NY Times Magazine: "Learning to Love to Hate"

[gristy]

subtitled in the print edition with "What conservatives taught liberals about the presidency"

<snip>
For those of us of hopelessly moderate temperament, dipping into the inky depths of these volumes offers something of the wicked and barely licit pleasures of a Victoria's Secret catalogue. I had forgotten, for example, until David Corn reminded me, that President Bush contemptuously dismissed his own E.P.A.'s 268-page study admitting that global warming posed a grave threat to this country by saying, "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy." Hatred is delicious. But the sudden rash of jeremiads and their stunning popularity raises a question: Why are so many liberals, including sane and sober ones, granting themselves permission to hate the president? And this in turn is related to a political question: How is it that Howard Dean has built a (so far) wildly successful campaign for the Democratic nomination for president on ressentiment?

There are obvious ideological answers to this question. The liberal answer is that George Bush is a craven, lazy, hypocritical nitwit. The conservative answer is that liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal. And then there is the generalized, nonpartisan lament that the public arena has become so vulgarized and polarized and Jerry Springerized that everyone is now at everyone else's throat. O tempora! O mores!
<snip>

link

[KoKo]

1. Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! What seemed to be a hopeful article turned out to be

smarm where the writer refuses to see his whole Nation is at risk. Instead he points at both parties and says a "Pox on both your houses.....what we need is some humor."

Blech! :puke:

[gristy]

2. No, I don't think it as bad as that

He slams the repukes for the entire article and then only in the last one he suggests that the dems should be cautious in trying to emulate their behavior:

It's satisfying; but I don't see how it can be a good thing, either for public debate or ultimately for the electoral prospects of the Democrats, to have liberals descend to the level of rabid conservatives. Maybe Al Franken has the right idea, since "Liars" is not so much an actual diatribe as a sly parody of conservative extremism. Anybody heard a good John Ashcroft joke?

I liked the article. I enjoyed the author's observation that, referring to the 268-page EPA study admitting that global warming posed a grave threat to this country, Bush said (and surely lied) that "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy."

[Grins]

5. Of course it was a lie!

Bush said (and surely lied) that "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy."

The dolt admitted he doesn't even read newspapers. (Must be the big words. Hurts his lips.) Why would he read a critical report from an agency that has a seat in his own cabinet?

What he should have said is "Condi and Card read the report for me and told me what to think and say."

[RandomKoolzip]

3. I read this at work and got pissed...

Why the fuck is the mainstream so goddamned milquetoast about this subject? The concept of "objectivity" here has no place; we (the WHOLE nation except those making 100,000 dollars a year or more) are under attack from the Bushites. You do not have to be "partisan" to realize this! Anybody with eyes can see the wreckage of the Bush policies, media whores, so stop trying to play both sides...you know which one is the right one.

Plus, the real kicker was the author's advice to democrats: "lay down and take it, don't fight back, enjoy being raped...just lie back and think of England, etc." Fighting back=bad; Demure acquiecance to encroaching fascism=good. Fuck these media whores.

[Classical_Liberal]

4. The author thinks Bush lies are a sign of moderation?

come on!!!!!! He lies to cover up the fact that he is every bit as right wing as his hatchet man Tom Delay. As for Bush hatred. I am not going to dignify it. Bush is incompetant, with a dangerous foreign policy, and a liar. Make of that what you will.

How come we never had any articles on Clinton hate? Look when we are going after Bush on rape and murder maybe he will have a legitimate issue. This article was just Bull.

[realFedUp]

6. Dupe thread

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=18018

locking,
rfu, moderator