Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

As I wrote previously (here, I think), the suffix 'bashing' in present political discourse means something like unfair and partisan-motivated attack.

For that reason, I don't like the term. It merely becomes 'things said against the guy I like'. Such negative statements can, of course, be quite valid.

But there also is another suggestion in the term which I consider rather more egregious, though Mcg likely won't agree.

The term gained popular usage by supporters of Bill Clinton (I don't recall it used at all, though I may be wrong, previous to that time, but certainly it was never used so commonly before). In that case, the term had a degree of objective sense to it, in that there was a unique and unprecedented concerted campaign to denigrate and disempower Clinton from the moment he won the election (lots of serious documentation on this). This was something quite different from the normal 'oppositional' stance of folks in a two party system.

The term now has now gained currency with voices from the right. The implication is that Bush's political opponents are doing exactly what was done to Clinton. They aren't, but McG probably won't buy that.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

The term gained popular usage by supporters of Bill Clinton (I don't recall it used at all, though I may be wrong, previous to that time, but certainly it was never used so commonly before). In that case, the term had a degree of objective sense to it, in that there was a unique and unprecedented concerted campaign to denigrate and disempower Clinton from the moment he won the election (lots of serious documentation on this). This was something quite different from the normal 'oppositional' stance of folks in a two party system.

The term now has now gained currency with voices from the right. The implication is that Bush's political opponents are doing exactly what was done to Clinton. They aren't, but McG probably won't buy that.

They aren't? Speaking about A2K I mean? Not exactly a giant "I Love Bush" group....

Otherwise, insert Bush into the above sentence.

0 Replies

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:
If you really don't know, nothing I say will inform you. But, I think that you do know, but wish to pigeon hole me into a statement and I won't give you the pleasure.

I meant what I said and to the audience for which it was inteded.

McG.

Again you use rhetoric to avoid answering a direct question. The last time took you two days to reply and that was to me. Are you planning on running for office or just afraid to answer Sam's Question?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

McG - When someone seems to be having trouble understanding something that seems fairly obvious to me, I tend to assume that the person simply prefers to not understand, or rather prefers to maintain a pretense of not understanding.

(This may or may not bear on the discussion at hand.)

Why is it that au1929, Asherman, Sofia, Scrat, roger, maxsdadeo, georgeob1, Phoenix32890, Nimh, Brand X, Portal Star, edgarblythe, revel, PDiddie and others have no problem understanding what I said, yet Sam1951 and now Wiyaka are having difficulty with it?

Pehaps Scat's comment above is applicable here.

0 Replies

We have just requested a precise definition of the term "Bush bashing". You've given neither that nor the answer to your considering being a candidate for office. How plain is that?

0 Replies

Quote:

They aren't? Speaking about A2K I mean? Not exactly a giant "I Love Bush" group....

Otherwise, insert Bush into the above sentence.

McG

I have sympathy for your reply here, I sincerely do.

I wasn't really talking about our site though. Rather the larger area of US media and politics. My thesis reflects that of Alterman and others who have argued (with a compelling integrity of scholarship) that the last decade or more has witnessed a purposeful attempt to buy up, and fill up, the media universe to the end of increasing political power for conservatives. This is the story of Scaife, Murdoch, Norquist, Coulter, Bennett, etc.

First, you'd have to accept that thesis. Second, you'd have to agree with me that a similar planned effort has not existed from the left. The caveat on that last sentence is that the left has learned, thus radio america, etc.

There's a third part too. Again, I'm not speaking of this site, but the larger media picture. Here, the thesis holds that the great preponderance of lousy 'journalism' (careless claims, deceits, purposeful and false innuendo, etc) occurs on the right.

There's a fourth part also. This modern 'conservatism' very definitely is not representative of what that term previously meant.

But, like I said, we might not see eye to eye on this.

0 Replies

Mr. Blatham talks about the media universe which is controlled by conservatives which have attempted to" buy up and fill up" the media universe. I hope that the New York Times and the Washington Post are sold on the newstands in Vancouver.

I have news for Mr. Blatham. In terms of influence on other daily newspapers in the USA, the NY Times and the Washington Post far outstrip any other sources. Most papers in smaller venues print stories from the New York Times and the Washington Post.

I am very much afraid that Mr. Blatham does not know that the two most powerful newspapers in the USA. The leaders; the opinion makers; the trend setters, are both quite liberal.

Does Canada let those papers into the country??

0 Replies

Dear mr mporter

You don't want to get into an argument with me on this matter, as you aren't going to come off looking either very knowledgeable or very thoughtful.

The style and content of your prose has a certain familiarity, by the by.

0 Replies

Here's a piece from the Columbia Journalism Review on how Bush is being covered in the Texas press...
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/3/bryce-bush.asp

0 Replies

blatham, It has nothing to do with Bush's alter-ego. He started to communicate with god after he became president, and god told him that Saddam had WMDs.

0 Replies

The CIA told him Iraq had WMD's. God just reaffirmed it.

0 Replies

No. There is NO evidence that God has any knowledge of the matter at all. A few low level angels, acting on their own.

0 Replies

blatham,

That is the Texas I know. Give a man enough rope and then let him hang himself. Texans will support one of the "boys" up to a point. Go past that point and son you are on your own. What is the line about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely? I think power can not only corrupt but blind and deafen as well.
I think I might take the Complete Works of Shakespear along on this weekends road trip to Iowa. Lite reading.

Sam

0 Replies

sam

There's a wonderful bit in Wolfe's "The Right Stuff" on the astronauts arriving in Dallas to be feted (as they were everywhere). Sitting with their wives, they got treated to that unique style of Texas hospitality, in this case, a strip show with Gypsey Rose Lee.

If you take your Shakespeare along, and if you are drawn to Lear, I recommend an essay by J. Stampfer titled "The Catharsis of King Lear" (might be able to find it on line).

0 Replies

blatham,

Thanks for the tip, Lear it is.

As the originator of this thread will not supply his definition of Bush bashing, as a direct, declarative sentence, I will give my definition of political bashing.
I equate political bashing with statements that degrade or belittle the person and have nothing to do with policy or performance.
Pointing out spelling errors, statements that contradict previous statements or out right lies is not bashing. Questioning the rational, motivation or enactment of policies is not bashing. It is the duty of every citizen of this country to watch the government and prevent it from doing that which the people do not approve. If we can not and do not call our government and it's elected and appointed officials to task for their words and actions, then we fail Democracy, ourselves, future generations, and the whole world.

Sam

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

The style and content of your prose has a certain familiarity, by the by.

Boy, that does sound familiar doesn't it. It's been a while.

0 Replies

Sam, do a quick search for "shrub" in the politics forum and have the output listed by post instead of topic. Read through all 350 of them and you may get a sense of what I was referring to.

This is merely the term "shrub" never mind some of the other comments many of our creative posters have come up with...

0 Replies

Acquiunk, blatham

Acquiunk wrote:

blatham wrote:
The style and content of your prose has a certain familiarity, by the by.

Boy, that does sound familiar doesn't it. It's been a while.

I am still new to a2k. Can you let me in on this or do I have to guess?

In the dark

Sam

0 Replies

sam

If you don't mind, I'd prefer to leave that alone. I may well be wrong, and the fellow's posts ought to stand on their own without coloration from me.

0 Replies

Ok by me but, I know that, you know that, I know what you mean.

Sam

0 Replies

Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know