60 Comments

1. TmjUtah:

I read the article last night.

Seems to me that the the emotional trauma Mr. Junod so clearly felt while making the intellectual case for Bush might make him a candidate for being a regular here, eh?

Powerful stuff. A brutally honest essay, to say the very least.

Jul 29, 2004 - 1:14 pm 2. ArtbyRuth:

This reply by Tom Junod reveals the true mentality of most Liberal Democrats.

They refuse to see and understand that appeasement, sanctions, and containment do not work even though the evidence presented by history makes this so importantly clear.

No amount of appeasement or sanctions would have ever caused Saddam Hussein give up power in Iraq and allow democracy to enter.

I thank God that, with all his faults, George W. Bush understands this and that is precisely why he has my vote.

Jul 29, 2004 - 1:33 pm 3. PeterUK:

Did the man pay royalties on the penultimate paragraph? It is standard Trollspeak,I’ve read it dozens of times,do they all get issued a crib sheet?

Jul 29, 2004 - 1:40 pm 4. Knucklehead:

Maybe Mr. Junod will someday understand, but I am not hopeful. He is steeped in Form Over Substance and hopelessly lost when anyone displays a Form beyond his experience. For example:

“…What an asshole.”

Ah. That feels better. George W. Bush is an asshole, isn’t he? Moreover, he’s the first president who seems merely that, at least in my lifetime. From Kennedy to Clinton, there is not a single president who would have been capable of striking such a pose after concluding a speech about a war in which hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis are being killed….”

This is absolute, uncomprehending gibberish. Mr. Junod has no ability whatsoever to understand either the Cadet or the President or the connection this action which, to Mr. Junod, screams, “What an asshole!”. You may bet the ranch that the Cadet did not think his president an asshole and furthermore bet the next ranch that the President’s “pose” was not for Mr. Junod’s or any of the MSMs benefit – it was a gesture made by a president to the troops he commands.

They will never get it because they are incapable of the empathy and understanding they believe they have. Mr. Junod should learn to put his intellect in neutral from time to time and try to get in touch with deeper aspects of human nature.

Mr. Junod goes on to describe the speech, seems to be finding it rather good and important and then stubs his toe again in the dark:

…I found myself in the strange position of buying into the proposition without buying into the presidency, of buying into the words while rejecting, utterly, the man who spoke them.

If Mr. Junod were able to get outside of himself and look beyond his preposterous bigotries he would, just maybe, see that his rejection of the man is based upon Mr. Junod’s own ignorance and that Mr. Bush is, in fact, not an asshole and does give decent speeches about important things and then, most importantly, MR. JUNOD, acts upon them.

And them Mr. Junod goes on a reasonably interesting intellectual exercise until he comes up with…

[Lincoln] The latter was his own lawyer as well as his own writer, and he was alive to the possibilities of tragedy and comedyóhe was human óin a way that our president doesn’t seem to be.

Lincoln lived in a very different time, Mr. Junod. He died much more than a century and a quarter ago. He was never subject to constant scrutiny by television cameras and he didn’t have every word and gesture analyzed by idiots. Mr. Junod never set eyes on Lincoln, never heard him speak, has no idea how the man would have seemed to him in person or on camera. I suspect Mr. Junod, had Lincoln been the president giving the speech to cadets, would have found some minor, insignificant gesture for which to condemn Mr. Lincoln as an asshole.

Mr. Junod should think long and hard about who is the asshole and who is not. I can’t bother with any more of the article.

Jul 29, 2004 - 1:43 pm 5. Bravo Romeo Delta:

One of the things that just piss me off to no earthly end is the fact that folks like that Jackass Junod have no earthly idea how well this war actually has been fought. Both during major combat operations and in the post-conflict unrest, the whoel of the federal government has done a stupendously good job with the amount of resources made available to them by any reasonable historical metric.

They wanted to see bad news from Iraq before the first bomb was dropped, so they’ve hung on word of every failure with glee, so they can collect evidence to support their fundamental thesis that “Bush = Doubleplusungood.”

I think that Virginia Postrel’s recent article about the left’s hatred of Bush hits a lot of good points.

This bull about only gunning for Bush in light of the occupation one year on is so much disingenuous garbage, it makes my blood boil. These “but…”-heads have a hatred they been looking for excuses to justify, but don’t even have enough integrity to admit that to themselves.

Jul 29, 2004 - 1:47 pm 6. TmjUtah:

Clarification -

“Honest” meant an honest display of the writer’s feelings.

It had nothing to do with the factual content of any judgements or opinions expressed in the piece.

Jul 29, 2004 - 1:48 pm 7. Hepzi:

The whole article is painful to read–its like listening to an adolescent as it dawns on him “Jeez Dad wasn’t so dumb after all!”.

Jul 29, 2004 - 1:52 pm 8. Eric Deamer:

Geez guys. Lighten up. Even Charles Johnson liked this piece.

Jul 29, 2004 - 2:16 pm 9. Kevin P:

Knuclehead:

Read the whole article.This is the closest you are going to get to someone on the left confessing to the fact that President Bush is right about the war.Unlike our host he can’t fully get past his reflexive hate of Bush but at least he examines the core issues and not the warm fuzzy “Give Peace a Chance” platitudes. To keep his left bona fides in tact he has to throw in the simplistic ‘asshole’ comment ,lets face it he wants to keep his job.But he does at least examine the fact that the prison scandal, the patriot act, and all the rest of the cliches are side issues, trivial when compared to the fact that Bush has removed Saddam. Unlike our host he can’t fully ignore all the michael Moore fantasy conspiracy claptrap and come to the conclusion that no matter what his differences on social issues we are at war and everything else can be dealt with after we win the war but not everyone has the guts that Roger does. If you cut thru the garbage and the political cheap shots it not a bad article and it is the closest thing to reality that you are going to get out of the MSM.

Jul 29, 2004 - 2:19 pm 10. Knucklehead:

Hepzi,

Good observation. Its as if MoDo and Junod have never escaped the cage of adolescence. One of my favorite recurring moments is when I discover that some formerly “real jerk!” has entered their circle of friends. I can never resist asking, “Him/her!? I thought you didn’t like him/her ’cause s/he was such a jerk.” “Oh, well, s/he’s OK once you get to know him/her.” I really do get a kick out of it.

And, I suppose, that suggests I should give Mr. Junod some benefit of doubt here since I am unfamiliar with the man’s work and don’t know him at all. Perhaps his recovery is in the early stages and he is not yet ready to recognize that much of the problem lies within himself.

Jul 29, 2004 - 2:21 pm 11. Syl:

I think those of you who criticize Junod miss a very important point…he is speaking to the ‘other side’, not to you.

To his audience Bush as ‘asshole’ is real and his admission of his feelings gives the article a bigger punch.

This is an excellent article for us to read and absorb…and learn from. With some people we deal with it’s actually counterproductive to refute all their misconceptions. Leave them some, but cut to the underlying issue instead.

Like his ’security’ vs ’survival’. Excellent point that one.

Jul 29, 2004 - 2:22 pm 12. Knucklehead:

Kevin P.

Point taken somewhat pre-emptively. I’ll steel myself and finish reading the article

Jul 29, 2004 - 2:23 pm 13. Rick Ballard:

Tmj,

I took your meaning and I think you may be right concerning his honesty. I disagree concerning it being powerful. It seemed a bit too angst filled. Hepzi nailed it for me. Jejeune – an adolescents maunderings on the bitter unfairness of reality.

Jul 29, 2004 - 2:28 pm 14. JB:

“This is an excellent article for us to read and absorb…and learn from. With some people we deal with it’s actually counterproductive to refute all their misconceptions. Leave them some, but cut to the underlying issue instead.

”

This is an extremely insightful comment on dealing with the left. I have been using this technique myself. No, you aren’t going to convince them on every issue (e.g. Bush didn’t “steal” the election) so you better pick your battles. Otherwise they’ll tune you out completely.

Jul 29, 2004 - 2:31 pm 15. Stan:

“Bravo…” hit the key point: selective reading of the news… It is something we are all susceptible to – filtering information in a way that minimizes cognitive dissonance. So the anti-war types remeber the bad news and the good news doesn’t stick. Because, they think, that if Bush is right about the war then he is right about everything else and they cannot accept that.

If they truly had an open mind and could actually deal with the complexities of policy they would understand that they can agree with Bush on something(s) without buyingthe whole package.

How much of the package and how important those parts are determines how you make a binary decision of Bush or Kerry…

This blog has a great deal of high-end intellect that can and does make those distinctions and listens to all credible info and reasons to conclusions – rather than the other way around…

Thanks folks…

Jul 29, 2004 - 2:31 pm 16. mrp:

From Tom Junnod’s piece:

We were attacked three years ago, without warning or predicate event [I strongly disagree with this-mrp]. The attack was not a gesture of heroic resistance nor the offshoot of some bright utopian resolve, but the very flower of a movement that delights in the potential for martyrdom expressed in the squalls of the newly born. It is a movement that is about deathÔøΩthat honors death, that loves death, that fetishizes death, that worships death, that seeks to accomplish death wherever it can, on a scale both intimate and globalÔøΩand if it does not warrant the expenditure of what the self-important have taken to calling “blood and treasure,” then what does? Slavery? Fascism? Genocide? Let’s not flatter ourselves: If we do not find it within ourselves to identify the terrorism inspired by radical Islam as an unequivocal evilÔøΩand to pronounce ourselves morally superior to itÔøΩthen we have lost the ability to identify any evil at all, and our democracy is not only diminished, it dissolves into the meaninglessness of privilege.

Except for the first line, superbly written. Now juxtapose this sentiment with an infamous remark made by the Left’s current standard bearer:

“Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California–these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!” –Michael Moore, Michaelmoore.com, September 12

That statement was made 17 months before US tanks entered Baghdad.

Makes you wonder about Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter’s judgement when it comes to choosing seatmates, doesn’t it?

Jul 29, 2004 - 2:31 pm 17. acassa:

The war hasn’t “defied the optimism” of this advocate, far from it.

I am so tired of this canard of the left that the war in Iraq was a failure. They offer no evidence of it, they just state it as though it were a divine truth.

I’m really tired of the “we went in with no exit strategy” crap. To my knowledge, the only exit strategy in war is victory. Period. From my perspective, that has been accomplished in an astoundingly brief period of time, historically speaking.

Yes, our troops will be their for years to come. So what? WWII ended over 50 years ago and we still have troops in Europe. What’s their point?

Jul 29, 2004 - 2:42 pm 18. OldManRick:

I too love the “no exit strategy’ canard.

We have no exit strategy for Germany. We are still there after they have created a democratic government.

We have no exit strategy for Japan (Okinawa). We are still there after they have created a democratic government.

We have no exit strategy for Kosovo. There doesn’t seem to be a plan to create a democratic government.

We seem to have no exit strategy for Haiti. We just revisit it whenever things get bad enough.

For Iraq, however, there is an expressed exit strategy. Let the Iraqis form a representative government, train them and let them take over their own security and then they will ask us to leave. I have heard repeatedly that we will not be there a day longer than we are wanted. We have even asked NATO to help us with this strategy, to no avail.

We even have some operational steps towards an exit stratgy. Self government, training, infrastructure development, etc. When someone says we have no exit strategy, they are being willful obtuse.

Jul 29, 2004 - 3:05 pm 19. Stan:

The great danger if this nation chooses Kerry:

Kerry and the Dems are prescribing an impossibly high bar for military intervention. To wit: 1) it must have near international unanimity, and 2) it must have plain and unmistakeable legal basis and 3) before hostilities start there has to be a provable plan that will meet or exceed ever increasing expectations and 4) nothing significantly bad can happen during the conduct of the action.

With this new “Kerry” doctrine you can be assured that Gulliver will bind himself and ask the Lilliputians to do their worst.

Michael Moore is embraced by the Dems and he opposed intervention in Afghanistan. You read his quote – I have not heard any major Dem. renounce his viewpoint. Is that party to be trusted with the reins of power?

Jul 29, 2004 - 3:09 pm 20. Rick Ballard:

Stan,

Tonight ‘Not a Clue’ v.1278.vz will say:

“Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.”

So, obviously, all we have to do is wait until we’re attacked. Of course, he’s not going to define “swift and certain response” – perhaps he means that Kofi and Jacques are going to be on his speed-dialer? Just think, with the press of a button, he can ask permission. If they take his call.

Vote ‘Not a Clue’ – he promises to react.

Jul 29, 2004 - 3:21 pm 21. TmjUtah:

Rick Ballard -

Funny you mentioned ‘angst’; I was tempted to ring that up on the label stamper and just didn’t think it fit right.

Angst always struck me as a conscious act of assumed…or maybe contrived?…petulance. I don’t think that applies here.

I felt a burning urgency. Jerod channelled into text what resulted after the product of his intellect bumped against the walls of his convictions. Epiphany? Not quite. More a pregnant pause. The conflict is there and he sees the resolution may well lead directions he dreads to even speculate upon. I will definitely keep an eye out for his work from here on out.

Powerful stuff. I am going to print it off to read through a few more times over the weekend. The Infinitely Better Half and I are taking off for a few days sans computers, sans cell phones (except for designated hours to check messages) and will be back on Sunday afternoon.

Jul 29, 2004 - 3:23 pm 22. Rick Ballard:

Tmj,

I’m no expert on angst – I always tend to think ‘Hamlet’ and move on. I respect your opinion and I’ll reread the piece.

Have a good vacation – shoot a varmint if you get a chance. You must have finished the basement.

Jul 29, 2004 - 3:31 pm 23. Jeff:

Personally, I think the article was brilliantly targeted towards its audience – the Anybody But Bush crowd. It validated all their feeling about Bush while explaining the reasons why it’s important Bush wins.

For those of us who already understand why we have to vote for Bush, there is material that may annoy you. But, without that material Junod could never have made his point to his audience.

Jul 29, 2004 - 5:04 pm 24. penwil:

Sort of apropos to the topic, the following excerpt from Kerry’s speech tonight is floating around:

“I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President.¬† Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.¬† Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.¬† I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.¬† And I will build a stronger American military.”

So basically he will not act until AFTER another attack occurs and thousands more are dead. Maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems to me that the Bush campaign ought to be able to nail him to the wall with this.

Jul 29, 2004 - 5:06 pm 25. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I read it. I am baffled. From where comes the left wing hatred of Bush, the person? What did he do?

The right was pretty peeved at Clinton, but that was a combination of his high handed tactics (travelgate), his arrogance and mistreatment of tradition, and his lying about Monicagate. But even so, I don’t remember a true reflexive hatred.

Bush has done none of those things, and yet the left hates him. HATES him. I have yet to hear any explanation, other than some pull out the “stole the election in Florida” canard.

Anyone want to be one when the next big terrorist attack is? I’m betting the Republican Convention – either there if they can penetrate security, or someplace symbolic during the convention.

Jul 29, 2004 - 5:16 pm 26. Average Joe:

I commented on this piece at LGF. Perhaps the people here may find my comment interesting, so here it is:

An excellent article, though I have a slight disagreement with one of the, perhaps implied, points. I do not think that Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) started with the war. I observed some mild cases before 9/11. My suspicion is that BDS is mainly cultural. To many people Bush represents the validity of a “Middle America” to which most, e.g., Esquire writers feel superior. In fact, these people’s self-esteem is usually based upon this feeling of superiority. To these people Bush can not be a legitimate president because they are not willing to recognize most Bush voters as fully human, and therefore as legitmate voters. Of course here I am not describing everyone who did not and will not vote for Bush, but rather the subset of the non-Bush voters who are susceptible to BDS.

That said, I think that the war drove most of the BDS susceptible people over the edge. The article does an excellent job of noting some of the additional problems of BDS sufferers. Also, Virginia Postrel notes that hatred of Bush may subsititute for fear of terrorists for some people(see #37 jrdroll). I would like to add another issue that helped push these people over the edge, namely, the rightness of some of our actions in the War on Terror. If your self-esteem is tied to the idea that Bush is a bad man, that only sub-humans could support him, then anything he does that is good will cause immense psychic pain. I think many Bush-haters, in their heart-of-hearts, think that the overthrow of the Taliban and the overthrow of Saddam are good things. That Bush led these efforts causes a cognitive dissonance that literally drives the Bush-haters crazy.

Jul 29, 2004 - 5:32 pm 27. Average Joe:

After posting, I realized that I should have made a change in my comment for this site before I posted.

Here is the change:

Replace: see #37 jrdroll

By: see comment by Bravo Romeo Delta

Jul 29, 2004 - 5:36 pm 28. John Lynch:

Hmm.

Not bad for a left-on-left article.

I think he would enjoy the company of those on this blog. After we got done chewing on him for a while of course.

It might also keep us from falling into group think.

Jul 29, 2004 - 5:54 pm 29. John Lynch:

I wonder what a negative bounce would look like?

As the party in beantown winds down, the hangover starts to fade, the party loyal are going to roll over in their beds and find … what?

Selecting a candidate, agreeing on a platform, consolidating on the things that they can unanimously agree upon, they arrive Friday morning to … what?

Will we see one-armed Democrats Friday morning?

I am detecting some amount of angst (I think this is the correct use of the word) as Dems realize what they are putting up against Bush. Even today’s Dowd article seemed to reflect that they do not have solid legs to stand on.

Roger, all: forgive me for posting a link to Dowd. However, as Gandalf says (paraphrasing): “If that language is not soon to be heard in all of the corners of the Middle Earth, then we do not have to worry.”

Jul 29, 2004 - 6:12 pm 30. DennisThePeasant:

Why now?

I’ll give guys like Paul Berman, Roger Simon and Ron Silver (who was on Cavuto today and was terrific) gold stars for being leftists/liberals who figured it out real fast…just as fast as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, in fact. But as for as Tom Junod goes, until I can get a really good answer to the question above I have to assume that what we have more navel-gazing in the guise of ‘angst’.

Maybe it’s just because I’m not an angst kinda guy, but at this point I’m finding too much of this stuff a bit too convenient and even a bit too self-reverential. I have the sneaking suspicion that much of this Junodesque hand wringing stems from the fact that it is becoming quite apparent that many Lefties are starting to feel sheepish about their association with their own movement’s leadership.

It is hard to feel superior to anyone when you consciously affiliate with people who are very obviously morons. And that is, from John Kerry to Michael Moore to Howard Dean to Noam Chomsky, exactly what the Left has for leadership. I just wonder if this isn’t a product of the embarrassment of a middle class psuedo-intellectual who allowed his psuedo to show by who he chose to follow.

Jul 29, 2004 - 6:38 pm 31. mezzrow:

Don’t be put off by the sniping about Bush in the article – the revulsion that leftists feel when confronted with W. is genuine. That’s not the issue here, and that’s at the heart of this whole matter. Their revulsion is what they’re obsessed with and it’s keeping them from thinking as any reasonable human can think – the issue isn’t Bush. It isn’t about him. It can’t be about Bush for them, and it can’t be about Bush for us, either.

Bush isn’t the force trying to kill as many kufrs as it can to sit in Paradise – staring at raisins – forever. (ed.- too obscure) The leftists are currently incapable of grasping this notion, because they’re all locked up by this Bush-hatred thing. They can’t internalize that this is about those who will sacrifice generations of their own children to see that the world we grew up in disappears, our children dhimmified or converted under sharia, to be replaced with the fascism of the “clerics” applied with the tender mercies of medieval justice. Get a metrosexual comparative lit major or academic to absorb that! Heh. For that matter, try to explain it to some “shiny side out” type, blathering about Clinton’s murders and the Mena airport. Same deal, just different – same brain-lock, same inabilty to think and absorb reality.

The estimable Mr. Junod is speaking truth to a deep well of denial – when this runs dry, perhaps only then can we get serious about the real nature of the threat that we and the world face. Perhaps then even those friends of ours who are currently drinking the Kool-Aid of “Kumbayah” solutions for mass-murderers while ejecting bile at ‘Chimpy’ can then start acting like serious people. We’ll need them before this is really over – honest, we will.

Jul 29, 2004 - 6:38 pm 32. wxjames:

knucklehead, the article was wordy. He surrounded the issue and eventually concluded: we’re at war.

I’ll give it a 4.

Jul 29, 2004 - 6:48 pm 33. John Lynch:

DtP

You are a tough one, and perhaps rightfully so. I think of my sister, here in Dayton, who as a lawyer (not TLA) has leftist tendencies.

I see articles like this as some sign of hope that previously closed minds are beginning to open, perhaps just a bit, and notice that all is not well in their Dem worldview.

I occasionally despair at those of my acquaintances that echo the memes without understanding.

Perhaps as the convention rolls down, an assessment of the nutcases, and nutcase positions will cause some reevaluation of their positions.

I’d like to be able to talk to my sister again!

Jul 29, 2004 - 6:50 pm 34. richard mcenroe:

John Moore ó If Bush is right, then everything ó everything the 70’s reactionaries have believed for the last 30 years is wrong. Imagine how one of those good Democratic segregationists felt when they were told that they had to give those coloreds the vote and let them sit at the lunch counter, no matter how sincere their beliefs to the contrary ran. That’s how deep the distress of the 70’s reactionaries is today.

Another clue: as I was reading in the paper today, the defining sensibility of this season’s “serious” movies is paranoia, from F9/11 to The Stepford Wives to The Bourne Supremacy to The (new) Manchurian Candidate.

The last time paranoia was the defining sensibility of the movies was the 50’s, whether it was nukyuler ants eating LA or Jack Webb railing against the imminent commie takeover of America. Back then it was the conservative worldview that felt paranoid ó The pod people are trying to eliminate our way of life as we know it! ó and today it is the “liberal” perspective.

Proof that the ossification of the leftist mindset is complete and the last conscious thought left to that sclerotic philosophy is paranoid reactionism.

Jul 29, 2004 - 7:21 pm 35. Ben:

I confess that I haven’t watched much of the Democratic Convention: Hearing politicians say what they think I want to hear has little appeal to me and, frankly, I find most of them boring. I did watch some of the nominating speeches on C-Span, however. One in particular clearly demonstrated to me where the average Democrat is on the War on Terror. The Governor of Louisiana (whose name I don’t recall) began her speech with the usual litany of things that were great about her state. When she announced that her state was home of two national sports champions, the crowd went wild. When she announced that her state contributed something like 8,500 troops to Afghanistan and Iraq . . . you could have heard a pin drop. Sort of tells you where the majority of the delegates stand, doesn’t it?

Jul 29, 2004 - 7:22 pm 36. richard mcenroe:

NEWSFLASH! ó Instapundit actually opened up the comments box to talk about Kerry’s speech!

Jul 29, 2004 - 7:27 pm 37. richard mcenroe:

John Lynch ó “Coyote Liberal”?

Jul 29, 2004 - 7:38 pm 38. Knucklehead:

Well, I read the entire article and I have to say I don’t know what to make of it. I don’t know if its tortured or torturous or… It crawls with petty analysis and yet asks those who would be petty to concider the deeper case. I don’t know if I can suffer reading it again as Tmj will or if I could ever get as much from it as some of y’all seem to (but then, we knuckleheads have low expectations for good reason).

Interesting article, thougth provoking, even emotionally provocative. Darned if I know what to make of it. I suppose it is a sign of a good writer to be able to provoke emotion and thought. But the thinking part of the article seems downright confused, conflicted, emotional. The emotions it expresses and provokes are too negative for my tastes – it has been many years since I enjoyed, for example, music that makes me feel angry. I once sat through the debut of a very modern symphonic composition at the urging of a musician friend. It was awful to me, painful, I was downright pissed off by the time it was over and physically and mentally relieved when it ended. When my friend asked me what I thought about the piece I tried to explain that it was a very unpleasant experience for me and I really did not enjoy it. To him my reaction seemed to vindicate his idea that it was an excellent compostion because it could evoke such strong feelings. I disagree and fail to understand.

At the moment I find myself inclined to agree with Hepzi.

I believe it was Twain who said something very much like, “When I was sixteen I couldn’t believe how ignorant my father was. When I was twenty-one I couldn’t believe how much he’d learned in only five years.” I put Mr. Junod at around eighteen years old on the Twain Scale.

I need an adult beverage after reading that thing.

Jul 29, 2004 - 7:59 pm 39. asher813@aol.com:

That last part is perfect. Who would say “Hitler was a bad guy, but … “? There is no way to finish that sentence. The word “but” makes everything that comes before it, unimportant. That’s the definition of “but”.

“Saddam was a bad guy, but … “? Wrong answer. We need to start thinking in terms of “Saddam is a bad guy, THEREFORE.”

Jul 29, 2004 - 8:02 pm 40. richard mcenroe:

“Nobody who opposes Bush thinks that terrorism is a good thing. ”

You know, I’m not sure that’s true. Aside from the obvious…

“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.” ó Michael Moore

… the one comment I can always count on hearing at the Friday counterprotest, besides “Fuck you, Jew!” and “Bush sucks!” is “Fuck the troops!” Yeah, there’s nothing like seeing a young fella speak truth to power as he leans out the window of his Mercedes to scream that at a mother holding up a picture of her son in the Marines…

Then of course, there’s the charming meme that’s been making the rounds on a couple of the lefty boards: “It was only a couple of buildings,” or the fella at the San Francisco protests with the sign, “I Like New York Better Without the Towers…”

Maybe when Mr. Junod finishes working his way out of denial about George Bush he can start thinking about the company he keeps…

Jul 29, 2004 - 8:37 pm 41. Sandy P:

Anyone know anything about this GQ article which says W was on a secret mission in Nam to rescue McCain and others and that’s why his NG timecards are missing?

Seems there’s a pic of W and geisha girls.

Is this a joke or, after the Esquire article, are people actually starting to get serious?????

Jul 29, 2004 - 9:12 pm 42. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

To those who were on the right or left (sorry Roger for the necessary dichotomy) during the Clinton years…

A liberal on this board has challenged me (by email) that in fact the right had an equivalent hatred during the Clinton years. Since I am trying to understand the leftist hatred, it is only proper to ask folks here, left and right, if they saw a similar phenomenon from the right in the ’90s. I don’t remember the same phenomenon, but I remember being angry at Clinton, the person. I want to know if I am seeing the right of the Clinton years through rose colored glasses. Is it perhaps that since I don’t hate Clinton now, I imagine I didn’t hate him them?

There is no question but that some on the right said some pretty nasty things – the Vince Foster conspiracy theory, the Ron Brown conspiracy theory, Chinagate, Monicagate, The American Spectator’s Arkansas allegations, and attacls om many other areas.

So, did the right have a Clinton Derangement Syndrome? Was it reflexive like the left’s today? Was it true hatred? If we did, how did it resemble or differ from today’s Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Let me request that right wing militias be left out. They are of interest in other discussions, but are so tiny as to not be a significant part of the right.

Jul 29, 2004 - 9:16 pm 43. Kevin P:

Knucklehead:

I hope you are enjoying your beverage. The reason I liked the article is I think that Mr. Junod is getting that hollow feeling in his gut that comes from the realization that as much as he hates President Bush the aggresive stance on the WOT is right.

I don’t know his work but the “asshole” line hints to me that he is in the “we have to use the UN and Bush is acting too unilaterally crowd.” As a former lefty I know how hard it is to give up the comforts of set ideology. It is so easy for them to adopt the “I’m brilliant, he is a redneck” intellectual arrogance. But when he goes to sleep at night and thinks about turning power over to Kerry he starts to realize that JFK is going to cut and run, that he won’t do a thing until we are attacked again and that the odds of it happening in New York again is high.The fear of the possibility of seeing a 747 heading towards one’s high rise place of employment is sobering.

I won’t be suprised if Mr. Junod’s next article will be on the reasons why JFK must be elected over Bush.But I have a sneaking suspicion that in the privacy of the voting booth he might pull the lever for President Bush.The fear of death sometimes sharpens the mind.

Jul 29, 2004 - 9:33 pm 44. RayC:

Re: Posted by: Syl at July 29, 2004 02:22 PM

Syl is right. Junod is talking to his friends. As another commenters said, “Cut him some slack.” To write the article must have been like cutting his own throat, I’m passing the Esquire article on to some of my friends.

RayC

Jul 29, 2004 - 9:47 pm 45. blogaddict:

To John Moore–I’d like to take a stab at answering your questions about whether there was a CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome) that was roughly equivalent to BDS. I’m one of those lifelong liberal Democrats turned Bush-supporter (although never never never an LLL), so I think I’m somewhat qualified to answer.

I’ve thought about the question for some time, and it’s a complex one. I felt during Clinton’s tenure that there was most definitely a truly vicious and mean-spirited hatred for him. For sufferers from CDS, it (IMHO) was (and is) a remarkably parallel phenomenon to BDS. The accusations, as you yourself have noted (Vince Foster’s death, for example, and the “Wag the Dog” scenario during the Lewinsky scandal) were as far-out as the current accusations towards Bush, and, likewise, assumed that Clinton was not merely a bad policymaker, but an evil man.

However, these are the differences, and I think they are significant:

(a) it is my impression (anecdotal only) that a smaller percentage of Republicans were true victims of CDS as compared to the current percentage of BDS sufferers among Democrats, (b)the stakes were not as high–we had not been attacked on our own soil in the same undeniably vicious and serious manner as we were on 9/11, so the frivolous and destructive games played by those suffering from CDS were not quite as dangerous to our own security as the games played by those suffering from BDS (although I, personally, felt that since Clinton’s crime did not rise to the level of an impeachable crime, the impeachment drive set a very dangerous precedent), and (c) Clinton was undeniably guilty (ultimately) of some incredibly stupid and egregious behavior in the Lewinsky episode, behavior for which there is no parallel Bush behavior.

If you accept the Virginia Postrel theory (i.e., that BDS sufferers are displacing their fear over 9/11 and what it means and turning it into anger towards Bush), the BDS sufferers at least have a better psychological excuse than the CDS sufferers–they are reacting (stupidly and counterproductively, however) to post-traumatic stress. What excuse did CDS sufferers have? Similarly, BDS sufferers are in special pain compared to CDS sufferers because they are totally out of majority power right now in all three branches of government (CDS sufferers had more power than that). Again, that’s not a justification at all, but it is somewhat of a psychological explanation.

I’m a bit more puzzled as to where the extreme virulence of the CDS hatred came from– psychologically speaking, at least. There seems to have been less psychological reason for it among CDS sufferers–less trauma, less loss of power, and loss of power for a shorter time. Some say it came partly from the idea that, in their minds, Clinton hadn’t been elected by a majority because of the Perot candidacy (at least, this is what I recall to have been the case), and therefore he lacked a certain legitimacy in their eyes. Certainly he lacked gravitas in their eyes–he was seen as a lightweight, a boy. And, strangely enough, both of these things are complaints of the Bush-haters, also–a suspect election process (partly because of a third-party candidacy–in this case, of Nader) and a perceived lack of gravitas in the President.

Jul 29, 2004 - 11:55 pm 46. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

blogaddict

Thanks for your input. Do you think the people who made those charges truly hated Clinton, or just disliked him? It sounds like you feel it is CDS. So do others. What particular behavior leads you to that observation?

I do not think CDS came from the election at all. If we were mad about the election, it was at Ross Perot (who I worked for that year. It is my understanding that he ran to get even with Bush 41 for his failure, as DCI, to accept a Perot MIA rescue scheme).

I believe election 2000 is the major emotional force in BDS – I have yet to hear a BDS who doesn’t have “stole the election” ready to spout.

I think CDS came from a sense that Clinton was fundamentally dishonest (and I think he is – he clearly is a serious narcissist, to the point that it affects his functioning), anti-military (the stories about white house civilian staff towards the military came out pretty fast), his draft dodging and the way it was handled (GHWB was more highly decorated than Kerry). But I think a lot was the feeling that he ran the White House for his own enjoyment.

I think many of us felt that Clinton was capable of about anything (either a sociopath or a criminal mentality) – we did not trust him to act in the national interest. His Arkansas reputation (mostly not seen by the left before the election – sexual harassment, rape, corruption) started that, and some of the early behavior continued it. With the belief that Clinton could not be trusted (which doesn’t require hate – just distrust), the more conspiracy minded wandered off into some strange conspiracy theories. The oddest I remember was the Ron Brown plot – the idea that Ron Brown was killed on his plane before it crashed. I’ve got to admit, I don’t get it on that one. I’m still hearing TWA-800 cover-up theories, although they aren’t focused on Clinton.

I’ll make some comments, but it shouldn’t be construed as a negation of your input. In fact, I hope others ccomment.

To me, the impeachment was totally justified, because having the chief law enforcement officer of the land lie under oath (a felony) is very serious. He was disbarred over it. It’s like Watergate – the coverup was the real problem at the top.

The Monica affair was an embarassment to the nation, showed a lack of respect for the country, and was potentially damaging in a security sense, but it was not impeachable.

I believed and still believe the Wag the Dog scenario – the timing was too perfect and the individual too unscrupulous (by my observation). Nobody told me the theory – I came up with it myself. But you don’t have to hate Clinton for that, just distrust him.

An interesting sidelight… Gingrich interpreted the 1994 election as a conservative mandate. But a lot of it was caused by one law – that so-called assault weapons ban. You may notice that Democrats haven’t said much about gun control since then.

Jul 30, 2004 - 12:41 am 47. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Another comment…

I never considered Clinton illegitimate, and I didn’t hear that from the right. It was clear that he was legitimate, and we accepted that. That may be one difference – the BDS people seem unwilling to look at the facts and recognize that Bush is legitimate also.

I know of nobody on the right who disparaged Clinton for not being elected by a majority. I have used the argument about the size of his vote in counter to some Bush-Is-Illegitimate or Bush-Should-Share-Power folks, but that’s obviously post-Clinton.

Hence, unless there was a bunch on the right I wasn’t aware of, CDS was not caused by or amplified by the election, hence breaking that parallel with BDS.

I think you are right about the percentage of CDS’ers – or whatever it was. If you listened to most right wing talk radio, it didn’t preach hate (although it was constantly accused of that – maybe hate was a more common emotion among the accusers). Limbaugh in particular used a lot of humor, and he was (and is) king of that genre. A number of the conspiracy theories went around talk radio, but only certain hosts focused on them – for example, Gordon Liddy, an ex-con ex-FBI agent – a good person to examine the theories.

Since I heard a lot of the charges attributed to hatred coming from non-haters, I again wonder how many people holding those theories were haters?

I remember a strong dislike for Clinton. But I also remember supporting some of his retaliatory military actions. I remember appreciating the cleverness of Hillarycare, even as I was angry about the way it ccame about. But I remember being angry about Travelgate, and furious about Gary Aldrich’s allegations and the reports of how the military was treated in the White House.

Jul 30, 2004 - 12:55 am 48. blogaddict:

Memory does play tricks on one–and it seems like an awfully long time ago, in a way, doesn’t it? Almost another age. But I clearly remember hearing people talk about the lack of a majority for Clinton, and about the Perot candidacy. Never as many as those on the left who accuse Bush of “stealing” the election. It probably was nowhere near as mainstream a notion. But I do remember it. Hear are some links that refer to it: http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/barksdale/barksdale_009.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21065 http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/00/11/09/TALKING_POLITICS1.html (reference made to allegations of Clinton’s “illegitimacy” in 1992 election in purple box on the right of the page)

I certainly believe that the true Clinton-haters were far more marginal than the true Bush-haters within their respective parties. But not so very different in kind.

Jul 30, 2004 - 1:19 am 49. Knucklehead:

Kevin P:

Thanks for helping me along with a gentle baddabing upside the head. I am able to understand the argument you’re making but I don’t like it so I resist letting it sink in.

The reason I understand the case you and Syl and others are making is because my unwillingness to admit that I understand it is much like the problem Mr. Junod is demonstrating. None of us like to face up to the feeling that comes when we realize some cherished position is no longer viable and, especially, when we realize some cherished position is downright wrong or at least may be so.

Mr. Junod’s position still irks the heck out of me because the foundation of it is little more than negative emotion. We are all subject to strong negative emotions but we cannot proceed in life or the world around us for long if we don’t learn to put them aside and have a look at things without the fog they cause.

On a personal level I can easily point to two examples that give me at least some little sympathy for Junod’s “angst”. (I’ll join some of the others in this thread, What the hell is this “angst” nonsense? I gotcha angst rieheah!)

The one that is really beginning to tear at me is that the bedrock, foundational idea of “freedom of religion” may need to be adjusted to exclude Islam or some portion thereof. It seems entirely possible, maybe even a certainty, that there is some segment of Islam that cannot function within our social and governmental framework and will need to be excluded. We may have to reach the point of trying to adjust one of the cornerstones of our system from, “Believe or not as you see fit” to “Believe or not as you see fit except for you Wahabbis (or whatever). You guys can’t blather about that hateful, vile claptrap here because you are clearly unable to allow anyone else their freedom of belief or non-belief.”

If I have to finally abandon my long held, deep in my gut, position regarding “freedom of religion” it will be something like the scenes in the “Alien” movies where the little monster comes ripping through people’s chests. I’m not gonna like it and I’m gonna make noises that will frighten the likes of Mr. Junod to the point of peeing their pants. The dogs in Abu Graib will tuck tail and hide under a table. Howard Dean’s primal scream will sound like some milquetoast yelling yeeha on a kiddie rollercoaster. I have invested heavily in “freedom of religion” and I’ll finally know “angst” if I have to give that up.

The second example is the “no amnesty!” position regarding illegal aliens. I understand the argument. I held that position for a long time. I know, fully and from personal experience, that a whole lot of decent people have immigrated legally and it required real effort on their part. Illegal is the “easy” and quicker way to immigrate to the US. But we are not going to move forward with figuring out how to deal with the immigration and illegal aliens mess without something that smells like, walks like, and quacks like “amnesty”. I don’t care if we call it “Huckleberry Apertif” but we’re gonna have to deal with it or continue to do nothing. That one hurts me, especially when I’m sitting with a bunch of perfectly legal immigrants who are wedged on “I did it legally and ‘they’ should also!”

Jul 30, 2004 - 5:47 am 50. Knucklehead:

Blogaddict:

Well, since this thread seems to have some “fessing up” and “soul searching” element to it, I’ll take a stab at “what was the basis of CDS”. I was, and remain, prone to mild bouts of something akin to CDS. Here’s what provoked it for me…

For some of us Clinton came out of nowhere – he was a non-entity on the US political map. For me, and no doubt others since we knuckleheads are much like the bison herds of another era, it was immediately and clearly obvious that Clinton was slimey person. Everything about the way he looked and moved and talked just screamed out, “Don’t let this guy anywhere near my minor daughters, my wallet, or any business I am involved with.” It really was that bad for me and I was very disappointed when he was elected.

And there are some of us who believe that his prior actions and statements regarding the military needed to be addressed and, if not addressed, disqualified the man from being CIC. (Kerry has this identical problem for me, only much worse.) If the man was unwilling to to tell us whether or not he had overcome his “loathing” for the military then he was disqualified from the position of CIC. You cannot command that which you loathe – at least not in this citizen’s book. That, for me, was a very strong point against.

Last, and probably least, was the absolutely childish nonsense like “I tried it once and didn’t like it and never inhaled.” What a bleeping groaner!a

I, and surely others, could have gotten past all that, however, by consoling ourselves that he was a plurality winner rather than a majority winner and he wasn’t the stark raving lunatic Perot and Bush 41, while a fundamentally decent man, didn’t seem to want to remain our president. But within what seemed like 10 minutes of the Clinton gang walking through the door of the Whitehouse we had Travelgate and that whole “get rid of US Attorneys” nonsense. That was just wholesale trashing of decent people for no good reason. It was not that the administration had no “right” to do something like that, it was “Why do this?” and “What a miserable way to go about it!”

And the Clinton team had a nearly twisted penchant for eviscerating and burying anyone who represented danger to them. Politics is nasty and brutish as a matter of course, but these people behaved like a danged mafia. It really was ugly to those of us who were already convinced the whole lot was morally bankrupt.

And then along came Monica. There are no shortage of people in this nation who are very aware of some of the stickier wickets and inconvenient realities that have resulted from the very real and beneficial progress made in social areas like women’s rights. We understand notions like “managing within the law” and “disparate power” – we accept “keep your hands off the kiddies and fly zipped at work.”

It was completely obvious to many of us that the he was lying about “the intern” and that messing around with an intern was out there near the very edge of the “No. NO!” scale. That action just pegs the Disparat Power Meter up there in the bright red zone. And it came danged close to violating “Keep your hands off the kiddies”. And not only did he just keep lying about it, but he lined up his freakin’ cabinet and made them lie about it. And then his wife lied about it.

By then I was on the impeachment bandwagon. We threw Nixon out for less and I wanted this jerk thrown out. I don’t want my nation tolerating this nonsense from our president.

So, there’s the basis for CDS. Once that mosquitto has bitten one the problem becomes one of using quinine or not. The CDS merchants went way over the top so some of us kept running for our quinine and fought off the fevers.

And herein lies the fundamental difference between CDS and BDS. There doesn’t seem to be much real, honest assessment basis for BDS. I think there was some honest assessment basis for CDS. CDS took nearly two terms to reach its crescendo and it was never embraced by the “mainstream” of Clinton opponents. BDS was nearly instantaneous and after one term is fully embraced by the mainstream of Bush opponents. The Democratic Party CELEBRATES their BDS affliction.

Jul 30, 2004 - 6:38 am 51. Knucklehead:

John Moore & Blogaddict:

Just one more comment. There was CDS. I’ve given my reasons for it and why I believe BDS is more virulent illness.

John mentioned the American Spectator above. The American Spectator was the first overtly political periodical I was ever aware of and over time I became a fan and a subscriber. I specifically canceled my AS subscription, didn’t even wait to fail to renew, over their rabid CDS. They became all-CDS all the time and that was of no use to me or, IMO, them.

CDS was there but I believe the “right” fought it off and refused to succumb to it and kept passing the work around to the like-minded to behave like adults and rise above emotionalism. That behavior seems indicative of a political party on the “rise”. The Dem embrace of BDS is symptomatic of a party in serious decline.

Jul 30, 2004 - 7:06 am 52. Percy Dovetonsils:

John Moore:

Blogaddict stole much of what I was going to say about CDS, but let me add that the 24/7 media fills all that airtime via overexposure of Hollywood celebrities. There are a lot more Susan Sarandons in Hollywood than Grover Norquists. Such celebrities are overwhelmingly left-wing, fully convinced of their grandeur, and shockingly naÔve about the outside world ñ however, they have a much bigger megaphone to broadcast their ramblings, so we hear a lot more left-wing craziness in the popular media than right-wing craziness.

I do want to address your question:

îBush has done none of those things, and yet the left hates him. HATES him. I have yet to hear any explanation, other than some pull out the ëstole the election in Floridaí canard.î

I think the bulk of it is that Dubyaís mere existence hits many of the Leftís buttons.

- Heís a white child of wealth, who gotten far by working his familyís connections. So, that ticks off the ìwhite privilegeî diversity promoters and the feminists.

- Heís an open believer in a mainline Christian church (he never left the Methodists, did he?), which scares the blazes out of the secularists who think Pat Robertson is a bigger threat to their lifestyles than bin Laden.

ñ Heís a Southerner, and even worse, a Texan. The urban elites think that such areas are like Bangladesh, but without the eco-tourist appeal.

- Finally, heís a Republican, which for many people is a synonym for ìracistî or ìwhite-breadî.

These are all classes that the Left feels are backwards and intellectually inferior, and that the Left finds socially acceptable to mock openly – you certainly canít make jokes about Mexicans or African-Americans anymore, so they had to find someone to feel superior towards.

Dubya hits each and every one of these buttons. Hell, it would be amazing if they didnít hate him.

Jul 30, 2004 - 7:38 am 53. Ben:

Another comment on CDS v. BDS: I am a conservative. I didn’t like Clinton, but I didn’t HATE Clinton. Quite frankly, I didn’t think it was important enough to merit hatred. No matter what I thought of Clinton, I thought the country was likely to survive his presidency. I wonder if the depth of BDS has to do with the Dems history as the “party of government”? Does this make the Dems think that the stakes of a GWB presidency are higher?

Jul 30, 2004 - 8:14 am 54. Kevin P:

Roger:

Since we are creating new psycholigal disorders to the cannon of the medical profession we must not forget RDC.This is a subject that I can speak about because I was one of the original test cases. Hi, everyone, My name is Kevin, I am a RDCaholic. Let me share my story.

John,there was CDC and there is BDC.That fact that some of the fears of Clinton were not paranoid but true does not eliminate the syndrome and the hate that happened to some of the people who had the classic reactions to the Man from Hope. My reaction to the election of Ronald Reagan was to wear a black armband for a week and to spend 2 days with my Democratic buddies and bottles of Dewers as we predicted the coming nuclear war and the new Reagan reich that we new was coming. From that point on every time I saw Ronnie on the screen The foam would start to come out of my mouth and the words idiot,actor, fascist,warmonger, and things that i can’t legally post on this site would begin vomiting from my mouth. And as the 8 years rolled on it only got worse.Every anti Reagan editorial or book became my New Testament. I could cite passages from the Tower commision report quicker then Billy Graham could quote from Romans.

During the Clinton years I dried out and ignored politcs for a while. But I did pay enough attention to recognize that the reaction to Clinton was similar to my own ravings about Reagan. I am not saying that Clinton ranks anywhere on the pantheon of great presidents. I am just saying that I recognized the pavlovian response to the slickster that I had towards President Reagan. The face goes red, the words pour out, the comparisons to Satan, Hitler, Stalin or any other demon comes rolling out of the mouth like lava out of a volcano. You are correct about what Clinton was and did, but I am describing the emotional and irrational ability to believe any story that pointed to the evil of the president . Murderer, Drug runner,etc,ect.

I am worried about this election and the only thing that gives me hope is the fact that the BDC factor in the Democratic party is so fierce that it will drive the middle of the road non-political voter into the arms of Bush.I think that one of the reasons Reagan and Clinton served 2 terms is because the rabid among us painted such a over the top image of our tormentor that the more apolitical voter said, Well, I am not that fond of the President but if these maniacs are supporting his opponnent I don’t want to be in their group.

Jul 30, 2004 - 8:38 am 55. flenser:

Kevin P

I agree that the dynamic in the Clinton years was much as you desribe it, with many people being turned off by what was seen as excessive hostility to BC.

However, one major difference between then and now is that the Clinton detractors were widely depicted as being cranks and zealots, whereas the the likes of Moore are either given non-judgemental treatment in the press, or actually praised and given awards.

I suspect that difference is leading to the BDS ideas being seen as “respectable”. If so, there is less of a downside to promoting them. To a disinterested and unknowing observer, the BDS ideas may not seem crazy and extreme; after all, the media and “intellectual class” have embraced them.

Jul 30, 2004 - 9:43 am 56. Knucklehead:

This is an Honest Injun True Story…

As an employee for a Major Global Corporation I had many coworkers, some of whom were friends and some of whom moved about to work internationally.

One of those was a woman who is a very open lesbian. One could not know this woman for more than a day or two without being informed, by her, that she was a lesbian. She held well-paid positions, was well respected, recieved promotions and, through demonstrated talent and skill recieved a job with the company in Switzerland. Since I do not know what it is to be a lesbian, open or otherwise, I cannot say what difficulties this woman experienced in her daily life. I can say that it caused her no detectable difficulty in her working life, at least with this particular company. She seemed to live very freely and easily as far as I could tell with no apparent need to feel she needed to disguise her sexuality.

OK, stage set, I’ll proceed. The woman returned from Switzerland for business or a visit, don’t recall. She dropped by to chat and I asked a few questioned about her new job and environment and then pretty much sat back and listened. What I got from her was a tale of how much she loved her job and living in Switzerland and working frequently for extended periods of time in Italy and South Africa. Clearly she was happy with all this. During the course of her explanation, however, she described how the Swiss had very few women in positions of authority and how she was frequently assumed to be a mere secretary and often somewhat dismissed by the male power structure. Her description of working in Italy was similar. Hmmm….

Then she moved on to discussing South Africa and how they were recovering from apartheid and things were difficult but improving and how bigotry was present but being dealt with and how women were making slow but sure gains and so on.

By happenstance this chat took place shortly after the whole election 2000 debacle that left us with George Bush as president. She finally arrived at commenting upon this horrible development and commented that she had been sitting in a hotel restaurant in South Africa when she learned the final outcome (Bush elected) and that she had burst into such wracking sobs of despair for the future of her country that people actually approached her offering assistance.

This woman lived a free and open and prosperous life in the US. She went to Sophisticated Euroland where she learned that her life could not be nearly as free and open as it had been. During this new life she traveled to a place where they were still deep into the nasty difficulties of recovering from aparthied and that still exhibited open bigotries on clear display. And yet, somehow, the election of George Bush left her with wracking sobs of despair for the future of the US.

WTF? What am I missing?

Jul 30, 2004 - 10:20 am 57. Hepzi:

Interesting hypothesis Ben–I think you’re on to something.

The Democrats’ machiavellian “win at any cost” attitude is even more understandable from the activist government lens if you consider the following stakes:

control of all 3 houses

judicial nominations possibly Supreme Court Justices

Most Repugs would settle for good ole gridlock–which more or less sums up the Clinton years. Oh yeah I forgot about Americorps sorry.

Jul 30, 2004 - 10:25 am 58. Knucklehead:

All:

Why have we arrived at this situation? Nixon was reviled. I was too young to give a rat’s patoot about politics, but looking back I can understand to some degree. Ford was, if not hated, at least openly ridiculed. Carter, as far as I recall, wasn’t reviled but there was no way the nation was re-electing anyone that ineffective and feckless and, well, he didn’t seem to like us very much. Reagans was reviled, Bush 41 somewhat reviled, Clinton was reviled, Bush 43 is reviled.

Have we really reached the point where no president can serve without being hated by a substantial portion of the population? We need to do some growing up and do it quickly.

Jul 30, 2004 - 10:31 am 59. MeTooThen:

All,

A bit late to this, but, perhaps better than never.

Reading through these many comments I am amazed at how psychologically-minded this group is.

Roger touched on it below, but it is untreated narcissism that is, and drives, post post-modern life.

Mr. Junod is to be congratulated not so much for “getting it’ with regard to the war against radical Islam, but for “growing up”.

The cultural of narcissism is everywhere. One of the most repellent (and recent) examples is the anti-war’s campaign of “Not in Our Name”. As if the prosection of the war to topple Saddam Hussein, well-known for decades as a fascist murderer and thief, was being done exclusively on their behalf and required their say-so!

Take also, (OT, here) the Amy Richards story. Whether or not life begins at conception is debatable, but not so Ms. Richard’s total fixation on her fantasy of herself. For it seemed that to view herself in the unseemly guise of one of those women who buys giant jars of mayonaise, was anathema, and this loss of projected-self, not the welfare of her children, is what drove her to decide in favor of abortion/infanticide (take your pick).

Of course, the most obvious example of this is the so-called “Special Interest Group”, which is a euphemism for Me.

At first I thought to congratulate Mr. Junod on his return to sensibility, but after additional consideration, I think otherwise.

The piece was ultimately about him. It began about him and ended with him. It sounded like the synthesis of his last few weeks on the couch.

When Mr. Junod starts sending letters to troops in Iraq, or sending them mouthwash, CD’s, magazines, frequent flyer miles, etc., or raising money for disabled troops who are fighting to protect him from another jihadist 9-11, then I will congratulate him for being a responsible and empathetic adult.

Regardless of who he votes for come November.

Jul 30, 2004 - 3:02 pm 60. Juliette:

I voted for William Clinton twice. However, my transformation from a liberal Democrat to a conservative Republican was already several years in the making even when I punched the ballot card for President Clinton in 1996. George W. Bush was the first Republican I have ever voted for in a presidential election. I plan on making it a trend.

What changed me? Getting myself informed and paying real attention to what was going on around me did so. The basis for the transformation was already in place with a few long-held conservative ideas: opposition to affirmative action, support for lower government spending, possession of Christian ideological views, support for a strong military and decisive military action.

President Clintonís inaction in the face of repeated terrorism was what turned the tide for me, however, not the Lewinsky scandal. The USS Cole attack was the last straw.

Did I see CDS among President Clintonís detractors? Sure. But when he took what seemed then to be decisive military action in the Balkans and in Iraq (Operation Desert Fox), most Republicans of any note applauded him. When he signed the Welfare Reform and Defense of Marriage Acts, most conservatives of any note expressed their approval.

I donít see comparable reaction among liberal/leftist Democrats when President Bush does something they might approve of. What I do see is the word ìpanderingî being thrown about. That is most definitely a symptom of a more virulent and debilitating strain of Derangement Syndrome; also more lethal in that we know now that far more is a stake in relation to whom the majority of voters chose to be the POTUS this year.

Jul 30, 2004 - 3:08 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: