Bush, Flip-Flop

[sonic1]

You want to compare Bush vs Kerry?

Here is just an appetizer:

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief



From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue

GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout

BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea

BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. Ahmed Chalabi

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

11. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

13. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

15. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

16. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

20. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

21. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

23. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

25. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

[clinthopson]

Well done!

[Brian Olewnick]

Newsflash: Politician flip-flops for political expediancy! Exposes lack of moral conviction!

Hold the presses.

Originally Posted by Flippy Floppy Ollie

Politician flip-flops for political expediancy! Exposes lack of moral conviction!

Oh the horrors!!!!!

Hopefully we'll get a Democrat into the White House to put a stop to all that nonsense IMMEDIATELY!!!!

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Oh the horrors!!!!!

Hopefully we'll get a Democrat into the White House to put a stop to all that nonsense IMMEDIATELY!!!!

Uh, Scott, the subject is the pot calling the kettle black. Let me know if this requires further explanation.

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

Uh, Scott, the subject is the pot calling the kettle black. Let me know if this requires further explanation.

Dingdingdingdingdingding..............!!!!!!

Sweetness, Master Finch, you nailed it!

Thats EXACTLY what this is all about.

Now, if only I ever get you to admit that we're all in the same boat................

[Dr Dave]

Oh, we're all in the same boat, all right. The question is, are we bailing or are we engaged in "magic thinking" about bailing.

[lynn]

Gee Dolan, my hope is that your's is taking on water.

I can swim.

[sonic1]

The point of anyone wanting to point out Bush's flip-floppiness is to show how easy it is to pin someone as that. I would hate any of us here on the JC to be held to our convictions...man I feel differently about things every day. Why do we expect politicians to be any different?

You see, I am willing to admit some of the above is silly to bring up, as conditions are complex and people change their minds as the fact arise. And that is how I feel about people attempting to pin Kerry as flip-floppy.

Your boat analogies are pretty weak. I don't think Bush is bailing the boat. I think he put most of the holes in the boat. Increasing spending while cutting taxes is putting holes in the boat by definition. Maybe his rescue boat will come by before the boat with all of us in it will sink. Or maybe the presidency is like the family care, we are all in it, and he has taken it out for thrill, only his reckless driving threatens all of us. Is he doing it to piss off dad? Is he doing it to let out his selfish rich-boy angst?

I don't know but I am booting his ass out of the car.


Too bad we have to vote to do that.


Jared

Originally Posted by Sonic1

Your boat analogies are pretty weak.

That possibly because you misinterpret the whole thing.

So allow me to bottom line it for you.

President Bush has flip-flopped on issues. Kerry has flip-flopped on issues. We're in the same boat.

I do not consider Bush to be an ideal candidate. Do you consider Kerry to be your ideal candidate?

Bush is not a "man of the people". Kerry has missed around two thirds of his Senate votes over the last year, almost solidifying himself as also not being a "man of the people".

Politicians are playing ball on a whole other level that you and I have little or no comprehension of.

Get it?

We're all in the same boat. Best we can do is get out and vote.

But lets not fool ourselves into thinking that one politician or the other is going to magically change our world into some dreamlike Utopia. They're fucking politicians for christsakes!!

at the end of the day, almost all of us want the same thing. But the politicians decide what we'll get.

Now pass me an oar, and don't fucking bogart the squeeze cheese.

[Monte Smith]

The critique of flip floppiness is not that you might have held one position at a time and now aother position. The critique of flip floppiness is that you are at this hour trying to hold both positions.

Thus:

I voted for and against this war.

[sonic1]

Do you know what bills in congress are like? If the question was as simple as "do we go to war or not" what you are saying would make sense. But these bills are loaded with language and riders that everyone must be cautious about. That is why you can take anyone's congressional record and make them seem like a flip flop.

Also the democrats asked certain criteria from Bush as he went into that war, and probably knew he would not follow through (which he did not-those silly democrats why take their needs serious?).

To hold that against Kerry is grasping for anything to discredit him. He has some really strong points about the Bush administration's handing of the presidency that are very valid: namely the secrecy and lack of democratic transparency, the inability to say sorry or take responsibility for mistakes, the reckless handling of the government budget (cutting taxes plus increasing spending), his going back 20 years in environmental policy to favor corporate interest, his economic "policies" that favor the rich and rob the poor, his launching a war on Iraq threatening the ability for us to handle the war on terror, his losing interest in capturing the man that sent down the world trade center, his lies about being a pro-choice president, his plain idiocy that comes out of almost every speech he makes, his choice of shady charatures like Dick Cheney for his administration, etc. etc.

...the mounting case AGAINST Bush makes the republican "flip-flop" offensive look quite silly.

The critique of flip floppiness is that you are at this hour trying to hold both positions? And you think Bush is not guilty of that too? You think he really believed himself when he said he was pro-choice?? Yeah right buddy.

All politicians play that game. Just admit it.

Jared

Originally Posted by Sonic1

All politicians play that game. Just admit it.

Oh.

My.

Did I happen to mention that we're all in the same boat?

[sonic1]

Yes you did. But the fact that politicians all play that game is not a reason to write them all off. If you want to blame anything, blame democracy. That is what happens when we all have to vote for one person. The idea here is to look past what are political games, and what are truly things to worry about.

I tell you, I am much less worried about Kerry's political strategy than I am of Bush's running this nation like a maniac rebellious teenager, with hardly a thought to future consequences.

Jared

Originally Posted by Sonic1

But the fact that politicians all play that game is not a reason to write them all off.

I see.....................

[sonic1]

THIS is a better reason to vote someone out.

Scott you are expecting politicians to not be politicians? You are not that naive, man. I never had you as a utopianist.

The Bush administration plans on cutting domestic spending (after the election of course) to try to deal with the deficit-yeah, that "liberal" bullshit spending like....fucking roads, infrastructure, education, all the things that make this country run. While the three largest contributors to the deficit spending (by a landslide) are Iraq, Bush's tax cuts, and the shitty economy-he'll keep all that. Cause his tax cuts for the rich are more important than all that infrastructure stuff. Damn liberals...

Jared

Originally Posted by Sonic1

Scott you are expecting politicians to not be politicians?

1. You have been drinking too much tonight.

2. You're not too bright.

3. A little of both

4. you are having problems interpreting my posts.


I'll vote for number 4 for the time being.

I have been saying this entire time that politicians ARE politicians.

Though I do find your graph to be interesting. In an amusing sort of way.

Oh, and I have always spoken out about Bush's profligate spending. But I suppose that simply doesn't matter..............

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

1. You have been drinking too much tonight.

2. You're not too bright.

3. A little of both

4. you are having problems interpreting my posts.


I'll vote for number 4 for the time being.

I have been saying this entire time that politicians ARE politicians.

Though I do find your graph to be interesting. In an amusing sort of way.

Oh, and I have always spoken out about Bush's profligate spending. But I suppose that simply doesn't matter..............

Maybe I am misreading your posts, but maybe also I am totally unclear from all our exchange where exactly you stand when it comes to Bush. I can't tell if most of our exchange is your dislike of Kerry or your defense of Bush.

It has only been in the last few weeks that we, scott, have echanged political diatribe. I really don't know where you come from.


......actually I just scanned down and noticed that I missed one of your messages-the one where you clarify the boat analogy, and that clears this up a little more for me. But it still leaves me in the dark about how you really feel about Bush, like how much you really stand behind the guy.

No I don't think Kerry is going to magically do anything. I just believe he is the superior choice in this election, by far. But that is not saying much. Just remember that little Bushie had way less experience going into the presidency than Kerry will have going in. Though Bush did make a wreck of Texas. Kerry's record is not very outstanding for his many years in congress??? Oh, so he was not elected all those times? Excuse me but being an elected official for many years is successful. You may just say he is only good at getting elected and nothing else, I just hope you are right...about the getting elected part.

and the graph is interesting: it looks like sometime during clinton's latter first term the deficit starts to go down. Then right on the 2000 click, a huge change. Tell me where it amuses you.

[clinthopson]

This election isn't about electing Kerry, it's about getting rid of Shrub and his gang.

Originally Posted by Sonic1

But it still leaves me in the dark about how you really feel about Bush, like how much you really stand behind the guy.

Well now, we can't have that.

President Bush did a nice job after 9/11.

He's done a nice job seeing to it that the intelligence agencies work more in tune with each other.

He made the right decision to go into Afghanistan and remove the Taliban and actively search for bin Laden.

And his decision to go into Iraq was the right one. And not for all the silly reasons that the media played up.

All those things I fully support him on.

Other than that, he's been a fairly mediocre, possibly bordering on bad, President. But most have been in my lifetime.

But, he's our President and I support him. Just as I've done with all the other Presidents. And should Kerry win, he'll also receive that same level of support from me.

Yes, I'm a conservative, but I will never hate, or be enraged at a President the way you losers have been over the last four years.

It's silly, the most important thing to you folks is having "your" guy in the White House. Bush is not "my" guy, neither is Kerry. Whoever my President is, I will support. If they do good, I'll say so. If they fuck up, I'll also say so.

Call me God's own moderate.

I'm almost hoping that Kerry wins. It will be business as usual, just like every other Presidency, but at least it will shut you whiny fucking liberla's up.

That in and of itself would make this a better country to live in.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Scott,

Do you consider all political dissent to be whinning? If not, how do you differentiate between the two?

C'mon Darryl, have I ever accused you of whining?

Do I ever accuse folks like Root Doctor or Ollie of whining?

No.

You know as well as I do that Bush hating has been raised to the shrillest levels I've ever seen in my life.

People hate Bush out of habit anymore. Nobody gives two shits about issues, they simply react to what side Bush comes down on.

Objectivity is a an antiquated notion to these people.

Whiners? You fucking betcha.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Scott,

I believe things got a little shrill during the Clinton years. But that's in the past. Maybe the following will help:

Ire to the Chief

By Gary Alan Fine

Friday, August 6, 2004; Page A19

Anyone who hobnobs with progressives knows by now that a fair proportion of these bright and articulate Americans hate George W. Bush. They abhor him. The embrace of Bush hatred has even appeared in otherwise sober journals of opinion such as the New Republic. Why? How is it that so many thoughtful people hold a belief that is surprising -- and troubling -- to the vast majority of Americans?

I came to realize the depth of this hostility a year ago during a discussion about politics with a distinguished social scientist. She explained casually, without preface or embarrassment, that she hated the president. I took it as rhetorical exuberance and called her on it: Surely she meant that she disagreed vigorously with the president's domestic policies, that she objected to the Iraq war, that she found his persona unappealing, that she was offended by his inarticulateness or that she remained vexed by the outcome of the 2000 election. But, no, she insisted that she viscerally despised George W. Bush. She felt nauseated and angry when she watched him. She was not just intellectually offended but morally so.

A few years ago I wrote an essay on "despised presidents." I asked why some evoke such intense feelings, while others do not. We speak of "Nixon haters" and "Clinton haters," but few Gerald Ford haters or Jimmy Carter haters. George H.W. Bush, mocked by many, was one of the least hated recent presidents. Not being hated does not necessarily mean being loved.

My argument was that presidential hatred developed not from actions the president took while in office but from images of the president as a young adult. The president represented critical cultural divisions of a previous generation, divisions that were never fully healed. I suggested that Richard Nixon was hated not because of Watergate but because of his role on the House Un-American Activities Committee in the conviction of Alger Hiss in the late 1940s. Many liberals never forgave Nixon for what they perceived as his witch-hunting and McCarthyism. For Bill Clinton, it was his "radical, hippie" past that produced ire, long before Monica Lewinsky reached public attention. He represented for traditional Americans everything that was wrong with the '60s: How could a draft-dodging, drug-smoking, war-protesting, free-loving radical be commander in chief?

It was not political ideology. Nixon opened the doors to Red China, started Head Start, and increased the size and scope of the federal government. Clinton reformed welfare, created a balanced budget and oversaw Treasury policies friendly to corporate growth.

Bush's administration is free of scandals. He has not eliminated federal programs, not even the National Endowment for the Arts. The retreats have been strategic and slight. Not to say that Democrats should agree with "W" -- but hate him?

Once again emotional juice bubbles from the springs of the past. This loathing derives from Bush's seeming life of ease. If Bill Clinton was a Zelig, present at every influential moment, George W. Bush is Forrest Gump. He has led a charmed life, in which mediocrity, error and failure have had no consequences other than to produce success. An indifferent student, Bush attended both Yale and Harvard, escaped service in Vietnam, escaped disgrace despite drunken driving, failed as an oil magnate only to be promoted to head the Texas Rangers baseball team and, lacking political experience, became governor of Texas. His family and mentors paved the way for this untalented scion of privilege. Bush was the frat boy who never grew up.

Indeed, the conclusion of the 2000 election contributed to this perception. A week before the voting Bush seemed solidly in the lead, but then Democratic operatives spread the story of Bush's youthful DUI arrest, and his support appeared to crumble. Once again, though, his irons were pulled from the fire -- by his father's Supreme Court. The outcome underlined Bush's image as undeserving heir. The frat boy triumphed; fecklessness was its own reward.

Most Americans, even most Democrats, do not abhor George W. Bush. We should be grateful for this. Yet, once again we see political animus tied to issues that are removed from policy. Judging a president's deeds and misdeeds, governing successes and blunders should provide enough ammunition for a lively debate. Why must bitterness toward the follies of youth so determine our politics?

Gary Alan Fine is the author of "Difficult Reputations: Collective Memories of the Evil, Inept, and Controversial." He is John Evans professor of sociology at Northwestern University.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[sonic1]

The reason that many people hate Bush so much is because he is so Machiavelian. He is such an outright liar. And he plays off as being like the normal joe, when he grew up amongst the most extremely privaledged known to history. He is a friend of the ultra-wealthy. And his political actions serve them-at the cost of the rest of us.

And DO ask yourself that scott: Why do Sooooo many people hate Bush? Might it be that there is a reason? That many of us feel personally offended by this president?

On your assessment of Bush's actions: Any idiot in the white house would have done what Bush did after 9-11, which was the bare minimum (and Bush is just any idiot, right?). He talked up support for the country, and at that time it was what everyone wanted to hear. But the whole time while everyone else was being teary-eyed and pro-america, I was watching this man using his position for his own agenda-suddenly laying out his new version of a cold war, his war on terror. Only slipping in Iraq to serve his needs. He planned on attacking Iraq from the beginning and we all know that.

He put a monkeywrench in the already fucked up healthcare system. At least before we could go to Canada if we didn't want to be forced to buy overpriced drugs-thanks to Bush and his cronies, we can't do that legally anymore. I know my health care is shit. I had to cancel my colonoscopy because it was going to be all out of pocket, thousands of dollars I cannot afford for a routine checkup. I know I have something going on, but can't afford to find out what.

He totally failed with Afghanistan-the Taliban is reported as reforming all over the country, Osama is still on the loose, and Afghanistan has become a gigantic opium farm-funding new terrorism regimes.
Can we afford to handle Afghanistan? Not with our hands in the Iraq honeypot. And what if Iran or North Korea gets beligerant? Doesn't anyone remember how the Soviet Union failed? Bankruptcy? Our deficit is already terrible. Don't you think someone is going to figure out that we can't fight all these wars like this forever without bankrupting ourselves?

As far as the "nice job seeing to it that the intelligence agencies work more in tune with each other" he is still fighting the 9-11 commission's recommendations-yes, he decided to allow a intelligence tsar, but with limited capability, nothing like the 9-11 commission asked for (which was a very bi-partisian commission). YOU may say these agencies are in tune with each other but I just read something today quoting intelligence officers who are still complaining that there are major problems with how we are handling intelligence. THEY don't seem to think things are ok, and intelligence is their job.

People hate Bush because he manipulates the people. No matter how many times you say Saddham supported Al Queda, it doesn't make it true-but unfortunately he puts the easy to remember sound bite for all non-thinking rightists to repeat. And for all those who don't keep up with the issues that is the soundbite that comes to them. The far right has been able to keep plugging the uninformed with their diatribe through right wing radio and Fox. The left does not have such a propaganda outlet-unless you consider NPR left-but anyone who listens to NPR knows they give the whole spectrum.

Now is hate the wrong word? Probably. People are just communicating that they are completely frustrated with the president. Supporting any president that is in the office does not fly with me. That is called Nationalism.

We live in America, where because of us "whiners" blacks got the right to be human beings, women the right to vote (and be human beings), slowly things have become more fair for everyone, though there is still a lot of work to do. If you want to live in a government where nobody whines, then go to fucking North Korea-where they aren't allowed to. I am sick of rightists making out dissenters out as unpatriotic. You wouldn't have this fucking country to begin with if a bunch of whiners didn't dump a bunch of tea overboard and say fuck you to England (if we were in those times would you be saying to us to stop whining, even though England was shitting all over us?).

Listen man. I bitch. I bitched about many of Clinton's actions. Many leftists bitched about Johnson, and many leftists elected Reagan over Carter. And we'll bitch about Kerry when he is president. Because some of us believe in keeping the president in check. That is what this country is about.

I guess I could argue with you about Bush forever...we have our different views. But don't call me a fucking whiner, and I won't call you a blind patriot. You think I'll stop whining if Kerry is in the office: I promise you I won't, bro.

Jared

Jesus fucking Christ almighty, Jared!!!

You have officially taken over second place as the most long winded motherfucker on this site! (Crawjo will never let that top spot slip!)

Alright then. I'll deal with your post as best I can. forgive me if I do not respond to something you wanted me to.

The reason that many people hate Bush so much is because he is so Machiavelian. He is such an outright liar.

1. This is highly subjective. But if you can point out straight up lies, I'll digress.

2. Using the same criteria, what President hasn't "lied" in your book?

when he grew up amongst the most extremely privaledged known to history.

And Kerry did not? Oh, and there is no "d" in privileged. Word to the wise, don't misspell words, it will only bring you down to my level.

He is a friend of the ultra-wealthy. And his political actions serve them-at the cost of the rest of us.

Kerry IS one of the "ultra-wealthy" that you speak of. So lets ask ourselves this, my friend. Will he betray his own kind? I don't think so. He may find ways to be more discreet about it. But lets face reality here, shall we?

And DO ask yourself that scott: Why do Sooooo many people hate Bush? Might it be that there is a reason? That many of us feel personally offended by this president?

Oh my!

Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, I have indeed thought about it. Many times.

My assessment? Many people were quite happy throughout the Clinton admin, I was too. Clinton was a centrist, but more importantly, he didn't stand for a whole lot. He played to both sides of the aisle. THAT, I don't have a problem with. It became somewhat of a status quo after 8 years. People were looking foward to more of the same. Then Gore lost. It was a tricky situation, but when you read the final judgements that were passed down, he lost.

Now, people were pissed because of the outcome. Hell, I was pissed. It should have never come to what it did. But Bush won, so be it. Perhaps you are not familiar, but I was not a registered voter at the time, but if I had been, I would have voted for Gore.

Be that as it may, Bush won. Unfortunately, because of the way the election ended, Bush was already hated. Once you hate someone, everything they do is completely opposed to your position, on principle.

Bush would prove to not play the centrist role like Clinton did. This only enforced the hatred that many had for him when he took office.

Fair enough?

On your assessment of Bush's actions: Any idiot in the white house would have done what Bush did after 9-11, which was the bare minimum (and Bush is just any idiot, right?). He talked up support for the country, and at that time it was what everyone wanted to hear.

I did not say that what he did was extraordinary, I simply said that he handled it well. Gore would have handled it in just the same way.

But the whole time while everyone else was being teary-eyed and pro-america, I was watching this man using his position for his own agenda-suddenly laying out his new version of a cold war, his war on terror.

Oy........

So the war on terror is fantasy?

And furthermore, I would like to hear your thoughts on how defining the war on terror was his "agenda". Hindsight is indeed 20/20, but you seem to be taking it to an absurd extreme with this statement.

Only slipping in Iraq to serve his needs. He planned on attacking Iraq from the beginning and we all know that.

Yes, a very Patricia-like statement. Iraq had been a concern since the first Bush was in office. Clinton was more than pleased to enforce the no-fly zones, and performed his own bombing runs against them in '98. His advisers even briefed the incoming Bush admin as to the dangers that Saddam presented.

What did Bob Kerrey himself say following the attack on the USS Cole? Please, this was not something that Bush dreamt up. It was laid in his lap from day one.

He put a monkeywrench in the already fucked up healthcare system. At least before we could go to Canada if we didn't want to be forced to buy overpriced drugs-thanks to Bush and his cronies, we can't do that legally anymore. I know my health care is shit. I had to cancel my colonoscopy because it was going to be all out of pocket, thousands of dollars I cannot afford for a routine checkup. I know I have something going on, but can't afford to find out what.

Oh my.

Hillarycare for everyone. Unfortunately, this is a much bigger subject than I care to get into right now. I worked in the medical field for several years and can gladly discuss the ills of socialized medicine. But lets not get bogged down in that right now. I promise we will discuss it at another time.

He totally failed with Afghanistan-the Taliban is reported as reforming all over the country, Osama is still on the loose, and Afghanistan has become a gigantic opium farm-funding new terrorism regimes.

Totally failed...

Interesting.

So Afghanistan has suddenly become a "gigantic opium farm-funding terrorism"? I suppose that next you will show how Bush pointed out the opium farms to them? Opium is nothing new there. Neither is funding terrorism. You aren't making much sense here, so lets move on. I'll be happy to get into a deeper discussion about this as well, but you need to clarify your assertions.

And what if Iran or North Korea gets beligerant?

Gets?

Germany said the other day that they were "concerned" about Irans nuclear developement program. I suppose those countries are our problem, and our problem only?

As far as the "nice job seeing to it that the intelligence agencies work more in tune with each other" he is still fighting the 9-11 commission's recommendations-yes, he decided to allow a intelligence tsar, but with limited capability, nothing like the 9-11 commission asked for (which was a very bi-partisian commission). YOU may say these agencies are in tune with each other but I just read something today quoting intelligence officers who are still complaining that there are major problems with how we are handling intelligence. THEY don't seem to think things are ok, and intelligence is their job.

Where did I say that everything was ok? None of these things happen overnight. Perhaps you prefer Ms. Gorelicks approach? Not only is her memo quite telling, but it's also pretty convenient that she also served on the 9/11 commission. Wouldn't you agree? Bureaucrats are a bitch, my friend.

No matter how many times you say Saddham supported Al Queda, it doesn't make it true

I wasn't aware that I said it in the first place. But thats ok, put me in your little "conservative" box if it makes you feel better.

And for all those who don't keep up with the issues that is the soundbite that comes to them.

Oh my.

Wrong again. Although, I should assume you weren't talking about me.

I think it would be best that we both leave "soundbites" and "talking points" out of our conversations.

Fair enough?

Now is hate the wrong word?

Nope. Look up the definition.

Supporting any president that is in the office does not fly with me.

Hmmmm.....

Well, too fucking bad. I have supported every President in my lifetime. It's something us non-partisan folk do. It does not mean full support. But I suppose that may be a bit complex to deal with.

All of them do right and wrong. If you can't handle that reality, then perhaps we needn't go any further with this conversation.

We live in America, where because of us "whiners" blacks got the right to be human beings,

Fair enough.

Tell me about Everett Dirksen.

Tell me all about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Tell me all about the Democrats filibuster against the act.

Perhaps your box is just too small, Jared.

But don't call me a fucking whiner

You think I'll stop whining if Kerry is in the office: I promise you I won't, bro.

Ok, then.......................................

[sonic1]

Scott, the more we hash it out the more I understand where you are coming from. I am not putting you in any box. Much of my post is about my frustration with the average voter. But I can see where it might look like I am doing that.

On a few of your points:

Yes, Kerry is also of that class. But he is proposing to keep taxing them over us, making them pay their fair share. He doesn't implement the failed ideology of trickle-down. He is proposing to tax himself, which I find respectable. He also went to Vietnam-for whatever you want to say about his service, he went which is more than I can say for Bush.

And on Afghanistan: if we were not so involved with Iraq, a tangent in the war on terror, we would have truly handled the job of keeping Afghanistan from continuing its terror cultivation. But we don't have the troops available to be much of a presence there-not like Iraq anyway. And as far as countries with ties to terror, how about Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia? For all that was said about Iraq, you could apply to Pakistan. The only difference is that Hussein was evil to his people. But that in my mind does not justify HOW we went into that war. Unless we are going to go into Darfur too.

But it's all done now. We can't sit here and imagine what if...

However now that we have an election coming, we CAN make those take responsibility for how they handled protecting us. Because of our "humanitarian" mission in Iraq, our resources are now taxed and I blame the Bush administration for that. Nobody else would have taken us into there, in that way at least, at the cost of the tax payer.

Yes, I am aware Clinton bombed the no fly zone, almost weekly during his presidency. It was always buried in the back of the NY times which I was reading daily at the time. And I think for someone who continued that tradition he didn't do much else to manage the Iraq situation. That is a critism. But he was focussed on many other elements in his presidency, including unfortunately fighting off Ken Star. For all the bitching we all do, our Bush hating, we have not attacked Bush in the way Clinton was attacked. And I believe there is a lot more to go after with Bush than with Clinton. But after all, getting a blow job will upset this nation more than lying.

As far as Bush lying: I could go on and on about this (you seem to already know that) but I will highlight the biggest lie-that they believed the intelligence supported their claims about Iraq when there was much more intelligence to the contrary. They had to work hard to build their case, and whether they lied to themselves too...it doesn't matter. They wanted to go to war with Iraq so bad that they either lied or severely overlooked the facts. And at the cost of protecting us from terrorism.

And he has lied about a great many other things he didn't even need to lie about-like about the "mission accomplished" banner that backdropped his proclaimation of victory in Iraq. He blamed it on the soldiers on the boat. But Bush's aides were the ones who made sure that banner was there. He could have just said, "well you know, my aides just wanted to be optimistic" or something. But he lied and blamed it on the poor soldiers. LAME.

But to prevent another long winded post I'll stop here.

Jared

[Chris D]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Tell me all about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Tell me all about the Democrats filibuster against the act.
......

Um, they're all Republicans now.

[clinthopson]

Scotty, your aggressive and insulting posts make me very ashamed of my favorite nephew.

Originally Posted by Chris D

Um, they're all Republicans now.

Um, wrong.

Southern Democrats are still southern Democrats.

Gallant effort though.

Clint, you're making my posts into what YOU want them to be. I don't see the person who I directed my post at crying about it being aggressive or insulting.

Grow up, brother.

Jared, I'm heading out the door for work here shortly, but I promise to respond to your post later.