« Protest and Offense | Main | Stem Cell Policy Moderation »

Friday, April 17, 2009



What are you trying to prove? That crazies come out in droves to these events whether it's a liberal or conservative event? That should be a given.

Also, Obama has been president for two months. So of course you can produce more anti-Bush signs from an 8 year presidency. Give it a couple years and I'm betting conservatives will come up with plenty of Obama-hating signs.

And I think you're commment about "Bush's war vs. Obama's war" is too simplistic. I've been very anti-Iraq War, but I've always been pro-Afgan War. While I don't like war, I can be in favor of a just war. Attacking Afganistan after 9/11 was, in my opinion, just. Attacking Iraq wasn't, even though the Bush admin tried to connect it to 9/11 and WMDs. If President Bush would've just kept at Afganistan and not gone into Iraq, his presidency would've turned out much differently. Sure there still would've been some anti-war rallies, but the American people possibly would not have turned against him like they did.



Just that the Tea Party protests were not at all unusual in their decorum or criticism of the President. You are right in this: it should be a given that crazies show up whether it is a liberal or conservative event, but that is not how the press has played this. It has focused "laser-like" on the extreme elements and relentlessly suggested that the whole tea-party movement was crazy. That is what I responded to in my posts.


There is quite a difference between conservatives and liberals in the way they treat other human beings. Liberals almost always engaged in personal attacks especially when they are backed into a corner with logical and factual debate. Liberals also delight when something dreadful happens to a conservative. Case in point, when Tony Snow announced that his cancer had returned. There were several liberal blogs that hoped he would have a painful death. Yet when it was announced that Senator Edward Kennedy had brain cancer, I did not see one conservative blog with the same kinds of thoughts. In fact all the conservative blogs I read had well wishes and offering of prayers for him.

Look at the pictures posted in this blog thread. Very hateful wishes for President Bush. Tom you said give it a couple of years and you will see the same kinds of things about Obama. I doubt it very much. You will not see a true conservative wishing the sitting president dead.

Another thing that is note worthy, is the fact that on the liberal blogs I read quit often there is mention on how stupid conservative are, also how stupid president is/was, even tho when transcripts were release of President Bush and Al Gore, President Bush has a higher GPA.

Anyway if you notice in one of the pictures of the protesters above The one "Kill Terrorists Bomb there houses. I do believe the correct spelling should be "Their". He probably should have had his sign proof read before he publically displayed his intellegence for all to see.


I should not have said it was “all about Iraq” and am usually careful not to use the word because things are seldom “all” anything. That said, I think it quite safe to say by far most domestic war protest, and anti-war sentiment, during the Bush years was directed at the Iraq invasion. Your post notes Afghanistan protests were/are common in other countries and you show one that appears to be strictly Afghan in San Francisco, which may or may not be a fair example of "domestic" protest considering starboard opinions of the "Amercanism" of Rice-A-Roni’s home. (Couldn't resist)

I was trying to be careful when writing: “Any hatred from port was generally rooted in opposition to policy…” That does not exclude the fact that some anti-war groups see Israel and the U.S. as conspiring to gain some sort of world dominance or that these groups have staged protests. But, if those I know who opposed the Iraq invasion are any indication, most protesters acted strictly because they opposed only that war, do not have an ax to grind with Israel and saw our actions in Afghanistan as necessary and justified.

You ask for examples of Bush & Company blurring the line between themselves and America as a means of deflecting criticism, etc. If accusing your critics of “giving comfort” to America’s enemies (treason) counts, here are lots of examples:

Fox News reported: Bush warned Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Tuesday to watch what they say or risk giving "comfort to our adversaries" and suffering at the ballot box in November.

Bush had this exchange in 2006 with Oprah:

Bush: Debate is an important part of our free-speech tradition in this country, what we fight for. But there is responsible debate and irresponsible debate; we hope and expect that our critics will forsake irresponsible debate by --

Oprah: By not saying anything really negative about your policies?

Bush: By not saying anything that could weaken our defenses and give our enemy the feeling that he can win because some American citizens are tearing down the president and his policies. They are free to speak their mind -- that's what makes our country great -- but they must watch what they say and how they say it, and not go blaring their objections around the internet and press where someone might hear it and act on it.
The rest is here: http://apj.us/20060207Weiner.html

Here is a collection of instances where Bush Administration Officials and other Republicans accuse critics of giving comfort to America’s enemies: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/gop-dissent-attacks.html

As to hatred directed at Bush, I did not mean to deny it. I was saying I believe in most cases it was hatred of his policies that instilled hatred of the man, not the other way around. What I was questioning is why that hatred seems to be duplicated toward Obama among some “tea partiers” while policy hatreds seem scarce and/or unfocused. And to be clear, I think we might agree hatred is a more harsh emotion than can be applied as broadly as you and I perhaps have in referring to both Bush and Obama protesters. Dislike or anger would often be more appropriate.

I will note an action that speaks well for the “tea partiers” in D.C. When told they could not dump their million tea bags in Lafayette Park, they were respectful and sought an alternative location. And so far as I know, all the protests were peaceful. In turn, I hope you would note that domestic anti-war protests have been mostly peaceful—even if you can’t accept most being motivated simply by anti-war sentiment.

robert chapman

The Bush Administration liked to blur the line between itself and America thus making protesters unamerican threats to God, mom and apple pie. But that was just a semantic contrivance designed to deflect criticism, denigrate opponents and intimidate some critics into silence.

Unless you think that Dick Cheney is not part of the Bush Administration, I cannot imagine how you can the statement above.

The former Vice President was on TV two weeks ago telling viewers that Obama is weakening America. I guess that since Cheney left calling Obama a terrorist to Sarah Palin, he is off the hook.

The reason voters are leaving the GOP in droves is because of the Republicans utter duplicity.

Miranda Flint


The exchange you site between Bush and Oprah was not real.
The wording sounded suspect to me, so I looked it up.
The piece is very clearly marked "satire" on the web site it comes from.
You may find that here:




Good satire though, as it sounded enough like him to ring true. But yes, oops on that one, and I should have read the subtitle.

Any problem with the rest?

Miranda Flint

Well, yes, actually.

First, most of the protests I saw were not about any sort of policy.
They started when Bush was sworn in. Before Bush ever invaded Iraq,
many liberals had already decided he was worth hating. He had stolen the election and stopped their votes from counting! And I still remember the "Anybody But Bush!" slogan. It was everywhere. On signs, bumperstickers, t-shirts.

It's funny. When Clinton bombed Serbia, Democrats didn't protest half as much as they did when Bush went into Iraq. Now that Obama is president, they've quieted down quite a bit.

Dr. Blanchard is, I think, right in his statement that Obama's war doesn't offend protestors (former protestors?) as much as Bush's war.

Miranda Flint

Protesters, even. I seem to be losing my ability to spell as the night progresses. Sorry.


This is going so well without me that I am tempted to sit it out. But a few comments: First, Bush's remark: "President Bush warned Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Tuesday to watch what they say or risk giving "comfort to our adversaries" and suffering at the ballot box in November." It is not as if Bush didn't have a point. People used to say that politics stops at the water's edge, which implies that certain kinds of dissent at home can be problematic for our foreign policy.

The problem with his remark is not that it includes a reference to the legal description of treason (giving comfort or aid to our enemies), for Bush is quite explicit that the penalty the Democrats have to worry about is not jail but the coming election. The problem is that a "water's edge" standard on foreign policy (which doesn't mean no criticism) can only be self-enforcing. Once it becomes a contentious issue, everyone will think that it's the other side that's over the line. So I think that Bush's remark is a bit silly.

But the source you give for that quote proves the very opposite of your assertion that the Bush & Company were frequently "blurring the line between themselves and America as a means of deflecting criticism." Bush explicitly recognizes the role of honest criticism and an honorable opposition.

Bush hatred was not doubt inspired partly by policy opposition, but it clearly goes far beyond policy opposition. I do not see any grounds for the view that the tea party people were less focused on policy. Exploding deficits will inevitably result in soaring taxes in one form or another. That is a very focused argument. Expanding government will inevitably lead to slower economic growth and thus exacerbate the aforementioned deficits. Those are the concerns that united the tea party movement. It was altogether proper that the protesters focus on President Obama. He's President!

Finally, if it was bad of Bush to come close to accusing his critics of treason, what of those who accuse Obama's critics of racism? See: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/04/16/garofalo-tea-partiers-are-all-racists-who-hate-black-president. And then there is this, from my Keloland Colleague: "If you want to understand the real occasion for the tax-day tea parties, just substitute the N-word for "tea" and you have a good indicator of what the parties are really about."

I am sorry A.I., but the Left looks every bit as bad as the right on these issues.


You say: "Bush explicitly recognizes the role of honest criticism and an honorable opposition." Perhaps, but only in so far as he gets to define honorable. Bottom line, criticism of Bush foreign policy equaled comfort for our enemies.

John F.

Friend, you're high. Was their vicious criticism of Bush? Yes, there was. But is civility the mark of Tea Party protestors?

Please... please... stop. You're making me laugh. And then cry.

No, not all of Obama's critics are idiots or racists. But a hell of a lot of them are, and they happen to be incredibly vocal. If you don't think that kind of ugliness is right, then don't fight it by trying to prove people were mean to Bush. Do it by fighting against it wherever you see it. And if you're not seeing it in the Tea Party movement, you're really not looking.

As for Bush not trying to stop out dissent... how about "If you're not with us, you're against us"... a phrase that was never reserved only for terrorists. There is no question that during the early to mid 2000s, it was dangerous in America to exercise your first amendment rights if your opinions ran counter to the D.C. agenda.

The comments to this entry are closed.