Top Smirks of 2007

Bob Cesca always seems to be right on with his blog posts at Huffington Post. This latest one examines the top inappropriate smirks from President Bush during 2007.

The Most Inappropriate Bush War Smirk of 2007

Given 2008's inevitably ramped-up analysis of the Bush Legacy by the very serious traditional media, there's one aspect of the president which, staggeringly though not surprisingly, won't be covered. In fact, it's never been covered to my knowledge. The traditional media has never really challenged the president on his grotesquely inappropriate reactions to serious issues -- especially Iraq.

After nearly 7 years of this shit, one does have to wonder why the so-called Liberal Media has never taken Bush to task for his laughing and smirking when talking about things that horrify the rest of us.

Long-time, no-post

It's been a while. I saw a letter to the Clarion Ledger today that got me in the mood to write again. I tried to respond, but it said my post was too long (1,000 char max) so here it is at the end.

First, the original Letter:

Few things are easier and require less intellectual honesty than defining one's enemies. And in his Dec. 9 column ("North, South Republicans may be set for breakup"), Richard Dortch attempted to do just that, using his favorite rhetorical device - the straw man.

Under the faade of explaining a non-existent rift between Northern and Southern Republicans, Dortch falls back on lame stereotypes. Southern members of the GOP, he intones, are "typically poor or working class, less educated, (and) mildly paranoid." Moreover, they don't care about taxes or foreign policy; indeed, they "see homosexuality as a bigger threat to national security than rising sea levels." He even throws in the garden-variety accusations of racism and xenophobia just to hammer home his point.

Wow! One can understand a liberal's bitterness, since Republicans have won seven out of 10 presidential elections since 1968. But is it too much to ask that in his critique of the opposition party, Dortch use an occasional smattering of facts or logic?

The mass exodus of Southern Democrats from their party began in 1968, when it ceased to be the party of FDR, Truman and JFK and became the province of George McGovern and the peaceniks. Contrary to Dortch's assertion, Southerners care a lot about foreign policy now, and they did then. When the Woodstock generation took over the Democratic Party, Southerners were rubbed the wrong way. And rightfully so.

At the national level, Democrats were on the wrong side of the Cold War, favoring a policy of accommodation - if not outright pacifism - in the face of a communist empire that enslaved billions. Today, their ideological descendants have taken that policy to its logical extension: Congressional Democrats want to surrender and proclaim defeat in Iraq. They would grant access to U.S. courts for Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists. Is it any wonder Democratic candidates in the South have a tough time making it to Congress these days?

In a column full of cheap shots and bigoted stereotypes, one other of Dortch's whoppers begs a response: "Southern Republicans retain, to their collective disgrace, a dewy-eyed sentimentality about the slave-driving Old South."

One wonders how many Republicans Dortch knows and regularly talks with to come up with such a sweeping, hateful characterization. Still, it's a tried-and-true liberal tactic. Environmentalists' opponents want to poison the water and pollute the air; those who resist collectivization of the American health care system hate the children, the elderly and the poor; and Republicans in the South would rather be burning crosses.

Hillary Clinton would be proud.

Dortch's column said a lot more about himself and liberals than it did the enemies he sought to demonize. Sadly, he proved that liberals don't want a real debate on the issues. They would rather appeal to fear and emotion than rely on facts and logic.

And in his case, when starting from the premise of loathing his opponents, it's entirely fitting for him to construct a straw man and knock it down with hateful invective.

At the end of his smear job, Mr. Dortch probably felt better about himself. That's sad. But he certainly didn't win any converts.

Ultimately, all he succeeded in doing was insulting the intelligence of other liberals.

Because, who could take any of that seriously?

Kevin Broughton

Madison

Next, someone named qtmonkey responded:

Dortch, you are a broken record! one that has been played to the point that you can't tell whose singing the song. Dortch must be a socialist that has benefited from entitlements and minority set asides. What he has against a capitalist free market system, I do not understand. Republicans feel stongly that intelligence and actually working are the keys to success! Dortch obivously believes the goverment should decide who has and has not. Tell Hillary she can't fool the people of MS regardless of her pandering and Bills pimping! I do hope you get what you deserve No more No less!


Finally, my followup would have been:
If Republicans feel strongly that intelligence and actual work are the key to success, why did they nominate George Bush over John McCain 7 years ago?

While I haven't read the original article, I can guess at some of the content from Kevin Broughton's letter to the editor. Contrary to what Broughton says, I know of a lot of Republican voters who literally vote against their interests simply because the GOP is the anti-gay, anti-black, pro-guns, and pro-Jesus party. Hell, look at the 2004 election. Bush could not run on his record, so what single wedge issue did he overwhelmingly use, especially in the South? The specter of Gay Marriage (feel free to use an ominous voice when reading those two words). Remember, Gay Marriage (ominous voice) was going to be the end of society and civilization. Funny, though, that Massachusetts went ahead with their plan to allow it, and that state has not exactly fallen into the sea has it? Not that it mattered, because as soon as Bush was through using the Southern voters and their prejudices once again, that plank fell by the wayside. The single most important idea about his 2004 campaign, forgotten by February, 2005. It's no wonder the evangelicals are in a tizzy, preparing to support another religious nut (Bush only pretended to be, to gain their support) in Mike Huckabee-- except unlike Bush, Huck is the real thing.

You can argue all you want, but the statistics don't lie and even a person educated in the South should be able to read them. We spend too little on education, too much on foolish abstinence-only campaigns that don't work. We pay coaches million dollar contracts but are stingy with the education dollars. Financially, Mississippi is always at the bottom, or at the top depending on your perspective, of the poorest states in the U.S. Education, always at the bottom. Crime, always at the top. In divorce rates, always in the top third for highest numbers. And we still make fun of states in the so-called Liberal Hell of the Northeast?

Take 2 minutes to contrast Mississippi with a state like Massachusetts or Connecticut. Those uber-Liberal states have higher levels of education, lower crime, higher wages, and dramatically lower divorce rates- AND they support Gay Marriage. How can this be?? Gay Marriage will destroy civilization, right? As it turns out, no- Massachusetts and Connecticut are the top states with the lowest divorce rate.

Perhaps if the people of the South weren't so easily race-baited, or gay-baited, or gun-baited, or Jesus-baited, or foreigner-baited, we would be able to reason our way through the "Southern Strategy" of the Republican Party, and actually elect leaders that will make a difference for Mississippi. Maybe they wouldn't consistently vote against their own interests.

But I'm not holding my breath.


Hmm. That was fun. I will have to start writing again.