Patterico's Pontifications

2/19/2009

The Wrong Way to Deal with Dissent

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:00 am

If we don’t like your message, we’ll just squelch it:

An Oklahoma City police officer wrongly pulled over a man last week and confiscated an anti-President Barack Obama sign the man had on his vehicle.

The officer misinterpreted the sign as threatening, said Capt. Steve McCool, of the Oklahoma City Police Department, and took the sign, which read “Abort Obama, not the unborn.”

After having his sign taken, there was more:

But his run-in with the law wasn’t over yet.

”The Secret Service called and said they were at my house,” Harrison said.

After talking to his attorney, Harrison went home where he met the Secret Service.

”When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren’t going to ransack my house or anything … they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn’t a part of any hate groups.”

He let them, though he didn’t have to.

I can’t say I admire the sign, exactly — but seizing it is ridiculous.

But some people seem to be implying this is emblematic of the Obama regime. I hate to destroy a good outrage post with a question like this, but: what did Obama have to do with taking the guy’s sign?

104 Responses to “The Wrong Way to Deal with Dissent”

  1. I wonder if this OKC officer calls ICE re immigration matters as fast as he calls the SS over presidential protection?

    AD - RtR/OS (9e0ed8)

  2. hasn’t this cop been made away of the unicorns and rainbows?

    quasimodo (edc74e)

  3. Was the same done for George Bush?

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  4. The peasants want to please the Dauphin and the Dauphin loves the adulation.

    It has nothing to do with him and yet everything to do with him.

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  5. Under the Bush Administration, this would have been a canary-in-the-coalmine indicator of the incipient Rethuglikkkan Theocracy.

    Under Obama, not so much, because of the hope and change.

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  6. But wait…I’m confused. They are trying to equate Abortion with a threat on someones life? But Abortion’s not violence against a fetus?

    metalhead (ce0339)

  7. Obviously it has nothing to do with Obama per se, but we saw less heavy handed tactics under George W. Bush turn into lawsuits and histrionic outrage.

    We see in this that a lot of police do not seem to realize that the tactics of two generations ago are not acceptable.

    SPQR (72771e)

  8. Was the cop black?

    Was the victim white?

    Where is the Civil Liberties Union?

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  9. What about all the times we heard that even if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld didn’t specifically order someone be tortured, they fostered an environment that was conducive to abuse so they were ultimately responsible?

    Didn’t believe it then, don’t believe it now… just pointing out the double-standard which is pretty frequent and blatant.

    Off for a bit, be well.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  10. Good final question. A lot of bloggers try to prove the existence of a forest from a single instance of a tree.

    SPQR – people were outraged by GWB’s top-down approach. One stupid cop does not equal a PATRIOT act. (You can argue about the merits, if you want, but that’s not the point.)

    AemJeff (00ed36)

  11. AemJeff, non sequitur.

    SPQR (72771e)

  12. AemJeff – Careful. Someone may be monitoring this thread. Clearly, they are monitoring the library books you check out.

    JD (ee54a5)

  13. Non sequitur? You’re arguing about patterns, implying the possibility of an analogy between the present and prior administrations. I tried to cast some doubt on the usefulness of the analogy. (At least up to the present.)

    I agree with your final point completely:

    We see in this that a lot of police do not seem to realize that the tactics of two generations ago are not acceptable.

    I should have added that to my original post.

    AemJeff (00ed36)

  14. Well,

    Look at it this way, the law enforcement community equates “abort” with “murder”

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    EricPWJohnson (b3e55d)

  15. I hate to destroy a good outrage post with a question like this, but: what did Obama have to do with taking the guy’s sign?

    Same thing George Bush had to do with Charles Graner and Lynndie England. Do with that what you will.

    Pablo (99243e)

  16. Naturally, Pres. Obama had nothing to do with this. That didn’t stop the MSM and the left from connecting President Bush with all sorts of stupid over-reactions by local police officers across the country. There was a time when large numbers of the left seriously believed that all police misconduct after 9/11 was a result of Bush and the Patriot Act.

    PatHMV (653160)

  17. Obama’s culpability is pretty strained, but it’s not non-existant. Similar to AemJeff’s point about the (bi-partisan) Patriot Act (which was never used to squelch dissent) being held against George Bush, Obama has created an atmosphere where extremism in defense of The One is no vice.

    See, for example, the heavy-handed tactics of his campaign team against critics. Some people get the message and act accordingly.

    tim maguire (4a98f0)

  18. they weren’t going to ransack my house or anything

    Well that’s reassuring.

    Let’s see now – freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of assembly (the “hate” groups) – what’s left?

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  19. Pablo @ #15. Excellent analogy.

    Old Coot (7721b8)

  20. My daughter is the Very Important Person of the week in her school. She had to fill out a personal profile questionaire and one of the questions was “What would you tell the President?” I suggested “Your mama, Obama” but cooler heads prevailed.

    nk (e8cae4)

  21. After talking to his attorney, Harrison went home where he met the Secret Service.

    Those initials do give me pause.

    nk (e8cae4)

  22. I hate to destroy a good outrage post with a question like this, but: what did Obama have to do with taking the guy’s sign?

    The issue is how far the Obama water carriers will go/are going/ to preserve and protect his image. Officially sanctioned or no, that is what is frightening.

    Dan F (654636)

  23. not officially sanctioned.
    That’s the point. It doesn’t have to be. And, since it isn’t, there can’t be any call for unsanctioning it.
    “Who, us?” Helpless shrug.

    Richard Aubrey (a9ba34)

  24. my 18 – what’s left?

    Oh, now I remember – freedom to have a living wage (the gov’t deems appropriate), freedom to have an education (the gov’t deems appropriate), and freedom to have health care (the gov’t deems appropriate).

    Soon – freedom to have a house, yada yada.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  25. Look up your states’ citizen arrest laws. And then think whether someone with the the initials SS on his Brownshirt could arrest you and if you resisted it would be a crime.

    The foundation for a Nazi state is already in place in America and Obama had nothing to do with it. I’ll find the link to a Nazi law quote from Rehnquist once I finish checking out my guns.

    nk (e8cae4)

  26. extremism in defense of The One is no vice.

    great line! I’ll keep my eye out for signs of it.

    quasimodo (edc74e)

  27. nk…remember that major points in the GCA-68 law were lifted from Nazi-Germany gun laws by one of the Act’s authors, Sen. Dodd of CT (the current sleeze-ball’s sleeze-ball father).

    AD - RtR/OS (9d2c25)

  28. The connection is that Obama and his administration seem to encourage attacks on those who disagree. From the dancing around the “fairness doctrine” to Obama’s famous advice to his supporters to “get in their face”, Obama has allowed his vanity and self worship to infect his minions. And after eight years of looking under the bed every night to see if George Bush was spying on them his minions are ready for some payback. Obama does nothing to discourage them. He hates criticism. And he will make it as uncomfortable as possible to do anything but submit. After all, as he told the House Republicans, “I won”.

    When and if I hear the White House denounce silliness like this, I will reconsider. Until then I suspect the cop acted as Obama would have wanted.

    Ken Hahn (300f3b)

  29. I believe there was an incident during one of the Bush administrations in which someone saw a vaguely-threatening anti-Bush poster through an apartment window, and reported it. Even Bush partisans acknowledged the poster was of the mass-produced “joke” type.

    Nevertheless, in that case too, the Secret Service came, glanced around, asked questions…and left satisfied. That’s their job, and they apparently know their limits. It would be interesting to know what would happen if you refused consent to search, and offered to meet them at their offices with your lawyer in tow — but I have to say, given their record as I know it, I’d be far less gun-shy about simply answering their questions than I would, say, the DEA or BATF or my own local police. The Secret Service’s Presidential protection detail has a very narrow mission and they seem to stick to that.

    The cop confiscating the sign during a traffic stop based on the sign’s display is another matter entirely. He needs a public scolding. I don’t care if such a sign is directed at Obama, or if it encouraged pureeing Bush for his stem-cells, it’s protected speech.

    DJMoore (cd4182)

  30. Uh, some of Obama’s Brown Shirts even wear brown shirts–with badges on them.

    Mike Myers (674050)

  31. Even Bush partisans acknowledged the poster was of the mass-produced “joke” type.

    You mean like the play and the movie advocating assassination of Bush? Obama would tolerate that for about 0.1 second.

    I heard an interesting comment today that I hadn’t thought about. When Obama signed the porculus bill, he had none of the Congress critters that wrote it around him. Usually, those are occasions where the president uses 10 pens and passes them out to the bill authors, etc. Obama had only Biden there. That may be an indication of his ego out of control.

    Of course, maybe they didn’t want to be seen with it in case the economy tanks even worse next year, but I think this was Obama’s idea. It is an indication of just where his self esteem is.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  32. And remember–never write “Down with Big Brother!” in your diary.

    Official Internet Data Office (f3aaca)

  33. Not to worry. I’ve no doubt famed civil rights litigator Glenn Greenwald will take this case pro bono.

    Terry Gain (72b10b)

  34. The Police Department is a part of the local government.
    The local government operates within local laws and under state laws.
    The state government operates within state laws and under federal law.
    So, a police officer’s statements are the statements of the federal government.
    And since the police officer said abortion is killing, the federal government said abortion is killing.
    So abortion is killing.

    Unsound argumentation, but fun anyway.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  35. You mean like the play and the movie advocating assassination of Bush?

    No, much, much milder than that. roughly equivalnet to the “abort Obama” sign. And posted on the wall in someone’s home, at that.

    I agree, though, an Obama assassination movie would never be tolerated. While I expect the Service acted independently in these two cases, The Word would come down from on High about a movie. Not that such thing would survive the WhollyWeird approval process.

    DJMoore (cd4182)

  36. Nevertheless, in that case too, the Secret Service came, glanced around, asked questions…and left satisfied

    A man I know from online discussion boards once posted a comment in which he speculated about how one might kill a certain highly placed government official. The Secret Service visited him at work.

    That’s their job. As long as they’re responding to such things by just asking questions and not arresting, I’m not bothered by it.

    But the local PD confiscating the sign was obnoxious and probably illegal.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  37. “AemJeff – Careful. Someone may be monitoring this thread. Clearly, they are monitoring the library books you check out.”

    only because he colors outside the lines and chews on the page corners.

    redc1c4 (9c4f4a)

  38. Patte: Apparently you forgot about or missed – what happened to Joe the Plumber, when candidate Obama came into his neighborbood, and Joe was brave enough to step up and ask “The One” a simple question.

    Did Obama (or his campaign storm troopers) order the Ohio state government machine to attack Joe and do all of those illegal searches on Joe?

    Did Obama (or his campaign storm stroopers) order the media/press to go after and attack Joe?

    It doesn’t matter if Obama ordered it or not, because Obama, his minions and his campaign, along with the unquestioning, never objective media, have created, encouraged, manipulated, and marketed “The One”, the Mesiah complex, and thus created the atmosphere – Obamamania – for such intolerable and illegal conduct to flourish.
    Where the Obamamaniacs feel they can just disrespect and insult those with another view with impunity. Obama and his cronies never stood up and condemned it.

    Yesterday, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder (who handled Clinton’s pardon at the DOJ of international pirate Marc Rich) told us we “are a nation of cowards” on race.

    Well where was Obama, his campaign team, Holder, the police, or the Secret Service – when Sarah Palin was hung in effigy for several days in West Hollywood, CA?

    Not a peep from one of them. Apparently Palin was the wrong race. She was the wrong party.

    Gary L. Zerman (43725e)

  39. “not a member of a hate group”? Is there some sort of constitutional law that prevents such membership?

    brobin (c07c20)

  40. My repeat post:

    Dissent is the now the highest form of racism.

    Perfect Sense (0922fa)

  41. Juggy has deliberately created a cult of personality, and now we are finding out what happens when one insults the Ear Leader……

    so much for dissent being patriotic.

    redc1c4 (9c4f4a)

  42. PS, I wonder if anyone who attacks the current RNC chairman will be called racist. I wonder if anyone who attacked the GOP veep nominee’s womanhood was called sexist.

    And, yes, I fully support your snark, as evidenced by my snark in this comment.

    It’s only racist if you oppose a black Democrat. It’s only sexist if you oppose a female Democrat. It’s patriotic to call a black Republican a race traitor. It’s patriotic to attack a female Republican’s family values.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  43. There are just too many idiots in this country. There doesn’t appear to be anyone with a lick of sense in this story.

    htom (412a17)

  44. I don’t know what the problem was with the sign. After all, as those of us who pay attention know, Obama is in favor of “retroactive” abortion.

    L.N. Smithee (74ff65)

  45. aphrael, I agree with you in general, but I think it was unreasonable for the Secret Service to even request to search this particular guy’s home, especially for the reason they cited.

    I think it was out of line. There was no need for government action in this instance, other than for the purpose of intimidation.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  46. I think this is indicative of PC indoctrination more than top-down repression. I’m sure the cop has been “trained” in hate crimes and such, and felt really good about nabbing this knuckle dragging typical white person. In my neighborhood, you can steal a grocery cart and walk home with it in broad daylight, but try being a white girl crossing the street after the little hand turns amber! ($109 ticket.)

    Remember the famous question: why do you people yell at their families when they’re mad at someone else? Because anybody else would fight back. When typical white people get an activist grievance group, this intimidation will stop.

    Patricia (89cb84)

  47. As I said in an email to CNN:
    I feel as if this country is between Birth of A Nation and Amos and Andy.

    Paul Albers (06d9a0)

  48. O’Dumbo set the tone for racism and the cops in this case were the racist and violated the man’s rights. Should be worth a few million if the ACLU truly believes the rot they preach. This is just the start of racism since the new USAG is also preaching racism. Isn’t 95+ % of the blacks voting for a ‘half’ black simply because he claims to be black also racism to the max?

    Scrapiron (4e0dda)

  49. I hate to destroy a good outrage post with a question like this, but: what did Obama have to do with taking the guy’s sign?

    If the police had hasseled somebody for having an anti-Bush sign while Bush was President, we’d be hearing about the dark night of fascism descending on America. Turn about is fair play.

    Subotai (65007f)

  50. Turn about is fair play.

    In this context, that sounds a little bit like “he started it!” and is more unappealing coming from an adult than from a three year old.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  51. When and if I hear the White House denounce silliness like this, I will reconsider. Until then I suspect the cop acted as Obama would have wanted.

    It’s not as if the Democrats attitude towards free speech is an open question. That party is riddled with totalitarian thugs who’d stamp out any and all critical speech directed towards them if they could. And they now have the potential ability to do that.

    Subotai (65007f)

  52. SPQR – people were outraged by GWB’s top-down approach.

    WTF? Can someone translate this for me? Is it an expression of the apparent belief that a sparrow did not fall on America that hadn’t been shot by Bush? Or is it how they’re going to insulate Obama from the inevitable case of abuse somewhere down the line? “Oh, well, he’s not a top-down guy…”

    (In which case, I’ll repeat a critique I’ve made of Obama a few times before: “He picked the wrong job”.)

    And am I the only one who remembers Bush being blamed for people being removed from private property for violating the owner’s “no soliciting” rule? Or how people voluntarily destroying their own copies of Dixie Chicks CDs was equated to government censorship? Remember the “chill wind”? Or how a White House spokesman, responding to a conservative who made a racially insensitive remark, said “we all need to watch our words” was cast as the coming end of free speech?

    Clearly this cop abused his power; over-stepped his bounds. The Secret Service may have over-done things by even asking to look into the guy’s home, but at least they asked. I’d be a wee bit more accepting of it, though, had they made the same effort when people made much more explicit threats against Bush.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  53. In this context, that sounds a little bit like “he started it!”

    I’m not remotely intersted in your pretentious opinions. I’ve just spent the last eight years listening to the left screaming their empty little heads off that Bush was the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, for reasons every bit as trivial as this case.

    I’m not in the mood to listen to your crap about how I must be better than they are. Their never-ending character assasination worked. I will call Chimpy O’Dumbo whatever I please whenever I please and you will learn to like it.

    Subotai (65007f)

  54. It’s not as if the Democrats attitude towards free speech is an open question. That party is riddled with totalitarian thugs who’d stamp out any and all critical speech directed towards them if they could. And they now have the potential ability to do that.

    That’s not strictly true. So long as you’re asking for spare change, stripping, publishing a “how-to” book on child molestation, or calling for Republicans to be drug from their homes and either stoned or burnt, they’re all for free speech.

    It’s when you start questioning them that they start talking about “fairness” and “contributing to the community”.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  55. Jackbooted government thugs learn quickly which side their bread is buttered on.

    But, if Obama was innocent, he would have the Secret Service agents disiplined for investigating someone for exercising their First Amendment rights.

    Perfect case for the new toady at the AG’s office and the ever vigilent Civil Rights Division.

    Federale (a589e9)

  56. [...] are ranting as though Barack Obama himself ordered the man’s sign confiscated.  Hogwash.  I agree with Patterico: I can’t say I admire the sign, exactly — but seizing it is [...]

    It Pays To Improve Your Word Power | Popehat (895595)

  57. I will wager that the Office in question was educated in a public school.

    Not a Yank (a47dbe)

  58. Subotai: as a leftist who did not spend the last eight years screaming about how President Bush was the reincarnation of Hitler, I think I’m decently well placed to observe that the state of American political dialogue is, in the end, what we choose to make it; we can choose to engage in spiteful rhetoric like “Chimpy O’Dumbo”, or we can talk in calm, reasoned terms about the America we would like to see.

    I believe you are making the wrong choice; a choice which makes you feel better, perhaps, but which is every bit as harmful to the country as the leftist rhetoric you condemn. You appear to believe that makes me pretentious. So be it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  59. SPQR – people were outraged by GWB’s top-down approach.

    I didn’t understand this statement, either – the commenter appears to be parroting previous memes from not that long ago, memes that were fully discredited.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  60. Or perhaps the commnter prefers a more “bottoms up” approach – like a community organizer?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  61. “commenter.”

    Dmac (49b16c)

  62. Somehow, that’s not quite right…

    ‘Barangutan O’Dumbo’. I think that’s much better.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  63. regardless of what liberals might say, the filthy, vile statements that came out of ignorant people’s mouths about president bush wqs sickening. the fact of the matter is that conservatives/republicans are too respectful to say outloud what we relly think of that one. omplete and utter narcissist.

    ktr (c979f3)

  64. we can choose to engage in spiteful rhetoric like “Chimpy O’Dumbo”, or we can talk in calm, reasoned terms about the America we would like to see.
    All that stuff about Chimpy McBushHitler Halliburton was all a bad dream. Sort of like that long ago season ending episode in Dallas where the lead character suddenly realized that the entire season was just a dream.

    Aphrael you’ve just left a steaming pile of meadow muffins on this blog. Your pals kneed political discourse in the groin for the last 8 years, even if you “hung back” as you say. And now, and only now, you call for tea, cookies and polite conversation?

    Ain’t going to happen.

    Mike Myers (674050)

  65. I disagree – anyone who comes here to engage in reasoned discourse must not only be welcomed, but encouraged. The ones who traffic in Trollery will be dealt with in due course – and Aphrael’s definitely not one of those types.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  66. Mike: I’ve just left a steaming pile of meadow muffins because I’m asking you guys to behave the same way I wanted my allies to behave, the same way I behaved, during the last administration?

    I find that peculiar; I don’t think “he was acting poorly so that means I can” is a good justification.

    But even if it were, it’s worth noting that one of the justifications many liberals put forward in 2000-2001 for treating President Bush poorly was that conservatives never gave President Clinton a chance, so why should they give President Bush one?

    I wasn’t talking to conservatives in 1992-1993, but I’m pretty certain that had I been, I would have found people who said that they didn’t have to give President Clinton a chance because liberals had never given President Bush, or President Reagan before him, a chance.

    It’s a vicious nasty cycle which will only stop if all of us agree that the country would be better off if we stopped playing the game. Until that happens, we can each choose to play or not to play; making the choice to play is, I would argue, a dishonorable choice worthy of disrespect.

    I was hooted at in liberal circles for making this argument during the Bush administration, during which time many conservatives criticized liberals for their behavior. The lesson I learn from comments like yours is that, for many conservatives, it wasn’t the behavior which was the problem; it was the people engaged in it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  67. Y’all have aphrael way wrong. I realize that the influx of idiots makes these types of leaps in logic easier to make, but in this case, it does not fit.

    JD (03563c)

  68. I have to agree aphrael is a quality commenter, one who should not be lumped in with the likes of hax, peter, timb, et al.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  69. Same for me regarding aphrael

    Amphipolis (e6b868)

  70. aphrael has caused me to re-think positions, temper positions, and otherwise is simply a good person, someone that I would like to have as a neighbor, or as a friend. ‘Tis a shame that the rest of his ilk cannot be the same … ;-)

    JD (03563c)

  71. There is a tipping point at which slagging the president becomes self-defeating and another at which it becomes effective politically.

    For Bush’s first four years, the criticism that he was incurious, not as smart as most other presidents and a failure at business utterly backfired. The 9/11 attacks underscored that glibness and business success are not necessarily essential elements of presidential success. The economic shock of 9/11 mooted any criticism that the economy was being mishandled, while making those and other criticisms look small-minded, given the shocking challenges to public safety Americans were so suddenly, unprecedentedly, made aware of.

    Over time, those sentiments faded. Stock and housing prices rebounded sharply in 2003 and concern that another 9/11 was inevitable dwindled. Still, the Cheney-Rove-Bush team skillfully played the resentments of under-educated Americans into an invulnerable voting bloc that gave it enough political confidence and stability to target “security moms” with the idea that Saddam’s regime was part of the movement behind 9/11 and a credible threat to U.S. security. With this, they were able to cow dissenting Democrats — some Dems were already core supporters — enough to get the war started in Iraq.

    The war gave further impetus for both the mediocre media and the general public to view hostile criticism of Bush, his administration, or the war, however factually accurate, as tantamount to disloyalty.

    The increasingly hostile criticism of Bush was still playing into the president’s hand, burnishing his image as a man of principle as demonstrated by his unwillingness to bend to the rapidly growing. The appointment of Josh Bolton, fierce critic of the UN, as ambassador to the UN. Bush’s critics howled as loudly as his supporters cheered their leader’s willingness to so grandly flip world opinion the bird.

    As the rapid devastation of Iraq’s army, along with much of its infrastructure, gave way to chaos, looting and a fruitless searh for WMD, the criticism of Bush grew louder, but in tandem with the right’s counter-criticisms and insistence that dissent in time of war is either equal to or tantamount to disloyalty.

    At this point, liberals could have been forgiven for wanting to give up, given the Cheney-Bush-Rove team’s seeming invulnerability to criticism. The louder liberals whined, the braver Bush looked to “security moms” and certainly to his natural base of right-wing Christians and militarists.

    Conditions in Iraq were deteriorating apace, with the death toll accelerating both for U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. It became clear that Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” photo opportunity was a spectacularly cynical misrepresentation of events on the ground. But if that, wasn’t enough to shift the paradigm. Security moms, and dads, of course, were still clinging to the sense that incuriousness, lack of attention to detail and even a degree of juvenility were not significant liabilities for a president in an age when preventing terrorist attacks was the existential imperative.

    Then came Katrina.

    While many liberals unfairly blamed Bush for failing to respond quickly and effectively enough, that failure to rescue the city wasn’t really the socio-psychological tipping point. Rather, the chaos and gut-wrenching helplessness that descended on New Orleans turned the tide because it graphically destroyed the idea that the most credible threat to our health and safety was “swarthy” Middle Eastern despots and their terrorist minions.

    In the days and weeks following the storm, it became undeniable that the government was simply incapable of guaranteeing safety in a broad enough sense.

    This set off a cascading set of new insecurities that rapidly displaced the fear of terrorism. Why can’t we build a storm wall that holds? Why can’t we evacuate flood victims before it’s too late? Why are we unwilling to invest enough in making New Orleans invulnerable to storms, while we are so eagerly willing to invest even our own blood to make Iraq safe for Moqtada al-Sadr and his ilk to impose sharia and for al-Maliki to call for the destruction of Israel.

    From that tipping point, Bush’s insolence and fecklessness began to look more like devastating negatives, rather than insignificant foibles or evidence of toughness or principle.

    This in turn, emboldened the president’s critics and began to seep into the mediocre media as a theme defining the Bush presidency. Just as Bush was invulnerable to even factual criticism in his first four years, he eventually became invulnerable to any praise, however factual, given the broader frame of costly failure.

    Bush responded, of course, by shifting course and losing much of his flamboyant insolence. He fired Rumsfeld, stopped taking orders from Cheney and started listening to Condi Rice. He bowed to reality on North Korea and Iran and then, to the economic crisis as well, backing a government bailout for banks. But it was too late, politically. These moves merely undermined his base and did nothing to mollify most of his critics. In the final days, even conservative stalwarts were abandoning the president, blaming him for failing to control spending and faulting his “communication skills” on Iraq.

    So what does this pattern mean for Obama?

    Will his first four years prove invulnerable to criticism, regardless of the success or failure of his policies?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  72. *yawn*
    Did someone say something?
    No?
    Alright, I’ll go back to sleep.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  73. Maybe that cop just didn’t want michelle malkin to have a day without outrage. What a kind heart.

    imdw (8bb588)

  74. Still, the Cheney-Rove-Bush team skillfully played the resentments of under-educated Americans into an invulnerable voting bloc that gave it enough political confidence and stability to target “security moms” with the idea that Saddam’s regime was part of the movement behind 9/11

    So, you are a bigot and a liar?

    It became clear that Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” photo opportunity was a spectacularly cynical misrepresentation of events on the ground.

    How many lies, distortions, and misrepresentations can you put in one comment?

    security moms, and dads, of course, were still clinging to the sense that incuriousness, lack of attention to detail and even a degree of juvenility were not significant liabilities for a president

    Another one of your “analytical observations” ?

    Why can’t we evacuate flood victims before it’s too late?

    You should ask Mayor Nagin. Seems like those school buses could have proven to be rather helpful.

    stopped taking orders from Cheney

    And your evidence that he was taking orders from Cheney is … oh, nevermind.

    Thank you for such a telling look into your bizarre worldview.

    JD (03563c)

  75. That’s hilarious. The only way a reasonable person might consider the phrase “Abort Obama” a threat is if the word “abort” meant the same as “murder.”

    sierra (4be1ff)

  76. Can you imagine the outcry if this had happened during Bush’s term?

    Scott B (a45cf8)

  77. There is a tipping point at which slagging the president becomes self-defeating and another at which it becomes effective politically.

    As a tactical political matter, that’s pretty much indisputable. But the efficacy of a political tactic is, in my book, only one concern which goes into the determination of whether or not to employ it. In this case, slagging the president — or, for that matter, slagging anyone — seems impolite; and, by undermining our ability to talk to one another civilly, makes developing consensus and finding areas of agreement much harder.

    aphrael (5eaebc)

  78. aphrael – That is because you are a good person, unlike Hacks.

    JD (03563c)

  79. Comment by JD — 2/19/2009 @ 6:47 pm

    Ditto.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  80. aphrael,

    It’s great that you are calling for Civility in the political reaalm, but you are years late. I was taught at the feet of former Tammaney hall people and they said that Politics stops in 3 places:

    1) The sickbed
    2) The Deathbed
    3) The waters Edge.

    Since I became I Republican in ’92, I have seen the Democrats (my former party) betray all those rules.

    At what point does the other cheek not work. There were no Democrats standing up and saying “Bushitler is not the thing to say,” or “Stop with the assasination fantasies of our President,” or even, “We only have one President at a time,”

    8 years of silence or hate filled diatribes. Really, Air America has a Thom hartmann who equates all republicans to nazs. Who is telling him to cool it?

    I have been radicalized because of these past 8 years. Dissent is patriotic. If Democrats want to be the better Party, stop criminilizing policy differnces (i.e Gingrinch, Delay, et. al)

    Until then, too little, too late.

    It is the Liberals, progressives and democrats who msust face Karma now.

    JSF (9d1bb3)

  81. Did someone say something?

    I can’t believe JD actually read through all that drivel – it’s like the old NBC White Paper Reports, except without all those pesky facts and intelligence.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  82. John confesses: “Alright, I’ll go back to sleep.”

    I knew it!

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  83. Dmac – I feel dirty.

    JD (03563c)

  84. Hax does make one decent point Pre and Post Katrina, GWB was far more abused and maligned after wards because a critical mass of people did lose all faith in his admin.

    He almost got it back as Iraq turned around but then the banking crisis came around. I think McCain could have won had Lehman not gone under and started the dominos falling.

    Not saying fair but factual.

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  85. Patterico: How should this dissent be dealt with:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5769649.ece

    “An English bishop who denies the holocaust has been ordered to leave Argentina.

    Bishop Richard Williamson has been give ten days to leave the country or face expulsion after global controversy over his views and the Vatican’s attitudes towards them.

    The Argentine Interior Ministry said Bishop Williamson’s statements on the Holocaust “profoundly insult Argentine society, the Jewish community and all of humanity by denying an historic truth”.

    An international furore erupted last month after Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of Bishop Williamson, along with three other bishops of the ultra-conservative sect, the Society of Pope Pius X.

    Bishop Williamson denies any Jews died in gas chambers – calling such claims “lies” – and says that no more than 300,000 died in Nazi concentration camps. The commonly accepted figure is six million.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  86. So Williamson’s argument is 300K versus 6MM?

    OK!

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  87. OK! What a shit head he is.

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  88. See what happens when the trolls get called out on their lies? Look! Over there! Something shiny!

    JD (03563c)

  89. I appear to be the only subject JD is capable of commenting on. Surely you can find another topic worthy of your attention, can’t you, JD?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  90. Why find another topic when it is so easy to beat on a dishonest dissembling liar like you, hacky sack?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  91. I am physically incapable of allowing trolls to be aggressively dishonest without calling them on it. You are verbose, better educated, and apparently a “professional” journalist, which makes it even more pathetic.

    JD (03563c)

  92. JD,

    This thread stopped being about (above) long ago. It degenerated into a Hax bashing session so might as well push the conversation along.

    No shiny thing here son, Hax is silly, but how many times do you and the gang need to call him a liar and mendouchewhatever. Like a violent gang bang.

    So, was the cop white or black? I think this is an interesting point. Could be racial profiling.

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  93. JD,

    This thread stopped being about (above) long ago. It degenerated into a Hax bashing session so might as well push the conversation along.

    No shiny thing here son, Hax is silly, but how many times do you and the gang need to call him a liar and mendouchewhatever. Like a violent gang bang.

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! — 2/19/2009 @ 7:42 pm

    A troll trying to set the rules for dealing with trolls. How droll.

    Hey, lady, if this site offends your sensibilities just find another. It’s a big internet.

    nk (e8cae4)

  94. Hax does make one decent point Pre and Post Katrina, GWB was far more abused and maligned after wards because a critical mass of people did lose all faith in his admin.

    Except that the primary failures in re Katrina were local and state, particularly New Orleans and Louisiana. The Feds did pretty well, considering the extent of the disaster, but you had a mayor ignoring his city’s emergency plans and a governor refusing to ask for assistance. Oh, and the local levee boards siphoning off the money intended to maintain the levees and pumps for all manner of other purposes.

    The blame-spinning was intended precisely to insulate those pols and their party from comparison with the governments of the surrounding states.

    Furthermore, the hatred towards Bush began before election day 2000, and was not dampened by 9/11. The whole “truther” movement started on 9/11, and the “peace” marchers started before the the week of 9/11 was over. The left simply co-opted enough of those groups messages to attack Bush without exposing themselves to the level of lunacy involved.

    (Mostly. Anyone else remember the “hearing” Conyers held at the Democrat National Headquarters?)

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  95. No shiny thing here son, Hax is silly, but how many times do you and the gang need to call him a liar and mendouchewhatever.

    Until he stops being a mendacious liar.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  96. “what did Obama have to do with taking the guy’s sign?”

    He has motivated his followers into believing they won and can do whatever they want to impose their “good will” on others. Seizing the property of others for the betterment of society is just how they roll.

    Ray (8cfb7a)

  97. No shiny thing here son, Hax is silly, but how many times do you and the gang need to call him a liar and mendouchewhatever.

    As many times as necessary – and since you’re new here and previously went into moderation for your comments, you may leave anytime you wish. Starting now.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  98. It’s a new day, Dmac. The sun is shining, the late night trolls are still asleep, waiting for their new day at whatever it is they do to begin.

    And soon a new post upon which we can productively comment will appear. Heck, maybe even the TdJ types will comment productively!

    Yeah, I know.

    Eric Blair (ec334b)

  99. Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/19/2009 @ 7:27 pm

    Hacks is upset that Argentina is rightly dealing with someone he identifies with.

    I feel so bad (gag).

    AD - RtR/OS (809bad)

  100. “He let them, though he didn’t have to.”

    Now that’s funny. He “didn’t have to.”

    How long would you imagine it would take for them to return with a SWAT crew if he had refused?

    And why weren’t those with all those “ABORT BUSH” placards similarly addressed?

    drjohn (862e69)

  101. Clear violation of 18 USC 241 and 242, Conspiracy and Civil Rights Violations Under Color of Law. Since when did the US Secret Service investigate persons with signs that say “Abort Bush?” Never. So, why did they start with signs that say “Abort Obama.” In fact, there is no crime to investigate, such signs are expressions of political opinion, especially since according to the Supreme Court, an abortion is not a killing.

    Lets see if Attorney General Eric Holder orders the Civil Rights Division and the FBI to investigate this crime. And where is the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General.

    Federale (818f6f)

  102. what did Obama have to do with taking the guy’s sign?

    Nothing directly. But he does represent and was voted in by the people who, contrary to what they preach, are more facist than what they claim Bush to have been. These people are so vehemently opposed to the excercise of free speech when it doesn’t agree with them that they will go to great measures to suppress it. These people are dangerous and should be watched closely.

    BTW, suppressing dissent should send shivers up everyone’s spine. I believe we are just now seeing the start of something truly evil.

    PatriotRider (37b91c)

  103. BTW, suppressing dissent should send shivers up everyone’s spine. I believe we are just now seeing the start of something truly evil.

    Those who blindly accept Zeros insanity have no understanding of evil.

    Zero doubled the national debt less than two weeks ago, and today his minions are hailing his desire to reduce the deficit.

    How can any sane person believe in this change?

    highpockets (dab302)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3834 secs.