QandO
Questions and Observations| « Troop Levels | Main | The "they didn't serve on the same boat" meme ... » |
|
August 11, 2004 Bush Derangement Syndrome Time to take a dip in the always interesting, rarely consistent world of partisan politics. 1: Calling it a "suckerpunch", Atrios links to this Tom Tomorrow post, containing this picture...  Tomorrow thinks "the rest of the country should see it", because it is clearly an example of Bush grabbing a player by the head and punching him in the face. Both egregious rule violations. Uh huh. Well, you'll have to excuse me if I dip into stupid minutiae here, but I didn't start the fire.... Look at the picture. Bush is off his feet, and heading in the direction opposite the player he is touching. You ever try throwing a punch in mid-air, going the opposite way? Let's just say it is, ah, less than effective. What's more, the player he is accused of hitting is going in the direction oppposite Bush, and pushing off him (look at his right fist pressed against Bush), while Bush appears to have just lost a grasp on the other player. A far less tendentious view of the picture would simply be that Bush--going one way--attempted to tackle a player--going the opposite way--by grasping him around the back. The player slipped out, and Bush's arms slipped over his head. But, no. Instead, Tom Tomorrow and Atrios believe what they have is a 35 year old Rugby picture that proves Bush's lack of character. And this rugby photo is so vitally important that "the rest of the country should see it". And it's not just Tomorrow and Atrios, either. I'm telling you, they've freaking lost their minds. I can only assume that whatever the Republicans had in the late 90s was contagious. NOTE: John Cole mocks it mercilessly, too. 2: Atrios posts a picture of MSNBC pundit Joe Scarborough at a Bush rally, and writes.... Congrats, MSGOP, for making yourselves look even worse than Fox.Because, you know, you can't have a pundit for a Cable news station working with the candidates. Or, at least, you can't have a Cable news pundit working with Republicans, because Atrios doesn't seem to mind one Mr James Carville, whom he cites approvingly just a few posts later. Mr Carville is exempt from that requirement to stay away from political rallies for current Presidential candidates. Carville was one of several supporters with military backgrounds attending a frequently raucous meeting convened in connection with the Democratic National Convention to rally veterans behind Kerry - a candidate some view as one of their own.By the way, that's not the only Kerry rally Carville has attended. But, you know, that's different. (it just is, ok?)
 Who was also seen at this event...  It's different, though. I mean, we should expect former Republican Congressmen Joe Scarborough not to support Republicans. Carville and Ron Reagan are
James, like most Americans, expressed his support for the president immediately following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As an American, James supports our president and thinks he has done a great job in the war against terrorism. However, he does not believe that we don’t have the right to discuss policy issues and disagree with the president on certain issues.[emphasis added]Who knew? |
You don't expect these peple to be connected tot he Politics form the real world(tm) do you really?
Posted by: Bithead at August 11, 2004 08:15 AM
Bush Punched, Atrios Munched!
Posted by: capt joe at August 11, 2004 08:51 AM
Hell, I'm more impressed knowing that Bush played Rugby. It was the liberal tact to emphazize his cheerleading days. If I were the Bush team, I'd secretly push for the liberals to release this and make an issue out of it. It would continue to show Bush to be a man's man and show how petty and girlie the liberals can be.
Posted by: Dman at August 11, 2004 08:56 AM
Rugby is a rough game. If Bush played it and held his own, good for him.
At any rate, you should just discount anything Atrios or Oliver say, they're paid hacks financed by Soros money after all :)
Posted by: shark at August 11, 2004 09:05 AM
Regardless of what Bush is doing in that picture and the legality of his actions, the key difference is that Bush is not using his college Rugby career as the centerpiece of his campaign.
These guys are grasping at straws.
Posted by: RadarRider at August 11, 2004 09:32 AM
Atrios also conveniently forgets that MSNBC employed Ron Reagan as a correspondent at the Democratic convention. So on one day, he's interviewing delegates and VIPs. The next day he's delivering a speech to the delegates.
I'd say calling that network MSDEM is probably more accurate. For crying out loud, must we point out that Scarborough is the only conservative on the network that employs Matthews (former staffer for Dem House Speaker Tip O'Neill), knee-jerk smart-ass lefty Keith Olbermann, and mainstream liberal journalists Norah O'Donnell, Deborah Norville, Lester Holt and the entire NBC news team?
Atrios is lame.
Posted by: Jim at August 11, 2004 09:35 AM
I read Bob Harris' Post at Modern World he needs to open up a rule book at some point in time. I will have to post on this.
Posted by: The Pirate at August 11, 2004 09:37 AM
Nice try, but ultimately your analysis is meaningless. You put one hand behind somebody's head, pull it one direction, then make a fist with the other hand and throw it into the face going the other direction, I don't care which way your body is flying, you connect and do damage--and even if he hadn't, the intent shown in the photo could not be more clear, not to mention the clear illegal moves of leaving his feet and grabbing the back of the man’s head. But this is not what disappoints me about your writing. As I will explain, you are sadly mistaken to claim that the photo alone is what Atrios or anyone else would consider proof of Bush's bad character. It is simply a mere garnish on top of an overwhelming pile of evidence showing Bush is unworthy of the office he occupies. You even quote and link to my own blog entry, and completely ignore the accompanying evidence I refer to, acting as though I believe this one photo is proof unto itself.
What amazes me here is the ability of Bush supporters to ignore anything and everything that points to Bush being cruel, heartless and unworthy, and somehow dismiss it. For the party that once claimed that character is everything, the GOP and its followers are blind to any such flaws among their own kind.
But you portray yourself in this blog as being open-minded, so please, consider this event:
You're in a Mexican diner in Dallas, Texas. You're sitting at a table, eating your dinner quietly. At the next table, there is a couple eating with their four-year-old son at the table.
Suddenly, another man storms up to the small family. He is apparently drunk, and furious. "You f***ing son of a b****!" he shouts at the father. Everyone stops eating and stares at the man. You cringe when you see the young boy.
"I saw what you wrote," he rants on. "We're not going to forget this." You feel shock at this kind of drunken behavior in a public restaurant. You feel sympathetic fear for the man and his wife, being threatened in such an ominous way, as if the man were a member of organized crime and the family could expect thugs to visit them in the night with baseball bats or something.
And yes, that was Bush, accosting editor Al Hunt and his family. If you’re with someone who does that, you don’t think of ways to excuse it—you leave that person, in disgust, and wonder what kind of human being could act that way.
But wait, his party faithful say--he was an alcoholic then! He should be excused, it wasn’t him, it was the booze! Another amazing act of political contortionism, by the way--if Kerry had spent a decade or two as an alcoholic and a possible narcotic abuser, Republicans would be howling about his dearth of character, or at least were it not for Bush's same lack--but it's OK if a Republican has that kind of past, complete with drunk driving and an arrest for the same. So, it’s OK if Bush was permanently plastered for a decade or two, that he verbally assaulted a family with their four-year-old son. He was a mean drunk, but it was the whiskey to blame!
But Bush's cruelty did not stop when he finally stopped being a mean drunk. Another example, this being post-alcoholism: the far right's own Tucker Carlson reported how Bush, as governor of Texas, not only denied clemency to a woman who had become born again in prison and was doing good works, asking only to be kept in prison for life with no chance of parole--he not only executed her, but mocked her as well. "'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'Don't kill me.'" (quote from Time Magazine) During the same interview, then-governor Bush reportedly used the word "f***" repeatedly throughout the conversation.
Not disgusted by that? Think he’s still acceptable, and not mean or corrupt? How about lying under oath? Republicans seemed to believe that such a thing demonstrated such abysmal character that it was worth impeachment and political ostracism. But not when a Republican does it! Bush lied under oath as governor of Texas, when he was implicated in the SCI funeral home scandal, and after no-showing for a deposition, he signs a sworn affidavit claiming that he had not had any conversations with either anyone in SCI or in the Texas Funeral Service Commission--and it later turned out he'd had conversations with people from both.
And that's just the beginning, folks. The photo of Bush punching his rugby opponent was not all by itself the proof of Bush's cruelty—instead, it’s simply one more piece of evidence on top of all the others—including his disgraceful performance as president the past three and a half years--that show the man doesn’t deserve the office. This little image is simply a garnish.
The man has lied repeatedly. He has allowed rampant corruption. He has infringed on our most sacred civil rights. He led us into a war that we didn’t need to fight and has lost nearly a thousand American lives because of it, causing our focus to be lost in Afghanistan, allowing bin Laden to go on and grow al Qaeda, has overspent to the extreme, mishandled the economy, done little if anything for education, health care, and… I could go on and on. But, as cathartic as speaking here may be for me, I know it is falling on deaf ears. Or is it? Can you reconcile so much of Bush's past with the idea that he has an acceptable character?
Think of the positions being reversed. Think of Kerry having Bush's baggage, and vice versa. You'd really think exactly the same of them in reverse?
Sorry if I don't believe you if you answer that question in the affirmative.
Posted by: BlogD at August 11, 2004 09:45 AM
If Bush punched the guy in the face, so what? It's a rugby game. I played rugby with a Roman Catholic priest who advocated pulling the shorts off a guy on the opposite side of a scrum and yanking his balls to make the scrum collapse. While it may say a lot about Roman Catholic priests, rugby is not a game for the physically timid.
Posted by: pdq332 at August 11, 2004 10:00 AM
BlogD: I'm not really addressing the other things you cite. Those are issues and disagreements for another time. What I'm mocking is the idea that this picture is evidence of....anything, really.
Sheesh, it's not even a "suckerpunch". It's a slipped tackle.
And, for the record, I didn't vote for Bush last time, and I'm not really planning to vote for him this time, unless he makes some really surprising policy proposal that wins me over. (doubtable, from what I've seen)
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 11, 2004 10:05 AM
Besides, looking at the picture again, it looks more to me like Bush was making a play for the ball and missed. It's great to punch the ball out of the opposing team's hands.
Posted by: pdq332 at August 11, 2004 10:16 AM
BlogD-
Wow, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?
IT'S A FUCKING RUBGY PHOTO FROM HIS COLLEGE DAYS. IT SHOULD NOT BE SENDING YOU INTO OF SPASMS OF BILE-SPEWING FRENZY.
GET A LIFE.
Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. Even if I despised Pres. Bush, I don't think I could ever bring myself to pull the lever and side with people like you. I'll probably never vote for a Democrat again, not until that party delouses themselves from lunatics like you...
Posted by: shark at August 11, 2004 10:23 AM
I wish it was Kerry getting his foot long head pounded in but then he would probably freakin cry all the way to his girl scout leader momma who would blow his bloody nose and tell him about her girlie scout pin which is the "proudest" possession she has in her life and not the girlie boy whimpette that she is cradling in her arms because he was a LIAR and WIMP from the beginning and NO man and that simply is his PROBLEM!!!!
Posted by: JingoJim at August 11, 2004 10:41 AM
As usual, when faced with even a partial litany of Bush's character flaws... "I'm not talking about that right now." "Stop bashing Bush!" "Whine whine whine!"
And nobody actually addresses the point in question. About par for the course from Bushies. What was I expecting to expect reason. Ah well.
Posted by: BlogD at August 11, 2004 10:50 AM
As usual, when faced with even a partial litany of Bush's character flaws... "I'm not talking about that right now."
- - -Well, BlogD, it's because I wasn't talking about that. As I said, those are separate conversations, and they can be carried out....and many have been at this blog. Extensively.
Meanwhile, you tried to change the subject. If you wanted to discuss, for example, WMDs, it would hardly be relevant if I said "but what about Lewinsky! Clinton lied!"
That's something that I would expect you'd understand, as you wrote "And nobody actually addresses the point in question" immediately after attempting to change the subject.
(you also ignore the fact that I'm no "Bushie", but there you go)
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 11, 2004 10:58 AM
As usual, when faced with even a partial litany of Bush's character flaws... "I'm not talking about that right now." "Stop bashing Bush!" "Whine whine whine!"
Actually, you don't induce whines so much as giggles....
Once again: If you're at the point in your life where you go volcanic over an old college rubgy photo, you probably need to rethink your priorities.
Posted by: shark at August 11, 2004 11:14 AM
Hey Blogd-
I understand George W. Bush swatted a fly this morning. Does that mean you're going to write another 10 paragraphs about how this illustrates his evil nature????
I hate Kerry's policies. I do not hate the man.
You can learn from that.
Posted by: Trump at August 11, 2004 11:46 AM
Blogd-
You may want to play some rugby or take a refing course. you might then know that the orginal rule prohibited dangerous tackling, which is left up to the referee's opinion. When I took the course the ban on changing the Laws before a world cup was still in place and there was no specific rule regarding tackling above the shoulders, it has since been added. In the course the general rule (as adopted by international test refs on down) was a dangorus tackle should generally apply to tacklesabove the shoulders but it was not written in stone. You are slo required to wrap your arms around an oppenent to tackle and not just hit them.
As far as leaving your feet, it is only a penalty if you do not make the effort to wrap-up the oppenent. It is illegal however to attempt to takel a ball carrier hen they have jumped off the ground to catch a kick or line out. If you have ever played ot have basic physics jumping high on a player is a very innefective way to make a good tackle, and good tacklers will avoid it except in desperation.
As far as getting punched, it happens in rugby a lot. The easiest way to get punched is to be offsieds on the ground and attempting to play the ball. In those cases the ref will laugh at you if you complain.
Heck the 'punch' looks just like drills we used to do to rip the ball out of someone else's arms. bring the arm in high over the ball and thrust it down behind the ball to rip it out. Infact it looks more like he is doing a very important part of the game, stopping the other team from scoring and attempting to gain possession of the ball.
Posted by: The Pirate at August 11, 2004 01:59 PM
Remind me: what's the name of that show Ron Reagan was appearing on? Who and Press?
Posted by: Crank at August 11, 2004 02:29 PM
Item the first: Atrios is a partisan hack. And unlike, say, Kevin Drum or Josh Mashall, he's not even a very good partisan hack.
Item the second: Contra Carville's insinuations, does anyone other than an occasional crackpot suggest that Americans do not have a right to "discuss policy issues and disagree with the president on certain issues"?
Not, mind you, a right to say "Bush is a big meanie liar who stole the election and wants to declare martial law and reinstate the draft by mindcontrolling Democrat legislators" and be taken seriously while doing so. (They do clearly have a right to say the former, in its many variations, but not a right to the latter.)
Posted by: Sigivald at August 11, 2004 05:09 PM
i dont see what the problem is really. of course, the picture is one's sides slant on one moment in one person's, who happens to be g. bush, life. he happens to be a republican as well. some ppl dont like him, just as some ppl dont like democratics, clinton, or kerry - who, if i remember correctly, have been ridiculed nonstop by many ppl on the right.
i say get some thicker skin, its politics.
you make fun of our ppl, dont expect us to take it sitting down, especially when you got someone like bush in office.
yelling: "but its a distortion of the truth!"
like WMDS perhaps? oh no not that large, we didnt go to war over a rugby photo.
yelling: "these liberals dont play fair."
like comparing max cleland to bin laden?
yeah, ok.
how about an article on this website about the photo distortions of the drudge report? that would at least led itself to further proof this site is not one sided.
ha!
in the end, at least we can debate this kind of drivel, we need both conservatives and liberals, democrats and republicans in the debate in order to have a democracy. i dont want either to disappear...well, maybe ann coulter...
peace
Posted by: uptown ruler at August 12, 2004 06:27 AM
Uptown: you make fun of our ppl, dont expect us to take it sitting down
- - -Indeed. What I expect is for all sides to excercise a little intellectual honesty and criticize poor arguments. I criticize the Right for the same thing, so let's not go jumping to the conclusion that I'm just a partisan 'wingnut.
Re: "how about an article on this website about the photo distortions of the drudge report? that would at least led itself to further proof this site is not one sided."
- - -Be advised that I have criticized Drudge quite often.
You're welcome.
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 12, 2004 06:34 AM
point well taken!
though i did say "further proof," acknowledging there as already some proof on your site, that you are not a wingnut.
thks for the drudge links, im new to your site.
how about some visual critiques of drudges choice of pictures. he loves his photoshop. =)
peace
Posted by: uptown ruler at August 12, 2004 03:10 PM
Well, to be honest, I've never really noticed his photoshopping. I'll take your word for it, though.
In the end, Drudge is a useful news aggregator, if you can sift through the nonsense. But he's more of a publicist than a journalist.
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 13, 2004 05:22 AM