Were we really as crazy then as they are now?

[Meadmaker]

Starting in August with the town hall meetings, and moving forward to the September 12 march on Washington, I have observed what I consider to be some incredible idiocy on the part of right wingers in the United States. Furthermore, this idiocy seems to be encouraged by GOP party leaders, such as Michael Steele. Of course, it goes without saying that right wing opinion leaders like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck are very purposefully whipping the mob into a frenzy. Meanwhile, very few elected officials of the GOP are doing anything to discourage this behavior, and a few are actively encouraging it.

I'm sure there will be a chance in this thread to dispute this characterization of the right wing, but that isn't what I will start out with. When discussing this, I have seen people in places from this forum to National Review assert that compared with what the Democrats and left wing did when Bush was in office, the right wing today is as tame as a basket of kittens.

Is that right? Was our side that crazy? Did I miss something? Because, frankly, I don't remember it. Oh, sure, there were internet forum yappers like us who said lots of stupid, over the top, things about Bush, but I don't remember this sort of fanaticism. So, I'm going to go down memory lane and try and remember some of the things from the Bush years that I think they might be talking about, but if I leave something out, I want to be reminded by right wingers about the craziness of the left during the turn of the century years.

Searching my memory, the worst that I came up with was Michael Moore's insinuation in Fahrenheit 911 that somehow there was some sort of conspiracy between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family. That was kind of nuts, and it qualifies as left wing craziness from a prominent left wing opinion leader. However, that particular charge really didn't get much traction, did it?

A lot of people called Bush a war criminal. That could be a little bit nuts, because in our psyches when we hear "war criminal" we think of Nuremburg and the Nazis. Bush, as bad as he was, was not Hitler, and Rumsfeld wasn't Goerring. However, if you accept something called "international law", then torture is illegal, and the US did engage in torture during those years. So, the charge of "war criminal" isn't some out of the blue idiocy. Personally, I think you can take those charges a bit too far, and some people have, but there is a basis for it.

There were a lot of talking heads on Air America and elsewhere who raised the subject of impeachment on those grounds. That, too, was a little bit over the top in my opinion, but there again I'm going to throw some of this back at the GOP. We had just gone through an impeachment experience on a lot less. Furthermore, and more importantly, the Democrats in Congress didn't take up the call the way the GOP did in 1998.

And of course there were people who charged that Bush lied in order to get us into a war, but they said that because Bush lied in order to get us into a war.

Beyond that, it gets tough for me to remember left wing idiocy that was taken seriously. I suppose there were some hints that because of Bush administration policies, Michael J. Fox' Parkinson's disease wasn't cured. That was a little bit crazy, but it still was based on a valid observation that Bush administration policies did, in fact, prevent some research which could, someday, lead to greater knowledge and, conceivabley a cure.

In summary, what I'm saying is I don't remember the left doing anything ridiculous during the Bush years, beyond a few yammerings of morons on the net. Can someone refresh my memory? Can someone cite some real examples of Bush derangement syndrome?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

In summary, what I'm saying is I don't remember the left doing anything ridiculous during the Bush years, beyond a few yammerings of morons on the net. Can someone refresh my memory? Can someone cite some real examples of Bush derangement syndrome?

Cindy Sheehan.

[Cynic]

This is an excellent and difficult question. It's easy say there's no way "we" were this bad, but memory is selective and "what was taken seriously" is often, usually even, in the eye of whichever side its intended for.

I really wasn't able to come up with anything concrete to say about it until after perusing the recent thread about how conservatives are eccestatic about Chicago losing out on the Olympics. The initial reactions from all the usual anti-Obama suspects tell all, I think. Can anyone here imagine such "notorious, left wing" news outlets like CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, ESPN, WB, well, you get the point, acting this way if Bush has promoted and then lost an olympic bid? I don't think so.

I think the tone was different with Bush. People seemed far more inclined malign Bush as a person as a result of what he did as a president. As someone who voted for Bush the first time around, I can certainly attest to the slow but sure "WTF?" changing of my perceptions of him. I think its fair to say that the behavior of the republicans in general during that era have, embarrassingly enough, cause me to actually foresee myself voting against republican candidates on principle for the rest of my life. That remains to be seen, of course. But my point was, the major turn against Bush occured during his presidency as a result of his actions, not as a result of anything else.

Surely there was animosity to start with, such as the whole "election stealing" thing. But I think eventually the country came to its senses and realized that any state wants to secede from the union, Florida should be given to them as a going away present.

This thing with Obama though, wow! He was persona non grata long before he was elected and people were attributing their over the top reactions to him on Obama's "policies" long before Obama had any policies. Bush started out unpopular with a certain segment and after the initial irrational bump from the 9/11 events it got steadily worse for him to the point where severing any connection with the man became the most viable campaign strategy for his own party. Obama hasn't had anything out of the ordinary affect him, yet the froth and foam from the loyal opposition isn't even so loyal. The tone of the left seemed to be that they couldn't wait for the Bush nighmare to be over.

The tone of the right seems to be that if they can't retake the country legitimately, their content to let it burn and then plant a flag in America's corpse. That's the difference I see -- this impatience and insistence that everything he does is bad because he's doing it, not the other way around.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Cindy Sheehan.

If that's the best we can do, I think the OP's point is made.

She's deranged alright, but kind of an isolated example. Those teabag parties probably contain several Sheehans each.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

In summary, what I'm saying is I don't remember the left doing anything ridiculous during the Bush years, beyond a few yammerings of morons on the net. Can someone refresh my memory? Can someone cite some real examples of Bush derangement syndrome?

Screw the Bush years: compare the tea party protests to the G-20 protests this September.

[Brainster]

Confirmation bias afflicts us all. "Our side may have had a few excesses, but their side is completely nuts," is a pretty classic example.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Screw the Bush years: compare the tea party protests to the G-20 protests this September.

Eh, apples and oranges, really. G-20 protests are special. (Any interpretation of special will do.)

[Magyar]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Screw the Bush years: compare the tea party protests to the G-20 protests this September.

RIGHT, because mixed in with the Anarchy and anti one world order crowds you see Pelosi and other Dem party leaders marching and promoting those ideas, like you do EVERY DAY with the GOP. Whether we're talking birthers, truthers or the anti-crhist crowd coming from sitting GOP senators and congressman?!

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cynic

If that's the best we can do,

I am not sure who we is, care to elaborate?

He wanted an example, I offered one. It was not my intention, then or now, to give the internet an exhaustive list of the public ranting and raving. My life is too short and I prefer to look to the future. I predicted ODS as the election wrapped up, and guess what? It has arrived.

Off the top of my head, the Sheehan case was the first that percolated up. You and anyone else is free to review the last eight years of loudmouthed horsecrap for other examples. You might want to review Paul Craig Robert's various utterances about how Bush was going to take us to war with Iran, now!!!!! for another example of BDS.

DR

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I am not sure who we is, care to elaborate?

He wanted an example, I offered one. It was not my intention, then or now, to give the internet an exhaustive list of the public ranting and raving. My life is too short and I prefer to look to the future. I predicted ODS as the election wrapped up, and guess what? It has arrived.

Off the top of my head, the Sheehan case was the first that percolated up. You and anyone else is free to review the last eight years of loudmouthed horsecrap for other examples. You might want to review Paul Craig Robert's various utterances about how Bush was going to take us to war with Iran, now!!!!! for another example of BDS.

DR

I'll just point out the smiley at the end of my statement and leave it at that.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Screw the Bush years: compare the tea party protests to the G-20 protests this September.

The whackiness we're all seeing these days is nothing new. Look back into the history of the nation, and you'll find plenty of times where things were much more rancorous and nasty politically. For example, the Civil War years, WWI, the early 1930s as the country was in the throes of the Great Depression, etc. And let's not even get started about all the whackjobs that came crawling out of the woodwork in the 1960s - the John Birch Society and various nutbags on the left come to mind.

In many ways, I think what's happening today is somewhat tame by comparison. It's just that with the Internet it's easy to get constantly bombarded by a steady stream of stoopid.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Starting in August with the town hall meetings, and moving forward to the September 12 march on Washington, I have observed what I consider to be some incredible idiocy....
Is that right? Was our side that crazy?

No, but you thought you were. You thought you had a monopoly on crazy.

Now you know that it was the bratty temper of a three year old whose toy soldiers and ice cream cone was taken away.

[gtc]

Zombie Time has a roundup of death threats against Bush at protests and many examples of other kinds of crazy at protests from the Bush era.

Both links may not be work safe.

I think there is enough crazy at just those two links to put paid to suggestions that craziness at political protests is a new phenomenon. Also there is plenty of evidence there of people on the left hoping the US will be defeated in Iraq, something which came up in another thread.

[Captain.Sassy]

Originally Posted by gtc

Zombie Time has a roundup of death threats against Bush at protests and many examples of other kinds of crazy at protests from the Bush era.

Both links may not be work safe.

I think there is enough crazy at just those two links to put paid to suggestions that craziness at political protests is a new phenomenon. Also there is plenty of evidence there of people on the left hoping the US will be defeated in Iraq, something which came up in another thread.

Excellent point!

How many of those people had guns strapped to their legs?

Anyways, the big difference to me between the left wing protests (e.g. anti-globalization) is that the left was often just trying to get its voice heard. In the case of the town hall ruckuses, it seems to me more like the right is trying to shut down debate. This is just an opinion.

The "tea parties" are a bit different imo.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Is that right? Was our side that crazy? Did I miss something? Because, frankly, I don't remember it. Oh, sure, there were internet forum yappers like us who said lots of stupid, over the top, things about Bush, but I don't remember this sort of fanaticism. So, I'm going to go down memory lane and try and remember some of the things from the Bush years that I think they might be talking about, but if I leave something out, I want to be reminded by right wingers about the craziness of the left during the turn of the century years.

A good place to start is Zombietime.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

A good place to start is Zombietime.

Yeah, that's a good resource.

The author's commentaries are usually lacking, but it's a good way to get a feel for the tenor of CA-style protests.

eta: On the other hand, it's not like they've stopped now that Obama's in office.

[Ausmerican]

Originally Posted by gtc

Zombie Time has a roundup of death threats against Bush at protests and many examples of other kinds of crazy at protests from the Bush era.

Both links may not be work safe.

I think there is enough crazy at just those two links to put paid to suggestions that craziness at political protests is a new phenomenon. Also there is plenty of evidence there of people on the left hoping the US will be defeated in Iraq, something which came up in another thread.

Please note that the earliest dated picture in the Bush section at Zombietime is 2003 and most are dated 2006, '07, & '08. Nothing from close to this early in his presidency.

Most criticism of Bush seemed to be based on what he had actually done. That is certainly not to say there weren't some seriously crazy conclusions drawn of course. But the criticisms of Obama mostly seemed based on what he is, or rather what people think he is, whether that be muslim, illegal immigrant, communist, fascist, etc, and on fear of what he may do rather than anything he has done.

There is no real end result difference in, on one hand starting from fact and extrapolating to crazy as opposed to on the other hand saving time and starting at crazy, but at least you have to travel from your initial premise to get there.

[geni]

Left wing crazies are still crazier for the most part. They do however have more style and generaly better cookies.

It does appear that the reaction of the parties differs somewhat. Post to 2000 the dems haven't had to worry about the loyalty of the far left much so haven't had the same need to play to it. Rather a lot of republicans seem less sure.

There is also a difference in media reaction. Crazy left wing unless it turns violence just isn't news. Bunch of hippies go camping and sing songs about world peace isn't news. Thats just what they do. Less crazy but active left doesn't get much airtime. The usual suspects turn up and protest agaist war/nuclear weapons/ lack of social responsibility by companies and governments. That isn't news. Bunch of teabaggers turn up? Thats news.

So the crazy wing of the left gets ignored because well it's been around for years and for the most part is fairly predictable. A bunch of left wing campaniers marching to protect endangered species? Not news.

A bunch of workers paid to march by right wing farm owners to campain for more goverment subsidised water? Yeah thats news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/17march.html

[Cynic]

GTC's post does provide ample evidence for over the top protesting against Bush as well, though I wonder how many of those anti-Israel protesters are now protesting Obama.

I'd also like to agree with Captain Sassy in that there does seem to be a concerted effort to shut down debate, though I'm sure if there were more town hall meetings during the Bush era that you'd see many people trying that about Iraq. But again, whatever you think of the Iraq war, torture, etc, at least they'd have been shouting their convictions against those things and not just spouting nonsense like we've seen at town hall meetings about healthcare.

One of the crucial differences between the tea parties and the protests during the Bush -- or really, any other -- era is that the tea parties were actively promoted by a major new network. I don't recall ABC or CNN helping to organize and promote anti-Bush rallies.

The early, largely unfounded, and largely unprovoked ire at such high levels is just different.

[Meadmaker]

I give Cindy Sheehan a pass based on the fact that her son is dead. That frequently drives people crazy.

G20 protestors? Yeah, they're crazy, but how many are there, 5,000? That means not all that many lunatics. There were 60,000-70,000 September 12 protestors. (Although they claimed that there were 8-20 times that many, but that the evil liberal media lied about their numbers to make Obama look good.)

I'll read the Zombie Time links when I get the chance.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I give Cindy Sheehan a pass based on the fact that her son is dead. That frequently drives people crazy.

If you compare how Pat Tillman's family handled his death, and the DoD bungling of that case of friendly fire, and Sheehan's foaming at the mouth, her vigil in Crawford, I consider "derangement" to be a superb descriptive of that particular public display. Did you notice how her son's father handled himself?

Quote:

G20 protestors? Yeah, they're crazy, but how many are there, 5,000? That means not all that many lunatics. There were 60,000-70,000 September 12 protestors. (Although they claimed that there were 8-20 times that many, but that the evil liberal media lied about their numbers to make Obama look good.) I'll read the Zombie Time links when I get the chance.

I didn't see G20 protest as directed against Obama per se, but globalization, which isn't Obama's fault.

DR

[portlandatheist]

Having guns at a rally is really over the top and something the liberals never did. If people continue to do that, its only a matter of time before something really terrible happens.
Here is another example of over the top antics at an Obama rally.
Its my impression that both left and right political rallies have more than their fair share of freaks that muddy the more moderate messages that are generally intended. There could just as easily be a zombie time of the left collecting the most outrageous right wing protesters.





"Festival for Obama"
http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2008...ival-of-obama/

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

Having guns at a rally is really over the top and something the liberals never did.....

Aww......

Don't worry, everything will be all right.

Have some cookies and warm milk and go to bed now.

[Captain.Sassy]

1) legitimate point
2) evasive and condescending sarcasm
3) ?????
4) conservative win!

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

Having guns at a rally is really over the top and something the liberals never did. If people continue to do that, its only a matter of time before something really terrible happens.

Let me understand.

• Over the top: Expressing the opinion that reasonable people can responsible carry firearms in public, by responsibly carrying firearms in public.
• Within the bounds of reasonable discourse: Expressing the opinion that somebody ought to kill the President, by prominently displaying signs that advocate killing the President.

portlandatheist, is that your position? And are you actually saying that carrying a gun responsibly in public is more likely to cause problems than advocating lethal violence in public?

[Gangularis]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Aww......

Don't worry, everything will be all right.

Have some cookies and warm milk and go to bed now.

What??? That's your reaction to that?? Nicce......

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Gangularis

What??? That's your reaction to that?? Nicce......

What? That's your reaction to the other guy's reaction? Nice!

[Captain.Sassy]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Let me understand.

• Over the top: Expressing the opinion that reasonable people can responsible carry firearms in public, by responsibly carrying firearms in public.
• Within the bounds of reasonable discourse: Expressing the opinion that somebody ought to kill the President, by prominently displaying signs that advocate killing the President.

portlandatheist, is that your position? And are you actually saying that carrying a gun responsibly in public is more likely to cause problems than advocating lethal violence in public?

Carry a gun, fine.

Carry a 'kill the prez' sign, fine.

Carrying both at the same time is a whole nuther thing tho.

Reporter: "Why are you carrying that 'kill the prez' sign?"
Left wing nut: "Bush is using trumped up evidence to bomb the bejeezus out of a country and invade it!"

Reporter: "Why are you carrying that 'kill the prez' sign?"
Right wing nut: "Obama wants poor people to have doctors!"

:P

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

In many ways, I think what's happening today is somewhat tame by comparison. It's just that with the Internet it's easy to get constantly bombarded by a steady stream of stoopid.

In other words, tamer but much better documented for posterity.

Hooray for our generation! Our dumbassery will be available for the ages to laugh at.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy

Reporter: "Why are you carrying that 'kill the prez' sign?"
Left wing nut: "Bush is using trumped up evidence to bomb the bejeezus out of a country and invade it!"

Reporter: "Why are you carrying that 'kill the prez' sign?"
Right wing nut: "Obama wants poor people to have doctors!"

:P

So to summarize, Left-Wingers wanted to kill the president for rational reasons and Right-Wingers want to kill the president for irrational reasons?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

The author's commentaries are usually lacking

Oh, I love zombie's comments. You don't like understated humor?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Ausmerican

Please note that the earliest dated picture in the Bush section at Zombietime is 2003 and most are dated 2006, '07, & '08. Nothing from close to this early in his presidency.

I don't think he started his photo essays or blog before 2003.

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Let me understand.

• Over the top: Expressing the opinion that reasonable people can responsible carry firearms in public, by responsibly carrying firearms in public.
• Within the bounds of reasonable discourse: Expressing the opinion that somebody ought to kill the President, by prominently displaying signs that advocate killing the President.

portlandatheist, is that your position? And are you actually saying that carrying a gun responsibly in public is more likely to cause problems than advocating lethal violence in public?

Carrying a gun at a political demonstration is not my idea of "carrying a gun responsibly in public" because it only escalates the already existing tension between the police and the protesters and it is possible that if this trend continues, it could escalate to violence on one side or the other. In short, its a very bad idea. I'm all for bearing arms, I'm all for free speech, however that does not mean that hate speech and bearing arms irresponsibly are somehow above reproach.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Oh, I love zombie's comments. You don't like understated humor?

Well, I was referring to his blog postings like:

Quote:

John Holdren is now not only the “Science Czar” for the United States, but he’s also one of the original leaders of the “alarmist” wing of the Global Warming debate — and he now promotes the notion that the current climate data points to a looming planetary overheating catastrophe of unimaginable dimensions.

But he seems to miss the point on some of his picture comments too, like:

Quote:

And is it wise to wear a ball-gag and nun's habit to show how you're "just like everyone else"?

Given that the protester in question is not trying to send that message.


and

Quote:

The white people at this rally are now trying to take away from minorities the power to vote. One could just as validly reverse the protesters' narrative and say that white Californians didn't like how the minorities voted, so the whites are trying to cancel the election and get their way by any means possible -- which entails negating the votes of Blacks and Hispanics. (Notice how 99% of the protest participants depicted in these pictures are white.)

Which is truly twisted.




---------


I agree with him more often than I disagree, largely because he spends most of his time on easy targets, like anti-semites and anarchists. When he moves into the less blindingly obvious, I start to part ways.

[Meadmaker]

I checked out Zombietime. Ok. Some on our side were pretty wacky, too.

I think the difference for me is that the vast majority of people on the left would look at our wacky side and call them wacky. The town hallers are praised, including some that go way over the top. Few elected reps in Washington on the GOP side of the aisle will come out and say, "Birthers are nuts", even in a polite way. The Weekly Standard cheers when the IOC announces Rio, because Obama put in a plug for Chicago.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I checked out Zombietime. Ok. Some on our side were pretty wacky, too.

I think the difference for me is that the vast majority of people on the left would look at our wacky side and call them wacky. The town hallers are praised, including some that go way over the top. Few elected reps in Washington on the GOP side of the aisle will come out and say, "Birthers are nuts", even in a polite way. The Weekly Standard cheers when the IOC announces Rio, because Obama put in a plug for Chicago.

Elected conservatives might not go out of their way to denounce the birthers (why piss off a potential voter if you don't have to), but they aren't working with them the way that elected Democratic officials did with some of the moonbats 1.5-5 years ago. Don't remember all of the Congress critters and senators who had to have their 5 minute photo shoot with Mrs Sheehan or how some of them "partnered" with some of the nutso groups like code pink and ANSWER? Don't remember the plays and movies that were essentially Bush assassination porn? When you make a play based on the subject of fantasizing about assassinating the president, which is a full theatrical performance and that recieves raves reviews, that's very different from some lone person holding up a sign that alludes to political bloodshed watering the tree of liberty.

[portlandatheist]

Don't forget Cynthia McKinney who served 6 terms until she lost the election or rather, until the election was stolen from her by Jews. Even though she was a truther, most truthers chose to rally behind Ron Paul rather than her. She also ran for president on the Green Party ticket. It is difficult to think of anybody from any party more wacky than her.

ETA: Can't post this without mentioning the 5000 executed

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[marcshmarc]

Why bother defending the nuts on either side. Why should someone one the left/right be responsible for the idiots on "their" side? I don't consider every person on the left my ally against all the people on the right. Hey, anybody can call themselves anything. Don't bother defending the crazies on either side. In fact, ignore them (nothing makes them pissier!).

I realized when I moved to a remote and fairly right wing area in the Yukon that I got along with a lot or rightists (is that even a word?) and we could be friends, discuss politics and agree to disagree without rancour.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by marcshmarc

Why bother defending the nuts on either side. Why should someone one the left/right be responsible for the idiots on "their" side? I don't consider every person on the left my ally against all the people on the right. Hey, anybody can call themselves anything. Don't bother defending the crazies on either side. In fact, ignore them (nothing makes them pissier!).

I realized when I moved to a remote and fairly right wing area in the Yukon that I got along with a lot or rightists (is that even a word?) and we could be friends, discuss politics and agree to disagree without rancour.

No one is defending "the nuts". The point is that there are many who are trying to de-legitimize the legitimate concerns of protestors by trying to use the (tiny) minority who are a bit whacky to tar all of them as nuts. The response from many libertarians and conservatives has been along the lines of: "are you serious? Short memory?"

It is no more valid than trying to tar all anti-war protestors as communists because the major protests were organized by International ANSWER.

Notice how the media finds and dwells on every single sign at a tea party protest that they think will de-legitimize the movements itself, whereas they never even showed the even worse signs at the Code Pink and ANSWER protests. That's part of why zombietime was so useful.

[manierisme]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Oh, I love zombie's comments. You don't like understated humor?

Zombie seems like a fairly sharp guy otherwise, but I can't let mention of him pass without pointing out that he authored one of the dumbest (and most impressively so on account of just how ambitious it is) political essays I've ever read.

www dot zombietime dot com/lefts_big_blunder/

I give him props for keeping it up on his site though. And coming from the left, I do agree that the fringe left was just as unhinged as the fringe right is today. But I also think that the Republicans court the truely fringe more than Democrats ever did. The number of GOP congressmen who have flirted with birtherism is well into the double-digits. I can't think of an equivalent stance on the left that would have been courted by a similar number of Democratic representatives (other than Cynthia McKinney), but I'm sure someone here can help me out w/ that.