I'm feeling a certain regret for becoming an informed citizen.
Talking with a staunch democrat friend, I told her that I thought Obama would probably win and that maybe it was a good thing, "Maybe people wouldn't be so mad."
" See, I feel like the anger is coming from the right," she said.
She was talking about this:
The Secret Service is following up on media reports today that someone in the crowd at a McCain/Palin event suggested killing Barack Obama, according to Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley. The shout of "kill him" followed a Sarah Palin rant on Obama's relationship with radical Chicagoan Bill Ayers.
Assuming that is an accurate report, shouting murderous intentions is pretty angry. No doubt a rally for McCain is a Republican site. So, there is some right anger going on.
But I've been hearing so much rage against Bush for so long, personally. I've had liberal friends describe violent and humiliating things they would like to do the the current president. Do I think they would actually do such things? No. But I am amazed to find these usually rational people be so full of destructive 'bad energy.'
And now we are at the election; almost there. I see this old anger directed at McCain, and my homegirl Palin.
What is up with this? I hate to continue to spread these nasty things, but here is some of what I'm talking about:
In a sign of increasing nastiness on the left, supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama have been booing rivals John McCain and Sarah Palin, and even screaming “liar!” — with no response from Obama.
Okay, screaming liar! about the opponent is not so bad. But there is more. Michelle Malkin chronicles what she's found. That post is a comparison of left rage vs. right rage. She, like me, is a conservative. She has collected a bunch of nasty things about Palin and McCain, and reaches back to show the Bush-rage that I've been noticing too.
I wanted to find a quote to paste in here, but I just can't...it's so distasteful. Read it if you are feeling very balanced, but if you don't want a downer, skip it.
I find this rage incomprehensible. Passion about an issue, I understand. But how do these people, who claim to be so interested in "serving the common good" (a phrase I see repeated and repeated in democrat literature in my community) justify this kind of nastiness?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Arch Conservative
These moonbat leftists have been saying the most vile things about Bush and any other Republican they happened to set their sights on for eight years and now they're offended that people saying unkind things about thier messiah?
Cry me a river you fucking hypocrites.
2 - Les Slater
It's not just rage, it's also irrational fear about what would happen if the 'other' candidate wins.
I started noticing this with the Kennedy/Nixon race in 1960. The rhetoric got pretty vile at times. Two Kennedy's, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and others were assassinated. There were also several political assassinations carried out by various cop forces.
3 - Joanne Huspek
I saw this with the last Bush election. I know people who were actually despondent that Bush won. Bush is not one of my favorite persons (and right now neither candidate is doing anything for me either) but I don't think I'd become despondent if one wins over the other.
I might become despondent anyway, but it won't have to do with who won. One man isn't going to change everything and set the country on its ear, no matter what they promise on the stump.
The vitriol over Palin is unbelievable. She has her shortcomings but they all do. The fever pitch against her is scary. I've had to tell my friends not to send me those email links like the ones in your article. I don't want to go to the negative side.
I can't wait to see what Sen. Obama is going to trim from his tax promises once elected. He's got to be smart enough to know something has to give.
4 - Clavos
t's not just rage, it's also irrational fear about what would happen if the 'other' candidate wins.
I don't like the idea of wealth redistribution. Obama has said he will do that.
No "irrational fear," the man has made it a part of his platform.
5 - Surfer
Clav writes: "wealth redistribution"
There's a fair bit of that going on right now without Obama's help.
Wall Street's mantra right now might as well be: "You give me your hard earned, and I'll redistribute it for you" ... down the shit house.
G'day yankee boat dude and crew ... I've been up in The Philippines for a few weeks and just back, hence no contact.
I haven't seen the news or read the papers this past week or so until yesterday - and many strange things seem to have happened in the meantime. Or would that be an understatement?
I am off to hit the sack. Hope all's well.
6 - zingzing
for fuck's sake, clavos. what do you think he's going to do? take half your money and give it to your servants? please. do you really think he's really going to get anywhere near your pleasure boat enterprise? admit it, you have no clue what he's going to do.
7 - Clavos
No, zing, you're right: he won't get my money, I don't have enough.
But, has he not said he'll raise taxes on the rich, while lowering them on everyone else?
I believe that's called wealth redistribution.
And I'm agin it.
8 - zingzing
so what if it's called wealth redistribution? we've done the same damn thing forever. it's all a question of what you believe--trickle up or trickle down?
when bush cuts taxes on the rich and leaves taxes the same for everyone else, is that wealth redistribution? why, i guess it is.
and what's "agin it?" against it, maybe? i dunno.
9 - bliffle
Every tax and every government expenditure is "wealth redistribution". But the neo-republicans only complain about a few of them.
10 - Tony
The big difference between the two sources of anger is that the left is mad that George Bush ruined our country with bad fiscal policy and a war we couldn't afford while the right is mad because they mindlessly follow anyone the Republicans throw on the ticket because of their Christian morality issues.
Americans have a right to be mad that George Bush lied to our face about the war(an indisputable fact) and yet has continually dumped American lives and tax dollars into another country while American lives crumble at home. If the people aren't mad about the last eight years they are clueless.
The economic conservatives are, or should be, just as upset about Bush's fiscal policy as anyone else. Can you get more fascist than the Government buying into the banks?
11 - Baritone
There are and will always be nut cases on all sides who write and say pretty nasty shit about candidates they oppose.
The recent spate of hate spewing was instigated largely by the tactics of the McCain campaign with its barely veiled suggestions that Obama is a foreigner, a muslim and a terrorist. Since they are still doing it, I can say that it IS bald fear and hate mongering. There are no such smears coming from the Obama camp.
B
12 - Baronius
I remember the awful feeling I had in 1996. I could understand how the country could elect Clinton once, but by 1996 everyone knew what kind of a man he was and reelected him anyway. The Dems have just been through that same two-term frustration, and I can sympathize.
13 - Lumpy
it's the bitter hatred of the left that torks me off. we had to put up with 8 years of Clinton and got stuck with bush to placate the modertes and now they think they have some divine right to put idi amin jr in the white house. well I say fuck that. enough is enough. do what's best for the country for the first time in your miserable bloodsucking careers and just throw obama under the bus and move on.
14 - zingzing
come on y'all, let's keep torkin' lumpy off til the end comes! the freakin' obama end!
but really, you think mccain/palin is what's BEST for the country?
it's our turn, lumpy. get used to it.
15 - Dr Dreadful
Lumpy is to informed political commentary what frying pan grease is to my garbage disposal.
16 - Baritone
Clinton's main foible was that he just couldn't keep his dork in his pants. That propensity completely overshadowed and dissipated his presidency.
Had Monica kept her piece and/or had taken her dress to the dry cleaner, Bubba might have gotten away with it.
In contrast to "W" Bill Clinton is a very intelligent guy and was in many respects an able president. Had he been president of France or, say, prime minister of Denmark, his adventures with Monica would have raised some eyebrows perhaps, and given late nite talk shows a great deal of fodder, but it is hardly likely that anyone would have given thought to bringing charges against him. As long as he carried out the duties of his office, few would have given a rats ass about how or with whom he was getting his rocks off. But, alas.
I don't excuse Clinton for his behavior. He knew the score. He knew how this country would react. If he gave it any thought at all, he would have realized such antics, if discovered, could have the effect of bringing down his presidency. It nearly did.
Nevertheless, Clinton's eight years in office proved to be overall a time of prosperity for most. By comparison, the now nearly eight years of Bush have been a monumental cluster fuck. Remember, we also had to endure "HW" for four years after eight unbearable years of Ronnie. So yes, Democrats are due. Bush, the neocons and the fundies came together (and it was soooooo goooood) and pissed away the last eight years. Republicans lose the right to govern by default. They obviously suck at it.
B
17 - Pablo
Lumpy is to informed political commentary what frying pan grease is to my garbage disposal.
Not bad Dread, not bad at all. :)
18 - DaveNalle
Some look back on the Reagan era as a golden age, Dr. D. And HW was certainly not a terrible president, if not terribly distinguished. Personally I'm not a big Clinton-hater, but he governed more like Reagan did than like any more traditional Democrat.
The problem is that the Democratic party of today isn't the Democratic Party of Tip O'Neill or Bill Clinton. It's the Democratic Party of George Soros, Nancy Pelosi and the Progressive Caucus.
If Bill Clinton were running today I'd vote for him in a second if it kept Barack Obama out of office.
Lumpy's half-articulated rage is understandable. A lot of us have been counting on the Republican party to keep us out of the clutches of international socialism and they've blown it. Now we have to pay the price, and if it's a repeat of the Carter years or even worse, that's our punishment for not holding Republicans' feet to the fire.
It will take years to undo the damage Obama will do in 4 years. I wonder if the country will ever recover. Look how we are suffering now with the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt's interference in the free market from 70 years ago.
Dave
19 - Pablo
Davey says,
"Some look back on the Reagan era as a golden age"
Uhhhh some of us dont bubba. :)
20 - Cannonshop
I think that's why the descriptor "Some" was used, Paul.
21 - Arch Conservative
'If Bill Clinton were running today I'd vote for him in a second if it kept Barack Obama out of office."
Never thought I'd agree with a statement like that but Eight Ball Barry is just that bad.
22 - Clavos
Funny how the most Bubbaesque commenter on these threads calls everyone else "Bubba."
23 - Cannonshop
(Speculation)
Term of Endearment, maybe? Lord knows, when you're paranoid enough, it's hard to make friends in the real world... it could also be all those years poking smot and listening to late night radio has caused a form of tourettes??(/speculation)
24 - Clavos
That, or wishful thinking/projection...
25 - Dr Dreadful
Dave, if Reagan hadn't had his good friend Maggie Thatcher to hold his hand all through his eight years in the White House, America would likely not remember him so fondly.