Pajamas Media

Bush Is a Liar, Obama Is a Savior: The Rhetoric of Propaganda

What’s in a name? Words can demonize the innocent and angelize the culpable.

November 10, 2009 - by David Solway

Page 1 of 2 Next ->

Lecturing in a poetry class a few years back, I had occasion to mention the rhetorical device called antonomasia. I was astonished afterward to learn that one of my students had assumed I was referring to a royal personage executed by the Bolsheviks. Now Anastasia is a charming name with loads of popular appeal but its proper sphere of application is chronicle or romance. I patiently explained that, despite the reminiscent ring, antonomasia is not the name of a Romanov princess or, for that matter, of a famous international dating service, specializing in mail-order brides (“the fastest way to reach thousands of Russian ladies”). It is a persuasive rhetorical trope which can be manipulated in a number of different ways, most pertinently as the use of a personal name to indicate a common noun or express a general idea. Typical examples are “Solon” for “wise legislator” (or “wisdom”) and “Hitler” for “evil despot” (or “pure evil” itself).

True, Cervantes gave the name “Antonomasia” to a fictional princess in Don Quixote. But in fact he intended the word in its literal acceptation, applying “Antonomasia” antonomastically to stand for the nature of contemporary poetry — something the confused sophomore might have cited to rescue his dignity. In any event, this rather pixilated episode got me to wondering about the influence of antonomasia in everyday verbal transactions and especially in political discourse, since the latter is where it is used most cogently. Its effect can be so subtle that, if we are not alert to the force of enchantment it exerts, it can prevent us from thinking clearly. It can, when all is said and done, seduce no less compellingly than a blond Russian girl.

A little attention should reveal that when it comes to the discussion of current political issues, there is a kind of robotic reaction at work among many intelligent and well-meaning people, as if it were based in the autonomic nervous system or the solar plexus and not in the centers of thought. It hinges not on reasoning but on desire. To take a resonant example, the name “Bush” was (and is) met by a chain of verbal and emotional equivalents: “liar,” “moron,” “oil baron,” “imperialist,” swathed in a penumbra of knowing contempt. Each term of abuse triggered by the name is then made to stand for the United States itself.

The corollary was that if Bush were only chased from office, the antonomastic link would be broken and the United States would no longer be the country that it was, or was understood to be. The fact that President Clinton’s inactivity and not President Bush’s putative warmongering did much to bring the present conflictual situation upon us is conveniently dismissed from consideration. And the possibility that the United States under Bush was at least to some extent justified in its chosen course of action is, obviously, a complete non-starter.

The reverse operation is equally effective. Utter the name “Obama” and a host of surrogate terms leap to mind — “savior,” “new man,” “peacemaker,” “The One,” or, in the words of Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, no less than a “sort of god” — which are immediately reified as undoubted facts. Despite Obama’s recent, self-inflicted troubles and the crisis of confidence in which he is increasingly embroiled, he is still regarded by the MSM, the liberal-left, the Oslo peaceniks, and approximately half the American electorate as sacrosanct, as “good,” “honest,” “reliable,” “noble.” Like spellbound children following the Pied Piper, the epithets cling to the name. They are then associated in swift antonomastic transfer with a newborn, a “different,” America.

There is no awareness among the true believers — and especially among the myrmidons of the left — that they have been deluded by nomenclature, by the semiotic condensation of amorphous ideas and obscure but powerful feelings. As in the first case where a process of reevaluation is all but proscribed, so in the second skepticism is ruled out of court by all but the unconverted. In the current jargon, one could say that antonomasia, whether deployed negatively or positively, runs the signifier into the signified, rendering them indistinguishable from one another. Alternatively, the appellative word and the denominated thing have merged in a passion of similitudes.

In the same way, prior to his disengagement policy and his medical collapse, all one had to do was mention the name of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the automated analogies instantly crowded the emotional field on which the debate was pursued: “political dinosaur,” “Likud hawk,” “war criminal.” Each term of abuse stood for Israel itself, supplemented by others like “Zionist entity” or “military occupier” springing from the inboard thesaurus of ideologically motivated synonyms.

The corollary was that if Sharon were only cashiered or even assassinated and his place taken by a Labor dove, Israel might be welcomed or at least tolerated in the family of nations. The very real likelihood that previous Labor governments, by their tactic of appeasement and their naive belief in the credibility and good faith of the Palestinian negotiators, merely exacerbated the current situation in the Middle East is an inadmissible argument.

Page 1 of 2 Next ->

David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, has just been released by Mantua Books.

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

56 Comments

1. BackwardsBoy:

Despite the eloquence of the words, a lie is still a lie.

Nov 10, 2009 - 4:44 am 2. BC:

Yeah, well, there is a slight problem with your premise: Bush *did* lie by any common definition of the word “lie,” from being deliberately misleading to avoiding telling the truth, to out and out BS shoveling by the truckload. Your so-called liberal “MSM” fell on its collective face in doing its homework about what was really going on.

The right wing, of course, as with Global Warming and anything else that requires more than 2 brain cells to comprehend, never quite understood all that durn fancy talk about Bush lying — they just saw someone they could have a beer with and who didn’t look French. So when Obama got elected, the “reasoning” became along the lines of “Well, they bashed Bush, so that makes it totally OK to bash Obama,” and hence the right wing’s malicious, over the top BS campaign against Obama started even before he got elected.

Morons.

Nov 10, 2009 - 4:46 am 3. rrbs:

It totally escapes me why the leftists are completely incapable of critical examination of Obama and his organized crime administration, but cried wolf at every little imagined transgression of the Bush administration. Obama and his cronies are literally stealing the chickens in broad daylight but the lefty’s don’t notice at all. Amazing!!

Nov 10, 2009 - 5:36 am 4. Nosinin:

BC = hollow, uninformed, repetitive, living in the past-ure….

Nov 10, 2009 - 5:41 am 5. Delia:

@2.BC,

So you’re saying that the current potus is the first politician that is totally 100% honest and has never told a political lie? C’mon now. REALLY. Even YOU can’t be THAT damned gullible.

Nov 10, 2009 - 5:48 am 6. Thomas_L....:

Them’s some fancy words, podner.
BC … er … ol’ brains cells himself, understood you to be speaking about the famous princess Antomanasia, I believe.

Nov 10, 2009 - 6:01 am 7. Elliot:

Wow, David, did you know you would get validated this quickly ? ;o)

Nov 10, 2009 - 6:10 am 8. Samson:

well put David Solway (being canadian I am sure you know how this language is being applied in the school systems of the west)

the liberals have swallowed the bait years ago. the education system has for all intense and purposes brainwashed more then one generation.

these people are now trapped in this perverted worldview, they can neither see nor argue their point from a position of fact.

for those who have followed the indoctrination in the schools in gaza it is easy to see how effective the process can be. few escape the indoctrination.

Nov 10, 2009 - 6:18 am 9. Ione:

Well Obama is the reigning King of lying by your definition of “avoiding telling the truth” and shoveling BS “by the truckload”. Examples would fill the page but I will give you two, one left, one right. 1) he “implied” he backed gay rights; he doesn’t and 2) he stated that he didn’t want abortion coverage or illegals to get access in the health care bill; now he is fighting for both to be included.

The MSN sure didn’t do their homework on his known associates in the communist/Marxist movement as well as his own association. They just saw somebody “they could have a beer with” and they expected everyone else to just go along. They (and you) were obviously wanting to vote for anyone that looked like a “clean and articulate” (Biden) African-American that didn’t look like he was from the South. You are so locked into the traditional = bad, new = good mindset that you have become malicious stereotype of the 1960’s. I am ready to move on to the 21st century and not locked into trying to “fulfill Truman and FDR’s dream”. Old, old thinking. So non-relevant.

Nov 10, 2009 - 6:22 am 10. tdiinva:

Political antonomasia is not a new phenomenon beginning with the age Obama. It has been going on for quite a long time. Take the Lenin/Mussolini dichotomy for example. For many, especially the BC types, Lenin evokes the image of brilliant thinker, Progressive, man of the people and leader in the fight for social justice while Mussolini, at least today, is considered the opposite even though objectively you were much better off and safer from political repression in Italy then you were in Lenin’s USSR. The language of left and right has been structured to place all good things on the left (like Stalin) and all bad things on he right (like Bush).

Note to BC: Please tell me what you think the time constant of climate is before you embarrass yourself again.

Nov 10, 2009 - 6:27 am 11. RE:

I’ve always been a bit puzzled by the Right’s willingness to left frame the debate, define the terms, and create the false caricatures.

The Right may be much better with freedom and economics, but they are total dolts when it comes to refuting and combating propaganda.

Nov 10, 2009 - 6:32 am 12. DaveT:

BC is a great example of the delusional state of the left. The Bush lied nonsense is simply an article of faith. No real examples and no ability to comprehend the absurd dishonesty behind their own statements. They really are jut mindless parrots of malevolent people.

Nov 10, 2009 - 6:51 am 13. Samson:

11. RE:
I’ve always been a bit puzzled by the Right’s willingness to left frame the debate, define the terms, and create the false caricatures.

The Right may be much better with freedom and economics, but they are total dolts when it comes to refuting and combating propaganda.

I agree with your premise ………..

the right (conservatives) haven’t made it their goal and it is counter to their mindset to impose their will on others so they tend to be at a disadvantage in fighting the slurs and language.

academia and elites (well those who consider themselves elites …an oxymoron to me) have always been liberal and they gravitate to the education system which they control.

presently they control the education system and the media (they fall into the elites category) have been framing the language.

therefore it is difficult to fight when there are few outlets. the great over reach of the present clown in the white house has brought more conservatives out and there is finally a significant push back.

you can see the trolls here validate the author of this piece.

Nov 10, 2009 - 6:56 am 14. OntarioBob:

Obama was sold to America like a new movie celebrity. He has no substance. no promise and no ability. But, like some new, flashy, no talent movie star, he has been “promoted” into stardom.
A movie star can go from bad film to bad film and still get big bucks; there are so many other things on which to blame failure. Not so with the President. In fact, every day it becomes clearer that he is in way over his head. Obama is dumb, lazy, shiftless and very poorly advised.
The magic words that were his surrogates are increasingly falling away. Independents are beginning to see what a lying doofus he is and before long, even his media advocates will begin to voice what they’ve long known, that he isn’t “The One” beyond his own mind.

Nov 10, 2009 - 7:35 am 15. Now and Then:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2005/260505newbushism.htm

Nov 10, 2009 - 7:54 am 16. X:

the big ZERO is simply not up to the job. That should be the catch-phrase to name the big Zero now on: not up to the job.

Nov 10, 2009 - 7:56 am 17. Paul:

For such a verbose article with so many extraordinary and unconventional terms, this article makes astonishing sense. WELL SAID (and true)!!!

Nov 10, 2009 - 8:09 am 18. baal:

15. Now and Then:(every single time you post…I am amazed at how easy you make this!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

Nov 10, 2009 - 8:09 am 19. goy:

To date, this is the most sesquipedalian version of the same, impotent article I keep seeing published over and over here and elsewhere in response to the successful, morally adolescent tactics of leftism. As with all the other versions, it’s long on ponderous analysis of symptoms and short on recommendations for reversing our social breakdown and preserving our Republic.

If this is “Conservatism 2.0″, I’ll pass, thanks.

Nov 10, 2009 - 8:16 am 20. csd:

11. RE:
I’ve always been a bit puzzled by the Right’s willingness to left frame the debate, define the terms, and create the false caricatures.

I have given this some thought. It is quite difficult to spew lies and propaganda as the left does on a consistent basis. I really believe it damages the psyche which is why we say liberalism is a mental disorder. It does get to the point that having even a conversation with someone engaged in that level of behavior is like trying to debate with a 2 year old. And the more you put your heart and soul into trying to explain you position, the more ugly if feels because as one other poster said, once they have done their spewing, they just want you to shut up.

I think it may have something to do with early pottie training.

Nov 10, 2009 - 8:20 am 21. anonymous:

“The fact that President Clinton’s inactivity and not President Bush’s putative warmongering did much to bring the present conflictual situation upon us is conveniently dismissed from consideration.”

Hah! Some “fact.” In reality, Bush had a full seven months before 9/11 to reverse Clinton’s “inactivity” but chose instead to focus on tax cuts. He delayed meeting on the terrorist threat until August, and his response to the CIA briefer who delivered the famous “Bin Laden set to strike in US” memo: “OK, you’ve covered your ass.”

‘Utter the name “Obama” and a host of surrogate terms leap to mind — “savior,” “new man,” “peacemaker,” “The One” ….’

Double-Hah! Just as left wingers maligned Bush with the various epithets you cited, the right does no less with Obama. You should read PJM bloggers and responders some time — e.g., the following in response to this very blog:
9. Ione: “Well Obama is the reigning King of lying….”
16. X: “the big ZERO is simply not up to the job.”
14. OntarioBob: “Obama is dumb, lazy, shiftless….”

Nov 10, 2009 - 8:27 am 22. Mike G:

This article sets a new record for me for dictionary look-ups (or is it looks-up). I think I get the point and it’s clever but all it does is add another argument for severely limited government. Then everyone can “antonomize” to their heart’s content. Eventually however they will have to get real and be productive because their positive “antonomants” won’t be able to create foolish regulations that fit their world view or economically favor them with money taken from those bad antonomants.

Nov 10, 2009 - 8:28 am 23. baal:

I’m absolutely guilty of being amazed at the hypocritical tunnel vision of the left. I get that. It infuriates me..but that and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee at the homeless shelter.
We need to spend less time rehabilitating and reconstructing the Bush myth and more time making sure that his sins are never committed by a Conservative/Republican/Rightwinger ever again.
We are in our situation with Obama’s spending because Bush acted as trailblazer for this kind of thing.
Was he as bad as Obama in this regard? No. But that doesnt matter. Conservatives will always get held to a much higher standard by our culture in every single regard–and that is a FACT which will never go away.

Nov 10, 2009 - 9:04 am 24. Sowell Disciple:

The quote from Evan Thomas of Newsweek wasn’t that Obama was “a sort of god”. It was that he is “sort of God”. There’s a big difference — Thomas was expressing his monotheism (or “sort of” monotheism), and for such believers Obama shouldn’t be asked to share anything with other gods.

Nov 10, 2009 - 9:17 am 25. Anonymous:

This is a very clever article and should resonate instantly with anyone who has been participating on political talk boards for any length of time. despite the frustrations we often face, it has provided me with some amusement.

#19,Goy,

Recommendation: No laziness is allowed. One has to be prepared and willing to engage in the effort of point-by-point refutation. It is tedious and not nearly as much fun as responding in kind. Another recommendation is that if you do find yourself spending the time and effort, keep a record of your most effective counter points because you will be continually assailed with the same big lies for a period of years. These attacks remain little changed so once the work is done, you won’t have to refine your argument all that much.

#20,

Another frequently used tactic is that of shouting opponents down. It is an effectice form of censorship because it is just so boring that many folks will give up rather than subject themselves to the infantile digression. So it is probably best to continue posting so that you can continue to express yourself without interruption.

Nov 10, 2009 - 9:38 am 26. Elliot:

Can someone explain to me why my posts have been attributed to “anonymous” on several occasions now ?

Nov 10, 2009 - 9:44 am 27. Thomas_L......:

Anon – I disagree. Once a troll is identified (and it doesn’t take long) either totally ignore them, as in immediately skip any post associated with them or constantly make fun of them. Engaging them any other way is a waste of time. They are not here to persaude or to be dissuaded. They are here to function as noise in opposition to the information which they don’t want anyone to have or even consider. I suppose they hope some will turn away rather then read or get past their rantings.
As Moho, the mohammedan says, speaking for trolls everywhere, no doubt, “I don’t like you people!”

Nov 10, 2009 - 9:49 am 28. Elliot:

#27, Thomas L.,

Are you responding to my #25 ? It is all so confusing, because, I, Elliot,do not always agree with the poster, “Anonymous”.

Nov 10, 2009 - 9:57 am 29. goy:

@25. Anonymous: – One has to be prepared and willing to engage in the effort of point-by-point refutation.

Don’t take this wrong, but how is this recommendation not ‘lazy’, exactly? By definition, refutation is reactive, not proactive.

Inoculating a society against susceptibility to this and other forms of specious rhetorical thuggery requires hard work at a fundamental level: returning to classical education, rooting out of academia the socially suicidal deconstruction of self-evident truths, eschewing endless popularity contests (read: opinion polls) and instead pursuing reasonable, rational exposure of the facts, etc. All of these have proven too complicated, too difficult or too time-consuming for conservative punditry and so-called conservative “leaders”. It seems they’re far more interested in whining about what the left does than in finding ways to reinstate the core of classical liberalism in American society.

Nov 10, 2009 - 10:13 am 30. Elliot:

#29, Goy,

I will make this short because I don’t want to take the thread off topic.Nevertheless, I know many people whose only recourse was to dispell much of the nonsense via talk boards. We got tired of carrying the Bush administration’s water for them. It was as if they were high above the fray, in the clouds somewhere, and didn’t find it necessary to explain to the people of the US what they were doing and why. They didn’t defend themselves.

Everything you mentioned above is necessary and there are folks giving us suggestions. David Horowitz gives us suggestions as parents concerning text books, as one example. Don’t be afraid to talk to your kids might be a good starting point, and don’t be afraid to talk to your kid’s teachers/instructors/etc..

We will have to forget our grandmother’s advice to discuss anything but politics and religion.

I guess one has to be in challenging mode 24/7. We will have to decide if it is worth it to all of us to take up this challenge-believe me, the left has-long ago.

Nov 10, 2009 - 10:33 am 31. Thomas_L......:

Elliot@28: Yes, though I actually responded before your post as Elliot @26.

Nov 10, 2009 - 11:22 am 32. md:

BC #2, an obvious statement by a liberal, one who considers REAL FACTS to be a waste of time.

BC, have you ever considered, if BUSH LIED, 90% OF THE DEMS IN OFFICE LIED AS WELL!!! Oh, it’s ok if a DEM lies. That’s the way they’re supposed to be, right? Like Obama?

Nov 10, 2009 - 12:05 pm 33. goy:

@30. Elliot: – …I know many people whose only recourse was to dispell much of the nonsense via talk boards.

Really? You actually know people whose ONLY avenue of civic activity is Internet ‘talk boards’? Personally, I’d say that strains credibility a tad, but… whatever.

- We got tired of carrying the Bush administration’s water for them. It was as if they were high above the fray, in the clouds somewhere, and didn’t find it necessary to explain to the people of the US what they were doing and why. They didn’t defend themselves.

All sadly true. As a conservative communicator and leader, Bush’s performance was abysmal. That said, the notion that anyone ever carried water for his administration is hardly germane to the situation as it stands. Bush is no longer President, sadly.

It’s long past time to hold local school boards and the college(s) where you or your kids go accountable for what they teach and the quality of graduates they’re producing. This means more than just “talking” to kids and teachers. Homeschooling and recommending textbooks isn’t going to produce the critical mass necessary to swing our national mindset back in support of the Republican form of Government guaranteed by the Constitution.

Nov 10, 2009 - 12:41 pm 34. Elliot:

Thomas L.,

When dealing with the usual suspects,I think there is nothing wrong in ignoring them. OTOH, outrageous accusations shouldn’t be allowed to stand,imo. Correct them when you can.

Nov 10, 2009 - 2:32 pm 35. Elliot:

#33,

Absolutely.With both parents working and parenting a full time job, there isn’t always the reserve of energy required to be proactive.

Having said that, I agree with much of what you are saying. Conservatively-minded folks are, well, conservative. They don’t behave in the same manner as leftists. They aren’t comfortable running in mobs, breaking windows, shouting down the opposition.They are embarrassed by ridiculous public displays or confrontations with police officers.

You are a very provocative poster and I am interested in what you have to say but my day has been demanding and I am too tired to be provocative myself. I look forward to reading what else you will have to add to this.

Nov 10, 2009 - 2:53 pm 36. Thomas_L.....:

Elliot: Well you see, once identified as such, I don’t bother with what they write. Unfortunately, while rushing by, trying not to get any of teh stupid on me, I can’t help but catch a little of their drift. It’s always idiotic. That, I make fun of! I don’t care to correct them since they don’t care if they’re correct as long as they’re politically correct. Hell, everything they say consists of outrageous accusations. **** them and the slime they drag behind them!

Nov 10, 2009 - 3:18 pm 37. Marc Malone:

Sooooo… people buy the memes. Propoganda works, because it appeals to, and enflames, emotions and blinds reason. What’s new?

goy- You’re right on the proactive part, but one must always be reactive, as well. Defense wins championships. The way to defend against the lies is to expose the lies and the liars. Having done so, one must transition to offense (proactive) and expose their motives. Do this often enough, and the thinking pattern defines itself. People then learn to do this on their own.

It doesn’t matter what they teach in school, as long as the kids learn to distinguish between shit and Shinola. It’s the critical thinking skills which keep us free. Governmentalists have to keep the people ignorant in order to rule.

We also have to master the art of labelling things, too. Putting the right label on things defines the issue more than anything; not a flase label, but the right label. We cannot engage in their dishonesty, or we work against ourselves. What good is it to teach people to think clearly, if all it does is how us to be equally as manipulative.

I used the term Governmentalists. The usual term is Statists, but it conveys not the real danger. Statist sounds… static. Government evokes alarm. The Leftists love government. Most people do not. So, the distinction must be rendered clear. This is what it is about. We must get people to reject the notion of more government as a solution.

Nov 10, 2009 - 3:31 pm 38. BC:

There is a huge difference between common political disingenuousness and this sort of “Big Lie” BS. And as far as I’m concerned, the main reason that Bush wasn’t impeached was because your so-called liberal MSM had become no more than lazy, corporate, disconnected sheep dressed up as liberal faux-wolves. They may occasionally talking the talk, but do absolutely no serious waking the walk in terms journalistic investigation or even just pointing out even the most obvious of lies.

Jon Stewart not long ago ripped CNN a new one over their inexcusably lame and irresponsible “leave it there” behavior towards news coverage, but that’s been the general case all along for a while now. Very telling bits of hard info & news now regularly get skipped over, and shows up, if at all, in the most random of places.

There is absolutely no equivalence whatsoever between Bush’s behavior and Obama’s, unless of course you’re the type who can’t differentiate the degree of badness between between car jacking and overstaying at a parking meter.

Nov 10, 2009 - 4:43 pm 39. goy:

@35. Elliot: – Conservatively-minded folks are, well, conservative. They don’t behave in the same manner as leftists. They aren’t comfortable running in mobs, breaking windows, shouting down the opposition.

Thanks for the news flash, Elliot. Now perhaps you can point to where I claimed or inferred otherwise.

@37. Marc Malone: – … one must always be reactive, as well. Defense wins championships.

Maybe in football. Not in politics. ‘Playing defense’ against Socialism’s long march through American institutions is precisely what has brought us to the abyss. That’s not going to change by playing more defense, which is all the conservative punditry and so-called ‘leadership’ is interested in doing, based on… what they’re doing.

Nov 10, 2009 - 8:14 pm 40. Marc Malone:

BC – The things you cite. (shakes head sadly) I followed the first link: a meaningless work-in-progress paper by a journalism doctoral student. WTH? Then, I followed the last. Not sure it’s true, but so what if it is? It sounds like Bush’s rambling, inexact manner when he tries to wax wonky. Meaningless.

The Leftist cries of “Impeach Bush!” were childish ignorance. Most adults ignored them, with good reason. Nothing he did came even close to “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Nothing!

Even if he intentionally or unintentionally mislead Congress, what of it? In the end, Congress has to authorize the war and fund it. They have subpeona power. The Prez’s cabinet is answerable to them. They are supposed to exercise due diligence. It was a hugely bi-partisan vote of approval. Blame Congress, not Bush. Same for waterboarding. Congress was fully briefed. No one had a problem with it. The reponse was, “Can we do more?”

Besides, this is just another deflection. Got no argument? Blame Bush! The childish Left. Read the Constitution, dumba**! Quit wasting our time, here.

Nov 10, 2009 - 8:48 pm 41. Dave Surls:

“The reverse operation is equally effective. Utter the name “Obama” and a host of surrogate terms leap to mind —”

Liar, little boy playing president, socialist, thief, anti-American clown, Jimmy Carter reinccarnated, liberal scum, etc.

Nov 11, 2009 - 4:43 am 42. Dave Surls:

“Bush administration lies that led to war”

Nah, it’s the left wingers who lie, constantly, and about everything.

Two lies in the above. First of all, what Bush said was true. Second of all we were already at war with Iraq, the Clinton administration was bombing Iraq 50 to 100 times per year when George Bush was still governor of Texas.

George Bush didn’t do to anything that led to a war with Iraq, period. We were already at war with Iraq, had been for many years. When left wingers say that George Bush led us into a war with Iraq…they’re doing what they always do…which is lie, lie and then lie some more.

And, that my friends, is the truth.

Nov 11, 2009 - 4:55 am 43. BC:

To Marc Malone: My links usually kick butt, but in that case, I thought that had an operating PDF link in the abstract — I was bouncing between studies regarding that period of time when upwards of 70% of all Americans believed that Hussein had some sort of direct involvement with 9/11. This was a due to a combination of highly deceptive rhetoric from Bush and his people and the lack of any responsible journalism by the corporate media. This a somewhat longwinded but thorough academic paper on the matter.

Nov 11, 2009 - 7:34 am 44. Elliot:

It’s whomever gets there first. We can’t do a d@mned thing about what was allowed to stand prior to our entering the picture. It is what it is-that “march”. Don’t you have to play the hand that’s dealt you ? To a whole lotta people, the Dems are the party of the little people, the disinfrancised, the poor, etc.. It doesn’t matter that the war on poverty didn’t eradicate poverty, it doesn’t matter if FDR’s programs were mainly unconstitutional, or didn’t actually work, and really may have prolonged misery. It doesn’t matter if Obama really did lie concerning case law, abortion, and illegal immigrants getting benefits you and I pay for. It doesn’t matter that European cradle to grave entitlements could only be implemented because the American tax-payer provided for their defence. It is ingrained that those folks were on the record doing something even when it kept generations of people behind.

The leftist got there first this round too. Very few in positions to challenge Obama’s and the leftist’s buzz words(antonomations) did so-it seemed so mean or was, again, politically incorrect. That places the conservatives in a defence position immediately. We had been in defence mode to begin with because no one in real authority took it upon themselves to shoot down the lying/obfuscating Dems. Cheney was way too late.

Look, the conservative brand lsn’t exciting. Conservatives aren’t intimidating, aren’t blunt, and lack a sense of humour( high-rated comedians on the left). They hang back and always seem to get there late. Obama is cool and the first African-American president-that resonates with the young voters coming up. They are still untested in life and very few , despite how well-educated, understand any of the implications of risk-taking and experimentation yet. In fact that is where they are and it’s a major reason Obama was elected. Traditional values start to look a whole lot better when real responsibility insinuates itself upon you, that is, for those that believe they have personal responsibilities-which takes us back to the appeal of entitlements and how to disabuse people of those notions of it being a good thing when they have nothing.

Nov 11, 2009 - 8:19 am 45. goy:

@44. Elliot: – It’s whomever gets there first.

Sorry, Elliot, this is all still kind of lame.

If the only strategies conservatives ever pursue are those of defensive / reactive civic activities then – by definition – they will never ‘get there first’.

You seem to be fixated on (i.e., you’re reacting to) the most recent swing of the pendulum. In fact, the pendulum keeps swinging – further to the left each time – because conservatives fail to hold their alleged representative accountable for even the smallest transgressions. We keep re-electing idiots and career politicians to represent us. Conservative “leaders” keep compromising their principles in the interest of some sort of faux decorum or civility – or simple self-aggrandizement – based on the misguided pretense that leftist ideologues and corrupt politicians are fully-realized, adult individuals who will respond in kind. They aren’t.

Propaganda only works on a populace ignorant enough to buy into it, where the polity is sufficiently broken to allow an attack from within. That’s where we are. BHO’s election was a symptom of that, not a cause. Nothing to do with being “exciting” or “cool” and everything to do with being apathetic, ignorant, distracted and functionally illiterate when it comes to civics.

Nov 11, 2009 - 8:52 am 46. Elliot:

Goy,
Well, it is lame that the coolness factor and the panache of marketing Obama played such an important roll, but it did. I’m telling ya, that is why the college kids didn’t come out for Virginia and New Jersey.

Another thing, I know some pretty smart people who fall back on the all too emotional and ready conventional wisdom .I could almost think they had been brain-washed.

Still, none of that makes you wrong in your assessment either. Soooo, whaddayawannado ? The emergence of a third party takes some time-a non-starter when time is of the essence. Catching citizens up to speed seems rather daunting as well. There is really no choice left to conservatives but to take over the GOP. In order to do that, the right of center will have to entice quite a few new faces. This is all fairly obvious too. So sorry if that is annoying to you, but you might offer up some suggestions of your own. What’s holding you back ?

Nov 11, 2009 - 11:21 am 47. goy:

@46. Elliot: – Well, it is lame that the coolness factor and the panache of marketing Obama played such an important roll, but it did.

This is precisely my point. You seem to think – based at least on what you’ve written – that conservatives need to figure out how to be “exciting” and “cool”. That’s reactive thinking, and it won’t preserve the Republic. In fact, that’s the entire rationale behind the broken GOP’s move toward Socialism Lite®. What’s required is to restore education, media and representation in governance to a state where “exciting” and “cool” don’t have any bearing on the political process.

– Catching citizens up to speed seems rather daunting …

Of course. And that goes double when all one does is react, as opposed to marching socialism back out of the institutions it has infested. Again, reacting to what the left does seems to be the conservative punditry’s and leadership’s only strategy. No one’s outlining – let alone offering – the rational alternative. This is not a winning plan.

– … you might offer up some suggestions of your own.

See #29, which I guess you missed. That’s precisely what I’m doing. Suggestion #1: stop reacting to the left and start actively restoring what they’ve broken. That needs to be centered on restoring the quality of academia, tearing down The Left Wing Media and holding our alleged representatives accountable for their actions instead of constantly re-electing them. So far, what I see from conservative leaders, Tea Party activists and conservative punditry is a lot of whining, criticizing, second-guessing, feigning perplexity and, generally, incessantly attacking the left rather than actively working to rebuild the aspects of America that would make it resistant to the leftist virus in the first place.

Nov 11, 2009 - 12:41 pm 48. deguello:

When is PJM going to learn? Bush is NOT a liar,he’s my servant,and a very good servant at that(you should see how beautifully he licks my boots).Sometimes,when he looks at a comic book,he pretends to be reading it,but that doesn’t make him a liar.- Vicente Fox, Estancia Plutocratica,Taxco , Mexico

Nov 11, 2009 - 2:41 pm 49. Paul -Indiana:

#3. The lefties notice, but expect to get a cut.

Nov 12, 2009 - 5:15 am 50. Elliot:

Goy,

No,….but yeah. While I don’t want to see conservatives attempting to be something they are not(compromising their values), particularly when, for instance, they know socialism is wrong for this nation, I still understand that a political party has to get the public’s attention and provoke interest in order to win support for their ideas/priciples/values.

The above are two separate things. Great eloquence in speaking isn’t important to me but real communication is. If a person is going to be placed in a position of authority where they make decisions that have impact on people’s lives, they have to connect and stay connected. The girls fainting for Obama wasn’t just silly, it was really sorta weird scarey We have plenty of rock stars and I’m not suggesting conservatives want or need any of that but it does take a smidgeon of charisma to lead.

I guess I am a little confused by your use of reaction. If conservatives are trying to emulate in a small way the ideals of the leftists, then I would prefer the words compromising priciples or even capitulation. Since it is a tad difficult for people not to react to things outrageous to them( because it can create pretty strong emotions) I think you are going to have to allow people their reactions. I’m not sure I agree it is wholly uneffective anyway.Reactionary people tend to dig in.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that no one should put up with the marxist crappola-be proactive in going after it. People need to be students of human nature too-historical fact isn’t enough, and Marc Malone mentioned the importance of teaching kids critical thinking. I could use a refresher in critical thinking myself. So, thanks for the exchange here. You have been thought provoking.

Nov 12, 2009 - 6:55 am 51. goy:

@50. Elliot: – … I still understand that a political party has to get the public’s attention and provoke interest in order to win support …

Forgive me for saying so, Elliot, but you’re STILL working this thing backward, rather myopically focused on a political ’solution’ and ignoring the reality that such a solution is completely dependent on the state of the electorate’s awareness. That awareness will have to change if the Republic is to be preserved.

The public’s attention and interest is governed by what they know. When EVERYTHING they know comes from what they’ve been relentlessly beaten over the head with by The Left Wing Media (e.g., “Bush Lied”) or some derivative thereof – rather than from a solid, classical education and a modicum of annual civic activity spent holding elected representatives accountable and being engaged in issues of governance – they are going to exhibit a delusional view of reality, like BC, and toe the leftist party line. This is why the GOP has morphed into the Socialist Lite® Party – it’s the only way they think they can get traction. The problem is that while it may give them a modicum of political traction (and power, which is all most of them are after anyway) in the short run, in the long run it is only detrimental to the Republican form of Government guaranteed by our Constitution.

As things stand, the only way the GOP thinks it can garner support now is to appeal to the overarching leftist, unwarranted self-esteem, morally adolescent, entitlement mindset we’ve allowed to flourish in America.

That broken mindset would be the reason why political parties feel that they can now only field candidates that range from “compassionate conservatives” like Romney, Bush (I & II) and McCain (i.e., Socialist Lite®) to unabashed marxists and socialists like BHO and Hillary. The combination of reaction to BHO’s socially suicidal policies and the alternative offered by people like Sarah Palin has a chance to change that, but the left is going to pull out all the stops to prevent it. Simply reacting to and whining about their hypocrisy, double standards, deceits and lack of reason in this context isn’t going to do much to change the outcome. Unfortunatly, right now, that’s all most constitutional conservatives are doing.

– … it is a tad difficult for people not to react to things outrageous to them …

Again, you’re either intentionally evading the point or you didn’t read what I wrote. If reacting and whining is ALL one ever does (and that’s pretty much the case at sites like PJM and among so-called “leaders” like those currently vying for spots in the GOP), one doesn’t change anything.

Nov 12, 2009 - 8:01 am 52. Moho:

LOL..this is a fact is it?

The fact that President Clinton’s inactivity and not President Bush’s putative warmongering did much to bring the present conflictual situation upon us is conveniently dismissed from consideration.

My condolences to your institution. I weep at the standards of our educators.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:47 am 53. Mark Baird:

Life is much easier when we have enemies is it not. It helps to satisfy the ego’s need to feel superior.

Nov 12, 2009 - 12:01 pm 54. Mark Baird:

The “others” are infected with a self conscience and only the “others” can save us all.

A familiar ring throughout history. If it makes your ego feel superior then go for it.

(I wonder if Osama Bin Laden tells his followers this?)

Nov 12, 2009 - 12:03 pm 55. Moho:

What’s hilarious is that you publish this on the same day as this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/world/middleeast/12galbraith.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=galbraith&st=cse

Peter W. Galbraith, an influential former American ambassador, is a powerful voice on Iraq who helped shape the views of policy makers like Joseph R. Biden Jr. and John Kerry. In the summer of 2005, he was also an adviser to the Kurdish regional government as Iraq wrote its Constitution — tough and sensitive talks not least because of issues like how Iraq would divide its vast oil wealth.

Now Mr. Galbraith, 58, son of the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars as a result of his closeness to the Kurds, his relations with a Norwegian oil company and constitutional provisions he helped the Kurds extract.

In the constitutional negotiations, he helped the Kurds ram through provisions that gave their region — rather than the central Baghdad government — sole authority over many of their internal affairs, including clauses that he maintains will give the Kurds virtually complete control over all new oil finds on their territory.

Isn’t it Bush who said that Iraq’s oil would be used to enrich the people of Iraq? Oh, and a few corrupt hangers on.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:47 pm 56. goy:

Moho, your BDS/OCD blaming Bush for this transgression is one of your most hilarious errors.

Heh.

Heheh.

Nov 13, 2009 - 7:29 am