Blogcritics: Comments on Why do you HATE Bush?

Comment by Douglas Mays

Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:57:10 EDT

the guy owes me money!!!

Comment by renee

Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:52:38 EDT

Sept.11 was awful & it never should have happened, but it did. It single handedly changed a lot about the way we live & the time in which we live our lives. But I hope that all voters will keep it "simple"... and try to separate the "candidate" from his deeds in this election. Clinton started his first 4 years after running against Bush senior & the majority of voters chose him because they were tired of the failed deeds of Bush sr. & they liked what Clinton was saying & promising. Then Clinton won 4 more years because of his PROVEN good deeds & people were happy with what his administration did! The next election was ("unfairly") given to Bush & he has had 4 years to do what he wanted & we are where we are today. Most people will admit that they & this country are not the same & that things are not what they hoped for! Now we are again voting & we must choose between a candidate who has already shown to us what he was capable of doing, and another who is saying & promising something "new"?! So do we chose the "failed" candidate? Or should we give the "new" one a chance? It would be the same chance that we had given Bush sr. along with all of our other previous presidents? If you believe that we & this country are better off today than we were 4 years ago, when Clinton was president, then some will vote to keep the status quo. But if you don't believe that, then many will vote for a change! I hope that all americans will make the better choice! After all, ... how could anyone want more of what we have now? What makes any one think things will change with the same administration? Just attempt to imagine what the national debt will be? ... what our situation will be with the UN & our old allies? Our economy, etc.? What drastic new changes will this administration accomplish in these next 4 years & why weren't made during the previous years? I hope that people remember that they already had their chance???!!! I don't think that I'm the only one who wonders if the last election had gone the other way, would we have went to war with Iraq? How many people realize that out of all the countries in the world that posess the "Atomic Bomb", we are the ONLY country that actually ever use it in a war? And we did so TWICE!!! ... So to all those "uncertian" likely voters... those voters for Ralph Nader (who I also admire) ? Please think long & hard...because "one vote" can make a difference & so does "one candidate & their administration"!

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:37:03 EDT

This is a stupid topic, so I didn't read any of your comments. Look, I don't hate Bush. His policies are poor ideas, his administration's transparency and accountability to the public and Congress is the worst in modern Presidential history, and it disappoints me that our President thinks so little of the American public in his communications and choices. I don't hate him as a person or think he's evil. I find him very personable and I'm sure I'd get along with him great. I think there's way too much hate in today's political climate and what worries me more than the over-enthusiastic anti-Bush crowd (which has become an industry of books and media) who tend to reduce political discussion to caricatures is the hate associated with those who hate those against the war in turn and call them "traitors" and question their patriotism. I worry about people's hate for other parts of the world and hatred toward people who have nothing to do with our suffering. I worry that people have forgotten what we learned about the importance of love and aid after 9/11 and given into our baser impulses to hate and assume the worst in people without hearing what they have to say. I'll make one controversial claim that I think is true: the hatred on the side of Bush supporters and the targets of that hatred are far more dangerous and frightening than the more specific hatred of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd. That is all.

Comment by renee

Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:25:12 EDT

Comment by Lynn

Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:15:23 EDT

The "Why Do You Hate Bush" essay is simply another attempt by the Right to frame the debate and lure Democrats into a senseless argument that obfuscates the issues. For me, rather or not I hate Bush is hardly worth dignifying with an answer. I oppose his policies and the platform on which his party runs. That's it and that's all. The only things that should matter are the issues and Bush's job performance, which so far has been abysmal. Unfortunately, the Republicans have proven so successful at their smoke and mirrors routine that Bush is running neck and neck with Kerry! Take that Swift Boat nonsense. If Kerry had of got pissed at the outset said these people were liars and reminded the American people about what was truly important (not to mention that he, unlike Bush, was actually in Vietnam) then perhaps Kerry wouldn't be running neck and neck with Bush now. Bush is such a lousy president who has made such terrible mistakes that any campaign team worth its salt would have buried his ass by now.

Comment by JR

Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:31:07 EDT

Bush doesn't seem to want to really deal with 9/11 himself, he just wants to remind people of it.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:05:25 EDT

I think Bush actually reminds a lot of people of 9/11 and they just don't want to deal with it anymore

Comment by Fred Dred

Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:34:39 EDT

Hilarious

Comment by Michael

Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:26:44 EDT

W treats this nation like she belongs to him by divine right or by birth, and he can do whatever he likes to her. Wouldn't you hate the man raped your mother in front of you and then spat in her face and laughed? You want a reason for hatred of W, look no further.

Comment by J Adams

Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:31:36 EDT

(I don't mean to pick on you, BB): "Americans also hate Bush because they need a scapegoat for all their fears after 9-11." My fears are no more nor more less than they were 10 years ago when it was widely publicized that homeland terrorism on a large scale was a matter of time. We don't blame its occurence on Bush at all. We blame it on the suicide-terrorists (now dead) and their nationless but Saudi-rooted organization. When Osama's gone, the threat will remain the same. "Americans resent the loss of their freedom ". Our freedom is not AT a loss nor has it recently been from outside forces. Freedom is lost if you do not actively watch and study the government and stand up for freedom when it is threatened. The Patriot Act and other Bush corporate objectives due more to threaten our freedom and health than Saddam, Al Qaida, the Taliban and North Korea together particularly as it will look 100 years from now. If you truly love this country, be a watchdog and speak up about policy. "Saddam is out of the picture without the benefit of WMD's to justify his ousting, and we haven't been able to catch Osama...So Bush has become the default fixation for all our frustrations" But Saddam is NOT out of the picture. The war lingers on, the draft is being considered, the price tag looms. Catching Osama is iconic at best anyway. Why did Bush not delineate by saying 'People, forget 9/11 for a minute, forget Osama, forget all else, we gotta go after Saddam and here's why'? Was it because we'd say no? Was it because the administration actually saw a benefit that much of the populace didn't even know the difference between all these issues?

Comment by J Adams

Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:09:25 EDT

It's not accurate to paint Kerry as liberal any more than Bush as conservative. Nor is it accurate to align all left with liberals or all right with conservatives. Not only are both candidates centrist, there are millions of voters who are left-conservative or liberal-right. However, most of us are, in reality, centrist except on the few issues we take to heart. As for Bush: -He stands for the richest 5% getting richer which is not representative of myself -We WILL have to pay for a long time over the deficit created by the Bush legacy. Let's not forget that we swung from the largest surplus EVER to the largest deficit ever in just a few years. It can be shown this would not have happened if Gore had taken his elected place just as easily as it can be traced directly to policy -The election was stolen; suspected as such at the time and now known -War was inevitable given the seating of George W. This was known during the previous election. A mature country finds more reasons against war and uses this model in a leadership position. It's a very ugly precedent to step outside of the UN. War is always a long mess: we knew it was a lie when we were told it would be 'quick and clean'. It has still never been justified to public satisfaction any more than Vietnam though it took many minds of the questions remaining from Desert Storm. Hmmmm... -We were told by Bush himself that the sole reason for aggression against IRAQ was to rout the WMDs. When the UN said they were doubting their existence but would know soon, Bush moved in quickly as if to say 'that's not the real reason anyway but the public doesn't need to know that'. This killed any remaining support. We're still waiting. Oddly we're worse off because: a) it's the citizens who now get stuck with the $100 billions price tag b) Going in to the middle east to tidy up Saddam stirs up the Taliban and Al Qaeda who are individuals, not countries, and therefore not culpable, sanctionable, controllable, or predictable. -Bad environmental record -Bad record for internal economy -Unprogressive in curtailing the extreme healthcare crisis -He's a fundamentalist. That's just alienating for someone in his position -The cronyism is of a type beyond most politicians -The manufactured threat of terrorism. We have the same amount of threat that we had ten years ago and twenty years ago. If you followed current events over the last few decades you've been very familiar with these threats as well as the long history (pre-2001) of Osama. So, what's with the constant polticizing of the issue and the marketing of fear? How about a figurehead that does the opposite while taking care of business? I can't buy the philosophy that our level of threat would have been the same with Gore or that IRAQ helped the threat of terrorism. Our level of safety remains unchanged since 9/11 (which was merely a flashpoint not an indicator of a future increase - the threat was well documented before the event) - The Patriot Act. Why not call it the Anti-Patriot Act? County by County, City by City and State by State it is being banned. Meanwhile, the Bush white house has dismantled the Patriot Act 2 into smaller sections to quiet the masses. Isn't a president supposed to listen to the masses? -Americans need a scapegoat for 9/11 so they hate Bush? We didn't like him when we didn't vote for him in 2000. Plus, we HAVE a scapegoat - a whole deck. - The evnts of 9/11 do NOT make the president look good or better. Any sitting president would have been required to do exactly the same as per policy. Though Bush did nothing in this regard for me to hate him (in fact I don't hate him at all - just don't want him leading) he did nothing that didn't equal a call to the superbowl. FOR THE RECORD, I am a left-conservative-centrist (who sees no artistic value in the work of Michael Moore).

Comment by Darrell

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:44:36 EDT

It's interesting to me that no one has responded with any thought to what I think was the most insightful post in this thread. I'll quote BB: Politics aside, Americans also hate Bush because they need a scapegoat for all their fears after 9-11. Americans resent the loss of their freedom and being held hostage to the wims of homeland security bulletins. Saddam is out of the picture without the benefit of WMD's to justify his ousting, and we haven't been able to catch Osama. So Bush has become the default fixation for all our frustrations. If anyone DID respond to BB seriously, I didn't see the post. I admit, though, my eyes started to cross and glaze over long before I finished reading comments. I agree with BB, and I'll offer the following as well... Liberals hate Bush because he's unashamedly patriotic. He loves America for what it is. This is in contrast to Clinton, who seemed only to love America for it's potential; for what it could be. His rhetoric was revealing, with talk about building bridges to the future and believing in a place called hope. He never came out and said "I see America as a greedy corporate-driven bully who is responsible for most of the evil in the world," but those who feel that way found it easy to perceive that he shared their hatred. Bush, on the other hand, isn't ashamed of his love for Country. That's unforgivable to the Al Gore/Michael Moore types who see their own country as nothing more than a polluter, impoverisher, and racist murder of brown-skinned people the world over. Beyond that, hating Bush is trendy. I'm not saying this applies to anyone in this forum, for all I know it might apply to no one here... nonetheless, following trends is easier for some people than thinking and coming to their own conclusions. Hating Bush is just one more trend adopted from our celebrity idols, just like Kabala (sp?) and the South Beach Diet. I can't think of a single celebrity who openly hated Clinton. I can think of very few who DON'T openly hate Bush. This is, of course, all based on my perceptions. I don't offer any of it as solid fact, just opinion and observation. I'll respond to serious counter-arguments, but I'll ignore flamers.

Comment by Rodney Welch

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:58:58 EDT

RJ writes: "People who quit their jobs are ineligible for unemployment benefits. They have to be fired/laid-off/downsized/whatever." Not true. People up and quit their jobs all the time and receive unemployment benefits; it depends on whether the adjudicator or appeals officer at the unemployment insurance office rules the employee was justified in quitting. There ARE unfair employers, and people DO quit jobs for good reasons. A lot of times what will happen is that the claimant -- whether he's fired or quits -- will receive benefits but be penalized a number of weeks, depending on the facts of his or her case.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:15:22 EDT

All I know is I'm glad somebody invented the [Page Down] key and gave it an ASCII code. Y'know what, you should all vote for the guy who invented ASCII (oh, he's dead, bummer). Well how about somebody who actually knows something about running a country, and stuff, instead of a CEO who is focussed on looting the pension fund, and relocating to the Cayman Islands? Just an idea.

Comment by Shark

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:15:03 EDT

There ya go. Problem solved. Military records don't matter. So we'll drop Bush's kinda AWOL days if yall drop Kerry's kinda "unfit for command" bullshit. Next!

Comment by Joe

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:51:29 EDT

Of all of the people I know personally who who are veterans (myself included), not one of us is voting for him because of his service record, either. (insert smiley face here)

Comment by Distorted Angel

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:02:13 EDT

Of all of the people I know personally who support Kerry (myself included), not one of us is voting for him because of his service record.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:57:24 EDT

one reason why we're in this mess is that we ignored security issues in the '90s. Yes, when a bully shoves the little guy down, it's not smart for the bully to then turn around and leave his back unprotected. We ignored the security issues that WE created and we have only ourselves to blame all around.

Comment by Redhunter

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:46:19 EDT

Boom, if you're supporting Kerry for reasons other than his war record that's good enough for me now. My question is directed at all those who seem to be voting for Kerry due to that record. And the question is, does military experience make one a better wartime president? History shows it not to be a factor. Again, I refer to Lincoln and FDR as prime examples. As for now, one reason why we're in this mess is that we ignored security issues in the '90s.

Comment by Redhunter

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:39:18 EDT

Thank you, Shark. You say you'refor Kerry for reasons other than his war record and that'll do. I'm also kind of liking your sense of humor. My question is more directed at those who use Kerry's war record as a reason for voting for him.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:37:57 EDT

Here's a question for the liberals: IF you believe that John Kerry's military and combat experience make him uniquely qualified to be president, who did you vote for in 1988, '92, and '96? What is the connection? Sept. 11th, happened after 96. Military and combat experience did not matter to me before. I voted for economic, social, and civil rights issues, these factors are equally important to me now. And in spite of all the people trying to keep throwing Kerry's records at me, it still matters less than what one plans to do to combat terrorism. 30 years ago, Kerry was on a boat being shot at. 30 years ago, Bush was a smackhead putting coke up his nose. Bush has a flawed, failed plan. Kerry seeks international support. This matters to me more than what happened 30 years ago, and more than who got to be in a boat or not.

Comment by Shark

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:03:38 EDT

RedHunter: "Shark, your response is not serious so I'll ignore you. ...Neither of you directly answered my question" That's 'cause I usually ignore irrelevant rhetorical questions, but to be 'serious', your question was: "IF you believe that John Kerry's military and combat experience make him uniquely qualified to be president, who did you vote for in 1988, '92, and '96?" --Which I don't believe I've heard one pro-Kerry voter say. BTW: I believe John Kerry is uniquely qualified to be President because *he's not Bush. I'd vote for a potted plant if it would send frat-boy crawling back to his chain-saw in Crawford. (*I aim to satisfy -- and I give 'em what they want!) As for not being serious, I'm the only poster on BC who openly admits I'm full of shit, irrational, and don't plan on changing anyone's mind. Some of yall should wake up or fess up; a touch of honesty and self-examination will make you feel better, I promise.

Comment by Redhunter

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:48:44 EDT

Shark, your response is not serious so I'll ignore you. Mark Saleski; vulnerable? I don't understand your point. Also I don't get how you think you've "taken the issue away." Yes, you're right, we do attack anyone who looks like they can't handle national security issues. And military experience has nothing to do with fitness to be president. History shows this conclusively. Need I point out that neither Lincoln nor FDR spent a day in the military but are widely regarded as our best wartime presidents. We're not voting for platoon leader, but for president. - Neither of you directly answered my question.

Comment by Shark

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:14:26 EDT

"...Here's a question for the liberals: IF you believe that John Kerry's military and combat experience make him uniquely qualified to be president, who did you vote for in 1988, '92, and '96?" I'd vote for the first guy who admitted he smoked pot, inhaled, and tried like hell to dodge the draft during vietnam. Seriously. Those are acts and traits I deem to be signs of high intelligence. BTW: I love the fact that Kerry's Nam service is just about to give the Nasty Right a fucking collective aneurism. ~ahahahah! It shows how vulnerable they truly feel relative to Bush's AWOL, draft-dodgin', daddys-helpin' non-days in the Texas National Guard. Ahahaha. Rave on, boyz!

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:57:32 EDT

It just seems to me that a lot of people on the left have suddenly found military/combat experience to be qualifiers who were strangely silent on these issues in the past fifteen years. given the nature of current world events, the republicans would (rightly so, i think) be attacking any candidate who looked as though he wouldn't be able to deal with national security issues. this is just a response to that, to take away that issue. i don't really think it's a trick or anything.