The rationality of Bush hatred.

Wednesday, November 14th, 2007 @ 5:58 pm | Clueless Conservatives, Constitution, Politics

“Bush hatred,” was coined as a term several years ago to forestall conclusions based upon mounting evidence that Bush was not just a bad president, but one of the worst this nation has ever seen, if not the absolute worst. You could talk all day about Bush’s policies and politics, but the more evidence you piled, the angrier it was assumed you were. A forceful rebuke of Bush simply wasn’t considered suitable for polite conversations.

As most of you know, the charges that were thrown against Bush back then have mostly stuck. Those with “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” it turns out, were talking perfectly complete sense and identifying the early signs of Bush’s departure from America’s previously charted course. They were the ones actually behaving in a rational matter, basing conclusions off evidence and sticking with them when they weren’t popular.

Still, the Wall Street Journal’s Peter Berkowitz clings to the old ways:

Of course, these very examples illustrate nothing so much as the damage hatred inflicts on the intellect. Many of my colleagues at Princeton that evening seemed not to have considered that in 2000 it was Al Gore who shifted the election controversy to the courts by filing a lawsuit challenging decisions made by local Florida county election supervisors. Nor did many of my Princeton dinner companions take into account that between the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, 10 of 16 higher court judges–five of whom were Democratic appointees–found equal protection flaws with the recount scheme ordered by the intermediate Florida court. And they did not appear to have pondered Judge Richard Posner’s sensible observation, much less themselves sensibly observe, that while indeed it was strange to have the U.S. Supreme Court decide a presidential election, it would have been even stranger for the election to have been decided by the Florida Supreme Court.

A sensible observation? There’s nothing strange about the Florida Supreme Court determining how Florida’s vote gets counted, being that this is an electoral system. Florida didn’t decide the election, by the way. Fifty states did.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court did treat the case politically, voting with party instead of principle. Were Bush the loser convinced a recount would make him president, the decision would have gone precisely the other way. Can anybody honestly argue that the Constitution could prohibit a recount?

Nope. If somebody wants to give it a try, bring it on.

Berkowitz, overlooking this, seems to have spoken irrationally in defense of Bush. That’s what true Bush Derangement Syndrome is…the ever present need to spin reality to avert public eyes from the disaster for this country that Bush’s presidency has been. Our country was once dominated by this mental sickness, but most of the country has shaken it off. Not Mr. Berkowitz.

-jb

UPDATE: Oh, snap, Glenn Greenwald takes the mitts off for Berkowitz- who turns out to be Giuliani’s Foreign Policy Advisor. This, as the GOP dives headlong into Hillary-hatred, led by Giuliani.

Some people just ain’t got no shame.

15 Responses to “The rationality of Bush hatred.”

  1. Dana Says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    Can anybody honestly argue that the Constitution could prohibit a recount?

    Nope. If somebody wants to give it a try, bring it on.

    No one has to argue that, because that wasn’t what Bush v Gore was based on. Rather, seven of the nine justices held that George Bush was being denied equal protection of the laws, and five of those seven saw the remedy as to end the recount.

    This country and the world were very fortunate that George Bush won the 2000 election, and that Al Gore’s minions were prevented from falsifying enough “new votes” to steal the election.

  2. jeromy Says:

    So a statewide recount would have been another remedy, no?

    “This country and the world were very fortunate that George Bush won the 2000 election…”

    Damn, Dana. You can still amaze me. I bet you even said that with a straight face. George Bush has left a black stain on this country and increased terrorism worldwide, and you still think we’re lucky we didn’t have Al Gore.

    Question: When’s a UFO going to come pick up the people who still believe this?

  3. Jesurgislac Says:

    This country and the world were very fortunate that George Bush won the 2000 election

    Heh. Well, except for September 11, the war in Iraq, the plummeting dollar, falling employment rates, the notable failure of FEMA to help Americans caught in New Orleans when Katrina hit, and of course the utter failure to capture Osama bin Laden, I suppose you could have a point; my goodness, how awful if Al Gore had been President and the hijackers had been arrested before they boarded the planes, 3,897 US soldiers (and about a million Iraqis) were still alive, the dollar were still strong against the Euro, the economy was thriving the way it did in Clinton/Gore’s administration, and FEMA hadn’t been run by an “expert” in Arabian horse-breeding who did a horse’s ass job of dealing with a major disaster on his watch. Oh yeah, and just suppose Osama bin Laden were sitting in the Hague awaiting trial right now. How terrible all of that would be, Dana. But then, I somehow doubt you give a single damn about any of the people killed because Bush’s dad’s pals on the Supreme Court handed him the election without waiting for the Florida count to establish that Gore had won…

    Jeromy, if you want to see wild-eyed delusion, try these people, claiming that it’s shameful to admit you didn’t vote for Bush. Dana at least knows he’s lying when he claims Bush won in 2000 and that was a good thing: he’s dishonest more than deluded. These Bridge Too Far nutters are just plain on another planet.

  4. cbmc Says:

    “this country and the world are fortunate”

    the mind reels

    our economy’s down the tank, practically every other democracy on earth now considers us an embarrassment, and the republican party is almost completely bereft of any genuine conservative principles now…yeah, everybody’s better off that a C-average draft dodger got appointed to office by the courts

  5. cbmc Says:

    “he completely destabilized iraq and made the place a hotbed of terrorism…they should be grateful”

  6. Dana Says:

    Jesurgislac wrote:

    Dana at least knows he’s lying when he claims Bush won in 2000 and that was a good thing: he’s dishonest more than deluded.

    Unfortunately, it would be J who is lying here. She did make many attempts to claim that Vice President Gore really won the 2000 election, and that he carried Florida, but her arguments were unpersuasive. She also claimed that John Kerry had carried Ohio in 2004, and was the real winner of the election; virtually no one (with any knowledge, that is) accepts that notion.

    For J’s statement to have been truthful, that I “know” Mr Bush didn’t win in 2000, I would have had to have accepted her previous arguments as valid, which would be an exercise in mind-reading on her part. I read her arguments, and know her position, but that does not mean that I accepted them as valid.

  7. jeromy Says:

    Well, Dana, it’s pretty hard to believe you can say “We’re so lucky George W. won!” with a straight face. It’s just so clumsy the way you’re trying to cancel out the idea that Dubya is a colossal failure by yelling that he’s a colossal success, way too “Big Lie”-esque. I mean, some people can make convincing historical cases that there were worse presidents, but it requires a massive stretch and heaping dollops of faith to position him as even a mediocre president. But the United States, lucky? If we were lucky, we’d have had a true giant in office, another Abe or George Washington, a man of principles and action. George W.’s greatest vision after 9/11 was of a permanent Republican majority and a president monarch.

    But I’d easily have settled for Al Gore over George W. Bush. 9/11 still occurred on Bush’s watch while he had other priorities. What you guys can’t stand is the possibility that people might realize 9/11 might have never happened with a vigilant President Gore who took seriously Clinton’s warnings about bin Laden and al Queda and sent men scrambling for clues.

    You guys have heroically protected Bush throughout his term. If only Bush had been as interested in protecting you.

  8. Jesurgislac Says:

    Dana; She did make many attempts to claim that Vice President Gore really won the 2000 election, and that he carried Florida, but her arguments were unpersuasive.

    Yes, Dana, because you think that a majority of those who voted in Florida voting for Gore is an “unpersuasive argument”. Believers in democracy think otherwise. (The 2004 election does require a little bit more information and thought and intelligence, all of which you and your coterie firmly shove away in the opposite direction whenever they drift by, so I’m accepting that you’ll never take in the fact that the exit polls show Kerry won…)

    Jeromy: What you guys can’t stand is the possibility that people might realize 9/11 might have never happened with a vigilant President Gore who took seriously Clinton’s warnings about bin Laden and al Queda and sent men scrambling for clues.

    And that the last chance to make anything acceptable out of the mess in Iraq died when Kerry was robbed of the 2004 election.

    But what can you expect of people who look at the open dishonesty of 2000 and the covert dishonesty of 2004, and claim they see electoral victory for Bush?

  9. Dana Says:

    But J, a majority of legal votes in Florida were not,/i> for Mr Gore. The media recount was conducted under four separate standards; only under one of them (in which the “overvotes” were counted), did Mr Gore eek out a win, that by only two digits. But the “overvotes” were illegal ballots under Florida law.

    I’m sorry that you don’t like it, but George Bush won. It was by a heart-stoppingly thin margin, but it was still a win.

  10. Dana Says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    But I’d easily have settled for Al Gore over George W. Bush. 9/11 still occurred on Bush’s watch while he had other priorities. What you guys can’t stand is the possibility that people might realize 9/11 might have never happened with a vigilant President Gore who took seriously Clinton’s warnings about bin Laden and al Queda and sent men scrambling for clues.

    Nobody can say with absolute certainty that the hijackers would not have been caught or had their plans disrupted had Mr Gore fabricated enough votes in Florida to steal the election. But the hard fact is that President Clinton’s anti-terrorism plans weren’t having a whole lot of success in preventing terrorist attacks, as the USS Cole incident, just a month before the election, proved.

    A bigger question is: what would Al Gore have done about September 11th? My guess is that he’d have done rather little, having the law enforcement mentality, he’d have hemmed and hawed but actually done very little. We can’t know that either, but that’s my guess.

  11. jeromy Says:

    I always find it mystifying why a suicide boat attack in Yemen on military hardware is in any way but remotely comparable to 9/11, but Clintonitis will do it to ya, I guess.

    The hard fact, Dana, is that Clinton scrambled men and was very active during the Y2K threat, which was the plain common sense thing to do; Bush, given similar threats of upcoming action, remained caught up in his ideological pursuits (so against Bush’s character, I know…) and twiddled his thumbs. Of course, there is no certainty that Gore would have acted successfully, but we can be certain he would have acted and not have dozed off like Bush when faced with a serious threat.

    Also, the notion that Al Gore would have done anything less than go after bin Laden in Afghanistan is simply beneath treating seriously. “Very little,” Dana? Oh, really? What, he was going to issue some arrest warrants?

    It’s simply ludicrous. After 9/11, I expected the full might of the USA to land on top of bin Laden’s head immediately. Any US President would have done it.

    On the other hand, we can be quite secure in guessing that Al Gore would not have relegated Afghanistan and bin Laden to second-tier status while dressing up Iraq for the big ball.

    I mean, that’s just reason talking to me. What do you have, Dana, besides the “Republicans are strong, Democrats are weak!” political narrative myth?

  12. Jesurgislac Says:

    Dana: But J, a majority of legal votes in Florida were not,/i> for Mr Gore.

    But Dana, if all votes had been counted, according to Florida election law which requires the vote to be counted if the voter’s intention is clear, Gore wins by about 29 000 votes. (See analysis of overvotes, where voters both punched the hole next to a candidate’s name and wrote in the same candidate’s name on the ballot. Overwhelmingly, those votes went to Gore: and under Florida electoral law in 2000, those votes should have been counted. And you knew this, Dana, because I’ve cited it to you before. Obviously you don’t like it that according to the usual democratic standards, Gore won in 2000: but so it is.

    Moving on, since the fact that Gore won is old news, and your denial is more than slightly boring by this time, your dishonesty in claiming you think Bush was a better President than either Gore or Kerry, and the US was lucky his brother stole the election for him in 2000 and other Republican governors worked so hard to steal the election for him in 2004, is nothing short of breathtaking.

    The very nicest possibility about why Bush sat back, ignored all warnings of a major terrorist attack in September 2001, and let it happen, is that he is breathtakingly incompetent. He was on vacation: he didn’t want to be disturbed.

    The logical possibilities – that Cheney et al wanted an excuse to go to war in Iraq, and figured a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda would give them the excuse – sound more than a little conspiratorial, but I am not suggesting that Bush knew exactly what was to happen – or still less likely, planned it. But Bush did not want to give evidence to the 9/11 Commission under oath or on public record, and only consented to speak to them if he was allowed to do so with Cheney sitting beside him. Even simple incompetence at a level that lets an attack like 9/11 through is so serious that Bush and Cheney should have been impeached, if they were unwilling (and they were unwilling) to submit to a major independent inquiry. (Which President Roosevelt did, in time of war, in order to establish how the attack on Pearl Harbor could have got through US defenses.)

  13. Scott Says:

    “I always find it mystifying why a suicide boat attack in Yemen on military hardware is in any way but remotely comparable to 9/11,”

    How about they were both acts of war (you can throw in an embassy bombing or two if you like) and the correct reaction in each case would have been to treat them as such. I doubt that the casualties on the Cole would condider it an attack on “hardware”.

  14. Jesurgislac Says:

    Attacking the WTC was a terrorist atrocity comparable to the Belgrade bombing – the WTC might have been arguably used for military purposes, but, like the Serbian TV station, it was primarily civilian, and was no more a legitimate military target than a restaurant in Baghdad was.

    Attacking the USS Cole or attacking the Pentagon is different, because those are legitimate military targets: setting out to kill military personnel is regarded as different, both legally and morally, from setting out to kill civilians, whether in Belgrade or in Baghdad or in New York.

  15. Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » I’ll bet that Jesurgislac would like this idea, and probebly think it was virtually mandatory Says:

    […] all, Jesurgislac still thinks that John Kerry won the 2004 election, but wuz […]