Obviously a radical left-wing zealot, right?
It tells us that the Bush presidency is deteriorating right in front of our eyes.
When a recently re-elected president hits 40% – or 38% two weeks ago – in the polls in his first year of his second term, he is in big trouble politically. And then, when his own base starts to feel free to voice public discontent, what is left?
Except, it isn’t.
I have to resist the temptation to feel sorry for Bush.
His downfall could be one of history’s most profound.
At least Julius Caesar died with a measure of honor.
Could it be any slower or painful? You really would not wish it on anyone…
How does that go – Instant Karma’s gonna get choo…
Or You Reap what you Sow?
I smell Karl Rove all over this.
Curmudgeon, they will all become “libertarians” but will continue to vote for cons.
It’s too early to celebrate, a lot can happen in the next couple years. A lot of it is bad. These pending scandals have the potential of keeping Neocons out of office for generations, however.
It will take decades to repair the damage to our country’s reputation, and what better place to start but now.
After five long, torturous years…it certainly is beautiful to behold. You think the true believers will commit seppuku once they realize the walls are crumbling down?
Or will they just pretend they never supported Bush in the first place, and whistle past the graveyard that was once American idealism?
What an evil, cowardly, cynical and selfish bunch.
Oliver,
You may be interested in my latest post over at MeFi.
A mother of a U.S. soldier tells her son about the latest Iraq torture admissions, only to be told that his unit routinely beat and abused Iraqis.
“…suppose you visit an Imam and you want him to call off IED attacks in his neighborhood. If you just go in and ask him politely, he’ll tell you he’ll try to help; but, he won’t . . . But, if you go to that same guy and beat him up thoroughly, then ask him to knock off the attacks, he’ll respect you and he’ll try to help. . . .”
The mother reports that her son was “under the impression that the conduct was in line with military policy.”
“Tee Hee Hee, those neocons are really gonna be DEAD this time, hee hee… Whoops, somebody’s coming, hide the crack pipe!!”
Frank;
The American Enterprise Institute?
Please don’t malign Kos or similar Frankpeeves while trying to peddle this sophistry. BushHate has it’s equivilence in “The Yellow Peril” threat of the “liberal menace” reminiscent of William Randolph Hearst, the role-model for Rupert Murdoch.
Frank –
You are the epitome of the phrase “dead ender.” See you in ‘06 buddy.
On other other hand
Morton Kondracke says; fill in the blank!
One of them said he hopes ________ will “sink beneath the waves,” at least past next November, in order to deprive Democrats of a target.
This sounds more like the strategy of a defense attorney for a crack dealer who hopes he can prove the evidence is ‘tainted’ and therefore thrown out of court. It may be the only strategy left for the crack dealer and the criminals (upon conveiction, that is) associated with this web of corruption.
And how many copies of “My Pet Goat” will it take to fill Bush II’s library?
Or maybe he’ll hide his papers with all his governor’s papers – in his dad’s library’s basement.
CS
Your metaphors are incomprehensible — you need to watch a few hours of Dennis Miller — learn how to do it right.
frameone and semanticleo: And, if you don’t accept the analysis (as if liberal commentators have no bias), well, then, I guess we’ll see who’s celebrating in ‘06.
I anticipate some real imagination in those excuses as to how the Demosrats lost their asses once again.
And, Leo, sophistry (in modern usage) is a derogatory term for rhetoric that is designed to appeal to the listener on grounds other than the strict logical validity of the statements being made from (WikiPedia).
If you think that’s what that was, you are going to be miserable for at least the next 10 years of Republican domination
“BushHate”? Bah. When someone opens up a “Counter-Bush Library” in College Station, TX, then we have BushHate.
Frank;
The long-winded definition of ’sophistry’ can be whittled down to a simple;
‘pretzel logic’..Just like you, we have to consider the source……
I find it relatively easy to dislike an incompetent, lying, treasonous group of cronies whose priorities are not in the best interest of the American people. Call that BushHate, but it’s just plain common sense. This administration is damaging our country both at home and abroad.
The reason that all these Republicans constantly resort to bleating “BUSH HATE!!1!! OMG!!!” is that they themselves are such blind worshippers of the man that they cannot comprehend criticism having any other source than animal passion. Thus Frank. Then you have people like Zorro, who has that as his basic mentality, but who casts himself from time to time as a “reasonable libertarian” like, say, Instapundit, who simply can’t abide the *tone* of these liberals. Then he’ll go back to calling us parrots and crack smokers. Here’s a rejoinder for you both: Go fuck yourselves, you power worshipping trolls.
TomY:
Sorry man, I just call ‘em as I see ‘em. While I appreciate the amatuer psychoanalysis, you are simply too blind with rage at your inability to regain power in these past election cycles to objectively evaluate the shortcoming of the modern liberal intellectual argument. But seriously, you also don’t have a sense of humor.
Semanticleo:
Woah, there, cowboy. Usually, you and I are on the same side, but I must take issue with this statement. There’s a world of difference between Hearst and Murdoch. True, both are responsible for changing the face of their chosen medium. However, while Hearst had a genuine interest in pushing certain opinions through his newspapers, Murdoch’s sole motivation seems to be money.
If Murdoch truly cared about the conservative values FNC espouses, that would make him a hypocrite of the worst kind. For, while FNC continually talks about the degradation of morals in America, Murdoch’s FOX and F/X networks air some of the sleaziest trash on television. For example, see “Who wants to marry a millionaire”, “Family Guy”, and “American Dad” on FOX and “Nip/Tuck” on F/X.
Leo: And your post can be reduced to one word: balderdash. You are struggling with incomprehensibilty — and losing.
“Pretzel logic”… Where did you pilfer that from? Bill Maher?
Pionar;
I don’t get the distinction. One path to power is wealth. Wealth leads to power. Maybe Murdoch is not as openly racist as Hearst, but they both sought , or seek, to consolidate power in themselves, and are ruthless in that endeavor.
Tom:
I know, we can’t all be perfect though. You just keep working at it, go get some help for that crack habit and I know that you’ll come around some day.
You didn’t get indicted this week, did you, Zorro? Is that why you’re looking for liberals to call names/rebuke for namecalling?
What a wonderfully reasonable post, Zorro! The way you support your slurs with fact and data really drives home not just the credibility of the conservative movement, but your personal integrity as well. The scales are falling from my eyes, and I see that I truly am a parrot and a crack smoker. If only I could be as reasonable as you, Zorro!
Semanticleo,
The distinction is that Hearst not only forcibly ordered his papers to publish editorials and write with a certain point of view, but he didn’t do that for money. He did it because he believed in a position and wanted to make sure everyone else did, too.
Murdoch’s only motivation is money. He would probably have a liberal news network, too, if it was profitable. Murdoch doesn’t care about the message as long as it makes him richer.
In other words, Murdoch uses propaganda to make himself richer, while Hearst used his riches to spread propaganda.
struggling with incomprehensibilty and losing.
A triple-negative! Now, does that mean I am comprehensible? Or does the third negative take me back to incomprehensible?
Frank;
I don’t pilfer. And if you try to steal any of my expressions, I’ll have to sue for copyright infringement.(just kidding)
A triple negative? ::BUZZ!:: Wrong! You are whacked !
So much for the monolithic “Christian right” (still waiting for evidence that that exists) thinking…
Frank;
I think I understand what you mean by incomprehensible. You have your own definition because it is a ‘cover’ word for your frustration at having no real response, except to say my metaphors do not meet your ‘high’ standards. You are a small man.
O, Lawzy me! Now you’re reduced (pun intended) to calling me a “small man”.
Maybe I should have been more clear: Your metaphors suck, because they are inappropriate, and / or meaningless.
You should make your point, if there is one. I have no problem saying what I want to say, and even when I am misinterpreted (I believe, ofttimes, deliberately) I still come back with an explanation / clarification of my point. After a few tries, I suspect that someone is either obtuse or pretending to be, and I give up.
I don’t see you doing anything like that. Very often, you don’t even post on a thread until I do, and then, it is neither on the thread’s topic, nor directly related to my post. No, very often, you just throw out (up?) one of your convoluted “metaphors” which are, in the main, designed to say something about me, but never about the point I am making.
It’s as if you are simply hanging around the threads waiting to “pounce” on me.
Is it a plea for attention? What is it?
My metaphors irk you because you don’t like them. That is very different from ‘inappropriate/meangingless’.
I will continue to repeat my take on your response to any post. You have no imagination or sense of humor and it is reflected in the dreary ramblings of a guy who is desperately clinging to his view of the world.
Now follow with typical plea of ‘incomprehensible’ ideas, then dish out your prose-impaired response; ‘Balderdash’, and we can all go home knowing you have taken the high road.
I understand you this time.
And, I repeat, your metaphors are inappropriate and / or incomprehensible — and, for the most part, superfluous.
I don’t care if all you do is “respond to my response.” It reflects on you, and not me.
It is a sign that, if you have something to contribute, it is less important than “irking” me.
I know I have imagination and a sense of humor. For you to say that I don’t indicates a frightening lack of awareness on your part.
Finally, I am not “desparately clinging to my view of the world.” It’s called “having a belief” and “taking a stand.”
Now I have taken the high road.
Will you?
Can you?