St. Anger
by Lee
I got an email from a reader yesterday.
Lee, I really do respect the fact that you are stong in your convictions, and I truely believe that the GOP has shifted, leaving you behind. I’m not going to turn this into one of those “Lee’s a tinfoil hat leftie so I’m leaving” emails, but there are a few things I’d like to say.
Just as the GOP left you, your blog has left me. Don’t get me wrong, it’s your space, and I’m grateful for the forum you give other people to share thier own ideas. I doubt you have personally changed, but the blog definitely has. It’s more and more about being confrontational and your personal vendettas against a small minority of members. Check out the archives from some random month a year or so ago, then compare that with the tone of August/September 2006. It’s not even that what you’re saying is so disagreeable, but you used to be funny, now you’re just angry.
I’ll be checking in from time to time because you have a great thing going, but not as often, because the good stuff only comes around every few days recently.
This might come as a surprise to everyone, but I completely agree that the tone on this blog has changed over the last year or two. The question is why? Let’s explore.
I started blogging shortly after the first anniversary of 9/11. At the time I was living in the Bay Area, and after a year of being bombarded with left-wing agitprop about how “Bush knew” and it was a conspiracy for oil and how he was Hitler, I needed a release. This blog was my catharsis, my place to come and be able to express my views on anything I liked without being held up to scorn and ridicule from coworkers and such. It was my little secret garden, where I could sneak off and smoke cigarettes without my mom finding out.
If you go back to the early days of this blog and browse through the pages you can see that, back in 2002, I was clearly a Republican. If you click here you’ll be taken to page 596, from November 2002. (Wow, have I really been doing this that long?) And back then I was a huge George W. Bush fan. Look at this post from 11/08/02.
[George W. Bush] has been sorely underestimated by his political opponents and the entire rest of the world. They saw him as a stupid, illegitimate, foolish country bumpkin and counted him out. But to their obvious chagrin the bumbling, slack-jawed hick has played his opponents like a violin ever since he took office. The man is simply presidential, and I find myself liking him more and more every day.
What kind of people started coming to this blog? Conservatives with a sense of humor. I’m a funny guy and try to inject humor into what I write, and that appeals to a lot of people. I think, at least as bloggers go, I have a reasonable political understanding. I’m also quite good at explaining things for people. Back when I was working in software one of my tasks was to write documentation explaining how to use it. I’ve written three books like this, and have gotten nothing but praise and positive feedback on them.
In 2002 this blog was pro-conservative, pro-Republican, pro-Bush, and anti-liberal. That really fostered a sense of community, since most of the people who hung out here were of a similar mind. Due to our generally similar ages and interests we generally agreed on most things. This was a place for young conservatives to get together and bag on Democrats and liberals, and it was a hell of a lot of fun.
Of course, it was all an illusion. The first two years of this blog were like the Clinton years. They seemed to be peaceful and friendly, but lurking just under the surface were significant disagreements which would split the entire conservative movement into fragments. The first of these was Terri Schiavo.
I’m certainly not interested in rehashing the specifics of that case. That being said, I was just floored when the Senate thought that it was ethically and Constitutionally appropriate to call itself into special session just so they could intervene on behalf of this woman. No matter what your opinion on the right to die issue, this was a private family matter that had run its course through the appropriate appellate process. That should have been it. You can protest, you can rail about the injustice of it all, and you can propose legislation to make sure that something like this never happens again. That’s how the system works. When the system didn’t work the way the social and religious conservatives wanted it to, the Senate, acting like a lapdog, use the awesome power of the federal government to try to get the opposite result.
What shocked me about the whole thing was not that the conservative movement wanted Terri to live, it was that conservatives, people who are allegedly for smaller government and states rights, would so gladly support a massive intrusion by the federal government in an issue it had no jurisdiction over. I simply couldn’t believe it. These people are conservatives, for God’s sake! Conservatives don’t pull this kind of stunts, liberals do! Opposition to exactly this sort of thing is why I became a conservative in the first place.
What really disgusted me was the win-at-all-costs ruthlessness with which the social conservatives were able to wield their power. It clearly showed that the social ideology and the small government ideologies were clashing, and the socials were winning. And there were so many people on this blog who were gleefully cheering this on. People whose opinions I respected, people whose online personae I liked. All of a sudden we were bitter enemies.
That was the first crack in the edifice. Since then we have watched this president, a man who claims to be a conservative, engaged in the following:
• A massive increase in the size and scope of government, to levels unmatched by many liberal Democrats.
• One of the most incompetently planned wars in history.
• Key positions filled by incompetent people, whose sole qualification was loyalty to Bush and the GOP.
• The Katrina disaster.
• The creation of secret programs to spy on American citizens.
• A total disregard for the idea that the Constitution places limits on the power of the executive branch.
• An astonishing abuse of the idea of signing statements, which he believes gives him the right to simply ignore any law he chooses.
• Ruthless contempt for anyone, of any political stripe, who dares to try and impede his quest for power.
Just like with the Schiavo incident, I have been astonished to see just how many so-called “conservatives” are willing to gloss over this stuff, to wholeheartedly buy the White House spin, when it has been shown so many times before that the spin is usually an outright lie. I hardly ever read National Review any more. The political magazine which largely made me a conservative in the first place was now devoted primarily to pushing Bush’s social agenda and excusing everything else he did. It’s like I stepped into the Bizarro world.
I feel betrayed by this president, a man I voted for twice. I feel betrayed by the Republican Party, which used to respect conservatives from all across the spectrum, but now rejects heretics for deviating from the Bush party line (McCain, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, etc.). I feel betrayed by the conservative movement, which is hardly recognizable to me any more.
Does this betrayal this make me angry? You bet your ass it does.
I started blogging as a way to interact with other conservatives, to be able to rant and have people get what I was talking about, where I could scream about the stupidity of liberalism. What I have ended up doing is arguing conservative politics with other conservatives. So, my little escape from the confrontational world of living amongst the liberals on the Left Coast has turned into a confrontational world of arguing with conservatives. I’m constantly arguing with people no matter where I go, and its frustrating as hell.
Does this frustration make me angry? You bet your ass it does.
On top of this we have the “Lee is a liberal” mantra. In most people’s minds there are only two political beliefs, conservative or liberal. You have to be one of the two. If you are a conservative then you are a Republican, and if you are a liberal then you are a Democrat. Man or woman, cat or dog, up or down, conservative or liberal. And, just like cats and dogs, conservatives and liberals are supposed to be bitter enemies. People cling to their political ideology in the same manner that a patriot loves his country. Sure, you can have disagreements with your country, but you generally have to agree with our way of doing things to call yourself patriotic. If someone were to come along and say, “I only like about 20% of what America does. The rest sickens me.” Would you consider this person a patriot? I probably wouldn’t. There is no middle ground on patriotism, you’re either a patriot or you are not, and this is exactly how the modern conservative movement acts. If you don’t generally support Bush then you’re not a Republican, and if you’re not a Republican you’re not a conservative, and if you’re not a conservative then you must be… A LIBERAL!
“Why don’t you just go vote for Kerry and get your transformation over with?”
“Wow, this blog sounds like Kos or Atrios.”
“You’re just saying that because you hate Bush.”
We’ve all seen people write these statements and countless others just like them. Bush has so polarized the country that now I’m defending myself against accusations that I’m not a conservative.
Put yourself in my shoes for a second. I go to work every day where I am considered the arch conservative, the radical right-winger. Why? Because I dared to publicly express support for the Iraq War and for some of Bush’s policies. Then I come home, and conservatives accuse me of being some limp-wristed leftie. I’m getting attacked from all sides.
As you can imagine, this gets frustrating after a while.
One thing you guys have to realize. If you were to map out the structure of a blog like this it would look sort of like a wagon wheel. At the center is me, the guy who writes the majority of the content. At the end of the spokes are the readers. If you choose the end of any spoke, there is only one level of interaction, between the reader (you) and the writer (me). So, from your perspective, you and I are basically having a one-on-one conversation. From my perspective, however, I’m having conversations with 100 people at once.
So, let’s say we’re discussing a hot-button issue like religion or torture. A reader logs in (let’s call him Bill) and reads a post of mine with which he disagrees. He immediately scrolls to the bottom of the page and furiously writes what an idiot I am for saying such things. I see the comment and write back something dismissive, telling him he’s using a stupid argument and I’m not even going to waste my time on a response. “Wow!” thinks Bill. “Lee’s a fucking asshole! I just left one comment and he jumped my shit over it!” This is because, in his mind, this is a one-on-one experience. However, what Bill doesn’t realize is that I’ve been on the blog all day, and other people have made the same stupid argument that Bill did, and I’ve already responded to it fifty times. In Bill’s mind I got pissed off at him for no reason, whereas in my mind I’ve been arguing the same stupid point all day, over and over over again.
Frustrating? You don’t know the half of it.
And then, of course, the anger is reciprocal. Someone insults me, I insult him back, we get in a flame war, other people get involved, and before you know it everyone’s pissed off at everyone else. However, in the minds of most people, their experience is one-on-one, and they take it a lot more personally than I intended it. I wasn’t speaking to one person, I was speaking to 2,000.
There are many other aspects to this which I did not elaborate on, such as the “Lee hates Jesus” meme. But, suffice it to say, that this has all whipped up into a Perfect Storm of anger.
So, what do we do from here? Beats me. My principles and beliefs have not changed one iota over the past four years. What has changed is the political apparatus I choose to represent me. Many people are able to separate the idea of political beliefs and political party. Many others are not.
I’m a libertarian conservative. I am not a Republican. I am not a Bush fan. What changed was not my beliefs, it was the party and the movement and the man I voted into office twice.
So, stick around the blog if you like. The door is always open. If you think I’m a prick and don’t want to stick around any more that’s cool too. But don’t be an asshole on your way out, just go. Don’t slam the door behind you for effect. And, if you stick around, let’s ALL make an effort to try and be civil with each other, okay?
Well, except for liberals. :)
Comments
I don’t post much on here because I don’t really feel like it. ;) Even with topics I feel strongly about because it’s true, you have 324098 other people telling you the same thing I would, whether it be for or against your position. Most of the time I would say I agree with your stance on things. Everything in this post, I definatly agreed with and just want to say good on you. I think the blog has changed but I see the reasons for it and they are very valid reasons. Good job Lee. Keep it up and don’t let people get to you. At the end of the day internet arguments mean jack shit. That’s the way I see it.
And, if you stick around, let’s ALL make an effort to try and be civil with each other, okay?
Well, except for liberals. :)
Too bad, Lee. I’ve learned quite a bit watching you stick up for your principles; that there were core values you believe in, not just politics. You have even made me understand a principled conservative position on abortion. I may be more liberalthan you, but what I want above all is honest, ethical people in government who put the country first, not their political party.
And, if you stick around, let’s ALL make an effort to try and be civil with each other, okay?
Well, except for liberals. :)
Sounds like a plan to me. :)
Now if we can just get you and Drum to kiss and make up.
The e-mailer pretty much sums up how I’ve felt and why I quit coming here on a regular basis. I can understand the feelings about Bush, but to complain about Bush acting like a Liberal and standing up for four Senators may as well change the “R” behind their name to “RINO” is inconsistent as all hell.
to complain about Bush acting like a Liberal and standing up for four Senators may as well change the “R” behind their name to “RINO” is inconsistent as all hell.
You’ve actually illustrated quite well the point I was making above. You’re assuming that because I fully back Warner and McCain and Graham on the torture issue that I back them on everything else. I’m sure there are some issues on which we agree and others where we vehemently disagree. Take McCain. Just because I staunchly support him on this issue does not mean that I think his CFR bill wasn’t one of the most unconstitutional pieces of shit in history. It’s not about parties or people, it’s about beliefs. Whichever party is closest to my beliefs I will vote for.
As far as Bush being a liberal, let me put it to you this way. Take a look at the list below.
1) Believes that the proper role of government is to solve people’s problems.
2) Has no problem with spending the country into oblivion.
3) Deploys the military in a half-assed way, resulting in a war which is sliding towards total disaster.
4) Lies directly to the American people, even after being caught doing it countless times.
5) Believes that the Constitution does not place any real restrictions on the Executive Branch, especially in wartime.
6) Signs bills into law, takes credit for the bill, and attaches a signing statement which says “I have no intention of following this law.”
Now, if I had come to you in 1996 and asked you what party you thought this president would be from, you would say the Democrats. I think that back in 1996 the vast majority of Americans would have said Democrats. Now the whole thing has gone topsy-turvey, and it is a Republican president who is the living embodiment of all these traditionally liberal characteristics.
This is why I use the term Christian socialist. On the one hand Bush is socially conservative. On the other, in virtually every other respect, he’s a big government liberal. When you combine these two halves you get the Bush presidency.
I hope this clears that up.
It seems that as the Dems have gone deeper into the loony-sphere, the Republicans have slipped Left to fill the void, so virtually all of the politicos have abandoned the values we hold dear in thier charge for votes and power.
It seems that as the Dems have gone deeper into the loony-sphere, the Republicans have slipped Left to fill the void, so virtually all of the politicos have abandoned the values we hold dear in thier charge for votes and power.
So what (or who) is the answer for 2008? Who will bring the Reps back where they belong? I don’t think McCain is the answer. Who is?
So, stick around the blog if you like. The door is always open
Well, except for liberals
And this is why I will come here weather you and I agree or not. I’v said it befor, but I will again. You have shown me nothing but respect and friendship on here and to me the most important thing is you support us, the military. nought said. Now I got to go water board the next door nieghbor.
I think Lee had a lot of “Fair weather posters” in those early days who showed their true colors once he dared to question the Bush party line. The Schiavo fiasco exposed a lot of so-called conservatives for the obsessive, nanny-stating morons they were, and the incompetent postwar handling of Iraq exposed the mindless Bushbots for who they were.
That aside, I ain’t going anywhere. Lee, you may be a prick, but to paraphrase George C. Scott, you’re a magnificent prick : )
RepMom: Personally I think it will be Mitt Romney. His Mormon upbringing will be more to religious conservatives’ liking; he’s charismatic and telegenic six ways from Sunday, he’s a smart guy, and he doesn’t have the political or personal baggage of McCain, Rudy or George Allen.
RepMom: Personally I think it will be Mitt Romney. His Mormon upbringing will be more to religious conservatives’ liking; he’s charismatic and telegenic six ways from Sunday, he’s a smart guy, and he doesn’t have the political or personal baggage of McCain, Rudy or George Allen.
I must embarrassingly admit that I don’t even know who this guy is, except that I have seen his name mentioned a few times on this blog. I will have to check him out, and pay more attention to him.
Rudy does have a lot of baggage, but I would vote for him in an instant if he should end up on the final ticket. I think he is a great leader, and a great speaker. Exactly what we need. All the things that Bush is not...sadly.
RepMom: a profile of Governor Romney. He’s the guy who refused to provide any official protection for former Iranian president Khatami when he was in the U.S. and spoke at Harvard.
Now I got to go water board the next door nieghbor.
Enjoy, Rick. :)
RepMom: a profile of Governor Romney
Oh, okay. I have heard of him. I remember that. The name just didn’t ring any bells. Thanks for the link, WVR.
I will start paying more attention to him.
Lee,
You and most people here would consider me a liberal. I live in San Francisco, support big tax increases on gasoline, think that global warming is an impending disaster, am pro-choice, support diplomacy over force except as an absolute last resort, think that religion as a political tool is absolute poison, etc. etc.
And I realized the other day that I’ve been reading your weblog for nearly two years, and very much enjoy reading what you have to say. I enjoy it because you’ve been rock-solid in what you believe, and you’ve been about as consistent in what you like (small government, America as about the best place to live around, classic heavy metal) as anybody out there.
I keep reading because I have a ton of respect for what you have to say, mostly because it’s principled, and I can usually see that you’ve come to where you stand from a logical place—i.e. it’s not just that torture is morally abhorrent, but it’s that by employing methods that the rest of the world thinks of as torture, we lose the moral high ground, and in doing so we make it that much harder to, well, win.
So, keep on keeping on. If I ever run into you, we’ll disagree on many things, but we’ll probably end up not hating each other, completely loaded, and (hopefully) throwing Powerslave on the jukebox. I look forward to that day.
Lee,
You and most people here would consider me a liberal.
And what do you consider yourself to be?
Lee, have you given any thought to exactly why your opinion of Bush has changed? You haven’t changed and he hasn’t changed. What led you to have a good opinion of him six years ago and two years ago when you voted for him?
Bush was always incompetent; he failed as an oilman and as a baseball owner, in pretty much the same ways he’s failed as a president. His failures, his inability to form a coherent sentence without a teleprompter, his inability to change strategy when circumstances changed—these things were all pointed out loudly during the campaigns. What information were you getting that made you disregard these warnings, and where were you getting it from? Are you still getting and believing information from those sources?
I have, over the course of years, radically changed my opinion of two presidents, LBJ and Reagan. My opinion of Johnson changed as we got away from the passions of the Vietnam War and it became apparent what he’d accomplished in civil rights. My opinion of Reagan changed when I went from reading about him to reading things he’d actually written himself, in particular letters he’d written. (I might add that my opinion of John Kerry changed greatly also when he failed to stand up to the Swiftboaters.) The fact of those changes told me that my own judgment has to be questioned at regular intervals. Is it possible that your ability to judge people might also have problems?
Bush was always incompetent; he failed as an oilman and as a baseball owner,
Refresh my memory, Bob. Exactly how did he fail as a baseball owner?
And, I believe he was actually a baseball “team” owner, while I have no doubt he might have owned a few baseballs as well.
Well, except for liberals. :)
You can count me in as well then too.
Exactly how did he fail as a baseball owner?
It’s my understanding that he traded someone named Sosa, and that that trade was said to be a great mistake.
I see the group of people who own baseball teams referred to as “the owners” frequently, less often as “the team owners.” This group seemed to play an important role in the recent creation of a DC major-league team. You seemed to comprehend my usage.And, I believe he was actually a baseball “team” owner,
Bush was always incompetent; he failed as an oilman and as a baseball owner, in pretty much the same ways he’s failed as a president. His failures, his inability to form a coherent sentence without a teleprompter, his inability to change strategy when circumstances changed—these things were all pointed out loudly during the campaigns. What information were you getting that made you disregard these warnings, and where were you getting it from? Are you still getting and believing information from those sources?
It is sad to say you’re right. So what do you guys put up as an alternative? Al Gore, then John Kerry, and later throw in Howard Dean to run the circus. You could have had an easy victory in the second election. Are the Dems in a pissing contest with the GOP to see who can offer the worst leadership? It sure seems that way.
Bush purchased a share in the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in April 1989, where he served as managing general partner of the Rangers for five years. He was active in the team’s media relations and in securing the construction of a new stadium, which opened in 1994 as The Ballpark in Arlington. Bush actively led the team’s projects and regularly attended its games, often choosing to sit in the open stands with fans. Bush’s role with the Rangers gave him prominent media exposure and attention, as well as garnering public, business and political support. The Rangers were mostly successful while Bush was a leader of the organization. During his tenure, the Rangers acquired Hall-of-Fame pitcher Nolan Ryan, who was popular with the fans during the last years of his career. The team nearly won its first division title in 1994, before a strike shortened the season. In 1989, Bush presided over the trade of the eventually famous Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox. The eventual sale of Bush’s share in the Texas Rangers brought him over $15 million from his initial $800,000 investment.
That doesn’t sound like much of a failure to me, Bob.
No argument here. You’re winning, but not by much.Are the Dems in a pissing contest with the GOP to see who can offer the worst leadership? It sure seems that way.
And, I believe he was actually a baseball “team” owner,
I see the group of people who own baseball teams referred to as “the owners” frequently, less often as “the team owners.”
Are you for real, Bob?
That aside, I ain’t going anywhere. Lee, you may be a prick, but to paraphrase George C. Scott, you’re a magnificent prick : )
Afucing mean… \
LEE, DUDE, i like ya a lot, but that Dust up with drum, dammit…
No argument here. You’re winning, but not by much.
Thanks!
Hey?
Section8: The Dummycratic candidates in 2004 from Mad How and Lurch on down were all responses to the Iraq War. For the past six years they’ve been about little else except beating George Bush. But he won’t be running in ‘08, and the next Republican presidential candidate will most likely be a moderate and definitely not a Bush clone. If they want to win against someone like that, they will have to move beyond appealing only to the Michael Moore crowd who now represent their base.
I don’t agree with many of Lee’s posts of late and was not pleased to see the recent infighting (e.g., with Drum), but I do respect Lee’s opinions.
While I find much of what Lee says these days to be too similar to what the left has been saying for a long time, I give Lee credit for having arrived at his opinions after deliberation and searching for the truth, rather than having adopted the opinions as anti-Bush slogans from the moment that Bush became President.
I’ve had this problem with the NY Times lately, where I am begining to think that some of the things that they’ve been writing have some truth in them, yet I know that it’s a situation of “a broken clock is right twice a day” than of anything else.
That is, it’s one thing to criticize Bush because you hate the man and the party and it’s quite another to say the same things after having been open minded, supported him and then analyzed the facts as they developed.
I’m convinced that, as much as I disagree with Lee, his messages are well considered and honest.
One thing that I love about this site is that you’re never afraid to say what you think. Though I sometimes find myself disagreeing with you, I can always respect your opinion as you appear to come to your conclusion by studying ffacts and figures, not pulling things out of your butt and disagreeing inherently with what someone says just because most of what they say differs from your opinion. It’s like my feelings on Tammy Bruce or Charlie Rangel’s and nancy Pelosi’s comments on Hugo Chavez; you may not always be right in my mind, but when you are I’ll stand up for it just as much as when you’re wrong I’ll call you a complete fuckhead before I would ask if you wanted to go out for a beer.
I have a lot of friends around my age (mid-20s) who are true blue libs. Most of them are willing to hear me out on things that I present to them, like you would when someone presents an opposing idea. You may not be swayed, but you won’t blow it off just because it differs from your preconceived notions. Just the same, I have certainly lost friends because of what I think. When it comes down to it, I would rather them go because of something like that instead of them bailing at a time when I need them. You’ve been nothing if not completely honest, and if people can’t appreciate it now it’s better that they should go before the fit really hits the shan.
Lee,
You seem like a genuinely nice guy and I have loved reading your blog for many years. I’m an Australian currently living in the UK, and I have to say that your blog was the primary reason behind me developing an interest in US politics.
I also happen to agree with you on a frightening amount of topics; from cutting taxes to civil liberties, and from abortion to creation science – you are one of the few people on this Earth who seems to share my opinions on almost everything.
Unfortunately, your blog is becoming unreadable. You seem to have become quite genuinely deranged over this whole “torture” debate. It now accounts for almost all of your posts, and you seem to be getting increasing juvenile in attacking anyone who happens to not support your position 100% of the time. Dirk was completely correct in saying that you’re method of debate is now almost identical to that of O’Reilly; demanding yes or no answers to complex issues and then belittling people who don’t share your opinion.
Whilst I rarely comment, I used to come here many times every single day. You used to be funny, you used to be witty, and you used to argue succinctly and logically. That seems to have gone. I’ve read through your last few posts, and this is one of the first times that I can safely say that you got absolutely destroyed. Drumwaster tore you a new one; and every time that he landed a punch you seemed to become more shrill, more irrational and more vindictive in your replies.
You need to take a week or two off blogging. Go on a holiday. Go get laid by that new girlfriend of yours; and then come back refreshed and calm.
His Mormon upbringing will be more to religious conservatives’ liking; he’s charismatic and telegenic six ways from Sunday, he’s a smart guy, and he doesn’t have the political or personal baggage of McCain, Rudy or George Allen.
I thought evangelicals didn’t think much of Mormons. Anybody?
Only an idiot like Bob Munck can call trading a 180 pound Sammy Sosa, to the White Sox( who then subsequently traded him to the Cubs 2 years after that) an act of incompetence based on the fact that a 225 pound steroid driven Sosa became a huge success 8 years later. As for turning an 800,000 dollar investment into 15 million...well, maybe we shoud call him Bob Mum, cause he aint got shit to say about that.
I thought evangelicals didn’t think much of Mormons. Anybody?
As soon as RepMom’s orders come down from high, she’ll change her tune.
Lee is correct. From an outside prospective, 70% (or so) of the GOP have turned into big-government taliban, spending like there is no tomorrow, and wanting to shove their fundamentalism down everyone else’s throats.
It hasn’t got to the stage just yet that I want the GOP to fail. But if they don’t pick Rudy or McCain or Rice, then I might as well give up on them. Can I tolerate a moderate-Dem government? Yes. Can I tolerate a fundy moron in the White House? No fecking way.
Oh, and lets be clear, my feeling about Bush in general are very similar to Lee’s, but I hate it when liberals chime in with their “ I told you so” bullshit.
Its like all of the sudden I am supposed to agree they were right all along. However, I dont remember liberals warning me in 2000 that Bush wasnt sufficiently conservative enough for me.
I dont like Bush now because half the reasons liberals hated him arent even true.( not that they ever give him credit for being a big government guy like themselves) And most importantly I dont remember the democratic party giving me a viable alternaitve to Bush. As much as Bush’s second term has been a bitter pill for me to swallow, I would still prefer him over Gore or Kerry.
Can I tolerate a moderate-Dem government? Yes. Can I tolerate a fundy moron in the White House? No fecking way.
I as well could tolerate a moderate-Dem government over a fundy moron. Unfortunately, I cant envision being given the option.
Sorry, I know nothing about baseball. All I know here is that Bush said it was a big mistake. But you’re right, what does he know?Only an idiot like Bob Munck can call trading a 180 pound Sammy Sosa ... an act of incompetence
I’m glad to see that Dumbwaiter’s legacy for sleazy and dishonest rhetoric lives on. Pick a word or two from a post and go off on a rant about that, ignoring the main points. Make it something completely trivial, like baseball.
By the way, we told you so about Bush.
As soon as RepMom’s orders come down from high, she’ll change her tune.
Change her tune about what? She offered no endorsement of Romney. She admitted that she had only heard his name and didn’t know anything about him. I think it was someone else who said they like Romney.
I thought evangelicals didn’t think much of Mormons. Anybody?
As soon as RepMom’s orders come down from high, she’ll change her tune.
What the hell? Exactly what tune is that? I asked who would get the GOP back to right of center, I was given a name, I said I would check him out more closely.
I also said I would have no problem voting for Rudy.
Thanks, Dakrat. You beat me to it. :)
I’m glad to see that Dumbwaiter’s legacy for sleazy and dishonest rhetoric lives on.
Yeah, in you. You’re the one throwing out the dishonest statements. We just called you on them. Got a problem with that, huh?
I believe Bush jokingly commented that trading Sosa was the biggest mistake he had ever made. Typical that a lib would take the comment and use it against him.
Check with the New York Times, Bob. They probably have a job for you.
I’m glad to see that Dumbwaiter’s legacy for sleazy and dishonest rhetoric lives on. Pick a word or two from a post and go off on a rant about that, ignoring the main points. Make it something completely trivial, like baseball
Well thats just it Bob, I didnt do that. I addressed the whole ‘Bush was always incompetent’ thing.
Bush turned 800,000 dollars into 15,000,000, in less than 10 years, so when you use his turn as a baseball owner as an indication of his ‘always being an incompetent’, I am going to call you on it. I also addressed the whole Sosa thing because you used that as well.
The problem Bob is you did NOT tell me so. You ( and when I say you I mean liberals, the Gore-Kerry advocate press and Bush’s democratic opponents) told me many things. You told me that Bush would appoint Supreme Court justices who would rival taliban members in how backward they are. Guys like horror of horrors Sam Alito, ( which was fine with me). You did not tell me he would betray me by trying to nominate Harriet Myers. You told me that compassionate conservatism was nonsense, and Bush would gut government progams designed to help the poor( again fine by me), not expand entitlement programs like prescription drugs for the elderly.
Its like I said before, you certainly didnt tell me that Bush’s conservatism was to be questioned. The case you made against Bush was that he was way too damn conservative. You were afraid he was another Reagan.( oh if only it were so) So you most certainly did NOT tell me so.
Posted by Ed Kline on 09/24/06 at 10:03 AM from
C,mon Ed we all know BOBO is allergic to FACTS!
I as well could tolerate a moderate-Dem government over a fundy moron. Unfortunately, I cant envision being given the option.
And that was the reason I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004. He was better than Kerry and better than ManBearPig.
Which isn’t saying a lot.
I wonder what life would have been like with McCain as president in 2000?
Lee, I seldom post but I do read the blog regularly. It has changed quite a bit, but I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing. 2-3 years ago a lot of the postings consisted of the “me too” type responses. Now, even though it’s more confrontational the postings are also bringing out the real opinions of the various posters. The blog is also serving as a graphic illustration of the real-life discussion going on in the political world.
I don’t see myself as Republican or Democrat, but more as non-aligned leaning right. The Democrats can catch my vote on some issues, the Republicans can catch my vote on other issues. The extremes on either side can seldom if ever catch my vote. Reading this blog, what I get out of it is a right-leaning effort to sway folks like me to their side of the argument, with your own opinions being closer to the middle than the extreme. Granted, in California the middle is considered extreme right, but here in the Midwest you’ve got to be pretty far over to the right to be considered extreme.
Keep up the good blogging, you don’t have to worship Bush to have credibility as being on the right. There’s a huge difference between partisanship and political philosophy, and I think you’re seeing a lot of partisanship from some quarters.
when you use his turn as a baseball owner as an indication of his ‘always being an incompetent’, I am going to call you on it.
Ah, I see. You aren’t defending Bush, you’re making excuses for why you were deceived by him. All right.
The problem Bob is you did NOT tell me so.
We told you he is an incompetent moron, thinking that you would realize that he’d also do a very bad job on the things you wanted him to do. We told you he couldn’t be trusted, thinking you’d realize that that meant that the things he told you couldn’t be counted on as well. If you thought that “compassionate conservatism” didn’t make sense, why’d you choose “compassionate” as the part of it you didn’t believe, and not “conservatism?”
when you use his turn as a baseball owner as an indication of his ‘always being an incompetent’, I am going to call you on it.
Ah, I see. You aren’t defending Bush, you’re making excuses for why you were deceived by him. All right.
Bob - get over it. You made a false statement. You were called on it. You were shown proof that your statement was false. End of story. Accept it like a man. Or is that asking too much of you?
Bob - get over it.
Sure, if you say Bush was a towering success in baseball, I’ll accept that. All I know about the sport is that it was very, very good to Chico Esquela. George Bush too, apparently.
Bob - get over it.
Sure, if you say Bush was a towering success in baseball, I’ll accept that. All I know about the sport is that it was very, very good to Chico Esquela. George Bush too, apparently.
Ahhh....so you admit that you made a statement against George W. Bush that in reality you had no idea whether or not was true....
Very good, Bob.....that is your first step toward recovery......
you made a statement against George W. Bush that in reality you had no idea whether or not was true....
Not exactly. As I said, I based that on Bush’s own statement that he’d made a huge mistake in trading some guy. Given that Bush is not exactly prone to admitting mistakes, it didn’t occur to me that it was a joke. Are you saying that anything he says shouldn’t be assumed to be true?
I don’t have any real trouble admitting when I’m wrong. You’ll notice that I didn’t ever try to defend my stated opinion, just said where I’d gotten it and that I know nothing about baseball. Computer programmers in general don’t get upset by making mistakes, because our errors are pointed out to us by development software (compilers and debuggers) at a rate of about 10/hour when we’re working. It does tend to make us a bit meshugga over the course of a career, though.
We told you he is an incompetent moron, thinking that you would realize that he’d also do a very bad job on the things you wanted him to do.
And you told us Gore would be a better choice. There in lies the problem. Bush is still competent by comparison. Your buddy Michael Moore didn’t help much either. “Hey look, if you fold a 20 dollar bill a certain way, you can see the Pentagon and Towers burning. Guess who was in office when the new 20-dollar bills were printed? Buuuush.” (Applause). He didn’t exactly say that, but basically the same premise. You want to win an election, at least offer some candidates and PR reps that don’t sound like complete nutcases right out of the gate. It’s really hard to take advice/warnings from your side of the aisle when your solution is even a more wacky person. I guess you guys are good at spotting incompetent weirdoes though. Your whole party’s foundation is built around them. Personally, I don’t give a crap about the Republican side either; as I have been a Libertarian for years, or at least agree with them 85% of the time, but the Dems, come on. In fact, any party that uses a circus animal as their party symbol, Democrat or Republican shouldn’t be trusted.
you made a statement against George W. Bush that in reality you had no idea whether or not was true....
Not exactly. As I said, I based that on Bush’s own statement that he’d made a huge mistake in trading some guy.
Okay. Fine. I’ll give you that. You didn’t realize it was a joke. No surprise there.
Do you always define people to be “failures” when they make ONE mistake?
Do you always define people to be “failures” when they make ONE mistake?
You’re saying that Bush has only made one mistake? Which one?
Do you always define people to be “failures” when they make ONE mistake?
You’re saying that Bush has only made one mistake? Which one?
No, no, no, Bob. That won’t work. You said Bush was a failure as a baseball owner. Then you claimed you made that statement based on his statement that he made a mistake trading Sosa (which was actually a joke he made, but being liberal you didn’t realize that).
Therefore, the conclusion is that you are calling him a “failure” as a baseball team owner, because of one mistake.
So, the conclusion is - you consider EVERYONE a failure who makes one mistake.
Or - conclusion - you are a hypocrite and only call GWB a failure (as a baseball team owner) because of one mistake.
Which is it?
RepMom, you shouldn’t try to emulate Dumbwaiter when you argue. His methods made him look sleazy and intellectually dishonest. Your attempts to imitate them make you look ... well, just silly.
RepMom, you shouldn’t try to emulate Dumbwaiter when you argue. His methods made him look sleazy and intellectually dishonest. Your attempts to imitate them make you look ... well, just silly.
And just how do you think your refusal to answer the question makes you look, Bob?
You’re the one here who is intellectually dishonest, no matter how you try to twist it.
Next entry: Hearts and Minds
Previous entry: Answering Language
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8229
Total Logged in members: 1
Total guests: 65
Total anonymous users: 1
Hal_10000,
,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
Quote Mining
(14 total, Last @ 08:04)
Dick Fitzwell: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul--George Bernard Shaw Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.--Mark Twain A major source of objection to a…
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(7 total, Last @ 07:34)
Seattle Outcast: Get that sand washed out yet muirgeo1?
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:33)
Seattle Outcast: Considering that this is exactly what I hear from your typical garden-variety libtard, I'm keeping my guard up around them in case they snap.
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:15)
AlexinCT: My response is to wonder how people get like this. There has to be some sort of mental imbalance at work here. I seriously hope this can’t just happen to anyone given the right – or in this case, wrong – circumstances. There are very few things that would push…
Tonight's speech by Obama on Iraq...
(29 total, Last @ 07:00)
AlexinCT: Fair enough. But bitching Obama all day every day would become tiresome—for me, if not for you. If Obama gave me anything not to bitch about, I would. Then again, when I did give him his propos I recall you were still unhappy with that too. I’ve made it pretty…
Last 30 Comments
Dumbest focking post I’ve ever seen on this blog! ;)
I’ll admit, its been tough reading this the past few months, but there were enough posts to keep me here and I’m not self-important enough to send you a “Dear Lee” email. You’ve got a great blog here, and I would like to see it stick around for a while.