Why do people hate bush so much?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

J Heartless Slick

Golden Member
Nov 11, 1999
1,330
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Strk
I don't hate him, I just want someone else to be President.
Unfortunately the only other realistic choice we have at the moment is Kerry. Should we let the current wanker continue to srew the pooch or should we let the other wanker have a go at the bitch?

Kerry might at least veto one of those massive pork laden bills :roll:

Having a Republican-controlled Congress will temper any costly social programs Kerry may want to enact.

Have the Republicans cut spending? Or are they spending money on other things?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: J Heartless Slick
Originally posted by: conjur

Having a Republican-controlled Congress will temper any costly social programs Kerry may want to enact.

Have the Republicans cut spending? Or are they spending money on other things?

Why should they? They control the Executive *and* the Legislative branches. They have nothing impeding their agenda.
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
I believe Kerry is already moving in that direction. Bringing diplomacy and fiscal responsibility back to the table is far more impressive than unjustified invasions of other countries funded by deficit spending.

yeah, he has to move back to the center or he'll never get elected. but shouldnt you be outraged at this? he's not presenting his true values as an elite leftist!
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
If someone changes their political viewpoints for the betterment of our nation, I applaud them. That means they realize policies must evolve with the times and being hell-bent on following a failed vision (PNAC) is rather destructive.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
This is over a year old so it's does'nt include his torture appratus, his traitorous outting of CIA agent Palme, all the other lies and mishandling the Iraq war from day one but this gives you an idea how *I* feel at least.

Anger

I said a few days ago that I'm ashamed of President Bush. I said that I'm ashamed that he feels that the Constitution is something that can be shredded in wartime. I said that I'm ashamed that he engages in aggressive war in my name. That isn't the half of it.

I'm angry at my President. I'm terribly, terribly angry. I'm angry that he sends out INS and Homeland Security Department thugs to harass diners in South Asian restaurants in Times Square. I'm angry that these thugs don't even allow those Americans that they harass and detain to contact a lawyer.

I'm angry that Mike Hawash was forced to languish in solitary confinement as a farcical "material witness". I'm angry that Jose Padilla still languishes in a US Navy brig and is still forbidden from seeing an attorney, more than a year after his detention.

I'm angry that I know, personally, people who have been touched by the massive domestic "security" apparatus constructed after September 11. They say that in South America everyone knows someone who's been "disappeared". I feel like things are getting that way here, too, except that not quite that many people are being "disappeared" yet ? they're just being harassed. I'm absolutely livid at the thought that a student at the State University of New York was interrogated by the Secret Service after he wrote an editorial in a school newspaper asking Jesus to smite President Bush. I'm furious, completely furious that a friend of mine was asked if he had a copy of Mein Kampf and the Unabomber's Manifesto as the Secret Service turned his apartment upside down. Do you realize that the Secret Service told him that his editorial was not "protected speech"?

I'm furious that a friend of a friend of mine was detained for almost a day in the bowels of the New York Federal Building after he was caught taking a picture of a surveillance camera. I'm furious that he, an American citizen, wasn't allowed to call an attorney, even as he was being interrogated by the FBI. I'm furious that it took a friendly FBI agent breaking the rules for him to contact the outside world and that the only reason he was released when he was released was because his boss happened to know the FBI agent who was interrogating him.

I'm absolutely livid that entire families have had their doors broken down and their homes searched and their patriarchs carted out in handcuffs on the word of some anonymous paid informant.

I can't believe that we live in a country where secret courts consider secret evidence when deciding whether or not to issue secret search warrants to secretly search people's homes and offices and plant listening and tracking devices. I'm livid that secret courts then rule that this behavior is perfectly acceptable because even though it "may violate" the Fourth Amendment, because it at least "comes close". I'm absolutely furious that Americans get detained for months on end in solitary confinement on the basis of secret evidence ? without so much as the right to challenge their accuser in a court of law. Is this not the most basic, fundamental underpinning of Western jurisprudence?

I'm furious that our Attorney General would float legislation called the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" that would, as I said several months ago would:



allow the Justice Department to name Warblogging ? or a group that I belong to ? a terrorist organization. Once they've done that they're free to break into my apartment at three in the morning and wake me up at gunpoint. They can take me to a military facility in North Carolina (or, even better, take me to Gitmo ) and tell a secret court that I have lost my citizenship by being a member of a terrorist organization. They can then try me in a secret military tribunal and sentence me to life in prison. All secretly. You'll never know about it. All you'll know is that Warblogging is no longer being updated. That's all you'll know. Me? I'll rot in a Navy brig for the rest of my life ? at least until democracy is restored in this country. I never had an opportunity to convince others to no longer consent to this government. They snatched me before I could write my next article about civil liberties.


I'm absolutely, positively livid that even as the United States allies itself with terrorist dictatorships like Uzbekistan while the United States, the country I love, criticizes Canada because it "cares too much about liberties".

I can't imagine a country where the Director of Homeland Security (I'm sorry, but what kind of countries call themselves a "Homeland"? I remember the "Fatherland" and "Motherland"...) says that "Liberty is the most precious gift we offer to our citizens". Come on, Mr. Ridge, the government does not "give" us Liberty! We give ourselves Liberty! We hold these rights to be "self evident", Mr. Ridge! To say that you "give" us the right implies that you can also take it away! You are doing so, but I am here to tell you that I will not stand idly by as you do so!

I'm positively boiling that the White House wants to give the CIA and Department of Defense the right to subpoena records about ordinary Americans here in America. They actually want to give the Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Defense the right to spy on Americans in America! Have these people never heard of Posse Comitatus? Have they not read the executive orders forbidding CIA domestic operations against Americans?

I'm furious, completely furious, that the FBI can subpoena records of my interactions with various companies without so much as a court order. I'm livid, absolutely livid, that the White House still wants to develop the Total Information Awareness program ? a program designed to spy on every aspect of every American's life.

I'm beside myself that the United States has become a nation where the news media censors itself to the point of deleting news!

I can't imagine that we live in a country ? our United States! ? where people routinely e-mail me asking me if I feel safe writing what I say. I'm absolutely ashamed that members of my family have to ask me if I'm worried that the Government will come after me. I'm furious that my relatives, friends and readers ask if I'm worried of tax audits ? or worse ? as retaliation for what I write here on Warblogging.

I'm absolutely, positively furious that my government wants the right to declare me a "foreign power" and "terrorist" and arrest me based on "secret evidence". I can't believe that they then want the right to hold me in solitary confinement in a military prison for the rest of my life as an enemy of the state! They want the right to strip me of my citizenship at their say-so to accomplish this neatly, without the interference of such pesky things as habeas corpus!

I'm furious that my country ? even as it oppresses and strangles its citizens and allies itself with evil dictatorships that torture and execute people for exercising their religious beliefs ? engages in aggressive "wars of liberation". I'm furious that my armed forces open fire on demonstrators in a foreign country that has been placed under our imperial thumb. I'm furious that the Department of Defense announces that we will be establishing massive military bases in Iraq before even a provisional Iraqi government can be established to so much as rubber stamp such an arrangement.

I'm furious that my President appears on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a military uniform to address the troops and announce combat in Iraq "over". I challenge him to tell that to the people of Fallujah, who have been massacred in the streets of their city! That aside, I'm trying to think of the last time I saw a "president" in military uniform. I can think of three in particular: Saddam Hussein, Pervez Musharraf and Manuel Noriega.

I'm furious that my President told me and the rest of the world that Iraq had WMD and that we knew that for a fact but that now his minions tell us that we're unlikely to find WMD at any site "suspected of having them before the war." I'm furious that they told us they had evidence and intelligence, and some of us trusted them, but that their evidence and intelligence repeatedly failed to pan out when given to UN weapons inspectors and even "exploitation teams" of the US Army currently operating in Iraq.

I've been ranting for quite a while now. I'm angry. I'm very angry. Perhaps most of all I'm angry that President Bush plans to exploit the memory of September 11 by spending the month of September traveling between campaign events and memorial services for people who died on that fateful day. He's been exploiting that tragedy for all it's worth since it happened, and it doesn't just make me angry ? it makes me cry.

I was in New York City when the World Trade Center was hit. I woke up to a friend telling me that one tower had collapsed, that the Pentagon was on fire and that there was a car bomb at the State Department. I woke up and smelled the stench of death. I inhaled people's ashes. I inhaled the ground up concrete and steel for weeks. I hacked up phlegm impregnated with the cremated remains of people I would never know for weeks upon weeks. I watched the second tower fall from a New York City roof. I spent weeks in Union Square mourning with my fellow New Yorkers. I spent months upon months upon months walking by photographs of the missing.

President Bush is exploiting our national grief. He is using our grief to oppress Americans in the worst way since Woodrow Wilson signed the Espionage Act. He is using our grief to convince us to become "conquer monkeys" as Garry Trudaeu put it. Now he plans to exploit September 11 to get himself reelected. And I think it will work.

We live in a country that no longer respects civil liberties or the rule of law. We live in a country where police officers say "Yes, we have every right. You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation." We live in a country where they react to a request for an attorney like such:



When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official informed me that I do have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be brought down to the station and await security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month."


We live in a country that celebrates Loyalty Day for God's sake!

We live in a country where the Internal Revenue Service announces a crackdown on poor families who may or may not be improperly claiming the benefit of the Earned Income Tax Credit even as they announce that they will be weakening investigations of corporate tax evaders due to budget issues.

I'm furious that the President that President Bush and his staff of neoconservatives most admire is Woodrow Wilson ? the man who outlawed dissent with his Sedition Act of 1918 that outlawed:



Uttering, printing, writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language intended to cause contempt, scorn ? as regards the form of government of the United States or Constitution, or the flag or the uniform of the Army or Navy ? urging any curtailment of the war with intent to hinder its prosecution; advocating, teaching, defending, or acts supporting or favoring the cause of any country at war with the United States, or opposing the cause of the United States.


What does this all add up to? I see only one pattern here: fascism.

Do you in the White House and in Congress hear me? How about you guys in the Department of Defense and the FBI? In the US Courts system? In the INS and in Homeland Security? I know you read Warblogging. I know you're reading this. What do you think of what I say here? Do you dare try to defend your policies, your lies and your oppression? I invite you to post comments! You've been lurkers for too long! Come forward, show yourselves, defend yourselves!

You should be ashamed of yourselves! Your actions cast a pall over this great nation. Your actions are forcing our founding fathers to turn over in the graves, over and over again. Your actions are a betrayal ? a stab in the back. The great Americans who fought and died defending freedom in World War II ? did they die in vain? Did they die on the beaches of Normandy and in the forests of the Bulge and in the streets of Nice only to see America turn against itself?

What can we do about it? I honestly don't know. I have three thoughts:

First, I think that it's possible that we can suddenly gain an awareness, as a country, as a nation, of what's happening and fight against it. We can fight against President Bush and his neoconservative cronies and throw him out of the White House in disgrace. This is, of course, my preferred scenario ? but I don't think it's very realistic.

Second, I think that we can continue on the road we're on until things get so bad that even the apolitical people living in Des Moines must wake up and take notice ? that things will get so bad that, like in South America, everyone will know one of the "disappeared". Maybe at this point we will strike back as a nation and throw these crooks and oppressors out of the White House.

The third possibility is that the productive, intelligent members of our society who recognize what's going on will pick up and move. I've already received e-mail from at least half a dozen Americans who have done just this ? they're now living in various European countries, in Canada and in New Zealand.

I just can't imagine that this country that I love so much ? precisely because I've always considered it free, because I've always thought it was "the worst country in the world except all the others" ? is doing all of this. I feel like a German in 1934. What do I do? I don't know what to do, but I am determined not to stand idly by as the country I love is destroyed systematically by a power-mad pseudo-dictator.

I apologize that I haven't provided hypertext links throughout this rant ? I wrote it relatively quickly and it would take me hours upon hours to go through and link everything that should be linked. Please make good use of Google, the Warblogging search engine and the comments feature of this site to share information about the subjects I've talked about. Thank you for understanding.



Text
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
I dislike bush's policies because they are fueled by fear, greed, or future 2004 votes (immigration policy, war against gays, wanting to land on the moon again)
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
People dislike him because they are closed minded liberals. You can tell who they are because they call everyone who disagrees with them closed minded
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
Originally posted by: Forsythe
A man with an IQ like his shouldn't be allowed in government. That's why i hate him. Because he's stupid, and he barinwashes people.

Wow - I'd think you have to be pretty smart to be able to brainwash over a million people :confused:
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
I don't hate him, I just think he's got the sense of a piece of driftwood
 

RobCur

Banned
Oct 4, 2002
3,076
0
0
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Forsythe
A man with an IQ like his shouldn't be allowed in government. That's why i hate him. Because he's stupid, and he barinwashes people.

Wow - I'd think you have to be pretty smart to be able to brainwash over a million people :confused:
smart people are rare and average or dumb come in big numbers, its not hard to convince everyone that a lie is the truth if you keep repeating it enough times.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
I dislike him due to some of his actions & the people in his administration. Patriot Act, Guantanomo, Iraq, holding Americans and others as prisoners with no rights, restrictions on foreign students, holding back certain science, horrible diplomacy, etc. I think he's holding back this country's progress.

I especially hate his speechwriters. I think they and Osama Bin Laden's speechwriters were trained at the same institution. They both sound like 14 year olds trying to sound all fancy and educated. I think some of his speeches only involve the words honor, integrity, freedom, etc.

I think in reality he may be a smart guy, but he doesn't come across as one, which he probably does intentionally.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
People dislike him because they are closed minded liberals. You can tell who they are because they call everyone who disagrees with them closed minded



haha!! :thumbsup: That's pretty good Commander.


um, you did make a funny on purpose, right?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
It's been said that it's not really a 'hate' thing, it's more like a 'disgust' thing.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Anger Management

Dems start to realize that a campaign of hate won't beat President Bush.

Monday, May 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

It's a cliché this is becoming the meanest year in politics yet. But it's true. Last week, Mike Lavigne, the spokesman for the Texas Democratic Party, admitted calling a state Supreme Court justice "a Nazi." When his boss, Democratic Party chairman Charles Soecthting, was asked if an apology was due, he said, "I don't have a problem that Mike said it."

Then there's Sen. Ted Kennedy, who told a startled Senate last week that "Saddam's torture chambers have been reopened under new management, United States management." Some conservative talk show hosts, such as Michael Savage, have railed against gays and immigrants while they question John Kerry's patriotism. On the left, Bush bashing has become a national sport.

Prominent Democrats are beginning to realize that hatred of President Bush won't defeat him in November. One of the reasons that Mr. Bush continues to lead John Kerry in polls despite the bad news from Iraq is that many voters tune out criticism of the president when it turns hysterical. "It isn't enough for you to be venomous and be angry," Bill Clinton urged a MoveOn.org fund-raiser last week. "Don't be mad. Smile. Be glad."

That's good advice. Republicans shed their image as dour naysayers only when they embraced Ronald Reagan's inspirational optimism. One of the chief complaints Democratic consultants have about Mr. Kerry is his gloomy demeanor and pessimistic message. They're trying to engineer a makeover.


If liberals are going to follow Bill Clinton's advice and become happy warriors, they have some housecleaning to do first. The very group he spoke to, MoveOn.org, belongs to the paranoid school of American politics. In January, it held a contest to select the best ads that told "the truth about George Bush's policies." Two of the entries posted on the group's website compared Mr. Bush to Hitler. One ad morphed an image of Hitler into the president and likened "1945's war crimes" to "2003's foreign policy." Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle gave an eloquent speech last week at the University of Kansas calling on people of all ideological views to stop "demonizing those with whom we disagree." He called the MoveOn.org ad "outrageous."
Certainly there are rhetorical excesses on the right too. High-octane conservative Web sites feature vitriolic personal attacks on Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Teresa Heinz Kerry and others. But some liberal activists go further. Michael Goodwin of New York's Daily News spent a day listening to Air America, the new liberal talk-radio network, and found he had to endure hours of "rancid venom." Host Randi Rhodes compared U.S. prisons in Iraq to the "Nazi gulag," a mixed ideological metaphor as well as an inflammatory one.

Nor are Nazi allusions limited to talk radio. Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Iraqi prisons in The New Yorker, appeared on CNN last week and said a picture of two guard dogs snarling at a prisoner was "a scene from we know what, you know, [the] Third Reich." When host Wolf Blitzer asked him to be more specific, Mr. Hersh changed the subject.

MoveOn.org is financed in part by billionaire George Soros, who last year also compared Mr. Bush to Hitler and said that Israel was "likely" a big but secret reason for the war in Iraq. Mr. Soros is also a major financial backer of the Media Fund, an anti-Bush group directed by Harold Ickes, who served as President Clinton's deputy chief of staff. When Mr. Ickes was asked what its supporters thought of Mr. Soros's penchant for Bush-Hitler comparisons, Mr. Ickes said "we have not taken heat because of it."


It's time that liberals police their own and flush out the nests of the most virulent Bush haters. A sure sign that a movement or party is out of power and likely to stay that way is if much of its public image is defined by its fever-swamp fringe. Conservatives had a similar dilemma in the 1960s when journalists were able to tag the movement by its most extreme elements. Liberal author Jonathan Schoenwald has documented how conservative leaders had to move carefully to "exorcise the demons of right-wing extremism." The John Birch Society's opposition to communism morphed into a conspiratorial vision that could label almost anyone a communist sympathizer, including Dwight D. Eisenhower. William F. Buckley and other mainstream conservatives spent years isolating and discrediting the Birchers. It wasn't easy. To blast the Birchers indiscriminately would have risked alienating many committed followers who were only dimly aware of the society's kookiness. To wait too long would have risked tarring the entire conservative movement.
Liberals may not believe they are in a similar position as Mr. Buckley and his allies were two generations ago. But there are clues that the ridicule and fulmination with which liberals attack "that cowboy accident in the White House" are backfiring. Mr. Bush has told Bill Sammon of the Washington Times that that the more he is unfairly attacked, the less likely liberals will be able to convince swing voters he is a bad president.

"Liberals divide into two parts," one network correspondent told me: "those who believe that when the president says he enjoys being 'misunderestimated' that's it a sign of his ignorance, and smarter ones who've figured out he is using it in a joking way to make a point about how he overcomes low expectations." Too many on the left think of Mr. Bush as dumb or an evil manipulator of public opinion, or somehow hold both views simultaneously.

Conservatives have fallen into this trap too. In the 1990s some became so angry with President Clinton that they welcomed the term "Clinton haters." They were convinced that the country would see the light and drive him from office through indictment or impeachment. It's now generally acknowledged that anti-Clinton rhetoric caused Republicans to lose House seats in the 1998 midterm election, and the country never agreed that Mr. Clinton should leave office even though his subsequent actions (such as the midnight pardon of financier Marc Rich) have convinced most historians that Clinton character flaws did indeed have public consequences.


Liberals are now equally convinced the country will see how Mr. Bush's religious fervor and Texas cockiness have led to a quagmire in Iraq and installed extremists in positions of power. No one is suggesting they must stop believing that, but in a time of war they would do both themselves and the country good if they isolated their extremists and muted their own rhetoric more. A Washington Post poll taken last month shows how hard it is to build a winning anti-Bush coalition on anger. When asked how people felt about Bush policies, on a range of enthusiastic to angry, only 18% of voters said they were angry. Even among Democrats those who were angry numbered only 30%.
Sen. Daschle tells a story about a reporter who was startled to see George McGovern attending the 1993 funeral of Pat Nixon and shaking the hand of President Nixon. When the reporter asked Mr. McGovern why he would pay his respects to the wife of a man who had used underhanded tactics to defeat him, the former Democratic presidential nominee replied simply, "You can't keep on campaigning forever." Now the country is in danger of becoming more divided in war at the same time the toxic nature of political discourse is turning off many voters. With almost six months before Election Day, here's hoping that both sides find ways to fight fire without gasoline.

Interesting take on the whole "hate" thing.

CkG
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
That is an interesting article... I read a (gasp!) Mother Jones article today that takes its own tack on a related note...

Get Me Rewrite!

Why can't the Democrats match Bush's man-of-the-people act?

Stories make the world go around. So how come liberals can?t tell one?

By Joshua Wolf Shenk

May 14, 2004

George W. Bush has stationed 135,000 troops in harm?s way for a cause that seems increasingly hopeless and he?s presided over one of the worst economies of the century. He ran promising to be a centrist, lost the popular vote, and went on to govern from the radical right. He used a terrorist attack he might have stopped to justify a war that he already wanted to start.

So how come Kerry is running no better than even with Bush--this after a month of battering news from Iraq, from the 9/11 comission, and from Bob Woodward?s Plan of Attack? Why is it that even the sickening revelations of abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison, while certainly hurting Bush?s numbers, have not translated into a decisive gain for Kerry?

The answer is that Bush and his party know how to tell a good story and their opponents do not.

The right wing has an elemental and appealing narrative--the ideological equivalent of a Jerry Bruckheimer film or a Tom Clancy novel, the sort that?s hard to turn away from, even if you suspect you?re being suckered. Stories operate on our primitive, reptilian brains. ?We tell ourselves stories in order to live,? Joan Didion wrote. This isn?t just a pretty line but an artful statement of neuropsychological reality.

According to Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, & Co., the president of the United States of America is a great gentle warrior, the scion of a noble line: He?s a Texas cowboy descended from George Washington descended from the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. He?s a man of God and family. Truly, the story goes, he?s a simple man--wanting only to care for his own, tend to his plot of land, and go to church on Sunday.

But this man is besieged--on all sides--by the rabid armies of the Godless and the cowardly. By terrorists and evil-doers. By bureaucrats who want to run his life. By liberals who want to tax him. By drug dealers, welfare mothers, and atheists.

What is he to do? He would dearly love not to fight. But his enemies are climbing the walls of his castle. The killer has got a knife to his little girl?s throat. Not fight? Fight he must.

It?s plain why this story works as well as it does. It presents a classic hero and a journey that reaches down through the brain into the gut. And Republicans can translate it into simple, clear lines of action: Wage war and don?t stop. Cut taxes. Put bad guys in jail, or to death.

Many on the left harbor the delusion that Republicans can be dislodged by criticism of this story. There are two main styles of critique. The first is ironic and humorous (see Al Franken). The second style is serious and raging, bordering on caustic (see Tim Robbins' ?Embedded.?)

But, by definition, critics are at the margins. However loud they shout from the sidelines, they?ll never get in the game. The game is for those who can tell a story.

Rush Limbaugh knows this. He?s no critic. Sure, he rips into Democrats and liberals, but his point is always to describe the enemy ? cowardly and pessimistic ? in order clarify the attributes of his hero ? courageous and optimistic. Every anecdote, every opinion, feeds into his story. That?s why he convinces so many people and that?s why he makes so much money. And that?s why he has helped engineer a profound change in the culture of the country?s government.

On the other hand, the advent of ?Air America? illustrates the left?s deluded love affair with criticism. The debut ad campaign features photographs of right-wing bugaboos, with smart-ass lines plastered over their faces (?We Pump Irony? over Schwarzenegger and ?All the Caffeine and None of the Oxycontin? over Limbaugh). These are clever, but 100% content-free. The most revealing of the ads is a picture of Ralph Nader. ?Mocking the Far Right and When We?re Tired of that The Far Left.?

The network is all criticism, all the time. Franken?s show is hilarious and brilliant. But it?s one thing to convince me that the right is full of big fat idiot liars. It?s quite another task to articulate the character of a movement, which can show itself in times of opposition, and in times of leadership.

The effect of the narrative vacuum in liberalism can be seen in the campaign of John Kerry, who has taken his story straight from the tattered old book written by Bob Shrum. Shrum, you may remember, is the political consultant who quit the Carter campaign in 1976 because it wasn?t enough like the McGovern campaign, which he had helped lose in 1972. Shrum went on to help Ted Kennedy lose in 1980. Then Dukakis in 1988. Then Al Gore in 2000.

A consistent loser, Shrum loses consistently: with the ?people versus the powerful? message that he scripted in the early 1970s. You would think that the party of David Geffen and Steven Spielberg might ask for a re-write. But apparently John Kerry likes the project as is and has signed on to star. The welcome page on his website uses ?special interests? eight times--as in ?George Bush has taken America in a radically wrong direction with a Presidency that serves powerful special interests instead of everyday Americans? and ?John has a bold, new vision for America. An America safe from foreign threats and greedy special interests.?

What?s the story here? It puts forth two main characters: There?s this greedy, powerful character named ?Special Interest? who has been kicking ass! Special Interest runs the political and corporate worlds. Hell, Special Interest runs the world. S/he has a penthouse in Trump Tower, a chalet on Aspen Mountain and a ranch in Montana. S/he spends the morning on the phone with Wall Street, making a few billion, and the afternoon on the phone with Washington, making the money tax-free. Then, at night ?

Up against ?Special Interest? is a perennial loser called ?Everyday American.? Loser has a nagging spouse and impeccably average kids and a long commute to and from a cubicle. At home, the toilet leaks but it?s hard to find a decent plumber. The cell phone keeps blinking out, but the new ones are so expensive. But then again, Loser thinks, ?I?m worth it.? So s/he logs onto to Internet ? wants to save the sales tax ? and goes to bed excited, wondering whether UPS will take two or three days, and whether there will be someone at home to sign for the package, and whether s/he is as truly, deeply pathetic as it seems.

Which of these characters would you rather be? John Kerry and Bob Shrum don?t condescend to give you the choice. They tell you, ?You?re Loser.? You secretly hate them for this. You may hate their opponents more, and vote for Kerry with clenched teeth. Or you may vote for Nader (at five points in the May Gallup poll). Or you may (like huge chunks of the core Democratic constituency) just not vote.

Whereas the right-wing has a good story that they believe, liberals have a lame story--and they don?t even believe it. One of the highlights from Bob Shrum?s reel is when he dressed up former Senator Bob Kerrey in a uniform of a hockey goalie and had him say that he was going to defend America from foreign imports. Kerrey went along with it, then later said that he hadn?t believed a word of what he said in the campaign.

The same must be true for John Kerry. This wealthy Washington insider may tell us--but surely he doesn?t believe--that he?s going to lead us in a fight against ?Special Interest.? Anyway, even if Kerry gets elected telling this story, who will want to follow him? Americans don?t want to fight the rich and the powerful. They want to be rich and powerful. (Decent, too. They want to be rich, powerful, and decent.)

Perhaps the fundamental problem for the left is that it has long defined itself in opposition to the powerful. But it needs a story that is consistent with exercising power, and taking action. And it does have a powerful, true story to tell. The hero came over on the Mayflower in the 17th and after the Irish potato famine in the 19th and on a plane from Islamabad to JFK in the 21st. The hero left an old world of oppression, stagnation, and violence to live in a land of democracy, opportunity, and security. The hero willfully pays the dues for such a land--dues of hard work, dues of service, dues of taxes.

But in the same land, there are people who have forgotten where they came from. They?ve so lost faith with the covenant that they have begun to lie with abandon. They led us into a war by lying to us about Iraq, thus making us less secure. They wrecked the economy by lying to us about the effect of tax cuts, thus eroding the social fabric for opportunity.

Maybe, in this present regime, the hero has gotten richer, or maybe poorer. But it doesn?t matter. Rich or poor, black or white, ?Special? or ?Ordinary,? the benefits of the present regime are as vulnerable as a wood house in a hurricane. The future--the reason the hero came here, and the reason s/he works to stay--depends on the ground beneath all of our feet.

From George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to Ike and JFK, breakout political leaders in this country have drawn on their personal story, and let it merge with the story they want to tell about the country. John Kerry needs to do the same. He dedicated himself to the service of his country, but when his leaders broke faith with him, he stood up and spoke the truth. ?We are here,? he said April 1971 to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, ?to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country??

Many now turn to him with the same question. To answer, he needs to know the fundamental lessons of storytelling. Identify the hero and the journey and the prize. Articulate the threat. And show how the prize will be won.
 

AEB

Senior member
Jun 12, 2003
681
0
0
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Hate is too powerful a word. It?s not really a personal thing; I simply don?t trust his administration.
1. Because he has completely mishandled and botched U.S. international affairs, with the most egregious outrage being the attack on Iraq for seemingly nefarious purposes (where are the WMDs?). His admin has alienated governments around the Globe, destroying our credibility in the process.

2. Because he has completely mishandled and botched Domestic affairs, including giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, shifting more and more jobs overseas to the detriment of our own economy and sending deficits into the stratosphere after inheriting a strong economy. His admin has shoved through draconian measures (Patriot Act) under the pretense of keeping Americans ?safe?.

3. In typical fundamentalist fashion, Bush considers the ultra right wing religious establishment to be the backbone of society rather than the intellectual and scientific communities.

4. He can't speak American English in any but the basest manner.

I?ll think of more later maybe.


1. I don't think he alienated us with anyone who didnt have something to hide. IE food for oil UN program and france selling military technology to Iraq. The UN is a terrible orginization and I think what bush did shows American sovrengty, remember we did goto the UN first.

2.IM tired of the tax cuts for wealthiest americans crap you listen to kerry too much. EVERYONE got tax cuts, but the people who pay the most in taxes got the biggest cuts, it makes sense. He is not responsible for jobs gong over seas his abolition of the double taxation would save companies money and they wouldn't nessecarily want to look overseas, besides telling a company how to run itself ina free economy is a slippery slope. THe patriot act was approved by congress, all bush did was not veto it.

3. you have one extreme or the other, i prefer it the religous way others don't thats not a real political issue, the constitution prevents anything too extreme.

4. so? neither can half the people who vote democrat, take their votes away and id be willing to pay for GW english classes.

The only good argument is the one of detainess, i dont think its right for any american citizen to be held w/o a lawyer, or the rest of their constitutional rights. Hes wrong if he supports this, but congrees could also do something, but thats not excusing him.

However, 1 thing doesnt explain to me why there is so much resentment, i feel he is doing better by this country than al gore could have ever done.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
i feel he is doing better by this country than al gore could have ever done.

AEB don't speculate on things you have no idea about. That's such a blanketed and really moronic statement to make, and no such comparisons can be made about anyone unless they were president at some point in time.

Whether you believe it or not, our country is becoming more and more alienated from the rest of the world. Much of the hate towards our country from others lies in the arrogance that this administration has shown when dealing with international politics. The UN may have its problems, but this organization is the key to peace on earth. In order to attain peace and to stop terrorism, we must combat it on a global level with the collaboration of all nations.

When you break down terrorism it is fundamentally simple. The terrorists need something to hate, a specific entity to concentrate all their efforts on. By going alone in the Iraq War, for the most part, we are giving the terrorist the very thing they need to fuel more hatred. If we had collaborated with the UN and gone in with an international force, the situation may have been different. It is much harder to fight multiple enemies than just one.

As for the economy, I don't think Bush can be entirely blamed. The economy is governed by so many things beyond the control of the President, it is unfair to lay all the blame solely on him.

I don't hate Bush, I hate the direction he is taking our country in. It is not going to bring us peace and stability, and it is definitely not bringing our country together (as can plainly be seen).
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: biostud666
Originally posted by: AEB
i don't get it honestly, i disagree with some of his policys but none that would casue me to hate him.

We don't hate him, just what he stands for :D

yeah, that's where I am. I'm pretty neutral about the whole Iraq thing (I was/am pro-war, but I think we rushed into it far too fast and without a reasonable plan for rebuilding the post-Saddam country).

but perma-tax cuts for the rich (without a way to pay for them) + renewing the patriot act + slapping gay republicans in the face = a vote for Kerry in November.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
don't speculate on things you have no idea about.

Whether you believe it or not, our country is becoming more and more alienated from the rest of the world. Much of the hate towards our country from others lies in the arrogance that this administration has shown when dealing with international politics.

...If we had collaborated with the UN and gone in with an international force...

Now you were saying what about speculation and moronic and blanketed statements?

Hmmm.....

CkG
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
America is the Only country in the world that constantly Reminds Everyone else how Great We are.

I Dont Personally Hate Bush.

I pesonally hate his, Ideas, Leadership or Lack of, and agenda.