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

Skip to comments.

WHY WE HATE BUSH (It's the Stolen Election, Stupid)
Yahoo News ^ | Thu, Sep 25, 2003 | Ted Rall

Posted on 09/25/2003 7:33:39 AM PDT by presidio9

NEW YORK--"Have the Democrats totally flipped their lids?" asks David Brooks in The Weekly Standard, quasi-official organ of the Bush Administration. "Because every day some Democrat seems to make a manic or totally over-the-top statement about George Bush, the Republican party, and the state of the nation today."

True, Democrats loathe Dubya with greater intensity than any Republican standard-bearer in modern political history. Even the diabolical Richard Nixon--who, after all, created the EPA, went to China and imposed price controls to stop corporate gouging--rates higher in liberal eyes. "It's mystifying," writes Brooks.

Let me explain.

First but not foremost, Bush's detractors despise him viscerally, as a man. Where working-class populists see him as a smug, effeminate frat boy who wouldn't recognize a hard day's work if it kicked him in his self-satisfied ass, intellectuals see a simian-faced idiot unqualified to mow his own lawn, much less lead the free world. Another group, which includes me, is more patronizing than spiteful. I feel sorry for the dude; he looks so pathetic, so out of his depth, out there under the klieg lights, squinting, searching for nouns and verbs, looking like he's been snatched from his bed and beamed in, and is still half asleep, not sure where he is. Each speech looks as if Bush had been beamed from his bed fast asleep. And he's willfully ignorant. On Fox News, Bush admits that he doesn't even read the newspaper: "I glance at the headlines just to kind of [sic] a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read [sic] the news themselves." All these takes on Bush boil down to the same thing: The guy who holds the launch codes isn't smart enough to know that's he's stupid. And that's scary.

Fear breeds hatred, and Bush's policies create a lot of both. U.S. citizens like Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi disappear into the night, never to be heard from again. A concentration camp rises at Guantánamo. Stasi-like spies tap our phones and read our mail; thanks to the ironically-named Patriot Act, these thugs don't even need a warrant. As individual rights are trampled, corporate profits are sacrosanct. An aggressive, expansionist military invades other nations "preemptively" to eliminate the threat of non-existent weapons, and American troops die to enrich a company that buys off the Vice President.

Time to dust off the F word. "Whenever people start locking up enemies because of national security without much legal care, you are coming close [to fascism]," warns Robert Paxton, emeritus professor of history at Columbia University and author of the upcoming book "Fascism in Action." We're supposed to hate fascists--or has that changed because of 9/11?

Bush bashers hate Bush for his personal hypocrisy--the draft-dodger who went AWOL during Vietnam yet sent other young men to die in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites), the philandering cocaine addict who dares to call gays immoral--as well as for his attacks on peace and prosperity. But even that doesn't explain why we hate him so much.

Bush is guilty of a single irredeemable act so heinous and anti-American that Nixon's corruption and Reagan's intellectual inferiority pale by comparison. No matter what he does, Democrats and Republicans who love their country more than their party will never forgive him for it.

Bush stole the presidency.

The United States enjoyed two centuries of uninterrupted democracy before George W. Bush came along. The Brits burned the White House, civil war slaughtered millions and depressions brought economic chaos, yet presidential elections always took place on schedule and the winners always took office. Bush ended all that, suing to stop a ballot count that subsequent newspaper recounts proved he had lost. He had his GOP-run Supreme Court, a federal institution, rule extrajurisdictionally on the disputed election, a matter that under our system of laws falls to the states. Bush's recount guru, James Baker, went on national TV to threaten to use force to install him as president if Gore didn't step aside: "If we keep being put in the position of having to respond to recount after recount after recount of the same ballots, then we just can't sit on our hands, and we will be forced to do what might be in our best personal interest--but not--it would not be in the best interest of our wonderful country."

Bush isn't president, but he plays one on TV. His presence in the White House is an affront to everything that this country stands for. His fake presidency is treasonous; our passive tolerance for it sad testimony to post-9/11 cowardice. As I wrote in December 2000, "George W. Bush is not the President of the United States of America." And millions of Americans agree.

Two months after 9/11, when Bush's job approval rating was soaring at 89 percent, 47 percent of Americans told a Gallup poll that he had not won the presidency legitimately. "The election controversy...could make a comeback if Bush's approval ratings were to fall significantly," predicted Byron York in The National Review. Two years later, 3 million jobs are gone, Bush's wars have gone sour, and just 50 percent of voters approve of his performance. If York is correct, most Americans now consider Bush to be no more legitimate than Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), who also came to power in a coup d'état.

And that's why we hate him.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: algorelostgetoverit; anarchist; antibush; anticapitalist; barfalert; bushbashing; bushhater; cartoonist; conspiracy; dontsupportourtroops; election2000; gerbilranaway; hatesthepresident; luvelectoralcollege; morford; moveonmoron; tedrall; timeofthemonth; tinfoil; usefulidiot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-147 next last
To: finnman69
Amazing, Bush is hated by RATS more than Nixon and Reagan.

I wonder why this dirt bag writer doesn't ask any of us how we feel about the Rats?

81 posted on 09/25/2003 9:27:10 AM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I feel sorry for the dude; he looks so pathetic, so out of his depth, out there under the klieg lights, squinting, searching for nouns and verbs, looking like he's been snatched from his bed and beamed in, and is still half asleep, not sure where he is.

And yet he's assembled a team that is consistently kicking the dims collective rears. He must be really frustrating to know that he is out witted by an alleged half wit.

82 posted on 09/25/2003 9:28:12 AM PDT by Lost Highway (There's no stopping the cretins from hoppin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
frustrating = frustrated = me right now.
83 posted on 09/25/2003 9:29:49 AM PDT by Lost Highway (There's no stopping the cretins from hoppin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I have been around for nearly 70 years and I have never seen the country so polarized as it is today. It is scary. I do not know how it is going to end. We hated Clinton when he was in and now the Dems hate Bush even more than we detested Clinton. I thought perhaps after 9/11 we could all come together but you see how long that lasted.
84 posted on 09/25/2003 9:29:59 AM PDT by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
Who is this guy, Ted?
85 posted on 09/25/2003 9:30:24 AM PDT by gipper81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gipper81
"Don't Support Our Troops," by Ted Rall:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/867022/posts
86 posted on 09/25/2003 9:32:18 AM PDT by presidio9 (If [the French] are providing passports, I’m going to ask for Pellegrino)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: gipper81
Who is this guy, Ted?

He's a political cartoonist who despises Bush and the GOP.
His latest crap cartoon can be found here: uComics - Ted Rall

87 posted on 09/25/2003 9:36:00 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Speaking of hypocrisy...this dipstick is dismayed by the hypocrisy of "W"'s so-called draft dodging...The OBVIOUS question for this hate filled hypocrite is where was his righteous indignation when Clinton DODGED the draft, claiming he "loathed" the military, and would have to consider going to Canada?
88 posted on 09/25/2003 9:38:18 AM PDT by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The left hated Nixon since the days that he was spotting Communists in the Fedeal government.

The youth of the 1960s disliked LBJ and Vietnam but when a Republican took office, they were able to vent without having political reservations.

The left got sick of defending Bill Clinton but they could not admit that he was a crook; to do so would be to validate some conservative arguments.

Now that Bill Clinton is no longer in office, the Rats can vent again.

There was no theft. I would think that even Ted Rall knows this. Ted is not a Democrat; he is a self-confessed Anarchist. Ted did support the impeachment of Bill Clinton on the perjury charge but then he thought that Bill Clinton harmed the Democrats and that he didn't get through enough liberal policies (I think he just wanted to see Al Gore Jr. president).

Hey, Ted. Don't be such a (red diaper) baby.

89 posted on 09/25/2003 9:38:42 AM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kingasaurus
Yeah, but what does that say about us conservatives who insist the other guy paid off the refs but lost anyway? :) ;)

Easy. The refs are even more corrupt than the enemy. They don't stay bought.

90 posted on 09/25/2003 9:39:50 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: cwboelter
Bush ended all that, suing to stop a ballot count that subsequent newspaper recounts proved he had lost.

I was about to say that this statement is a bald-faced and proveable lie. Thanks for the article that proves it.

91 posted on 09/25/2003 9:40:12 AM PDT by Tatze (Give Pizza Chants!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Ted Rall is the traitorous little shit who before the Iraq War, said that he was against the war AND OUR SOLDIERS. Ted is from my hometown, and God wouldn't I love to meet him in a bar while out drinking with a buddy of mine who got back from Iraq a few months ago. :)
92 posted on 09/25/2003 9:44:55 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Impeach the Boy
Speaking of hypocrisy...this dipstick is dismayed by the hypocrisy of "W"'s so-called draft dodging...The OBVIOUS question for this hate filled hypocrite is where was his righteous indignation when Clinton DODGED the draft, claiming he "loathed" the military, and would have to consider going to Canada?

You want hypocrisy? Read the linked article "Don't Support Out Troops in Post 86. Ted doesn't think there can ever be a justification for war. He thinks Viet Nam was unjust. Which is it Ted, should Bush have fought in Viet Nam or not. You can't have it both ways ya know...

93 posted on 09/25/2003 9:44:57 AM PDT by presidio9 (If [the French] are providing passports, I’m going to ask for Pellegrino)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
THose losers made one fatal mistake in planning the 2000 election: They underestimated the number of dead people, illegal aliens, wino's, dogs, cats and ferrets, they needed to overwhelm the live, human, legally registered citizen voters, favoring the eventual winner.

That is one error they will make sure not to repeat in 2004.
94 posted on 09/25/2003 9:45:08 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Where will refugees find sanctuary, when the one world government dream, turns nightmare?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
A) If you don't like the articles I post, don't read them. B) If you don't like the articles I post, don't bother telling me about it. C) 70+ responses to this article indicate you are in the minority here.

I've come to learn that I have set my expectations for FR's level of discourse far higher than I should have. Thanks for clearing that up.

95 posted on 09/25/2003 9:45:16 AM PDT by risen_feenix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
he's willfully ignorant – liberal projection (they are the ones willfully ignorant)

Fear breeds hatred, and Bush's policies create a lot of both – we were hated LONG before GWB was elected:

AMERICA's war on terrorism did not begin in September 2001. It began in November 1979.
That was shortly after Ayatollah Khomeini had seized power in Iran, riding the slogan "Death to America" - and sure enough, the attacks on Americans soon began. In November 1979, a militant Islamic mob took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the Iranian capital, and held 52 Americans hostage for the next 444 days.
The rescue team sent to free those hostages in April 1980 suffered eight fatalities, making them the first of militant Islam's many American casualties. Others included:
April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.
January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.
April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.
September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).
December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.
June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.
After a let-up, the attacks then restarted: Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, 224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 and 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.
Simultaneously, the murderous assault of militant Islam also took place on U.S. soil:
July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area.
August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich.
August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash.
September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.
January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.
November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York.
February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.
January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.
February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center.
March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.
February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.
October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City.


concentration camp rises at Guantánamo – with 3 meals of PC correct food, free medical care, prayer time, etc

draft-dodger – clinton is no longer in office (or is that orifice)

philandering cocaine addict – again, slick is no long in orifice

96 posted on 09/25/2003 9:46:01 AM PDT by appalachian_dweller (If we accept responsibility for our own actions, we are indeed worthy of our freedom. – Bill Whittle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: risen_feenix
I noticed you participated maturely on another of my threads on partial birth abortion. How about you just stowe you oh so superior attitude and let people talk about what interests them? Thanks so much.
97 posted on 09/25/2003 9:46:57 AM PDT by presidio9 (If [the French] are providing passports, I’m going to ask for Pellegrino)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: smith288
I find it discouraging that he needs to get fed news from his staff than get it himself.

Why read fiction when you can get the real facts first hand from people in-the-know.

98 posted on 09/25/2003 9:49:08 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Marauder
I don't think that's true; they know as well as anyone else that Gore was trying to steal the election, in cahoots with the SCOFFLAw liberal justices, and William Daly, son of the champion election-rigger of all time, "Hizzonner" Charles Daly, Sr. What they're mad about - and won't admit to - is that the SCOTUS stopped that by making FLorida's vote-mining democRats play by the rules.

I think that is correct. The 'rats know perfectly well what Gore was trying to do. What infuriates them is that Bush fought back. The cheaters were exposed, live on national tv, shuffling the rules like a card sharp shuffles a deck. They will never forgive this. The 'rats had really expected us to sit back passively while they kept changing the rules until they found a formula that worked. Instead, Bush called them on it.

Frankly, Bush's effective defense surprised a lot of Republicans too. But it wasn't just Bush. Mention Indiana 8 in Republican circles in Washington and you can still see jaws clinch. There's a whole generation of GOP professionals who have had their eyes opened to the fundamentally dishonest character of the national democrat party. They're usually too polite to put it in those terms, but they understand perfectly well that the 'rats lie and cheat as a matter of course.

When I'm being sociable with Democrats, I often bring up Watergate, which gets them nodding. I then observe that the near death experience with Nixon is an important reason why the national GOP plays by the rules, while the only lesson the 'rats learned was that Nixon should have burned the tapes.

I truly believe the corruption in the Democratic Party has reached the point that a whole bunch of people need to go to jail to burn it out of them. Had we done what the DNC and CLinton did in '95-'96, half the Republicans in Washington would have done time. The dems, however, now treat it as a big joke, because they got away with it. They are beneath contempt, and profoundly dangerous.

99 posted on 09/25/2003 9:49:08 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Where is the NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN PIC!
100 posted on 09/25/2003 10:03:43 AM PDT by DAPFE8900
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-147 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