Medved Claims Bush Hate greater than Clinton Hate

And I respond…

Michael Medved made the claim on his show today that the level of hatred directed at Bush is substantially greater than what was directed at Clinton. His evidence for this was Kennedy’s remarks on September 18, accusing Bush of going to war with Iraq for political purposes. Over the course of the 90 minutes that I listened to him take calls on the subject, he asserted that the people who were going after Clinton were people out of power, on the fringe of conservative circles, vs. Kennedy, whom he called a moderate Democrat…I think. He characterized Kennedy as old school, middle of the road.

He also told one caller that they were “imagining” things when they said that this administration tries to characterize dissent as America-hating or unpatriotic. He then IMMEDIATELY went on to say that the protests yesterday ( there were some anti-war protests in Hollywood yesterday and I believe other places) were Un-American…gee, what did they want? Saddam back in power?

This is the email I just sent him. I invite your thoughts.

If you really wanted to influence Michael Medved you should have listed your occupation.

Good message… a little bit strong thou. In these cases its usualy to be “centered” and attack the points presented by the foe and avoid too strong a language. The ending mentioning the Saddam and Intelligence thing was good too.

As for why its personal… its very much about tainting the image and the “ideals” of America… thou the ideals might have been more for public consumption and not political practice.

Good message… a little bit strong thou. In these cases its usualy to be “centered” and attack the points presented by the foe and avoid too strong a language. The ending mentioning the Saddam and Intelligence thing was good too.

As for why its personal… its very much about tainting the image and the “ideals” of America… thou the ideals might have been more for public consumption and not political practice. (In every country in fact… not only USA).

Did anyone else hear John Houseman saying this bit? Wouldn’t that make a great TV ad for the 2004 Presidential campaign, as a takeoff of the old Smith Barney ads? “He EAHHHNED it.

Anyway… great letter Stoid. I doubt Medved will have the wherewithal to respond to it in any meaningful way, but let us know if he does!

:smack:

  • might HAVE meant. * …I’m so ashamed… I was in a rush, I really do know better! (The other goofs are all simple typos, that one was a brain fart.)

That’s three things. :wink:

It’s a great letter anyway, Stoid. Too bad he probably didn’t read it it. Medved is an idiot. He’s not even a good movie critic.

Wow. I’m impressed. :rolleyes:

And you tell ME that I can’t let it go?

I seem to remember that someone in the military in South Carolina once suggested that Clinton better wear a bulletproof vest when he came to visit. I briefly googled this, but couldn’t find any cite. If my memory serves me correctly, I would suggest that Bush has not yet reached the point of prominently being threatened with death in the U.S.

Umm…Airman, this was a response to something I heard on the radio * today. * Or are you suggesting that I should let go of my problems with Bush? They are depressingly * au courant. *

** Hentor, ** Medved seemed to only take calls on the topic from the most over-the-top people, starting with a guy who was foaming at the mouth about the fact that it would make him happy if Bush died. Medved then made all the calls about that…“So, do you hate him enough to want to see him dead?” :dubious: That’s why I remarked about cutting off the head…

That was Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina who made that obnoxious comment about President Clinton.

I knew before Clinton even decided to run that he was a corrupt, evil fuck. I met him on several occasions. ( I’ve even attended parties w/ Roger :wink: ) But, he was set against the background of the Iran-Contra players, so he didn’t look that bad comparatively. I was young and just entering my voting years.

But despite despising Clinton for various reasons, the neo-con cabal has taken my cake, (and eaten it).

There are several articles about Bush hatred in the current New Republic. Thought provoking stuff.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030929&s=chait092903

You may have to be a subscriber to access the article so I’ll briefly summarise it as follows. George Bush is widely hated, and while this has been commonly dismissed as irrational, such hatred is actually the logical response to Bush’s behaviour. He attracts a visceral loathing for several reasons. He talked of being a moderate during the election, and that he believed in uniting not dividing. The reality is he has proved to be perhaps the most extremist President ever, and his administration has been a deeply polarising one. He has deliberately destroyed any meaningful bi-partisanship and promotes purely partisan interests. Given the highly controversial nature of his election in 2000 it was widely regarded that a careful moderate approach was appropriate but it was not to be. He is hated because for long the mainstream media has adopted a fawning approach and due criticism of him has been denied its full place and people hate being denied a voice. Finally he is hated because he is a spoiled rich daddy’s boy that has had whatever he wanted handed to him on a silver platter and yet he still pretends to have a common touch. End of summary, further comments are my own view.

Personally I cant see what the attraction of him is for the American people. He comes across as an arrogant simpleminded thug. He is a terrible, terrible representative for you overseas, certainly the worst of my lifetime, and everytime he opens his mouth another anti-american is born. He is quite probably the most hated man on the planet, and hatred for the US is his lasting gift to you. His policy lies in tatters and he has embarassed you internationally and made his nation look like not only warmongering bullies but incompetent ones. In a more honourable age such a wretched creature would have been delivered a loaded pistol and expected to do the decent thing.

but what do you really think?

Stoid does a wonderfull job of proving Medved’s point.

Yeah, that’s what I said.

North Carolina, South Carolina, military, US Senate… what’s the difference? :wink:

Thanks, Frostillicus.

I don’t think Bush has watered down any environmental laws (the Clean Air Act has not been repealed, although many liberals insist it has). Are you referring to the hoax “Bush is putting Arsenic in the water” scam?

Let’s see. The stock market lost something like 6 trillion in wealth BEFORE Bush took office. The resultant meltdown took away 500,000 high tech jobs. Is this his fault? Don’t think so.

Most of the “where’d the surplus go” anger is misdirected at Bush. The tax-cuts are only a small part of the deficit. Most of the deficit is due to recession. And I don’t think it makes sense to blame (or give credit entirely to) a president for a recession or good economic times.

As for Constitutional freedoms being eroded…I keep asking people but they give me gibberish…what Constitutional freedoms are being eroded? The Patriot Act eroded nothing. All it did was allow law enforcement to communicate better basically. It allows the same tactics that have been used in drug enforcement for years. In surveys most people were surprised the Patriot Act provisions weren’t already law.

I do concede that the freedoms of some Arabs who overstayed their visas were curtailed. But on the other hand, who is to say if or how many attacks were prevented. I remember Al-Queda saying this is the first attack of many. Since then, nothing. I tend to give his administration a little credit for that.

How does calling a farm bill the “Farm Security Bill” mean anything at all? Maybe it’s stupid but a reason to hate someone? Seems a little over the top.

I think most people look at it simply and say “gee we had (projected) surpluses and a long prosperous boom…the stock market was soaring! Unemployment at record lows…then Bush comes in and ruins everything.” I think such analysis is simplistic and unrealistic. The stock market was a “bubble”…it was going to burst sooner or later.

I can see some reasons for criticism. He wanted to invade Iraq come hell or high water. I think most of the people in Iraq are happy he did. Especially the people who lived in fear of having their tongues cut out or being disappeared. I think that many people, Bill Clinton included, believed that Iraq had the weapons that Bush insisted they did. Clinton threatened them repeatedly, Bush actually did something about it. Liberals should be happy, that at least the sanctions are lifted in Iraq and the people have some semblance of freedom. That’s a good thing isn’t it?

As for partisanship, the liberals are filibustering a Hispanic Appeals court nominee that even Clinton administration lawyers call fair-minded and impartial. They are holding him to ridiculous standards. In one hearing they wanted him to list some Supreme Court cases he disagreed with and why he did and how he would have ruled. It’s a whole new level of partisanship. This is a guy who was given an “extemely well qualified” by the ABA, but Leahy insists that Bush won’t send him “qualified candidates”. They’ve effectively created a 60 vote majority needed to confirm.

Hell, Bush is so partisan he let Ted Kennedy write the Educaiton Bill. More money, more money, that pretty much sums up that bill. But the liberals will still wail that “education is being cut (slashed, mauled, brutal cuts, etc.)”, even though it is simply false (kind of like the arsenic scare).

So basically, it’s hard for me to take most aspects of the Bush haters case seriously. These are the same people who insist Bush tried to put arsenic in water (to kill old people, women, children and people of color of course).

As for cutting taxes, they’ll probably have to go up sometime…but keep in mind, in the USA the top 50% of taxpayers pay 94% of taxes. So if you cut taxes across the board, the rich will disproportionately benefit, b/c they pay a large amount of the taxes. I wish I could remember the numbers…something like the top 10% of taxpayers pay 50% of the total tax.

OP edited to remove identifying material at Stoid’s request.
People, when sending an email, make SURE to put SDMB in the title, otherwise I’m likely to delete the mail unread.

Lynn
For the Straight Dope

I got a pay cut, and I work for the government! Way to go, Bush!

Well, thanks, ** bri1600bv. ** I’m all better now.