I WILL MISS THE LEFT’S BUSH DERANGEMENT
As George Bush toddles off into the sunset, his problematic legacy an issue for historians to hash out, I find myself in a deep depression - a full-blown, down in the dumps, near-suicidal, serotonin choking, crusher case of the blues. It is at times like this I wish I still had my Zoloft prescription although I could do without the weight gain and zombie-like side effects.
No more George Bush means no more daily dose of liberal derangement about him. And no more liberal derangement about Bush means I will have to find some other avenue that can match the sheer entertainment value of watching while otherwise (nearly) normal Americans made gargantuan fools out of themselves by blaming the president for everything from acts of God to the acts of terrorists.
Toward the end, the left hit upon an explanation for their out of control moonbattiness; Bush was so awful that anything said about him was probably too good for him. He bollixed things up so badly, the reasoning goes, that it can hardly be called “derangement” when these truths are pointed out.
If that were only true. Clearly, reasoned critiques of the Bush presidency - many of which you will find on this site - do not denote “derangement” in any sense of the word. The problem is, even respected voices on the left like Yglesias, Klien, and Drum all succumbed to wild exaggeration, gross hyperbole, and outright falsehoods to describe what they saw as the president’s failings.
Filling the Justice Department (and most of government) with cronies and party hacks is stupid governance, not criminality. Initiating controversial programs to spy on overseas terrorists and their American contacts, interdicting and tracking the flow of money to terrorists, and tearing down artificial walls between domestic and foreign intelligence is not “shredding the constitution.” It never was and it never will be. If the Constitution were “shredded,” I daresay liberals who pointed this out would not be free to continue to spout such inanities for many years but would instead be comfortably ensconced in those camps built for American “subversives.”
No matter. If intelligent critiques of these and other programs were forthcoming from the left (and there have been precious few) an arguement could be made that “Bush Derangement Syndrom” is nothing more than conservative push back against the vitriol - a way to dismiss criticism and not grant it legitimacy.
But Holy Baby Jesus, how can anyone with a scintilla of reason and logic not have read lefty blogs - all major lefty blogs - for the past 8 years and not come to the rational conclusion that the folks engaged in unreasoning conspiracy mongering, exaggerated warnings about a coming dictatorship, proclaiming imminent attacks on countries like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, and ascribing evil intent to either innocent or inept actions, should be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain?
BDS has nothing to do with criticism of Bush. Those who practice BDS are marked by the gross contradictions in their “analysis.” Bush is both an incompetent clown and an evil genius - and interesting combination and, when you think about it, a logical fallacy. And beyond the wildly exaggerated rhetoric, there lies a resolute shallowness - an inability to grasp ideas in more than one dimension. Hence, you get obscenity-laced screeds like this one:
People HATE George W. Bush. A lot. Why? Because he’s a hideous little shit who fucked everything up, that’s why. He made a lot of people dead and even more people poor. And everyone knows it.
Our country has had problems acknowledging how black people are humans with brains and ability; we’ve had difficulties admitting the same when it comes to women; I’m not taking anything away from Obama’s skills in asserting that if Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic nomination, she’d have approval ratings in the same ballpark as his are now. And I’m not taking anything away from either in saying that if we’d nominated Bill the Motherfucking Cat it would be about the same.
Looking back through the Bush years for his Positive Accomplishments is, for me, like picking through my toddler’s diaper for the undigested corn. Everyone hates that asshole. Bush Derangement Syndrome, it emerges, was sanity all along.
Defending one’s derangement in a deranged way may be a first - even for this lefty. But to those who take me to task for regularly lumping all liberals in with the worst of them, I would point out that this is not an isolated case nor is it atypical of the kind of exaggerated, unsupported nonsense one hears from the left about Bush. From Krugman, to Yglesias, to T-Bogg, the primary view of Bush is that of a cartoon character - Snidely Whiplash, Elmer Fudd, and Boris Badanov all rolled into one. Of course, there is a little wider vocabularly employed to describe this one dimensional Bush stick figure by “respected” lefties. But the theme remains the same; George Bush has never done anything good, is not capable of doing anything good, and in fact, is an evil monster of a president.
President Obama is not a BDS sufferer. He proves himself a better man than all of Bush’s deranged critics put together:
“If you look at my statements throughout the campaign, I always thought he was a good guy,” the Democratic president-elect said on CNN about the Republican president whom he replaces Tuesday.
“I mean, I think personally he is a good man who loves his family and loves his country. And I think he made the best decisions that he could at times under some very difficult circumstances.”
Best decisions he could? Obama lambasted Bush on the campaign trail for his decisions on a wide range of issues, including the Iraq war, financial regulation, climate change and the treatment of prisoners.
Obama made reference to those, too.
“Over the last several years, we have made a series of bad choices and we are now going to be inheriting the consequences of a lot of those bad choices,” the president-elect said.
“That does not mean that I think he’s not a good person. And his White House staff has done an extraordinary job in working with us for a smooth transition.”
A rather more nuanced and realistic view of Bush that shows the man is not lacking in class. Politics is politics - a mudwrestling match where twisting knees and eye gouging are legal - but let’s give Obama credit for having more than a one dimensional view of his predecessor. That kind of reasoned acknowledgement of fact - a view the American people agree with - bodes well for the future.
But when their deranged memes are proved wrong, they simply move on to another without acknowledgement that they made a collosal blunder in logic and reason.
In traditional electoral terms, that may also be the case in 2008. Should things proceed as they are now, it’s hard to imagine any Republican candidate going into the election within striking distance. The potential variations are many, but the graffiti on the wall is clear.
What’s also clear is that this administration has a deep, profound and uncompromised contempt for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the US Constitution. When George W. Bush went on the record (twice) as saying he has nothing against dictatorship, as long as he can be dictator, it was a clear and present policy statement.
Who really believes this crew will walk quietly away from power? They have the motivation, the money and the method for doing away with the electoral process altogether. So why wouldn’t they?
The groundwork for dismissal of both the legislative and judicial branch has been carefully laid. The litany is well-known, but worth a very partial listing:
The continuation of the drug war, and the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act and other dictatorial laws prompted by the 9/11/2001 terror attacks, have decimated the Bill of Rights, and shredded the traditional American right to due process of law, freedom from official surveillance, arbitrary violence, and far more.
No, the 2008 election was not canceled - despite assurances from numerous lefties that such would be the case if it appeared the GOP was going to lose.
Nor has there been a military draft as was promised in the weeks leading up to the 2004 election.
Nor have the aforementioned “concentration camps” built by Haliburton been activated to house dissidents and anti-war protestors.
Nor has any proof whatsoever emerged that anyone in the United States government had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Nor has there ever been proof of a plot by the Bushies to silence critics, intimidate dissidents, or eliminate dissent. No one who has spoken out against government has ben sent to jail for doing so.
Then why? Why the hyperbole, the overwrought invective, the tortured language, the sheer nuttiness from so many on the left?
In their worship of Obama is the answer. By pumping up the evil of the Bush Administration, it reflects that much better on them when they ride to the rescue to save us. The bigger the evil, the more aggrandizement befalls them as they stand upon the battlements, waving the bloody shirt while the rest of us peasants look up at them in doe-eyed gratitude.
Already we have read that the US has been saved, constitutional government restored, the rule of law reimposed, and American democracy rescued from the clutches of the evil Bushies.
I sure will miss that kind of idiocy.
UPDATE
It’s easy to ascribe evil to your political opponent when you never grant him the legitimacy of his office. Even after 2004, the majority of the left accused the president of stealing the election.
Why this would be true while the GOP lost so many close Congressional races in 2006 (14 races decided by less than 3 %) and especially in 2008 when 8 states were won by Obama by less than 5%, simply makes no sense. So of course, the left posits the meme that the GOP tried to steal those elections but were so far behind they fell short.
No explanation for why a bunch of evil election thieves would care what the margin might be. And if the GOP was so good at stealing in 2000, 2004, what the hell happened in 2008? Did they lose their mojo? Or did Democrats find ways to steal their votes back?
Bush Derangement has never, ever been about making sense. It has always been about self-aggrandization by elevating one’s opposition to an heroic level, far above the mundane of simple political disputes. It is a world that many on the right will now inhabit when it comes to Obama - a fate for which they will suffer as much as the left has suffered these last 8 years.
[...] a substantive critique of BDS by Rick Moran Posted by Dan Collins @ 7:59 am | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Not My President [Dan [...]
Pingback by Not My President [Dan Collins] — 1/19/2009 @ 9:38 am
Well, when you have cheerleaders like Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews and Glenn Greenwald spewing their specious screeds from the rooftops, you’d be deranged too.
Comment by SeniorD — 1/19/2009 @ 9:42 am
well put, but when the queen of the nutjobs’ says things like this (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/18/pelosi-open-prosecution-bush-administration-officials/) can we readily assume that this derangement will not continue for quite awhile if not years? and what better excuse for obama than to say the continued recession is bush’s fault, i mean really, the current state of things has to be good for four more years for obama with a scapegoat like bush, cheney, and rumsfeld?
Comment by jambrowski — 1/19/2009 @ 10:06 am
If Obama didn’t subscribe to BDS, he sure took advantage of it to elevate himself. His advisors certainly exhibited BDS, his friends and preachers, too.
His remark about Bush being a good guy is simply more rhetoric after the fact, as he tries to seduce conservatives to work with him.
Nobody’s buying it… except you Rick?
There you go. Obama is also more than one dimension. If you want to live your life as an ignoramus, fine. Not recognizing humanity in your political opponent is animal-like intelligence.
ed.
Comment by Sara in VA — 1/19/2009 @ 10:07 am
I never understood the whole “Bush derangement syndrome” argument for the simple reason that Bush really was a bad president.
Conservatives seem to disagree with that. That’s fine. But don’t go accusing people with whom you disagree with of insanity.
If you can’t tell the difference between a reasoned, rational critique of the many failures of the Bush Administration with blaming him for the tsunami or accuse him of plotting to cancel the 2008 election, or reintroduce the draft, or any one of a thousand stupid, idiotic, illogical, paranoid, delusional bullshit memes promulgated by every single major lefty columnist, commentator and blogger, I truly pity your towering ignorance.
And please read the goddamn post. You are so simple minded, anything that isn’t in less than two dimesnions flummoxes you.
ed.
Comment by AJB — 1/19/2009 @ 10:08 am
Jeez, calm down Rick. Sometimes it seems that the best compliment a poster can get here is to NOT get a reply from the esteemed host.
I wouldn’t count on the end of BDS quite yet, though. Pelosi and Conyers seem hell-bent on keeping that syndrome alive for some time to come.
And although I might use different phraseology with AJB, like “it’s fairly typical of a psychotic to not identify his own psychosis”, bottom line he seems at best, unaware.
Comment by cdor — 1/19/2009 @ 11:06 am
jambrowski,
BHO has already begun to caveat his administration and the time line for prosperity. The Obama administration, and the MSM will still be able to blame the Bushies for the economy, but it will only hold water for about 6 months. After then, it will belong to team Obama and the cheerleaders in the media won’t be able to blame Bush .
I’ve been wondering what will Olberman due once he can’t go into a Bush outrage? Maybe he’ll just fade away into the ether.
Comment by Belad — 1/19/2009 @ 11:08 am
Yes, Obama is to be commended for the recent distance he has put between BDS and himself. Obama certainly has many motivations, including the full knowledge that the right could return the favor. I actually don’t think it will, nor will it do so for reasons below, but unfortunately BDS worked out quite well for the left and they know it. Even without his failings, Bush would have been reduced to rubble after the unhinged, relentless attacks you cite.
I think even BDS sufferers know the above. After the election, in a typically shallow and totally asinine move, a letter campaign was started by Obama supporters to voters who supported McCain or other candidates. A request for peace was made, kumbaya and all that shit. This also would indicate BDS was a tactic, which I think it plainly was.
Obama can be hit hard, and very hard and legitimately on the issues, and given circumstances he likely can be defeated in 2012. I wouldn’t suggest any other tactic. But the left is afraid of what it could have unleashed. Good. Fucking-a good. Let them squirm.
Ed Driscoll has a good piece this morning about how BDS was a way to become accepted in the leftysphere. I think that’s spot on as a kind of group insanity took over where the more unhinged your rants against Bush, the more links and praise you got from lefties.
That “belonging” probably forced otherwise relatively sane lefties like Klein, Yglesias, Drum, and a few more to join in. They just didn’t have any credibility with their readers unless they piled on. And if they ever had any praise whatsoever for Bush (and I read those guys pretty closely and cannot recall any) they would have been skewered by everyone else.
ed.
Comment by jackson1234 — 1/19/2009 @ 11:16 am
Don’t despair Rick! You can sit back and enjoy the awesomeness that is Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS). I’m not talking about conservatives treating Obama like liberals treated Bush (though some of this is occurring unfortunately but not nearly to the levels that it happened to Bush) - I’m talking about liberals absolute and adoring faith in Obama to do all sorts of miraculous things. The same syphilitic minds that saw Bush as the ultimate evil will see Obama as their Saviour. Obama can’t help but disappoint.
Comment by Bald Ninja — 1/19/2009 @ 11:32 am
You’re right about the self-aggrandizement, but that’s natural, since this really is a subset of identity politics.
Take for example post-structuralist feminism. It’s raison d’etre is and always has been to rake all of the positive human impulses into the realm of femininity whilst projecting all the negative ones onto masculinity. For all the mumboing jumbo, it’s as simple and stupid as that.
Comment by Dan Collins — 1/19/2009 @ 11:35 am
Whew! Maybe you do need your Zoloft, Rick. Please call your Dr. pronto.
Say you to me (#4) “….If you want to live your life as an ignoramus, fine….”
Thanks for calling me a 4 syllable word. Perhaps I am an ignoramus for reading your columns.
Comment by Sara in VA — 1/19/2009 @ 11:40 am
By the way, Rick, your response to jackson #8, supports my original post. I said that Obama used BDS to his benefit whenever possible. He chose not to refute it during the election. Where was all the “Bush is a great guy” prior to now? There were many times he could have toned down the screaming.
I’m not saying that he’s one-dimensional. Quite the contrary. I know for a fact he was the most liberal Senator in the Senate when he served there. Now, a short time later, he’s back-pedaling, over-promising, and making a show of reaching out to conservatives. Multi-dimensional? Absolutely. Who knows where he is truly coming from?
Comment by Sara in VA — 1/19/2009 @ 12:11 pm
Rick,
I didn’t take Sara in VA’s comments as not recognizing Obama’s humanity but simply stating that his statements, past, present and future are dictated by political strategy. I don’t know how Obama really feels about Bush but on the campaign trail he didn’t show his ‘current’ nuanced position on Bush. During the campaign he was trying to rally the nutroots and other Democrats behind the clarion call of hatred towards Bush. Now that he’s won he can take a more sensible approach towards Bush in an attempt to curry good feeling with the right. Lefties might not like his statement but they will still support Obama and most likely his policies. It’s the right that Obama wants to win over now to some degree.
Comment by Bald Ninja — 1/19/2009 @ 12:15 pm
What of the other side of the coin? The conservatives who, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, continued to tout Mr. Bush as a great leader, a great man, a great president?
There’s been plenty of derangement on both sides.
The difference is that the left was fundamentally right: Bush was a lousy president. He was arrogant, incompetent and shallow. If it’s my only choice I’ll take people who were hysterically right over people who were hysterically wrong.
Comment by michael reynolds — 1/19/2009 @ 12:15 pm
My reaction is the opposite of Rick’s. I am more than ready for a respite from the Great Eight Year Left Wing Temper Tantrum. Let ‘em run things for awhile and experience the joys of responsibility rather than bomb-throwing. Yeah, I’m sure they’ll screw some things up, but we’ve survived that before & we can again.
Comment by Chris — 1/19/2009 @ 12:39 pm
Reynolds,
Arrogant, incompetent and shallow?
This could also describe Obama.
Righty blogs had plenty of criticism of Bush - but they also found issues on which they agreed with him. Lefty blogs spewed deranged rantings - I could claim that it’s going to rain every day for 8 years and I’m going to be right on many days. It doesn’t mean I was ‘right’. Every squirrel finds a nut.
And you’re deluding yourself if you think that conservatives tout Bush as a great leader. The only thing I think he did right was taking the fight to the terrorists and preventing another 9/11.
Comment by Bald Ninja — 1/19/2009 @ 12:45 pm
Bold prediction - BDS will live on as long as there’s a Leftist Nutter to breathe life into it.
Comment by steveegg — 1/19/2009 @ 12:54 pm
“Hysterically wrong”?
Maybe you could start your own blog and write on your own subject matters?
I say this eating off of my George W. Bush FranklinMint plates, sorting my GWB trading cards from Topps, listening to a mix tape filled with paeans to the glory of W, uploading a picture of me giving the “W” campaign handsign to MySpace, sipping on my “W! Refresh America” Victory Cola. (Oh wait)
What side engages in hysterical hero-worship? You do realize that Bush pissed off most conservatives too right? Perhaps you’ve heard of Harriet Meiers, the Dubai Ports Deal,NCLB, the recent bailouts?
Face it, fanatical hatred of Bush is and was FAR more widespread than any “fanatical love”.
Comment by Techie — 1/19/2009 @ 12:57 pm
I mean, seriously, I’d enjoy to see the counter to this.
People getting Obama! tattoos.
Tattoo Artists Give Lasting Inaugural Impression.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99522062&ft=1&f=1006
Comment by Techie — 1/19/2009 @ 1:43 pm
I would not get to depressed. The incoming president faces huge problems. 1.) The economy is struggling badly. 2.)The national debt is massive. 3.)The military is worn down from continued deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Global War on Terrorism. Because of 1 and 2 it is going to be impossible to implement many of the social programs that Mr. Obama and his team wish to implement.
This will lead to much frustration on the part of the Aemrican people. Whether it is deserved or not does not change the fact that much of the electorate hates Preeident Bush. Given the fact that so many people hate President Bush, I think it is very likely that President Bush and Dick Cheney will be tried for various crimes and will likely spend the rest of their lives in jail. This will give the left and opportunity to vent some of their frustration at being unable to get much of their agenda passed. Also, the American people are extremely frustrated. By sending a wildly unpopular President and his even more unpopular Vice President to prison for life, the left can redirect some of the frustration of the American people away from them and toward a common enemy.
Did Bush or members of his staff do any thing worthy of prison time? It does not really matter. The people dispise him and his political enemies control the Government. Bush Derangement Syndrone is not over. It is just getting started. It will come to full fruition when the trials start and it will culminate with President Bush and Dick Cheney spending the rest of their lives in prison.
Comment by B.Poster — 1/19/2009 @ 1:57 pm
One has to wonder what BDS has in common with CDS. After all, the right was surely fixated on Clinton’s misdeeds for 8 long years,just as the left has been just now. If I may hazard a guess, is it not possible that all these hatred of these two men over the past 16 years was because they were the 2 biggest phonies ever in office?
I think CDS was much more conspiratorial than even BDS - the whole Vince Foster thing on the right gives me the creeps. Like 9/11 truthers on steroids. And then came the Ron Brown conspiracy - truly whacko.
BDS was more pure malevolence - hatred born of ignorance and lust for power. That’s what gave it its patina of unhinged delusion.
ed.
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 1/19/2009 @ 2:15 pm
Nope, not shredding the constitution, just illegal. But the framing you’ve built around the issue makes it seem air tight. Patriotic even. Well done.
The only thing gained by this program that is different from existing law is that they ignored the whole “warrant” thing. Judicial review is a minor issue, right? We should just trust that it’s only being used against the terrorists.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 1/19/2009 @ 2:16 pm
Bald and Techie:
Baloney. Now conservatives talk about dissatisfaction with Bush. Now that he’s toxic. Now that he’s all-but killed your party. But for most of 8 years he could do no wrong. Conservatives wet themselves and squealed with delight as they saw him stride across the aircraft carrier in his manly flight suit.
He was brilliant. He was brave. He was a great man and a great president and even something of a genius. He belonged on Mt. Rushmore. He was right not to fire Rumsfeld, and he was right to allow torture, and right to pack the DOJ with hacks, and right to hire idiots to run FEMA and to handle Iraq reconstruction. Conservatives gave him — and still do — almost universal support in the polls.
So don’t pretend that your side was rational. You swallowed the whole act, hook, line and sinker.
And to put it in historical context, BDS came after a decade of liberal-bashing by conservatives that was at least as over-the-top and irrational as anything aimed at Mr. Bush. Your side set the tone. Now my side is finally growing past that. We invite you to join us in a new era of civility. The Obama era. I just know you’ll enjoy it!
Comment by michael reynolds — 1/19/2009 @ 2:25 pm
Rick - Not to worry. Any and all problems the Messiah has over the next 4-8-12-16 years, or however long his reign endures, will be blamed on George W. Bush.
BDS ain’t goin’ anywhere! It is and will continue to be, alive and well!
Comment by Keith Kunzler — 1/19/2009 @ 2:45 pm
Really, BDS really allowed for flexibility of the neck… just see the latest and had to shake my head, day after day from side to side. Amazed at how ’sophisticated’ people quickly devolved into name-calling, scat referencing, and absolute lack of any memory of scale of any sort of reason whatsoever. And when Obama starts to do the same things, keep the same people they castigated? Ahhh…
I keep on waking up in an Alternate Universe every morning.
The one that is more stuck on stupid, and I don’t see that ending any time soon.
Comment by ajacksonian — 1/19/2009 @ 3:22 pm
Michael -
There was a lot of criticism of Bush for a long time on the right, much more than just “now that he is toxic”. The Harriet Meyers thing, his inability to defend his policies, expanding federal control over education, and abysmal fiscal managment were all points of criticism of Bush on the right for a long time.
However, a lot of folks on the right reflexively defended Bush, as did a lot of lefties reflexively defended Clinton and will end up defending Obama, even when each does the indefensible.
What is truly ironic on both scales is the Clinton probably had the most conservative government record in the Whitehouse since Coolidge, and Bush the most liberal since LBJ, or Nixon at the worst. (Mind you - I’m talking about RESULTS, not intentions, and in cases where the president’s policy was enacted, I’m not talking about success or failure of the policy, and I’m talking about liberal vs. conservative POSITIONS, where the more of a veering away from the status quo a policy is, the more liberal it is).
Comment by headhunt23 — 1/19/2009 @ 3:57 pm
Obama is the pure political chameleon. Obama uses the colors and sights and sounds of the world around him to provide him with all the cover he ever needs.
It does not take a rocket scientist to detect which way the political winds are blowing to base your presidential campaign on those very winds. Obama did this while serving as a Senator, backing the Democratic constituencies while setting himself apart in a singular way - he was the only Senator not to have the War vote hanging over his head. And he took that singular difference all the way to the Nomination, watching one after another opponent ultimatley hang themselves on that petard.
With the niomination secure he had to determine where could he amend his policies and move to the center and not alienate his base. Again, rocket science is not needed to see he could almost do anything he wanted and still keep his base. He already had the young - if they were to ever be an impact on the playing field. He had the left - they would nver consider voting for a Republican. He just had to capture enough of the middle to push over the top and that turned out to be easy when faced with a mediocre opponent. (Note: Whether you believe it or not, Sarah Palin almost upset that apple cart.) So he changed his spots to fit the situation - he moved to the center and in so doing lured the center and RINOs into his camp.
Now the only thing left to do is ensure he keeps the Presidency for two terms. And, ever the chameleon, what better way to do that than continue his own prudence at voing “present”. Ever the chameleon, he is already dong that by backpedaling on many campaign promises - by deferring to Congress, he has the perfect patsy. Pelosi and Reid can be his bad cops while Obama plays the good cop - chameleon to the end. BDS is not something he would actively use - it is too easy to just let everyone around him use that tool to his own ends and means. The means? Letting BDS run rampant - congressinal hearings and kangaroo courts abound. The ends being? Letting Pelosi/Reid have just enough slack to hang themselves while he keep his distance so that he can ride to the rescue come the 2010 backlash. The trick will be to do so and maintain his congressional advantages.
Many people were skeptical of Clinton because he constantly tested the prevailing winds to determine his course. They ain’t never seen anything like this kind of animal!
Comment by SShiell — 1/19/2009 @ 4:03 pm
Michael Reynolds,
Speaking of act. He’s dropping the brush clearing cowboy act and moving to the suburbs of Dallas for retirement, instead of the Crawford Ranch. Sigh. I had totally bought into the cowboy thing too.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 1/19/2009 @ 4:06 pm
Nobody wants to admit they voted for a dumbass and a criminal, but that’s exactly what happened if you voted for Bush. It’s impossible to overstate just how terrible this President has been. There’s absolutely no area where he was has helped, every problem we were facing when he took office he has amplified in addition to creating a few new ones.
I don’t know how many times I’ve had a Republican tell me I had ‘BDS,’ like that means anything, or like that refutes a criticism I have. It’s when I know I’ve won the argument. It’s such a weak sauce, cop-out response, like you need to explain to me why I don’t like George Bush. I know why I don’t like George Bush and I can explain why that is in my own words, you dopes just don’t even try to listen. You really think you’re doing your side of the argument justice by insisting that every liberal that opens his or her mouth has ‘BDS?’ Like the guy’s given us no reason to complain?
It’s cowardly, really. You think you’re standing your ground in the debate, in truth you’re just putting your fingers in your ears and screaming ‘BDS! BDS!’ over and over again. Like a lawyer running out of a courthouse sobbing. As a group, you collectively can’t stand the idea that you might have been responsible for putting into power one of the biggest failures in the history of western civilization, whose alleged criminal offenses range from mere cronyism to out and out war crimes, so you refuse to even hear the charges. Republicans are the ones that claim to be so suspicious and afraid of government, shouldn’t that mean you’d be interested in finding out the answers to some of these questions? For supposedly being so mistrustful of the government, you sure do seem to give President Bush, widely agreed upon as a colossal failure in most circles, the benefit of the doubt.
Just try going a week without dismissing something critical of George Bush as ‘BDS.’ Could you even be able to do it? It seems like a fundamental behavior of the species Republican. To live, one must eat, sleep, and accuse all your opponents of having a mental disease.
Thank you for the fine example of BDS. One dimensional, shallow, exaggerated, falsehoods - every single adjective I used to describe it, you featured in your little post.
ed.
Comment by Levi — 1/19/2009 @ 4:11 pm
Michael Reynolds,
You are exactly right. The host of this website is but one example of a conservative voicing disappointment with George Bush at literally the last minute, which is obviously insincere and only happening because of political considerations. You can bet that the entirety of the Republican party would have enthusiastically supported a third Bush term were it possible.
All you have to do is scroll back through the archives of sites like this and others to see the swaggering, boastful, in-your-face attitude in full display after Bush won the election in 2004. Even the ones jettisoning the man still largely agree with his most egregious crimes and catastrophic blunders like the torture and the invasion of Iraq. What’s really funny is how they’ve taken to insisting that George Bush will be vindicated by time, the last, desperate shelter for their tarnished credibility. That’s something made all the more unlikely to happen by Obama’s presidency, who can literally do no worse than the disaster he’s inheriting. If Obama is no better than average as a President, people will be forgetting all this ‘history will vindicate Bush (and us! oh please oh please oh please!)’ nonsense real quick.
You’re absolutely right. I have been blogging since 2004 and criticizing Bush the entire time. 4 or 5 years of criticizing Bush is “last minute” me.
Maybe you should, like, you know, not say anything unless you know what the hell you are talking about.
ed.
Comment by Levi — 1/19/2009 @ 4:25 pm
Michael,
I enjoy your daily posts and, without question, you are a fine example of the new Obama era of civility.
You IDIOT. Ha, just kidding… I can say that until tomorrow without getting into trouble, right?
Comment by Sara in VA — 1/19/2009 @ 4:51 pm
It must be nice to live in the fantasy world of the trolls. I wonder what color the sky is.
Notice how they provide no links to back up their position. If they FEEL that the EVIL RETHUGLICANS worshiped the ChimpyMcBushitler as he and Darth Cheney shredded and then ate the original copy of the Constitution, well, that’s good enough, I suppose.
Comment by Techie — 1/19/2009 @ 5:12 pm
Michael,
“Now my side is finally growing past that. We invite you to join us in a new era of civility. The Obama era. I just know you’ll enjoy it!”
How magnanimous of you! Not that ‘your side’ has won ‘you’ll’ stop throwing your tantrum. And you’re side is growing past it! Amazing that this growth spurt is perfectly timed with winning! Just coincidence I’m sure. This 2-year-old attitude also reflects itself in your excuse “your side started it first!”.
The right did hound Bill Clinton - I’ll give you that - but it didn’t resemble the lefts reaction to Bush. What’s Clinton known for in conservative circles? Being a liar, adulterer and crook. What’s Bush known for in liberal circles? Turning America into a fascist empire bent on serving the needs of Haliburton and other evil corporations, shredding the constitution and stripping people of their civil rights and usurping un-paralleled power for the executive.
I don’t know which conservative blogs you frequent but the main ones have always had something critical to say of Bush. Sure we celebrated when he beat Kerry on ‘04 because we liked him better than Kerry. This should not be interpreted as universal praise for the Bush.
Comment by Bald Ninja — 1/19/2009 @ 5:29 pm
Everything in politics is tit for tat. Clinton perjured himself so Bush lied about WMDs. Obama is sending thrills up Chris Mathews formally non-partisan leg so the right must have wanted Bush on Mt Rushmore (and don’t ask ‘who’ - tit for tat doesn’t require it).
So in 2009 the right will attack Obama with the left’s playbook of Bush criticisms. So we’ll get the same rush to declare Obama’s presidency a failure and the right will try to establish his legacy (of failure) while still in office. Without MSM complicity these memes won’t be nearly as widespread as the BDS sufferers were able to manage with Bush. But they’ll be out there.
Comment by East Bay Jim — 1/19/2009 @ 5:37 pm
Levi,
There’s a cycle here. It’s part of the reason I love this blog so much. It usually goes like this: Rick Moran posts something a bit critical of Bush. He gets jumped and abused without mercy in the comments and called a RINO with BDS.
This hurts him deeply and he retreats to his hidden lair where he recuperates. Later, he posts something like the current essay in order to reaffirm his roots, and show the earlier detractors that he’s not actually a RINO with BDS, but, in fact, he is one of them.
If he’s particularly upset with them he’ll say he’s not a Republican, he’s a Conservative, and kindly suggest that they are idiots who don’t know the difference. I’m convinced though that being called a RINO by his people hurts him deeply, and causes him to lash out.
Cycle of awesomeness repeats.
With that kind of ability to read minds, you should be in a circus. And not just because you have the intellectual capacity of a goat with the need of a masturbating monkey for attention. Obviously, you are a frustrated clown.
Try again, Pal. I write what I write because I want to write about it. I could care less what I’ve written the previous day or week or month. I don’t defend Bush or castigate him. I write what I believe and what I see. I will take on conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, religious nuts, anti-science boobs, and people named Chuck who have shit for brains. And I will do it when I want, and for whatever reason strikes me as sound at the time.
That is why you love this blog.
ed.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 1/19/2009 @ 5:56 pm
I don’t know if the lefts hatred of Bush is a brilliant strategy or not but a lot of us defended Bush because of how many insane things have been said about him. Our disagreements have gone unnoticed by the liberals posting here - I don’t know if this is because they’re fantasising we didn’t or if our disagreements got lost in the noise of defending Bush from rediculous claims.
Though, to claim Rick is just jumping on this whole ‘Bush wasn’t all that awesome’ bandwagon is ludicrous. To claim this you have to either be outright lying or have such little familiarity with this blog and are unashamed of your ignorance. Rick has unabashedly and consistently taken Bush to task on anything he found objectionable - and these are not rare posts.
Comment by Bald Ninja — 1/19/2009 @ 5:57 pm
To live, one must eat, sleep, and accuse all your opponents of having a mental disease.
p.1, Das Kosital. Right?
Comment by John Howard — 1/19/2009 @ 6:14 pm
For me, Obama is a festering target full of potentially devastating leftist decisions and legislation. I will not let avoidance of the label “ODS” inhibit me from giving loud and sound critiques of his every leftward move.
Want to begin? How about Amnesty for openers? Or how about his spending $45 million for a big inauguration event? Or, maybe a Trillion Dollar stimulus package out of a nearly empty treasury that has to print money using three shifts now?
I trust this attitude is true for all people of a conservative bent, including Rick Moran, even when many are today basking in the mysterious glory of Hope and Change.
It is the common man that is the loser in all of this hoopla.
Comment by mannning — 1/19/2009 @ 6:25 pm
[...] Moran: Says he will miss all the Bush Derangement. He’s quite wrong if he thinks it is [...]
Pingback by If you were First Lady… | The Anchoress — 1/19/2009 @ 6:29 pm
Oh Dear! I was way short on the cost of the Obama inauguration! It has topped $170 Million according to the latest reports at Drudge. Great time to pour millions down the party hole!
Comment by mannning — 1/19/2009 @ 6:34 pm
Hey Chuck, Rick described you perfectly, except for the monkey part. There are two monkeys involved, right?
Where else but on this blog can you get castigated so eloquently by one of your own. Only “conservatives” can exhibit such derangement against another conservative. Maybe that’s why we lose elections?
Anyway I’m gone to plug in my zip on this cool new government website (usaservice.org) to find a house to paint for free, while the owner drinks beer.
Comment by Sara in VA — 1/19/2009 @ 7:07 pm
I am laughing hysterically as I go through these posts, particularly the barking mad moonbat shit stains. Just before the 2004 election, I told a left-wing friend after one of these disjointed rants that type insanity had helped Bush more than she could ever realize and would get him back into office. I did it both to needle and because I believed it. Oddly, she agreed and promptly launched into another psychotic anti-Bush diatribe.
Same as it ever was…
Comment by obamathered — 1/19/2009 @ 7:31 pm
Rick said:
Wow. I am a frustrated clown with the intellectual capacity of a shit for brains goat who craves attention as much as a masturbating monkey.
That’s amazing. That’s literally the nicest thing anyone’s ever said to me.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 1/19/2009 @ 8:08 pm
Watch for the scapegoating when B-Hobie’s administration starts falling apart within six months. The only fig leaf the MSM branch of the Democrat party will have left at that point will be prosecutions of Bush administration officials, W in the Hague, etc. It’ll never really end, Rick, because the concept of accepting responsibility for the outcomes of one’s actions is totally anathema to the party that currently controls all three branches of the federal government. With any luck, the American public will return to its sense by 2010 and deliver at least one house to Republicans (provided there are any decent Republican candidates, of course.)
Comment by Sirius — 1/19/2009 @ 8:33 pm
Techie:
Actually, I believe by clicking on my name you get a link to the blog that I occasionally write.
I don’t include links in comments because it seems rude. This is Rick’s site and it feels wrong to be diverting traffic to other sites. That, plus I don’t actually know how to insert links in a comment.
Comment by michael reynolds — 1/19/2009 @ 9:34 pm
GWB’s administration saved millions of lives in Africa and freed 50+ million from oppression. I thought that was the dream of a democrat. Seems I was wrong, they want millions in Africa to die and millions to live in oppression. The poor people in the world should be afraid, very afraid of the democrats.
GW Bush freed more people than all the presidents combined since 1945. Maybe that’s what has driven the democrats insane, along with their prolonged heavy drug use.
Comment by Scrapiron — 1/19/2009 @ 10:15 pm
Sara in VA Said: Sara, were you involved in the Katrina rescue. Lot’s of rescue/disaster cleanup people I know personally had the experience of trying to ‘pay’ the victims to help and were told to kiss off, the government would take care of them. In La they were sitting on their fat a**es on the porch drinking beer bought with relief funds. That’s why there is no more out of my neighborhood rescue/recovery operations for me. I’ll also pick and choose (if I don’t quit) what calls I respond to with the volunteer fire/rescue department. I can always go back to sleep at 3AM and let the druggie/drunk democrats wait for someone else to come pick them up. (Firefighter in Va)
Comment by Scrapiron — 1/19/2009 @ 10:24 pm
I have read enough recently and listend to enough comments to know that BDS is still alive, although now it is becoming Barrack Deranged Syndrome. Does anyone really belive this is the culmination of 30 years of the democrats trying to create a socialist state (anymore than the current Sec. of the Treasury and the Fed chief have been doing)? Do you really think that this president will be a weak-kneed, fawning shrinking violet when it comes to world politics? And if I hear one more time that people are afraid he will turn this country into a Muslim state governed by Islamic law, I think I’ll throw up.
Keep it up and you’ll you’ll have to see some doctor to see if there’s a cure for this new syndrome.
Comment by Larry, your brother — 1/19/2009 @ 10:42 pm
Try again, Pal. I write what I write because I want to write about it. I could care less what I’ve written the previous day or week or month. I don’t defend Bush or castigate him. I write what I believe and what I see. I will take on conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, religious nuts, anti-science boobs, and people named Chuck who have shit for brains. And I will do it when I want, and for whatever reason strikes me as sound at the time.
It is very sad that you use such bad language when you engage your critics. Don’t you realize that this shows you have an impoverished vocabulary? You sound very angry. Go have a cream soda or something.
Thanks for the link; this has been hugely entertaining in every sense of the word. Do try to calm down though, sport. You sound unwell.
Comment by Thers — 1/20/2009 @ 12:32 am
Here some advice for folks getting a huge dose of Rick’s ration of Wrath: “Sometimes when you argue with a fool it’s hard for folks to tell who is really the fool.”
Comment by the Fly-Man — 1/20/2009 @ 7:21 am
You’re absolutely right. I have been blogging since 2004 and criticizing Bush the entire time. 4 or 5 years of criticizing Bush is “last minute” me.
Maybe you should, like, you know, not say anything unless you know what the hell you are talking about.
ed.
Dude, I can see what you were writing back then for myself, and you were fawning. Fawning like a school girl. If you think murmuring quietly about stuff like Harriet Miers makes you a Bush critic, well, it doesn’t.
And if you think serial exaggeration, hyperbole, and outright lying about what has been happening the last 8 years makes you anything except a shallow, stupid, troglodyte, guess again.
ed.
Comment by Levi — 1/20/2009 @ 9:28 am
50 comments of which a small percentage of BDS afflicted readers go on the ad hominem attack.
Think about it for just a minute. Rick’s essays are well crafted, make no bones for his opinion on the subject at hand and (here’s the kicker) are neither shallow nor Buckley-esque in their prose. Only moderate critical thinking skills are needed to fully comprehend Rick’s essay.
In contrast, the Kafkaesque ranting of the BDS plagued Left makes one think of the Inquisition where a victim is automatically guilty of some unspoken crime. The Left, blindly following the Alinsky-ite tactic of ‘Attack, Attack, Attack’, know in their small, dark hearts they are pure. They would steal an honorable man’s record, spew specious claims or undermine accomplishments by re-writing history.
Sorry, won’t work for me. Try as you might, strive for whatever un-holy goal you choose, your nursery school intellects are nothing. Your champions have committed crimes against the citizens of this country and hurled treasonous actions in front of a people enjoying and partaking in the inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator. You’ve won but one small, inconsequential battle, but the war continues.
Comment by SeniorD — 1/20/2009 @ 9:45 am
Rick:
I won’t miss BDS…..we need a time out.
Here is the good news: Bush and Cheney gave up power gracefully…..it must be driving the BDS-ers crazy!
Comment by Silvio — 1/20/2009 @ 11:08 am
Rick, Rick, Rick, when you look solely to the blogosphere for a dose of “sanity”, you’ll have to search far and wide to find it. The same arguments can be made of the right wing fringe that fills the ether of both talk radio and blogs with its own special derangement, transferable to the latest target on the left, or the middle for that matter. It took me ages to find your blog and it’s one of few I’ve found that regularly checks its own rhetoric for signs of wackiness. Many of the sites you link to in your posts are borderline at best and filled with unreasoned hate or disdain. You’ve noted this yourself in your more recent comments about your colleagues postings about Obama and the end of the world.
I hope you find some entertainment to replace your mirth at the foaming few on the left. I’ll take no pleasure in the continued foaming of the right as Obama takes the stage.
Comment by Eric — 1/20/2009 @ 11:27 am
You will miss it only if they give you a chance to miss it. The disciples of The One will be sure to blame all problems on the evil Bush. Surely you know that, Rick.
Comment by David R. Block — 1/20/2009 @ 1:26 pm
Everything that Levi said in 29 is right on. The only thing he forgot to do is to call you an asshole, Moran, so let me do that now:
You asshole.
Being called an “asshole” by someone named “Penrose” is something akin to being accused of sluttiness by Madonna.
ed.
Comment by Penrose Q. Hollister — 1/22/2009 @ 1:41 pm
Yes. I will miss the left’s laments as well. But we can look forward to the crash from blind devotion to utter disappointment.
You can see an example of the delusion of the Obamabots here:
http://www.eclecticwill.com/2009/01/high-expectations/
W
Comment by W — 1/24/2009 @ 10:37 pm