Newsweek's Meacham attributed an "almost irrational hatred of George W. Bush" to Democratic "base," compared it to "hard right['s] ... irrational hatred of Bill Clinton"
SUMMARY: During MSNBC's coverage of the Democratic response to the State of the Union address, Newsweek's Jon Meacham referred to the Democratic base as "the people who have an almost irrational hatred of George W. Bush in the way the hard right in the Republican Party had an irrational hatred of Bill Clinton." He added: "I mean some things never change."
Following MSNBC's January 31 coverage of the Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union address -- delivered by Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) -- Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham referred to "the base" of the Democratic Party as "the people who have an almost irrational hatred of George W. Bush." After Kaine's speech, Hardball host Chris Matthews asked Meacham if Democrats are "afraid because of divisions within their own party over policy to make a clear statement" in opposition to Bush's Iraq policies. Meacham responded that "they're afraid because the people who get elected president, who are Democrats, are centrist governors." He added that "they have a very hard time ... keeping the left wing of their party happy, which is the base; and they're the very active people. They're the most vocal people. They're the people who have an almost irrational hatred of George W. Bush." Meacham equated this "almost irrational hatred" with "the way the hard right in the Republican Party had an irrational hatred of Bill Clinton." He added: "I mean some things never change."
From MSNBC's January 31 post-State of the Union coverage:
MATTHEWS: And here, the Democrats had a fellow come on tonight and say -- this is how strong he got -- "Are the president's policies the best way to win this war?" That's it. That was the criticism. Are they afraid to take on this president on his central, signature issue of the war in Iraq?
MEACHAM: Well, I hate to say it, but I do think that -- that response illuminates a good bit of the Democratic problem right now, which is that there is not been a powerfully articulated critique of this president. And there is a -- there's much to critique, obviously.
MATTHEWS: Are they afraid because of divisions within their own party over policy to make a clear statement?
MEACHAM: I think they're afraid because the people who get elected president, who are Democrats, are centrist governors. And I think that they have a very hard time playing to the -- keeping the left wing of their party happy, which is the base; and they're the very active people. They're the most vocal people. They're the people who have an almost irrational hatred of George W. Bush in the way the hard right in the Republican Party had an irrational hatred of Bill Clinton. I mean some things never change.
With Clinton, you had a President who lead his country in a time of unprecedented peace, economic growth and prosperity. Yet, his enemies, consumed from head to toe with pure hatred, tried to destroy his Presidency with matters so ridiculous, miniscule and irrelevant, solely for political points and unadulterated hatred - regardless of the cost to the country.
What are the Bush "haters" saying by contrast? Well, no one is talking about Bush's marriage, his personal family issues or his sex life. What you hear is valid, geniune criticism about an unprecedented pre-emptive war. Nation building in Iraq. Turning a massive surplus into record deficits. The shredding of our civil liberties. The President granting himself powers well beyond the constitution. Creating a Supreme Court that panders to the extreme religious right instead of all Americans. The horrific response to Hurricane Katrina.
How are earth can you compare the two? It is indisputable that the Clinton haters alone are the ones acting irrational.
It's worth pointing out (although I'm nonplussed): he does admit that the hard right's hatred of Clinton was irrational.
Based on that, my guess is it will take at least 5-13 years for them to start admiting all the irrational things that are going on
today
.I just can't wait to read what my childrens' U.S. History textbooks will say about Bush 43 fifteen years from now.
That the instructors in their private schools are telling them that Bush is still the best President America has ever had.
I'm waiting for FAUX news and the right wing talking heads to call for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment
"And here, the Democrats had a fellow come on tonight and say -- this is how strong he got -- "Are the president's policies the best way to win this war?" That's it. That was the criticism. Are they afraid to take on this president on his central, signature issue of the war in Iraq?"
What?! WHAT?! After all this talk from Bush and his supporters about "responsible" dissent, Matthews has the unmitigated gall to take this question as evidence of some sort of cowardice? So let me get this straight;when the Dems talk tough about the war, they're irresponsible and giving aid and comfort to the terrorists, but when they phrase it carefully and delicately, then they're milquetoast cowards.
If Matthews is going to make comments like this, then he should be seriously criticizing Bush for telling people how they should and should not disagree with the war. This double-standard, hypocritical, no-win scenario the Republicans are trying to create here is completely unacceptable and totally at odds with everything America is supposed to stand for!
of his own merits.
After 9-11 I told my wife if he could successfully resolve that issue -- in my mind capture Bin Laden. And use his new found popularity to actually bring the country together I would have to consider voting for him. Well there was no danger of that.
No Osama. But his willingness to pursue executive power for its own sake, even to the point of ignoring or bullying Republicans in Congress. The ending attack on the opposition party leveraging 9-11 to divide the country -- talk about politicizing something that should not have been politized and being uncivil. Republicans relentlessly focusing on minorities of all stripes in our country to be view as groups receiving unfair advantage and/or some thing to be feared. Compounded by there "war" -- here's the real war -- on the average citizens preferring corporate sponsership of their policy. Long story short, I still by and large voting Democratic and considering abandoning the few Republicans I do vote for in protest of their party's leader and their agenda.
When 9-11 happened, I said to my friends, "either we'll go over there and wage a lot of wars that don't do anything but provoke more arabs to resort to terrorism, or we'll try to understand and work together with the arab world to eliminate terrorism."
Silly me thinking there was even an option in Bush's mind.
This is a guy that was never better than a mediocre student, a struggling CEO, and he didn't know anything about foreign affairs until Condi started tutoring him in 1999.
I will never forgive half of America for following him.
The voices on the extreme right (Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh) constantly harp about the "left's hatred of Bush" -- and completely ignore what they were saying/doing during the Clinton. Since Bush became president, I'd say the country is even MORE divided than it was under Clinton. Why? Because with Bush, it's "my way or the highway" or "you're either with us, or against us". And that kind of approach will always engender hostility.
The right's hatred of Clinton was so profound that Clinton actually ended up being impeached for lying under oath about a sexual tryst. I think a case for impeachment against Bush would be far more credible, and go to an abuse of his office -- as was not the case with Clinton.
When MMFA posts an item, they will offer a rebuttal as to why the item is misinformation. They didn't do that in this case for some reason. In fairness to Meacham, he did say the left was "almost irrational" while the right was, in fact, irrational. You can't deny that there is a lot of hatred for Bush on the left. Things are very partisan now.
Misinformation and Dumb comments
This one falls under dumb comments because as has been stated before, the hatred of Clinton was because of the man himself, not his job performance. Bush is hated SOLELY because of his atrocious job performance. Whether Bush is a nice enough fellow who I would enjoy joking around with or watching sports is irrelevant. Bush has weakened America and that is his legacy. Would hatred of this fact be "irrational"?
I think it could also fall under misinformation, because while Clinton was largely popular for most of this terms (which makes the rabid reaction of his opponents part of the minority), Bush is not popular, so the criticism of him is much more widely accepted and understood (since the difference in popularity can't be reasonably attributed to a lack of charisma or scandals of a personal nature). It's just not as legitimate to attribute disagreement with the president to "irrational" thinking when a strong majority of the country thinks we're heading in the wrong direction.
That's theoretical, of course, but I think that's an important factor that contradicts the nature of his comment.
Technically, the phrase "almost irrational hatred of George W. Bush" is equivalent to "rational hatred of George W. Bush." So Meacham's truthiness is accidentally true.
In the Republican spin machine magic mirror strong reasoned criticism of Bush equals hatred. The h-word is a tool of the propagandists that deflects having to answer the facts presented by the opposition. Many are justifiably furious at the utter incompetence of this administration and what it's doing to this country. It's become a mantra lately on all the disinformation outlets, just like the hopeless disarray of the Dems, controlled by the radical left, etc. One of the righty radio talkers said the other day,about the Democrats, that they never, ever should be allowed to control any part of government again. Pretty strong stuff. These guys are focused, smart and utterly ruthless. This is a power grab with implications never seen before in our history.
Rufus T. Firefly observed where:
Could we please have some explanation for the "why and wherefore" of such a notion as would be right up there with the 46-year monopoly on power which the Afrikaner National Party held upon South Africa during its apartheid regime (1948-1994)?
We have the right to know why.
Not to mention an explanation as to where they get off on suggesting that only an "elect***entitled as of right" should be entitled to electoral franchise.
The "Righty" he's talking about may be Rush Limbaugh, for I've heard him say that and other similar things many times. Make no mistake. There goal IS one party rule for the foreseeable future. I guess it's easy to jump on that bandwagon if you're a member of the ruling party, and if you're comfortably in the White Christian majority. However, once we've gone down that road, they may be horrified at what they've created....but too late.
Thomas Moore made an excellent little speech in "A Man For All Seasons". To paraphrase, he said: "If you cut down all the laws in the pursuit of Satan, and Satan turns around on you, where will you hide, all the laws being laid flat?"
Something to ponder.
The irrational hatred of Clinton started before he was even sworn in. The callers to the Rush Limbaugh show were suicidal. While there were some on the Left who hated Bush from the start, a larger percentage grew to hate him as he constantly lied, abused his power, and got a pass from the media.
At least someone has officially acknowledged that the hatred toward Clinton was, in fact, irrational. If we're lucky, they'll eventually admit that the impeachment was also irrational, and specifically designed to cripple Clinton's presidency.
It's easy for many here, who despise Bush, to rationalize their hatred as "principled disagreements" for it sounds less inflammatory. The fact is that hatred, in and of itself, is arguably always irrational........unless it's very personal towards someone we know, maybe then it's warranted or explainable, I am not sure?
Nonetheless, the far right hated Clinton and the fact that he was the President......the same can be said on behalf of the far left and their hatred for Bush. Whether it's policy driven or not, most of the hatred is fueled by the haters spinning and lying to make their case. How many times has BUSH LIED been seen in posts here, yet there is no proof of it.
Principled disagreement is one thing - name calling, insults and a wish for failure is quite another.
Despise, strongly dislike, throw-up-at-the-sound-of-his-voice? You like those better?
If you see no evidence of Bush's lying, you're not paying attention.
For the most part, it IS principled disagreement with every ruinous step this bunch of nefarious clowns make. The hatred issue is a talking point, a smokescreen. From most polls I've seen lately it would seem that a majority of Americans disagree with Bush and his policies, some more than others, but the prevailing (and growing) sentiment in this country is that we as a nation have lost our way and are on the wriong track. Does this mean 50-60% of this country "hates" Bush?
YOU dont get to be the one to define for us what is and what is not principled. Personally I have no personal hatred for the man how would I? I dont know him, he is not my brother in law. I say there is a definite distinction for the passion of my dissent against his policies and the attacks on Clinton. Clinton was adulterous and was called without a shred of evidence a murderer and a drug dealer. He was attacked personally as was his wife and daughter, where are the liberals doing that. For a blowjob Clinton was relentlessly attacked. Bush has told lies and misled to take us to war, lied about his policies, apparantly trashed the fourth amendment and claimed the powers of Pharoah saying he will wiretap without warrants if he feels like it. These are POLICY issues. No way they are the same as the visceral hatred for Clinton we saw coming from the far right.
How many times has BUSH LIED been seen in posts here, yet there is no proof of it.
I agree. There is no solid proof that Bush is a liar. A warmonger, misinforming, incompetent elitist, yes. But a proven liar, no. Nevertheless, I would rather have Clinton, a known liar of sexual proclivities, than Bush, the warmonger, misinforming, incompetent elitist, and so would those 3,000 who died on 9-11, and the 2,242 who died in Iraq, and the 30,000+ dead Iraqis, and the 1,000 (for sure) dead in New Orleans, etc. For a pro-lifer, Bush sure has left a trail of bodies in the wake of his grotesque incompetence. But, no, he's not a proven liar.
You must be insane. Every time the guy opens his freaking MOUTH, he lies. How 'bout all those WMDs that Iraq "had", which is STILL posted on the WH website, btw.
[link to www.whitehouse.gov] [link to www.whitehouse.gov]
You can't possibly give him a pass on this bs. Bottom line, the buck stops with him.
Are you guys paying attention, or what? I appreciate the attempt to remain non-partisan, but don't be STUPID about it.
The mere mention of the right's insanity towards Clinton is cause for celebration. And (if you listen to Mike Malloy at least,) our hate is on the same level as their hate.
But as others have pointed out, our hate is rational.
the right hated Clinton well before the Lewinsky thing... they've always had a hatred for him, without justification... whereas, Bush is hated on "the merits" of his corrupt, inept presidency... that's a big difference!
Just for the record, the right's "hatred" of Clinton was well prior to Monica - that was just icing on the cake for many of them. The right had many problems with Clinton, including the big health care initiative he and Mrs. Clinton tried to do........"Don' Ask, Don't Tell".
So the right would most likely tell you that their "hatred" for Clinton is as rational as anyone's. That's the point - other people's "hatred" for your guy is over the top and uncalled for.........but your "hatred" for their guy is very reaonable and deserved.
Silly.
Do you think that the avalanche of criticism was really justifiable? A health care plan that didn't go anywhere anyway, and a measure that didn't really change much (anyone who thinks that there haven't always been gays in the military is kidding themselves). Clinton was a centrist, he wasn't some wild-eyed liberal dismantling everything the Republicans held sacred. So what basis was there for all the demonization, the Arkansas Mafia stories and other conspiracy theories? Because he smoked pot and was unfaithful in his marriage? I didn't hear Republicans criticizing Newt for those same things, so it couldn't have been that, right?
So you have to admit that it's a question of proportion, don't you? Was the reaction really appropriate for these policy disagreements?
I never said the "hatred" was justifiable or not - I am really not that interested either way in hack partisans from either side and their twisted rationalizations for their mean spirited, invective rants and raves.
Everybody has a "reason", don't they? "It's not me, look at the other guy"..............it's all absurd.
Apparently, they all need their Mother's to give them five minutes of time out until they can behave like grown up children.
"I never said the "hatred" was justifiable or not"
"So the right would most likely tell you that their "hatred" for Clinton is as rational as anyone's. That's the point - other people's "hatred" for your guy is over the top and uncalled for.........but your "hatred" for their guy is very reaonable and deserved."
By your sarcastic comments above, either you are claiming that "hatred" of Clinton was well-founded, or that "hatred" of Bush is not. My point is, if people can't explain the personal, vindictive attacks, then they can't very well claim that their "hatred" is as "rational as anyone's", can they? I personally would probably question their mental health. If the reaction is not explainable, shouldn't that be considered an overreaction ("over the top" and "uncalled for", in other words)?
There are some people who would hate Bush no matter what. I think where you are going wrong is that you are taking that basic principle and attributing it to all criticism of Bush. I can explain my dislike for Bush based on his policies, and I don't think that's something rare, by any stretch of the imagination!
Like Mecham, you're trying to make this about "hatred." You don't have to hate Bush to see how disastrous his RECORD has been.
Molly Ivins said on CSPAN a few days ago that she doesn't hate Bush but thinks he's been a terrible president and she explained why.
There will always be haters. Haters aren't the issue. Meacham pretty much said the far left is the Dem party's base and that their hatred of Bush is driving the party.
Majorities of Americans - during Clinton's time and now - want universal health care. Clinton ran on that; it was a big part of his platform, a big part of the reason he got elected. The big opposition to it came from the pharmaceuticals and related interests - and it was relentless PURCHASED time on TV and radio with an assist by Limbaugh and bankrolled "hate" from Scaife that did it in. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a compromise solution for an issue of public concern BEFORE Clinton was elected - and the issue was NOT gays in the military (which we always had, will always have), it was dishonorably discharging soldiers and sailors who serve their country with valor simply because they are gay.
Nice try though, Tommy.
The identification of Liberals as "HATERS" is a carefully calculated tactic. If Liberals can be portrayed as irrationally emotional, then NONE of their criticisms is valid. They can be dismissed as "haters" and "fringe racicals". Even when we seek to have the Constitution honored.
Bush used this same tactic in his SOTU speech, claiming America is ADDICTED to oil. Why choose such a loaded word? Because the oil companies are raking in obscene profits, because Bush's foreign policy is driving up prices, because Cheney had "SECRET MEETINGS" to establish our current policy of windfall profits for oil companies, and the BLAME has to be shifted.
By identifying ALL AMERICA as "addicts", this puts the BLAME for America's energy/gas woes ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Thus, the Administration escapes all blame. An ADDICT causes his own problems, and the ADDICT has both physical and mental flaws which make him the scapegoat in nearly every circumstance. The ADDICT's behavior is his own, and so nobody else can be blamed. Since we are "addicted" to oil, then whatever befalls us price-wise is OUR OWN FAULT. Further, by identifying ALL AMERICA as ADDICTS, this puts the "character" onus on THE PEOPLE. The Administration can claim VIRTUE, but all those ADDICTS out there have no character, no strength of will, no self control, and so the Administration has an impossible task.
Make no mistake, these "identifying labels" are carefully crafted, to be both subtle and widereaching, with the ultimate goal of ABSOLVING those with POWER of any blame, and shifting ALL blame to those who suffer the most.
Exxon and Halliburton posted RECORD profits in the TENS OF BILLIONS. Why? It's not their doing; the American People are just ADDICTS.
I never understood the "irrational" hatred the Right had for Clinton. Clinton wasn't even a "classical" Liberal, BUT more a Centrist, who in fact had defeated a Republican who was NOT a "classical" Conservative. So much for hatred for ideology's sake.
Clinton actually helped push through what some might describe as "Conservative" ideas : welfare reform, NAFTA, deficit reduction. So WHY did the Right so despise Clinton? I've NO rational answers. As Tommy mentions the Right was unhappy with The Clinton's (include Hillary here too) "big health care initiative", and others FROWNED at his Gay Military Policy...BUT it was certainly MORE personal than the HATRED the Left has for Bush. For whatever reason MANY simply did NOT like Clinton the man. The person. Many had distain for his wife & their so called "CO-PRESIDENCY"...But so DRIVEN was this hatred that they searched under every rock UNTIL they found something to crucify him with...the something ending up being a sexual scandal.
Hatred for Bush from the Left actually BEGAN with the tainted 2000 election, with a small interruption/truce in the aftermath of 9/11. Before 9/11 the Left viewed Bush as a DUMB barely qualified interloper undeserving of the OFFICE....once IRAQ came into the picture they had something MORE solid to Hate him for.
Bush hatred is driven MOSTLY by his policies, and perhaps ALSO on what is perceived as his smug self-righteous attitude.
The anti-Clinton crusade was part of the Right's political strategy. Hillary's healthcare plan never got a fair hearing. Nine out of ten people who opposed it couldn't tell you what was in it, only that talk radio told them to oppose it. (The GOP does NOT want universal healthcare of any kind.) The people involved in the Paula Jones case were GOP operatives (like Ann Coulter). Was it only a coincidence that the Special Prosecutor Law came up for renewal immediately after years of abuse by Ken Starr, resulting in a very unpopular impeachment? Now, when we need the Special Prosecutor more than ever, guess what? The law has expired! Hmmmmm.
"Hatred for Bush from the Left actually BEGAN with the tainted 2000 election, with a small interruption/truce in the aftermath of 9/11. Before 9/11 the Left viewed Bush as a DUMB barely qualified interloper undeserving of the OFFICE....once IRAQ came into the picture they had something MORE solid to Hate him for. Bush hatred is driven MOSTLY by his policies, and perhaps ALSO on what is perceived as his smug self-righteous attitude."
It's my belief, and I think it's well-founded, that the right viewed Clinton as a threat because they knew he wasn't a classical liberal. Clinton is a brilliant conservative/liberal. He used ideas from both of our classical, historic sides to fashion policies that GOT RESULTS and SOLVED PROBLEMS. Great example: Unfunded mandates on the states. The GOP complained for years about unfunded federal mandates. But where the GOP wanted to end the mandates, Clinton ended the complaining by FUNDING the mandates. And they were mandates - like child support enforcement - that tended to lower current and future liabilites. Bush is now trying to cut child support enforcement funds to the states. With "compassionate conservatism" Bush has tried to do what Clinton did, but Bush's attempts are too often shown to be phoney. Clinton was determined to solve problems, to reform welfare honestly and credibly; Bush just wants to slash the programs.
I don’t hate Bush even though I detest his policies and I think he’s full of himself, and yes that smirk drives me nuts. I can't think of a soul that I actually hate, not even Bill O'rielly. I wish Bush no harm, (even though I think he’s done the country great harm) I just wish he would go away. Well three more years and he will huh?
I would categorize your comments as thoughtful, reasonable and your disagreement as principled and fair..........let's hope your comments resonate with many here as the definition of "disagreeing without hatred".
But my dislike of Bush and his policies are not "irrational" at all, in fact they are based on the very real results of his and other neo-con's philosophy which I fundamentally don't agree with.
If either side allows hate to be the driving force in their argument, they'll wind up lashed to the side of the whale like the good Captain. The right did hate Clinton and still drags his ghost out to scare the faithful when needed. Some on the left do seem to hate Bush. Hatred blinds. Clinton did lie, but I never hated him for doing it. No one died because of his lie. Bush, as some here have said, can't be proven a liar, but he does seem to be deceptive on a lot of things. Although I don't know for sure that he lies, one thing I do know is that there are a lot of bodies piling up because of his actions. And there are going to be a lot more in the future. We as Americans have to try to rationally work through all of this. If we don't we will eventually drown.
Am I irrational for thinking that Americans deserve better?
I think the only thing wrong with what Meecham said was using the word "irrational." I can't stand Bush, and my reasons are very rational. I very rationally dislike Cheney and Rove too.
Worrierking posted:
"Clinton did lie, but I never hated him for doing it. No one died because of his lie." _______________________________________________
Somebody doesn't like the facts, but I'll present them again.
In 1993 the first attack on the World Trade center had 6 casualties. Clinton's response was to deal with it in the courts (I can see where this would be warranted, as this was the first attack of its kind here). One sheik sent to the big house was the outcome.
1998. Two events of huge proportion. Khobar Towers bombed, and embassy attacks in Tanzania and Kenya. Total number of casualties; 19 US Airmen killed and 220 killed respectively. Clinton lobbed two cruise missiles into an aspirin factory. Maybe he got a jihad night watchman.
2000. USS Cole bombed while in port. Total casualties; 17 US Sailors dead. Response from Clinton? Nothing.
I disagree that Clinton's lies did not cause deaths. Remember the last three events Clinton was in the midst of his Monicagate scandal. Take a good look at the time line. The attacks became more sophisticated and bolder as each progressed, and the US's response to these attacks became tepid at best.
I'm missing the part where you show a connection between a "lie" of Clinton's and the deaths in the terrorist attacks. You can disagree with Clinton's response to the attacks but to claim his lying led to them is another thing. What lies are you talking about anyway?
So, if I'm reading you correctly, the reason that we were attacked is because Clinton was busy dealing with Monicagate. Interesting. Well, let's go with that!
Who was it that was attacking Clinton on this horrible, contemptible lie? Republicans. Was it a matter of national importance? Security? A Constitutional crisis? Treason? Bribery? No. It was in regards to his own personal life. It wasn't relevant to anything. So did Republicans have to pursue this so rabidly? No, they didn't. They were just "playing the game". If the right wing hadn't been so ridiculously partisan, and had just said "this would distract us from more important issues", then maybe these deaths wouldn't have occured!
Your argument only places blame on those whose partisanship made this sexual scandal into something which was supposedly of national importance, the right wing. Thank you for exposing the short-sighted stupidity of the Republicans!
Such as Whitewater and his killing of Vince Foster. The right wing Chickenhawk shills like Rush Limbaugh hounded him incessantly. I'll grant you the fact that Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinski, For this he was impeached. It was a personal matter but was enough to distract him from his duties. The Chickenhawk crowd tried to crucify him and even when it was over, hounded him with their hatred. I never hated Bill Clinton.
Clinton was in office for about 35 days when the WTC was attacked the first time. The people responsible for this attack and many of the others were from every country in the middle east. Should Clinton have attacked each of these countries? The Khobar Towers were attacked by Hezbollah with backing from Iran. Al Qaeda was responsible for most of the others. Proof that they were involved in the attack of the USS Cole only came in the last days of Clintons administration. His outgoing staff warned the NeoCons that their focus should be on Bin Laden and they chose to focus in Iraq. Bush ignored the historical document on his desk on the morning of August 6, 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within the US". Even after 9/11 he chose to focus on Iraq.
As you say, many on the left seem to hate him. But as for pure irrational hatred, nothing on the left comes close to the rancor shown anyone who disagrees with Bush/Cheney, Inc. It seems that every time someone goes against them they turn the mad dogs loose. They directed their hatred at McCain in 2000. Later, it was directed at Max Cleland and John Kerry. Now their hatred is unleashed on John Murtha, all Vietnam Vets. Those showing all of the hatred, had other priorities back then. But, I am a so called leftie, and I have no hatred against any of these right wing hate mongers.
Amen, Brother...amen. well said
And so what? I thought this site was about conservative mis-information. Saying that the extreme left has an irrational hatred of Bush is totally true, which is why mmfa did not attempt to refute it and left that to all of you - the very people the comment was about.
I know, I know...you don't have an IRRATIONAL fear, after all, your feelings are based on solid, stone-cold conspiracies. But really, do you think the far right didn't have reasons for hating Clinton? In their own minds it made sense. It was only to those on the outside that they looked irrational. Hence, the reason you feel that your hatred is warrented.