Bush’s ‘angry’ critics

March 8, 2006

The White House has latched onto a meme that Republicans seem particularly fond of: the president’s critics are “angry.” Bush is the optimistic visionary, the argument goes, while his political opponents are wild-eyed cynics, fueled by hate, who use over-the-top rhetoric.

The notion that Bush’s detractors are bitter is not without merit. And, sure, the rhetoric can get a little heated. Just yesterday, for example, a couple of the president’s critics appeared at an event in DC and blasted Bush “unconscionable,” “irresponsible,” “vindictive,” and “inept.” Another described the White House as “pathetic” and said Bush “is not a responsible human being; he is a phenomenally reckless human being.”

When the RNC’s Ken Mehlman blasts liberals for their heated denunciations, this is exactly the kind of thing he’s talking about. Of course, these comments didn’t come from liberals — they came from conservatives.

If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations.

“We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come,” explained David Boaz, the think tank’s executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. “We didn’t get that.”

Why didn’t anyone from the Bush gang accept the invitation? Because the two speakers were conservative opponents of the president: former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett and conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, the latter of which accused Bush of betraying “almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for.”

It’s entertaining, of course, to hear two conservatives use surprisingly strong language to condemn Bush and practically everything about his presidency, but it’s worth noting that Bartlett and Sullivan are not exactly switching sides here. They’re blasting the White House for not being conservative enough.

Still, Cato had a standing-room-only crowd listen to these two rebuke Bush. And there was nary a voice of opposition to the conclusions Bartlett and Sullivan drew. There was one gem that should cause some heartburn in Karl Rove’s office.

“If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I’d vote for Clinton,” Bartlett served.

I think it’s safe to say Bush has a problem with the small-government crowd.

March 8, 2006 at 10:39 am

Bush is the optimistic visionary, the argument goes, while his political opponents are wild-eyed cynics, fueled by hate, who use over-the-top rhetoric.”
And if you belive that you drink this yummy Koolaide so we can all go to blissful eternal sleep and join our great leader in the glorious afterlife where the wild-eyed cynics with their over the top rhetoric can no longer hurt us.

How interesting that you posted about the “angry” tag, CB. This is a bit off the subject, but does anyone else think the label is just the latest in an unfortunately successful counter-marketing campaign by the right? The conventional narrative put out by the right and amplified a gajillion times by the media is that Al Gore is “stiff”, John Kerry is a “flip-flopper”, and now Hillary Clinton is “angry”.

The thing is, this bullshit works. David Letterman, no fan of W he, has already used Hillary is angry as a set-up for a monologue joke. He isn’t part of some conspiracy, but he repeats headlines. Will HRC be fighting this untrue label from here out? Probably.

It’s like you have written many times, the Repubs are good at campaigning, but terrible at governing, and the Dems… vice versa. How do we get our own stories out into the pool of main ideas? Bush is a war criminal and incompetent fool. DeLay is a theiving bastard who cheated and stole and unduly pressured other members for votes. There are a million of these. How do we get ma and pa in Peoria to understand, repeat, and vote accordingly?

Howard Dean was “angry” and “unstable” too. The scream hurt because it just tied right into that mythos.

The smear on Murtha didn’t stick so there is hope.

Yeah, we’re angry, but not as angry as the fanatic repukes were when Clinton got a blow job.

This is a pretty typical approach to neutralizing critics. I have been in and have observed a number of political fights in academia. When those in a position of power realize that their misdeeds have been uncovered and will result in true and justifiable anger, they they will try to convince others that the anger is irrational. Then they do not have to address the issues, since the critic is irrational the criticism must also be so. The appropriate response to this tactic is yes I am angry and anger is a rational response to the to actions of these people. Democrats should embrace their anger, but not let it take control them.

On second thought, maybe the left should embrace the angry label. Damn right we’re angry. Being lied to makes us angry. Being crushed under the weight of more and more irresponsible tax breaks for the very wealthy makes us angry. The fact that W actually did not win the presidency in 2000 makes us VERY angry. The Swiftboat fiasco made us angry.

Limits on medical research that could offer comfort or cures for those with degenerative diseases make us angry. Selling the management of six major ports to a government known for aiding terrorists makes us angry. Tax cuts for buying a hummer outpacing the break for buying a hybrid by about 30 times makes us angry.

The fact that young children and pregnant women can’t eat a fucking tuna sandwich because of all the mercury being blasted into the air by our federally subsidized nuclear plants makes us angry. Environmental regs being written by former industry lobbyists make us angry. Said regulations being totally toothless and yet still pretty much unenforced makes us angry. Brownie made us angry.

The FDA’s failure to follow scientific recommendations in favor of politicizing plan B contraception makes us angry. The whole culture of corruption and selling out every last little item to the highest bidder makes us angry.

And the thing that makes us angriest of all is to be dismissively called boorish names or actually accused of giving aid and comfort to our enemies when we dare to speak up.

How could anyone NOT be angry?

I think this is exactly right – we are angry, and we are angry about so many things that this administration has gotten wrong.

The “white powder” story about the HQ of Homeland Security should be the story of the day. How has this administration made anyone “safer” when this is the response to a threat IN their HQ?

The RNC is trying to get Dems to deny their anger, because they don’t want the general populace to relate to that anger. Anger is the single biggest motivator for voters.

Incompetence

Arrogance

Corruption

Repeat as necessary.

But just yesterday Waumpuscat referred to Dems as the “party of HOPE.” Hmmm.

As much as it pains me (but does not make me angry) to say this, on this one, it is Waumpuscat, not the Rethug echo chamber that is correct.

We continue to hope with great optimism that this country can have a brighter future after 2008. We continue to hope, and it warms our hearts, that the public is beginning to see through Dumbya and the smoke and mirrors show put on by Rovesputin.

We have hope that, with Democratic wins in 06 and 08, the country can again be governed competently, and without corruption. We have hope that under a more caring and diligent administration, the victims of Katrina can truly be assisted, and future disasters can be handled much better. It is with no anger at all that we look forward to reaching out to allies and friends around the world and reassuring them that America’s moral core remains intact and that we are worthy of their admiration and allegiance. And we are quite pleased by the prospect of restoring some semblance of progressive balance to the nation’s economy, pleased with the prospect of being able to help lift the working classes toward greater opportunities, pleased to to protect the air, water and public spaces and hopeful that we can create a healthier, wealthier, more truly democratic, country — proud, but not arrogant; strong, yet humble; engaged and tolerant of dissent, yet civil and united in ultimate purpose. We are the party of HOPE, because we fervently believe that a better future is right around the corner, as close as the 2006 elections.* And we are eoncouraged that mroe and more Americans see that future as well, and are willingto join with us in making it happen.

* the one negative caveat: so long as we can keep Diebold in check.

With all of that looming within grasp on the horizon, why would we be angry?

It would be refreshing if the Democrats got mad as
hell and decided not to take it any more, but that’s
not going to happen. They’ve conceded the terms
of the debate – national security – to the Republicans,
and have abandoned their progressive ideals, pretty
much emasculating themselves as effective oppostion.

I have to admit, painting Hillary as “angry” is a
brilliant move. It’s a polite way of saying she’s
a shrill, uppity bitch, and plays beautifully to the
Republican base, where women are supposed
to be like Laura Bush, and beyond, especially to
the men who feel intimidated by her but need a
socially acceptable way of rejecting her. So
“angry” it is, and God help the Democrats if they
are so foolish as to nominate her in 2008.

Chief Osceola (#2),

“Ma and Pa in Peoria” will never understand because they’re increasingly addicted to TV which doesn’t cover this stuff. Ma and Pa will only react to the GOP’s “guns, god, and gays” message because it takes less than 30 seconds and requires no factual knowledge. Ma and Pa would gladly vote in the Taliban if given that choice; though they don’t realize it, they’re gradually doing it now.

And yesterday Hillary did a nice job of saying “Yes, I am angry” and listed off all of the reasons that we are angry. Will it work? I don’t know, but I hope so. They are really, really good at painting a really, really bad picture of Democrats.

This is funny.

In light of the “Bush = Sunny Optimist” meme this WaPo story about Bush’s rug makes a lot more sense. Already, the right is pointing adoringly to this story.

Seems to me the “Bush = Sunny Optimist” meme is yet another attempt to drape Bush in the mantle of Reagan, a president who, despite his many flaws, did exude a genuine optimism.

I just realized the reason that I am so angry lately. It’s not the news about starting a war this is preemptive and counterproductive, or about betraying our best principles through detention and torture, or about a corrupt government and the corporate media that whispers about it instead of yelling about it.

No, it’s about this damn rug right here. I look at it, and it is a thoroughly neutral kind of blue-gray, with long-neglected stains, and I just can’t help but get angry! This rug is anything but optimistic – it is a defeatist, pessimistic rug, and it makes me angry!

Damn rug!

MBinChicago,

You are dead-on with your observation. The thing is though, as you pointed out, Reagan (though I am not a fan) actually did exude optimism. This generation of the GOP is so ham-fisted and idiotic that they just run around saying “I’m an optimist” while making the world a bleaker and bleaker place.

Right after Reagan died W started just saying “I’m an optimist”. As opposed to doing anything actually optimistic. This seemed to be in response to the media staging a battle between Kerry and Bush as to who was the optimistic candidate.

Unfortunately Bush thinks optimism means pretending that obvious problems just aren’t there. Boggles the mind.

I look at the “angry” meme as just another use of the art of projection of one’s own flaws on to one’s political opponents as a means of innoculation. If there is a secret to Rove’s success, I think this is it. During his campaigns, I was struck by the manner in which Bush charged his opponents with the very traits that were (to me) his own most glaring weaknesses. If one doesn’t care about the honesty of the charges one tosses on to an opponent, it is pretty easy to keep that opponent on the defensive.

I guess I’m too jaded, because I do not find the adjectives “irresponsible” and “inept” when use to describe the Bush administration to be “angry.” I find them to be accurate. And, I am hard-pressed to view the Left as any more “angry” than those on the right (fringe or otherwise) were during Clinton’s time in office. I still see many of them who cannot say his name without simultaneously spitting, and who continue to blame everything bad that has happened since his 1992 election on him. Those folks perfected political anger – and with much less provocation, IMHO. I spend most of my time being incredulous, but I admit that – every now and then – my incredulousness does morph to anger, but it morphs just as often to saddness. But, more than anything else, I feel determined to continue to speak about my opinions, and one of those opinions is that Bush is the (say it with me now) Worst.President.Ever.

I loathe Bush and everything he stands for, everything he’s done and everyone he has around him. Is that angry? Gee. You know, depression is anger turned inward. I say let it out. And let him have it.

The Rug of Shrub is why, @ ~34% in the polls, Dear Brainfart can see his glass as 1/3 full rather than 2/3 empty.

Howard Dean wasn’t even angry. He was “optimistic” that he was heading on to victories in states to come. He was a bit wacked out trying to convince himself and everybody else but The Scream wasn’t about anger as much as frustration and desperation. Hope with an attitude maybe.

There’s a religiousy sort of aspect to the accusation of unmanagable anger on the left. The Right implies that a person who is at peace with his philosophies and commitments and personal beliefs can’t be an angry person. But a person who is stressed out and confused and at odds with a “higher power” would have to be angry. Dems haven’t seen the light. We’re heathens who can’t ground ourselves in family and in collective fear of terrorism and obedient subserviance to ShrubCo’s g*d fearing loyalists. Dems are going to hell basically so why wouldn’t we be angry?

I wasn’t a Deaniac by any means but there was a straightforward honesty to his approach that I think is sorely needed now. The right has done a nice job of demonizing emotion in the debate. But strong talk and anger don’t have to be the same thing. It’s time to channel some anger into some productive pushback.

You guys are missing the point. The reason the GOP is calling Hillary “angry” is because, as Barbara Bush might say, it rhymes with “rich”. Or, if you want to get more cynical about it (and let’s face it, you can never be too cynical about these folks), it rhymes with “phresbian.”

Comments are closed.