The political case against him is based almost entirely on media falsehoods, slanders, and greed for power. Not much rationality there.

Our public melodrama is therefore being driven, not by facts and reason, but by the most primitive emotions that prey on human minds. Human brains haven't changed much in the last thirty thousand years. Homo sapiens is a lot more prosperous species than ever, but prosperity just allows those ancient demons to come out more freely. If we were huddled by a small fire in a cave, hungry and miserable, we could not indulge our fantasies as much as the pop media now allow themselves to do. Prosperity permits our primitive urges to flourish on the public stage.

President George W. Bush is being crucified in the public square in spite of his plain decency and goodness, and in spite of his remarkable success in winning two difficult wars to protect this nation from harm. All wars are hard; all wars involve mistakes and self-correction. All wars, if they are to be won, come at a cost.

While it is natural enough for conservatives to be upset by the blatant unfairness of the propaganda media --- indeed, by their visible madness --- if we just take a little mental distance, we can easily see an ancient anthropological drama: The crucifixion of the reigning king, along with the messianic glorification of a new one, who will surely rescue us from our media-driven despair. (Of course the new king will also grow weaker in time, in spite of his charismatic magic ...) This is the stuff of Shakespeare and Sophocles. George W. Bush's "head is bloody but unbowed," to quote the poem Invictus, ("undefeated') the Victorian answer to political witchhunts.

The novelist Mary Renault described the whole ordeal in her classic story, The King Must Die. Renault based her tale on legends of royal sacrifice from the ancient Mediterranean world --- in Greece, Asia Minor, Crete, Italy, and elsewhere. Read it if you want to understand Bush hatred and Obama worship. Her source was Sir James Fraser's remarkable book, The Golden Bough. While anthropologists have backed off Fraser's claim that king sacrifice is universal, the respected scholar James D. Brown argues that the evidence favors "Oedipal rebellion" as a universal among native peoples studied over more than a century. We no longer hang our kings physically, but the Left and the media act just like the lynch mobs of old. Listen to their voices and you'll hear the ancient roar of the mob.

We can watch the tragicomedy of our psychopolitics unfold and still keep some perspective. Think of it as a stage play like King Lear, and pray that reason prevails in the end. The Leftist media are actors playing the ancient role of the politically envious, who exist in every tribal culture where the head of the clan sleeps uneasily, fearful of plots and assassination attempts. All politics is not just local, as the Washington saying goes, but deep down it is tribal.

What is hopeful today is what was hopeful at the American founding: the use of constitutional means to channel our loves and hates into a fairly reasonable course of common action. The majority of Americans are pretty sane and rational; they don't trust the political class, and they are deserting the Big Media in the tens of millions even now. The American Founders knew all about vulgar mobs, and lived to see them in the French Revolution of 1789, with Napoleon rising on top of the revolutionary chaos to explode into a mass war of conquest in Europe. The Founders despised all that. They designed the Constitution to steer a steady course in spite of mobs and demagogues. It has worked magnificently for two centuries, and with luck and courage, it will hold.

Alexander Hamilton famously said, "The people? The people is a great beast!" But that was not accurate: We are all "the people," as the Declaration of Independence tells us. "The people" are the source of all good and bad things. The people -- properly balanced by a constitutional apparatus -- have brought prosperity that was unimaginable two hundred years ago. The people harbor wisdom and common sense in a way that snobbish elites soon forget. Conservatism is skeptical about human nature, but not cynical or despairing. Nor do we look to messianic leaders like Barack Obama to solve our problems. We look to muddle through, to give individuals the space to grow and succeed, to stand against the mobs, to fail at times, and then to fight again.

Whenever conservatives see yet another mob movement from the Left, we feel it is our obligation to stand in opposition. It is not unpatriotic to criticize the messiah of the moment -- though the Left will say so. It is our duty. We can do so with reason, with humor, and with clear thinking about the bad ideas the Left seems to carry around like a scratchy case of the fleas.

President Bush is not a theoretical politician. He is a practical man. He has constantly made the best decisions by his lights, sometimes against his own ideals, because reality sometimes makes things like war necessary; sometimes it makes massive bailouts necessary. The conservative question is always, "What is the realistic alternative?"

The end product of conservative politics is a mix of realism and idealism. Bush has liberated some fifty million Muslims, including one Arab journalist who just hurled his trendy hush puppies at him in an ancient gesture of contempt. That man is alive today because of George W. Bush -- Saddam would have fed him screaming into a plastic shredder. Compared to Obama and the corruptocrats, Bush will soon look like an American hero. Just watch it happen.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bds; bush43; bushhaters; bushlegacy; psychology; term2; theleft
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

1 posted on 12/26/2008 6:46:21 AM PST by vietvet67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

You used too many words.

The Sheep will never see this.


2 posted on 12/26/2008 6:51:13 AM PST by Old Sarge (For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be an American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Once again, if President George W. Bush is so hated, then why was he elected President of the United States TWICE? the media just makes up crAP.


3 posted on 12/26/2008 6:52:42 AM PST by AmericanMade1776 ( Obama Happens! Not my Fault!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
"President George W. Bush is being crucified in the public square in spite of his plain decency and goodness,

No W is being crucified exactly because he is a decent human. He has let the MSM turn on him in a shark type feeding frenzy. Those around him seem powerless to stop it or get him to act. It is too late now to do anything about it. The more he talks the more he feeds them. It is a co-dependent relationship of the most destructive kind. He needs to just step off the stage and let the public and the MSM get on to other targets. A modern President in the US needs to be able to control the press and/or keep them neutral. Reagan was a genius at it and Clinton was very good at it. Bush Senior was the prototype for W. Many things he did started the sharks down this road. At least he did not generate a new page of gaffes on Youtube every time he gave a public speech.

4 posted on 12/26/2008 6:56:29 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (Nemo me impune lacessit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Mr Bush, our President, is probably the classiest man to ever hold the office. He learned civility at the knee of his father. A kinder, more decent soul would be a world rarity. He has led us through difficult and dangerous times, with constant sniping and backbiting unseen in many a decade.

Might God continue to grace this great nation and all of our leaders, for he has led with humility and wisdom and courage at every turn. As CinC he merits the MOH.

A great man for challenges at nearly every turn. Thank-you to G W Bush and Laura.


5 posted on 12/26/2008 6:59:10 AM PST by petertare (--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Amen.


6 posted on 12/26/2008 6:59:43 AM PST by clintonh8r (For the first time in my life I'm ashamed of my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

I wish our guys would quit with this “Two wars” bullsh!t.

We are fighting one war - a long one, to be sure - against islamofascism.

Iraq and Afghanistan are requisite campaigns on the road to victory, much the same as North Africa, Italy, France, and the Pacific Campaigns were in World War II. I don’t believe FDR was criticised for starting three wars, was he?

No, but back then the political opposition and press were not traitorous activists.


7 posted on 12/26/2008 7:01:36 AM PST by 2nd Bn, 11th Mar (The "P" in Democrat stands for patriotism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
The master plan, it got the presidency back for the Democrats didn't it?
8 posted on 12/26/2008 7:02:48 AM PST by ANGGAPO (Leyte Gulf Beach Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
The media is comprised of

Liberal/Socialist/Progressive/Marxist/Stalinist (all one word)

hate mongers. They are nasty, self serving pieces of lying crap on which the air they breath is a waste.

9 posted on 12/26/2008 7:06:09 AM PST by Dustbunny (Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. The Gipper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ANGGAPO

If I were Bush and Cheney I would buy 30 seconds of airtime on the networks and cable and flip the bird to the whole country for 30 seconds. I don’t see how they have stood the hatred and spewing of verbal venom for this long.


10 posted on 12/26/2008 7:09:01 AM PST by debboo (Stop socialism, vote conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
There is in fact a mob psychology among the media elite, and I believe it stems from the same source as most mob activity: fearful insularity - a sense of "sameness" and hatred of "the other". In other words, most media members know each other, live in the same places, went to the same schools, and share the same values. Some have quite literally never met a Republican, conservative, or evangelical Christian outside of their professional lives.

In this way, people who fancy themselves "citizens of the world" in reality become narrow, parochial and bigoted.

11 posted on 12/26/2008 7:16:45 AM PST by andy58-in-nh (Ronald Reagan had a vision of America. Barack Obama has a vision of Barack Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dustbunny
The media is comprised of

Liberal/Socialist/Progressive/Marxist/Stalinist

They're also getting their just rewards and the "print media" arm" of their politburo is dying.

12 posted on 12/26/2008 7:17:15 AM PST by rochester_veteran ( http://RochesterConservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Good commentary but he shakes some readers loose, quite unnecessarily, by the initial reference to the “crucifixion” of the king. “Ritual slaughter” would have been a better term.
Nor do I think the reaction to Bush rises to the level of mythological impulse. But it’s a good read and offers an interesting perspective.


13 posted on 12/26/2008 7:17:22 AM PST by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776

You said — “Once again, if President George W. Bush is so hated, then why was he elected President of the United States TWICE? the media just makes up crAP.”

Well, there have been FReepers posting to me that hate Bush for what he has done and they are sorry that they ever voted for him.

Some cite the idea that Bush (and Cheney said recently that they would have to sacrifice free market principles in order to save the economy...

Bush says sacrificed free-market principles to save economy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2149830/posts

That has caused some hatred to be vented. Along with that goes the bailouts, too.

Then there is the immigration bill that the President supported. A lot of people vented hatred on that basis.

And then some FReepers have vented hatred because Bush is not a conservative or not conservative enough (according to what they say).

The list keeps getting bigger and bigger by the day — even around here on Free Republic. Many are glad to see Bush go, according to what I read. This doesn’t appear to be media “made-up crap” from what I read from FReepers, right here on this board.

As for me, I even still support Bush in his statements that perhaps free market principles may have to be sacrificed in order to save the economy. Sometimes emergency measures must be taken. BUT, that will generate a “lot of hate” around here.

And I support Bush for going into the war with Afghanistan and Iraq, but I don’t think the “freedom” has made a real difference in Iraq like freedom is here (and that’s because of the false and evil religion of Islam).

I don’t support Bush for what he’s doing in trying to “divide the land of Israel”, because I believe he’s totally wrong in that regard. But, I’m not hating him because of it. He’s just going to be on the wrong side of God on that issue.

Also, I think Bush is totally wrong for saying that the god of Islam is the same God that we worship in Christianity. That’s totally false — *absolutely* false. So, Bush is misleading a lot of people in that issue.

So, even as one who doesn’t hate Bush, I still see that he’s not been right on a lot of matters...


14 posted on 12/26/2008 7:17:53 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

“While it is natural enough for conservatives to be upset by the blatant unfairness of the propaganda media -— indeed, by their visible madness -— if we just take a little mental distance, we can easily see an ancient anthropological drama: The crucifixion of the reigning king, along with the messianic glorification of a new one, who will surely rescue us from our media-driven despair. (Of course the new king will also grow weaker in time, in spite of his charismatic magic ...) This is the stuff of Shakespeare and Sophocles. George W. Bush’s “head is bloody but unbowed,” to quote the poem Invictus, (”undefeated’) the Victorian answer to political witchhunts. “

England was part of this madness with King Charles II. They overthrew a monarchy in place of a Parliament. The Prime Minister then attempted to place his son on the ruling seat upon his death, which pissed everyone off. “If we are going to have a monarchy, why one like that? Let’s just go back to the monarchy” which allowed the WONDERFUL King Charles II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England) to be placed back on the throne. He was the save all, end all of England. It wasn’t until a few years later when he himself was just as corrupt (even though he lived as almost a Pauper in France while in exile and vowed to not fall into the trappings of royalty), but he did. And the people became just as upset with him as any other.

Just give it time.


15 posted on 12/26/2008 7:23:32 AM PST by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776

This does not say everyone hates him. It says a certain hate-filled, mob mentality has consumed the Left and the Media. I would add that some conservatives also hate him, but for different reasons.

In 2000 the Left and Media had not yet coallesced against him (from an old political family but a new national personality - everyone thought it would be Jeb but George surprised them) yet clearly wanted Al Gore. When they did not get Al Gore and could seize upon the Florida recount confusion and Bush’s popular vote loss but electoral vote win, they came at him with a vengeance.

By 2004 they had the death toll in Iraq and no weapons of mass destruction found to use against him. But John Kerry and his wife helped Bush by being who they are. The Swift Boat Vets advertising helped, too. Rove engineered a magnificent campaign outreach into the blurbs - beyond the suburbs and found new voters with conservative values to turn out -

Even with all of that and a strong popular vote margin, Bush is President by only 100,000 votes in Ohio. Flip Ohio and Kerry would have won.

The economy thanks to the tax cuts held Bush up. The insurgency in Iraq and war mismanagement almost sank him. Then the Surge allowed him some breathing room. Then the economy tanked, for which the Dems rejoiced - appropriately, since they engineered the collapse and always rejoice in bad news for America.

Returning to the point - the Left and Media’s behavior (NOT most Americans) after the Shoe Incident is beyond reprehensible and is driven by Bush hatred and mob mentality. So, although low in polls and ungratefully shoved aside by the American people, Bush isn’t (and this doesn’t claim) hated by most of us.

Rush said this several times. He said Bush is an unpopular President but most Americans don’t hate Bush the man. The two things aren’t one and the same.

However, there is dripping, smoldering hatred for him expressed on this conservative site. By people who can’t disagree on some issues without becoming consumed by hatred and wishing that we had had Al Gore/John Kerry all these years just so Bush could retroactively lose two elections in their minds.


16 posted on 12/26/2008 7:24:25 AM PST by txrangerette (Just say "no" to the Obama Cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

For the last eight years we have witnessed the most distasteful media coverage, coupled with internet insanity take shot after shot against a man who is a decent, gentle soul.

We have witnessed calendars made out of his verbal failings while being told Obama is the greatest orator ever.

We have witnessed caricatures of monkeys made out of our elected leader while we were told the use of Obama’s middle name was a scare tactic.

We have witnessed books and shirts depicting the murder of our elected leader while we were told that any critcism of Obama was nothing more than veiled racism.

The liberals won the war of words and imagery because our side does not fight back.

The liberals have managed to destroy any positive that may exist with innuendo, supposition and conspiracy. At this point, most people cannot agree on the most simple fact anymore.

The death of “truth”. There are no facts.


17 posted on 12/26/2008 7:25:58 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

We’ve seen this all before with President Nixon. What is amazing to me is that the nutjob libtards display no cognitive dissonance in their hatred of President Bush, despite the fact that Big Government continued to grow throughout his presidency. As a conservative I was often displeased with W’s policies, but personally never even came close to hating him.


18 posted on 12/26/2008 7:26:27 AM PST by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
Paraphrased.... a lie can circle the earth before the truth can get its shoes on.
The Bush admin with its new tone would not defend against the lies and let the MSM define them. Will history correct the lies, nope as long as the liberals are writing it. The Obama depression will all be blamed on GWB just as Hoover got all the blame for FDRs blunders.
19 posted on 12/26/2008 7:29:22 AM PST by SAWTEX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

I think this guy is on to something. We shall see. I am sure history long term will be much kinder to Bush than the MSM and pundits of today.


20 posted on 12/26/2008 7:32:43 AM PST by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SAWTEX
Yes. It is even possible at this point that W will get blamed for terrorism.
21 posted on 12/26/2008 7:42:19 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (Nemo me impune lacessit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67; AmericanMade1776; meandog

RE : “President Bush is not a theoretical politician. He is a practical man. He has constantly made the best decisions by his lights, ...”

Are you kidding?? What did all the deals he cut with Pelosi against republicans buy him? How about the all the trillions he borrowed against our future for give-aways like UAW and medicare? 20 % approval? That’s all he got for his working against the party he was the leader of ? He was a republican disaster that borrowed political chips (as well as $$) to win 2002+2004 for massive losses 2006+2008. Obama/Pelosi is HIS legacy. He was leader of R party, their doom is his doom. That’s why they called GB election 1988 Reagan’s third election. He opened the socialism door for Obama leaving republicans few arguments next year.

Defend this Bushies:

“Bush springs drug dealers, leaves border agents to rot”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2153577/posts

Can you imagine GWB calling McCain in late September and telling him, “I got really bad news John??? Remember a few months ago when I told you “the fundamentals of the economy are strong’ as you repeated in that clip that Obama is using against you now? Well I am SO SORRY, I have to tell the people on national TV/cable address that we are on the brink of a great depression. I know this looks really bad for you John, but we can turn this around. You can take the credit for MY and Pelosi’s rescue package, if you do you will be a hero and win in a landslide. But if the bailout goes down, we all go down with the economy. Just Trust me one more time again John (until the UAW bailout) and we will be very careful how we use the money so it looks good for our party, Have I ever let you down?? OK i know but this time it will be different”


22 posted on 12/26/2008 7:44:18 AM PST by sickoflibs (GWB : "Give me a 700B blank check to save the UAW until Obama takes office")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

I’ll give this a shot but don’t expect mind changing.

I give him the benefit of the doubt on the issue of our God vs. Islam’s God.

Because he of all people is not craftily articulate. This is like a gut instinct with him and I think it’s based on his belief there is only one God, therefore if any worship God this is the God they are worshipping...there is no other.

Some support for this in Scripture, as well. The Apostle Paul preached a famous sermon on Mars Hill in Athens. The Athenians had statues and inscriptions to all sorts of mythological gods, by name, not to leave any of them out. Then they had an inscription “to an unknown god” just to cover THAT base. Paul stood up and said he was declaring the truth to them about that God, and proceeded to speak of the One God who created the Universe and who sent his Son Jesus Christ to save mankind from Sin.

Paul didn’t accord recognition to any of their gods, but what he did do was start with their belief in something beyond Mankind, in superior beings, and went from there to teach them.

Bush isn’t there as a secular President to teach Christianity, so he limits himself unlike the Apostle Paul who was an evangelist to the world for the Gospel of Christ.

But when asked a question about do we worship the same God as Islam, I believe he meant his statement for good, not for evil, and that he intended to show he doesn’t even consider that there are different Gods to worship. But he doesn’t know how to articulate that they worship God ignorantly and to their destruction, without insulting a large part of the world’s masses and stirring up even more terrorism, which he doesn’t want to do.

That’s my take.

I know that his statement is one of the reasons his base has rejected him.

I just think it’s one more thing he hasn’t well articulated and perhaps he didn’t even want to “go there” for the reasons I said, so his oversimplified answer has given more cause to his detractors.

So be it.

I don’t see it like the detractors see it.


23 posted on 12/26/2008 7:45:15 AM PST by txrangerette (Just say "no" to the Obama Cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2nd Bn, 11th Mar

two wars........
.
.
.
yep, exactly, i noticed that also. also they keep referring
to the “Iraq War”


24 posted on 12/26/2008 7:49:17 AM PST by urtax$@work (we have faced tenacity before....& The Best kind of Memorial is a BURNING Memorial)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Most of the conservatives I know, don’t hate GWB. They just don’t think he was a very good president and certainly was no conservative.


25 posted on 12/26/2008 7:53:37 AM PST by pt17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler; bamahead; dcwusmc; Bokababe; roamer_1
Sometimes emergency measures must be taken.

Sure, sometimes desperate measures must be taken, including but not limited to looting the taxpayers, introducing full-blown Socialism, and destroying the dollar.

Bush is a RINO failure.

I totally regret voting for him...and as long as the Republicans keep dishing up Democrat Lite Socialism, I will vote third party.

COMPASSIONATE 'CONSERVATISM' = SOCIALISM

Good riddance to rubbish.

26 posted on 12/26/2008 8:08:45 AM PST by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pt17

Like most Americans, most conservatives don’t hate him. We agree.

I point out that some who post here do.

I don’t think you can be as vitriolic and disrespectful with your rhetoric as I have seen here, and then turn around as some do and deny the hatred with any credibility.

Again, we agree they are a minority of the American and conservative population.

He has done some great, conservative things.

War leadership, spreading of freedom, tax cuts spurring economic growth, appointments of Roberts and Alito, pro life policies to name some.

Others are problematic.

He didn’t run as a conservative.

He ran on “compassionate conservatism”.

All I can say is, with those watch words as platform, I feel we were fortunate to get as much conservatism as we got.

I will remind that Ronald Reagan was not universally supported by conservatives the longer he was President. The grumbling and dissatisfaction was loud and intense.

Today Reagan is held up as the conservative ICON.

And no, I’m not equating the two men or Presidents.

Just putting some historical perspective on things...


27 posted on 12/26/2008 8:08:50 AM PST by txrangerette (Just say "no" to the Obama Cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
The Bush hatred we are seeing in the media today belongs in the long catalogue of human psychopathology -- not rational behavior

If that is this guys point I have stopped reading right there. Despising Bush for asking for, getting, distributing and refusing to account for $700B in bailout money is not rational? Despising Bush for assembling one of the most lackluster underachieving administrations in history is not rational? Despising Bush for searching far and wide, high and low for the most qualified supreme court candidate and choosing Hariett Miers is not rational? Despising Bush for almost losing the war in Iraq by playing politics over senior level assignments is not rational?

28 posted on 12/26/2008 8:11:37 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
War leadership

One of the first jobs of leadership is to pick the best folks to execute your policies. Bush fell flat on his face on that one.

29 posted on 12/26/2008 8:13:08 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
" ... emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind—that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining—that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul ...

From Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

30 posted on 12/26/2008 8:21:31 AM PST by OldNavyVet (Character counts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

No sale.

Every President has had trouble with people he picked.

In that sense all “fell flat on their faces”.

I give Bush credit for listening to Petraeus and letting go of Rumsfeld whom he greatly admired, when the chips were down and the war was hanging in the balance and the world at home and abroad was against him.

His war leadership against all the odds and opposition has been nothing short of astounding.

Perfect?

Ain’t no such animal.

I also stated that it was a conservative thing for him to do, in answer to someone who said he was no conservative (he ran on “compassionate conservatism”, not conservatism, and we’ve seen the difference in those two things). I said he’s done SOME great, conservative things and listed them.

Done them perfectly?

Again, NOBODY ever has.


31 posted on 12/26/2008 8:24:38 AM PST by txrangerette (Just say "no" to the Obama Cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

Hello, self admitted Bush HATER.

And goodby.


32 posted on 12/26/2008 8:26:31 AM PST by txrangerette (Just say "no" to the Obama Cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

The corruption of liberal insularity goes far beyond mere bigotry. It is the cauldron in which nearly every instance of brutality and racial apartheid has occured.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others each came out of self proclaimed liberal enlightenment. It is just because liberalism prides itself on its high moral ambition that it falls prey to the most vile evils imaginable.
Precisely because of the primacy of political liberalism there is no doubt whatever but that Obama will develop justifications for profoundly inhumane tyranny against the citizens he proposes to rule.


33 posted on 12/26/2008 8:29:02 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (He is the son of soulless slavers, not the son of soulful slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pt17
I am as conservative as anyone but I do hate W. I did not hate him until this year. Before that it was like watching your high school class president constantly getting beat up while getting ready to give a speech. He would not stand up for himself or let anyone else do it for him. After a while you just feel apathy for a guy who will not even take a swing back at the bullies.

I hate W for the the illegal invader situation. He pushed me over to the hate side with the "See you at the signing!" crack. That tore it for me. All the W lovers who think he did such a great job on terrorism will be rudely awaken when the next attack comes and all the terrorist got here through the borders illegally. Talk about a blind spot. Now he wants to protect his legacy as the savior of millions while he sank the ship carrying the means of delivering that freedom. Males me ill just thinking about it.

34 posted on 12/26/2008 8:31:18 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (Nemo me impune lacessit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
A thoughtful and indeed scholarly piece of writing by James Lewis of American Thinker. By my replying, this will effectively bookmark it. Thanks for the post.

Now I have a few thoughts myself having retired many moons ago and then wondered about the whole process. The President is still a comparatively young man, surely all right thinking people here will wish him well. Will he spend the time like President Nixon, who tried with some success to get back what was wrongfully stolen from him?

Will he be like a sort of wandering hound, still searching for the glory he once had, still out there coining it? (chuckle) No doubt he (Bubba) is like Henry the Eighth,dodging the sharp tongue of his last and dominant wife (he could not execute her).

Anyway, that said, my guess is that President Bush will fit in to retirement splendidly. One happy man to an extent,with what he knows re America's security from various swine.

Time will tell

35 posted on 12/26/2008 8:33:36 AM PST by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lexington minuteman 1775

” I am sure history long term will be much kinder to Bush “

As history already is regarding Ronald Reagan.


36 posted on 12/26/2008 8:34:03 AM PST by OldNavyVet (Character counts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I’m with you one that. . .would have been MUCH better if we had Kerry or Gore (especially Gore) in charge and with a compliant democrat congress.

Much better.

Just me talking.


37 posted on 12/26/2008 8:44:52 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Funny thing, the left answers the charge of irrational Bush hatred with countercharges of our Clinton hatred.

I can’t speak for everyone, but most of the conservative folks with whom I’m acquainted never hated him. Despised his policies and behavior, sure, as did I. But that’s a far cry from the personal hatred oozing from the majority of leftists.


38 posted on 12/26/2008 8:53:05 AM PST by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
Every President has had trouble with people he picked.

The trouble isn't "trouble with the people he picked." It is that the people he picked, across the board, are do-nothings. This cabinet has been a disaster, except Gates who isn't a Bush II / Cheney man anyway. The other do-something person has been Paulson, and let me know how you think that is working out. I live in DC and watch these guys up close and personal. They are a waste of oxygen.

39 posted on 12/26/2008 8:53:23 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette; All
excerpt ...

“I just think it’s one more thing he hasn't’t well articulated and perhaps he didn't’t even want to “go there” for the reasons I said, so his oversimplified answer has given more cause to his detractors.

So be it.

I don’t see it like the detractors see it.”
___________________________________________________________

This thread is an interesting series of responses to an interesting article.

Too huge an overall proposition to address succinctly. Many Books will be written about this subject.

Media ... has the power; and they use it to their own benefit ... always.

‘Big’ money owns most of the medias, or are majority stockholders, thus being of huge influence as to the direction of the news. Certainly the medias has their own political agenda.

History is written by the winners of the battles ... thus the Democrats/liberals/Socialists/Communists that comprise the Democratic Party will all agree to uphold and glorify their version of the truth.

The real battle is often disguised well. It is the battle of GOOD AND EVIL.

It is ever present and behind the scenes; no matter who or what is happening on the stage.

The powers that want ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, the destruction of America and the rise of a new regime, must first bring America down. Our Constitution is in real trouble. Activist Judges are manipulating it, the Congress is ignoring it, while creating all sorts of laws and regulations that are unconstitutional, etc. The UN is against America. We give billions in foreign aid to the world and it is considered , ... NOT ENOUGH ...We are rich ... they need our money. ... We are borrowing it. We do not actually have the money we are giving away.

Many in the world desire to come here, yet when they come they want to bring the ways of the country they are fleeing
from to America;and change our government. Communism said, “we will conquer you from within” ... it appears so.

America is on a down hill slide. If allowed to continue we will experience great hardship.

Frankly we are in big trouble. Obama considers our Constitution to be in need of revising ...

My take on the Christian response to be one of not returning tit for tat, not playing by the same rules that the Democrats use. IT IS NOT THE CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR TO DO SO.

Rightly so, however, it puts us at a distinct disadvantage in this play of politics. They have no rules. all is fair. We have rules and mostly do not play ‘dirty pool’.

The on going drama of mankind. Always has been and will continue to be so.

America has the best foundation and has prospered under it ... yet we are rapidly destroying it; and the majority of conservatives/Christians/Republicans sit on the side lines and watch.. And of course grouse .. and act like armchair quarterbacks ... knowing all the mistakes, and how to win and doing nothing more than that. Sideline sitters.

We come here and learn much. It is a wonderful web site and many, many knowledgeable posters come here. Very educational.

Still it acts to defuse our energy; and it is after all mostly talk.

God help us.

40 posted on 12/26/2008 8:56:25 AM PST by geologist (The only answer to the troubles of this life is Jesus. A decision we all must make.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776
Once again, if President George W. Bush is so hated, then why was he elected President of the United States TWICE?

The first term he was elected because of Clinton fatigue and his pedigree. He had a dork for an opponent and he still barely won.

The second term, security was the main issue, the economy had started to improve due to a tax cut written by congressional Republicans, not W. He had a dork for an opponent and still barely won.

W is the worst two term president in history and easily in the bottom half of all presidents.

41 posted on 12/26/2008 8:57:26 AM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
Remember when Clinton was President we all learned how to bash the President. Some of the Media joined in on the bashing. When Bush was elected I think the Democrat's were eager to throw all the hate in the world at Bush. So now instead of respect for our Presidents we have a vast majority ready to throw the shoes at Oboma. I think it is time we go back to showing our respect for whoever the people elect. (This will be a hard one for me as I am certainly no Oboma lover.)
42 posted on 12/26/2008 8:57:58 AM PST by Faith-Hope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
Read it if you want to understand Bush hatred and Obama worship. ....Alexander Hamilton famously said, "The people? The people is a great beast!"

After accusing Bush criticisms as being irrational, this guy then goes on THIS RANT? I think Bush has been horrifically ineffective because of the do-nothings he has put in positions of leadership, but it is a stretch to get from there to Obama worship. Hamilton was a great administrator, which Bush is not, and he was no friend of democracy.

43 posted on 12/26/2008 8:58:18 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
Each of the dictators you mentioned acted to advance their own power lust using the unique historical conditions of their respective countries at the time. Hitler combined Workers' Union socialist rhetoric with aristocratic German nationalism to take advantage of massive public fear and resentment after the loss of WWI and the failure of Weimar. Stalin took the repressive mechanisms of the Bolshevik state given to him by Lenin as well as the remaining institutions of the Czarist empire, and evilly perfected them. Mao rose in a nation still largely composed of peasants that had no modern experience with democracy and cities ruined by the war with Japan. Pol Pot got his job through the New York Times, with some financial and military assistance from Communist China by way of North Vietnam.

None of these people were liberal in either the classical or modern sense, but availed themselves of the rhetoric of Utopian socialism, which claims for itself a moral imperative that, as you note, always ends in "profoundly inhumane tyranny". As for Mr. Obama, even if I thought him a potential tyrant (his ego militates that way; his manner does not) he would be severely constrained by our own unique conditions and history, including a still-vital Constitution and long experience with freedom and democratic institutions.

44 posted on 12/26/2008 8:58:19 AM PST by andy58-in-nh (Ronald Reagan had a vision of America. Barack Obama has a vision of Barack Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

‘” ... emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind—that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining—that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul ...”

From Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
________________________________________________________

Thank you for this post ... worth repeating again and again ..


45 posted on 12/26/2008 9:01:51 AM PST by geologist (The only answer to the troubles of this life is Jesus. A decision we all must make.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
goodby

Just curious. Do you think it was ok to asking for, get, distribute to the guys who got us into our financial mess and then refuse to account to the American public for $700B in bailout money?

Oh, and toodleoo.

46 posted on 12/26/2008 9:02:25 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
"Also, I think Bush is totally wrong for saying that the god of Islam is the same God that we worship in Christianity. That’s totally false — *absolutely* false. So, Bush is misleading a lot of people in that issue."

There is only one God, and everyone who worships is worshiping Him. The difference is humanity's opinion of His Nature.

47 posted on 12/26/2008 9:39:30 AM PST by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
"However, there is dripping, smoldering hatred for him expressed on this conservative site. "

Are we back to the "Conservatives stayed home" mantra?

I would expect that conservatives voted overwhelmingly for Bush and again, overwhelmingly, for McCain...and I do truly dislike McCain!

For my part, I strongly disagree with both McC and GWB on immigration; totally and without condition. I also disagree with both in their compulsion to get along with those who would bury them in an instant - and pretty much did bury McCain.
However; remember that the people, not politicians and certainly not the media, turned back the late administration/McCain amnesty scheme and that the same people would have done it again even under a McCain presidency. None of my disagreements are adequate to define as "dripping, smoldering hatred".

Since the election I have sensed a growing undercurrent of remorse(?) from "middle of the road" Obama voters - not conservatives - and in each case their vote for Obama, or failure to vote at all, was attributed to "everyone I know hated Bush so much..."
When I tell them I wasn't overfond of him either, but didn't use that to pi%% away a vote, they get a whipped puppy look and go all quiet.
The true believers, in contrast, go directly to comparisons of Obama-magic versus (conservatives') envy, ignorance, evil intent, racism, bestiality, and imminent ruin.

If a few in this forum actually do hate the man or his policies, so be It!
And, note that I reserve the right never to drink designer label tequila with the same smoldering fervor.
In the meantime, get over the blame-a-conservative thing because without (Sarah Palin and) a bunch of conservatives who did go out and vote, McCain would be road kill instead of just an embarrassment.

48 posted on 12/26/2008 10:01:22 AM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady

You said — “There is only one God, and everyone who worships is worshiping Him. The difference is humanity’s opinion of His Nature.”

Well, that’s obviously what Bush is thinking — but — that’s a big fallacy, unfortunately.

You see..., we can identify who we worship by His characteristics. Now, I would not say that God is schizophrenic. Obviously, God says he’s not — so we can examine “God’s characteristics” (of what He says about Himself and what He thinks and what He does) to see if we’re talking about the *same being*...

Of course, Bush is talking in terms of his Christianity and I’m talking in terms of Christianity, too. So, we’re taking this in comparison to Islam (because that’s what Bush was discussing). Mind you, also, Jesus is part of the Triune Godhead in Christianity (an *absolutely fundamental* and necessary doctrine, without which one is *not* considered to be Christian).


Christianity — The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has a Son (i.e., the Son of God) who was sent to earth in human form to be the salvation of the world.

Islam — The God of the Koran has no Son — at all. Anyone who says that God has a Son, is teaching a lie and is an infidel.

Christianity — Jesus is God (see John 1, for the “Word”)
Islam — Jesus is not God, only a prophet

Christianity — Jesus is the author of salvation, the *only* way to God
Islam — Jesus is a prophet, but Mohammed is the greatest prophet, dying in Jihad is the only *assured* way to Heaven

Christianity — Jesus died on the cross for payment of sins for the world
Islam — Jesus did not die on the cross and he cannot pay for the sins of the world

Christianity — When Jesus returns he rescues Israel and saves them from destruction.
Islam — When Jesus returns, he helps destroy the infidels and kills all the Jews and Christians.

Christianity — When Jesus returns, He does battle with the surrounding nations, around Israel (the Islamic nations) and destroys all those nations, who have acted wickedly against Israel.
Islam — When Jesus returns, he helps destroy the nation of Israel

Christianity — God accepted the offered sacrifice from Abraham of — Isaac
Islam — God of the Koran accepted the offered sacrifice from Abraham of — Ishmael

Christianity — God’s most holy place in the world is the Temple in Jerusalem
Islam — the God of the Koran’s most holy place is the Kabba in Mecca

Christianity — God’s presence was seen and observed in His Holy Temple in Jerusalem
Islam — There never was a temple in Jerusalem and it’s a myth.

Christianity — God’s Son, Jesus will rule over the nations of the world from the Throne of David in Jerusalem
Islam — Koran’s god says Jesus will not rule and there was never a “Throne of David”, it was a myth.


By the “characteristics” of the God of the Bible, of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — in comparison to — the false god of the Koran — we see that the characteristics, statements, attitudes and purposes — *do not* match up. This is *very clear proof* that we are talking about *two different entities*.

In fact, we have *identified* the entity of the god of Islam — because he matches the characteristics of Satan.

So, it appears that Islam worships the “god of this world” — Satan, while Christians worship the Creator God of the Universe, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


49 posted on 12/26/2008 10:06:28 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

I had no problems with the cabinet of the first GWB term. The second, however, has been increasingly disappointing.

I have also disgreed with GWB on several issues. They are probably the same ones you hate him for.

But I certainly don’t hate him. Guess that’s the difference between us.


50 posted on 12/26/2008 10:22:25 AM PST by Fudd Fan ("KNEECAP THE LIBERAL AGENDA!" --Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson