On one hand, it was nice to see Nancy Pelosi et al. standing up for our President against Hugo Chavez, who called Bush “el diablo.” On the other hand, the Dems have “demonized” Bush before, if not quite so literally. This cartoon sums up the contradiction.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Powered by WordPress.
“He can’t do that to our pledges!
aunursa (f496f2) — 9/22/2006 @ 7:02 amOnly WE can do that to our pledges!”
Isn’t it sort of funny how far down the political spectrum these people have to go to find someone to have a “Sister Soljah” moment with?
Tony B (d74d1d) — 9/22/2006 @ 7:20 amWell, Dem Senator Harken didn’t get the memo
See? The world hates us cuz of Boooooosh!
Excuse me if I find some of the Dem “support” nothing more than lipstick on a pig.
Darleen (03346c) — 9/22/2006 @ 7:23 amargh
Harken = Harkin
need.more.coffee.
Darleen (03346c) — 9/22/2006 @ 7:24 amWhat got to me was the stone silence of the Republicans. Reminds me of how unplugged they all are. Or are they just gutless. And does it make any difference?
Howard Veit (28df94) — 9/22/2006 @ 8:30 amThe Dems struggle to disquise their effective state of dhimmitude – in just whose stable it doesn’t matter – by a process which shows their irrepressible attraction to it. I’d call it “Fliberalation” or “fauxmentia”. The personal is the political, indeed.
J. Peden (84cb8d) — 9/22/2006 @ 8:42 amPersonally, I don’t understand why what Chavez said was all that different from what his Admirer in Chief, Jimma Carter, or Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Ried, and by all means Howard Dean, have said. Oh, he can’t say it because he’s not an American citizen … I get it. What two-faced nonsense. At least Harkin is honest with his hatred.
The dems are coming out of the woodwork with their faux outrage because they understand that the American people are going to link their behavior to that of the likes of the Venzuelan dictator (whose election was of course approved by Jimma Carter).
Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 9/22/2006 @ 8:58 amHarry – I don’t think it’s at all two-faced to say that robust criticism of our own is welcome, but we’ll rally around one another to defend against political attacks by outsiders.
Isn’t that how functioning societies are supposed to work?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/22/2006 @ 11:08 amAWTTW, it’s best to look at the cartoon before you comment.
Black Jack (507b6e) — 9/22/2006 @ 11:46 amaphrael, unfortunately that wasn’t really my point. I have no problem whatsoever with “robust criticism of our own.” My point was that the over the top invective of the group I listed is not in any way different than that from our dictatorial friend, Mr. Chavez, and is in no way what I would consider the mark of a functional society. Quite frankly, whether the comments are made by American citizens or not matters little if at all to me. In fact, I find it far more disturbing that fellow Americans talk this trash than some little tin horn dictator from South America who happens to have some influence because he’s sitting on some oil.
It is actually possible to disagree agreeably without personal attacks of the sort commonly leveled against Bush by the current crop of “leaders” of the democratic party. That these type of remarks demonstrate a complete lack of civility and comity says very little about the recipient and very much about those making the remarks. What is truly amazing to watch is those of the leftist pursuasion applauding Mr. Chavez and the democrats publicly running from them as fast as they can to seek political cover for what they know has the potential for an adverse reaction from the American public. Kind of reminds me of the Wellstone memorial service in a strange sort of way.
BTW, I felt the same way about most of the quite ridiculous aspersions cast upon Mr. Clinton by those who couldn’t find it in their hearts to disagree civily with him or his policies.
Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 9/22/2006 @ 12:59 pmBlack Jack, insightful comment as usual. The cartoon does say it all.
Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 9/22/2006 @ 1:01 pmOne more point, aphrael, is there a point at which we will again “rally around one another” with regard to actual physical attacks? A mere 5 years after 9/11 and it seems we’ve forgotten the concept.
Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 9/22/2006 @ 1:02 pmWhat got to me was the stone silence of the Republicans. Reminds me of how unplugged they all are. Or are they just gutless. And does it make any difference?
Howard, the WH has it right: the comments of Jimma Carter’s friend, the little tin horn dictator Mr. Chavez, are not worthy of response. But then that puts him in the same category as Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Dean, et al, doesn’t it?
Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 9/22/2006 @ 1:05 pmHarry Arthur — I think we all rallied around each other immediately after 9/11 and with respect to Afghanistan, and something went wrong when it came to Iraq; a something from which we have not yet recovered.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/22/2006 @ 1:32 pmThe very politians that are aghast at Chavez’s remarks are the ones that have demonized President Bush loudly and at every turn. In the 24 hr cable news/Internet world the old adage “politics stops at the water’s edge” no longer has any meaning. The far left politicians (with the help of the MSM) have let the word know how much they personally hate “their” president.
Its not unlike what is happening in the middle east. The children are schooled on the “Great Satan” from birth. Then when the graduates of those schools fly planes into buildings full of people, the political and religious leaders of those countries are “shocked”.
After the left has demonized “our” president over and over, how can they be “shocked” at what happened at the UN.
In both cases, you reap what you sow.
I’m not advocating against free speech. Just trying to make the point that in this world of instant communication our political leaders need to engage in “responsible” speech. If our elected officials insist on telling the rest of the world that our president is “evil”, they can’t cry foul when others take them at their word.
JPB (1ac6be) — 9/22/2006 @ 1:36 pmJPB — can you find me a cite, please, in which Rep. Pelosi has demonized President Bush?
I haven’t heard it. I’ve heard her disagree with him, and attack his policies, but i’ve never heard her demonize him. Most professional politicians decline to engage in such antics.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/22/2006 @ 2:03 pmaphrael
First let me say that I don’t consider myself (at least prior to 9/11) to be political. I’ve voted for members of both parties and I wasn’t any happier about the republican’s actions during the Clinton years as I am about the dems now.
Maybe “demonize” is not technically the correct word to use. In my experience of watching Speaker Pelosi on the news, she comes across (to me at least) to have an obvious and deep seated hatred of President Bush. Much like the GOP had/has for Clinton.
Last night I heard President Clinton say (in regards to his relationship with the Bushes) that they had different ideas about how to do things, but did not resort to name calling.
I don’t have the answer to the question of how to balance “healthy debate” with being “American First” and Dem (or GOP) Second. But I do know this. The first party that figures it out will get my vote.
Those of us in the middle (what % is that 75/80?) are tired of hearing politicians talk about each other as if they are the enemy. I truly believe that the vast majority of politicans have the country’s best interests at heart, even though they disagree on how to get there.
I think if you asked members of each party (in private) they would also say that members of the other party have good (if misguided) intentions.
But the way they talk to and about each other in public is all the rest of the world knows. Most Americans may understand that the “political season” brings out the political retoric.
The rest of the world only hears that respected American politicians think their President is a liar, or an imbicle, or “the emperor with no clothes”, or a “daddy’s boy” out for revenge.
As the last remaining superpower, it is natural that we would be resented. I just don’t think that American politicans should be feeding that resentment to get votes, even if they do truly believe that their way is the best way.
JPB (1ac6be) — 9/22/2006 @ 2:53 pmI hardly ever agree with a demacrat but in this case i agree that HUGO CHAVEZ isa liberal leftist big mouth but frankly i think their doing it becuase its a election year
krazy kagu (31c771) — 9/22/2006 @ 6:50 pmaphrael, what would satisfy your definition of “demonize?” I Just want to know what to look for, I’m not being a wise guy (yet).
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 9/23/2006 @ 5:55 pmaphrael, I’m fairly certain that Pelosi and Reid have each accused the President of lying about any number of things, including the justification for invading Iraq. An accusation of starting a war on intentionally false pretenses comes pretty close to demonization, if it doesn’t actually qualify. In any case, it’s out of bounds, unless there’s evidence, and of course, there’s not. It’s fair to inquire as to whether the information was incorrect, but it’s dishonorable to say that the President lied, if the only reason for doing so is that it will inflame the base and please the lefty bloggers. Which is pretty much where Reid and Pelosi have been, far too often.
The only thing keeping the insurgency alive in Iraq is the ray of strategic hope that the BDS-suffering wing of the Democrat party (you know, a majority of them) continues to give them. 3 or 4 months of bipartisan unity on Iraq would probably put the good guys over the top, but the Dems won’t do it because they think they might pick up a seat or a few in November by continuing with their cynical political strategy.
TNugent (6128b4) — 9/25/2006 @ 3:24 pmHarry Arthur: that’s a good question, and i’m not entirely certain I know how to answer it.
I was responding to this remark: “The very politians that are aghast at Chavez’s remarks are the ones that have demonized President Bush loudly and at every turn.”
Chavez came to the US and declared Bush to be the devil. Has Pelosi done something comparable?
I take the point about accusing him of lying. That’s not quite demonizing, but it’s certainly something which should not be done without evidence to support it.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/25/2006 @ 4:09 pmJPB — thank you for your response. 🙂
I think I was objecting to ‘demonize’. I agree that Minority Leader Pelosi (not quite Speaker, at the moment, although she’s certainly hoping for it) hates Bush; in that, she is a good representative of her district. I would add that hatred or contempt of the other side is not a good thing for the country; I had a problem with Speaker Gingrich for this very reason. But what i’ve heard from Rep. Pelosi seems so restrained and statesmanlike compared with what i’ve heard from my friends on the ground in this area that demonize strikes me as being an exaggeration … especially when we’re talking about someone who literally appeared in New York and publically called President Bush “the devil”.
As the last remaining superpower, it is natural that we would be resented. I just don’t think that American politicans should be feeding that resentment to get votes, even if they do truly believe that their way is the best way.
Agreed completely.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/25/2006 @ 4:12 pm