Why Do We Have to Choose?

“For years now, liberals and leftists have been unable to decide whether they dislike George W. Bush because they think he’s a doofus or because they think he’s evil…”
DUBYA: A RUTHLESS, ELEGANT PRESIDENT, John “Norman’s Son” Podhoretz, The New York Post, Dec. 7, 2004.

6 replies on “Why Do We Have to Choose?”

No. No. And no. We hate him because he is AN EVIL DOOFUS! No choice needed there.
I said something to one of my friends about hating W because he was a redneck. She said No, hate him because he’s a FAKE redneck.
I mean, really, where DOES that accent come from? He was largely raised/educated in the northeast. This is like Madonna moving to Britain and getting her “accent”

Why, oh why do liberals allow conservatives to define the terms and set the agenda? It’s not enough to defend George Bush, you have to tell the liberals why they dislike him, and then attack the liberals based on what YOU say THEY think.
Worse than this is that liberals let them get away with it.

Honestly, I really dislike Bush a ton, but I don’t think he’s consciously evil. I think he’s bitten off so much more than he can chew and he’s incompetent and flighty and hyper patriotic, and that results in a facade of evil because of horrid, extreme decisions. But I just simply don’t think he’s smart enough to be sitting in a darkened lair, plotting some world take over. The average movie villain could overthrow Bush in a second.

The Podhoretz family started out on the liberal left, when they themselves were down and out. By the Sixties midge and norman’s feelings were hurt by those snooty hippies, unrepentent commies and angry, uppity black people who wouldn’t let them come to the cool parties with Allen Ginsberg. Instead of trying to correct the excesses and tyrannies of the Left, they ran squealing to the neo-conservatives, who had more money, better connections, nicer clothes and better food at their more elegant affairs, where no one appreciates an ass-kissing more.
Norman was recently praised by Bush: “never a man to tailor his opinions to please others, [and] has always written and spoken with directness and honesty.” Lest we forget, this describes the man who defended Argentinian torturers, married to the woman who thinks Donald Rumsfeld is sexy. But he sure did tell off those gay commie Stalinist liberals! About as controversial as telling Red Sox fans that you hate the Yankees.
The Podhoretzes, family friends the Kristols, and the sons of these dubious intellectual dynasties have never seen a rich and powerfull ass they didn’t like. It’s a wonderful rationalization for forgetting where you came from, telling the poor and downtrodden of the world to go screw themselves, and appearing as “expert” commentators. Apparently telling the emperor that his new clothes look beautiful has become a family tradion.
Bush is about as “elegant” as one of Jonathon Swift’s Yahoos.

This is a legitimate question, for what kind of opponent do we face?
Some comments have been made in the SCLM about how he’s the “CEO President.” He may well be the ultimate CEO–delegating everything to the loyal, all too willing to comply. However, the US is not a company, and the plans of these lackeys go wildly awry. That’s where Bush himself appears to be competent.
The only countervailing facts are that Bush continually failed as a corporate type, only to be bailed out by Daddy’s buddies. They were buying access.
In some sense, then Bush’s multiple personas really are a function of the degree to which we finally have created the Uruk’hai, I mean the ultimate intrusion of corporate money and power into politics.

Comments are closed.