Confessions of a ‘Bush Hater’

“Bush hater” is a term invented by people who didn’t like being called “Clinton haters” because it was true. I don’t mind being called a Bush hater because it is not.

My antipathy for George Bush is a thousand miles wide and a micro-millimeter deep. Underneath that thin veneer of dislike lurks one million metric tons of couldn’t-care-less.

On that glorious day when he goes back to Crawford for good – and the world once again becomes safe for democracy – before the sun sets, I will have forgotten him. Seriously. George who?

(For Mr. Bush, I predict the transition from Worst President Ever to Worst Ex-President Ever will be seamless. He’ll be content, finally, to have nothing on his schedule but working on his abs. We won’t be hearing much from him. I mean, it’s not like he’s going to write a book.)

What sets Mr. Bush apart from past presidents is how woefully ill-equipped he was for the job when he took office. His staff might have compensated for his incompetence if it hadn’t been for the bad luck thrown their way. But isn’t crisis management the most important qualification for the presidency?

With the exception of hardcore ideological issues that might benefit his constituents, such as his very effective redistribution of wealth from the middle class up to the super-rich, Bush has bungled issues that have come up both large and small – from 9/11 to stem cell resarch, from the war in Iraq to Social Security “reform,” from the death of Terri Schiavo to the nomination of Harriet Miers.

The president’s incompetence is compounded by his blindness to it. He lacks the mental discipline to undertake analysis or introspection, which renders him bereft of the fundamental tools required to take corrective action when he makes mistakes.

Basic communications skills are another minimum requirement for the presidency in the TV age. But this president is hands down the worst public speaker in modern politics. His speechifying style is bizarre. The … staccato … way he … talks … grinds on the brain of the listener. He sounds like Capt. James T. Kirk doing a hillbilly accent with a mouth full of marbles.

The good ol’ boy demeanor he projects strains credulity. Why would a pampered, prep-schooled aristocrat, born to parents whose combined lineage includes America’s wealthiest and WASP-iest families, adopt the persona of a back-slappin’ backy-chawin’ goober?

And that is the final point, he did not get where he is on his merits – he became president because he had the right name. Every single other thing about him is built on fiction.

Failing upward into the presidency is just un-American.

First Impression

How did I become a so-called Bush hater? There’s an old saying, “you never get a second chance to make a first impression” – and George Bush Jr. made a very bad first impression on me.

Imagine the outrage from the Right and the “librhul media” if Roger Clinton, Billy Carter or one of John Kerry’s kids had uttered such a vulgar word.

Sometime after the Republican convention in 1988 I read a quote from George W. that singled him out in my mind from among Vice President Bush’s half-dozen or so grown children. During the convention – where his father became the Republican presidential nominee – Bush Jr. gave an interview to a reporter from the Hartford Courant that went like this:

REPORTER: When you’re not talking about politics, what do you and [your father, the Vice President of the United States] talk about?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Pussy.

When I read this, it struck me that those two syllables spoke volumes: “I am a dunderhead, and I am brazen about it. And by the way, fuck you.”

Looking back now, I realize he was probably drunk or coked up.

Imagine the outrage from the Right and the “librhul media” if that word had been uttered by Roger Clinton, Chip Carter or one of John Kerry’s kids. The campaign would have been putting out that fire for months.

But now we know that in 1988, Bush Jr. was not just another politically clueless member of a candidate’s family shooting off his mouth.

During the Reagan years, George W. had been tutored, along with young Karl Rove, in smashmouth politics by its modern inventor, Lee Atwater. Junior had to have been fully aware how politically reckless that answer was. Republicans were already in bad odor with women voters after eight years of Reagan policies. Viewed in that light, the answer he chose to give in that interview was a sniper shot at his father’s presidential campaign.

In fact, if you look closely, that single remark reveals layers of festering rage directed at women in general, and his mother, wife and toddler-age twin daughters, specifically; his father personally as well as the Bush-Quayle campaign; and – last but not least – the media. Was he daring the Courant reporter to publish the naughty word?

Even more revealing is this: Can we assume the answer was a lie? Please, God. I hope the Bushes, father and son, do not have conversations like this:

GEORGE H.W. BUSH: Hey son, so are you getting plenty of poontang these days?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Wee-doggies, you bet. Me and Neil just ordered up some Asian hootchie mamas the other day and banged the heck out of ’em.

GEORGE H.W. BUSH: That’s my boy!

BEAVIS: Heh-heh.

BUTTHEAD: Heh-heh. Heh-heh-heh.

Fact from Fiction

A central tenet in the Rove “Way of War” is to attack your opponent not on his weaknesses and foibles but on his strengths. (The new term of art for this is “Swiftboating.”)

In all his campaigns, no one has ever Swiftboated George Bush. You have to wonder why, since his perceived strengths are mostly fiction. For example:

Fiction: George W. Bush is “resolute.” Fact: He has flip flopped on campaign finance reform, formation of the Homeland Security Department and the 9/11 commission – to name just three examples. (For more, click here.)

Fiction: Invading Iraq has made us safer. Fact: Our presence there is recruiting new terrorists every day.

Fiction: Our invasion had nothing to do with Iraq’s oil. Fact: If there had been no oil in Iraq, we wouldn’t be there. Earlier this year, Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice declared, “in our world there remain outposts of tyranny in Cuba, and Burma and North Korea, and Iran and Belarus, and Zimbabwe.” The brutal regimes that run those countries are all guilty of abuses as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein’s. If Mr. Bush really cared about reigns of terror in foreign lands, we would have invaded them all. The difference is, none of those places have significant oil reserves.

Fiction: Bush quit drinking in the 1980s. Fact: Despite this assertion in his autobiography, which was written by Karen Hughes, the Smoking Gun has video of Mr. Bush quite drunk at wedding in 1992. Maybe he never quit. For all we know, Mr. Bush’s incompetence may stem from the fact that he is too impaired to do his job.

Chicken Neck

By labeling the opposition to the president as “Bush haters,” the Right hopes that the Left will fall into the same trap they did – that, like them, our loathing of the man will so blind us with rage that we over-reach as they did when they impeached President Clinton.

Not gonna happen. What they don’t understand is that hating Bill Clinton was personal for them. There is nothing about George Bush that inspires a more visceral reaction than mild to intense nausea. He’s an annoying super-annuated frat boy. Period.

In 2005, the public began to wake up to the reality of the real man that lurks behind the “Dear Leader” hologram his handlers have created. Across the board, polls show that the public no longer trusts George Bush. This awakening among the citizenry reminded me of a column Molly Ivins wrote after the 2004 presidential elections:

Some people think you cannot break a dog that has got in the habit of killin’ chickens, but my friend John Henry always claimed you could. He said the way to do it is to take one of the chickens the dog has killed and wire the thing around the dog’s neck, good and strong. And leave it there until that dead chicken stinks so bad that no other dog or person will even go near that poor beast. Thing’ll smell so bad the dog won’t be able to stand himself. You leave it on there until the last little bit of flesh rots and falls off, and that dog won’t kill chickens again.

The Bush administration is going to be wired around the neck of the American people for four more years, long enough for the stench to sicken everybody. It should cure the country of electing Republicans.

And at least Democrats won’t have to clean up after him until it is real clear to everyone who made the mess.

During his administration’s disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, many Americans got their first glimpse of the real George W. Bush. While the rest of us were glued to the news watching an ancient American city drowning in the rising waters of Lake Ponchitrain, the president was AWOL. When he finally reappeared, he came off as clueless, disengaged and really too tired (some say hungover) to be bothered.

What may have been the tipping point for political independents and other former supporters of the president was the news that his underlings had been forced to burn a DVD of news coverage in order to catch him up the storm’s destruction and his administration’s failures. People who had bought into the fictional Dear Leader persona were left wondering why George Bush hadn’t been curious enough to turn on the news himself. What sort of leader can’t work up the energy to watch news of the despair and tragedy of his people?

What sort of man doesn’t give a damn that his countrymen are drowning?

President Bush’s poll numbers went into a decline after Katrina and have never fully recovered. In every poll since then, more than half those questioned have disapproved of his performance.

Apparently, it took the loss of an American city to wake people up to the fact that they had a rotting chicken tied to their necks.

The problem in our country today is not Bush hating, it’s Bush worship. It is the minority of people who give blind obedience to this man, especially those in the middle and lower classes whose interests he opposes, who are giving aid and comfort to the destruction of American democracy.

51 Comments

  • January 5, 2006 - 6:41 pm | Permalink

    This is a very good conclusion you’ve reached about Bush(bafoone is the term i feel best acurately describes him)and his administration(particularly Cheney being the puppeteer)However,Rove must be mentioned as possibly being the most sinister(and therefore the most dangerous)characture and because of that he is indespensable to Bush/Cheney/etal.Am i a bush hater? To be honest, i wouldn’t spit in his ass if his guts were on fire.

  • lyrachle
    January 7, 2006 - 10:41 pm | Permalink

    Brilliant must share writing. BUT I take exception with the depiction of W as Louis IV on the site. Only beause I think it’s time to reissue Richard Lester’s The Three Musketeers parts one and two- and think about Louis XIII a bit. He was a fatuous king who loved to dress in costumes and was totally dependent -though not acknowledging this- on an eminence gris, Richelieu. Since that film came out in the seventies, we American folks have never before had so many parallels to our own situation as now.

  • shirley
    February 7, 2006 - 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Some great writers maintain that the opposite of love is in fact not hate but indifference.This rich loser is just a meat puppet for the powers behind the throne.He was perfect for the job because of name recognition, and an immoral personality.When the pain gets to be so great that the ordinary citizens take notice and begin to complain,it might not work this time.We have as a nation, been sleepwalking so long as to be emeshed in an all enveloping technological police state.This might be more than votes-this might be blood shed in the future.We are in for rough times as the power elite have no intention of backing off.Live free or die.It is that simple.SAW

  • Richard Lansberry
    February 9, 2006 - 8:20 am | Permalink

    I am of the opinion that the country does not know what the word linatic means, But after electing one the secon time, I know they Don”t.

  • drmiltown
    February 20, 2006 - 4:12 pm | Permalink

    I like the fact that the opposite party always impunes the power in party. That keeps both parties reasonably in line. But I am ashamed of the Democrats in this cycle of blame! By this time in the Clinton Administration there were sixteen of his cronies indicted, and six doing time. The President himself was being Impeached, and four of his closest allies were unexplaiably dead. The news was full of women who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by the President, and Hillory was covering up for her husband. Now compared to what the Democrats have dug up, that was entertaining!

    Doc hates you too!
    doc

  • frannie
    February 26, 2006 - 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Anyone can see why GWB talks like a hill billy is because he wears that stupid cowboy hat. He has to play the part: hat, speech, walk. He needs to go back and take some more acting and speech lessons.

  • Sally Evans
    February 27, 2006 - 9:40 pm | Permalink

    According to investigative journalist. Wayne Madsen, Pope John Paul II stated several tears ago that Bush mav be the anti-christ, When Bush and his cronies stole the 2000 election, I knew we were in big trouble. And when people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and shockingly, Billy Graham wnd two of his children (they praised Bush to the skies on the Larry King Show) just after Bush stole the election. Billy said that George W. was like his son, Franklin, which is SO TRUE. BEWARE OF ALL OF THEM; THEY ARE AFTER THE FAST BUCK. The entire Bush family is corrupt as far back as BOTH GRANDFATHERS to the present time. Please people, investigate (911Truth.org.) Mzny experts on this site have proven that 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! CHECK IT OUT.!

  • March 3, 2006 - 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Jon Ponder, you are an idiot. You wouldn;t be able to UNDERSTANT a true responst to a public policy issue if it smacked you in the face.

    The one thing that makes me happy is that MORE PEOPLE are on MY side of the aisle than YOURS, and LONG AFTER Bush leaves office, he will have left a LEGACY of shifting the supreme court to the RIGHT, stupid!

  • March 3, 2006 - 8:36 pm | Permalink

    I just noticed! Ths “Carol” and “Sara Evans” both belong in the SAME looney bin as Jon Ponder!! If they required intelligence tests to qualify for volting, all three would FAIL!

  • terry
    March 16, 2006 - 9:59 am | Permalink

    Well, I think hateration should be replaced with masterbation, but the funda”mental”ist keep trying to get rid of the masterbation, so all we have left is hateration. What’a a poor Ah’Mera’kan” to do?

    I know, let’s bring back the citizens’ stadium ala Roman-esk style…round up the evil Bushite tribe, have them escorted by buffed drag queens, into the middle of a “stadium” and, turn the endangered species loose on them!

    Then, after scream to make the animals go away,(and the drag queens have to rescue them) shoot the Bushites full of the drugs that send over-seas (the ones that are banned here), and, feed them junk food while caged in cages where they have to stand all the time, like animals who are breed as “tender” meat…and just for a nice touch, pip in music, like the song “Hell yeah” by the Bloodhound Gang 24/7…Why not? They earned it!
    I wuv you, Georgie-Porgey-Bushie-Wooshie-lookin’-at-
    -Condalisa’s-Touchie!

  • Lori
    March 21, 2006 - 7:38 pm | Permalink

    I just came upon this website!!! I love comments I have been reading from fellow Bush haters…maybe now I can spill some anger and frustration here especially since I read a piece of Bush’s lies when Helen Thomas questioned him about ehy he really invaded Iraq…such a liar I wonder when this will all end and if America will wake up and bust this junta of criminals in DC!!!

  • March 21, 2006 - 9:50 pm | Permalink

    Jon Ponder, you testify, brother. TESTIFY!!

  • Maezeppa
    March 31, 2006 - 6:38 am | Permalink

    I’ve heard that “pussy” remark attributed to Vernon Jordan when he was asked what he and Bill Clinton talked about when they played golf. I’m too lazy too do the research myself but it would be interesting to confirm the genesis of that remark.

  • Maezeppa
    March 31, 2006 - 6:43 am | Permalink

    Also, the more I think of it, the more the snipe at women didn’t matter. It was harmless. Sure, it speaks volumes but for every woman who might have been turned off, a young angry white male age eighteen to thirty five living in a rural or semirural environment cheered.

  • Maezeppa
    March 31, 2006 - 6:46 am | Permalink

    Picky, but it’s not spelled “befeft”. You might want to fix that. Or not.

  • March 31, 2006 - 9:26 am | Permalink

    Maezeppa — Thanks for being the first person to come on to defend Dear Leader. Your half-hearted attempt says a lot. Also, thanks for catching the typo.

    It would take you about six seconds to type “Hartford Courant” “Bush” and “pussy” into Google and you’ll see dozens and dozens of references. Plus, I remember this incident from around the time it happened. As I said, it was my first impression of George Bush.

    The Vernon Jordan quote is a canard floated by Clinton-haters. Jordan has denied it, and you can find his denials equally quickly.

  • Pingback: Pensito Review » Repost: The President Pelosi Scenario

  • Pingback: Pensito Review » Rightwing Drone Lowry Joins Ranks of ‘Bush Haters’

  • mekon
    October 10, 2007 - 4:12 pm | Permalink

    bush is a piece of crap.I can’t wait until he loses the next election. He syas he cries a lot, I hope this makes him cry.

  • April 19, 2010 - 8:16 pm | Permalink

    Nominee George W. Bush John Kerry
    Party Republican Democratic
    Home state Texas Massachusetts
    Running mate Dick Cheney John Edwards
    Electoral vote 286 251[1]
    States carried 31 19 + DC
    Popular vote 62,040,610 59,028,444
    Percentage 50.7% 48.3%

    So none of you voted for Bush? Libtard liars!

    • April 20, 2010 - 3:55 pm | Permalink

      Wow, Mr. Beck, you infer that liberals are “retarded” — tsk, tsk, what Sister Sarah say? — and you don’t know how voting broke out by party in the 2004 election?

      Bush Kerry Nader
      (Total) 2004 2000 2004 2004
      Democrat (37%)
      11%
      +0
      89% 0%
      Republican (37%)
      93%
      +2
      6% 0%
      Independent (26%)
      48%
      +1
      49% 1%

      As you can see in the table, your beloved Dear Leader George Bush won (statistically) because independent voters split between him and Kerry — a decision most of them would come to regret.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>