To keep this as simple as possible:

Bush-bashing is only really bashing if there are no sound facts that can be directly linked to Bush himself. If you're criticising his administration, or the person who shut down the factory (which wasn't Bush) then it's going too far, and isn't Bush-bashing. That's like making fun of U.S. Grant for his administration being corrupt.

I also think it's going too far when you're just criticising things like Bush's DUI. Sure, it's a huge taint. But, you don't see Bush driving around hammered as can be nowadays. In other words, since the DUI was years ago and has no effect, at least no direct fact on the decisions he makes that affect our country and other countries of the world, it's going too far.

Anything with legitimate material supporting it is fair game though. Hey, that's just politics.

If someone wants to take the time to do so it wouldn't be hard to find numerous and repeated remarks I've written about Bush that could be considered waaay over the line of legitimate criticism and just mean-spirited character assassination.

I'm not here to disavow those words now. It's too hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube and I'm not going to try. All I can deal with is the here and now.

Cruising Ram, while I respect your right to be wary and cautious of the excesses of the Bush Administration may I point out what John Lennon sang in "Revolution"

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

I think it's been made clear as glass that when people start mentioning Bush in the same sentence as Hitler, the conversation is over and the dogma has begun. It just grinds the debate to a dead stop. "Well, Bush is acting like Hitler with the Patriot Act." BZZZZZZZTTT!!!! Thanks for playing. Sorry, but I must be going now. Comparisons between Bush and a man who caused misery, misfortune and mass murder for millions is for me a comparison that doesn't hold water. It just polarizes people, because what is being said in effect that just as the German people bear complicity in the crimes of Hitler, the same principle applies to the supporters of George Bush.

That's a cross most folks aren't going to bear.

If in this pivotal year those of us who are opposed to Bush and hope to end his presidency will snappy one-liners and finely honed insults be enough to sway the undecided voters who are looking for positive ideas and progressive thinking to convince them to go against the status quo? I think anger, outrage and weariness with the Bush Administration are ample motivations for the true partisan such as myself or Cruising Ram, Artemise, and Wertz. But there are a lot of young posters on this board and others whose minds are not as certain on what they will do in November.

If all those of us who oppose Bush offer is negativity--even if it is factual---that won't be enough to win others to our side because we will lose the moral high ground. Merely being "right" is not enough.

There's a term that has become lost in all the partisan rancor in Washington and on this board. It's being the loyal opposition. Being honked off at Bush because he's a bad President is one thing, but providing facts and upon occasion solutions is what will win the day----and the election.

To be honest, Nighttimer, that sounds an awful lot like John Kerry. "What I said back then and how I voted in the 20 some years since is irrelevant, I can't take it back. I can only say what I need to say now, never mind the man behind the curtain." Except it does matter and it is relevant, just as what people have posted here in the past is relevant. Whether it is here in this specific thread or not. When someone comes here and claims they don't bash Bush without foundation or by name and haven't done so, it is entirely fair to discover the truth about that claim and challenge it if warranted. It's something called "credibility".

That's why I raised the issue here. While nobody here is running for President (to my knowledge), it seems to me to be fair to check their claims as well as far as their credibility is concerned on the subject at hand. Having "toothpaste out of the tube" isn't a credible defense in my mind, and yes, I hold myself to the same standards.



I hope I am misreading the intent of this statement. If your purpose in starting this very good thread was to attempt to craft a more effective strategy for defeating Bush in November as opposed to attempting to raise the general level of debate in this forum, then perhaps you should have instead have posted it in the Democratic Party area. I trust that was not your original intent.

I think what NT was getting at is that it is hard to be taken seriously when you are making extremist claims. It is also more difficult to convince someone that he is supporting the son of Satan than it is to convince someone that another individual might be a better candidate than the man he is currently supporting. Basically those who compare Bush to Hitler or Clinton to Ted Bundy may draw cheers from the choir, but they turn off even undecided voters.

Hugo has correctly interepreted the point of my previous point, Aquilla.

It would be disengenous of me to say that I have never bashed Bush and it would be equally disengenous for me to say that I am not firmly committed to defeating Bush in November. Those may be two things that I have in common with John Kerry. Unlike Senator Kerry, I am not blurring my intentions nor disavowing parts of my past that may be politically inconvienent.

I repeat: If someone wants to expend the time and energy to find critical remarks I've made about Bush, they are there to be found and you will find them. I am not trying to claim, "Once I was blind and now I see." All I am trying to do is elevate the debate and make it one of more substance, and less hysteria.

But please don't mistake what my ultimate intent is Aquilla. On the reelection of President Bush our objectives are still directly opposed. I hold fast to the belief that reasonable people can disagree with civility and respect.

What my point was is that I don't believe you can achieve noble ends through ignoble means. Slamming Bush as the source of all things wrong falls into that category for me. After four years, Bush has a record to run on---and to defend. THAT is what I want to confine my criticism to and not nebulous arguments on his intelligence, morals, or faith.

However, if I have to stand on Bush's back to make myself seem taller, what do I accomplish? We can engage in political discourse that is lively, frank and candid, but that is a far cry from the scorched earth kind of language at times used by opponents AND supporters of President Bush.

There's got to be a better way to do it.

What it's worth is that that was an entire thread devoted to "an argument against the people who dismiss him as a moron" (as defined in the opening post). What follows is a fairly serious discussion of the fact that a certain level of sociopathy can be detected in Bush's "misspeakings". I hardly see where that counts as gratuitous "Bush-basing". Indeed, I think that the article in question raises some fairly serious points well worth considering in assessing the character of George W Bush. If that's the best you can do out of more than 1750 contributions which I've made to the political forums here, I think I can stand by my record.

If you would like even more ammunition for your accusations of "Bush-bashing", here's a thread (started by myself) accusing George W Bush of being a pathological liar and another here (also started by myself) on whether or not George W Bush might be a dry drunk. While I believe that Bush is a liar and, quite possibly, an addict in recovery, neither of those threads were gratuitous name-calling. Indeed, fairly sound foundation was provided for both theses. The first was started simply to redress some of the accusations about Clinton and Gore coming from the opposition and the other to demonstrate why I feel that Bush should not be a primary target (if he is a dry drunk, all the more reason to fear those manipulating him rather than the man himself).

That said, those are but two out of dozens upon dozens of threads to which I have posted and - if you're interested in pursuing it - you will find that, apart from threads specifically devoted to the character of George W Bush (or lack thereof), I very seldom hold him responsible for - well, much of anything. While you may consider my opinion of Bush and his capabilities ill-considered or shallow, I do not. And the reason that I so seldom hold him personally accountable for any of the actions, policies, or positions of his administration is that I do not consider him capable of taking action unaided, composing a policy on his own, or formulating a position without extensive coaching - and I believe that, over the years, extensive foundation has been provided for that position.

You may feel that that is pure "Bush-bashing" - I believe that it is simply stating the reality of the Bush administration and the man who is its figurehead. That is why I am way more concerned about the people whom I believe really are running the show - people like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. It is also why I feel that offhand "Bush-bashing" for the sake of making caustic remarks is a waste of time - and misses the target. Bush himself is the ultimate straw man. And "bashing" him personally is like tilting at windmills.

That entire thread is based on an article from some liberal professor in something called "Culture and Communication" at NYU. Nothing in his bio would indicate any psychiacritric training whatsoever, certainly not enough to make a diagnosis of a "sociopath" based on things a person has said. So, what ensures is a discussion without any real foundation and anyone who cares can read what was said and make up their own mind. To me, it is mindless Bush-bashing, to others it might be useful discussion. Serious even.

Each to their own I guess.