« Muslim Leaders Call Pope's Comments Medievil Yet Refuse to Denounce Beheadings and Forced Conversions | Main | Exercises in futility »

The Days of Clinton Past

I supported President Clinton during his term. I did not like him or agree much with him, but I supported him. I write this in response to the predictable backlash of liberal bile to my statement Friday that, like it or not, President George W. Bush carries the full authority of his office, and those who refuse to acknowledge his authority are refusing to serve their country. As hard as that may be for Democrats and Liberals to accept now with Bush in office, it was just as true when Clinton held the office. I am not advocating supreme power for the President, and anyone paying attention would have understood that; Richard Nixon in 1974, then Clinton in his time, paid for the excess of their behavior through proper channels and Constitutional process. The thing to understand however, is that even an impeached President Clinton remained President Clinton until and unless he was convicted in the Senate. As it happens, Bill Clinton was never convicted in the Senate, and therefore continued to serve the remainder of his term. In Nixon's case, of course, he chose to resign his office rather than face Impeachment - it impossible to know whether or not Nixon would have been convicted after being impeached, but it is hardly relevant to the main point here - Richard Nixon resigned his office, and was fully President of the United States right up to the instant that Gerald Ford took the Oath of Office. Like him or not, he was the President.

It's a difficult thing for some people to accept, that the President should be a man of consequence specifically because he won the office. I read one commenter who actually separated his reverence for the office from the man, which is laughable. The President of the United States is a person, and respect for his authority comes specifically to the man because he holds the office. It is that dishonest attempt to suggest that some Presidents should be respected and others not. How convenient, and how utterly disingenuous. Many of the comments I read in Wizbang! jumped right to the assumption of their choice, with only one reader stopping to consider the context of my statements. Since that task proved to be beyond the ability of some readers, I will walk them through the matter here.

(continued)

Here is what I said, precisely, in the most volatile statement: "George W. Bush is the President of the United States. Him, no one else. You either back him up or you are not supporting America. Yes, he earned that support, by getting elected. Like it or not, it comes with the job." Yes, taken emotionally that statement is going to set people off, but if you stop and think it through, a different concept emerges. First off, you have to understand the context. It's a favorite sport of critics to rip something out of its place in a discussion or essay, and twist it to serve whatever Gumby Rhetoric game they want to play. But in the Friday essay, I took pains to point out the difference between people speaking with the authority of their office and people shooting off their mouth on nothing more than their arrogance. Sure, we all enjoy Free Speech - although the Left did not like the idea of ABC exercising that right last week - but having the right to say something banal and stupid does not give the boor the same authority as the person who knows of what they speak. And the President of the United States holds unique authority, by right of his position and the quality of being elected President. He is by no means absolute, yet he holds clear and valid authority beyond any other individual person in the American government. You do not have the right to treat him like a light switch, granting him his authority or not as you choose. No matter what party, background, or circumstances, so long as he holds the office the President of the United States innately holds authority. No matter whomever else you or I might hope to see in that office, the President of the United States - while serving - holds real and specific authority to speak for the United States. Now, the prickly part of my statement, I think, was my demand that "you either back him up or you are not supporting America". That was actually a carefully chosen phrase. I did not mean that he could not be criticized, and I never said so if you actually pay attention. I certainly did not mean that he was free to do whatever he wished - the Constitution makes clear the specific powers and limits of the President, as Presidents Clinton and Nixon have discovered. When I said "back him up", I meant that we are at war, and the President is the leader of the United States at war. "Leader", as in he sets the course and commits us to certain actions. "Leader" as in, whether or not we are happy about it, we are careful to consider the effects of things like divisiveness and personal attacks which embolden our enemies, be they terrorists, Communists, Nazis, or Redcoats, depending on your frame of reference. As an example, John Adams was not happy at all with many of Jefferson's actions as President in regards to Europe, but he was very careful in what he said, and to support Jefferson while he was in office. During World War 2, many Republicans took issue with a lot of FDR's policies and war plans, but they made sure to maintain the public image of solidarity - certainly no one compared Roosevelt to the enemy, or demanded that we quit the fight. Like it or not, whether we are talking about George W. Bush, his dad, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, or any other President, while they held office they were the Commander-In-Chief, a title which means the President if your superior officer, even if you are not in uniform. As it is said and must be repeated, elections matter, and never more than when a President is chosen.

When America goes to war, it must be a decision made clearly and for a specific reason. If for nothing else, this is why all American wars begin with a decision by the President to go to war. And while the Congress may react to it in ways which limit that war in scope, duration, or objective, it is the President who leads that war. This is why Truman was right to sack MacArthur, whether or not one supported MacArthur's plan. This is why that general who went to the press to complain about President Clinton was wrong - the President is the guy in charge. It's a fine line, Free Speech - on the one hand yes, every American enjoys Freedom of Speech, but there are consequences for what and how people use it, and when someone refuses to accept the authority of the President, this gives comfort to America's enemies and weakens American resolve. One need look no further than the War in Vietnam to see how treason can kill our soldiers and allies.

Some people have whined that my statement would deny them their right to criticize the President or hold dissenting opinions. Not at all. The question what someone believes, but what they do about it. As I said, the Congress and the Courts both hold authority to limit the President's power, as well as proper authority to stand against him when they believe he is wrong. And obviously, popular opinion is a factor in how Congress and the Courts work (for all their claims to objectivity, many judges are just as partial and influenced by popular moods as anyone else). But that does not justify personal slander against the man, or fraudulent movies in a blatant attempt to sway elections, or publicly and repeatedly suggesting that the leader of the United States should be arrested or assassinated, simply because some perverted group gets its jollies by such suggestions. Whether or not the law allows it, such conduct is abhorrent to the American nature, and corrodes the national will. This does not matter which political party is so targeted.

Also, as has been repeatedly reminded and just as often ignored by boors and thugs who cannot manage a comprehensive evaluation of international cultural development, the Global War On Terror is a new kind of war, driven not by American designs or provocations, but the cruel and bitter fruit of Mahdi-ism, more commonly referred to as Islamofascism. Whether or not a person agrees with why we went to Iraq, it is imperative, on a scale nearly impossible to exaggerate, that we do not leave without a stable and self-sufficient Iraq. It is imperative that we deal with Iran before their malicious plans can develop. It is imperative that we demonstrate that Terrorism exported will simply come back on its creators. And sorry Bush-haters, that means you have to grow up and accept that Bush is a legitimate President, doing a tough-as-hell job with damn little support. If you can't cut him some slack, you will be sorry for it later.

With that said, I return to the subject of Bill Clinton. As I said earlier, I neither like nor respect him, and I found many of his decisions poor. And when he won the White House in the 1992 election, I was bitter and disappointed, especially since that meant the Presidency, the Congress, and the Courts were all in Liberal hands. So yeah, I understand how Democrats feel, to a degree.

But I got over it. I did not have to like the man, for Clinton to be President. He won the election, even with just 43% of the vote. So I supported him, even where I disagreed with him. I even argued with my Republican friends when some of the nutters went over the top, with Hillary-shot-Vince-Foster conspiracies and Whitewater-sold-secrets-to-China innmuendo, and so on. Make no mistake, Clinton got himself impeached on his own fault, just like Nixon did himself in on Watergate all on his own. But I never, not once, made personal fun of Bill Clinton, I never suggested he should be killed or that he did not the authority for his decisions as President.

I know it's all the rage these days to laugh at Clinton and trash him for decisions he made regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. But we have to remember that in 1996, we had no way of knowing what, precisely, Al Qaeda was up to, or what the consequences of a given action would bring. In his place, yes, I think I would have made different decisions, but I have to stop and accept that only Clinton sat in the seat to make those calls when the time came, and only Clinton had to carry those choices with him. Reagan had Lebanon to regret, so is it really appropriate to expect Bill Clinton to have anticipated 9/11? We Republicans accept that Bush had limited knowledge before the 9/11 attacks came, but even with more time, Clinton was depending on his CIA and FBI people to tell him solid information. It's easy to look back afterwards and point fingers, but I am reluctant to do so. For a fact, I will not give Clinton credit for things he never got right, but I respect the weight of the office, and even half a decade after he left office, William Jefferson Clinton is still a man who was twice elected to the White House. That still counts, even if there is no way I would ever trust him with my vote, or Hillary.

Maybe this is all to difficult to accept for some people. There are people who just cannot cope without having a strawman to hate, some phantom they can heckle in order to make themselves feel good. Some people just cannot grant respect to an opponent, and they would rather be their worst than grant that there is good on the other side.


Comments (66)

You might want to go read t... (Below threshold)
Retread:

You might want to go read the post titled Luxury at Instapunk's site

http://www.instapunk.com/

(Sorry I'm not smart enough to figure out how to link the specific post.)

He makes some very good points about the burden of responsibility that comes with the office of prsident that, to my mind, compliment your points.

It's easy for us private citizens to talk trash about a man we don't like personaly serving in the office of president but such venting shouldn't be confused with considered discussion of the issues. Intelectually it's lazy and doesn't do much to further understanding of the choices involved.

Thanks for a thoughtful post, a too rare bird these days.

DJGreat article, a... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

DJ

Great article, as usual.

Although I never voted for Clinton, I did support him as President. It gets ingrained in you in the military, if no where else, that whoever sits in that office you support. You can disagree all you want, but that should NOT include doing so in a way that makes it damn near IMPOSSIBLE for the Prez to do their job!!

The FarLeftLoonies still deranged over alGore in 2000 have now spent nearly SIX YEARS decrying EVERY single thing this President has done. And the deranged once respectable Press has been right at their (Left) side.

President Jimmah "KillerBunny" Carter was President when I got out of the Marines. And as such got the respect of the OFFICE of the President from me and my fellow Marines.

To much of the world the Office of the President, the President, and America itself are the same thing. Constantly down any or all just gives our enemies fuel for their recruiting machines. Evidence of this is that alQueda routinely uses the Democratic Party OFFICIAL speaking points in their propaganda...unaltered!!

Of course this makes the Dims proud!!

Good points...Now can we ge... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Good points...Now can we get on with Bush's impeachment?

I agree with you. I didn't... (Below threshold)

I agree with you. I didn't support Clinton but I hadn't grasped the "support your government" attitude yet. I do support Bush and I will support our future president even if I don't totally agree. I will support those lobbyist who support my views but I will not publicly come against my president in order to spread negativity. Great post!

and, not surprisingly, many... (Below threshold)
Lee:

and, not surprisingly, many Americans feel you have to actually win the election to gain the respect and support that normally comes with the office of President of the United States.

Lee illustrates your point.... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Lee illustrates your point. He couldn't see irony if it smacked him in the face.

Citing Rolling Stone magazine for your points is a sure fire winner. It's almost as good as citing the laughably bad Sulzberger publication, the NY Times.

So american soldiers died i... (Below threshold)
Jens:

So american soldiers died in Vietnam because those people who were against this war said what they thought?

Thanks for pointing this out. I always thought they had to die because some president chose to send them there to fight evil communists that were about to invade north america the other day...

ahh, Mitchell my biatch -- ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

ahh, Mitchell my biatch -- you apparently didn't bother looking ionto the matter at all?

Hey DJ, I just want to say,... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Hey DJ, I just want to say, "good post", before all the insects start crawling...Oops, too late.

Lee ,exit polls are pure sh... (Below threshold)
ama055131:

Lee ,exit polls are pure sh-t only assholes,media and dems go for polls. I live in South Fla. a pure dem stronghold for the 30+yrs and when I finish voting and leave I never answer the exit pollster with the correct vote I have given. My thoughts are everyone should have a picture id and a formal voting card, but alais only one party is against that idea I wonder why Dems. fight that idea. Could it be they would lose scores of voters who have been dead for years

"To announce that ther... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Republican President Teddy Roosevelt

Hi, Gang!

DJ Drummond has been a Bush Bootlicker for quite some time now. Don't let him persuade you to become one as well.

So Lee, I followed the link... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

So Lee, I followed the link, and read the excrement at the end of that particular "rainbow".

This "scientific" analysis comes with quotes like this:
"Without American democracy, the fate of civilization could be as precarious as when Hitler ended the
German Republic government
."

hmmm....anytime a supposedly "neutral" analyst starts throwing Hitler into their "neutral" analysis I start to wonder...ya know?

OK, I knew already, since this outfit has been debunked more times than Teddy Kennedy has groped a waitress!

"I live in South Fla. a pur... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"I live in South Fla. a pure dem stronghold for the 30+yrs and when I finish voting and leave I never answer the exit pollster with the correct vote I have given." -- ama055131

Yes, I have always wondered whether one factor messing up exit polls is the greater tendency of Republicans to lie, with ama055131 providing a clear example. In the last election, perhaps there were significant amount of Republicans who were just too ashamed to admit to an exit pollster that they had voted for Bush.

But perhaps not. If I recall correctly, the most significant discrepancies between exit polls and actual results occurred in toss-up states and in precincts that had used Diebold. And we have the top guy at Diebold, Walden O'Dell publicly declaring that he wanted to give Ohio to Bush in 2004. (see http://www.wanttoknow.info/031109nytimes ). So yes, chances are seemingly quite good that the Republicans stole not just the 2000 election, but the 2004 election as well.

Herman you are funnier then... (Below threshold)
ama055131:

Herman you are funnier then Lee, as history shows
2 things with Pres. T Roosevelt 1. the media hated his guts as much as the hate Prez. G.W. and the second is the Bull Moose Party never got off the ground. I don t think people of his day would consider him a Rep. at the end of his polital career. But as history shows 100yrs later he was a great leader that both the drive by media and Dems. quote him quite frequently. The media of 100 yrs ago must be rolling in their graves.
As far as respect of a Pres. the Dems. show no respect except the power they crave.

"But I want to make it clea... (Below threshold)
Rory:

"But I want to make it clear to the American people that while we can defeat terrorists, it will be a long time before we defeat terrorism. America will remain a target because we are uniquely present in the world, because we act to advance peace and democracy, because we have taken a tougher stand against terrorism, and because we are the most open society on earth."

- President William J. Clinton


Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000:
In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Laden were suspected.

U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998:
A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. Approximately 5,000 Kenyans, 6 U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured. The U.S. Embassy building sustained extensive structural damage. Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated outside the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 7 FSNs and 3 Tanzanian citizens, and injuring 1 U.S. citizen and 76 Tanzanians. The explosion caused major structural damage to the U.S. Embassy facility. The U.S. Government held Usama Bin Laden responsible.

Somali Hostage-takings, April 15, 1998:
Somali militiamen abducted nine Red Cross and Red Crescent workers at an airstrip north of Mogadishu. The hostages included a U.S. citizen, a German, a Belgian, a French, a Norwegian, two Swiss, and one Somali. The gunmen were members of a sub-clan loyal to Ali Mahdi Mohammed, who controlled the northern section of the capital.


Murder of U.S. Businessmen in Pakistan, November 12, 1997:
Two unidentified gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union Texas Petroleum Corporation and their Pakistani driver after they drove away from the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. The Islami Inqilabi Council, or Islamic Revolutionary Council, claimed responsibility in a call to the U.S. Consulate in Karachi. In a letter to Pakistani newspapers, the Aimal Khufia Action Committee also claimed responsibility.

Yemeni Kidnappings, October 30, 1997:
Al-Sha'if tribesmen kidnapped a U.S. businessman near Sanaa. The tribesmen sought the release of two fellow tribesmen who were arrested on smuggling charges and several public works projects they claim the government promised them. They released the hostage on November 27.

Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, September 4, 1997:
Three suicide bombers of HAMAS detonated bombs in the Ben Yehuda shopping mall in Jerusalem, killing eight persons, including the bombers, and wounding nearly 200 others. A dual U.S./Israeli citizen was among the dead, and 7 U.S. citizens were wounded.


Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997:
A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."


Egyptian Letter Bombs, January 2-13, 1997:
A series of letter bombs with Alexandria, Egypt, postmarks were discovered at Al-Hayat newspaper bureaus in Washington, New York City, London, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Three similar devices, also postmarked in Egypt, were found at a prison facility in Leavenworth, Kansas. Bomb disposal experts defused all the devices, but one detonated at the Al-Hayat office in London, injuring two security guards and causing minor damage.

Red Cross Worker Kidnappings, November 1, 1996:
In Sudan a breakaway group from the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) kidnapped three International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) workers, including a U.S. citizen, an Australian, and a Kenyan. On 9 December the rebels released the hostages in exchange for ICRC supplies and a health survey for their camp.


Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996:
A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the attack.

West Bank Attack, May 13, 1996:
Arab gunmen opened fire on a bus and a group of Yeshiva students near the Bet El settlement, killing a dual U.S./Israeli citizen and wounding three Israelis. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but HAMAS was suspected.

Dizengoff Center Bombing, March 4, 1996:
HAMAS and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) both claimed responsibility for a bombing outside of Tel Aviv's largest shopping mall that killed 20 persons and injured 75 others, including 2 U.S. citizens.

HAMAS Bus Attack, February 26, 1996:
In Jerusalem, a suicide bomber blew up a bus, killing 26 persons, including three U.S. citizens, and injuring some 80 persons, including three other US citizens.


Athens Embassy Attack, February 15, 1996:
Unidentified assailants fired a rocket at the U.S. Embassy compound in Athens, causing minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and some surrounding buildings. Circumstances of the attack suggested it was an operation carried out by the 17 November group.


Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995:
The Islamic Movement of Change planted a bomb in a Riyadh military compound that killed one U.S. citizen, several foreign national employees of the U.S. government, and over 40 others.


Jerusalem Bus Attack, August 21, 1995:
HAMAS claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb that killed 6 and injured over 100 persons, including several U.S. citizens.


Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995:
Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.


Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993:
The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait. In retaliation, the U.S. launched a cruise missile attack 2 months later on the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993:
The World Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground garage. The bomb left 6 people dead and 1,000 injured. The men carrying out the attack were followers of Umar Abd al-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached in the New York City area.

The Reagan Administration's on the job learning curve-particularly after Beirut would have been a hell of a lot better than Clinton's.

Herman,En... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Herman,

Enough out of you. You start respecting your Autocrat...I'm mean President....NOW! or so help me it's rendition time for you!

Herman every drive by news ... (Below threshold)
ama055131:

Herman every drive by news media has concluded that every vote in Fla was counted except the ones that did not turn out in the panhandle because our drive by media gave the results of Fla at 8PM EST, only one problem is Fla is on 2 time zones and should not have announced the results until 9pm est. Just so you know for the next time the panhandle is a solid Rep stronghold as South Fla. is a DEM. stronghold.

Herman (and anyone else thi... (Below threshold)
Marty H:

Herman (and anyone else thinking that exit polls prove that the 2004 election was stolen)-

The partial recount in New Hampshire proved that the exit polls in New Hamsphire were wrong. About 7% of the state's ballots (all paper) in wards selected by a DU member of having "suspicious" voting results were recounted by hand, and the results were almost identical to the official vote count.

The exit polls in New Hamsphire differed wildly from the official results-they had the second or third largest discrepancy of any in the nation.

It's impossible to give any legitimacy to the exit polling done in other states-New Hampshire empirically established the margin of error, and virtually all states fall within it.


Marty H.

Justrand wrote: "This "... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Justrand wrote: "This "scientific" analysis comes with quotes like this: "Without American democracy, the fate of civilization could be as precarious as when Hitler ended the German Republic government."

Thanks for illustrating yet another flaw in DJ's argument, Justrand. If Hitler was sitting in the room next to the Oval Office pulling GW's puppet strings you republican brownshirts would blindly defend the results. YOU are what is wrong with the state of democracy in America.

GAO reports on fraudulent election results:

The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

Link to the full GAO report (pdf).

debunked more times than... (Below threshold)
Clay:

debunked more times than Teddy Kennedy has groped a waitress!

Now that...that is funny.

(wiping coffee from the monitor)

republican brownshirts</... (Below threshold)
Clay:

republican brownshirts

There goes reasonable and rational discourse...again.

Lee...Hitler's path to powe... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Lee...Hitler's path to power would have begun with his election as Senator of the State of Washington. After his ascension he would most likely have re-named "KING COUNTY" to "KAISER KOUNTY"...but that's just supposition.

Care to speculate on the most outrageous voter fraud since Crook County, Illinois in 1960??

EVERY single reputable examination of the Ohio vote in 2004 came to the same conclusion: NADA!! Even the relentless attempt by the LameStreamMedia to find ANY voter fraud found NADA!

On the other hand...the King Kounty voter fraud was done in the light of day...bald-faced! Gotta respent their hutzpah, if not their (lack of)ethics!

Republican brownshirts if a... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Republican brownshirts if a very fitting term, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

From the "Brownshirting of America":

James Bovard, the great libertarian champion of our freedom and civil liberties, recently shared with readers his mail from Bush supporters. For starters here are some of the salutations: "communist bastard," "asshole," "a piece of trash, scum of the earth." It goes downhill from there.

Bush’s supporters demand lock-step consensus that Bush is right. They regard truthful reports that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the September 11 attack on the US – truths now firmly established by the Bush administration’s own reports – as treasonous America-bashing.

[snip]

Nevertheless, Brock makes a credible case that today’s conservatives are driven by ideology, not by fact. He argues that their stock in trade is denunciation, not debate. Conservatives don’t assess opponents’ arguments, they demonize opponents. Truth and falsity are out of the picture; the criteria are: who’s good, who’s evil, who’s patriotic, who’s unpatriotic.

These are the traits of brownshirts. Brownshirts know they are right. They know their opponents are wrong and regard them as enemies who must be silenced if not exterminated.

Did you notice the commenter above who referenced Dj's dissenters as "insects" above.

The Republican Brownshirts are ruining this country.

The President of the Uni... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

The President of the United States is a person, and respect for his authority comes specifically to the man because he holds the office. It is that dishonest attempt to suggest that some Presidents should be respected and others not

Drummand is quite correct in saying that, as long as a person holds the office, he is still the President.

His attitude about what should or should not be respected is, I think a different matter. For example, I think a conservative could still "respect" Clinton's authority as President, without respecting or approving of his actions in that office. Similarly, I think a liberal could respect Bush's authority as President while disapproving of his policies.

I find all of these positions tenable, not laughable.

Another area of contention is over what powers does the President have and not have under our Constitution. So, one might hold that position that warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional without dishonoring the office of the Presidency, while criticizing the current holder of that office.

Basically, I think that respect is something that needs to be earned. I am charitable, by nature, and respecting people is my "default" position. When Bush became President, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, watched what he did, and hoped for the best.

I lost respect for his performance as President (although I still respect him as a person) over a number of things. Those who are familiar with my recent posts know that I strongly disapprove of his failure to capture or kill bin Laden.

This may sound strangely to some, but I went through a similar change in my attitude towards President Carter. His longstanding failure to rescue the hostage in Iran made me lose respect for his performance as President. And I still retain respect for him as a person. (Hey, what's wrong with Habitat for Humanity?!)

Anyone who thinks that Repu... (Below threshold)

Anyone who thinks that Republicans are Nazis, or brownshirt etc., is a damned idiot and ignorant of history - period. You can disagree with our politics, that's fine. But to make some kind of idiotic connection between us and the National Socialists only shows your ignorance. You are intellectually dead.

VW

All Republicans aren't Brow... (Below threshold)
Lee:

All Republicans aren't Brownshirts, but Brownshirts do vote Republican, and make Brownshirted statements like DJ's above.

The author of the "Brownshirting of America" to which I linked above is Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. The following appears at the bottom of that linked page.

Dr. Roberts [send him mail] served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. During the Cold War era, he was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger. He is a former Associate Editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal editorial page and a former contributing editor of National Review. During 1986-87 he assisted the French government’s privatization of socialized firms and was awarded the Legion of Honor. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

You can disagree with his politics, and mine, but declaring us "intellectually dead" is just -- dare I say it -- another Brownshirt tactic.

From my earlier comment above:

"These are the traits of brownshirts. Brownshirts know they are right. They know their opponents are wrong and regard them as enemies who must be silenced if not exterminated."

VW - another pathetic example.

Context my liberal behind. ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Context my liberal behind. Your point, stripped from all of your ramblings is simple.

"My president right or wrong." If you think that's what America is all about you need to take some history courses. Of if you have you need to retake them.

You revel in the GOTCHA point you made yesterday. I'd say that's because what you wrote was fuzzy and unintelligible. But when you strip away all of the extraneous words your meaning is clear.

That's the rub with some right wing thinking. It harkens back to Nixon and Agnew. When they were challenged the response from the right was "my country right or wrong." The last time I checked this isn't a monarchy...we don't blindly follow our president into any abyss he made decide to lead us. We have three branches of government. It is the charge of the legislative branch to act as a check on the executive. The current legislative branch is an abysmal failure when it comes to that.

I voted for Clinton. He lied under oath. Did he deserve to be impeached? I don't think so. Did he deserve to lose his license to practice law....absolutely. Did he deserve scorn for his abhorrent personal behavior. Absolutely. Would I have blindly supported him Never.

Respect Bush's authoruty? Yes. His authority derived from his office. Respect him as president? That's my free choice.

Lee, You are a damned idiot... (Below threshold)

Lee, You are a damned idiot. There might be a few people that think of themselves as brownshirts voting Repblican. There's probably more than a few Communists that vote for Democrats. Does that make you all Commies? Get some freakin' common sense.

Sorry, guy, but your feeble attempt to charaterize my statement in that manner only shows your ignorance. You wouldn't recognize a Nazi if one goose-stepped up and slapped you.

VW, Your continued attempt ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

VW, Your continued attempt to take my comment and spin it out of context is -- proving my point. I'm not talking about people who self-identify as Brownshirts -- one of the beauties of the Conservofascist Brownshirt movement is that is it guised in patriotic tones, like DJ's post above. DJ doesn't think he's a Brownshirt, but he is acting like one. Do you understand the reference?

I said "All Republicans aren't Brownshirts, but Brownshirts do vote Republican, and make Brownshirted statements like DJ's above." I've already said not all Republicans are Brownshirts, VW. Slow down, and read the words one at a time, before you call me an idiot and intellectually dead. You're looking pretty silly here.

Good points...Now can we ge... (Below threshold)

Good points...Now can we get on with Bush's impeachment?

Posted by: muirgeo

Of course we all know that stealing elections is an empeachable offense. Why don't we make it a military tribunal and put Muirgeo and Lee on the "board of crucifixion"?

Can some one explain to me why the democratic party (if in power) would waste this nation's time and energy on an impeachment process that would probably take two years to complete?

Oh, yeah.....that would be the "progressive" thing to do.

Great post DJ. While you attempted to explain the respect for the institution of the President, our "friends" on the left have relegated themselves to the planet of pluto. Whoops, that's not a planet anymore......those damn scientist figured out how to steal planets from them pesky Republican's. Musta been a "hangin-chad" somewhere?

2 things with Pres. T Ro... (Below threshold)
Brian:

2 things with Pres. T Roosevelt 1. the media hated his guts as much as the hate Prez. G.W.

And yet he still made the above statement. Perhaps Prez. G.W. could learn a thing or two about America from that.

Richard Nixon in 1974, t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Richard Nixon in 1974, then Clinton in his time, paid for the excess of their behavior through proper channels and Constitutional process

And yet you object when that same Constitutional process is applied to Bush.

For Lee: A great m... (Below threshold)
ama055131:

For Lee:

A great man and Pres. once wooed a lot of Dems. including myself by stating if you belive in national sec., a good economy,you should switch parties. It's one big tent we will not agree on every social issue but we will agree on the most important 2 issues
When he left office again our drive by media had around a 71% negativity on this man.
On the sad day of his death the American people showed excatly what negativity was all about by morning him in masses, the same drive by media where all praising him like he was the greatest Pres. of all time.
He knew then what we know now, we are the party of tolarance and not blind hatered.
Perhaps you will come over to our tent where we do give a voice instead of a party that dumps a pretty decent man. as in Sen. Lieberman

Damn Lee, you keep showing ... (Below threshold)

Damn Lee, you keep showing your ignoarance. Drummond is no more acting like a brownshirt (You absolutely have no idea what that is, do you?) than you are showing any semblance of intelligence.

All Drummond is saying that who ever sits in the oval office is worthy of some respect. He didn't say anything about blind allegience.

I didn't like Carter - he was an abject failure as a President, but I respected him as the President.

I did not like Clinton, but I would never, ever show the man any disrespect. It's about the office he held, not his politics or his personal life. I do not use such phrases as "Slick Willie", etc. He is Clinton, Mr. Clinton or President Clinton the same with Bush, except sometimes I use "dubya", but that is something he probably wouln't see as disrespect

I don't like Kerry. I think he is a coward and a liar, but had he been elected, I would have shown him the same respect I would for ANY president.

What you are intellectually unable to do is see the difference. You equate respect with some kind of blind obeisence.

VW

To brian that last comment ... (Below threshold)
ama055131:

To brian that last comment says it all.
WHO GIVES A SH-T WHAT THE DRIVE BY MEDIA HAS TO SAY THEY ARE PART OF THE DEM. MACHINERY AND HAVE BEEN FOR 100YRS OR BETTER. [PRES. LINCOLN WAS ONLY VOTED IN BECAUSE OF THE SPLIT IN THE DEM. PARTY . SADLY THE PRESS WAS NOT SO KIND TO PRES. LINCOLN]
IN OTHER WORDS WE DON'T TAKE THE MEDIA AS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH SAYERS

What VW said: "All Drumm... (Below threshold)
Lee:

What VW said: "All Drummond is saying that who ever sits in the oval office is worthy of some respect. He didn't say anything about blind allegience."

What Drummond said: "George W. Bush is the President of the United States. Him, no one else. You either back him up or you are not supporting America."

Drummond's statement (which I lifted from his original post) is as "brown shirt" as they come. See below for the "modern usage" of "brownshirt" - from Wikipedia -- you obviously didn't read it, VW.

Today, the term "Brown Shirts" has been used to disparage the extreme rank and file of right wing and left wing organizations. It can also mean an individual of a political organization who is seen as very narrow-minded and excessively loyal.

The term "Digital Brownshirts," a controversial phrase coined by former Vice-President Al Gore, is used by Gore to disparage the right-leaning weblogs that criticize what they perceive as a liberal agenda in the mainstream media.

Quit acting like a brownshirt, VW, and I'll quit calling you one :-)

WHO GIVES A SH-T WHAT TH... (Below threshold)
Brian:

WHO GIVES A SH-T WHAT THE DRIVE BY MEDIA HAS TO SAY

The media isn't the issue. I'm not the one who brought up the media. The point is that at a time when Roosevelt was suffering great criticism (from the media, Congress, and the public), he still felt it was "morally treasonable" to "announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong".

What a bunch of hoakum, D.J... (Below threshold)

What a bunch of hoakum, D.J. Sorry, but this laborious attempt to rehabilitate your original statement is just pure junk. Suddenly, it's not about "you either back (Bush) or you are not supporting America..." which is what you SAID. Suddenly, it's about practicing your love on the office of the president, and about just how much respect you wingers showed to the "office" of Presidents Clinton and Carter? Give me a break. During his presidency, the hatred hurled at Bill Clinton wasn't parsed between the man and the office. Elected Republicans referred to him as a "jerk", right wing media figures flat out called him a murderer and rapist. The "liberal" media went out of its way to point out just how many member of the military loathed him. Republicans who now back the Iraq invasion to the hilt questioned the mission in Kosovo and Bosnia openly, and while we had troops in harms way. The attacks he ordered on Bin Laden's camps were sneered at as "wag the dog." You people are absolutely insane! You don't even remember how you treated the "office of the president" during the 1990s! Your attempts to paint yourselves riteous now are absurd, even for you!

Clasp hands with one another and sing Kum bay yah all you want, Drummond and friends. If Hillary becomes president in 2008, this website will become the fulcrum from which abject hatred of the president, disgusting insults against the office, and gutteral disparagement of both the person and the presidency will be launched, full bore. I know it. You know it.

And by the way, what Teddy Roosevelt meant in that brilliant quote of his about servility being the opposte of patriotism, applied equally to the person and to the office of president. The president of the United States is in no way an individual deserving of unique respect. He is equalled -- his power flattened out -- by the Congress, which to the founders, was the FIRST branch of government. He is not meant, in his person OR in his office, to receive special deference. You're right about not separating reverence for the man from reverence for the office, Mr. Drummond. BOTH are servile, monarchical, un-democratic and un-American.

RESPECT and reverence are two different things. I was raised well, so I would never disrespect any man in a way that made a fool of my mother. But I revere no man, no office. I revered my mother, and I revere God. That's it. If you revere the office of president, you are as much an authoritarian stooge as if you look with dewey-eyed, misty awe upon George W. Bush, which I suspect that more than a few of you do, whether you admit it or not.

Were I to be in the presence of George W. Bush, I would call him "Mr. President" (not "Dubya" or "you blithering idiot," which would be what was in my mind...) And then, I would tell him that with all due respect, I think his presidency is a failure, and that I cannot imagine any circumstance under which I could support him, nor could I make a hypocrite of myself by shaking his hand. At that stage, I'm quite sure he would do that irritating quick nod thing and immediately say something stupid. (And then I'd be arrested).

Brian you brought Pres T Ro... (Below threshold)
ama055131:

Brian you brought Pres T Roosevelt Republican and I responed with the excat facts about one of our Greatest Pres. He stood on his convictions as is Pres. Bush TODAY. But unlike over 100 yrs today people are smart enough we have different avenues
from bloggers to talk radio to find the actual truth, [and we do ] Do you realy believe that the drive by media did not drop Pres. R,s poll #s.
As far as people not having free speach no one on Pres. Bushes team has ever said you can't say something bad because he is the Pres. Yet the otherside of the Rep. party did try and stifile ABC for their mini series. [which I did not watch ]

If one truly believes the P... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

If one truly believes the President is leading the country down a disasterous path, it is your duty as an American to oppose his policies. And if in doing so, you get accused of being pro-terrorist by members of his Administration, you have every right to disrepect the President.

Also, if one thinks the President is overstepping the authority of his office, it is your duty as an American to challenge the President to return to the rule of law. And if in doing so, the President instead proclaims he is above the law (or wants the law changed to suit his preferences), one again must oppose his policies and can lose respect for the President for his radical practices.

For these reasons and many others, this statement, "You either back him up or you are not supporting America", is pure rubbish.

But perhaps not. If I re... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

But perhaps not. If I recall correctly, the most significant discrepancies between exit polls and actual results occurred in toss-up states and in precincts that had used Diebold. And we have the top guy at Diebold, Walden O'Dell publicly declaring that he wanted to give Ohio to Bush in 2004. (see http://www.wanttoknow.info/031109nytimes ). So yes, chances are seemingly quite good that the Republicans stole not just the 2000 election, but the 2004 election as well.

See, this is a bit annoying as I ALREADY refuted this inane conspiracy of yours weeks ago.

The man in charge of Diebold's elections division WAS A FUCKING DEMOCRAT.

If you REALLY think he'd sit back and allow this idiocy to go down is absurd.

Thanks for illustrating yet another flaw in DJ's argument, Justrand. If Hitler was sitting in the room next to the Oval Office pulling GW's puppet strings you republican brownshirts would blindly defend the results. YOU are what is wrong with the state of democracy in America.

If Hitler said "Iraq was a mistake", you'd be willing to put on your kneepads to service him.

Your point is...?

All Republicans aren't Brownshirts, but Brownshirts do vote Republican, and make Brownshirted statements like DJ's above.

Hmm, didn't one party's Senators threaten ABC's broadcasting license if they aired a TV movie they didn't like?

Was it the Republicans who threatened that?

And, using your logic, Democrats know that felons vote Democrat. Are Democrats all felons?
-=Mike

No, Mike, they're not. Any ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

No, Mike, they're not. Any more questions?

I have dramatically more pr... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I have dramatically more proof that Dems are felons than you have that Republicans are brownshirts.
-=Mike

After having read all the p... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

After having read all the posts to this article. It becomes obvious that some here are not capable of any rational thinking, Lee, Publicus, Hugh, Brian, and anyone else I left out. I was not trying to slight you, even though you are slight. You people should be invited to a private civil war. For Americans to disrepect the President, the way you obviously do, shows a lack in you education and a failure of who or what ever raised you. You have neither the ability to argue convincingly, nor do you display the ability to think rationally. But why would anyone expect more from a group who's hero was and is a proven liar, an accused rapist, and a coward who never put himself in a position of danger. Unless you wish to count a sexual encounter with Barbara Streisand dangerous. You defend the indefensible and accuse the innocent. I have a question for you Lee. What is it like to be pond scum?

Nice shirt, Zelda.... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Nice shirt, Zelda.

ama055131, I'm not sure I f... (Below threshold)
Brian:

ama055131, I'm not sure I follow your argument, but I'll take a shot at responding. You bring up free speech, which again is a straw man meant to give you something to object to. But that is not the issue, nor was it raised.

Bushes team has ever said you can't say something bad because he is the Pres.

No, they just said you can't say something bad because if you do you're a traitor, you're helping the terrorists, and you don't care about Americans.

Yet the otherside of the Rep. party did try and stifile ABC for their mini series.

I assume you meant "the other side of Congress". I would call your attention to the Republican side, and the Republican FCC, which so "stifled" the networks by increasing fines 10 times, that many stations opted not to air "Saving Private Ryan" and "9/11" out of fear. Not to mention Disney failing to release "F/911" out of fear of losing tax breaks in Jeb Bush's Florida.

"The man in charge of Diebo... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"The man in charge of Diebold's elections division WAS A FUCKING DEMOCRAT." -- MikeSC

And the Chief Executive Officer of Diebold, one Mr. O'Dell was a Bush "Pioneer," securing $100,000 in campaign donations for Bush. Now in the company known as Diebold, who takes orders from who? Does the head of the elections division take orders from the CEO, or is it the other way around?

Take a wild guess, MikeSC.

So, Herman what you are say... (Below threshold)
buzz:

So, Herman what you are saying is the democrate who was in charge of Diebold's election division committed election fraud and arguably treason because his boss told him to? This something you would do if YOUR boss told you to?

No, they just said you c... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

No, they just said you can't say something bad because if you do you're a traitor, you're helping the terrorists, and you don't care about Americans.

Except, ironically enough, they've never once said that.

At any point.

In history.

I assume you meant "the other side of Congress". I would call your attention to the Republican side, and the Republican FCC, which so "stifled" the networks by increasing fines 10 times, that many stations opted not to air "Saving Private Ryan" and "9/11" out of fear. Not to mention Disney failing to release "F/911" out of fear of losing tax breaks in Jeb Bush's Florida.

Bizarre, since Eisner said he nixed the idea the moment it was introduce. And it's ALSO funny that Jeb didn't, you know, actually threaten anything.

The Dems in Congress --- oh yeah, they did so.

Quite explicitly.

And the Chief Executive Officer of Diebold, one Mr. O'Dell was a Bush "Pioneer," securing $100,000 in campaign donations for Bush. Now in the company known as Diebold, who takes orders from who?

So, your theory is that the man who runs that division would, in fact, throw the election for a candidate he vigorously opposes to keep his job?

Ignoring that he'd have more money if he reported it. More money by truckloads. Hell, networks would fight over the chance to hire him as an election consultant or analyst.

Seriously --- THAT is your theory? He'd just do it.

Never mind that there is EQUAL evidence that he, in fact, switched tons of votes TO Kerry to make the race closer than it actually was.

Bizarre, since Eisner sa... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Bizarre, since Eisner said he nixed the idea the moment it was introduce.

Yes, indeed bizarre. Since an entire movie was shot, edited, paid for, and readied for release, apparently without him telling anyone he had already "nixed" it.

The Dems in Congress --- oh yeah, they did so.

Quite explicitly.

See, this is how you twist things. Even on this and other conservative sites, the most anyone has accused was that the threat was "implicit" or implied. Now you just make a statement that it was "explicit" as if it's a fact. Try looking up those two words in the dictionary before your inevitable and predictable response.

And I noticed that you once again didn't address any relevant points, such as how the Republican Congress and administration were responsible for actually stifling the networks, rather than merely alluding to it.

Never mind that there is... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Never mind that there is EQUAL evidence that he, in fact, switched tons of votes TO Kerry to make the race closer than it actually was.

To quote someone that you might be familiar with...

"Provide links to [this] please."

"Proof, also, would be nice for this."

Yes, indeed bizarre. Sin... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Yes, indeed bizarre. Since an entire movie was shot, edited, paid for, and readied for release, apparently without him telling anyone he had already "nixed" it.

Read "Disney War".

See, this is how you twist things. Even on this and other conservative sites, the most anyone has accused was that the threat was "implicit" or implied. Now you just make a statement that it was "explicit" as if it's a fact.

They gave a mafia warning to the network. Perhaps adding 2 and 2 together for you is a stretch, but not for most folks.

And I noticed that you once again didn't address any relevant points, such as how the Republican Congress and administration were responsible for actually stifling the networks, rather than merely alluding to it.

I pointed out that the party trying to stifle the networks, clearly, are the Dems.

You know, since they kinda THREATENED to do so and all.

And, as was said last week, it wasn't the first time they pulled that card out of the deck.

To quote someone that you might be familiar with...

"Provide links to [this] please."

"Proof, also, would be nice for this."

It was a reference to the FACT that the "Bush stole Ohio" crowd has LITERALLY no evidence to back up their claims. Apparently, subtlety is wasted on you. C'est la vie.

I simply pointed out that my claims have an equal amount of evidence.

You know --- none. I can ALSO state that there is equal evidence that a contingent from the once-planet Pluto teleported to Earth and all voted in Cuyahoga County in 2004 and that turned the whole election around.

Since, again, we're going to go with claims without a shred of evidence behind them and all.

I will try to go slower for you in the future, as you clearly have problems keeping up.
-=Mike

I read one commenter who... (Below threshold)
JGrams:

I read one commenter who actually separated his reverence for the office from the man, which is laughable. The President of the United States is a person, and respect for his authority comes specifically to the man because he holds the office. It is that dishonest attempt to suggest that some Presidents should be respected and others not. How convenient, and how utterly disingenuous.

I'm not certain if this is a reference to my comment or not (I don't recall *anyone* mentioning "reverence", though perhaps I just missed it), but I find your interpretation to be frankly bizarre, especially given your statements at the beginning of your essay. The sentiment itself reveals an Army bias on my part, but it is not dishonest or disingenuous. Regardless of one's particular feelings about the man himself, respect is due his position and authority. I firmly believe that, and it doesn't change based on how I feel about his personal character. That's the point. You can't please all the people all the time, and neither can the president. He comes to that position through election, not deification or divine appointment. I guess the trouble I'm having in understanding your position is how it can be fine for you to make these distinctions--that you supported Clinton even though you "did not like him or agree much with him"--but it is dishonest or disingenuous for someone else to make the same type of distinction.

JReid and Herman both pointed out the words of Teddy Roosevelt. So what about WWI and the Sedition Act of 1918? (I chose the link for its attention to the historical background, not the specific focus on the act itself.) Roosevelt's comments were made just before the amendment was approved, but his sentiment was certainly not anti-war, and he did not give aid and comfort to the enemy by any stretch. Wilson had campaigned on his avoidance of war, but once he decided to enter the conflict, he quickly sought the suppression of dissent. There isn't even a hint of that hysterical madness coming from the Bush administration, and, imo, they really don't need supporters feeding that notion to the hysterical on the left.

You also don't see the inte... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You also don't see the interning of Muslims, which liberal icon FDR and left-wing SCOTUS hero Earl Warren helped make happen.
-=Mike

Do yourself a favor, Wizban... (Below threshold)
ST:

Do yourself a favor, Wizbang and go take a civics course.

George W. Bush has no authority beyond that given to him by the Constitution. According to the Constitution, he has no more power than the Legislative and Judicial branches.

If you think being President makes Bush "king-like," then maybe you need to go join a tribe in Africa where there is one moral leader with full authority. Either that or get a clue.

We have 3 branches of government that check and balance each other. In fact, Bush is bound by the law because the Executive Branch executes the law. What this means is that Bush as President has less power than both the Congress (which makes the law that he has to implement) and the Supreme Court (which interprets the law that he is bound to abide by).

People in this country need a serious lesson in civics. They have this ignorant belief that the President is "in charge" of things. Head of Government and Head of State are SYMBOLIC/FIGURATIVE titles for the President. As head of state and government he gives the state of the union address. That's about what it boils down to. He has a "bully pulpit" on which to try and get the public behind his idea to pressure Congress to pass the laws that he wants. He can't do any more than that.

In everything else, he is expected to abide by the laws. He works for us. He has no power beyond the people's support.

You seem to assume that eve... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You seem to assume that everybody believes as you do.
-=Mike

I pointed out that the p... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I pointed out that the party trying to stifle the networks, clearly, are the Dems.

Perhaps. But the party that REALLY DID stifle the networks are the Republicans. You know, since they kinda ACTUALLY DID do so and all.

It's amazing how dissociative you can be, ripping the Dems for implying that they might want to do something that the Repubs have DONE.

I think there should be a r... (Below threshold)
millco88:

I think there should be a rule that anyone who actually cites a poll should have at least a rudimentary understanding of statistics. You guys do understand what the term "margin of error" means, right??

Perhaps. But the party t... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Perhaps. But the party that REALLY DID stifle the networks are the Republicans. You know, since they kinda ACTUALLY DID do so and all.

Except the FCC has played the role of nanny for many, many years.

It's not like Stern first started getting fines under Bush.
-=Mike
...who would love to see the FCC disbanded entirely...

When the two asswipe minori... (Below threshold)
ama055131:

When the two asswipe minoriy leaders go in front of congress and threaten ABC with the 1934 fcc act I would say this is the party that just craves one thing power. A civil war is now happening in the Dem. Party its either the extreme left or get your ass thrown overboard as the good senator from Conn.

Mikey,Except, i... (Below threshold)
Madison Jay:

Mikey,

Except, ironically enough, they've never once said that. [that Bush critics are helping the terrorists, and they don't care about Americans].

At any point.

In history.

Except, ironically enough, they did.

Mikey.

Many times.

Recently.

(Hey, this technique of Mikey's is fun! And easy!)

oops.. shoulda been bolded ... (Below threshold)
Madison Jay:

oops.. shoulda been bolded like this...

Mikey,

Except, ironically enough, they've never once said that. [that Bush critics are helping the terrorists, and they don't care about Americans].

At any point.

In history.


Except, ironically enough, they did.

Mikey.

Many times.

Recently.

(Hey, this technique of Mikey's is fun! And easy!)

that's better.

See, Jay, this is when that... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

See, Jay, this is when that little thing called "EVIDENCE" would come in handy. A link, for example.

And, don't worry, nobody would steal your style. You only steal quality.
-=Mike

It's not like Stern firs... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It's not like Stern first started getting fines under Bush.

Of course not. It's just under Bush that networks started getting fines that threatened (since you like that word) their financial viability. To the point that Bush's FCC and the Republican Congress [b]intimidated[/b] stations into not showing such patriotic films as "Saving Private Ryan" and "9/11". Name something the Democratic leadership successfully intimidated/threatened a broadcast station into not airing.

Nothing? Thought so.... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Nothing? Thought so.

Nothing? Thought so... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Nothing? Thought so.

Republicans have never stopped freedom of speech anywhere, you liberal ass. You want to look at crimes, look up Bill Clinton in the dictionary.

You want to know the difference between my face and your ass? There is no difference.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy