Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

Think at your own risk.
Monday, January 30, 2006
The Jay Tea Moonbat Test
Okay so I surf over to Wizbang to see what the wingers are up to today, and I come across this, in which he freaking called me a dude... oh, sorry, I meant this:

Last week, I brought up a really stupid "survey" one leftist whacko cooked up in his fried little brain to "test" the depths of their support. I turned it around, taking an almost-as-hyperbolic hypothetical situation and asked anti-Bush readers to answer that one.

In the comments, though, they wouldn't take the bait. But a couple of them in particular proved my point in their refusal. jreid (mentioned earlier today and No Exit both exhibited the frothing moonbat mentality in fine fettle. In fact, No Exit so captured the lunacy, his remarks ought to be printed out and saved in the Smithsonian as an examplar of the species.

But one recurring theme was that the Bush backers (like me, presumably) are mindless automatons, unthinking, willing puppets who just voice their support regardless of whatever he does, and defend his decisions, policies, and actions without any thought for themselves.

This is a load of crap, and sheerest projection. As Synova pointed out, Bush supporters tend to be far more issue-oriented than focusing on the individual. It's the Left that automatically denounces and gainsays Bush.

You want proof? Fine. Let's do a little compare and contrast.

A few months ago, Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. At that time, a lot of his traditional base differed with him -- and quite vocally, to the point where he had to withdraw her and replace her with Samuel Alito. I was one of those voices. Also, when I endorsed Bush for re-election, I specifically cited several instances where I disagreed with his positions.

So, let's see how things are on the other foot. I challenge liberal bloggers to go back and find a single posting where they -- no matter how reluctantly -- supported a single Bush policy, decision, statement, or action. If you don't have a blog of your own, go poking through the archives of some of the bigger left-lurching blogs and find one there. Kos, Atrios, TPM, Cousin Oliver Willis -- find ONE INSTANCE where they didn't just mindlessly oppose Bush.

I'm betting you won't.
Come again? Now let's keep in mind that I like Wizbang. It's almost always a good read. But Jay? You're just dead wrong. Here is JReid's huffy response:

Sweet Jesus, Jay. You cite THIS as your example of disagreeing with George Bush?:
"For just a few examples, I think he's wrong on the issues of abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage. But I also believe that he has derived his positions from sincere beliefs and ethical principles, and that is something I can respect."
Why not add that you also love him desperately, just the same? As one of the supposed "frothing moonbats" who can't stop hating George W. Bush, permit me to say that it IS the issues, man! If Mr. Bush (whatever my personal feelings about his intellectual candle wattage or other personal characteristics -- the inarticulateness, the smirk, the radio pack on his back... oh, sorry, frothing again...) were to suddenly espouse a policy I agreed with, I would certainly say so (and I wouldn't feel the need to qualify my support).

However, my problem with Mr. Bush is the very "principles" (your word) by which he seems to have come to all of his policy prescriptions: like hiring corporate cronies to oversee their former industries and then having the PR flaks massage the cronies' boosterism for their former industries into good governance talking points for the regurgitating devices on MSNBC, Fox and CNN to read. Or his habit of hiring campaign flaks (to run the Iraq CPA, FEMA, and now ICE) and shrugging off their clear incompetence and lack of qualifications. Without those things, Mr. Bush's proposals for New Orleans, his stewardship of the mining industry, his ideas for healthcare, social security etc. would be coming from a very different place, and I might even be able to support those ideas.

Then there's this habit Bush has ... or rather, that Cheney has for him ... of discovering new and expansive powers for the president that aren't in the Constitution. I dunno, somehow that bothers me, man...

On Iraq, we have the same problem. Mr. Bush began with a principle I cannot accept (and that other non-Moonbats like George Will and Pat Buchanan don't accept either): namely that it is a proper use of America's military to attack a country that didn't attack or threaten us, and which we have failed to prove could do so in the forseeable future. And then to do it BADLY, without enough troops to pacify the damned country and hand it back to its people in one, rather than a million little pieces? I should support that, why? Bush's roll of the dice with the mad neocons has doomed his presidency, shattered America's prestige, soiled its good name with the dregs of torture, prisoner abuse, secret jails and other Saddam-lite crap, and has brought his fundamental judgment into such question for me, that I really can't see how I support his foreign policy ideas going forward. And Bush seems to be making the same bad judgment calls on everything from Iran to North Korea to Latin America. Am I just supposed to support him because he's the president? (didn't work for Clinton) Because you say he's "principled?" ... or just because you say so?

In other words, I think your question is rather absurd. My disagreements with Mr. Bush ARE about issues -- they're about his POLICIES. His personal attributes are simply made more galling and annoying because he is a total incompetent as president. And by the way, why is it required that opponents of the president, who by definition oppose his methods of arriving at policy, "find something to agree with?" What's the point? To prove that we can? If you ask me, it's far more alarming to watch Bush bot types like yourself prostrate yourselves before the man and insist that he must be supported, even when his policies violate your own supposedly conservative principles (on immigration, for instance).

Trust me, Jay, if Dubya manages to do something -- anything -- right over the next three years, I'll be the first to stand up and cheer.

...oh wait! Marriage. ... I support Bush on marriage. Yes! I KNEW I could do it!

Okay, so I got a bit off topic. But you get my point.

Upate: To be fair, I decided that I really should take Jay up on his challenge. So I'm searching my archives to see if I can find anything -- a single post -- in which I agreed with George W. Bush. Okay Jay? Happy?

... searching ... searching ... (developing...)

Previous:

Tags: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 1:01 PM  
ReidBlog: The Obama Interview
Listen now:


Home

Site Feed

Email Me

**NEW** Follow me on Twitter!

My Open Salon Blog

My TPM Blog

My FaceBook Page

Del.icio.us

My MySpace

BlackPlanet

Blogroll Me!


Syndicated by:

Blog RSS/Atom Feed Aggregator and Syndicate


Loading...


Add to Technorati Favorites

Finalist: Best Liberal Blog
Thanks to all who voted!



About Reidblog

Previous Posts
Title
"I am for enhanced interrogation. I don't believe waterboarding is torture... I'll do it. I'll do it for charity." -- Sean Hannity
Links
Templates by
Free Blogger Templates