The following item appeared on Misleader.org, a anti-Bush web site run by Move On.org.

Factory Bush Touted Closes; 1,300 Ohioans Jobless

Last April, President Bush visited a Timken Company manufacturing plant in Ohio to press for passage of new tax cuts that he said would spur the economy. During the speech Bush said that "the future of this company is bright and therefore, the future of employment is bright for the families that work here". Less than a year after the tax cuts for the wealthy passed, that same factory is shutting down -- putting about 1,300 people out of work and inflicting a "devastating" blow to the Canton community. With the White House pushing even more tax cuts for the wealthy and supporting outsourcing of American jobs, Ohio has lost more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs since President Bush took office.

Of course, one person who will not be feeling the pain of the President's economic policies is W.R. "Tim" Timken - a top Bush fundraiser and the man who decided to shut down the factory. Having earned more than $2.6 million last year, Timken stands to receive $59,000 in new tax breaks from President Bush this year - Timken also happens to have raised $600,000 for the President in one night. By contrast, 89% of Ohio residents will receive less than $100 by 2006 from the latest Bush tax cuts.


http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Rea...df05182004.html

Despite the obvious opposition of the site to President Bush's reelection, if the basic facts of the story are true, then is it legitimate to criticize the President on his remarks and the subsequent factory closing?

I would say "Yes." But is that criticism the same thing as "bashing" Bush? That depends.

If you want to say Bush's economic policies are not helping the 1,300 people losing their jobs at the Timken plant, then maybe you've got a point. On the other hand, if you want to say Bush only cares about the wealthiest Americans and doesn't give a hang about those 1,300 people, then depending on how that is put across we're getting close to Bush-bashing.

A number of threads have been closed for becoming little more than forums where Bush is guilty of everything except causing cancer. In this one I'd like to ask both Bush supporters and critics, What is legitimate criticism of George Bush and what goes too far?

And let's try to respect each other's viewpoint, okay?

Good topic! If your cited story is indeed the truth then it is most certainly a legitimate criticism of the Bush policies and their effects. That's kind of what campaigns are supposed to be all about. Of course there may be another side to the story and if the Bush campaign wants to present that side, that's fair as well. But, on to the meat of your question......

Where I have a problem with "Bush-bashing", particularly in this forum is framing virtually everything in terms of "Bush is responsible for this, he is a bad man" kind of argument. My eyes glaze over when I start reading that kind of thing because there is no substance to it, it doesn't really address the topic of discussion at hand and quite frankly, I've been there, got the T-Shirt. Calling Bush a Nazi or Adolph Hitler or saying he's worse that OBL, etc. is not a useful statement. Simply calling him names like "an alcoholic" or a "drug user" isn't helpful either. My response to stuff like that is a "Yeah, yeah, Yeah, we know you hate Bush and you aren't going to vote for him and oh well....." and then I move on to another thread. There is no use to responding to such Ad hominum attacks like those. That is the kind of "Bush bashing" that offends me and turns me off from the discussion. And it's not because I'm a strong Bush supporter which I am. Rather, it's because I've heard it all before and have nothing to add.

I heard that John F. Kennedy once said he preferred tough questions in press conferences because they allowed him to define himself and sharpen his message. I can understand that. I would prefer hard issues and criticisms of substance being raised by Bush opponents to debate. That's a challenge I relish. Responding to "Bush is a moron" is hardly something I come to this forum to do.

While this is indeed an excellent piece of irony, I don't believe that the article constitutes proof that Dubya's policies are the cause. However, the fact that Ohio has suffered a net loss of jobs and that Ohio is a major manufacturing state is at least for Ohio-ans a very good reason to question Dubya's policies.

There are many other reasons to question Dubya's policies that I believe are perfectly legitimate. Such as, the record federal debt and record spending: something which traditional conservatives ought to be in an uproar about. In fact, I forsee the "borrow and spend" plank of the Republican party causing a major division between the fiscal conservatives and the neo-conservatives. The question is: can the fiscal conservatives look beyond party loyalty to force the party to return to its traditional values? More importantly, do the fiscal conservatives feel that they even have a voice in Dubya's regime? At this point, I'm not sure that they do.

[/I]I've had numerous knock down-drag outs with conservatives on this and other boards on Dubya. It is possible to dog Bush's policies without saying he has horns, hooves and a red tail concealed.

I don't Bush is the devil, Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun's love child or the Antichrist. I just don't think he's a terribly good president. We can argue on the reasons, but not the conclusion. I know for the exact same reasons I see Bush as a bad President are the reasons others see him as strong, decisive and effective.

The viewpoints on Bush are so polarized that I have friends and family that say I'm getting soft and cutting him too much slack. I bow to no one (except maybe Wertz) in my belief that Bush is a lousy president. I just don't think he's less than human.

One of the most admired politicians in America is Senator John McCain, but even he had to apologize for a nasty crack he made once about President Clinton's daughter, Chelsea. Remember it? It went like this:

"Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."

Haw-haw. That little tasteless swipe forced McCain to apologize because he stepped over the line of what was fair and to a lesser extent, what was relevant.

Most (if not all) of the posters on this board know a joke along those lines would get a swift rebuke from the moderators. It wouldn't be relevant to the general debate.

So while I may THINK George W. Bush is too stupid to walk and chew gum and couldn't find his way out of a open closet, is that relevant to the job he does as President of the United States? I don't believe so.

That is my criteria for trying to decide what criticism of Bush applies and what goes to far. It is relevant for me to say, "Bush's decisions in Iraq may have created a greater problem than what we had while Saddam was in charge and here's the reasons why."

The facts of the matter can go a long way in proving Bush is a witless fool and corporate tool, than just SAYING, "Bush is a witless fool and a corporate tool."

Yeah? Then prove it. That's the trick. If I can do so, you may disagree with my conclusions, but you won't be able to challenge the methodology applied to reach it.

And that's not bashing Bush. That's legitimate criticism in my book.

Would agree with Aquilla that calling Bush names doesn’t get much accomplished in a debate and the alcohol/drug references clearly cross the line (in fact I admire the President for exorcising his drinking demons).

Having a legitimate criticism against Bush really depends on what you believe he is directly responsible for. I personally feel he is responsible for dragging us into a war that wasn’t needed, from there I’ll blame him for the record deficit, for the current record price of gasoline, and for pushing through a tax plan that benefits the rich. It’s simply my analysis of current affairs and I can make a legitimate argument for all my points. I wouldn’t consider it bashing, just well deserved criticism.

I think another context for bashing is when an individual refuses to acknowledge anything positive from Bush. As one of his harshest critics I have on occasion given him praise.

...and Bush is not more then human/citizen either!

Many in the press say that we can't criticize the president. This is a dangerous idea. It is Alien and Sedition act stuff -- scary. John Adams, then President, wanted to be treated as royalty.

It is also part of the Federalists/Anti-Federalists story. The Federalists wanted an elected king, and a federal government that could lord over the states. It was a stupid idea, and we would have turned into a "banana republic" within a few years had the Federalists won. We need to limit the power of any specific office, or our democracy will be lost.

With all this "respect the president" noise coming out of the Reich-wing (Fox, News"Mc"Max, etc), we are at the edge of Royalty. We in the US of A don't have royalty.

Some of our founders understood: When you elect a king, you never have another real election. If we can't criticize the President, the President can expand his power extra-Constitutionally, and you can't find out what he is doing -- you can't make an informed decision about your next vote.

Tell me if that (the above) doesn't make sense, I just don't want to write a big thing right now.




To prove something so general, you would have to go off any specific topic and be massively long. Take a look at some of the many web sites that "track the payback" that has come to Bush donors.

We all lose when our government is for sale, and this government is for sale (can you say "West Star"?).

The thing that makes me so bitter towards Bush and his supporters is the hypocrisy- All of the critisism towards Clinton- really not much substance on his policies- but this "character" thing- I think "Bush Bashing" is an appropriate attack come home to roost. It is the old "they can dish it out, but they can't take it" feeling-

I am especially hateful towards him due to Iraq- and not because I am a pacifist, but because I think he did it for personal reasons and ambition, without a care for the poeple he would kill in trying to accomplish his goals.

If it were just domestic policy decisions, I think I wouldn't be so angry at him


I remember the "Clinton Bashing"- and it was much more strident than the stuff being dished out against Bush- and then when it happens, the very poeple that were so "moral" during the Clinton years, suddenly can't believe thier guy is doing the same thing, but even worse.

I think he has earned every sling and arrow- simply because, the republican party dished far worse out for eight years, and now is whining as they are having to take it, and even worse, refuse to see the paralells in the argument LOL

I was never a "cult of personality" fan of Clinton - and felt happy to critisize any of his policies I didn't like, and any behavior I didn't like- and no one said "oh gee, you are just Clinton bashing"- but with GW Bush- whenever you even get half the file pointed in his direction- well, the whining begins.

Good thread! I can tell in part because I am not sure of my own answer.

I have never before been so energized to try to do my part to unseat a politician as I am about our present president.

I have devoted a chunk of my summer to doing something new (reading political books, including one or two that delve into outright Bush-bashing). My reason for this is so that I can clearly test out and lay out my reasons for so disliking our president and the various policies that make up his presidency.

I would like to emerge an informative and persuasive critic of Bush's who can lay out a clear argument against his presidency.

I think you can go as far as you want in bashing and name-calling. Not necessarily without getting a few strikes if you choose this forum in which to name-call and throw out irrational or unfounded accusations.

To be an effective critic of a president one should be informed and persuasive. Conspiracy theory stuff that "works" in terms of having a little snippet of truth behind every accusation reveals the accuser more than the target.

When the target of criticism is the president of the United States, I think one should bear in mind that respect is due the office.

It is much easier to sling arrows when you feel there is a legitimate target. It is much more difficult to dig into the facts and get a clear, thorough and informed picture. Most of us rarely have the time to form perfect opinions while a topic is before us. But if you want to earn my respect, you shouldn't often make vague cheerleader statements, or specific accusations that are not backed up by facts.

These are some of my thoughts on the topic, but I have no clear conclusion as to where that line is.

For America's debate, I feel thread lose their specific effectiveness when the rhetoric is ramped up and broadened. One liners, names like Bushy or Shrub, responses to legitimate criticism of democratic or liberal policies by saying "Bush does that worse" are all things that in my mind detract from debate and therefore go over the line on AD threads.

I agree Eyeore- I have never in my life been so energized to unseat a politician- including maximum given to a policitian in our state, and even going to a 500 buck a plate "fundraiser"- for no other reason than to get money to Kerry. I have never in my life done something like that!

Wow what else can I say except the story is 100% true.

Timken Company News release



Criticism of failed policies I dont see as bashing Bush at all only pointing out facts. Since this company is an international company and will be moving the jobs some where else wonder if they are going to be outsourced.

I thought about it a little more- and was able to boil it down a little more for me personally-

Clinton, Kerry, Bush 1, Dole, all had one thing in common- at one time in thier life- there was a real possibility of failure or loss of life. Clinton was poor, and if he didn't succeed, he would be back in a trailer park in Arkansas. Kerry, Dole, Bush 1, all could have lost thier life in battle. For all of those guys, they experianced something that most of our society experiances that connects us with the "real world"- having to, at some time, measure ourselves and make sure we don't find ourselves wanting, with no one to rescue us (to some degree anyway)- whereas GW never had the fear of having someone shoot at him, or losing his rent money and wondering where he is going to come up with the money, and in fact, in several of his ventures, Daddy DID rescue him- he has never really had to "stand on his own two and make it under his own steam"- he always had someone there to "fix it" if things didn't work out.


And that is why he is so "disconnected" and has to affect this "good old boy from Texas" thing when he clearly is not that person- even if he himself believes it.

And someone that has to affect a personality- well, they are just dying to be "bashed"

That is a question left to the person to decide, more or less its like asking where free speech is allowed or not. If we start to decide that a behavior such as being critical of a world leader, both at home or abroad, where does it end, who sets this standard? More to the point, its like law, different judges will act differently within crimes and the people that commit them, some may be perceived as soft by some and hard by others over the same decision. My opinion on the issue is that if you resort to name calling then it falls short of being critical in a sense and rather just emotion being the main actor in such behavior, something i am guilty of i am sure but my hate of the man is large.

So i guess that the application of red tape to such behavior then would become itself just another tasteless battleground for people to argue with and the politicians themselves, and could be used to blacklist certain items from being talked about. So i guess i am applying one should be careful with this question, or applying it in the form of a standard, favor corruption of power in someones eyes, a rather common thing.

I think it boils down to perception and acceptance.

I have seen people in this forum criticize Bush's actions down to the most minute detail only to have someone else, that didn't "buy" the argument jump up and down on the word "Bashing".

On the other hand, when anti-Bush people speak to one another, the "graphic" details to "Why Bush is a Moron" isn't required. It is simply an accepted statement. To someone that views him otherwise, it would be considered Bashing.

I don't think anyone in this forum, who could be considered a "Bush-Basher" wants to be. I sure don't. I wish that I could log into AD every morning and boast about our president's accomplishments, of how proud I am that our president does such a great job not only at home but abroad. I can't, and it saddens me. The fact that others ARE able to do so.........even sadder. to those I say; "Expect more, reach farther, be better, strive."

I have one vote and one voice. I will make darn sure that I use both of them to voice my opinion of the job he is doing. If you want to call it bashing, go ahead, I don't care. As long as one person buys into what I say, I win.

What is legitimate criticism of George Bush and what goes too far?

Criticism of Bush's policies is absolutely appropriate, but people should come to the debate with evidence to back up their claims.

Personal criticism also has it's place, because we do elect our leaders partially based on thier character, but there's a mature way to go about criticizing Bush's character and there should be evidence for the criticism, and it should directly relate to the topic for debate.

Everytime that I read a post that insinuates that Bush is Hitler or the cause of all of man's suffering in the civilized world, my eyes just glaze over. I'll give you a comparison. The Iranian press frequently refers to the United States as "The Great Satan" and blames us for a large number of their society's ills. The reality is that Iran has some legitimate complaints about the U.S., but they have little clue about how to effectively communicate those complaints because they are drowning them in dramatic propaganda.

That's exactly how I feel about a large portion of the anti-Bush rhetoric. I personally disagree with a large number of Bush's policies, but I can articulate that without reducing myself to name-calling. The people that I want to convince that certain policies are negative are not going to respond to propaganda. What they will respond to is calling Bush by his proper name and explaining why a particular policy is bad by doing research and bringing sources to the table.



I disagree, Cruising Ram. I don't buy into the "he hit me first" argument. There are always going to be people who resort to the lowest common denominator in the political arena, but it doesn't mean that you have to.

It gets old really fast, and strong words that are used for shock value lose their strength if they are repeated over and over again.

I have been frustrated during this administration because even when criticizing his policies, there seems to be a taboo about Bush that there has never been about any other president in my lifetime. Why is that?

In my opinion, judging from his policies, there's never been a more destructive president -- and yet it's less acceptable (and even considered treasonous by some) to make any critical comments. While NOT a fan of Clinton's, I don't think he was anywhere near as bad a president as Bush, but he received more bashing than any president in my remembrance.

It is essential that we are able to criticize the president -- even if it's letting the conservatives bash a more liberal president. This is part of our freedom of speech.

With the Patriot Act, public criticism can be used against someone (such as claiming a person is a terrorist for being a peace activist). I have been called unpatriotic and a traitor for participating in peace vigils and marches.

I can understand that using names and generalizations aren't helpful for a debate, and even though I'm guilty of it I don't think it's productive. But I do reserve the right to point out the bad policies of Bush in detail with my reasons for seeing them as bad policies, and do not consider it mindless bashing.

In my opinion, there is a fine line between a legitimate criticism of the president and "Bush Bashing".

I don't consider statements like "Bush is responsible for a record budget deficit", "Bush has destroyed or weakened every single piece of environmental legislation since 1992" or "Bush's tax cuts are mere smoke and mirrors, targeted at his most wealthy constituents" Bush Bashing. All of these statements are based on facts.

I do consider ridiculous comparisons of Bush between Hitler, OBL, Saddam, etc to be Bush Bashing. Personally I try to stay away from saying things like this, although sometimes the urge is irresistible, because like Cyan said, it generally just makes people's eyes glaze over and no matter what point you are making it is lost.

Where I take issue is with people that consider any criticism of the president to be Bush Bashing. There are plenty of people like that out in the real world and occasionally here on AD. Disputing the facts is one thing, but openly ignoring the argument is quite another and very unhealthy for the country in general. This is a trend that really scares me because more than any policy decision by any president, this paradigm stands to seriously damage our country.

I'll start by splitting criticism into two categories: policy and personal.

The most legitimate criticism has to do with policy. Let's take for example the so-called Bush Doctrine, or the assertion that the US can act unilaterally in the international arena for national defense. At face value, this makes sense. However, in the actual implementation, the logic fell apart. Unilateral action was taken, or at least action with a minimal amount of allied help, but now it doesn't look like the reasons were for national defense.

Regardless if bad intelligence is to blame, the doctrine itself is flawed. It's too easy to become self-delusional regarding what is and is not a national defense issue.

Is this criticism polarized? Well, yes it is because the other pole on the magnet excuses President Bush from any responsibility regarding bad intelligence. Yet isn't there room for non-polarized criticism regarding the President's poor use of judgement?

Am I calling him names if I accuse him of having poor judgement? Bashing?

The other pole on the magnet might think so. However, that is itself a polarized judgement -- any criticism of President Bush, whether legitimate or not, tends to be termed "Bush bashing" and is dismissed.

Recently, some conservative political columnists have started criticising Bush. This isn't called "Bush bashing" because it comes from the anointed within Republican circles, not the angry mob.

Which brings me to personal criticism. I can't stand President Bush, never could stand him before he became President. I could go into detail about why he rubs me the wrong way and often causes anger to well up in me, but for what purpose? It won't change anyone's mind. And besides, I'll probably dump my coffee all over the keyboard while ranting.

So we tend to head into Bush bashing when we talk on the personal level. We also tend to mix up policy and personal criticism, and that I do believe is a mistake. That makes it too easy for the opposition to dismiss legitimate criticism.

Regarding the argument that criticism leveled at Bush should be leveled at what he has direct control over, well --

He is the President of the United States, is he not? Or is he just CEO of the US?

Better stop now. I feel a rant coming on

I think most of the pervious comments have adequately addressed the general concept of 'bashing vs. policy discussion'. In short, unsubstantiated character comments (ie--Bush is a moron) clearly cross the line, and serve no useful purpose. However, I it might be interesting to delve a little deeper into the particulars of the incident pointed out here, to see where the fine line of policy discussion might need to be placed.



Bringing up such a statistic is certainly warranted. Turning around and blaming Bush for the factory closing, though, would be getting at the very least into a gray area--there's nothing in the article indicating any direct relationship between any of Bush's policies and the plant closing. The very same situation could have occurred had Gore become President, as well. However, this would likely be brought out in any debate on the issue--so still fair game to mention. I would just recommend caution in trying to draw direct conclusions (ie, Bush touted factory, factory closed, therefore Bush is a moron).

I would also point out the fine line involved in discussing policy. For example, the article quoted by NT makes several references to 'tax cuts for the wealthy':



This phrase itself contains an inherent bias--inserting 'across the board tax cuts' (a term which certainly can be justified) creates a completely different perspective on the article, doesn't it? So, injecting such phrase-ology into policy discussions also gets into the gray area of bashing, as it injects biased feelings into an objective policy discussion.

Also, one thing that I, and perhaps most conservatives, fail to grasp is the general animosity towards Bush himself, which is why we are so defensive about bashing. Despite all the disagreements with many of his policies, there seemed to be a fairly universal sentiment that Bush I was basically a 'good guy' (false impression on my part?). I haven't really seen anything in his past to demonstrate that Bush II fell that far off the tree--so I don't really see where this assumption of evil intent comes from. But that is probably a separate discussion...just wanted to bring it up because it is this assumption that usually leads to the 'Bush bashing' debate.

I can certainly see where you are coming from. But the problem with this approach is that in saying it is legitimate towards Bush, you are vindicating after the fact those who did it towards Clinton. It isn't really consistent to say that attacking the character of a President you like is "unfair" but doing so towards one you don't like is all right. Much better to say that personal attacks based on irrelevant issues are wrong no matter who they're aimed at.

There is more to it than that, though. The issue is subtle but important. I will try to explain.

I am finding that most of those defending Bush for the upcoming election are doing so on the basis of how bad Kerry is. And most of those defending Kerry for the upcoming election are doing so on the basis of how bad Bush is. Now, there is plenty of "legitimate" criticism to go around, on both sides. But there is a root problem here that needs to be dealt with.

America's political, social and especially economic structure is based more on people's attitudes than most analysts realize. To put it in very simplistic terms, "It works if we believe in it and falls apart if we stop believing in it." There was a time when politicians ran for office on the basis of all the good things they could promise the voters. Sure, they rarely delivered, but an election was all about "Vote for me, everything will be good if you vote for me." Today, they run on the basis of how bad the opposing party's candidate is. It's all about "Vote for me because of all the ignorant, scandalous and downright treasonous things he is doing."

The result, over the 44 years that I have been following American politics (the first election I remember was 1960), has been to favor a generally pessimistic attitude towards our leaders. It is based on what is considered "realism", since there are very valid criticisms that can be formulated about any candidate. But the overall result is a negative effect on the economy that results much more from the people's generally critical attitude than from the policies of those we elect.

Let's face it, there is no such thing as a capable politician and there never has been. Politicians are fallible human beings like anyone else, forced to make incredibly important decisions on the basis of insufficient information, and motivated by values that are not always perfectly noble (no one's values always are). And yet America was built up from a bunch of backwards colonies that Europe laughed at to the strongest nation on the face of the Earth, in not much over a century, under the leadership of just such politicians. The politicians of bygone days were no worse than those of today. And no better, either. What made the difference was that people let them lead, and then voted for another party when they didn't like the direction the current leadership was taking.

Looking at it that way, the whole question of "legitimate" criticism is entirely different. If Bush is re-elected, I would honestly like to see a clear majority of the country saying that, whether they voted for him or not, they are going to go ahead under his leadership because he is the President. If Kerry is elected, I would honestly like to see a clear majority of the country saying that, whether they voted for him or not, they are going to go ahead under his leadership because he is the President. But the general policy of the last 30 years, in which mud-slinging has become so much more intense and so much more personal than it was up until that time, means that no matter which candidate wins, he will have about 45% of the country who are determined to see him fail. And their predictions of doom based on how bad he is will be a self-fulfilling prophecy, a vicious circle that is doing us all much more harm than those whose only goal is the short-term objective of winning an election, seem to realize.

OPINION: Kerry Claims 3 Million Jobs Lost Under Bush Administration. A new Kerry ad claims “‘3 million Americans have lost their jobs’ under Bush…” (“New Kerry Ads Hit Bush On Domestic Front,” The Associated Press, 4/19/04)

FACT: Only 1.8 Million Jobs Have Been Lost. “Based on recent government figures, some 1.8 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office.” (“New Kerry Ads Hit Bush On Domestic Front,” The Associated Press, 4/19/04)
308,000 New Jobs Were Created In March – Largest Increase Since April 2000. “According to the payroll survey, 308,000 new jobs were created in March - the largest monthly increase since april 2000 - and 759,000 jobs have been added over the last 7 months.” (“Fact Sheet: 308,000 Americans Find Work In March,” The White House, 4/2/04)
2003 Ended With Strongest Back-To-Back Quarters Since 1984. “The U.S. economy grew a touch faster at the end of last year than first thought …[T]he year closed with the strongest back-to-back quarters since the first half of 1984. U.S. gross domestic product, a broad measure of the nation’s economic health, rose at a 4.1 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, just above the 4 percent gain initially reported a month ago, the Commerce Department said. … The department said it nudged up the fourth-quarter GDP reading because business spending on equipment and software was more robust than first thought, firms added to inventories at a faster pace and exports were stronger.” (“GDP Nudged Up To 4.1 Percent,” Reuters, 2/27/04)
posted @ 7:38 PM
Friday, April 16, 2004

I realize I am a radical anti-Bushite - and I don't really see any limits as to what is legitimate critisism of Bush- for instance- we have heard why comparing Bush to hitler is "bashing"- but a limited comparison to me is appropriate- we know he doesn't have mass concentration camps- but there is an appropriate comparison between 1935 Hitler and bush today, vs 1944 hitler and GW- there is a radical difference between 1935 hitler and 1945 hitler= but the hitler the early riech definately has it's similarities with GW- the minority election, the nationalism, the practise demonizing those that question his policies as "un-american" etc- very good similarities - so I don't think making a comparison of the early riech is "bashing"- but comparing of history - that does not mean history will repeat itself with concentration camps- but the right wing shift is a legitimate comparison in all of America. To simply erase any similarities as "Bashing" is anti-intelectual as well.

Cyan


I dont see much difference in Iran calling the US 'the great Satan' and us calling them and others 'the axis if evil', same sort of blanket simplistic name calling.
I often feel like I am drowning in dramatic propaganda when I listen to Bush calling nations evil and everyone is a 'terrorist' because 'Youre either with us or against us' and insurgents, even if they just might not like to be occupied and have their families killed, they are 'killers and murderers'. I especially distain his use of 'thugs'. I think Bush himself is responsible for a great dumbing down to americans when it comes to civilized and educated viewpoints and discussion of issues.

Its not only the Whitehouse. Everytime I get a letter back from a Senator (we only have Republican senators in alaska) its just a regurgitated party line, using the same old soundbytes. (Saddam is an evil dictator, he gassed his own people, we must eliminate terrorism worldwide, freedom and democracy for Iraqis, we must support the President in his fight against evil.) It *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** me off they think we are so dumb to talk to those of us who bother to write them, as if 'we' are morons who aren't up on issues and they cant leave the propagandistic talk for the SOTU and write something reasonably intelligent back.

I believe that debate should be based on issues and I try not to slip into gratuitous rhetoric too often, although of late its been difficult. I believe that over time restraint becomes harder to hold up.
My reasoning or frustration comes from that this Admin has caused your general debater or politically intrested person to have to work very hard in the last three years, trying to figure out why there have been so many mismatches in what the Admin says to what is later proven false and search for the truth somewhere between the lines. Decifering the news, speeches and government rhetoric has become an art in itself.
Hearing constantly (from themselves to boot) that they haven't/didn't read the documents, weren't informed on matters, were misinformed, etc., then it comes out that they were informed , or they hid what they knew, or chose to ignore what they knew or twist it for an agenda......ok, over the years makes you eventually want to throw up your hands and just say,
"These people are complete morons, or liars, or worse."

Many of us have put our emotions, our heart and soul into issues; when you spend years of your life debating politics, many hours discussing matters with people who believed in our government and our President and especially the call for war, to keep finding things were done in secret, a suggestion of continual wrongdoing, mismanagement, and what I consider outright lies, well..it becomes supremely irritating. But that is politics.

Im not defending it. I get as tired of conservative soundbytes from posters as they must with the hate talk. I suppose we on AD are to be held to a higher standard than our government officials. I should like to think not, but its painfully obvious that is the case, at least for each others reading ease.

NEWSFLASH!!! Cruising Ram doesn't like President Bush!

Wow! There's a real scoop. So, instead of actually addressing the question posed for debate, he goes to the old Bush-hater handbook and invokes the Nazi/Hitler deal. Even adds some dates like that makes his point credible.

I'm sure impressed. CR knows when Hitler was alive and a big problem! Whoa!

Normally, this kind of post would pretty much end a thread for me, it's the same old garbage, different thread, same message and blah, blah , blah. But, since this thread is about Bush-bashing, I decided to respond. This is a perfect example of irrational Bush bashing. No substance, no clear argument, other than "I hate President Bush". The question posed for debate was "What is legitimate criticism of George Bush and what goes too far?

I would submit that the post cited goes too far. And, I would further challenge those in the ABB crowd to post here and add their thoughts about this fine example presented by Cruising Ram.

That is exactly what I am talking about Aquilla- to even reference the similarities- and the inherent dangers- of a far right shift in a nation- and there is hand wringing and "Normally, this kind of post would pretty much end a thread for me, it's the same old garbage, different thread, same message and blah, blah , blah. But, since this thread is about Bush-bashing, I decided to respond. This is a perfect example of irrational Bush bashing. No substance, no clear argument, other than "I hate President Bush". The question posed for debate was "What is legitimate criticism of George Bush and what goes too far"- reactions- instead of any legitimate talk about it-

if a legitimate comparison is made on some similarities between Bush and Hitler- it is automatically Bush bashing- but to a conservative, socialism and liberal are almost interchangable- when in fact, the extreme of the left IS socialism, and the extreme of the right IS fascism- and there is a legitimate comparison in regimes-and just as a comparing a european-near-socialist state such as one of the northern european states does not automatically mean gulags- GW does not automatically mean holocaust of jews- in fact, in this far right regime, it is more zionist than anti-semite by a long shot!

I make this comparison= the Iraqi prisonor atrocity is torture, not abuse, not interogation, but torture- what the Iraqis did to thier own poeple in the same prison was torture- nothing else. Now- we were far more sophisticated in our methods- showing how the process has evolved- but, despite the lack of physical damage- it is still torture

The same kind of defining is a legitimate issue for debate without being just name calling "bush bashing"- sure, this prez uses some of the very same techniques- but they are far more sophisticated- so the comparison is legit! Sure, we don't have a Crystal Nocht- but instead we have dixie chix record burnings, with corporate sponsorship.

Take away the concentration camps and some of the more horific atrocities, mostly at the end of hitlers riegn, and compare more of the begining of his regime, and there is an area for legitimate debate- and it is not merely "bush bashing"-



And really, the substance of my post was meant- why is there any limit to this at all? Pandora's box has been opened in the Clinton administration and I am not all that certain it is bad- taking these guys off thier high pedestal and make them answer for the minutea in every detail of every policy may be good for the nation in the long run- many of the very worst things this country has ever done is by executives, behind closed doors, making decisions without any real personal repurcussions. Go back a ways to the Guatamala thing- a truly horrendous and evil act on our part- today, there would be super fallout from such a thing- but back then, they were allowed to get away with it!

Aquilla,

I have to disagree. Many scholars and some journalists have made paralells to Bush policies and tone to Hitlers rise to power and the tone of Germany in that early time.
Its a perfectly appropriate discussion and has been debated here in the past.

Now, if one would say, 'Bush is the new Hitler', that could very well be flaming rhetoric. However to compare what was happening in Germany under Hitler in the beginning and what is happening in the States now under Bush and the similarities would not be a Bush bash, no mater how distasteful to you. It would be a comparison, and there are some similarities, as well the Neo-cons philosophy as far as US hegemony and military world-power status. It might be something you should look into instead of denying outright because you support Bush but find distaste with Hitler. CR should have provided a link, if this were a normal thread.

We have to remember when we are discussing things that many people see things others dont see, either because they dont want to, have different educational avenues/professions or simply disagree, it doesnt mean its not true. (The truth is always somewhere in the middle?) Thats why I suppose we post links that back our POV. It also adds a huge amount of info from cross points, adding to our overall knowledge.

I admit to sometimes having trouble distinguishing between legitimate criticism of the Bush administration and its policies versus Bush bashing.

Case in point: We belong to a credit union where it is posted that the government has access to the information should we apply for a loan for anything. That's right, every new account or loan application has to be reported to the government under the Patriot Act.

It seems like a small thing to not have a confidentiality agreement with a loaning institution about what you need money for and how much. And yet in years past the information was kept private.

Our communications on the phone and the Internet, our monetary transactions, our medical records are all much more accessible to any law enforcement agency. All the agency personnel have to do is state that it is for reasons of national security and, viola, your records are no longer just your own. Whose fault is that?

You can argue that it is Congress's fault because the Patriot Act was theirs to pass. But if you speak to a Congressperson, you will probably be told that it was passed in accordance with the Bush administration's recommendations in order to fight terrorism.

So I place the blame for my dwindling rights to privacy at John Ashcroft's, and ultimately Bush's, feet. Is that unfair? Is it bashing?

And does the government really need to know that I would like to make improvements on my home, purchase a new car, or undergo a medical procedure in order to fight the terrorists?

I think that Bush bashing goes too far when it is, um, not true. A challenge - Please post one quote of George Bush saying that any of his critics is 'un-american.' Before you respond with a quote from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, please consider that Adolph Hitler said 'un-German' himself, not just via Goebbels. He said 'the Jewish problem' himself, not just through his minions. This kind of fake, vague association is 'bush bashing' IMHO.

To use ESPN vernacular - an instant classic:



Hey, take away the murder, torture and cannibalism, and Jeffery Dahmer was just another Milwaukee Brewers fan out for a big night dancing at gay bars. And George Bush is a baseball fan, just like Jeffery Dahmer.

I see some parallels between "Bush-bashing" domestically in America and "Blair-bashing" domestically in the UK.

There are a great many people in both countries that are just anti-leader, mainly because they are firmly in the opposition camp. Britain is full of noisy conservatives that never liked Blair, never voted for him, and never will, no matter what he does. Sometimes they engage with the issues and make specific and fair criticisms of particular policies or actions. Whether this gets personal about Blair or stays political, I think it's all fair comment, and often it's actually true (the Blair government having made their fair share of mistakes).

Other times they just whine, mainly because for 18 years they and people like them ran the country the way they saw fit, no matter who else lost out, and they hate the fact that now the people they stomped on and laughed at for so long are now doing exactly the same thing back the other way. Labour legistlation that threatens their cosy little world (anti-fox hunting, or anti-farming for example) is seen as the pinnacle of folly, when in fact it's no different to the anti-union and anti-industry moves thier beloved Tories made while they were all popping their yuppie champagne corks over their new 4X4s in the 80s and 90s. Politically at least, this kind of political karma gives me a warm glow every time I think about it, and I guess conservatives in the USA must feel similarly under the Bush administration when they look at the rhetorical knots mainstream American liberalism has tied itself in over the past decade or so. This is Blair-bashing.

The big difference between Blair and Bush is that Blair, being at heart a centrist, has opponents to the left as well, many in his own party (including me oftentimes). Indeed, most of Blair's fiercest and most intellectually coherent criticism comes from people to the left of him politically. Even with their supposed renaissance, Tory critics have mostly offered less cogent arguments other than simplistic attempts at vote-grabbing, and have fatally weakened themselves electorally by siding with Blair on his biggest political mistake - Iraq. They can't lay a glove on him over Iraq without punching themselves in the face. (Again, being far more anti-Tory than pro-Labour, this gives me a warm feeling )

The Bush/Hitler comparisons are Bush bashing at it’s finest. It is meant to incite a knee-jerk reaction from Bush supporters and it works. It takes the thread off topic and lowers the standards we all agreed to when we registered at this site.



There is nothing constructive about comparing Bush to Hitler. It serves no other purpose than to inflame Bush supporters.





When anyone uses the Hitler/Bush comparison, they immediately lose credibility with me.



This is something in which both sides participate.

Using such broad-brushed statements is insulting to our opposition and does nothing for our credibility.

Here are a few examples of broad-brushed statements that, in my opinion are not constructive to debate:

It has become the modus operandi of the American conservatives, from the grass roots level and upwards, to never, ever admit to any responsibility.

This statement floored and angered me when I first read it. Responsibility is one of the key platforms of conservatives. How do you defend a statement like that? How do you rebut without taking the thread completely off topic?

I anxiously await the reactions from the left/liberal/democrat element. I will wager anything you'd like that many of them will reveal their true feelings, their true un-American feelings.

This statement lead to a whole conversation about the use of the terms un-American and anti-American. See here:

The "Un-American", What the heck does it mean anyway?

There is no doubt the way it was being used contributed nothing to constructive debate. Again, it was meant to inflame and it worked so well, someone started a thread about it.

ConservativePat started a thread a while back titled,"Just a suggestion, Leftists and Right Wingers", in which he suggested we cut the rhetoric. I suggest everyone read it and then come back and read this thread again.

Here are some examples of what I consider Bush bashing.

George W. Bush stands heads and shoulders above the rest. Why? Because he is a puppet and without his master he cannot speak. I have never seen a president as incompetent as "Dubya".

Almost every post in the Who is the least competent President, from among the last 10? thread.

George Dumbya bush

King George

President bush was a (pardon my language) frickin' idiot

Sorry, I was giving bush the benefit of the doubt, that instead of a pathological liar he simply is like Reagan, an idiot who believes what the last person who talks to him said.

Almost every post in the thread titled "I hate Bush"

The thread starts off with this commentary:



Take a moment and read that thread again. You can see from that commentary and the responses that Bush bashing is rampant throughout this forum. It makes it hard to continue participating in a place where you have to muddle through so much hate to find the writer’s point. If we could just step back from the rhetoric and stop using Bush or Kerry bashing as filler in our posts it would ease the tension here at AD.

If you find me bashing Kerry as filler, please PM me and let me know about it. If I am within the 12-hour window, I’ll take a look at my post and edit it if warranted.

But, I make a promise to everyone here at AD to do my best NOT to Kerry bash. I’ll try not to make broad-brushed statements about an entire party. I’ll do my part to make this a great place to discuss the candidates platforms and not the candidates personally.

I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

P.S. If I hurt anyone's feelings by using their post as an example, it was not my intent.

There was an episode of the West Wing, I believe when he hired his current secretary, in which President Bartlett told her that he appreciated the fact that she had referred to him as the President when she was being critical of him. For many of us, a single vote by the Supreme Court that it was unnecessary or perhaps somehow illegal to recount the votes in Florida left G. W. Bush as the appointed, rather than elected President of the United States. Rather than accepting the role of a leader who was in office by the most unusual of circumstances, he has acted as though he had been chosen "Leader of the Free World" by an overwhelming majority of the votes in all of the nations eligible to vote.

"President" George W. Bush then, would likely appreciate it if we didn't call him names. However, it has been widely reported that he refers to most world leaders and cabinet members by nicknames.

A glance at his web site reveals his opinion of his opponent, Watch "Wacky" it declares under a photo of John Kerry.

His on-line store includes a line of "W the President" merchandise, "Interstate W'04" merchandise, and "FARM-RANCH TEAM" merchandise. I suppose this amounts to an on-line garage sale for those who feel that a $2,000 donation (or two or three) is not enough to support the emperor. I suppose that I could refer to him as "W," but his own party members habits of referring to him as "W," "Dubya," etc. make it easy to slip into calling him nicknames.

How should we refer to this "pretender to the throne?" I'll try to be sensitive, and keep my nicknames in my signature rather than in my posts.

The president's agenda, according to his website, includes: "The President’s Economic Security Agenda," "The President’s Compassion Agenda," "Health Care and Prescription Drug Choices," "Leave No Child Behind," "A National Security Strategy that Meets the Challenges of Our Time," "Preserving the Beauty and Quality of Our Environment," "The President's Plan to Strengthen Retirement Security," and "The President’s National Energy Plan." On each of these issues, we are urged to "Learn More and Take Action!" Perhaps then, those are the issues on which we should be bashing him.

"The President’s Economic Security Agenda," the country is losing jobs to outsourcing overseas, and the stock market is falling.

"The President’s Compassion Agenda," that seems to mean no cabinet member should lose his job, no matter how poorly the President has been represented or advised.

"Health Care and Prescription Drug Choices," where he has provided a plan for seniors which will allow those on Social Security to pay a government negotiated higher price for their prescription drugs.

"Leave No Child Behind," is that infamous unfunded mandate which is causing schools to teach to a testing criteria, while closing schools, eliminating classrooms, and laying off staff due to massive budget cuts resulting from lost tax revenues when businesses close, and unemployed workers leave the area.

"A National Security Strategy that Meets the Challenges of Our Time," has been met perhaps, as there no longer seems to be the threat of a massive air and sea invasion of the United States by Saddam Hussein. The pictures of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are helping us to understand the degradation and humiliation prisoners met there. Without the photos and videos, we wouldn't have understood the extent of the psychological damage prisoners were undergoing, as released prisoners who are interviewed by the press speak only of treatment their religion will not allow them to describe.

"Preserving the Beauty and Quality of Our Environment," has probably best been represented by pictures of "W" at his ranch with a chainsaw. On the local scene, we're fighting with the federal government over federal regulations governing the Great Lakes, air pollution standards, etc. I'm certain that most of our readers have their own local environmental issues.

"The President's Plan to Strengthen Retirement Security," has to refer to executive bonuses, the end to "death taxes" in 2010, and reduced taxes on the upper 1 or 2% of the population. This certainly could not refer to privatizing Social Security, outsourcing jobs, and closing factories.

"The President’s National Energy Plan," is almost too easy to attack. On the local scene, he is attacking Senator Kerry for voting for a total of 50 cents in gas tax increases over the length of his career in the Senate, without saying how many of those tax increases passed, or what programs they were supporting. At the same time, the President's friends in OPEC are saying oil prices will drop before the November election, but gasoline is 50% higher per gallon at the pump locally than it was January 1. Our governor, who as attorney general effectively fought gas price gouging in Michigan, is placing the blame for the current gas prices on the policies of President George W. Bush.


Those on the Right have claimed, "This is a war president, and we are at war, and it is unpatriotic to even question his leadership during a time of war," etc. They are the "true believers" and for them, somehow everything is related to 9/11. From the far Left, I tend to suspect that 9/11 was a conspiracy hatched by Bush and Friends because his father's poll ratings were so high while we were at war with Iraq. if I could find the links that would cause G. W. Bush to be impeached, it would be far more satisfactory than seeing him lose in the Polls in November. I feel that this presidency has caused the United States almost irreparable harm.

How far will I go to "Bash Bush?" Bishop Michael Sheridan, was quoted recently as saying that parishioners who voted for pro-choice candidates, such as John Kerry, should be denied the sacrament of communion. As a non-Catholic, I would normally ignore such a statement. Yesterday, I wrote a letter to the Pope, asking him to try to change the Bishop's mind. I told him that yes, voting for the lesser of two evils implies that I am still voting for evil. Until we are given the choice at the polls of two candidates who are without sin, I argued, that will always be our choice. On the one hand, I have a candidate who is pro choice, but will never face the personal choice of having an abortion. On the other hand, there is George W. Bush who has a track record of supporting both the death penalty and war as solutions to the world's problems. I believe that John Kerry wants to be President of the United States. I believe that George W. Bush is trying to impose democracy on the world with no clear understanding of what it means.

I'm afraid that those on the Right will look at my name and say, "Curmudgeon is ABB, so I can close my mind to anything he has to say." For them, any Bush Bashing goes too far.

On the Left, maybe I'll say something that makes you chuckle, and you'll share it, and it will cause someone to think... (No wonder they think anything I say goes too far!)

You're right, Bela. And I can't very well throw stones at other people in this thread.
It's easy to get carried away with the vitriol, especially when you (I) have some emotional stake in the issues. Maybe it would be better for all of us to back off a little.

I don't find it constructive either when "bashing" of either candidate occurs. But I think that many people find it offensive when intellectual abilities of the president are being questioned, like it's something of a private matter and it's shameful to discuss it in public. For example I personally find it amusing that until sworn into presidency Bush never visited a foreign country. He had resources and time to do it, no question. He just WASN'T interested in foreign cultures. To me it's a very important fact and I don't think bringing it up is "Bush-bashing". Here's another example: despite being a very average "C" student in HS, Bush was admitted to Yale where he didn't have any significant academic accomplishments and was a very average student by everyone's account (I can dig up links if asked). Does bringing it up makes me a "Bush-basher"? What's wrong with my desire to have a bright and intellectual president? I don't want to have a "common, down to earth guy" in the White House - the matters to deal with are far too important for such a guy.
Back in 1920 Lenin said "Every kitchenmaid can learn to govern". We all know what the results of that experiment were. We should be able to scrutinize our presidential candidates, and their intellectual abilities should be a valid point for a debate.

What is legitimate criticism of George Bush and what goes too far?
Constructive or legitimate criticism focuses on standards; it is constructive when it articulates those standards so that the shortcomings of Bush can be dealt with. Legitimate criticism specifies what it is that makes Bush fall below expectable standards. There can be disagreements as to what standards are applicable, though. One person’s failure is another person’s success. But, the president is elected by the people of America, and those people have a right to speak out on how well, or not well, he is doing at the job. Who plays the role of "God" and determines what "too far" is?

A list of characteristics (or standards) I feel go into making a good president:

• Honesty, integrity
• Strives for achievement with high aspirations for self and for country
• Competence, intelligence
• Experience
• Statesmanship
• Leadership skills
• Hard working
• Open-minded
• Principled
• Compassionate
• Assertive
• Analytical
• Imaginative
• Appreciation of the arts, well-read
• Grace under pressure

It is my perception (i.e. opinion) of Bush’s failings in those characteristics/standards that make me believe he’s an ineffective, inept, bungler of a president, even a dangerous one. If that makes me a Bush-basher, then I accept the moniker. While blanket statements such as “Bush is a moron” may be trite and unhelpful to a debate, they summarize in a nutshell a person’s opinion of his failings. “Name-calling”, to me, is inconsequential; all presidents have had silly nicknames stuck on them and have been called unflattering names. Why should this president be treated any differently?

That being said, I’ve always subscribed to the maxim that [should, anyway] governs the press: “The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” (Finley Peter Dunne)

A sub-issue to this that has been bothering me is when it's alright to judge a President on matters that are, to varying degrees, outside of his control (by my estimation). Think of the economy, wars, and scandals like the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. Generally, the President gets the blame and credit for everything, regardless of their level of involvement/influence.

To what degree should Bush take the "buck" for prisoner abuse if it was just a small group of soldiers? If it was a CIA directive? If it was ordered, clearly or not, by his appointee, Don Rumsfeld? Even if Rumsfeld spelled out what to do (not likely, but as a hypothetical), should Bush really be held 100% responsible for the actions he was unaware of? And should the head executive of our gov't escape all blame even if it was a matter of a few soldiers? I don't think there's any black/white distinction to be made, really. The captain must take some responsibility for the actions of his crew, but divorcing that concept from any consideration for how "close" he was to actual wrongdoing is silly.

Wars and the economy give a good example where an extremely complicated process gives rise to a result often attributed to a single President. War plans are often drafted by military or civilian (Afghanistan) officials, and executed by generals often preceding the current President in their post, using forces and weapons built under previous Presidents (through budgets passed by Congress). The President has a strong role in deciding when to go to war, and choosing between some plans, but generally, is not involved with many, many important details. Yet we treat successful war-time Presidents as if they planned every attack and charged every hill.

The economy is influenced by, well, every individual on the planet, possibly minus a few undiscovered tribes in some jungle or desert who have yet to hock their artifacts to art dealers. Not to mention the weather, etc. And yet we act like the President wakes up every morning and decides whether to make us all rich or poor.

Personally, I'm starting to make peace with all this. Yes, we're choosing our Presidents based on false propositions. It would be better if every voter knew enough to know what to credit to Presidential decisions- even if it is just in accepting or rejecting a single plan, or appointees- but even for informed voters, that might be impossible to come anywhere near. I don't feel bad on assaulting the President on issues where he stuck his neck out- if you say a policy will produce x # of jobs, and you fall horribly short, I'm not going to refrain from criticism because I thought the goal was impossible even with a better policy. I think the chicken-hawk attacks toward Bush are generally childish name-calling, until he appears in another flight-suit photo op with all it's supporting Hollywood machisimo trappings.

Essentially, I don't think politics is an area where responding in kind is unacceptable, not in regards to what issues are brought up. The "how" is important; actual name-calling or lying is unacceptable, but something as inconsequential as "manliness" becomes a valid target when the other side brings it up. If voters are going to vote on something stupid, at least let them make an informed and balanced stupid vote.

The situation being provided is a legitimate one, and it's one that should be asked. I believe the line is crossed when you stop talking about policy, and start to get personal. The whole "chicken-hawk" or drug use rumor thing are items that I wish people would stop talking about. It serves no purpose, is pure libel, and has nothing to do with the issues of the day. I don't feel that Bush was "bashed" on the factory closing, but the line that is crossed into bashing is when one's personal flaws are attacked. Many democrats are doing to Bush what republicans did to Clinton--get personal and nasty, forget policy!

To me- it is the degree at which your argument occurs more than the argument itself- for instance- wearing a shirt that is a parody of Bush/Hitler is good skewering- that does rise to "bashing"- however, comparing the rise of the Riech and the rise of the right in America, up to the Election of GW, is very much a legitimate endevour, because the paralells exist, whether his supporters want to admit it or not.

So comparing his pre-emptive war on Iraq to the invasion of Poland, his minority election vs Hitlers, his use of his leautinents to question the patriotism of his critics vs Hitlers direct attacks, GWs use of the patriot act to quell disident behavior (I think Alaska has one of the first real example of this recently, as I have posted previoiusly) certainly is not BASHING[B] to me, but honest comparisons between similar political trends in history.

This is where the pro-Bush crowd really start to wring thier hands and cry "Bashing" as thier knee jerk defense because, the paralells exist and are really unrefutable, so counter name calling is the only defense. To claim that even making the argument is "ignoring the holocaust" is really ridiculous, since some of the folks that actually survived[B] the holocaust are the first ones to draw the comparison!

Now- same with calling Bush a "moron"- to just say "Bush is a Moron"- would be just plain old child playground name calling- however, after posting several moron-like behaviors of Bush, then saying "he behaves like his is a Moron"- would be to draw a conclusion from evidence- NOT BASHING.

To say he is a "draft dodger" is inaccurate rhetoric, since, if fact, his number probably would have been wrong had he opted to risk it, and it is Bashing, however, to examine his record, and to ague, at the very least, his record is spotty and lead to the conclusion that he used it as an "legal way to dodge Vietnam while supporting it politically"- is not Bashing.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with hating and despising Bush, I am not one of these folks that believe these emotions are unhealthy, IMO, we have these emotions and reactions for a reason- survival. To just "bash" without providing background is uniformed and silly- but to "Bash" with large portions of his own history, and in the context of history itself- is okay, and a good survival reaction!


And to the prior posting- giving how much money he added with the program does not mean it was adequately funded. I can budget 20K to restore my car, but if it takes 30k to actually restore it, it is still underfunded, despite the increase of 20k!!

This has actually happened in my state, the increase in need to comply with No Child left Behind was far inadequate of the need. It is not Bashing, it is legitimate debate as well.

I was asked by a very good friend am I going "soft" on Bush by this thread?

No. No, I don't think I am. I still feel pretty much the way about Bush in 2004 as I did in 2000. Nothing has happened to change my mind that Bush43 has been a dismal failure as President.

However, what I am trying to do is take off my blinders and try to see the other's guy point of view. I don't have to agree with Aquilla, Belladonna, Amlord and Hobbes to write the six hardest words most of us hate to write, "Okay, maybe you have a point."

Most of us only take in information that affirms what we already believe. We don't want to have our beliefs challenged.

So it's easier to assess George W. Bush as a caricature. The vast majority of us will never meet the man and certainly never have a opportunity to talk with him or get a sense of who he is. I'm sure there are some of us who are quite happy about that. However, that means we will always see Bush filtered and at times blurred through the reflection of our own narrow and limited perspective.

The distance of the Internet permits us the luxury and safety to say terrible things about people that we would never say in person. Most of us just have better breeding and manners than to say the awful things to another human being one-on-one that we have no reluctance saying here on this board.

There are people on this board whom I absolutely detest. But that is based on their board persona and not from any personal injury they have inflicted on me. If we were to meet at Happy Hour over buffalo wings and beer we might get along like old friends. That's why the Bush/Hitler comparisons don't work for me. Even Hitler had a girlfriend and a mother that loved him.

I don't have a soft spot in my heart for Bush. But by condemning him and everything he does simply because he is George W. Bush dehumanizes the man and leaves only the image I've created. That, to my way of thinking, is a very superficial form of analysis.

Maybe Bush is a evil tool of his corporate masters. Perhaps his deeds clearly demonstrate this accusation to be true. But then again what does that say about those people who support him? Are they tools as well? Are they guilty by way of association of all the rotten and mean things that occur under Bush's watch?

If so, then those of us who supported Bill Clinton are cheating hedonists with a weakness for Big Macs too.

It's doubtful there's anything anyone can write on America's Debate that could convince me that walking into the voting booth and doing my duty to depose Bush would be a mistake. Nor do I think there's a lot of board conservatives and/or Republicans that harbor any warm and fuzzy thoughts about John Kerry.

But this endless demonizing of others who don't share our opinions has got to stop. At some point the machine will break down and all we're doing is screaming at each other. Where's the fun in that?

There are times you can learn more from those whom you disagree with than someone who holds the same views. I'm trying to do my part to rise and advance the conversation instead of everyone taking their predetermined places and trotting out our usual array of shopworn lines.

After all, this joint is called America's Debate, not America's Diatribe.

There are HUGE differences in Hitler's reasons for invading Poland and Bush's reasons for invading Iraq (as you can see here); more than a dozen other presidents have been elected by a minority vote (listed here); Kerry, Dean, Graham, and Sharpton have all questioned the patriotism of their critics in our current Executive (as you can see here); and many of the myths regarding the Patriot Act which you are embracing have been debunked here.

The above points can be further debated if you wish to take them up elsewhere, but I don't want to take this discussion too far off track. As you can see, though, your points are refutable.

By using the term “counter name calling” you seem to admit that using this tactic is indeed designed to entice a knee jerk reaction.

Using this rhetoric as filler in your posts is not constructive and stifles or sends debate off-topic. I would suggest you look at how your fellow AD participants feel about using this comparison and ask yourself how using this rhetoric reflects on you.

I’ll probably step away from this thread now. I don’t think I can add anything additional at this point. It appears most people who’ve posted here understand and agree with nighttimer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nighttimer, I want to personally thank you for starting this thread and for your very eloquent follow-up posts. My respect for you grows more and more each day. You lead by example and what a fine example you’ve become. Thank you.

Both sides use that one a lot. If the economy is good, it'd due to a recent bill signed or taxes cut. If it's bad, then you blame the predecessor. The prisoner scandal doesn't go as high as the president himself, but it certainly may reach Rumsfeld himself, as the Washington Post pointed out last week. Undoubtedly, the president gets too much credit/or blame for the economy. On that one, we can agree.

Hitler: Interned Jews FDR:Interned Japanese

Hitler: Came to power during a depression, emphasizing a more socialist program FDR: Came to power during a depression, emphasizing a more socialist program

Hitler: Initiated nuclear weaponry program
FDR: Initiated nuclear weaponry program

Anybody figure out where I am going? Yes, I can find comparisons to Hitler with any President. Much easier to find comps with wartime Presidents. If Bush is a facist than what do we call Lincoln?

Since I've started on the internet in about 1997 I have spent a great deal of time defending two Presidents neither who's agenda I particularly supported. It used to be Republicans inferring Clinton was a serial murderer and rapist. Now it is Democrats comparing Bush to Hitler. If either of these two men are as evil as some partisan opponents suggest we really need to question how we elect a President and if democracy really works.

From the Iraq body count, is it misleading? thread:



This, in my opinion, is a perfect example of a non-legitimate Bush bashing even if you do believe that Bush and his administration lie frequently, because it is a non-constructive blanket statement, and it is clearly inflammatory. Why not just point out the specific lie related to the debate topic with proof in hand? It lends more credibility to your argument, and reduces the level of vitriol on this forum.

I have been debating whether to get involved in this thread.

I have made negative comments concerning Bush (whether it is bashing or not,it is up to each individual's definition)and at first I would always try to give references to back up my view. Then later when I repeated my views I didn't give references because I believed that I would be repeating myself.

Well anyway, my personal view is one of disgust. The unjust war in Iraq, abuse of prisoners,environment,energy commission,outing of a CIA operative,etc. are just some of the things that have awaken me to the fact that I don't like what is happening to our country.

I am grasping for the right words to relay my thoughts but I am not as eloquent as the majority of Ad debaters.

I was always taught by my parents to respect authority and anyone that holds a office such as president. This is the first time in my life that I have disobeyed my parents. Disagreeing and being disgusted with this president is not something that just happened.

For months I debated within myself whether I should keep my mouth shut or be vocal. I have decided to be vocal and try to tell the world or anyone that would listen about the injustices of this adminstration.

Now if anyone considers this bashing then I will be the one that has to live with that.

I sincerely believe that there have been too many atrocities and misleading in this adminstration.

If this thread was off topic too much, I apologize. Thanks for letting me say what was on my conscience.

Yes Belodona, in your example here: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...opic=1354&st=0#

Wertz put it so eloquently here:

Let's not forget that in his homeland (and many other places, the US of A included), Hitler was extremely popular throughout much of his career - and there was a helluva lot more to the National Socialist Party than genocide - which was, in fact, a fairly minor point of their agenda. The demonization of Hitler is an act of political hindsight. Those who see early warning signs of fascism in the Bush regime are attempting to exercise political foresight. I suspect that, if pushed to account for their charge, they would echo Hegel's sentiment that "we learn from history that we don't learn from history".

I have never specifically compared Bush to Hitler (until now), but I have definitely made connections between his agenda and that of historical fascists. As this thread is specifically about Hitler and the Nazis, I'll spare the board my thoughts on Mussolini's brand of "corporatism" (his term for fascism) and Franco's Spain. Those who would make comparisons between the President and der Feuhrer do so, I believe, because they fear that Bush is attempting to substantially alter our constitution, our government, and our laws. I believe many of those fears are justified. It may be a bit self-defeating to use Hitler as a specific reference, but it is not unjustified. Let's look at some of the more obvious parallels.

And in those context and words, it is not bashing, just good pointed out of the similarities and pitfalls.

QUOTE (Crusing Ram)
you can always tell when anyone in the GW administration is lying (thier lips move)



This, in my opinion, is a perfect example of a non-legitimate Bush bashing even if you do believe that Bush and his administration lie frequently, because it is a non-constructive blanket statement, and it is clearly inflammatory. Why not just point out the specific lie related to the debate topic with proof in hand? It lends more credibility to your argument, and reduces the level of vitriol on this forum.

Though my comment was meant to be a little more of a zinger than a bash- I still stand by the premise- if you lie so often, that maybe the person telling the lies think it is the truth, you are not to be believed ever- even if you say "they sky is blue"- pardon me if I look up to check first! Callling into question the veracity of any statement by the GW regime, considering it's record, and in fact making fun of thier um- mistatements?- may be gray area bashing- but appropriate considering thier behavior.

And once again, my eyes glaze over as I prepare to say "Goodbye" to yet another thread. Nice try, Nighttimer, I join in Beladonna's comments for your attempt here.

As Hugo pointed out earlier in this thread, comparisons can be made with any President or candidate for President with Hitler if one wishes to cherry-pick the issue and avoid an actual discussion of the issue itself. Let's just hand-wave it over, compare it to Hitler and let people draw the obvious conclusions. Easiest thing in the world to do. One could cite Hitler's postion on abortion? and compare that with Kerry's. One could compare Kerry's postion on gun control and compare that with Hitler, etc..... But that doesn't really address the issue, it merely inflames the debate. Those who disagree with the comparison have a couple of choices. Debate it like it's a reasonable issue for debate and add tacit credibility to the premise. Or, they can ignore it. Or, they can just walk away and just go somewhere else.

In an effort to salvage this thread (or not), I must admit that I find the whole thing a bit of a straw discussion. Maybe I'm reading the wrong posts in the wrong forums, but I've seen very few instances of unfounded name-calling in relation to George W Bush here. Compared to partisan sites which are overrun with choruses of "Bush is evil, Bush is stupid" - generally to much applause - I actually see hardly any of that here.

What I do see - a lot - is very well-founded criticisms of Bush and his administration, often with extensive foundation and documentation, in well-composed, articulate posts, being dismissed out of hand as "Bush-bashing". While I hardly ever single Bush out personally and almost always refer to the Bush administration (frequently by individual names like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Perle) or the entire Executive in my critiques of their actions, positions, and policies, I am frequently dismissed as a "Bush-basher". Fine. For those who disagree, that is an easy, lazy way out of a discussion. But it is not debate.

I have on occasion made glib remarks like "their lips move" - generally intended to inject a bit of hyperbolic levity into a discussion. Many of us have done the same. But very few of us have ever made such remarks without being willing and able to support them if challenged, though this is not often acknowledged or appreciated.

This is one of the most controversial, contentious, arrogant, and divisive administrations in US history - and people are bound to have strong feelings on both sides, with the odd off-hand jeer slipping through. But to completely write off opposition voices with one's own name-calling - "Bush-basher!" - is unworthy and contemptuous.

What is legitimate criticism of George Bush and what goes too far?

Anything with foundation is legitimate. Anything without foundation goes too far.

My signal to sign off on a debate is when someone posts something like "Oh, I see this thread is just going to be more Bush-bashing" - not because of the often serious and well-founded criticisms being posted, but because of the derision and disregard being shown toward our contributors. The dismissive characterization of an entire debate is hardly a constructive way forward.

On a note of this- you will notice I don't call into the debate his alcoholism or supposed drug use etc- UNLESS he uses that against an opponent- then it moves away from Bashing into - "well, you brought it up"- for instance, for the most part, Bush has avoided the Quayle thing of "Murphy brown" and single moms and what not. I have not brought up his problems with his own kids, the twins, as he has not really put the issue of others child rearing into question- or if he has, it has been pretty low on the radar, and I didn't notice it.

This was not true of my feelings of Reagan- for all of his "family values" stuff- his family was as dysfunctional as it comes- while interestingly enough, all the critisism against Hillary's "it takes a village"- they have apparently raised a pretty good citizen themselves. -

So- this administration ran on "character and morals"- so it is only fair that the gloves come off when they don't show "character and morals"- bashing or no.

As Wertz pointed out- every topic that has pointed out as "bashing" has some serious substance behind it- calling him a "moron" is intellectually lazy- and on my part- lazy when I made a joke about "his lips moving"- but the foundation is there- and it is not "bashing" when you point out moronic behavior or lying!

Oh really?



Sure didn't take me too long to find it......

Archived Thread

Read pretty much read anything in this thread you like, and this was prior to the invasion of Iraq.




How do I put this..... ..... There is a history here, and thanks to the AD archives it is preserved. It took my computer like .281 seconds to retrieve. Let's trip through memory lane in just a single thread from AD and in keeping with the question for debate, decide if this constitutes "Bush bashing" shall we?