I am little sick and tired of these stupid games played by the adolescent left:
Why Won’t BushCo Condemn Robertson’s Remarks?
Ironic but, in a way, not surprising. Bush and the Republicans are the Party of Joe McCarthy AND the Party of Dobson. No false smear of Democrats is left unsaid and no disagreement with the extremists of their extreme GOP will ever be spoken.
Wingnuts on parade.
The other day, the Daily Kos reacts to the idiot in the pick-up truck running over the political props/crosses at Crawford:
Bush can’t meet with Cindy. Not anymore. It would be seen as a surrender. But he could’ve spoken out against this desecration.
But he didn’t. Of course.
Bush is evil. Bush endorses running over ‘crosses’ at an anti-war rally. Why? Because he didn’t pull a Chuck Schumer and race for the camera to condemn the action!
Bush is evil. Bush favors assassination of people chosen by idiotic television ministers. Why? because he didn’t pull a Bill Clinton, bite his lip, and look into our souls through a local camera and tell us this is unacceptable.
Idiots. And they wonder why, even with Bush near rock bottom in the polls, people don’t treat certain wings of the Democratic party seriously.
Isn’t there enough stuff out there to be legitimately pissed off at this administration about that they can take a damned breather from the venom? The answer is- NOPE! This idiotic ‘smirking chimp’ haters crowd exist solely to keep me a Republican, it seems.
Jeff G
Great. Now Bush is going to have to distance himself from your remarks too, John.
WHEN WILL BUSH DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM LGF COMMENTER “ZIONGUY”?
MI
I’ll take the “idiotic ‘smirking chimp’ haters” wing of my party over the theocratic, pseudo-fascist wing of yours. :p
Matt
I agree, to an extent. The administration has enough ridiculous statements/actions coming out of thier own offices that they won’t repudiate–no need to go looking for more. However, I would like to think that the White House is done inviting Robertson in for policy discussions and/or prayer meetings. If he gets invited back, I don’t think that “demanding” Bush reconcile Robertson’s views with his status as a White House “friend” is out of line.
Davebo
It’s obvious why Bush won’t condemn more strongly Robertson’s remarks.
Robertsons’s followers are about the only Americans still supporting Dubya’s Iraq fiasco.
MI
if we’re being serious though, I think it’s at least worth noting that your crazies actually run the country and your party,while my crazies, as you noted, are pretty much universally mocked and dismissed. So it’s probably not worth getting worked up about. The problem (for dems) is that public perception is just the opposite.
Rusty Shackleford
Isn’t there enough stuff out there to be legitimately pissed off at this administration about that they can take a damned breather from the venom? The answer is- NOPE! This idiotic ‘smirking chimp’ haters crowd exist solely to keep me a Republican, it seems.
So, you’re a Republican because of ‘spite’? You must be so proud.
Rusty Shackleford
And…then wouldn’t 8 years of the idiotic ‘Slick Willy’ haters crowd… have turned you into a Democrat a few years ago?
Tim F
So your political affiliation is weak enough to be pushed hither and thither by the opinions of some blogger.
I suppose if you started out as rabid as you claim to one could call this ‘progress.’ I’d call it ‘overheated rhetoric on your part.’
—
This convention of attributing an individual’s attributes to The Left has grown annoying. Well, I’m a lefty posting on the internet. By that logic in about an hour I’m going to use The Left’s lab keys to lock up the lab where The Left works, take The Left’s bus home and have a beer out of The Left’s fridge and maybe watch The Daily Show later on The Left’s TV.
MI
The best part of the whole Robertson story is that he’s come out to say the media took his words out of context, saying that “take out” doesn’t necessarily mean “kill”.
SeesThroughIt
While I agree that there is and always will be a lunatic fringe of the left (and the right, of course) that says and does relentlessly stupid shit, I’d think Bush would want to separate himself at least a little bit from Pat Robertson’s remarks. And that could be accomplished with a simple, “I don’t think we should be looking at assassinating Chavez.” I mean, he’s running to get camera time so that he can stump in favor of the Iraq war already, right? Why not just throw that one line out there?
It doesn’t piss me off that he hasn’t done the above. I’m not sputtering with rage over it. I’m not even perturbed by it; frankly, I don’t care that much. Robertson made a blindingly stupid statement that you’d have to be blindingly stupid to support. And I don’t think that Bush’s silence is an implicit endorsement of Robertson’s statement. It’s just curious that Bush wouldn’t want to take the simple step of saying, “uhhh…not so much with the assassination.”
John S.
If you prefer the arrogance and pseudo-religiousity of the Republican party, John, that’s entirely your perrogative.
Perhaps one day the ‘crazies’ on the left will take a stance that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside and allows you to divorce yourself from the haphazardous GOP.
But until then, I suppose it will be their mission to keep you a loyal Republican.
Marcus Wellby
Oh yeah, the left is really immature, nothing like the bastions of maturity on the right:
American Legion Declares War on Protestors — Media Next?
DougJ
John, you’ve hit the nail right on the head. The American people like president Bush because he isn’t the type to interrupt his vacation to have some big “I feel your pain” fest to make poor Cindy Sheehan feel better. You know Clinton would have, the press would have ate it up, and it would accomplished nothing.
And on Chavez, look, we probably DO have people trying to kill him (not that Robertson should have said that publicly) and all the lip-biting and apologizing in the world won’t change that. In fact, it would be dishonest to condemn the remarks too harshly, given our actual policy there.
MI
Oh, and for the record.
It doesn’t piss me off that he hasn’t done the above. I’m not sputtering with rage over it. I’m not even perturbed by it; frankly, I don’t care that much. Robertson made a blindingly stupid statement that you’d have to be blindingly stupid to support. And I don’t think that Bush’s silence is an implicit endorsement of Robertson’s statement. It’s just curious that Bush wouldn’t want to take the simple step of saying, “uhhh…not so much with the assassination.”
What he said.
Matt
No, no. He was “adlibbing out of frustration.” You must not have seen the latest off the MiniProp wire.
Brad R.
Hey, we’re constantly asked to disavow Michael Moore. Saith the Sully:
Yet another expression of his version of Christianity from Pat Robertson. Recall that Robertson was on the list fo people consulted by the administration on the Supreme Court nomination. He’s not an outsider, even though every sane conservative says he is the minute he opens his mouth and says something hateful again. He was once a credible presidential candidate. The test of mainstream Republicans’ integrity is if they do not simply denounce this comment but denounce Robertson and his political machine. He is their Michael Moore. Instead, you get mealy-mouthed and exhausted-to-the-bone attempts to blame it on the liberal media.
MI
No, no. He was “adlibbing out of frustration.” You must not have seen the latest off the MiniProp wire.
haha
Brad R.
So, you’re a Republican because of ‘spite’? You must be so proud.
Hey, spite works. I wasn’t a big Kerry fan, but I voted for him just out of hatred for Bush. And I’m sure a lotta conservatives weren’t all that into Bush, but they hated the thought of John Kerry being president. Spite is awesome.
Tim F
The Whoopi Standard should apply here. If somebody with whom you have ever been affiliated does something embarrassing then you should be obligated to denounce it immediately. As a card-carrying rightwinger, John, you should know that one cold.
On the other hand, you made DougJ happy. That should count for something.
Don
Gimmie a break, John. Are you really claiming that the left isn’t constantly all lumped in with the most extreme fringe nutjobs and there are no demands to disavow the statements of Moore, Baldwin, etc? This (moronic) game is played on both sides.
Tim F
FYI, I have been named Senior Ninja at The Poor Man Institute for Freedom and Democracy and a Pony.
You all may carry on.
BumperStickerist
John –
If it’s any comfort, console yourself with this:
“No matter how bad things get with Bush, things would be worse were Kerry President”
That’s not an expression of blind loyalty to Bush, but there were a limited number of viable options for your Presidential vote.
Tim F
Surry bumpist, that’s pretty much the definition of blind. Think harder about whether or not the words “no matter” constitute an absolute declaration. I’m confident that after many hours of meditation you will find that they do.
Peter T.
You know, if the Presidential election were tomorrow, I’d vote for the Republican Chuck Hagel. I know Feingold has come out against the war, but I think Hagel is more electable.
None of the other Dem ‘major candidates’ are anti-war. What a sorry statement.
See, being a Republican can be ok.
ppGaz
“I’m staying a Republican despite the outrages of the radical right and the mendacity of this Republican-owned government ….. because some Dems are just being too rude.”
Makes perfect sense to me. Nose, face, spite, etc.
MI
Hey John, since you’re in sort of a unique (?) position of writing for an audience for which a significant part, seemingly anyway, doesn’t see eye to eye with your politics, I was wondering how much stock, if any, you put into a consensus against your opinion that rises in the comments? Does it have the same affect of making you reexamine your opinion that maybe it would if fellow partisan republicans filled the comments section, or less, or is it all the same?
KC
I agree with you John. I read that at DKos this morning and thought to myself, “What the hell does Bush have to do with those remarks?” It’s easy to dislike Bush; I’m a conservative Democrat because I think he’s made more mistakes than I can overlook. However, crowing about Robertson as if Bush is responsible for his remarks is really just stupid. Robertson does control a significant portion of Bush’s base and yes he’s an idiot theorcratic type, but really, I don’t know why Bush has to condemn what he, a private citizen, says.
BinkyBoy
Hey KC,
maybe because he consults with Robertson quite often? Maybe because Robertson is a major political figure in the Republican party? Maybe because its now making its rounds throughout the entire world and its making the Republican party look like a bunch of insane batshit crazy hawks?
Oh wait… GO PAT!
james richardson
I’m a liberal, and I agree. What, does every single member of the Bush Administration have to hold a press conference to say they condemn Robertson’s remarks? DailyKos needs to learn to pick it’s battles.
Nathan Lanier
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – Kos is only a relevant voice because of the system he set up. He offers nothing to the party and everytime he opens his mouth it proves detrimental to his party’s efforts.
Geek, Esq.
JC:
I’ll see you “Bush is an asshole because of the truck guy” and raise you Liberals are traitors because of Margaret Cho’s dog.
BumperStickerist
Tim F. —
I’m confident that after many hours of meditation you will find that they do.
ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
nope – I think Kerry is a fine Senator – so far as
that goes – but he would have been a lousy Chief Executive, witness the manner in which his campaign
was run.
And, if you take into account the people who would likely
have been in a Kerry administration (for example, Berger,
Wilson, possibly Albright, among others), I think my
statement holds.
and, btw, I’m not a straight ticket Republican voter and I wouldn’t be particularly upset should the Dems take control of the House for a term or two.
I like a viable two party system – and wouldn’t mind seeing a third party (more John Anderson than Libertarian) end up being viable. I just wish the Dems would offer up
a half-decent candidate.
GrudginglyAffirmed
John, you are a complete hypocrite. Your best buddy Glenn Reynolds, who you never criticize out of fear that he will stop linking to you, plays the exact same game with the left every fucking day. Have you ever heard of Ward fucking Churchill? That was all we heard about from Glenn for months, and every time he would put up some snarky comment like, “I would like to believe that Churchill does not represent the ‘mainstream’ left, but due to the fact that Hillary hasn’t yet denounced him, I guess I am disappointed. Sigh.” John, get some balls, and criticize Glenn and all the other assholes on your side who pull the same shit, and then I will take your criticisms of random comments at Kos seriously.
Mike S
A two bit college professor that no one had ever heard of makes some iditic remarks and the right goes ballistic demanding every Democrat in sight rebuke him.
Pat Robertson, a man who spends his broadcasts extolling the virtues of Bush nad the GOP calls for the assination of a democratically elected President and the right goes, ummm, ummm, So what?
Tim F
I fail to understand how Daily kos is any different from the gajillion other blogs tossing out insane and inane ideas on a daily basis. Shall I catalogue the ridiculous demands and cases of fabricated outrage swimming around the front pages of the “conservative” blogosphere? You know what I would find.
Kos has more traffic than any other ranter or hysteric on the policital internet. I can’t think of anything else that makes it any different that any other online opinion mill. Therefore I can’t think of any reason why it should be held to any higher a standard. Some people have tried to paint Kos as a movement, or a power broker, or anything other than a blog, to which he has answered an explicit no. Just a blog.
Tim F
Meditate longer my friend. You have not yet answered the question. While you meditate I have a koan for you:
It is possible to be a spectacular campaigner and a spectacularly lousy president. Witness the current administration.
Jay C
Gee, what a dogpile, John, getting flayed by all and sundry over a post! I suppose I ought to interject a note of sober introspection, here, but….
Naww, it’s more fun to join the pile-on!
Getting bent out of shape over a Kos post? FWIW (not a heck of a lot, I realize): but in this case, the story has a point: some redneck running over crosses at Camp Casey might not be worthy of Presidential attention, but an off-the-wall statement about “assassination” by a major Republican figure such as Pat Robertson (although the definition of “major” will no doubt be quickly and seriously redefined!) ought to be worth a few minutes of Our Preznit’s workout (sorry, “vacation”) time to at least refute: it might him look a little more like a real Executive than the Alfred E. Neuman caricature he is painted as. But then, he might have to “worry”.
Off Colfax
Regarding the Kossacks, things like this is one of the reasons why I stopped reading the whole site in the first place. And it’s getting just as bad on the diary parts of TPM Cafe as well, which is why I don’t go any further than reading Josh and Matt. If, between every single diarist on both Kos and TPM Cafe, they have a grand total of 10 posts that are not just “Yeah right!” with more words and less thought, I’ll eat a litterbox.
Now, about Robertson… I found something even more telling than the crowing of my fellow Democrats. How about the Christian Science Monitor?
For those that really want to know what I think… No, I won’t descend to the level of the [INSERT SHAMELESS PLUG HERE]SHAMELESS PLUG[/SHAMELESS PLUG]… That’d be too off the mark for me.
KC
BinkyBoy, I understand Robertson’s position in the GOP. Trust me, I’ve been to Promise Keepers. That said, I just don’t think the president is responsible, directly or indirectly, for Robertson’s remarks. It is beholden on Robertson to apologize for them, if he wants to, and it is not beholden on the president to denounce them. If things do get tricky though, the president may find it prudent to say something. For now though, I just can’t get worked up over Bush not saying anything. Lets face it, there’s plenty of things important people say on both sides of the isle that are stupid and wrong. If leaders of either party had to spend their days apologizing for them, we’d be living in a world of condemnations and apologies in which nothing would get done.
Soul
John-
Remember Senator Durbin? WTF was that? Many here have already pointed out your inability to be objective of the antics of the republican party. How sad. Im just overflowing with empathy, and my lips are full of holes at your apparent blindness!
DougJ
Here’s another thing that gets me: all the librul talk about all the Clinton-hating and how it compares to the Bush-bashing. Obviously, there is no comparison — Clinton had an approval rating in the 60s, so there wasn’t that much hating going on now, was there? Whereas Bush’s is in the 40s which makes for a lot of hate. And if you break it down you’ll see that what the difference is is that a lot of Republicans DID voice approval for Clinton whereas hardly any Democrats do for Bush.
Democrats: the party of hatred and Bush-bashing. And you wonder why you don’t win elections.
John S.
DougJ-
Man, I do love your posts. You’re like a gross caricature of some extreme conservative that probably doesn’t actually exist in nature.
Keep up the fine work.
Narvy
It seems to me that a point is being missed here. Forget for the moment that we’re talking about George Bush. Consider a situation where a public person with a sizeable following advocates the assassination of a democratically elected, albeit repugnant, president of anothe country. This person, based on the public record, is thought of by many as close to the US administration. The President of the United States says nothing about this. At best, the silence can be read as not caring one way or the other, at worst it can be read as tacit approval. What interest of the President is served by remaining silent? What interest of the nation? What should an unbiased observer (assuming there is one somewhere) think of it? What are the answers to these questions if we substitute “Bush” for “President”? If we substitute “Clinton” for “President”? Are your answers the same in both cases?
KC
I think what this article spells out is of far greater concern than Robertson’s remarks. If an Iraqi woman who met with President Bush and is a current member of the government says she will be leaving Iraq, we’ve got big problems over there.
John S.
Nah, she’s just acting at the behest of those crazy leftists at MoveOn.org – just like Cindy Sheehan.
It’s amazing how far liberals will go to make the situation in Iraq look bad and tarnish the
Messiah’sPresident’s reputation.Tulkinghorn
DougJ Says:
Here’s another thing that gets me: all the librul talk about all the Clinton-hating and how it compares to the Bush-bashing. Obviously, there is no comparison—Clinton had an approval rating in the 60s, so there wasn’t that much hating going on now, was there? Whereas Bush’s is in the 40s which makes for a lot of hate. And if you break it down you’ll see that what the difference is is that a lot of Republicans DID voice approval for Clinton whereas hardly any Democrats do for Bush.
This is even more of an egregious false anology than the parent of this thread.
What was notable about ‘clinton haters’ was there small number, outrageous claims and irresponsible actions, and willingness to bring the government to a halt in order to get their man.
Bush haters? A few Kossacks, with little voice outside the internet and nearly zero influence, have caused Bush’s low numbers? You are giving them WAY too much credit.
As for why Democrats are consistently losing elections even where they should or do have majority popular support — does the word ‘Gerrymander’ come to mind?
Then again, if your post was intentionally ironic, I’ll shut up and sit down.
Bob
Robertson won a Republican primary for President a few years back, so he’s not totally disconnected from the Repub side of the political process. I don’t think it’s necessary for Bush to disavow Robertson, but I if I were an advisor I would look for a public context to do so.
As far as the statement itself, have any laws been broken here? Will anyone from the FBI come to question Robertson? Can we expect television licenses to be revoked? Fines? Or does that only happen if we see Pat’s tit?
John Cole
Soul- I defended Sneator Durbin.
Tulkinghorn
Oh, responding to John C., the reason why Bush should denounce Robertson is because this his his damn administration. Chavez is trying to make a diplomatic stir out of this, so it is appropriate for the government to proactively defuse the incident by denouncing Robertson.
If Bush does not want to be responsible for this country’s diplomacy, what the hell is he doing in Washington? Does he think Joe Biden denouncing Robertson will help settle the issue?
The Bush apologetics are getting progressively more ridiculous.
joshua
Tim F: how did you get the Senior Ninja Chair?! That position was mine! Appoint me Junior Ninja Chair, or I’m going for the Senior Samurai Warrior Chair and it’s on!
The Durbin comparison here isn’t fair. Regardless of the power that Robertson may or may not have in the GOP, Durbin’s a sitting Senator. Compare elected officials to elected officials and pundits to pundits.
Holy crap! Live previews! Whoa.
Darrell
this is where the leftists go off into lah-lah land idiocy. Pat Robertson is not “close” to the administration. He is not an advisor, he is not an aide, hasn’t been given a speaker slot at the RNC in 12 years.. he is simply a private citizen mouthing off.
let him threaten that latin dirtbag. Not Bush’s problem
Mike in SLO
Hey John! Once again I thank God that there are some sane people like you still out there. Why not go Independent? No one’s forcing you to stay a Republican. I decided to go from Democrat to Independent a few years ago because of exactly the reasons you are so disgusted. Let’s face it…. simply put, both parties suck eggs big time. At least as an Independent I feel a little bit cleaner, but it sure would be nice to have a fiscally sane, socially moderate, and strong defense party choice out there for you, me and the rest of the non kool-aid drinking crowds out here in the hinterlands. We are all longing for something real, instead of the spin, deceit, lies, and downright incompetence both parties shovel out in mass quantities each and every day. Yeah, I know… an Independent or third party will never be able to compete with the big guys or win elections blah blah blah, but if you stay with a party that treat you like crap just because you think the other party is worse (which I did for many years as a Democrat) then you will always be taken for granted and treated like crap.
Anyway, just thought I’d remind you of the options of leaving both parties. I doubt if the Republicans will ever get back to the party of my upbringing (ie, Goldwater). Hell, McCain’s come out and said Intelligent Design should be taught in schools! It’s so he can have a shot at winning the Republican primary–must move to the far right and appease or will get his wife slimed again! It’s sad…. here’s a man who would have easily united the Country, but got slimed by his own party! The Democrats do it to their own as well. The two party system is corrupt and honest people need to leave it behind.
Nate
Who gives a crap, John? No really…who cares? You get bent out of shape about the smallest salvo from the left, and on the other hand you rush to post the most ill-conceived “Good News From Iraq!” I’ve ever seen! Bush has gotten away with lying to the country, creating massive deficits, and fashioning a dismal future in Iraq from whence there will be a retreat with little honor or glory, and you choose to harp on Cindy Sheehan and these incidental posts.
Careful, John: your agenda’s showing!
Jim Caputo
This is assumption just doesn’t hold up. Bush’s approval rating was up around 90% at one time, wasn’t it? So he could only have been “hated” by about 10% of the population. Assuming that 10% still hates him, that means that 50% of the country once approved of the job he was doing and have since changed their minds.
Also, he won an election last year with 52% of the vote. If his approval rating is now in the mid-30s, then almost 40% of the people who voted for him now disapprove of him.
You want to attribute Bush’s freefall in the polls to hatred, but it’s actually because of the lousy job he’s doing and the numbers back that up.
Fledermaus
Yeah, John I’d be a lot more sympathetic to this if the GOP and its mouthpieces in the media/ Right Blogistan hasn’t been playing this card ad nauseum. With Moore, Churchill, Chomsky, That one Guy in the Turtle Suit at WTO, that Other Guy with the bandana dressed all in black throwing molotov cocktails and many many more, the list of people your average Democrat has been told to denounce is longer than the NYC telephone book. That’s how the game is played these days, we didn’t make the rules.
And like Renyolds, Malkin and the like who employ this tactic, no one’s actually expecting Bush to disclaim Robertson’s statements. We just want to tell him to, over and over and over again.
As for the spite discussion above, don’t doubt the motivating power of spite. I voted Libertarian in our Governor’s race last year just because the Dem wouldn’t give me a summer job. No it wasn’t her decision, but still she was AG at the time. Therefore my thinking went: “well, if you’re not smart enough to hire me, why should I hire you” and then I watched the wonderful fiasco (this was in WA) and never regretted my vote once (I was actully hoping to see Rossi win by one vote, man that would have been sweet!).
tBone
Not that I think Bush and Robertson are bosom buddies or anything, Darrell, but I think Robertson has a little more pull with the administration than your average “private citizen.” Most private citizens don’t get private audiences with the President, for instance.
That being said, I don’t think Bush has any particular responsibility to denounce Robertson, either. What exactly is he going to say that isn’t already obvious? “That sumbitch is crazy!”
Rusty Shackleford
Tulkinghorn Says:
…If Bush does not want to be responsible for this country’s diplomacy, what the hell is he doing in Washington?…
Shhhh. The President is on vacation.
Darrell
Ok, I agree Robertson holds more sway with Bush than JoeSchmoe, but does he really get private meetings with Bush? Have they played golf together? Seems to me that big campaign contributors and wounded vets get as much or more ‘access’ to Bush than Robertson.. I just don’t see evidence that Robertson has any sort of direct hotline to Bush or his top aides and I see no evidence that he holds any special sway with Bush. I could be mistaken..
Narvy
I take it, Darrell, that you don’t believe that many people think Robertson is close to the Administration.
DougJ
The Bush-haters have done a very good job with their anti-Bush propaganda — spewed as it is by the MSM and the leftie blogs. If they’d actually used their ability to Bush-bash to win elections, I’d amost have to give them credit.
But you didn’t answer my main point: the Bush’s approval rating is only something like 20% among Democrats, which is the reason that is in the 40s overall. This simply didn’t happen under Clinton. Yes, Dems liked him better than Republicans, but the Republicans cut him a lot of slack. You don’t see what with Bush from the Dems, at least not in the last couple years. Their hatred of Bush is tearing this country apart. That level of partisanship isn’t good politics and it isn’t good for the country, I’m afraid.
Narvy
By the way Darrell, exactly what in my earlier post is “leftist” and “lah-lah land idiocy”?
tBone
Well, I don’t know if he does anymore, but they had at least one private meeting, before the war started – the one where Robertson claimed Bush told him there wouldn’t be any casualties in Iraq. I’m guessing that Robertson probably found it more difficult to set up private meetings with the Prez after the minor sh*tstorm that generated, but who knows.
Narvy
By the way, Darrell, I forgot to ask. Did you read anything in my post after the word “administration”? If so, I’d like to know what you think about it.
ppGaz
So, you are suggesting that Ma and Pa Kettle, out there in Wishbone, Kentucky, are tuning into that Librual Media (Fucks … I mean, Fox News, I guess, since they have most of the cable news viewers) and THAT’s what’s changing their thinking? Or gettin on the Internets and surfin those LEFTY BLOGS and that’s what’s poisoning their minds?
Uh, yeah, Dougie. Again, you are going to blow your cover with this stuff, I’m telling you. Trust me, I am your friend.
Well, get rid of that asshole in the White House and maybe you can bring the country back together. What’s good for the country is to get his crazy, lying, born-again, man of faith, dead or alive, turning the corner, bring it on, last throes ass out of there before he takes us all into the crapper.
Thoughts?
Darrell
First of all, you have to admire the sheer idiocy of the initial statement “based on the public record”. Based on what public record?? What the hell does that mean? Is there some public paper trail of Bush/Robertson collaboration on legislation or something? .. are they related? What then?.. then the next part – Bush must act because “many people” think Robertson is close to the Administration?? Who are these ‘many people’? But of course, because they ‘think’ Robertson is close to the administration, then Bush must do something about that, right?
Fledermaus
Wow, I guess that whole impeachment thing was just a bad acid flashback on my part.
DougJ, you are indeed amazing don’t ever change one little bit.
Darrell
Did that jackass really say Bush told him there would be no casualties in Iraq? Unbelievable. Bush should’ve crammed a plastic baby Jesus down his throat over that sh*t
Caroline
Not just Democrats, his approval is in the twenties with independents too. Bush’ main support is the GOP base.
Joe Albanese
DougJ said:
The Republicans cut him a lot of slack? He was impeached for Christ’s sake. For a blow job. Clinton had approval ratings in the 60’s despite the “haters” for one reason: he was a great fuckin president by any objective measure. Economic growth, record deficts to record surpluses, reductions in unemployment,crime, number of abortions, poverty, number on welfare, etc. etc. Do any of these things matter at all or is it just Republican vs Democrat to you? Bush is going down in the polls because of what he has done as president not because of any “haters”. Bush had a lot of support after 911 – including mine I might add. I though he did a good job in those difficult days. He set the right tone for the nation that needed it. But alas, much to my disappointment (not glee) he has squandered all of that good will and has been a very very bad president. And the Iraq war will go down historically as a huge blunder of monumental proportions I am afraid (afraid not glad).
It may be all partisan warfare for obsessive news junkies like you and I but 90% of Americans aren’t in that category. They aren’t “haters”, they are just evaluating the job their President is doing and on that score Bush seems to be receiving a failing grade.
Oh, and John chill out. You are really whinning way too much lately. Just think of all those fresh faced coeds back in town maybe that will put a smile on your face.
RSA
But “this country” isn’t just some abstraction—it’s composed to a large extent of those people who hate Bush (even granting this notion that Bush “hatred” is widespread.) When more than half of the population disapproves of the job Bush is doing, who exactly should receive the blame for tearing this country apart? What kind of poll numbers would it take to convince you? 75% disapproval? 90%?
SeesThroughIt
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Both parties are so desperate to pull as many people into the fold as possible to keep ahead of their opponent that they end up pulling in a lot of freaks, idiots, dolts, doofuses, and straight-up extremists. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion:
SeesThroughIt
I know it’s poor form to post twice in a row on a blog, but I have to give a HUGE cosign to Joe Albanese’s post above (except for the last paragraph). You hit it square on the head with that one.
Narvy
Darrell asks what public record? Newspapers, CNN, Fox News, etc., have reported Robertson meeting with Bush.
Actually, I didn’t say Bush must do anything. I did ask how it appears if any President does not say anything publicly in the context I described, which is at least similar to the situation under discussion.
chadwig
I’m glad you finally admit that you are republican because the kneejerks on the left are making you. John Cole, handpuppet to those he most strongly condemns.
Now I understand the self-loathing…
Narvy
I have to pause this stimulating dialog with Darrell. I have to go to an evening class (guess my time zone). I hope to be able to continue this late tonight or tomorrow.
I would like someone else to comment on the post that started this particular discussion, especially anyone who has a logical argument against the validity of the questions in the post.
tBone
Yep, he sure did. He went public with it sometime last year before the election.
There isn’t much that I agree with Bush on, but he would have my whole-hearted support if he did decide to cram a plastic baby Jesus down Pat Robertson’s throat. I think even the battiest of moonbats could get on board with that.
Bruce From Missouri
*****Why Won’t BushCo Condemn Robertson’s Remarks?
Ironic but, in a way, not surprising. Bush and the Republicans are the Party of Joe McCarthy AND the Party of Dobson. No false smear of Democrats is left unsaid and no disagreement with the extremists of their extreme GOP will ever be spoken.
Wingnuts on parade.*****
Nothing seems to anger you so much as uncomfortable truths, John.
Bruce
smijer
Ahem… Some of us are Democrats (rather than apolitical slobs) because of Bush. His policies and his insufferable arrogance are to me what the Kossacks are to John C.
John Cole
I actually don’t hate the Kossacks. I think some of them are woefully misguided. And some of the stuff they post is downright silly. But Kos is a good guy who has always been decent to me, personally.
BTW- looks like Hunter found someone he wants to bomb.
Joe Albanese
While talking of poll numbers, this is interesting:
DougJ
Sorry, but this is just further proof of what I was saying, that the Democrats are more hateful to Bush than the Republicans were to Clinton. If 72% approved of Clinton, then a pretty good chunk of Republicans must have been in that 72% (since Republicans are about 35% of the country in most polls). So even after everything he did, a lot of Republicans were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I see none of that open-mindedness, or whatever you want to call it, with the Democrats.
AlanDownunder
John,
Your slip is showing. Your adherence to GOP is purely cultural – as evidenced by this latest whine.
Until both major parties cut the nutcase religious right adrift, the US will keep on going down the tubes – politically and spiritually.
People are demanding urgent major surgery. You call that infantile?
Otto Man
Doug, I think you’re looking at the relationship between hatred of a president and the president’s poll numbers all wrong.
Clinton’s numbers went up as the Clinton Haters gained power and started the impeachment proceedings against him. The longer they went on with that, the higher his numbers rose. In December 1997, right before it all began, he was polling at 59%. By December 1998, as the House impeachment managers — the core of Clinton Haters — issued the articles of impeachment, Clinton had risen to 72%. I think you can make a strong case here that the power of the Clinton Haters, and their exercising of that power, was what drove his numbers up.
Bush’s numbers, however, have dropped — from 50% to 40% since the election — and have done so without a comparable position of power for the Bush Haters. The Bush Haters are not the leading figures in the House of Representatives, they’re some no-name on Daily Kos. And because the Bush Haters don’t have the clout and the camera time that the Clinton Haters did, people aren’t reacting to them the same way. They see them for what they are — a fringe group — and let it slide. But as the war in Iraq turns to crap, it seems lots of people are changing their minds, not because of the Bush Haters but in spite of them. In fact, it looks like it took the emergence of Cindy Sheehan — a Bush disliker, I suppose, but not a hater akin to Dan Burton or someone like that — to get people to move. They had to see criticism of Bush that didn’t seem unhinged with hatred, but simple and rational.
So it’s not that the Bush Haters are so powerful they’re dragging the country’s mood down with them. Ironically, it’s that they’re comparatively powerless to affect the country. Without high-profile Bush Haters akin to the Clinton Haters, there’s nothing for the public to react against.
DougJ
What about Michael Moore? What about Howard Dean?
Otto Man
Not even close.
For one thing, if we’re going to correlate poll changes with Presidential Hatred, then they have to go on at the same time. Both Moore and Dean had their peaks of popularity during mid-2004, and what we’re tracking with Bush happened this year. If they’d really had that kind of power, Bush would’ve lost the election in 2004.
Second, neither of those guys had the prominence of the House Impeachment Managers. Those guys and their allies in the punditocracy were on the news 24/7 during that entire year, and people just tuned them out. Where has Moore been since the election? Dean’s kept a relatively high profile, but we’re talking the occassional appearance on Meet the Press, not constant clips on the evening news.
Third, neither of those guys had the power of the House Impeachment Managers. The Clinton Haters got the president impeached. What sort of damage have Moore and Dean done to Bush’s standing?
Sorry, I don’t buy it. I know we get caught up in “well, your side does it too” around here, but honestly, the Clinton Hatred was something uniquely pitched in terms of the prominence and power of those who led the charge.
Mike S
Would you really say that Ann Coulter isn’t as bad as them. I don’t recall either wondering whether Bush should be assassinated.
Randolph Fritz
John, surely Robertson’s remarks are worthy of condemnation? He’s a major public figure, after all, and having a major public figure advocating the assasination of a democratically-elected head of state is something I would hope the US government would condemn.
DougJ
She’s got a sense of humor — and a nice pair of legs. That goes a long way, in my book.
Seriously, though, most of what Ann says is tongue-in-cheek. I guess you get it or you don’t. But it’s not the wild-eyed name-calling of Moore, Dean, Sarandon, and the rest.
MattD
John–I have to give you credit for leaving the comments section on this blog. You can’t seem to catch a break among the partisan hacks I keep reading here on a daily basis. You are 100% correct, that Kos/Armando lately seem to be taking time away from the usual maniacal ranting to express (even more) outrage at the President, this time for not wasting time condemning the latest act or statement by some fringe element of the Right (oh, and the comarison to Whoopie is unfair, considering Kerry was sitting right in the audience at Radio City yukking it up while Whoopie spouted her nonsense). For the record, every righty blog I read (including Malkin & LGF) condemned Robertson’s remarks, but I’ve yet to see any liberal blogger (or, for that matter, any Democratic politician, save for Mayor Daly) condemn any remark that eminates from the fringes of the left. John, I admire your steadfastness; your posters appear to be the very people so caught up in the Bush-hating vitrol, that they cannot see a rational position (literally) in front of their faces. Keep up the good work!
carpeicthus
She’s a harpy who has publicly mused that my friends should be killed. Yeah, she’s a fucking laugh riot. When Michael Moore says “Boy, the only problem with Timothy McVeigh is that he didn’t kill DougJ’s family,” we’ll talk.
Boronx
How many people does Bush have to get killed for no good reason before it’s ok to hate him?
cminus
Eh. I think Pat Robertson is a loon and a half, and I’d like it if Bush said so, but even if he doesn’t I’m not 100% convinced that Robertson calls Bush’s tune. After all, Pat Robertson asked Bush to commute the sentence of a death row inmate, but Bush signed off her death and later amused himself by imaging how she would sound begging for her life. Even Tucker Carlson was offended.
And, on the related subject of right-wingers who should be condemned by all right-thinking people — if Ann Coulter is “tongue-in-cheek,” then everything Michael Moore says must be viewed through the prism of his being the simultaneous reincarnation of Groucho, Chico and Harpo. (Come to think, being three people would explain why he is, indeed, fat.)
Boronx
I don’t think Democrats were too nonplused by Clinton haters, it’s just a weird social phenomena, weirder still because, unlike Bush hatred, it was almost entirely non-rational.
No, it was the Presidency-long effort by a group of lawyers, lawmakers and a few rich moneybags to depose an elected president, in the end they spent tens of millions, spread hundreds of cancerous lies and had to resort to a perjury trap.
Bruce Moomaw
Come on, John. For the Bushites to say “Well, we sorta kinda think it’s probably a bad idea” if they actually think it’s an idiotic and destructive idea — just because they want to tippytoe around the sensibilities of their most extreme block of followers (which is also their biggest block of followers) — is cowardly and destructive of this nation’s well-being. I’d say the same thing if it was a Democratic Administration tippytoeing around some cretinous suggestion by Al Sharpton.
Frankly — given the fact that Chavez himself is not high on the Sanity and Morality Hotlist — I find it more interesting that there wasn’t a single public peep about Roberton’s announcement in early May that “liberal judges are a bigger threat to America’s well-being than the Civil War and the Nazis” — and yes, he did explicitly use that phrase. Nor did we hear very much about his and Faklwell’s statement immediately after 9-11 that it was God’s punishment of America for being too tolerant of gays and feminists. Are we to think that these are far more acceptable ideas than the idea that it might be morally acceptable to kill a man who is clearly a would-be dictator?
Bruce Moomaw
As for Ann Coulter, she can be easily explained as medical history’s first recorded case of chronic rabies.
Jim Caputo
So when Bush was at 90% that was ALL coming from the Repugs? Of course not. Bush HAD support from Democrats; he pissed it away much like he pissed away the international support this country had following 9-11.
Reminds me of the 90s.
Jim Caputo
Or maybe they saw the Repug impeachment circus for what it really was. Isn’t possible that not all Repugs are of the “kool-aid guzzling” variety?
You’re trying to objectively comment of the level of hatred aimed at Clinton but you’re doing so from a very subjective position: that of a Clinton hater. In your eyes, the only reason any Repug would approve of Clinton’s job performance was due to generosity, rather than disagreement with the party’s leadership over the decision to impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a sexual realtionship. They recognized the fact that it had nothing to do with the Whitewater land deal and was more likely the result of a “gotta find anything to charge him with” witchhunt, rather than a serious investigation.
Kevin K.
John, I won’t even touch the subject of your post—whatever—but thanks for this:
I defended Sneator Durbin.
Sneator Durbin. I’ll be giggling about that typo all day.
Again, thank you.
Joe Albanese
Sorry DougJ but Bush haters can’t hold a candle to the Clinton haters. When liberals say that Bush has “killed” people they suggest that his policies result in the death of innocents.I do think it unfair to frame the argument by using the word “kill” and wish my side would not. But YOUR side said that Clinton actually DID kill people. Not through policy but like in mob hits. Remember that? There were videos being sold with ‘proof” that Clinton killled dozens of people that opposed him. A whole cottage indurstry grew up feeding on Clinton hatred.(btw another Reverand close to the GOP, Jerry Falwell, was selling those videos)
Oh. yeah and remember Vince Foster? Suggestions that Hillary may have had him KILLED. That was a level of hatred that Bush haters can only look up to. They have a lot to learn in the realm of hatred don’t you think.
And Doug is Air America, which is derided daily on right wing blogs for their low ratings, any comparison with the hatred spewed on right wing talk radio that Rush Limbaugh ushered in with his anti-Clinton hatred? Is there any comparsison quantitativly or qualitatively?
Oh, and isn’t there a whole museum dedicated to Clinton hatred? lol. Yep, an Anti-Clinton library in Little Rock Arkansas started by ex-republican congressman LeBoutillier. Its got a Monica room and all. Now that is what I call major league hatred. Very creative your side. I’m almost embarassed for the Bush haters for only being able to point to actual Bush policies to attack him.
Thats why I get so outraged at John Cole for his attacks when the left goes over the line. The right goes way over the line way more often than the left by a long shot. Sorry, but its NOT equal. Franken is NOT a left wing Limbaugh. Not by a long shot. They use that argument as cover when the right gets caught doing something really nasty and vicious. “oh, they do it too!” Not even close. What they do to attack those that disagree with them is reprehensible. I give you Paul O’Neil, Richard Clarke, Sen Durbin and now Cindy Sheehan as evidence. Any OBJECTIVE observer would have to agree to that. Not that we will find many of those out here in blog land. We are all starting to see things through our own filters. And that is a very unfortunate state of affairs.
Nikki
Actually, that hasn’t been built and never will be. The guy had to shut it down ‘coz he couldn’t raise enough cash.
DougJ
Good post, MattD. These libruls just don’t get it, that their way over the line attacks on Bush are hurting the country and are hurting themselves politically. They should take a page from how Republicans behaved towards Clinton: relax, back off, maybe even occasssionally express approval when polled. In the end, the country would respect them more for it.
And, BTW, I saw Robertson on t.v. yesterday and he says he never used the word “asssassinate”. He said “take him out” which could mean a variety of things, many of them perfectly legal under both U.S. and (justice Kennedy’s favorite) interational law. So just relax about this too.
Shygetz
DougJ: And, BTW, I saw Robertson on t.v. yesterday and he says he never used the word “asssassinate”. He said “take him out” which could mean a variety of things, many of them perfectly legal under both U.S. and (justice Kennedy’s favorite) interational law. So just relax about this too.
Pat Robertson: “You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination. But if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”
That makes Robertson a liar, now doesn’t it? And yet, next time he tells you something, you’ll still take him at his word because, hell, that’s just who you are.
DougJ: These libruls just don’t get it, that their way over the line attacks on Bush are hurting the country and are hurting themselves politically. They should take a page from how Republicans behaved towards Clinton: relax, back off, maybe even occasssionally express approval when polled. In the end, the country would respect them more for it.
Yeah, let’s just relax and impeach Bush for getting a blow job (sorry, I mean for lying about getting a blow job). Then the country would respect us. Maybe the Republicans expressed approval for Clinton because our economy was humming, we were not losing casualties in a fruitless war, spending was being restrained and the budget balanced, and things in general were looking up. If Bush brings me the same prosperity that Clinton did, I would be happy to express approval. Tell ya what, DougJ–why don’t you hold your breath until that happens?
tBone
Sorry, DougJ, but Robertson’s denial was what we like to call “a stinking bald-faced lie:”
DougJ
Well, I guess I’ll have to see the tape of Robertson’s show before I decide on this. If he lied, he lied. But I’m not going to base that on what I read in the papers.
Demdude
Dougj,
Go look on the website for the 700 Club. He apologizes for his statement.
Oh by the way, he lied about it up until then.
Joe Albanese
Nikki said,
Seems as LeBoutiller doesn’t agree with you:
goonie bird
Why should he why dont these liberal jackasses just stop their stupid braying before sone decides to take a whip and give them a good thrash or two
Mark-NC
DougJ:
Anyone who has seen the video of Robertson’s statement knows that he is lying now. Period!!!!! There was only one possible meaning of “take him out”.
That is – for those of us in the “Reality Based Community”.
You stated earlier that the Republicans were relatively nice to Clinton, and that Ann Coulter (easily the nastiest mouth I’ve ever heard) was just being funny.
Based on your above statements, I’m guessing you’ll find a way to believe that Robertson really meant – take him out to dinner.
chadwig
DougJ I’m only being tongue in cheek here like your fascist party-doll obsession Ann Coulter, but you’re hopelessly naive. Remember, I’m just kidding when I say you don’t have much moral sense. I’m only joking when I say that people like you are traitors to American Ideals. I’m just joshing when I say you should be booted right out of the USA because your ideas are “dangerous”.
Funny ha-ha
Glenda
She’s got a sense of humor—and a nice pair of legs. That goes a long way, in my book.
So Doug J is into Trannies? Who knew? Hey, whatever floats your boat Doug.
Phillip J. Birmingham
John, for what it’s worth, I agree with you on the substance. I despise the notion that you can be assumed to be pro-murder/pro-terrorism/pro-whatever simply because you don’t denounce the maniac du jour, be he radical Muslim cleric or radical Christian cleric. Everybody, I think, deserves the presumption of some decency, until they prove through word or deed that they are not decent.
As other commenters have pointed out, however, this has long been the blog-o-sphere’s favorite sport — demanding denunciations of the latest idiot from those who have no connection with him or her, save that they share a religion or the same half of the political “spectrum.” For further reference, see Ted Rall, Ward Churchill, or Nicholas de Genova.
It wouldn’t be done at all, if it weren’t for the delicious feeling of putting one’s political opponents in a bind: denounce the crazies, and piss off some people who would otherwise have voted for you, or refuse, and look like you support the crazies.
Dave Ruddell
Did anyone watch The Daily Show last night? It was like Stewart didn’t know what to do with Robertson’s remarks it was such an easy target. And that creepy smile that he has while he’s trying to weasel out of his remarks is just disturbing.
I don’t think Bush is under any obligation to distance himself from Robertson. OTOH, why in the hell is he passing up the opportunity. This is a wonderful Sister Souljah Moment that he has, and he’s just letting it slip away.
Bob
Here’s a short history of Bush and the Nazis:
http://www.john-loftus.com/bush_nazi_scandal.asp
You know, it’s not hard to change your party affiliation.
Otto Man
In what alternate reality did you spend the ’90s?
ppGaz
I know it’s early, but I’m making that my Best Line of the Day. Laughed out loud.
Given the relationships that Robertson has had with corrupt dictators in the past, I think you might actually be right, though. Ole Pat! Power, the ultimate aphrodisiac, so they say.
Secretly, I think Pat just likes the idea of “dick-tators” in general. He gives good head of state.
ppGaz
I think he meant “poled.”
Kimmitt
John, I really disagree with you here; Bush could make a lot of easy political points by publicly rebuking Robertson, who is a significant political figure. The fact that he has chosen not to is, I think, meaningful.
Jim Caputo
It makes DougJ a liar too!
Narvy
Not according to Darrell.
Soul
Thanks John for defending Durbin. I just started frequenting your blog so,I missed that. Did you also share your disgust at republicans for their childish outrage?
I was terribly disappointed that Durbin caved and appologized.
scs
I’m not too familiar on how bad Chavez really is. But IF he is that bad, Robertson had a point. I think more bad people at the top ought to be assasinated. Why should thousands of innocent people die to defend the life of one bad guy? Bush shouldn’t repudiate the comment cause Robertson may be right.
Shygetz
Jim Caputo says:
It makes DougJ a liar too!
Nah. DougJ just saw Robertson’s lying denial, not the original assassination speech. So that makes DougJ gullible and misled, not a liar.
Speaking of, DougJ, if I show you the video of Robertson being a lying liar will you step up and denounce the man who you have defended, and call him a lying liar? Or do you hate America?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006
sebrendan
Really though, talk like this is used by commenters on both the left and the right. It’s a very old tactic in a very old game called, politics.
Mark-NC
Jim Caputo:
Don’t be so hard on DougJ.
Helives in a world that allows him to think that Clinton was treated with white kid gloves by the Republicans, and that Fox News is an unbiased news channel.
He’s not lying – just looking at the world through ultra-partisan eyes!