Why I Hate Conservatives – Is This Title Redundant?

A Wall Street Journal's unscientific online poll asked this simple question today:

How would you rate President Bush's performance in 2007?

Now if you hadn't read a thing last year but had heard that the surge is working, you might rate Bush's performance a positive.

But if you were even minimally aware of other events, you would know that 2007 was the worst year yet in a rotten presidency.

So how do you explain these results:

A success 85.0%

A failure 15.0%

Total votes: 3806.

On the same day this appears, Julia Gorin detailed just how bad Bush has been of late, and that didn't even include the fact that he had to be was pushed into the surge, that he didn't initiate the idea. No, Bush was perfectly willing to let our troops go on dying at the rate of a hundred or so a month indefinitely – as he had been doing for years.

But on top of that, as Ms. Gorin said, 2007 was the year Bush packed it in principle-wise (others would argue, and perhaps correctly, that it was earlier), pulled a Clinton, and decided to sell out Israel.

And the problem is, the respondents in the WSJ poll who think 2007 was a success for Bush are not people who are oblivious to the news. They are people in denial and should be quarantined. George Bush hasn't just sold out Israel, he's sold conservatives down the river as well, and they float along with smiles on their faces?

Ms. Gorin:

I’ve often wondered where Bill Clinton’s soul is. Well I finally found it. It’s inhabiting George W. Bush’s body… Firm resolve has given way to disappointing frailty… Across the board, on nearly every major issue of the day, from Iran to Syria to North Korea, the Bush administration is in retreat, abandoning the principled stands of yesteryear and replacing them with… unscrupulous and inexplicable policies….

Leading the charge, the US pledged more than $550 million in aid to the Palestinians in 2008. But while American diplomats were busy filling out checks to Abbas, Palestinian terrorists in Gaza continued to target Israeli civilians.

Then there is North Korea… Bush took the unusual step of sending a personal letter to… Kim Jong Il, essentially pleading with him to tell the truth and to disclose all of his country’s nuclear programs by the end of the year… He is putting his faith in Kim Jong-Il’s promises, just as Clinton did…

Damascus was even invited to take part in the Annapolis conference, granting further legitimacy to Syrian President Bashar Assad and his repressive regime…

Indeed, Bush has given up on doing the right thing, and cut out early. If anyone wants to know what a Hillary presidency would be like, we’ve had a taste of it for the past year of this administration.

… When your administration is about to expire, and doing the right thing didn’t get done, you put the screws to Israel… After all, you’re not going to make terrorists do something, so you have to put pressure on the side that you can force to do something.

… this is also how the Clinton administration ended, leading me to believe that the chief difference between Democrats and Republicans is that it takes Republicans longer to do the wrong thing… he consults his conscience because he has one to consult before succumbing to the way things are. (As opposed to a conscience-less Dem, who jumps in with both feet to whatever is politically most expedient and the least resistant path.)

So 85% think Bush had a successful '07. This corresponds favorably to another poll some months back, a scientific one, that had seventy percent of Republicans approving of the job Bush was doing and only percentages in the teens disapproving.

Conservatives like to think of liberals as America's shame, but I think those 85 percent are America's greater shame.

—–

Btw, I had a short exchange with Julia Gorin over her choice of examples and language:

Me:

I haven't written in a while, but that doesn't mean I don't read your every word since you have a unique perspective. You are the only person I know who is documenting events in Kosovo and surroundings, and, as with today, showing the side of President Bush that no one else wants to talk about. I mean, I do all the time, and all I've accomplished is that most conservatives dislike me and I, them.

But now I have to ask you something that I've put off, but after today, I feel I must not avoid this unpleasantness any longer: would you be kind enough to dispense with future vulgarities? Your blog entry on Bush was terrific, but the ending was so unnecessary and it precluded me from providing a link to your entire piece.

Thank you for your consideration. I just feel that you have done tremendous work in informing about things people wouldn't otherwise be aware of, and that makes you one of our most esteemed writers in my eyes. Your eloquent columns and blog entries should not be diminished by crude references, and I hope you will receive this suggestion in the spirit in which it is offered.

Ms. Gorin's reply:

Whenever one quotes South Park, there will be vulgarities. And I’m a fan of South Park, the smartest thing on television.

(I’m of course assuming that you’re referring to the post titled "George W Bush has left the White House")

Me:

Yes, that is the post, but it's not the first, and even the part before the quote was, shall we say, indelicate. If, as you said, you can't quote that show without vulgarities, then may I suggest that you not quote it and instead, find some higher means of expressing the same thing? Not for me, by any means, but for yourself.

Look, you have many important things to say, and they need to be said in dignified ways so that they can be received with the same importance as you regard them. In other words, with what you have to report, should you be quoting South Park at all?

Ms. Gorin's reply #2:

these aren't the times for delicacy and dignity. sorry

Me:

Then I'm sorry because no one was ever turned off because someone expressed herself with dignity and eloquence.

I'd hoped my comments would cause you to realize that you might not be striking the chord you'd hoped to strike, and failing that, might help you see that you have nothing to gain by resorting to the banal. But if you think that's the best way to gain attention and support, who am I to judge. Carry on, as they say.

Needless to say this was disappointing, but perhaps I got through and she couldn't bring herself to admit it. I certainly hope so because literally no one else is telling the story she's telling.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Why I Hate Conservatives – Is This Title Redundant?

  1. W says:

    Well said, sir.

  2. George W. Bush is not a conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan to name the political leaders or William F. Buckley Jr for that matter. I call W as LBJ with a human face in the same way that Alexander Dubcek of Czechoslovakia in 1968 wanted to reform communism is his country calling it: "socialism with a human face." Well JBL was an ugly son of a gun. I like big spending Republicans [except for defense] even less than big spending Democrats.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Dub%C4%8Dek

  3. Scio, Scio says:

    I think it would be hard to evaluate any administration in such stark terms. Overall, I think Bush will leave a mixed legacy.2007 was not his best year.

  4. Urban Lenny says:

    i might be seeing a different WSJ poll than you. This is the one i found. You got a link to the one youre talking about?either way though– no matter what the result of the WSJ poll– a web poll from a site who's readership skews heavily conservative isnt really the most accurate gauge of broad American sentiment, is it?

  5. Urban Lenny says:

    also: a "mixed legacy" is being very generous.

  6. Non-scientific polls are just for entertainment.

  7. TedWest says:

    Leonard, you callin' me a liar? Just funnin'. Here…
    And maybe read some columns while you're there, esp. James Taranto?
    Scio, I regret that I gotta agree with Lenny the Liberal on that one, and I beg you not to put me in that position ever again.
    Zak, absolutely.
    W, merci.

  8. TedWest says:

    Scio,
    I got to feeling that I shortchanged you with my throwaway remark, and that feeling was reinforced when I stumbled upon a column late last night.
    First off, we're not talking about "any" administration, we're talking about this one. We'll talk about the next one when the time comes, and I'll be happy to talk specifics on any past one. I mean, we're not evaluating ADMs on a sliding or relative scale. So it's entirely not only possible, but appropriate to evaluate Bush in "stark" terms, "stark" being a euphemism for "strict."
    But now here's where that column came in, and it's what I've said before – that Bush has been an absolutely rotten president, and in Lenny's words, "rotten" is me being generous -but- he could still turn it all around at any time. All he has to do is return to principle and get some backbone.
    Now it seems to me that he's chosen to just ride it out, but then as he was pushed into the surge, something could come along and push him into a decent legacy.
    Now don't get me wrong, no matter what he does, he's irredeemable in my eyes. I mean, I'd recognize any accomplishments, but as a person, Bush is still rotten.
    So here's the column, and you can make of it what you will. but I think you'll see that the list of necessary accomplishments for Bush to be remembered well is daunting at this late date. Btw, I am not saying I agree with the list, I'm just presenting one person's opinion apart from mine.

  9. Scio, Scio says:

    Lenny,I'm sort of an optimist…Ted,Keep up your deep-seated moral
    conviction that it is wrong and dangerous to whitewash terrorists
    driven by an aggressive ideology as being misguided souls who must be
    won over by kindness and confidence-building measures.I think this is what I mostly think of when I consider the Bush presidency. The fact is that the man made a clear moral choice in a world increasingly mucked up with relativism. That's commendable, and it's a big deal in my eyes.Which doesn't erase the military blunders he made after his choice, or the domestic policies we've seen. But choosing to do the right thing should be worth something.

  10. TedWest says:

    Well, that would be fine if it was the case, but you seem to have missed the whole point of what I and Ms. Gorin have been saying – that Bush has been backsliding and abandoning principle, and so if doing the right thing initially is worth something, abandoning it is worth a lot more.
    Bush only stands up for principle in one area – Iraq – because he's forced to, and even there, it's not him, it's General Petraeus who's responsible for the improvement. Had enormous pressure not been put on him, Iraq might still be a quagmire.
    He's killed Americans unnecessarily, and that means a lot too.
    The border..
    Spending…
    The border agents
    Spending
    McCain-Feingold
    Spending
    Selling out Israel
    Spending
    Selling out Serbia
    Spending
    Rewarding terrorism
    Spending
    I'm sure I can come up with more, but I'm getting to irritated.
    Did I mention spending?
    There will always be people who are willing to overlook the shortcomings – just yesterday, LBJ got positive mention for his civil rights efforts, but that doesn't stop him from being the biggest mass murderer in American history.
    Bush is only good at lip service, and only moderately so at that. He may still salvage a legacy, but at best, it will be accorded grudgingly, and deservedly so.

  11. Scio, Scio says:

    I tend to agree with you, really. I just don't want to judge his presidency until he's had time to fix his mistakes or make bigger ones. The way it's looking now, your criticism will most likely stand. I'm sort of disappointed with the President, that's all. He's made it very difficult for the Republicans this year.

  12. TedWest says:

    My reaction to your first paragraph was, "Oh.. did I misunderstand again?" because I agree that he could turn things around almost up until the last minute.
    But then your second paragraph is where we diverge markedly. You're sorta disappointed? he's done some terrible, unforgivable things, and you know I'm not talking about the stupid accusations liberals heap on him.
    Let's take one of the lesser unforgivables and see how we differ on that. Who's responsible for McCain-Feingold?
    A) McCain
    B) Feingold
    C) The Congress
    D) None of the above
    And "difficult" isn't the word I'd use, nor would I say "this year." he cost the Republicans the House and Senate and then fired Rumsfeld after the loss. Now you can argue that the Reps cost themselves the Congress, but Bush failed to keep them honest and on track. He's the failed firewall.
    I purposely didn't include the fact that he's betrayed conservatives in my last reply because conservatives should have expected that when he labeled himself "compassionate," and saying you're disappointed beets the 85% who think he was successful, but I wonder if you'd be as considerate of a Democrat who's done exactly as Bush has? Though I admit that one could say that considering he's a Democrat, that wouldn't just be successful, it would be great.
    But then of course, Dems would be saying they were sorta disappointed, and so it goes…

  13. Scio, Scio says:

    But then of course, Dems would be saying they were sorta disappointed, Are you implying that I am a Democrat???? Haha, just kidding.You have made some very good points about the President in recent months, and they have helped to form my opinion of his performance re: lack of conservatism. But I remain uncommitted to a particular judgment…the primaries and the two-year campaign period have been distracting me. Perhaps I should pay more attention to the present, rather than the future.

  14. TedWest says:

    Call you a Democrat?
    I wish I'd thought of that.
    But no, I haven't even put that label on liberals here.
    In the second half of the nineties, part of which probably saw you still in grade school, I used to rip Clinton daily and my NY friend used me of only doing that because I hate Democrats, thus ignoring the total scumbag package. So I told him, just wait till there's a Republican President who fails to measure up – and I am happy that before Burt departed, he admitted he'd been rash in his judgment.
    I think mistakes are one thing, though we don't want too many, but failure for lack of principle is quite another, and that is Bush after things got tough. I wouldn't be surprised if he was thrilled that the NIE said Iran was no longer pursuing nuclear weapons because it absolved him of any responsibility, and he could continue to coast.

  15. Scio, Scio says:

    In the second half of the nineties, part of which probably saw you still in grade school, I was 14 in 1998. I recall being disgusted by the politics…then going back home to watch Histeria on Kids WB. Awesome cartoon.

  16. TedWest says:

    I took a while and I'm sincerely sorry, but I don't know how to react to that. I just thought of a question though: does this by chance happen to be from that cartoon…?

  17. malaventura says:

    The bloody thing with Ted is, once he has made his mind up, you better make up yours.Which brings me to the crux of it all: Do you think I should curse less?

  18. malaventura says:

    Oh, and Julia Gorin is hot, isn't she!

  19. Scio, Scio says:

    haha, no. Histeria was by the same people who did Animaniacs and Tiny Toons. It wasn't as popular, but I enjoyed it for the fart jokes.

  20. TedWest says:

    Mal,
    I think I like that… should I?
    As for swearing, you're asking the wrong person if you're asking me – the only time I'm not swearing is when I'm writing… At Rush… O'Reilly, Cavuto, Millionaire, Jeopardy, the Phoenix Suns, Hannity, Dell Computer… and that was just Monday. Although except for the Suns and Dell, I swear at the others for the same reason: either for quoting liberals or, more often, for putting them on my screen.
    Scio, again, I don't know how to respond to that, although it did put another question in my head: do you think I should curse less?
    And Mal, Julia hot? I never thought of her that way, so she's definitely not Fox hot.

  21. malaventura says:

    the only time I'm not swearing is when I'm writingThat's a relief!, because I never swear except when I'm writing. I know, I shouldn't say that, but women who can think and write and still are funny, they turn me on.

  22. TedWest says:

    You Germans slay me, you're so progressive. See, I'm old fashioned, I get turned on by women with great bodies and pretty faces.

  23. malaventura says:

    Well, Paris Hilton also turns me on, that doesn't mean that I want to be anywhere near her.

  24. I'd take Paris to a drive in movie or maybe go over to her house- at least once! LOL

  25. malaventura says:

    So you are a compulsive confessor, tell me, is that contagious?

  26. I'm still alive, besides this is rhetorical anyway. But I never kiss and tell. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s