Letters to the Editor
-
Molly Ivins said it best
The great Molly Ivins addressed this topic way back in November 2003. Her column: "Call Me a Bush Hater."
http://www.alternet.org/story/17190/
Every time I hear about "Bush derangement syndrome," my head wants to explode.
-
Hate?
Hate. Hatred. Hater. Currently, these have got to be three of the most misapplied words in the lexicon. All three have been hurled at me, at one time or another, in regard to Bush and RWA Conservatism and, in truth, I feel no such overwhelming animosity. I hold both in contempt, with disgust, in aversion and/or you could add 'dismissive' as a qualifier to all three - but hate? Nope. Don't feel that one. The only thing I can think of to explain individual Bush apologists and defenders is the one encapsulated in the concept of Psychological Entrapment (http://tinyurl.com/35telh).
As JackHughes noted, Bush Derangement Syndrome seems to apply best to those who've advanced Bush's career. And, anyone who opposes(d) Bush has to be - just must be - guilty of some extreme irrationality, or the supporters are. Their ego defenses will admit to no such admission for themselves. It's as though their overwhelming adoration for Bush requires (can only be explained, or justified by?) an equivalent countervailing emotion in those who oppose him.
Interesting that a (formerly?) world class financial newspaper would fail to "ignore sunk costs." The issue of the WSJ's insistent editorial support for Bush, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, speaks to a more sinister element in the press. The willing and willful distortion of the evidence, is the phenomenon I view with a mixture of loathing and horror.
-
Peter Berkowitz is all bruised ego
He was turned down for tenure at Harvard and then pursued one of the longest tenure suits in history in a quixotic attempt to get reinstated.
A few of his charges had something vaguely resembling a point: tenure processes aren't very transparent, and a standard review procedure is a good thing. But most of them were just whining and special pleading.
He lost at the state appellate level in a smackdown, which sent him whimpering off to the Hoover Institution for wingnut welfare:
The appeals court ruling issued June 6 found that the Faculty handbook’s “language and structure could create no reasonable expectation to support the plaintiff’s interpretation.” It agreed with the docket committee’s decision that Berkowitz’s claim regarding the lack of experts in his field of study on the ad hoc committee—which examined his case for tenure—was without merit.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348452
-
Couldn't have said it better
"However they put it, the Democrat (sic) approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses"
George W Bush - October 30, 2006
"Liberals saw the savagery on 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
Karl Rove - June 22, 2005
It's one thing for Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly to talk that way, but this is the President of the United States and his Deputy Chief of Staff.
These people are shit and have earned nothing but scorn and contempt.
*************************************************************
Neo-cons talking about civility is akin to Bush talking about fiscal restraint.
Spare me. Berkowitz, Bartley and the rest of these apologists are so full of it they float.
-
rlsumi
Thanks for that Molly Ivins link. Missed it, and it wasn't one to be missed.
-
Tigerr ...
The Op-ed page was a wasteland before Murdoch bought the WSJ .. it's been a wasteland for a very long time
-
Bubbles
AnnieW:
I suspect Bush will be treated just fine by the "serious" pundits for quite awhile.
No doubt. I was talking about everybody else-- the people Berkowitz is whining about, and going to run into at parties (and in classrooms). He has a depressing road ahead of him if Bush-hatred bothers him. I have no doubt that could he confine his social interactions to the punditry, he'd do just fine. But one must grocery shop, no? I saw a nifty array of new (to me) bumper stickers on my way to the Ralphs yesterday, including this one:
http://www.antibushbumperstickers.com/large/BushDeservesTrial.htm
-
Dangit, just lost a huge comment into the ether...
Well, my gist was:
In short, Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy.
Actually, it is entirely rational.
Bush has killed more civilians than bin Laden. That's why I hate him.
No one who claims to believe in innate human rights can be OK with that.
No one who claims to be a Christian can be OK with that.
No one who considers terrorism morally objectionable because it targets civilians can be OK with that.
If you fall into any of these categories, and still support Bush and his endless wars, there is something wrong in your brain.
There is something that is causing you to take blatant contradictions as valid. This is irrationality.
I can't wait for the next column, on "Bin Laden Derangement Syndrome".
-
Projection much? What the hell he talkin' about?
The only Public Liberal I can find (apart from Rude Pundit, whose Liberal Orientation is open to speculation) who expresses visceral Hatred for Bush and his band of thieves and miscreants is Mike Malloy. And with him it's schtick.
Everyone else is either sad, disgusted, outraged or stumped at regime behavior, none of which translates to "hatred" except in the fevered minds of the wingnut projection machine.
Since Berkowitz can't identify any of his Hate-Filled dinner companions, there's no reason to take his word for the Hatred he sees all around him. There's less reason to take his word for it given his apparent interest in repeating talking points and propaganda regarding the issues he says progressives Hate Bush For.
Berkowitz should take his meds and have a nice lie down.
-
Excuse Bush & Rudy for lying but crucify HRC for mere spin
The uproar of Punditstan over Sen Clinton's recently "planted" question is telling.
Planted, slanted questions have not only been something the Bush / Cheney admins' (and the preceding Repug witchhunts did virtually daily to the exclusion of spontenaity) but that have been commonplace in the townhall format since its been a standard feature of campaigning and fund raising.
The issue is whether spontaneous audience engagement is also allowed. If the court scribes were remotely honest about Bush's predictable prime time "media availabilities" and cynically timed terror alerts, they'd be demanding that the WH Communications Dept (of Hooey) represent on the picket lines with the Writers Guild.
Hillary planted a question indeed. :: long sputtering cuss fest deleted for taste considerations ::